Takes from the 858

Every Child is Deserving

2011-06-28T08:13:00.000-07:00

Every child deserves a mommy and a daddy.

Every child deserves a mommy and a daddy who have covenanted to a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman that is called marriage.

The role of mommy is unique and is best performed by women.

The role of daddy is unique and is best performed by men.

Mommies are in the best position to teach children about women in society.

Daddies are in the best position to teach children about men in society.

Do you agree--that while these statements are high and lofty, they still describe what is best for children?

I understand that this is the ideal. I understand that, sadly, divorce does happen. I understand that many children have only one parent, or two sets of parents. I understand that many children only have grandparents or foster parents. I understand that some children are living in a home where the adults are in a same-sex relationship.

But shouldn't the ideal--that every child deserves both a mommy and a daddy--serve as the standard?

Apparently, the governor and a majority of lawmakers in the state of New York do not.

Apparently, they believe that not every child is deserving of both a mommy and a daddy; or they believe that since not every child has both a mommy and a daddy who have covenanted to the lifelong relationship between a man and a woman that is marriage, that the standard must then be lowered.

That's because last Friday, June 24, at the 11th hour, they passed a law that radically redefined marriage in their state. By doing so, they issued a strong statement: that not all children are deserving of both a mommy and a daddy. That these roles are not unique to gender--that women make better mommies, and men make better daddies.

Those of us who oppose any and all attempts to redefine marriage do so because we are convinced that every child deserves a mommy and a daddy who are living together in a lifelong relationship.

Those who seek to redefine marriage are making a statement about children by advocating a redefinition of terms. They are making one or more of the following statements:

Not every child is deserving of a mommy and a daddy--that there are some children who are less deserving of a mommy and a daddy than others;
A daddy is not as important as a mommy--that women can be daddies just as well as men...or;
A mommy is not as important as a daddy--that men can be mommies just as well as women.

They, of course, will deny making such statements. Yet in the next breath they will say that every child needs two parents--not necessarily one woman as the mommy and one man as the daddy.

They will contend that by redefining marriage, we will be teaching all children to be tolerant and accepting of people who are different than themselves.

That argument, however, is undone by the subsequent lawsuits that have been and will be filed against those who refuse to accept a redefinition of marriage for religious reasons. What they are really saying is that we tolerate and accept all people except those who have different values and beliefs than those deemed "acceptable."

Regardless, the following questions remain to be answered for the proponents of marriage redefinition:

Does every child deserve a mommy and a daddy, or not?
Does every child deserve a mommy and a daddy who covenant to live together in a lifelong relationship?
Is the role of mommy best performed by women?
Is the role of daddy best performed by men?
Are mommies in the best position to teach children about women in society?
Are daddies in the best position to teach children about men in society?

Our answers on this side are clear. It's time that marriage redefinition proponents make theirs clear as well.

The Courage of Conviction

2010-09-07T09:50:00.001-07:00

On August 21, Mohamed Ali Garas, a prominent Somali church leader and convert from Islam, was beaten by Muslims in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, according to International Christian Concern.

Mohamed was walking to his new home when two Somali Muslim men struck him on the head with a wooden club and knocked him to the ground. The men continued hitting and kicking him in the chest and stomach. Mohamed had fled to Ethiopia from Somalia in 2005 after Somali authorities attempted to arrest him. He had recently moved to a new neighborhood in Addis Ababa because Somali Muslims threatened to attack him. At last report, Mohamed was being treated at a local hospital for his injuries, which included a damaged kneecap.

In parts of the world like Somalia and Ethiopia, identifying oneself as a follower of Jesus Christ is more than a life-changing experience. It can be harmful or fatal. Yet people like Mohamed Ali Garas are willing to lay their lives on the line. The reason: they are convinced that there is no other way to experience peace with God except through faith in Jesus Christ. They are convinced of this truth that they are willing to risk everything—their jobs, their family, their home, their very lives—because of this faith in Christ.

Contrast that with the freedom and liberty that followers of Jesus Christ find in the United States. Identifying oneself as a follower of Jesus is not a life-threatening activity. In most instances, identifying oneself as a Jesus follower in the United States creates practically no reaction or response at all.

What does get many Americans upset is when Jesus' followers stand up and live out their convictions. Those followers are labeled as "extremist," or "fanatical," or "fundamentalist." But as long as those followers keep their convictions to themselves, and not bring them out for public consumption…as long as those followers keep those convictions "personal views," and not try to advocate a public embrace of those views, they are somewhat tolerated.

