TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

Those who have embraced the culture of death had much to celebrate during 2008. Culture of death is referring to those movements which would advance euthanasia, assisted suicide, abortion, fetal experimentation, and even population control. These movements unlike the people they affect are ironically alive and well.

Let’s take a quick look at the year gone by for a recap and you will see.

In the U.S. voters in Washington state approved the grotesquely named “Death with Dignity Act,” which now allows physicians to prescribe lethal doses of drugs to their terminally ill patients. Washington has joined Oregon as the only states that have legalized assisted suicide for now.

Of course there was other significant news in the other Washington, Washington, DC, where the new administration began to set up shop in the White House – an administration that promised during the campaign to enact the “Freedom of Choice Act,” or FOCA. FOCA in essence will eliminate most restrictions on abortion. Parental notification, informed consent, conscientious objection on behalf of healthcare providers, restrictions on late-term abortions (including partial birth), will soon be things of the past. The Catholic Bishops describe FOCA as “the most radical and extreme abortion legislation ever considered in the United States.”

Of course, the new administration will do all that it can to promote the use of human embryos for stem cell research.

On the other side of the pond, legislators in the small nation of Luxembourg decided that the “right to death” was so important, that they stripped Grand Duke Henri of his constitutional right to veto legislation. Why? Because he dared to oppose a new euthanasia law. Well, I guess that’s better than what Europeans used to do when they didn’t like their monarch.

But it’s not enough that individuals can now legally find ways to kill themselves. No, now people can share their final moments with millions of onlookers. Britain’s Sky Network aired a documentary that showed the final minutes of the life of Craig Ewert, an American who suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease. Ewert paid the Swiss assisted suicide group Dignitas 3,000 pounds (4,358.80 USD) to help him die. He had to travel to the little Alpine nation because Switzerland is the only country that opens the jaws of death arms to foreigners who want to kill themselves.

And then there’s the horrible case of the 19-year-old Florida man who committed suicide while some 1,500 viewers watched online. The video spread all over the Web like wildfire. This is the new entertainment to a desensitized world? What have we become?

As we embark on 2009, the Church must renew its commitment to protecting the life and true dignity of every human … from natural conception until natural death.

But despite the euphemisms of euthanasia law and suicide organizations, true human dignity is not found in death … except when you sacrifice your life for another for their protection or safety. Human dignity is found in life! And in Him who is the Author of all life.

The electoral wave which swept Democrat Barack Obama into the White House and Democrat majorities into the Senate and the House of Representatives could reshape the bioethical landscape in the United States.

The most obvious issue is abortion. Mr Obama is a strong supporter of a woman’s right to abortion. The leading abortion action group, Planned Parenthood, gave him “100%” on its electoral scorecard. After reviewing Obama’s legislative record, Professor Robert P. George, of Princeton University, wrote a scathing analysis of his views on pro-life issues. His conclusion: “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.” Obama joins some very serious abortion advocates currently in the house and senate.

Under George W. Bush, a relatively pro-life president, abortion activists felt threatened. On his first day in office he had blocked federal aid to foreign groups that promoted abortion. He appointed two justices to the Supreme Court who apparently took a dim view of Roe v. Wade, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He signed a ban on partial-birth abortion. His appointees in the Federal bureaucracy tried to thwart sales of emergency contraception to minors and promoted abstinence-only sex education. In Planned Parenthood’s eyes, Bush had declared war.

Nor, before the election, was the situation in all of the 50 states altogether favourable for abortion supporters. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court effectively guaranteed abortion on demand. However, opponents have managed to restrict this in a number of small ways on a state-by-state basis – banning late-term abortions, requiring parental notification, mandatory counselling, restricting health insurance payouts and so on. These form a patchwork of regulation throughout the 50 states.

But with the election of Obama and a Congressional majority which is broadly favourable to abortion rights, all restrictions are likely to vanish … including the ban on partial birth abortion. In 2007, as both sides of the abortion divide remember well, Obama promised Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). This act has been kicking around Congress since 2004, but Obama became a co-sponsor of the Senate version in 2007. The purpose of FOCA is to codify Roe v. Wade, invalidating every restriction on abortion.

The website of the new administration’s transition team reassures abortion activists that Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.”

Other democrat sponsored bills are raising further questions … Will hospitals which currently refuse to do abortions be threatened with loss of funding? Will health care workers effectively lose the right to conscientious objection in abortion and emergency contraception?

