Pro-Choice

Any Christian who understands the Word of God, and their role in the will of God, understands one thing clearer than anything else; God is pro-choice!

Now before you have a fit, please understand that I am not aligning myself with those who think that pro-choice means that a woman has or should have the unalienable right to terminate a pregnancy, based on her set of values.

What I am referring to when I say pro-choice is free will, the God given gift to mankind whereby we can choose our ultimate destiny; heaven or hell.

We must all back up from the brink, and try to understand that life and choice are gifts from God that go hand in hand in preparation for our ultimate destiny, and that any group, individual or system of government that would take or deny either gift is considered evil because they would usurp an authority that is divinely given to each of us; in short, they are attempting to play God!

Admittedly, those of us who call ourselves 'pro-lifers' cannot say with absolute scientific certainty exactly when life does begin. We believe based upon faith that life does begin at conception.

What the other side fails to admit or consider is that they can no more determine when life begins with absolute scientific certainty than we can.

Now if that is true, doesn't logic dictate that we have a fall-back or default position that says "Since neither side can prove or disprove when life begins, until and if such a time a conclusive determination can be made, conception must be considered the beginning of a human life?"

I find it interesting that the same folk who postulate that the finding of water on a distant planet could have meant that 'life' may have existed there, and get all excited about the possibility that a single celled organism might have once 'lived' there, but would not consider the intricate and complex choreography (intelligent design) that takes place at conception to be worthy of at least that level of esteem!

I am pro-choice then. I believe in the right that the great 'Intelligent Designer' has given to all human beings, and that is the right to exist, and once here, the right to make choices for their life!

Therefore, the ultimate 'pro-choice' position is that every human being, regardless of age, sex, religion, health, color, delivered or undelivered must have the choice to live or die; it must be their choice!

That is how we view things as Christians. That life is about free will, the exercise of that free will, and the consequences of the choices we make in the natural, and in the spiritual.

And anyone who would seek to deny or deprive any human being of that right is no pro-choicer and likely is no Christian, regardless of what they may call themselves.

Opportunity and Choice

A little over a year ago, I wrote a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In it, I reminded us of the values he espoused, and encouraged us to remember; values that are uniquely American.

The most prominent of those values was the notion that the only thing we truly owed each other as American brothers and sisters were the belief in and support of Liberty, and Justice. And that if we concerned ourselves with those values, both for ourselves, and all of our American brothers and sisters, this would be the more perfect union the founding fathers envisioned.

I wrote that part of Dr. King's legacy was to help ensure that every American had an equal opportunity through the impartial application of Justice, and the inalienable right to Liberty to partake in the American Dream. But the key was equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

It is a lesson that is re-enforced to me in my faith as a Christian. The notion that God loves all of us, and He sent His son so that we might all have an equal opportunity to make it to heaven. We now have that opportunity through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

People (generally on the left) are all too quick to point out that outcome-based forced religion ala the Crusades or the Iquisition was a bad idea, and I would agree with them for the most part.

My question is then, how could those same people hold the position that outcome-based forced education and employment (quotas) and wealth re-disribution (great society and entitlement programs) are a good idea? You cannot force people to be successful any more than you can force them to go to heaven!

Sadly, a great many will not make it to heaven, and the only reason they will not is that they have made the choice through the exercise of free will, not to accept the opportunity Christ has provided for them. That is the bottom line- if one does not make it to heaven, it will have been by one's own exercise of free choice. The opportunity is there for everyone!

That is the message that Dr. King was trying to get across to all Americans. Our job should be to break down barriers to success and achievement, to ensure that all Americans have equal opportunity to succeed in life. It is not nor should it be our goal to ensure each other's success.

The left in this country is famous for its advocacy of the so-called 'pro-choice' position when it comes to the issue of abortion. (I must state here that I believe that 'pro-choice' is anything but pro-choice, but I will save that for another blog) I find it ironic (hypocritical) that these same folk would through social engineering force one group to 'succeed' and force another group to underwrite it, and not understand that what they are doing is removing choices from both groups!