But should those Jesus followers stand up and emphatically declare that those convictions of theirs are worth protecting in the public square, they become unpopular. Shunned. Criticized in various forms of media. Not exactly getting clubbed and kicked, is it?

Why is it, then, that more Jesus followers in America don't stand up and identify themselves with Christ? Why is it that instead of emphatically declaring that Jesus Christ is the only way to experience peace with God, instead of standing up and declaring that the Bible is the only standard for living that works for a society, too many American Christians try to separate their "personal beliefs" from their "public policy?"

How many times have we heard from our government's elected officials, "Personally, I believe this viewpoint is right and good, but it should not be public policy."

Huh?

If the viewpoint is right enough and good enough for you, it should have sufficient value to be right and good for everyone else. If it's good enough for you to use as a life authority, it should be good enough for all of society to use.

The political position of, "Personally, I'm pro-life, but I don't want to impose my personal beliefs on everyone else," is tired. It's cowardly. It's inconsistent. I'm tired of politicians who lack the courage to vote their convictions because of their fear of political fallout.

Now I am learning that here in California, that we have legislators—legislators who claim to be in favor of strengthening traditional family values for the sake of children—who had actually voted NO on Proposition 8 in 2008. The reason: although personally believing that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, that government has no business making a law protecting that relationship.

Cowardly. Inconsistent. Disingenuine.

I have yet to hear any politician say, "Personally, I'm against raising taxes, but I don't want to impose my personal beliefs on everyone else." That's because no one would really believe the first part of that statement when that same politician votes to contradict that statement.

It is high time that every follower of Jesus in America—whether they be a pastor, an elected official, an educator, or anyone in any position—gain the courage to live out their convictions in their everyday lives. The time of keeping those convictions private is over.

When there are brothers and sisters in Christ like Mohamed Ali Garas risking their very lives in order to identify with Him worldwide, it is simply embarrassing to see the church in America try to compartmentalize their lives into the secular and the sacred. Now the very soul of America is in danger of decomposing to the point where God will remove His grace and mercy from it. We can no longer keep our views and values to ourselves.

The church has shirked its responsibility to be America's conscience for far too long. It is high time that the church—every member of the church—gain the courage to live out its convictions at this critical hour.

Long Live the King?

2010-08-06T13:25:00.000-07:00

By now, everyone has heard of Judge Vaughn Walker. I suspect that such notoriety was his intent from the beginning.

As you know, Vaughn Walker is a federal district court judge. As you know, he is also openly homosexual--by his own declaration, not by any investigative reporting. And, as you know, he is now the judge that will be known for declaring Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California state constitution--formerly known as Proposition 8--to be in violation of the federal constitution.

You probably also know that Judge Walker conducted this lawsuit hearing in some rather unusual manners for a federal court case...allowing for opening and closing remarks from both plaintiff and defendant, allowing for witnesses, ordering defendants' personal email messages to be made available for evidence (but not plaintiffs' email messages until ordered to do so by the appellate court). Perhaps the most outrageous decision he rendered--before August 4, anyway--was his decision to allow television cameras in the courtroom. Not only was such a decision unheard of in a federal case such as this, but its intent was obvious: it was to intimidate and silence the potential witnesses for those defending Prop 8.

All of that merely served as the opening act for what would prove to be one of the most predictable decisions in American history, the equivalent of predicting in which sky the sun would rise. As we waited for the better part of 8 months for this verdict, we discovered that it had all of the suspense of an announcement of water being wet.

Why, then, are so many decrying this decision regarding Prop 8? The reasons are legion: the notion that a society is not qualified to define something as fundamental as what constitutes a family and a marriage. That one man alone stands qualified to define for hundreds of millions of people what marriage is. That one man alone can determine the intent of 7 million-plus voters as they voted to define marriage. That one man can arbitrarily conclude that voters who vote their religious values do so out of a willingness to harm other people. That one man can say what does and does not matter when defining marriage. That one man would have the hubris to declare arbitrarily what is and is not necessary to raise children. That one man would have the audacity to think that he can define society's norm for the world's lone superpower.

But there is more to this decision than just the attempt to redefine marriage. It is something far more sinister than even I initially thought.

One branch of government has grown to become completely out of control, and nothing is being done to correct it.

Now I understand that any time one side loses in a court case, the cries of judicial activism and the like are usually heard. And I am certain that, had the verdict gone the opposite direction, the other side would have been using the same criticisms.

