Now, when one looks at how the secular left is getting the children of many Evangelicals to support their causes, we have to look at the issues both in the church and the conservative movement that are behind this. We’ve already talked about the lack of a systematic teaching of a biblical worldview and materialism.

Modern liberalism is a thoroughly post-modern philosophy that, at its core, denies absolute truth. Thus it becomes possible to hold the position that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, but should be legal, because that’s just my opinion, and you may have a different one. There’s a different truth for every person. No culture is better than another culture. No system is better than any other system. Our constitution is a living document subject to redefinition.

Christianity, on the other hand, affirms absolute truths about God, Christ, the World, and society. How can you mix Christianity and post-modernism in politics? It’s pretty easy if you’ve been doing it in church.

A Sensitive Topic

To say the subject of morals in the church is a sensitive topic would be an understatement. An element in many churches is legalistic, placing demands on people that scripture does not place. I was in one church where we were told not to drink root beer from brown glass bottles because people would think we were drinking alcohol. Never mind that even drinking alcohol is never strictly forbidden in the scriptures, though drunkenness is.

Some elements demand pastors prescribe rules on courtship and schooling found nowhere in scripture. These preachers focus on cleansing the outside of the cup through external rules, rather than letting God work to change hearts. Many have been spiritually abused by such legalists and my heart goes out to these wounded souls.

Yet I’m reminded of the passage of the Screwtape Letters where Screwtape advises Wormwood to get Christians to focus on the exact opposite of their most pressing problem. Legalism is a minor problem compared to the church’s refusal to stand for biblical truth.

There is a maxim: “Where the scriptures speak, we will speak. Where the scriptures are silent, we will be silent.” Yet in many cases, where the scriptures speak, churches are silent. Issues such as divorce and cohabitation are rarely preached on from most pulpits. In a select few pulpits is the issue of abortion discussed.

Churches often appeal to Matthew 7’s command to, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” In the context of scripture, when one reads the whole passage, it’s clearly about hypocrisy. Religious post-modernists turn it into a requirement to abandon all moral judgment about many things scripture speaks to. In other words, they use it, ironically, as a pretext to judge as acceptable what the bible condemns as sin.

However, Christ not only tells us to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24), which is odd if we were to resign from all moral judgments, but also lays out a system of Church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17, and Paul lays this out further in 1 Corinthians 5.

Yet, Church discipline is never practiced in most churches for several reasons: 1) fear of losing members, 2) fear of lawsuits, and 3) if church discipline is practiced, the person can just go down the street and find another church that will completely ignore the applied discipline. And condemn the church to anyone who will listen, and that will again hurt the church’s precious reputation, membership numbers, and coffers.

Thus, many churches misuse Matthew 7 and committing adultery is treated no more seriously than drinking root beer from a brown glass bottle.

This is especially problematic in churches where homosexuality will be condemned, but other equally grave sins are left untouched from the pulpit. What the church does is show partiality, and to young evangelicals, the hypocrisy comes across crystal clear.

Rush to War

To close this look at the issues in the church that have led to some of these shifts among young Evangelicals, I think we need to turn the issue of war.

War is a tough issue. Scripture doesn’t bar America from defending itself. It behooves us to stand behind our soldiers with love, support, and plenty of prayer. They’re risking their lives in service to our country.

While I did not support the Iraq War going in, once our troops are committed, there’s only one acceptable course: victory. Defeat strengthens America’s enemies and bring us dishonor at home and abroad.

That said, some Christians on the right are far too quick to embrace war. War is sometimes necessary, but there are consequences: The cries of widows and orphans on all sides, the inevitable collateral damage, the destruction of property and the scattering of families, economic destruction, loss of national treasure, and loss of liberties. The law of unintended consequences also comes into play, as we saw manifested with the fall of Saddam bringing persecution to Iraqi Christians. Proper respect for human life and our freedom, as well as humility, requires that we ensure war is absolutely necessary before we enter into it.

We must also be sure we do not pursue war with the dangerous belief that democracy alone can make a good society. Remember, the democratic process gave us Hitler. Let us not attribute to voting transformative powers that should be attributed to God alone.

Standing by America’s troops as they go into battle is one thing. Being out front agitating for wars without thoughtfully considering the consequences sends the wrong message to young Evangelicals.

