A Tough Choice but One We Have to Make

This election is, without a doubt, the hardest to stomach in my lifetime.  Aside from the bitter debate and rhetoric, the two major party candidates do not appeal to me.  It makes one ask “Could we not have done better than this?”  And yet, in a way these two candidates reflect who we are as a country.  From the say and do anything to get ahead, the corruption and lack of respect for the rule of law of the democrat nominee, to the brash, arrogant, disrespectfulness of the republican nominee, this is who we’ve become.  While we cry out for better candidates, we need to become a better people.

Still, we must make a decision.  It’s one I’ve wrestled with, but have reached a conclusion.  Let me say that I understand if you decide simply not to vote.  I considered it for a while, even voting 3rd party.  But allow me to make the case that one presidency will be better for the country than the other, and significantly so.  And as such, I encourage you to cast a vote.

Whether we want to believe it or not, the Supreme Court has become as important as the Presidency.  Liberals have found a way to put into law that which the elected representatives of the people would reject, and that is through the courts.  That is why it is of utmost importance for justices to be nominated who will interpret law by the Constitution, rather than make law that they feel is right.  With an expected 3-4 Supreme Court nominees, we are looking at swaying the country’s future in two very different directions based on who will make those nominations.

While Donald Trump has promised to nominate justices who adhere to the Constitution, Hillary Clinton has made no secret that she will nominate those who would actively seek to make law, and only those who adhere to the pro-abortion position.

This ties into my second main concern.

A Clinton presidency would ensure that abortion remains settled law for another generation.  I’m not saying a Trump presidency would necessarily mean a reversal of Roe vs. Wade, but that possibility would at least exist.  We know that it wouldn’t with a Clinton presidency.

A liberally packed Supreme Court could very well strike down every state restriction on abortion, if the recent Texas case is an indication. All the small gains the pro-life movement has made over the last 40 years would be gone.  And millions of innocent children would continue to be killed in the womb every year.  Is this something you are comfortable with?  As for me, I cannot sit by and allow that to happen.

Another concern is over the investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email use and the practices of her and her husband’s charity.  Though the FBI has said their investigation is finished, they were outspoken that she was extremely careless in handling classified information, and that she lied to the American people on multiple occasions regarding the investigation.  Here is a short clip illustrating this.

Someone so dishonest, who will lie to your face, and who has been involved in numerous scandals throughout her public life is not someone I want to be President.

Donald Trump is not a man I really wish to see become President.  From his character, his past, his temperament and more, I would really rather not support him.  His opponent, however, is one I feel would be far worse as a President.  So, what do I do?

Daniel Darling wrote an excellent article on why Christians should vote.  He made two outstanding points on this very issue.  The first is that voting does not mean that you’re putting “your full faith and power in a candidate or movement.”

“We vote, not because we believe our man or woman will usher in the Kingdom, but because we are fulfilling a God-given stewardship.”

And at a time when neither candidate truly appeals to many of us, he reminds us that:

“even in the best election with the most inspiring of choices, we are choosing between two fallen sinners. Every election is about the lesser of two evils.”

Folks, it is this simple: if we lose the Supreme Court, we will lose our freedoms as well.  So I encourage you: vote.  And not just for President.  Vote for the court.  Vote for unborn lives.  But vote.


Imposing views?

It is a common refrain from the “pro choice” community: “Well, I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t want to impose my view on others.” With this statement, they hope to cover both sides of the issue. They wish to satisfy those opposed to abortion by appearing to agree with their deeply held beliefs, as well as abortion advocates, who will be happy as long as the individual keeps these beliefs to themselves.

But this position is not logical, nor does it hold to the same standards as the individual’s other views. During the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden said he accepts that life begins at conception, but “I just refuse to impose that on others.” Really? Why would he not want to “impose” his view on others? He has no trouble imposing his economic views on others. He has no trouble imposing his view of healthcare on others. Indeed, in seemingly every other area of public policy, Mr. Biden has no trouble telling the country what to do. It’s what leaders do. They make law based on what they believe to be right and wrong. And once it is law, you could say, it is “imposed on others.” Since abortion was declared to be legal, that view has been imposed on over 50 million babies, who were never given the chance to live. So when Mr. Biden attempts to dodge responsibility with his answer, he demonstrates how responsible he really is.

What good is a personal view that life begins at conception if you will do nothing with it? If you really do believe that life is life once it is conceived, then how can you justify not protecting it? Further, how can you justify not only allowing life to be killed, but fighting to make sure it remains legal for that life to be killed? That is illogical to me.

Each year more than 1,000,000 Americans are murdered in the womb. And we have a chance to drastically reduce, if not stop, this number. Biden admitted toward the end of the debate, “[T]he next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is [to being overturned].” He then went on to contradict himself, suggesting Republicans would nominate someone from the “far right” who would outlaw abortion, while saying his party would nominate someone who is “open-minded.” So they want someone open-minded, yet someone who will not even consider overturning an unjust law such as Roe v. Wade.