Style over substance

Jane Jimenez

There is an irony in recommitting myself to a career of writing in the wake of four debates in this 2008 presidential election. I am personally motivated to write because I believe words matter. Alas, they don’t matter to everyone.

Words don’t matter. Glib is what works. Style is cultivated. A smooth voice that glides over the top of words, served up with a charming smile. The package delivered to voters is beautiful. Inside? Inside the Obama package, unwrapped after the election, what can we expect?

• Partial-birth abortion and infanticide, ensuring that babies die who “accidentally survived abortion,” will be finally and permanently be entrenched as lawful “choice” in America.
• School “choice” will be limited to “choosing” to stay in the public school system, denying parents a real choice to use their own tax dollars for top-quality charter and private schools.
• Our American president will be able to further cultivate the already glowing approval of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Hamas leaders, and Louis Farrakhan, all of whom praise Obama’s politics.
• The Supreme Court will be used to make law in the United States, nine men and women overriding the will of the American people expressed in elections and the legislative process. We will work hard to make laws. The Supreme Court will work harder, striking down our laws and replacing them with theirs.
• Marriage will no longer mean one man and one woman.
• Legal immigration will be replaced by a U.S. citizenship conferred on people who happen to merely “show up” at the window to fill out paperwork.
• Taxes will be increased on entrepreneurs and investors from less than 38% to more than 50%.
• Entrepreneurs and investors will take their money…and their jobs…out of the country to countries like China and India where lower taxes will reward their investment. American jobs will move overseas.
• New American jobs will be created when taxes on Americans are increased to build new social programs to provide FDR-style governmental work project jobs.
• Healthcare will be nationalized, paid for and controlled by the federal government…just as countries like Canada and England admit failure with their own nationalized healthcare. They want what we have. Our president will want what they wish to abandon.

The majority of Americans are opposed to what is inside the Obama package. Amazingly, it seems that they might vote for him anyway. The wrapping paper and ribbons on the package look so pretty.

Obama’s objectives and the direction of the Democratic Party have been disguised by words that mean nothing. Media-speak. Instead of clearly stating that Obama supports the brutality of partial-birth abortion, he slips and slides all around the issue. He never personally would “choose” to stab a baby with scissors. It’s just that he won’t stop someone else from stabbing the baby.

Brutal words? Yes, only brutal words can fully describe brutality. But we are no longer about words that tell the truth. We are about wrapping paper and ribbons. The package.

Americans seem poised to vote for the prettiest package. Style over substance.

What a surprise, the day after the election, when we realize we are in for four years of substance that will take us away from where we really want to go. Some call this hope. It is a word of style that rings pretty.

But this is the kind of hope built on a list of destructive policies, including the legal killing of infants. It is the hope that motivates lemmings to the edge of the cliff.

Style has our attention now. But it will not last. Eventually, the package will be unwrapped. Inside? Like it or not, we will hold in our hands what we did not want to see. Substance.

Jane Jimenez (speakout@fromthehomefront.org) is a freelance writer and former elementary school teacher dedicated to issues of importance to women and the family. She writes a regular column titled “From the Home Front.” Jane and her husband Victor live in Phoenix and have two children.

Skin color not the right reason to vote

Charles Butts

An African-American pro-life leader gives his perspective on the election and the racism behind voting simply to “make history.”

Rev. Johnny Hunter heads L.E.A.R.N., Inc., an evangelical pro-life ministry, and believes that people going to the polls to help make history with their votes are making a mistake. He contends they ought to vote on the basis of the right candidate for the office.

“Anybody that voted for Hillary just because she was a woman, that’s called pride. You know, trying to make history,” he says. “The Bible teaches that if you want to see destruction, just have pride.”

Hunter suggests yet another aspect of the voting process to consider: racism in the Obama camp. “If somebody votes for John McCain because they’re white, everybody’ll call him a racist,” he adds. “I got news for you. You vote for anybody because of the color of their skin, you got a problem going on.”

According to Hunter, voters should choose a candidate in light of eternity. “I say if we want to do something for a historic moment, get in there and vote like we’re going to have to answer to God for our vote – because one day we will,” he concludes.

