Of all human rights, the right to life is the cornerstone to all others. For without Constitutional protection for this most basic right, American have no genuine security, no protection, no limitation to government, no real freedom, and no future. With the enjoyment of this inherent and unalienable God-given right, the right to liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and to all other human and civil rights are meaningless words. And, yes, the 5th amendment does at least partially defends the right to life.
That is why all it is very important for all citizens to understand the positions of both John McCain and Barak Obama (as well as all elected officials).
The U.S. President is the only elected official who takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his or her ability. All others, whether members of Congress, the judiciary, federal agencies, state and local governments, give lip service by oath to support the Constitution. Because only the Executive is given veto power, the President is the only elected official with legitimate power of constitutional review, which is completely separate issue that will not be discussed further.
Because the purpose of the President is to preserve, protect, and defend the meaning and purpose of each and every part and principle of the Constitution, it behooves Americans to know whether he or she will in fact do so. If a candidate for political does not support the Right to Life, it is just and right to assume that such a candidate will neither defend it or any other if he/she and his/her party have other plans.
The National Right to Life has produced an excellent guide summarizing the positions of Biden, McCain, Obama, and Palin. You can consult their helpful guide by clicking here;.
Life News also offers an excellent and more comprehensive guide to the positions of candidates running for both federal and state offices. Their online voter guide may be reviewed by going to their www.lifenews.com/2008prolifevotersguide.htm;
PS: The mention of Lord, God, Providence, Creator, and the like in America’s founding documents were regarded by most Christians as encompassing a trinitarian view. Respectable historians and law professors like James Hutson and Philip Hamburger have convincingly repudiated the claims of popular books like The Godless Constitution and Blasphemy : How the Religious Right is Hijacking Our Declaration of Independence that the mention of those terms meant something other than a Christian view of God. The authors of those books attempt to support their claim by using biased historical data to claim that Revolution and Constitution-making era Americans were not very religious and most of the key leaders were deists or Unitarians. The fact is most of the Congressmen who created the Declaration and who rewrote the Constitution were members of churches upholding Trinitarian beliefs. That is significant because the meaning of God to such members of Congress and state legislatures included Jesus as an incarnate member of the triune Godhead. Therefore, the term year of our Lord in the preamble of the current Constitution refers to the Christian God, and the abundant terms for the Christian God employed in the Declaration objectively supports the reality that America was legally founded as a Christian nation.
Because it was, the God-given and unalienable right to life is a political principle rooted in the Christian theology of God, human nature and redemption. And, the fact that even the secular professors have concluded that America was founded by a covenant with God as well as a social contract further supports the Christian theological view underlying their founders’ natural law philosophy, which supplied the principles of our national Constitutional compact.
Because human life is eternal, the Right to Life is the most important issue.
Smarty the Sarah
By Jim Robbins
Sarah Palin’s critics routinely mock her intellect, so when the state of Alaska released 24,000 emails she wrote while serving as governor, “AOL Weird News,” an offbeat component of AOL.com, had a representative sample analyzed to see how well she wrote. They expected the results to confirm their anti-Palin bias, but they were in for a surprise.
Far from being an illiterate bumpkin, the standard Flesch-Kincaid readability test showed that Ms. Palin’s emails were written at an 8.5 grade level. This was “an excellent score for a chief executive,” AOLWN reported. To put some perspective on this number, Martin Luther King’s August 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech — much more heavily edited than Ms. Palin’s emails — ranked at 8.8 on the same scale, while Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address came in at 9.1.
A study by Smart Politics on the readability ratings of recent State of the Union addresses also showed Ms. Palin in good company. President George H.W. Bush’s average SOTU score was 8.6. Bill Clinton came in at 9.5. Ronald Reagan, who like Ms. Palin was heavily criticized by liberals and regarded as a doddering old fool, logged an impressive 10.3 rating. And George W. Bush, who earned even more left-wing contempt than Mr. Reagan, if that’s possible, edged the Great Communicator with a10.4 ranking.
Then there is President Obama, heralded as the smartest president and the most gifted orator in living memory, but whose 2008 “Yes we can!” victory speech came in at a comparatively anemic Flesch-Kincaid rating of 7.4. Some numbers just speak for themselves.
James S. Robbins is senior editorial writer for foreign affairs at the Washington Times. His latest book is “This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive,” published by Encounter Books. He can be contacted at jrobbins@washingtontimes.com.
Leave a comment
Posted in politics, research
Tagged commentary, IQ, Sarah Palin, writing analysis