But on the matter of abortion, Biden’s administration is more culpable of imposing its pro-abortion view on others than perhaps anyone before. Its official party platform declares that anyone should be able to have an abortion, even if the government must take money from someone else to cover the cost. It is forcing employers – even religious employers – to pay for insurance that covers contraception and other abortifacients, even if doing so violates the employer’s religious beliefs. That is blatantly imposing their view on abortion on everyone else.

In Their Own Words: Where the Candidates Stand on Abortion

Once again this election, we have a clear choice when it comes to the issue of abortion. The candidates are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. But rather than me tell you who stands where, I want to simply give you their own words and the words of each party’s platform. As a bonus, I’ll throw in the words of pro-abortion and pro-life groups as to whom they prefer in office.

Mitt Romney (from his website)

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood.

President Barack Obama on the 39th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade in January, 2012:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

From Mr. Obama’s website

Obama is:

“Committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose”

And has

“Opposed attempts to defund Planned Parenthood”

From the official Republican Party Platform


Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

From the official Democrat Party platform

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

And finally, here are the words of two well known groups on opposite sides of the abortion issue.

From the National Right to Life

Determined to secure a pro-life victory in the November election, which will decide the fate of unborn children for decades to come, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, today endorsed Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

From Planned Parenthood

Gives Barack Obama a 100% rating, Mitt Romney a 0% rating.

“I am proud tonight to support the re-election of President Barack Obama!”
-Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards at the Democrat National Convention

Final Analysis

I think Vice President Joe Biden summed it up well in the debate last week:

“[T]he next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is [to being overturned].”

May it be so, that children will be afforded the right to live, and that this horrible evil will be severely curtailed, perhaps even stopped.

For the record, the Romney/Ryan ticket believes abortion should remain legal in the cases of rape and incest. I do not. The baby did nothing wrong in either case. Why should he or she be killed? I also know that Romney has not always held the views he professes today. I trust that he has realized what a travesty abortion is, and in addition to the deaths of more than 50 million children, the devastating impact it has on society, families, and individuals, including the health of women. Are his views exactly the same as mine? No, but they are quite close. And on matters of utmost importance, such as nominating judges who understand and uphold the sanctity of human life, he and I are in agreement.

The point of this post is to show the vast difference between he and President Obama on this matter of utmost importance. You could not have a clearer choice between pro-abortion and pro-life in this election.

Every life is precious…

I had heard two of the stories in this post from LifeNews.com, but not the other.  I hope it gives you pause to think about the miracle of life.

A professor in a college ethics class presented his students with a problem. He said, ‘A man has syphilis and his wife has tuberculosis. They have had four children: one has died, the other three have what is considered to be a terminal illness.

The mother is pregnant. What do you recommend?’ After a spirited discussion, the majority of the class voted that she should abort the child.

‘Fine,’ said the professor. ‘You’ve just killed Beethoven.’

Pattie Mallette was sexually abused as a child and, by age 14, was already using drugs and alcohol. When her hardships became too much to bear, she attempted suicide by throwing herself in front of an oncoming truck.

Then, while staying in a psychiatric hospital during one of the darkest points of her life, she discovered God through a friend and became a Christian. This conversion, she said, gave her peace of mind.

But, after just six months, she relapsed back into bad behaviour and, at age 17, discovered she was pregnant. Because of her young age and difficult situation, many people encouraged her to end her pregnancy.

Mallette, however, insisted abortion was never an option.

Today her son Justin Bieber can sing to millions of fans and inspire them as a living example of the sanctity of human life.

She has recently told her courageous story in her new book Nowhere But Up: The Story of Justin Bieber’s Mom.

Doctors told Tim Tebow’s mother Pam to abort her son after she became ill because the pregnancy, they said, could endanger her life. Pam refused, instead asking God that she have a healthy baby. He answered her prayers with a future star football player.

Decisions to keep babies in circumstances in which many might opt for an abortion resulted in Beethoven, Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow.

Every abortion stops a beating heart. Every abortion ends a life. Every abortion robs the world of someone who could have made a real difference to the lives of others.

And every abortion robs a person of the opportunity to live life.

We tried to warn you…

Wouldn’t it be nice – as Stuart Shepard suggests – to be able to tell in advance when someone isn’t telling the truth?  It would save a whole lot of hassles and heartaches.  When it comes to politics, having a “lie-detector” is nearly essential.  That’s why you cannot take a politician at his or her word, no matter how noble their efforts seem to be.

During the health care debate, pro-life republicans were closely watching the bill’s language and restrictions on abortion, and what they found was troubling.  And they sounded the alarm, that what was about to pass the U.S. Congress would vastly expand abortion, and pay for it with taxpayer dollars.  They were met with incredible opposition, and were called liars by those who didn’t know better and by those who did – and were lying themselves.

This short video plainly and succinctly describes how abortion will be expanded and paid for with taxpayer money under Obamacare.  And the sad part is, we tried to warn you…