He and beautiful Becky Lynn have returned from Ethiopia…Dr. Dave Black is back!

WELCOME HOME!

From Baptist Press comes an article, citing something called the United States Commission on International Freedom, saying that the recent draft of the Iraqi constitution fails to protect individual rights and religious liberty. What were the geniuses in the “Christian community” expecting? The US went to war on behalf of Shiite Muslims and has methodically helped to destroy the oldest Christian communities in the world. Did they suddenly think that PCA and SBC churches were going to take root?

I’ve discussed the foolishness at the heart of evangelical warmongering on other occasions, so let’s just quickly note that warmongering liberals at The New Republic are also worried about the new constitution. The editors at TNR write, “Leaked drafts of the constitution call for the application of Islamic edicts, not civil law, in matters related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. This will mean stripping many Iraqi women of rights that, ironically enough, they were afforded even under Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship.”

Peter Beinart (whom Al Mohler has effusively, and with great silliness, praised) and company are hoping that James Madison will arise in Iraq like a Phoenix from the flame: “We recognize, of course, that the future of Iraq is now largely in Iraqi hands. And we hope that the Iraqis, in recognizing this, will exhibit the sort of statesmanship that has so frequently eluded the Middle East in the past.” Wow, talk about delusional.

What does the new draft of the constitution say? Read it yourself. Here is an excerpt from Article 1:

“Any individual with another nationality (except for Israel) may obtain Iraqi nationality after a period of residency inside the borders of Iraq of not less than ten years for an Arab or twenty years for any other nationality.

“An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli.”

And how ’bout this from Article 5:

“The Iraqi people are one people, unified by belief and the unity of the homeland and culture. Anything that exposes this unity to danger is forbidden.”

“The state shall take responsibility for combating moral and behavioral depravity and encourage people and agencies to spread virtue, providing it help and support. The state shall ensure harmony between the duties of woman toward her family and her work in the society and equality with men in the fields of political, social, and economic life without conflicting with or disturbing the provisions of the Islamic shari’a.”

And I see that we went to war to provide universal health care, according to Article 7:

“Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security and free health care. The Iraqi federal government and regional governments must provide it and expand the fields of prevention, treatment, and medication by the construction of various hospitals and health institutions”.

Naturally, freedom of speech will be protected in Iraq under the new regime:

“There is no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, advertising, or media except by law.”

Let freedom ring! Have we have vanquished evil yet?

Here’s an interesting piece about why the Republicans might not be so anxious to see abortion eradicated: it’s a convenient political tool which helps garner conservative votes.

To provide a little history, the state of Connecticut banned contraceptives for women in the 1950s with the help of Democratic control of the legislature and the governor’s office. Democrats in the Nutmeg State were pretty much all Catholic back then while Protestants were Republicans. In 1957, the Republican controlled State House of Representatives voted to overturn the law by a 158-71 vote, yet the Democrat-controlled State Senate blocked the measure on a voice vote. The Griswold of Griswold vs. Connecticut, the court case which established the right to privacy that made Roe possible, was from an old Republican family and a friend of then Connecticut U.S. Senator Prescott Bush.

W’s grandfather.

Pitchfork tip to Covenant News.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed …”

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, though not expressly Christian documents, are based on the assumption that our rights and freedoms come from God. But as with all of God’s material blessings, those freedoms demand responsibility on our part. Put simply, liberty requires stewardship.

Irish statesman John Philpot Curran stated it perfectly: “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

In an effort to ensure that liberty remained secure for future generations, our Founding Fathers established a system of government that was designed to keep power as decentralized and as evenly distributed as possible. Having lived under the oppression of a despotic king, they understood the dangers of allowing power to be concentrated in the hands of an elite few. They even went to war to throw off the yoke of tyranny.

Today, most Americans have this unshakable belief that everything we have today we owe to those who have donned a uniform and have taken up arms for the state. Many of you have probably seen the following in an e-mail that was forwarded by a friend, co-worker or family member around Memorial Day:

teran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.