Virginia: The State’s two immediate ex-Governors are going against each other, but it’s not even close. The latest Rasmussen poll has Warner by 27 points, while the PPP poll has him up by 31. Barring Former Governor Mark Warner being called to run as Obama’s VP, Former Governor Jim Gilmore is most likely toast. Certain Democrat Pick-up

New Mexico: Rep. Steve Pearce’s (R-NM) numbers against Tom Udall have been nearly as bad, with Udall’s lead in the low 20s. The only thing he has going in his favor is the support of Club for Growth and really members need to dig deep to help him out in the Fall. For the Club to involve itself in the Senate primary and then see the candidate suggested go down in flames: 1) weakens the Club’s external credibility, 2) hurts its internal credibility in terms of finding competitive candidates. Of course, some New Mexico Republicans might want to blame the Club for a November loss. Completely unjustified. Wilson trailed by more. Almost Certain Democratic Pick-up.

New Jersey: A little talked about race, but it may be a sleeper for Republicans. Four-Term Senator Frank Lautenberg survived a primary challenge, but one Rasmussen poll showed this a 1-point race. It may not be that close, but Lautenberg is vulnerable. His challenger, Former Congressman Dick Zimmer may not be a Conservative sweetheart, but he’s barely more liberal than McCain and if Obama is the President, someone who votes 60% conservative could counterbalance a lot of politices. However, I have to say that New Jersey has a tendency to give Republicans false hope in Senate races. Nearly every race there is close and it’s been 36 years since Republicans won one. Still, put this one as a sleeper that Republicans could win if Zimmer does things right and Lautenberg makes a few mistakes. Likely Democratic Retention.

New Hampshire: Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has a double digit lead on Senator John Sununu (R-NH) in recent polls. Sununu has several million dollars more in the bank than Shaheen and plans to re-introduce himself to voters. In tough year, Sununu has a fighting chance. Leans Democratic Pick-Up.

Colorado: The latest Rasmussen Poll has Congressman Mark Udall up by 9 over conservative Bob Schaffer. The state’s been trending Democratic in the last two years, but Schaeffer is probably a stronger and more appealing candidate than past Republicans. Still, it’s an uphill climb. Leans: Democratic Pick-Up.

Louisiana: The Democrat’s most-at risk seat. Polls show Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA.) clinging to a narrow lead in a state where Democratic elected official incompetence at State and local levels was a huge contributor to the Katrina crisis. Given the normal Democratic trend of the year that polls are so close, indicates that Landrieu has a fight on her hands from Democrat-turned-Republican John Kennedy. Slightly Leans Democratic Retention.

Alaska: Senator Ted Steven (R-AK) is nip and tuck with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begitch (D) and is dogged by corruption charges. The question of which party will retain this seat may be answered later this Month when Alaska hold its primary. Former Alaska Representative David Cuddy was within 15 points of Stevens in a poll conducted last month, but Cuddy now has several opponents for the anti-Stevens vote. If Cuddy can win the Primary, he probably will probably best Begitch in the poll. But if Stevens emerges weakened but not defeated (particularly with less than 50% support in the GOP primary), it could be another matter. Toss-Up.

Mississippi (Special): Former Senator Trent Lott did his party no favors when he left his Senate Seat 1 year after being re-elected. Now new Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) is left in the fight of his political life against Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove. And the polls tell us nothing other than the race is extremely close. Toss-up.

Kentucky: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has a race on his hands against millionaire Bruce Lunsford (D). With the political blood of Ernie Fletcher on the floor, McConnell can’t take his own re-election effort for granted, which will hurt his ability to raise funds for other Republicans even though recent polls given McConnell a slight edge. Leans Republican Retention.

Maine: Senator Susan Collins (R-ME.), one of the Senate’s more liberal Republicans has had her lead over Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME) shrink over the past three months from 16 points in the April Rasmussen poll to 10 in May, and 7 in June. The question is if Andrews has a hit ceiling or if he can turn out a 2-tearm incumbent. Leans Republican Retention.

Minnesota: The danger to Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)’s re-election has gone down considerably after issues with Al Franken’s taxes came out, tarnishing his image. Note to Democrats: Send in the clowns is a great Sinatra song, but makes for a lousy Senate candidate selection process. Leans Republican Retention.