Putting Obama before Christ

James L. Lambert

A few days ago, I happened to be in the lobby of a medical office discussing politics with a woman who shared with me an interesting story. She had a friend recently tell her that even though Sen. Obama “advocated everything [she] didn’t believe in” — abortion, gay marriage, a bigger role of government in people’s lives, higher taxes, etc. — she was still “thrilled” to vote for Obama as president because he’d be the first black president in our country’s history.

While an Obama presidency admittedly would be historic, a person’s skin color obviously shouldn’t be a criteria for voting for that candidate. Religion — especially the Christian religion — has deep roots in this country. Yet it seems that many people who claim the Christian faith are casting their religious values to the curb in favor of being able to claim a role in “a historic event.”

Rev. Adlai E. Mack, senior pastor and founder of Christians United Church in San Diego, is alarmed by this trend. It was during the early 1970s, while working toward his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University, that Mack was introduced to moral dilemmas such as abortion. He was influenced by Dr. Paul Ramsey, professor of ethics, who decried the technique of ending human life so cavalierly in the womb.

Rev. Mack agreed with Ramsey, and remains grieved that abortion harms so many — especially those in the black community. According to the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN) — the largest African-American evangelical pro-life ministry in the country — three out of five pregnant African-American women will abort their child.

Besides currently performing his full-time duties as a local pastor, Mack is a longtime Christian activist who routinely visits abortion clinics with the mission to persuade mothers to forgo terminating the life of their unborn child. Last week, Mack directed his thoughts to fellow believers in the church and to the black community at large.

He told this writer on Thursday: “If you’re willing to sacrifice your babies, your children, and your business for Mr. Obama, you have that choice — but I will not.”

Mack continued: “If Obama wins, the babies lose. If Obama wins, your children will be discipled by homosexual [activists] in the public schools. If Obama wins, small businesses will suffer. Raising taxes would be the worst remedy during an economic downturn.”

Rev. Mack notes that Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and is a longtime friend of abortion providers. Since joining the Senate in 2005, the Illinois senator has received a 100-percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the leading abortion advocacy group in the United States.

Furthermore, Obama has injected himself into the debate on gay marriage by denouncing Proposition 8, the California initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Biblical Christians agree that Christ himself has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4).

On election eve, Mack concludes by asking his fellow believers: “Are you willing to sacrifice [your beliefs, your convictions] for this one man?”

I ask: Are you willing to put Obama before Christ?

I’m Voting For Those Not Yet Born

By Chuck Norris

My, how the landscape of elections has changed. Remember when the issue of abortion used to matter to conservatives in political races? Today presidential nominees can get away with murder, literally. They can smoke, toke and hang out with terrorists who do. What were once considered legitimate leadership litmus tests are now regarded as off-limit character assassinations and hate language. Recently, some nonprofit organizations have been threatened with the withdrawal of their tax-exempt statuses because their leaders merely voiced opposition to what they consider a moral issue: abortion.

Some people think after 35 years of ceaseless controversy since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade that abortion is an “old” issue better dropped. I disagree. I do believe the economy is an important issue in this election, but it’s certainly not the only issue. We can’t just be concerned about our finances. We also must be concerned about America’s future and those who will occupy it. Our posterity matters. Their rights matter. And that includes their “unalienable Rights,” with which they have been “endowed by their Creator,” and among them are the quintessential rights: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Abortion is not about a woman’s “right to choose”; it is about a more fundamental “right to life,” which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government’s primary purpose: to protect innocent life.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. But he could have been. His belief in what should be “the first and only legitimate object of good government” still should stand. Like Jefferson, our next president needs to uphold those same concerns, not say that such arenas are “above his paygrade.” If he and his administration won’t protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? A left-leaning Congress?

The truth is if Obama is elected, we will place a man in the highest office in the land who has the most liberal views and voting record on abortion of any president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he led opposition three years in a row (2001-2003) to a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of babies unintentionally left alive by abortions. He also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion and strongly disapproved of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the partial-birth ban. He also voted to block a bill that would have required a doctor to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor from another state. He does not support the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid. Before a Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, Obama promised to give first priority as president to the signing of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make partial-birth abortion legal again. Strangely, Obama even once said he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” caused by an unwanted pregnancy. With the next president likely adding two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear that as president, Obama would appoint and support the most liberal judges and legal eagles, resulting in a pro-abortion advantage in our courts that would push abortion liberties to every extent of the law and land.