For the first group, they decide (arbitrarily) what 'success' should be for them, and then they engineer it for them and force them to accept it. For the latter group, they determine that their 'success' mandates they must underwrite the success plans for the former, and to what degree (arbitrarily) they must underwrite it, and then force them to underwrite it by means of a confiscatory tax scheme.

I would find it laughable, if it were not for the seriousness of the matter, that anyone who would dare to call themselves 'pro-choice' would deny so many of their fellow Americans so many choices in their lives.

For the poor, they are denied the choice to succeed in life through their own merit or drive. For the rich, they are denied the choice to give of their time and/or treasure as they see fit. Having that choice is real charity.

I believe Dr. King understood as a minister and as a citizen, that life and afterlife have consequences, and those consequences are based on the choices we make with the opportunities we have.

There is one more group that the left is denying opportunities to, and that is the unborn children. If the left were really pro-choice, shouldn't the unborn child have an opportunity too?

Why don't you just ask me?

I returned recently from a trip to Atlanta, where much of our family had gathered to have funeral services for a deceased family member.

I was asked to go to present the eulogy, and it was my honor to do so.

The night before the service, several of the ladies gathered in the kitchen area of my cousin's home, while I reclined in the adjoining den to watch some college football games.

They were for the most part a liberal group, and I knew the subject of the recent presidential election would come up and had no problem with that. I just made up my mind that I would stay out of such discussions and keep my politics to myself.

Well, my cousin from out of town, (not the hostess) an unabashed liberal, couldn't wait to bring up Obama's victory. And as if victory wasn't enough with her, I had to sit there and listen to her lead a parade of hate for anything and anyone conservative.

While the general consensus of the group was anti-conservative if not stauchly pro-liberal, this un-named ring leader, who was very aware of my political leanings, as well as my presence in the other room, brought up the subject of the election as a pretext to take shots at me. She took the opportunity to get in dig after dig, most of which if not all aimed at me (based on our political conversations in the past) in what can only be described as an act of cowardice on her behalf.

Cowardice because she did not want a debate, she wanted to bash!

Cowardice not because of her opinions; for I have always welcomed opinions different from mine. No, the cowardly part was that she knew that I would absolutely refuse to be drawn into a discussion of political issues with liberals, most especially her because I have found that facts and logic do not matter to her. Reason has no quarter within her in a debate. She does not even want to debate in fact. She wants me and others to listen to her point of view, and then as far as she is concerned, the 'discussion' is over. And by the way, she will not hesitate to let me or anyone know how unenlightened she thinks an opinion different from hers is.

Cowardice, because armed with the knowledge that I have told her that I will not discuss politics with her because of the personal invective she has used toward me in the past when discussing politics, and the fact that she was surrounded by a sympathetic left-leaning crowd (I was outnumbered); she felt quite emboldened to launch into her, conservative bashing, fact-lacking tirades, quite smug in her belief that I would not argue with her.

Cowardice because, she was not the least bit interested in a dissenting opinion. If she was, she knew full well that I was within earshot, and could have asked.

No she was perfectly happy in going on hour after hour with an endless critique of all things conservative... and I had to sit there and take it like a man!

I listened to her opinion of conservatives and conservatism. Oh she had us all figured out for the heartless crooks and evil people she believes us to be.

Now my aunts and cousins were not aware of my political leanings. They unlike the coward, are people of integrity for the most part, who would not have let things go on like that at the risk of being offensive to me.

Not that they would not have made their opinions known, but they most certainly would not have gone on like that knowing I was one of the conservatives being lambasted. I'm sure they would have let it go only so far, and then changed the subject. And at the very least they would have inquired as to why I was a conservative; we would have had some back and forth of opinions; they may well have expressed their disagreement and even a little disappointment or disapproval, had they known my beliefs. That is their right, and we would have agreed to disagree.