Oregon: Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) may still face trouble this fall, but polls have indicated a fair-sized lead for Senator Smith, who in a recent ad touted his ability to work across party lines with Barack Obama. This probably indicates Smith’s sense of the political situation in Oregon, and he’s a good judge of it. Leans Republicans Retention.

North Carolina: Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) was said to be near the top of Democratic target lists among incumbents. However, she’s gotten out to a solid lead and barring a major stumble should be fine. Likely Republican Retention.

My prediction for U.S. Senate: Democrats +4.

Onto the Presidential race and I only have one change to the map. Based on a huge amount of date, I can no longer consider North Carolina certain McCain territory. I’ll have it as leans McCain, but with most polls showing the race in North Carolina 4 points or less, I can’t say its certain. My  electoral map of certain states gives McCain a 201-200 advantage. You can view it here as it won’t display on F3 Coalition.

My general map is 252-238 Obama with 48 electoral votes undecided when taking into account leaners.

It is said that these young Evangelical voters are concerned about issues such as social justice, poverty, and the environment. These are not bad things to be concerned about in and of themselves. If because of this concern people become aware of the crisis of human trafficking, band together in community to help people escape poverty, and create backyard oasises n their home town, that’s a good thing. If, on the other hand, we recreate the mistakes of the 1960s and 70s and destroy people by making them dependent on government, create useless feel good government policies, and cripple the economy through idiotic legislation based on pseudo-science, that’s another matter.

How We Got Here

Why are so many Young Evangelicals being lured by people who are generally pro-abortion, anti-traditional morality, and radical? I would suggest that there are issues within the church and within the conservative movement and the Republican Party that will explain these issues. This column as well as the next one will deal with the issues in the church. A series next week will deal within the conservative movement.

Given the wide disparity between different churches under the label of Evangelical, there will be some general issues that will perhaps not apply to your church or my church, but their presence in many Evangelical churches across the country helps explain why so many young Evangelicals are moving left.

No comprehensive training of the mind: Catholics and many mainline Protestants use Catechisms to communicate the formal views and doctrines of their church and instill them into their children. There is no catechism for Evangelicals, in fact many would disdain the idea as formalistic. The result of this is that Sunday School classes and Youth Groups often provide a hodgepodge of scattershot ideas, but fail to inculcate a Biblical worldview, which Barna has found only 5% of Americans hold to.

Sermons are in many cases no help. The Word of God is as deep as the ocean, but I would think it fair to say that, in many churches across America, it’s a rare event when the congregations’ ankles get wet. Too often these sermons are general and non-challenging in order to be “seeker sensitive.”

While the church is lackadaisical about teaching a consistent biblical worldview, the public schools that 90% of church kids attend are certainly not lackadaisical about secularist views, nor are the makers of movies that Christian parents send their kids to without a second thought. Secular humanism is pushed in both education and the arts, and those two mediums take scores more of a child’s time than does the Church.

This general lack of biblical literacy allows secular liberals to slap a couple scriptures on old style Socialism and sell it to young Evangelicals hungry for adventure and purpose.

Focus on the Family has produced a wonderful series called, “The Truth Project” that teaches a biblical worldview, but it’s definitely an upstream effort against a sleepy church and a culture that’s more than happy to fill in the gaps.

Materialism: Within American Christianity, there are many people who sincerely love and serve God, regardless of denomination. However, there is also a greater degree of materialism than you will see in churches across the world. This is made even worse by the presence of a prosperity gospel that teaches God’s will for everyone is material prosperity.

There are many Evangelical Christians who live to keep up with the Joneses: bigger houses, bigger cars, more expensive toys. These are the things of a blessed life. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves. But when they become the focus of our lives, and when we would rather insure that we hold onto these things than put them at risk by standing for what’s right, children see. Many people do not become involved in public issues such as abortion, the display of the Ten Commandments, or the sanctity of marriage because they fear it will cost them their bobbles.

Ultimately, Christianity teaches that man has needs that go beyond the material, and it doesn’t just end with salvation as the focus of some churches would seem to indicate. As a minister, Paul declared, “Woe to me if I don’t preach to the Gospel.” And with each of us, it’s the same. “Woe to us if we don’t do what God has called us to do.” This spiritual shallowness at home, in the midst of physical abundance, leaves a great emptiness, a search for meaning.