America’s Founders shared a basic view of human life and conception: Humanity is special, unique and should be set apart from the rest of creation. In fact, in early America, there were two basic beliefs that shaped most people’s views of humanity: God created us equal, and we are the highest creation of God. Their views were based on creation narratives in the Bible and expressed in the Declaration of Independence. In order for us to get back to our Founders’ understanding, we need to get back to a view of humanity that emphasizes the immortal worth of every human being. (That’s why I’ve devoted an entire chapter to “Reclaim the value of human life” in my new cultural manifesto, “Black Belt Patriotism.”)

My friend and prolific author Randy Alcorn recently was asked by a young woman, “Should we vote for who we think should lead our country solely based on their stance on abortion?” You can read Randy’s insightful response to that question on his Web site and blog (www.epm.org). I would respond to it by simply saying we all will answer that question in just one week, when we go to the ballot boxes.

Winning the election is not just about what the underdogs – such as John McCain and Sarah Palin, two maverick pro-life advocates – should do. But it’s about what the citizens who are fighting for the underdogs can do. We the people must stand up, go back to the basics, and once again vote our values.

America‘s future and the future of our children are at stake.

The election of senators and representatives is very important. If the liberals win enough seats to kill a filibuster in the Senate, then there will be no stopping the damage they can do in just two years. Do want that much power in the hands of liberals?

Activist justices who will be appointed to the Supreme Court for 20 to 40 years can make any law they wish, or override any law they wish. The liberals are already planning to remove every law prohibiting abortion, make homosexual marriage legal, and take away our religious and First Amendment freedoms.

A veto-proof Senate would guarantee that every bill the liberals want to pass, they can. In two short years, the liberals can undo every law that it has taken conservatives 40 years to accomplish.

When you vote, be sure that you keep this in mind! The election of one conservative senator could make the difference!

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is the duty and responsibility of every Christian to vote and to vote for leaders who promote Christian principles. If a candidate is not 100% in line with a biblical principle, then the candidate who supports that principle the strongest is the one who should obtain your vote! Following and promoting Christian principles are God’s will. Does God Expect Christians To Vote? Yes, He does!

The leaders we elect – or do nothing to remove – have great influence on our freedoms. They can choose to protect our right to worship and spread the Gospel, or they can restrict those rights. They can lead our nation towards righteousness or towards moral disaster.

As I hear “Christians” talk about the 2008 Presidential Elections I have been tremendously disappointed and frustrated. There is a lack of concern about where the candidates are spiritually, or even morally. Their concern has become more personal … no … actually more selfish. There seems to be a greater concern about what they can get from the government programs and candidate promises as opposed to the higher calling to “in-context” biblical values.

It seems “Christians” have thrown off biblical values and embraced the world of “free” healthcare, affirmative action, my this, my that … and yes, my taxes and social security … oh yes, and personal opinion. These have become an overriding focus over God’s values … life, righteousness, justice. Abortion, same-sex marriage, family values, and other moral issues need to be enforced by the Christian voter … not disregarded. When Christians vote against biblical values then they are voting against what God says through His Word, thereby they are sinning. They seem to be looking at biblical instruction as options … which they are not.

Christians need to make a stand for life and righteousness. They also need to understand that without biblical values none of the other things really are going to improve anyway … they will just continue to decline! How would Jesus direct us to vote? HWJV: How Would Jesus Vote?

Do your homework. All the information is on the internet. Compare what they say with their records. What I have discovered in that comparison of facts is that Obama is dishonest, lies consistently, frequently changes his stories, tries to keep people in the dark about his life and associations, has socialist and Marxist mentors, had the most aggressive abortion thinking I have ever seen, punishes those who disagree with him, and is not just the most liberal Democrat but a functioning socialist. None of the candidates are perfect but Obama is the one who concerns me the most as I checked records and made comparisons.

Cal Thomas states it well on today’s commentary.

I love this country. This election is so much more than about economics. Don’t support someone simply because of their rhetoric. Rather, follow Christ’s warning as you evaluate the candidates: “Be as shrewd as snakes.” Be careful of sheep in wolves clothing. Then vote!

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is the duty and responsibility of every Christian to vote and to vote for leaders who promote Christian principles. Following and promoting Christian principles are God’s will.

We are also commanded to pray for our leaders in 1 Timothy 2:1-4.