They did not know my politics,...but the coward did! And the coward was only too happy to encourage the conversation go on and on, while I sat there in miserable silence.

Liberals love to tout how sensitive they are to other's feelings. I wonder if she would have gone on like that if instead of a conservative sitting in the other room, a white person was there; or a handicapped person; or a person of another faith instead?

Intolerance? I have travelled far and wide in this nation and have seen intolerance in many incantations and incarnations. But liberals take the proverbial cake with their brand because it masquerades itself as anything but!

I do not care what side of the political spectrum one is on, you are intolerant if you cannot stand the fact that someone disagrees with you! Or if they have an opinion of their own; or if you consider them unenlightened, un or under educated, brainwashed, or not too bright for having a different opinion!

If the old saying "Can we just agreee to disagree." is just a mindless platitude to you, check your 'control-freakometer' because you may be red-lining (no pun intended)! And you probably are a liberal!

What if?

A friend of mine recently sent me an e-mail entitled "What if?". It went on to ask basically what if John McCain were black, and Barak Obama were white? On the surface it was asking an innoccuous enough question; Would we hold similar views of each man if their colors were differnt?

What the tenor and tone of the questions amounted to however, was an ad hoc, ad hominem attack, rather than thoughtful consideration of what could have been a useful exercise.

So I responded with some 'what ifs' of my own.

"What if it was McCain who had questionable ties to terrorists & terrorist organizations? What if the LA Times had proof of this, and refused to release and/or report on it?

What if it was McCain who was allegedly born in Hawaii, and the Governor sealed his records until after the election?

What if it was McCain who was editor of the Harvard Review, yet none of his editorials or opinions were now available for scrutiny?

What if it was McCain who preached "spread the wealth" yet had a brother in Kenya living off of less that $1 per month, and an Aunt in Boston living in the projects?

What if the president of Kenya sealed off any records about McCain and his family until after the elections?

What if it was McCain who broke his promise on funding his campaign, out spending His two predecessors combined?

What if it was McCain who was a proponent of the so-called "fairness doctrine", then bought air time on all the major networks for a 1/2 hour infomercial, without inviting his opponent(s) to have equal time; out of fairness, of course?

What if an average "Joe American" (plumber, carpenter, etc.) was vetted more than McCain, simply for asking the candidate a question? (the poor guy had his life ripped open for simply asking how Obama's tax proposals might affect him.) This from a guy who won't even let us verify his birth credentials?

What if it was McCain's pastor, (who married him, and blessed his children, clearly demonstrating an ongoing if not intimate relationship) who preached hate and diviseveness for over twenty years, and McCain said when pressed about their relationship, 'he didn't know the man?' (I wonder if Obama denied Rev. Wright 3X before the rooster crowed?)

What if it was McCain instead of Obama who described the US Constitution as an "imperfect (flawed) document"?

What if it was McCain who is the Socialist?

What if, instead of wrecking planes, McCain just wrecked the economy? This mortgage mess is nothing more than the results of liberals forcing banks to lend money to otherwise unqualified 'borrowers' in an attempt at social engineering. (I know, because I was in the mortgage industry!)

The bottom line is this; I cannot and will not vote for a socialist. I do not mean this as a pejorative; that is simply what the man is.

As a student of history, I cannot find a single incident where socialism has worked to elevate the condition of mankind; in fact, if history teaches us anything, it is that generally the exact opposite is true!

That is why I will not vote for a socialist. That is more important to me than where he/she went to school, who they are or were married to, the color of their skin or any other false measuring stick!

I want to know if they are a person of faith, (one cannot do that job alone), do they believe in the constitution, and do they believe that the federal government ought to be as small and un-intrusive into citizens lives as possible.

I want to know if they have respect for states rights, and individual rights, and have a respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and really understand and hold to the view of the Declaration of Independence that such rights are derived from God, not government.

