Friday, February 22, 2008

Make Sure Your Beauty Isn't Only Skin Deep

I found this Dove commercial on It is a great reminder that outward beauty isn't what life is about. A beautiful soul is so much more pleasing to God. Just as what we feed our body can effect the glossiness of our hair or the smoothness of our skin, what we feed our souls effects our inner beauty. So let's feed on the Word, let the Lord prune the bad in us and cultivate the good, and embody self-sacrificing love.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

You Go, Montana!

In response to Washington, D. C.'s handgun ban and the Supreme Courts response to it, Montana has taken a bold step. This was reported by

In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.

"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.

The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.

I, for one applaud Montana. To often we cower before the Supreme Court's bullying, instead of remembering that we, the people, have the final say in this country (or at least we are suppose to). The Supreme Court is only supreme over other courts, not over the other two branches of government. They can be impeached, and the topics they can rule on can be limited.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Becoming a "Self-Feeder"

In my prayer of national confession, one of the things I lament is, "We Christians have not been God-seekers, but only God-accepters. We have become dependent on preachers for our Bible knowledge, youth ministers to develop faith in our children, and programs to bring people to you. "

In cruising the internet today, I came upon this article. It gives some great tips on becoming a "self-feeder" (as opposed to staying in baby mode and letting others feed you). I encourage everyone to check it out.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008


I received an e-mail today from about the United Nations Covention on the Rights of the Child. Here is a clip.

Who knows best?

The Convention's emphasis on the "best interests" principle is a sharp break from American law.
In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the 'best interests of the child' is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody." In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made "solely on the judge's determination of the child's best interests," without regard to the wishes of the parent.

The Court's decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, "United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children," ranging from a child's right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation. Except in cases where a parent has been proven to be "unfit," American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent's decision.

The UNCRC's Brave New World

But the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child changes all of that. The treaty supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.
According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of "best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child."

So instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on -- yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state's characterization of the "best interest" of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.

I would encourage every parent to be on alert for such language/court decisions in this country. This election could mean the ratification and signing of this treaty. Choose carefully when you vote.

Monday, February 18, 2008

How Pro-life is Your State?

Americans United For Life has ranked all of the states from most pro-life to most pro-abortion. The top 5 Pro-life States for 2008 are:
1. Michigan
2. Louisiana
3. Pennsylvania
4. Texas
5. Kansas

The 5 worst states for 2008 are:
50. Oregon
49. California
48. Connecticut
47. New Jersey
46. Vermont

Each state has a summary of the laws in that state.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Great Homeschool Post

While cruising around the blogosphere today, I found a great post. It gives the authors answer to the comment, "I could never homeschool." Check it out for yourself at Goshen Homeschool Digest.

APHA Calls for More Partial-Birth Abortions

The American Public Health Association has issued its public health policy initiatives. Many are excellent, but one section calls for absolutely unrestricted abortion at any stage of development. has the story.

This APHA abortion policy is a response to the April, 2007 US Supreme Court decision to uphold the federal law banning a specific abortion procedure, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

This ruling enabled US states to introduce legislation to restrict abortion. The following legislative measures to control the abortion industry were proposed at state level in 2007, according to pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute statistics:

1. Abortion bans set in place to replace Roe v. Wade, should it be overturned at the federal level, were introduced in 12 states.
2. Proposed laws requiring that women seeking abortions undergo mandatory counseling and then wait a specified period of time (usually 24 or 48 h) before undergoing an abortion were introduced in 24 states.
3. Proposed laws requiring that minors obtain parental consent or that at least 1 parent be notified were introduced in 15 states.
4. Bans on specific abortion procedures were introduced in 9 states.
5. Limits on private insurance coverage of abortion were introduced in 8 states.
6. Restrictions on public funding of abortion for low-income women were introduced in 15 states.
7. Increased requirements regarding reporting statistical information to state agencies by clinicians providing abortion procedures were introduced in 12 states.
8. Targeted regulations of abortion providers or clinics (e.g., additional mandated equipment, requirement of admitting privileges, classifying abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers or other classifications requiring increased regulation) were introduced in 15 states.

The APHA plan to undermine the above state-level legislative measures, under the heading "The Need for State Legislation Protecting and Enhancing Women's Ability to Obtain Safe, Legal Abortion Services Without Delay or Government Interference," states:
"In light of the Supreme Court's decision and the threat of new restrictions on access to abortion at the state level, APHA urges state legislatures, elected and appointed officials to do the following:

1. Repeal or oppose state laws that in any way limit access to safe abortion services, including, but not limited to-
a. Mandatory delays and information or counseling that is not science based,
b. Bans on specific abortion procedures,
c. Parental consent or notification requirements,d. Targeted regulation of abortion providers, ande. Limits for advanced practice clinicians in providing abortion services.

2. Support state laws that improve access to safe abortion services, including but not limited to-a. Provide funding for abortion care via state Medicaid funds,
b. Maintain medical decisionmaking within the patient-health care provider relationship,
c. Strengthen and enshrine the current federal protection on the right to access abortion under Roe v. Wade,
d. Allow trained advanced practice clinicians to provide medication and aspiration abortions,e. Protect health facilities and clinicians who provide abortion care."

To express concerns:
Mailing Address:
800 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001