But let me take you back to what some of the founding fathers of this country thought about the judicial branch of government:

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #78, believed that the judicial branch was "the weakest of the three departments of power," and that the "general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter."
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Jarvis in 1820, wrote, "To consider the [Supreme Court] judges the final arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have, with others, the same passion for party, for power and...privilege. Their power is more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
Thomas Jefferson again, in a letter to Abigail Adams in 1804, wrote, "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but the legislature and the executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

What Hamilton envisioned--the judicial branch being the weakest of the three branches of government--has now shifted 180 degrees. The judicial branch is by far the strongest of the three branches.

What Jefferson feared--that the judiciary would become a despotic oligarchy--has now become reality. The definition of marriage has been ripped out of the public arena (where it belongs) and into the hands of a select few people in black robes. Nine people in 1973 legalized the taking of innocent life. Nearly 40 years later, nine other people will determine what constitutes marriage and a family, and one of those judges (Anthony Kennedy) will likely be the majority maker of those nine.

In the meantime, Vaughn Walker has stepped up and cast aside the convictions and beliefs of 7 million California voters, along with the millions of voters of 29 other states who voted to protect the definition of marriage. He alone knows better than those 7 million-plus people who participated in the democratic process provided by law.

He has created yet another judicial monarchy. He is king, we are his subjects, end of story.

Long live King Vaughn?

Laws need to be passed that will give the people some recourse to reign in judges who show such disregard for the rule of law. Legislators are the ones who can pass such laws. Legislators are elected by the people. So people need to elect legislators who see and understand the nature of the monster that is the judicial branch of government, and who will work to establish a working set of checks and balances that will bring this monster under control.

But what good does voting do, when judges steamroll over your votes anyway?

The answer is to become even more informed, even more educated.

Writing to William Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson said it best: "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

We are going to continue to be plagued by this judicial oligarchy along with these individual monarchs, until we educate ourselves as to how to check and balance this branch. And that education needs to begin now.

"Preserving Democracy" a Wonderful Treatise--well, Almost

2010-07-28T16:22:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago, one of my Facebook friends messaged me, asking me if I would be willing to read a book that his company is publishing and write a review on my blog. Sure, I replied.

After several days, Elgin Hushbeck's tome Preserving Democracy arrived in the mail. Being a pastor who lends an eye and an ear to current events at every level, my antennae went up. I began to read, and re-read. I was impressed.

Hushbeck really did his homework, for the most part. He vividly described the Roman Republic--before it became an empire under the rule of the emperors--losing its way with regard to the level of democracy it tried to establish. The manner in which the Romans lost their republic are lessons for today's American citizen to carefully study.

Do not, however, presume Preserving Democracy to be merely a historical narrative of a form of government. Hushbeck constructed his book to be educational in a refreshingly realistic fashion, explaining how a free market society is to function as well as the inherent dangers of significant government intervention.

Hushbeck addressed a number of other issues in the book as well: the relationship between the legislative and the judicial branch, and how the judicial branch has risen in power that was never intended by the nation's founding fathers. He points out that the Founding Fathers actually saw the judicial branch as being the weakest of the three branches of government; the other two branches could simply choose to ignore the judicial branch if they were to so choose. That perspective has changed 180 degrees in 220+ years; now both branches are compelled to submit to the judicial branch, lest they be seen as ignoring the law.

It is that attitude that played into the lawsuit filed in federal court in 2009 regarding Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California state constitution, also known as Proposition 8 in its campaign phase. The rationale in play with this action is that the expressed will of over 7 million voters could be rendered meaningless by the opinion (and a little addition to--errr, a new, innovative, interpretation of the United States Constitution) of one single judge, or five justices. On August 4, 2010, we discovered thanks to one judge that sexual orientation is a protected minority group that is on a par with race and gender--the implication being that sexual orientation is as hereditary as race or gender. We also discovered that only certain people are allowed to vote their conscience or their values: those whose values agree with those of the judicial branch.

What to do with the runaway judicial branch?

I tend to agree with one of Hushbeck's ideas: limit who can bring lawsuits. Those lawsuits that would effectively transfer the enforcement powers of the government into the hands of individuals (read: judges) should be banned. The legislative and executive branches of government could pass such laws. But it will never happen.

The reason? Money. Follow the money.

The government is comprised mainly of lawyers. Lawyers who make their money in courtrooms--filing lawsuits. Lawyers voting to take money out of their own pockets? Not going to happen.

But I digress--to a degree. Back to the book.

I like what Hushbeck has written. He has done his homework. He has worked systematically and arrived at solid conclusions. He "gets it." Anyone reading Preserving Democracy will learn something new, and pick up a little inspiration in the process.

Umpire Jim Joyce: A Role Model?