It may be filled by Mission organizations that work through the local church. When it is not, and far too often, it is not, far left organizations are more than happy to provide grandiose meaning and purpose that promises something better than the shallow and materialistic faith witnessed at home.

Huckabee didn’t pick the right guy. Nobody does 100 percent of the time. Huckabee’s choice comes from mostly out of loyalty for Young’s support. I can understand it, I don’t agree with it.

That said, the Club for Growth is full of hot air:

Over the past year, the Club for Growth has been criticized by Huckabee and some conservatives for painting the Arkansas Governor as a fiscal liberal. If ever there was proof that that the Club was right from the start, it is this outrageous endorsement of Rep. Young who embodies the worst of the Republican Party’s wasteful habits.

So, endorsing Don Young proves one is a fiscal liberal? Perhaps. I mean after all, Huckabee called him a hero to taxpayers with the bridge to nowhere, etc. Oh wait, that wasn’t Mike Huckabee, that was Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform.

Why hasn’t the CFG run an ad explaining why Don Young is a corrupt fiscal liberal just like Grover Norquist? Probably because Norquist is one of the most powerful men in Washington. You give him this type of smackdown and you’ll smart from it. Huckabee, though is fair game. I don’t believe it’s true of Norquist (who I have many disagreements with) nor do I think it’s true of Huckabee.

To me, this show’s how blindly destructive the Club’s Huckahate is. Is there little press release going to hurt Don Young? Is it going to make people more willing to vote for Sean Parnell? Or, if this thing spreads will it make Alaska’s huckavoters (Huckabee finished 2nd in Alaska) give pause about whether they want to give Parnell their support and give the Club a victory in the Huckawar.

Instead of making this election about Don Young, Sean Parnell, the future of Alaska, and Congressional reform,  CFG is trying to turn this into a battle between them and Mike Huckabee, thus reducing the chance of their guy and my guy winning up there. It’s stupid and it’s destructive, but it’s anti-Huckabee, so the CFG says, “Let’s do it.”

Finally, Kathryn Lopez declares, “Goodbye, Huck.” as if:

1) She’s had anything positive to say about him since Iowa and there was any chance of her supporting him in any future effort after he beat Romney.

2) One Endorsement finishes a political career. This has never been the case, and if so who is going to go and check everyone’s “Endorsement purity” record to decide who is forever voted off?

Back in the eighties, there was a great movie about a kid who traveled back in history in a time machine made out of a De Lorean. He was able to go back and meet his parents in their younger years and straighten out a number of issues that would have affected his family in a negative way had he not gone back and intervened. Good flick. I’m sure you’ve seen it.

With all the talk about rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts - the ones that basically every Democrat says helped mainly “the rich,” I started to do a little thinking. How would the future life of the average American family be affected if they were suddenly, with today’s costs and obligations, thrust back eight years and made to live under the tax rates of 2000 - the rates that were in place before Bush cut them?

As the oddball scientist who likes to do some tinkering in my spare time, I imagined what it would be like to have a time machine that could transport a typical American family - we’ll call them the Smiths - back eight years to experience what life would be like for some non-rich people who need to pay today’s expenses without the Bush tax cuts. Let’s pretend that they’re loaded into the time machine with the destination set on 2000. They take with them their 2008 salary and their 2008 bills but need to pay their Federal Taxes with the 2000 tax code - the last tax code before Bush cut them “for the rich.” This way, we can get an understanding of how the Bush Tax Cuts affected regular, non-rich people. And hey, maybe by going back in time to learn the truth about the tax cuts, we can get some information that can help our family avoid hard times in the future. Let’s rev up the engine.

(Eh. I don’t think they make De Loreans anymore. I wanted to build the imaginary time machine with a Lambourghini. But the gas is pretty expensive these days. Mind if we use a Prius?)

Before the Smiths go back to the tax rates of 2000, let’s talk about their life today. The census bureau says that in 2005, the average income for a four person family was $67,019. In today’s world, assuming that they take have two kids, take the standard deduction, and pay an average state tax rate of 5.71% (using the Wikipedia numbers), they pay $5,626 a year in Federal Taxes, $4,155 in Social Security taxes, $972 in Medicare taxes, and $3,827 in state taxes. After taxes, they’ve got $52,439 left over every year. And using the 2005 figures from the Census bureau on the average household expenditures, the Smiths spend $32,444 of that in essential living expenses. Of course, these average figures assumed annual gasoline expenses of only $1,610 and annual utility bills of $2,697 (hmmm … I think they might be a little higher now). But with the 2008 tax rates, our family has some leftover money to pay some of the difference in inflated gas and utility bills, to save some cash for their kids’ education and for retirement, and to buy clothes, go on vacation and grab the occasional pizza.