I want them to understand that "Love thy Neighbor" is a call to responsibility on a personal level, that can best be addressed on a local and if need be state level, but not from Washington DC!

I want them to understand that re-dristributing wealth, or 'spreading the wealth' as Obama let slip to "Joe the Plumber" is a bad idea when it is done by force by a third party, whether the third party is Robin Hood, or the Government!

At least Robin Hood was trying to give back what was stolen from the people in the first place! And I want my next President to understand that!

The Trouble With God....

I seem to recall some resistance by some in liberal quarters to the notion that the Declaration of Independence be considered a true founding document, and that it be afforded at least equanimity in its importance with the Constitution.

I understood that the mention of God in the Declaration troubled them, and that their revulsion was somehow tied to those phrases that made God very central to the Declaration. If one does not understand that, one does not truly understand the brilliance of the Declaration, and cannot understand the Constitution.

One needs to recognize a few things about the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution, particularly as relates to the 1st Amendment Rights enumerated in the Constitution, and recognize that there is an engine which drives the relationship; that being the existence of God either as a real spiritual entity, or as a legal concept. One or the other or both has to be true in order to make both the Declaration and the Constitution work.

Liberalism would have neither of them work as the logical conclusion of their argument, for liberals want or have to replace God (the Entity or legal concept or both) with government, and that is a very dangerous thing.

Please allow me to back-track to make my Case:

First, I believe that the Declaration of Independence is at least as important as the Constitution, for it lays out the legal argument or foundation for the need for the Constitution.

Second, the acknowledgement of God or nature's god is very central to the Declaration, and by extension the Constitution because it argues that mankind has certain rights granted to him by a higher power, and not by dictators, kings, or any other form of government.

Third, the use of the term inalienable is very powerful, purposeful, and profound in describing these rights. It means that the individual cannot be separated from these basic rights, (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) because no person or group of persons or people gave it to them in the first place. So if they did not and could not have given it to them, then they must not ever be in a position to take them away! (the argument for limited government)

In the last 100 or so years, liberals have attempted to and to a large degree have been successful in redefining that relationship, to where it has gone from being a little confusing (thank Roger Baldwin and the ACLU) to quite clear that they believe that individual rights are granted, and determined by government. And in order to proffer and sustain that argument, they have redefined, mitigated, and to a large degree eliminated the notion and relevance of God from the culture, and by extension the Declaration and the Constitution!

That is why they argue so vehemently, and wrongly I might add, in support of the false notion of the separation of church and state. They have no choice if they are to make their fallacious argument seem consistent.

The results are tragically clear. The removal of God, either the Entity or legal argument, has had devastating results in our culture and nation. Take any test by which we can measure societal values, and since 1962 they have gone off the charts! Chart the steady rise in drug use, suicides, teenage pregnancies, unwed mothers, school drop-outs, murders, STDs, divorces etc., and you will see a steady trend upwards as God has been pushed further and further to the recesses of our society!

The trend of liberalism towards more and more dependence on government from cradle to grave is alarming. The attitude that the government now decides when life begins, when it can end, what quality it should have and even what the very definition of life is, is equally appalling.

It is a sad day in America, for we are losing and to a large degree have already lost something that set us apart from any other nation in history, and I don't know if we can ever get it back. May government, er, I mean may God help us!

Should/Ought vs. Must
My biggest problem with liberals is that they confuse what people should or ought to do, with what they must be compelled to do! Further, they do not understand that when we get in the business of deciding what people should do, someone has to make that call, or be the arbiter, which then adds the element of capriciousness to the equation.

In other words, by way of example, once it was 'decided' that the people ought to or should pay income taxes, the arbiter, under the auspices of 'government' then assumed the authority and now gets to decide who pays and how much, and then base the rates they pay upon what appears to be capricious decision-making!