2010-06-03T08:32:00.000-07:00

Even if you're not a sports fan, there is a huge life lesson for all of us that comes from the world of sports in an event that happened last night.

Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers was on the verge of baseball history last night. He was one out away from pitching a perfect game--27 batters up, 27 batters down--against the Cleveland Indians.

At bat for Cleveland was Jason Donald, who hit a sharp ground ball wide of first base. The Tigers' Miguel Cabrera moved to snag the grounder and made the throw to Galarraga, who was running to cover first base. Galarraga caught the ball, stepped on the bag one step ahead of Donald. Game over? Perfection? Eyes went to the first base umpire, Jim Joyce, for the call.

Safe.

Galarraga slowly walked back to the mound with a smile on his face. Jason Donald put his hands on his helmet in disbelief. Tigers manager Jim Leyland came out to protest.

Galarraga retired the next batter to win the game. But it was then that seemingly all of Detroit--the Tigers' manager, players, and fans--rained their displeasure, bitterness, and anger on Joyce.

Afterwards, Joyce went back to the umpires' locker room and asked the locker room attendant to cue up the video of that play. There he clearly saw what he did not see the first time: Galarraga clearly beating Donald to the bag.

Jim Joyce was at a crossroads. He had a number of reaction options from which to choose. He could have avoided all contact with reporters; he could have adamantly stood by his call, even though he could see that it was wrong; he could have issued a public statement acknowledging his blunder and including a public apology.

Or he could have "manned up" and owned his mistake.

He chose the latter.

He left his locker room to make his way to the Tigers' locker room, asking to see Galarraga. When he did, he looked the pitcher in the eye, admitted his mistake, and expressed his sincere and profound regret.

Then he went to the media room for the postgame press conference. Using words that had to be bleeped out, Joyce publicly "owned" his blunder, acknowledging the fact that it cost a young pitcher a place in baseball history in the process. Listen for yourself.

Now understand something: plenty of umpires have made plenty of bad calls throughout history. And umpires never apologize for them. They either stand behind their bad call, or they issue some written press release acknowledging that they may have made a bad call.

I don't know about you, but Joyce's actions spoke volumes to me. To see someone make a mistake under such public scrutiny is enough to make one cringe. But to see the one who made that mistake come right back out and wear that mistake, calling it his own, right in front of multitudes of people who are angry and upset with his mistake, was bold. It was refreshing. It was a life lesson.

People are always looking for role models--especially kids. And contrary to popular belief, kids are not looking for perfection. They know all too well that no one is perfect. They know that they will never be perfect; they really don't expect adults to be perfect.

What they are looking for is a role model who will show them what to do when they make a mistake. So they need to see how to "own" their mistakes. They need to see an acknowledgement that a mistake has been made--and there is no one else to blame but themselves for it (as contrasted to too many in government positions who prefer to shift the blame over to someone/something else). They need to see how one goes about in doing everything possible to correct the problem.

Did Joyce's act have an impact on Galarraga? Check for yourself by listening to Galarraga's reaction to Joyce's gesture.

There have only been 20 perfect games in Major League history. This year, there have already been 2 perfect games, the first year that more than one perfecto has been thrown. This would have been the third.

Can you name all 20? Neither could I.

But can you name the umpire that stepped up and owned his mistake that cost a young pitcher a perfect game, and set an example for all of us to follow when we make mistakes on our respective jobs?

I can: Jim Joyce. Props to you, Jim.

It’s Time to Do Something about This

2010-03-03T10:02:00.001-08:00

The news of Poway High School senior Chelsea King's brutal murder was as infuriating as it was horrifying. I'm guessing you don't need to be a parent or grandparent of a teenager to experiencing the sickening feeling that there is absolutely nowhere in this world where it is safe for a child to be alone.

The reality of being the parent of teenagers causes Chelsea's murder to perhaps hit closer to home than most. To picture my daughter going through those horrifying moments before her life was mercilessly snuffed out—sorry, I can't do it without becoming emotional. But as horrifying as this was, it was equally as infuriating.

The cause for the anger rests in the fact that this murder could have been prevented. Facts continue to come out about the accused killer, John Albert Gardner III. The fact that Gardner was convicted in 2000 for molesting a 13-year-old girl, initially charged with enough violent sex crimes that would have put him in prison for over 30 years, and was able to plead out so that his sentence was somehow reduced to six years. The fact that Gardner only spent five years in prison, and completed probation in 2008. The fact that Gardner only had to register as a sex offender in Escondido, yet was not outfitted with any kind of tracking device as to his whereabouts.