But, once they ride back to 2000 and find themselves facing the tax rates of that era, they find that making the same money, they would pay $10,161 in Federal Taxes. That’s a $4,535.00  dollar increase. Even though they’re not rich, they clearly were reaping a pretty nice benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts - the taxes that were waiting for them in 2000 were 81% higher than the ones they left in 2008. In this strange world, they now only have $47,904 left over after taxes - instead of today’s $52,439. They still have at least $32,444 in essential living expenses, plus a need for a considerably higher amount of gas and utilities. But now they have less cushion than they had in 2008 to pay for these increased costs. It very well may be that something else has to give - maybe the savings for education or retirement. Maybe the clothes. Maybe the vacation or other entertainment.

Hey - wait a minute, buddy. I’ve always heard that the Bush Tax Cuts were just for the rich!

My response: (knock knock knock). C’mon. Think, McFly!

Although many politicians verbally slam the Bush Tax Cuts, the facts are that these cuts were not just “for the rich.” They benefited taxpayers of different income levels. And if they were repealed, the increase in tax rates would affect taxpayers of different income levels.

If the Bush tax cuts are reversed, it will hurt families who are not rich and who will have one more big fat bill that they can’t choose to not pay - the Federal Tax Bill that would in some cases be nearly twice what it is today. They might have to choose to not pay other bills instead, which will in turn hurt all the businesses that depend on disposable income (places which often employ other non-rich people who depend on the business to survive so that they can have jobs). I am not an economist and cannot speak to what exactly will happen on Wall Street if taxes are raised. But the prospect of a tax increase - through the rollback of tax cuts - will hurt the economy here on Main Street.

In case you’re wondering, you don’t need to worry about how much the family would be able to tuck into the savings account each year if taxes are raised. Savings accounts? Where we’re going, we don’t need … savings accounts.

“The Values Voter”

Obama considers himself to be a spiritual person and though I don’t at all understand how he can have some of his positions, I don’t make it a point to question anyone else’s faith. In fact, if I were Obama, I can imagine what I’d be praying right now. I’d be praying for my opposition to listen to the suggestions of the pundits who have been influencing the Republican process up to this point in time. Here’s a snippet of what I can imagine Obama is praying:

Grant me this year the serenity to have my message of “change” accepted. Grant not my opponents the courage to change from bad tactics to good ones - or the wisdom to know the difference.

I pray that many of those who oppose me will waste the next four months making fun of my middle name and taking personal shots at my wife. This way I shall be spared from having to give answers for my positions on late-term abortion, domestic oil drilling, and tax increases. In this I take comfort.

May my opponents become so blinded in their dislike of me that they do nothing but verbally attack me - from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same. Let them play rhyming games with my last name. Talk about my former church. Spread unproven rumors. Voice various insults. May they become so focused on attacking me the person that they both lose favor with the public and also forget to challenge me on the issues. Lest the manifold problems with some of my positions be laid bare before all.

I pray that the other side will forsake their first love - the Evangelicals. May they forget them who helped their party to win five of the last seven elections. May they assume that these voters will vote for them no matter what. And if they should ignore this great multitude, may enough of them stay home that I might prevail. Or even, if possible, I pray, may my refusal to ignore these same voters convince some of them to vote for me instead.

May the desires of the other side to win new territory grow so strong that they should forget to protect their own. May their dreams of turning Michigan red be so great that they forget about keeping Georgia and Mississippi from going blue.

I also request that they assume that all black voters will vote for me. May they act on this false belief so that they refuse to even ask for their votes. And may this not only become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but may the perception it causes also alienate many white voters as well.

May they give heed to the advice of the conservative media establishment, whose abode is in states that I shall win handily. May they follow all of their advice in how they choose to engage me, how they choose to campaign and how they choose to complete the other ticket.