It is the veteran, who salutes the Flag, who serves under the Flag, whose coffin is draped by the Flag.

These statements are designed to evoke a feeling of national pride as well as a sense of gratitude toward our men and women in uniform. They are standing on the front lines, willing to sacrifice themselves for the rest of us, so we should thank them for the freedoms we enjoy.

You will note, however, that no particular group of veterans is singled out. The implication is that every veteran–in every declared or undeclared war, in every deployment, in every part of the world–has played a crucial role in securing liberty. If that is true, then how exactly has freedom in the United States been protected by our “humanitarian” actions in places like Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia? How were our freedoms protected by losing 241 soldiers in Beirut or nearly 60,000 in Vietnam? I realize these may seem like callous questions in a time when patriotism is defined by flag decals and yellow ribbons, but since we have already lost close to 1,500 troops in the “war on terror,” shouldn’t we at least consider what the Founders had to say about protecting freedom? Or are we content to believe that the military is the only thing standing between us and complete annihilation, and that we should “support our troops” no matter what the cause?

We are told that nations like the U.S. are targeted because terrorists seek to establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy. That is why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Bush administration, “We’re fighting them abroad so that we don’t have to fight them here at home” (the bombings in Spain and England notwithstanding).

The object, I assume, is to beat the terrorists to the punch and establish worldwide democracy, effectively diminishing the possibility of terrorist attacks (again, recent bombings in democratic nations notwithstanding). So, there is no question that our troops in the Middle East are protecting our freedom, right?

But a standing army, ready and willing to launch pre-emptive attacks against sovereign countries, was never considered by the Founding Fathers as vital to the survival of the nation. Rather, that responsibility lay primarily at the feet of “we the people.”

Author and columnist Brad Edmonds, in an essay entitled “News Flash: The Military Doesn’t Protect Our Freedom,” writes:

Our framers decided that the natural right of each individual to own weapons, and to form a militia with his neighbors, was the best guarantor of freedom. Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for a permanent, standing army–to the contrary, the framers considered a standing army a constant threat to liberty.

That was the essence of the Second Amendment which recognizes the importance of the militia–a reference to all able-bodied males who owned guns–and the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. In short, a well-armed citizenry is more important than any army when it comes to the defense of liberty.

For proof of this, look no further than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The most powerful military in the history of civilization was unable to prevent the hijacking of four commercial airliners. One or two guns on each of those planes, however, could have saved 3,000 lives. And yet we continue to think that a Second Generation military is key to winning a Fourth Generation war.

Are you serious about protecting freedom? Do you want to do what you can for the preservation of liberty? Mr. Edmonds has some advice: “Own a high-powered rifle, and know how to use it safely and responsibly. Educate yourself and your friends about the dangers of forcible government.”

It is that “forcible government” that has been systematically disarming Americans over the years while at the same time taking more power for itself. One of the reasons we have stood by and let it happen is our love for the military. But massive armies haven’t prevented nations and empires from crumbling in the past. Why should we think that the U.S. is the exception?

If freedom is a gift, then let us be wise stewards of what we have been given. How responsible can we be if we continue to elect representatives who believe that the best defense of liberty is to send our countrymen off to kill and die for the interests of the state? The result is always an increase in the size and scope of government.

Noted anti-federalist Richard Henry Lee once said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” A well-armed citizenry not only provides a defense against terrorists and other foreign invaders, but it also acts as a natural barrier to tyranny here at home.

That, of course, doesn’t change the fact that uniformed soldiers marching off to war in a foreign land paints a more noble and romantic picture than a redneck in a pickup with a gun rack. It may sound un-American, but the latter is what has kept America free.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his support behind House-passed legislation to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for seeking the White House in 2008.

“It’s not just a matter of faith, it’s a matter of science,” Frist, R-Tenn., said on the floor of the Senate.

