At a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama was asked about his unwavering and utterly radical support of abortion on demand. He responded by saying, “Look, I got two daughters—9 years old and 6 years old—I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
The Bible teaches us that children are a blessing from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Granted, the Bible also teaches us that children are to be conceived within marriage and not born out of wedlock. Only when conceived as a product of a loving marriage and brought up in the protection of a loving home are children given the biblically prescribed childhood God has ordained for them. Anything other than this is not only a sin against God and a crime against children, but an imperiling of our nation’s posterity.
That Barack Obama should view pregnancy as punitive, parenting as imprisonment, and abortion as a pardon granted to the promiscuous, should come to us as no surprise from a man who flippantly dismisses the sanctity of human life as something “above his pay grade.” It’s easy to understand why a man who virtually single-handedly prevented Illinois’ from outlawing “live birth abortions”—the abandonment of newborn survivors of botched abortions until their little lifeless bodies could be thrown into hospital dumpsters—wants to stick his head in the sand when it comes to the sanctity of human life. If he didn’t, he’d be forced to confront his own dark soul, bloodstained hands and unspeakable crimes against the innocents.
Now, before this piece is misinterpreted as a veiled endorsement of John McCain for president, let me honestly state that I’m no more optimistic about ending the American Holocaust (abortion) with John McCain in the White House than I am with Barack Obama in the White House. Sure, you can take up the popular mantra that John McCain represents the least of two evils, but rather than me whistling along with this tired old tune permit me to strike up a few sour notes.
To begin with, I’d like to ask you when the least of evils became an acceptable choice for the people of God. I don’t believe that evil is ever an acceptable choice for Christians, regardless of its degrees and shades. Furthermore, if this country’s Christians refuse to take an uncompromising stand for the truth, who will? And what happens to our nation when the salt of the earth and the light of the world—the church, which is the conscience of our country—can be purchased by a political party for nothing more than lesser evils? If Christians can be bought by politicians at such bargain prices then our country is morally bankrupt and spiritually insolvent.
Allow me to remind all of you Republican Kool-Aid drinkers that all but two of our current Supreme Court Justices were nominated by Republican presidents, including the most liberal justice on today’s court, John Paul Stevens. The only exceptions are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, President Bill Clinton’s ultra liberal nominees who sailed through their senate confirmations with little more than a whimper of Republican opposition. Even Harry Blackmun, the dark hearted author of the Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade Decision, which legalized abortion on demand by dehumanizing the unborn and stripping them of their constitutionally guaranteed right to life, was a Republican nominee.
Yes, you protest, but how about Justices Scalia and Thomas; they were nominated by Republican presidents. Indeed they were, but don’t you find it the least bit troubling that neither of these ultra conservative and strict constructionist justices is offered by John McCain as an example of what he’ll be looking for in a Supreme Court nominee? Instead, the Republican candidate for the White House cites the more moderate John Roberts and Samuel Alito as examples of the kind of Supreme Court nominees to expect from a McCain Administration. This, despite the fact, that McCain once suggested drawing the line on a Supreme Court nominee like Alito, whom McCain criticized for being too conservative and wearing “his conservatism on his sleeve.”
Hell-bent and unwilling to give an inch in their radical support of the slaughter of the innocents—50 million and counting—Democrats will stoop to anything and stop at nothing to keep abortion legal in all fifty states and throughout all three trimesters of pregnancy. As they proved in 1987 with Reagan nominee Robert Bork, they will mercilessly “bork” any Supreme Court nominee who refuses to pledge allegiance to precedent and “stare decisis” in regards to Roe v. Wade. Additionally, they will unhesitatingly usurp presidential powers and trample the Constitution by filibustering conservative nominees to the federal judiciary, as they’ve often done with conservative appellant court nominees who refused to pay homage at abortion’s bloody altar.
In 2005, senate Republicans decided to put an end to this latter Democratic atrocity. Fed-up with Democrats’ unconstitutional filibustering of President Bush’s conservative nominees to the federal judiciary, Republicans threatened to use the “nuclear option,” an attempt by the presiding officer of the senate to end a filibuster by a simple majority vote. Senate Democrats went ballistic, threatening to shutdown the senate and bring the legislative process to a screeching halt.
The looming political showdown and threatened senate shutdown never occurred, however, thanks to a backroom deal struck by seven Republican and seven Democratic senators. This group of senators, dubbed the “Gang of 14,” was led by Republican John McCain and Democrat Ben Nelson. The group pledged to defy their parties on filibusters and the “nuclear option” in order to preserve senate decorum.
In a firestorm of criticism for selling out his fellow-Republicans and compromising with Democrats on preserving their unconstitutional filibusters of conservative judicial nominees, John McCain explained that he did what he did to save the senate. If you ask me, McCain should have done whatever it took to save the lives of unborn children. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe that we can end abortion by electing a man to the White House who cares more about senate decorum than he does the sanctity of human life?
Far from running from his reputation as a political maverick who bucks his own party, compromises with the opposition, and helps forge with liberal Democrats legislation that violates free speech (McCain-Feingold) and grants amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (Kennedy-McCain), McCain is actually using his reputation as a compromiser to run for the White House. The very thing that he touts to solicit my support is the very thing that gives me pause in supporting him.
Although compromise may be seen by today’s electorate as a virtue among politicians, it is undoubtedly seen by God as a vice among His people. Herein lies the real reason for the separation of church and state. Contrary to popular opinion, it has nothing to do with the danger of the government being overly influenced by the church. Instead, it has everything to do with the church being compromised and corrupted by the government.
Some will undoubtedly argue at this point that compromise is a necessary evil in politics; after all, without compromise you can’t get elected and without getting elected you can’t make a difference. Pardon me, but I beg to differ. The Bible tells us that one of the last events in our Lord’s life was His losing of a public election by a landslide (Matthew 27:15-26). Not only did our Lord’s uncompromising stand for the truth cost Him the election, but it cost Him His life as well. Yet, no one who ever lived has made a bigger difference in this world than the Lord Jesus Christ!
What do you suppose would happen if today’s Christians started following Christ’s example and stopped forfeiting their convictions for the sake of winning political elections? My guess is we’d make a far greater difference in this world. In fact, I believe it is the only way for us to make any real difference at all.
Don Walton