And I give many thanks for those in the other side’s establishment and media. Their actions have filled my heart with gladness. They have spared me from facing an opponent who could easily beat me in a debate, who is less than six years older than me but has four times the experience, and who is every bit as charismatic as me but carries less baggage. Yes, they sheltered me from someone who could have given me a serious run for my money in every demographic category. They treated him with spite and even now hurl insults at him. I pray that they are successful in keeping him off the ticket as he makes the other side look pleasing to the eyes of the voters who will decide this election. (Amen!)

May they become so eager to please their media pundits that they pair my honorable opponent with someone with no more experience in government than I. Or someone unknown. Or someone who shall not win in the south. Or a “safe” pick - someone who is beloved by their media and establishment. I pray that my opponent shall pick a partner who will be highly favored by the National Review, the Washington establishment and others who spend less time with their voters than even I do.

And, lastly, I pray that the voters - all voters - trust not in their own research but in what the media suggests. Let them trust what the liberal media says about me and what the conservative media says about how to defeat me. If this happens, I will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country.

Amen!

The Values Voter

Wesley Clark cluelessly attacks John McCain’s executive experience (did he forget who he was supporting.)

Barack Obama delivers a slick speech on patriotism.

A pro-life 527 forms to tell the truth about Obama’s support for infanticide.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) helps save school vouchers in DC for now.

In Sweden, we now have government regulated birthday invitations.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

IMPORTANT: Please take our listener survey

Judicial activism, as the left is defining it, would mean anytime a law passed by the States is overturned by Court, it is judicial activism. Really? What if a law were passed requiring criminal defendants to testify against themselves in court? Would it be judicial activism if the court overturned it? Of course not. There has been a place for judicial review in the process since 1802.

So when does judicial review become judicial activism? I think you can apply two basic standards to the question (and I’m sure some people will add others):

1) Does the decision stick to the issue at hand?

This is a critical point. From Heller, we learn simply that the total ban put in place by the District of Columbia is unconstitutional because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The Court doesn’t give an exhaustive list of permissible and impermissible regulations. It does state that this ruling doesn’t mean the insane and felons have a right to keep and bear arms, nor is it addressing banning guns in certain “sensitive locations,” such as schools. Is a reauthorization on the assault weapons ban, gun registration, etc. constitutional under the court’s ruling? We won’t know and we shouldn’t. The court wasn’t considering those issues and shouldn’t take it upon themselves to decide them in advance.

By contrast, an activist Montana Supreme Court ruling not only overturned a law regulating abortion, but advised the legislature not to send them specific other abortion regulations, or a law against assisted suicide, as they would be overturned as well. Pre-emptive judicial review is judicial activism, along with any ruling that goes beyond the scope of what has been argued and placed before the court.

2) Does the Court stick to the law and the Constitution?

In Heller, the court looked at some specific issues. What did the authors of the 2nd Amendment mean? This was the total of the decision. Liberals accuse the court of ignoring the first part of the 2nd Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” yet the court didn’t ignore it.

The court actually spent many pages on the topic and they designated this part of the Amendment, a “prefatory clause” that explains the reason for the Amendment, but doesn’t limit the right contained in the Amendment’s operative clause granting the right to bear to arms.
This prefatory clause had the following reason for existence, the Court found: “The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army, or a select militia, to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

In short, the point is that the right to keep and bear arms was a check on federal usurpation through an armed citizenry. The National Guard has nothing to do with the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Compare this sober reading of the facts to the bizarre ramblings of Justice Harry Blackmunn in the Roe v. Wade decision. Blackmunn’s argument begins by pointing out that American abortion laws had been approved in the past 110 years or so (by the same people who approved of the 14th Amendment) but that ancient pagan religions had no ban on it, that the Hippocratic Oath’s strict rules against abortion were the expression of a Pythagorean ethic, that the AMA had moved towards supporting abortion, along with American Public Health Association. What this has to do with interpreting Constitutional Amendments ratified in American in 1791 and 1868 is beyond the mere mortal, but not the activist judge.

The decision of a good judge reads like he’s interpreting the law, the decision of a bad one reads like he’s discovering it. When Supreme Court Justices concern themselves with laws in Europe, evolving social standards, or the general best policy for society, they’ve gone from interpreting the law to writing the law by fiat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FBEzen1MN0