To conclude this head: great is their peace, who know a limit to their ambitious minds; that have learned to be contented with the appointments and bounds of Providence: that are not careful to be great; but, being great, are humble and do good. Such keep their wits with their consciences, and, with an even mind, can at all times measure the uneven world, rest fixed in the midst of all its uncertainties, and as becomes those who have an interest in a better, in the good time and will of God, cheerfully leave this; when the ambitious, conscious of their evil practices, and weighed down to their graves with guilt, must go to a tribunal that they can neither awe nor bribe. ~William Penn

President Bush is to be commended for keeping his promise to the American people by selecting such an impartial, accomplished jurist to fill this crucial seat on the High Court. Judge Roberts is an unquestionably qualified attorney and judge with impressive experience in government and the private sector. He has demonstrated at every stop on his career path the legal acumen, judicial temperament, and personal integrity necessary to be a Supreme Court Justice. ~Dr. James Dobson, who has expressed cautious support of the president’s Supreme Court nominee

Judge Roberts is a superb nominee. He is a man of keen intellect and extraordinary legal experience who will bring fidelity to the Constitution to his service on the High Court. I am most pleased that a man of this caliber and obvious judicial temperament has been nominated. ~D. James Kennedy’s more effusive praise for the president’s Supreme Court nominee

There can be no question that Judge Roberts is exceptionally well qualified to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice … A man of character, Judge Roberts understands the Constitution and has a record of applying the law — not legislating from the bench. ~Jay Sekulow, attorney who argues for prayer in government schools before the Supreme Court, but refuses to support Christian Judge Roy Moore, on the president’s Supreme Court nominee

Republicans are desperately trying to convince themselves that Roberts will be different because they want to believe Bush wouldn’t let us down on the Supreme Court. Somewhere in America a woman is desperately trying to convince herself that her husband won’t hit her again because he told her “things are going to be different this time.” (And yes, that woman’s name is Whitney Houston.)

Bush said “Trust me,” and Republicans trust him. It shouldn’t be difficult for conservatives to convince themselves that Roberts is our man. They’ve had practice convincing themselves of the same thing with Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter.~Ann Coulter on “fool me 8 times, shame on me” regarding the president’s choice of a Supreme Court nominee whose record is as bland as his name.

Even if every Democrat voted against President Bush’s nominee (plus a few RINOs), John Roberts would still win. I don’t care if his name is bland as long as his record is full of principled conservative spice. . . so why didn’t the president nominate somebody like that?

Though I’m growing weary of the same old, same old, I suppose we need to gear up for the next round of crying in the wilderness, when the so-called principled conservatives will be defending another reprehensible presidential nominee because “we can’t let Hillary get in the White House.”

Condoleezza Rice, anyone?

Two interesting stories today that have a direct impact on our foreign policy. The first deals with the White House’s doing away with the “War on Terror” theme to replace it with “a global struggle against violent extremism”. Doesn’t quite have the ring of the first, and it’s just as bad an idea. We can’t control the world, plain and simple. Douglas Feith is quoted as saying that “protecting the homeland and attacking and disrupting terrorist networks, you’re on a treadmill that is likely to get faster and faster with time.” So his solution is to address “the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists.” He’s quite right on that note, but that’s not the government’s job.

The second story, closely related to the first, has to do with the ADVANCE Democracy Act. This legislation, which Congress shall be mulling this fall, posits that it should be the goal of the United States to bring democracy to the entire world. I hardly know where to start with this one. For starters, we ourselves are legally a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, a democracy is really a system wherein three foxes and a chicken vote for what to have for dinner. Thirdly, even if democracy were a good system of government it still wouldn’t bring world peace. Fourthly, there’s no constitutional warrant for spreading any form of government. As John Quincy Adams said:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

This legislation is, unsurprisingly, a bi-partisan effort. Liberals have long tried to spread the humanistic and false gospel of democracy, it’s a trend that dates back at least to Woodrow Wilson.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: There will be no world peace until all nations have bent their knees to the Lord. We have a good faith that this will happen, be it in our lifetimes or many years from now. The democratic crusaders mean well, but as Lewis said “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”