In terms of politics and leadership, there is evidence in Scripture that God has been displeased with people’s choices of leadership at times (Hosea 8:4). The evidence of sin’s grip on this world is everywhere. So much of the suffering on earth is because of godless leadership (Proverbs 28:12). Scripture gives Christians instructions to obey legitimate authority unless it contradicts the Lord’s commands (Acts 5:27-29, Romans 13:1-7). As born again believers, we are to strive to choose leaders who will be themselves led by our Creator (1 Samuel 12:13-25). Candidates or proposals that violate the Bible’s commands for life, family, marriage, or faith should never be supported (Proverbs 14:34)! Christians should vote as led through prayer and study of both God’s Word and the realities of the choices on the ballot.

Christians in many countries in this world are oppressed and persecuted. They suffer under governments they are powerless to change … governments that hate their faith and silence their voices. (This will happen to us too if we allow ungodly people to rule over us.) These believers preach the gospel of Jesus Christ at risk of their own death. Many are killed so that others may benefit from the love of God. U.S. Christians have been blessed with the right to speak about and choose their leaders without fearing for themselves or their families … so far. In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, about 2 of every 5 self-professed Christians took that right for granted and didn’t vote while about 1 in 5 didn’t even register to vote. Only 48% to 50% of Christians voted in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

In our day and age, there are many who want to drive the name and message of Christ completely out of the public eye. Voting is an opportunity to promote, protect, and preserve government that is not devoid of godly values. Passing up that opportunity means letting those who would denigrate the name of Christ have their way in changing how we live our lives.

The leaders we elect – or do nothing to remove – have great influence on our freedoms. They can choose to protect our right to worship and spread the Gospel, or they can restrict those rights. They can lead our nation towards righteousness or towards moral disaster. Christians in the United States must stand up and follow our command to fulfill our civic duties (Matthew 22:21).

A Demented Idea

Charles Colson

The Brits may be losing their marbles. The distinguished Baroness Warnock, labeled by the Daily Telegraph as Britain’s leading moral philosopher, ought to be ashamed of herself.

You see, Lady Warnock once chaired a government committee that helped legalize embryonic research. She’s known for supporting assisted suicide for people don’t want to burden their caregivers.

But now Lady Warnock has gone a step further. She says elderly people who suffer from dementia are “wasting people’s lives” – that is, the lives of those who care for them – and ought to choose to die even if they’re not suffering.

And even if they aren’t a burden on their families, they ought to “off” themselves anyway, as she puts it, because they’re a burden on the public, which, under British national health care, pays for their treatment. According to the Daily Telegraph, Warnock hopes people will soon be “licensed to put others down.”

Putting others down? That’s the kind of euphemism we use when talking about injured horses or sick dogs. It’s not how we talk about human beings – or at least, it’s not how we used to talk about them.

At age 84, Lady Warnock is old enough to remember Hitler’s Final Solution – and the thinking that drove the slaughter, not only of the Jews, but also of the handicapped, gypsies, and others the Nazis considered “defective” or “useless.”

But even though Lady Warnock should remember World War II, she evidently has forgotten its terrible lessons. Given her despicable recommendation for the elderly, she ought to hope that her memory issues aren’t related to dementia.

Thankfully, at least a few Brits are outraged by Warnock’s comments, calling them – in typical British understatement – both callous and deeply ignorant. Neil Hunt, a spokesman for the British Alzheimer’s Society, says to suggest that people with dementia “have some sort of duty to kill themselves is nothing short of barbaric.”

More ominously, a spokesman for a British right to life group said Warnock’s views “are an illustration that while euthanasia is promoted as a right to choose, it pretty rapidly becomes” an obligation to die.

This tale out of England is also a dire warning about what happens when countries nationalize health care. There’s never enough money to go around – and some bureaucrat at the top is always going to start making choices about who gets to live and who’s going to die. If those targeted for death don’t go willingly, well, they will need to be encouraged to die – or they might get a visit from someone “licensed to put others down.”

Has the Western world truly sunk this low? Do we ever need a more vivid reminder of the tremendous importance of worldview?

Either all human life – from unborn children to demented mothers and fathers – is created in the image of God and therefore infinitely precious, or humans are nothing but the result of mere chance, indistinguishable morally from a sand flea. The choice society makes will determine whether the most vulnerable among us will be respected and protected . . . or whether we will “put them down” when they become a burden.

We Christians must speak out as others – especially those in authority – move us closer and closer to compulsory killing.

If we do nothing, its evidence that perhaps we’ve all lost our marbles.