I remember watching a version of "The Prince and the Pauper" some years ago in which Charleton Heston played King Henry VIII. He had just ordered the execution of one of his advisers, and when asked what the charges would be, he replied indignantly "I do not like the color of his hat!"

My visceral reaction to that scene was much the same as the feeling I get when I try to get an answer to why the government has assumed the right to demand of me a portion of my income, and dictates how much of it they will forcibly take under the threat of penalty! Their justification sounds to me no different from the attitude of King Henry, "Because we said so!"

As an American of predominantly African descent, I find this attitude on behalf of our government appalling and frightening, for this draconian tax code has led to a new type of slavery in this country, in which the 'taxpayer' is the servant, and the 'government' is the master.

If this sounds like melodrama, consider this question; what do you think; what do you know would happen to you if you stopped paying federal income taxes?

The reason we have come to this place, is 'someone' (insert persons or party here) arbitrarily assumed it was their duty/function/authority to determine what their fellow Americans 'ought' to do, and then went about formulating a plan to force us to do it. And that is something that a government of for and by the people must never engage in.

The result is that the government has now become an entity unto itself, with its own self-interests first and foremost; no longer representing the will of the people. It is a leviathan, whose only purpose now seems to be ever-growing self perpetuation, individual rights be damned!

Freedom and liberty have been re-defined under this behemoth to the point where it bears little if any resemblance to the intent of the Constitutional framers. An intent which supported the notion that the individual must always be bigger and more important than the government, for whenever the obverse is true, liberty does not and cannot exist!

We have become people of for and by the government, largely by way of the tax code. Tragically, it was because 'someone' (insert persons or party here) in total disregard to the Constitution, thought that's how things 'ought' to be.

If.

If you were to ask a real American if he/she believed in evil, I believe that most real Americans would say that they did; especially after the events of 9/11. And when I say real American, I don't mean citizens of this country necessarily; I'm talking about those who believe in the basic and uniquely American ideals of our only rights being 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', and that these rights emanate from God.

This definition of American may be simplistic, but I have no problem with that. And so armed with this definition, I believe that America, the ideal is good, and is or should be a force for good in the world.

I believe that most problems no matter how complex have simple solutions. I further believe that the more complex the solutions proffered, the more certain that there is a money/power trail behind them somewhere.

Anyway, back to evil. Those who I consider to be real Americans understand that evil exists. And while it can take many forms, can anyone doubt that the ideals put forward by radical extremist Muslims are anything but evil? No one who is a real American that's for sure! The aforementioned extremists believe in everything that is anathema to what it means to be an American.

It troubles me that there are some, who if you were to ask them for their definition of evil, would not hesitate to call George W. Bush evil, while at the same time be reluctant to call Muslim extremism evil at all!

How did we get here? Well, in my simplistic view, let me offer my take on that.

1) We have forgotten what it means to be an American. As I stated earlier, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness must always be first and foremost in the heart and mind of a real American. And anyone, anything, or any ideal not consistent with that must be called out for what it is; UN-American!

2) We are not perfect as Americans, but we have always espoused "more perfect" as our collective goal and must continue to do so. We must resist being judged solely on our past, but also how closely we adhere to our American ideals as we move forward!

3) We have forgotten our history, which places our future in doubt. (I do not believe this is accidental; American academia has been invaded for more that 40 years by a most UN-American mind-set).

4) We don't understand and acknowlege the truth that there is no constitutional provision for the separation of Church and State. There is certainly no prohibition of State from Church! (I believe this to be one of the most evil schemes in American history!)

5) Ministers, both religious and political (for politicians are supposed to be secular ministers) have forgotten that we serve the people, and not vice versa!

6) Lastly, we fail to realize that God, if not history will judge us by how we treat(ed) the most helpless and vulnerable in our society. No one is more helpless and vulnerable than the unborn child. The sheer number of abortions in this country annually and cumulatively since Roe V. Wade is shameful, and even more than that, it is evil!