Some may react by saying, "Look, he did the crime; he did the time. Time to move on." However, crimes like this are distinctly different than other crimes. Sexual predators like this do not rehabilitate. That much was said by the psychologist who interviewed Gardner prior to his release on parole. That psychologist warned that because of Gardner's "lack of remorse for his actions" that he would pose a "continued danger for underage girls." Yet in spite of this pointed warning, John Albert Gardner III was released back into society. And now, the published evidence surrounding Chelsea's horrifying murder points to this man about whom the courts were warned.

The amazing thing about what happened is that since the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin, John Albert Gardner III could receive forgiveness for this horrific action by putting his trust in Jesus Christ as his Savior. Think about that for a moment; it truly is Amazing Grace!

However, although Jesus can (and does) forgive all sin, He does institute governments to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. And this behavior is about as bad as it can get; one is hard-pressed to describe a crime more heinous than robbing the innocent life of a child. Yet in our country, we have seen far too many cases of sexual predators being released back into society to repeat their crimes—and too many times leading to the death of an innocent child. Why do we see more compassion in our courts for criminals than we do for victims of these crimes? We need judges who will see their role to protect the liberties of citizens by enforcing the law as needed.

It's one thing to rant and rave about injustice; it's another thing to do something about it.

For far too long, I have felt powerless to do anything about this (maybe you have as well). Not anymore. Now, I know where I can go to get information that will help me elect solid judges who will protect our liberties.

I can go to BetterCourtsNow.com and get that information. I can find judicial candidates that see the role of a judge the way I see that role. I want to encourage you to go to BetterCourtsNow.com and register your support.

It may not seem like much, but if everyone did a little, a lot would get done. We just might save the life of someone's daughter.

And Justice for All...except those Jesus Freaks

2010-01-08T09:55:00.000-08:00

If you have been following the ongoing battle over the definition of marriage in our nation, you know that January 11 will see the opening of a federal trial that could be another proverbial "shot heard 'round the world."

And, I will add, rarely if ever has a trial been more biased.

Starting next Monday, federal judge Vaughn Walker will begin the trial on the federal lawsuit brought by reknowned attorneys Ted Olsen and David Boies on the claim that California's Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution by denying some their civil rights. Judge Walker begins a trial--on a lawsuit where typically written then oral arguments are submitted, then a decision is announced--that is seeking not to uncover truth but to destroy it. A trial that seeks not to merely redefine an institution but to destroy and obliterate the affirmation of Jesus Christ in the public square.

Think that's a little harsh and over the top? Consider the following unprecedented steps this judge has taken:

Consenting to the plaintiffs' request for a full trial with witnesses, where precedent has only gone as far as written and oral arguments to be presented before a decision is announced;
Ordering the private email correspondence of Prop 8 supporters in order to determine whether or not there was malicious intent on their part--a clear violation of the federal constitution, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed;
Consenting to the live telecasting of the trial, without giving the defendants any opportunity to appeal, the intent of the telecast being clearly to intimidate the Prop 8 supporters and subjecting them to the same kind of violence and hatred in the aftermath of Prop 8's passage in 2008;

Don't let anyone fool you on the two-fold intent of this trial. It is not merely to redefine marriage--not just for California, but for the entire nation--it is to silence active Christians and criminalize any attempt to bring values based on biblical principles into the public square.

If you have never seen a Kangaroo Court in action, then tune in. It'll make the O.J. trial look normal.

Brit Hume has taken a lot of heat for his comments on the Tiger Woods saga. On a Fox News panel, he said that Christianity would offer Tiger forgiveness he would not find in Buddhism, which is said to be his religion of choice. As a result, Hume has been the target of a withering wave of criticism and attacks from his media colleagues.

Ann Coulter wrote a brilliant article in response. Check out the article.

Never thought you'd see the day where it would be criminal to follow Jesus in America? Me neither; but now I'm wondering...

The Red Flag of National Health Care

2009-09-06T10:20:00.000-07:00

“For government is God’s servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong…” Romans 13:4 (HCSB)

At the risk of being perceived by some as “political”—despite the reality of this verse in Romans that explicitly declares the role of human government in God’s creation, and despite the fact that God has ordained His church to be the moral compass of such government, directing as to what is right and what is wrong—I must weigh in on the most pressing debate in our country in 2009: the health care issue.

It’s known as HR 3200, a 1,000-page tome that essentially creates a health care system operated by the federal government and funded by we the taxpayers. Cost estimates for this system range upwards into the trillions of dollars—more money than we can fathom with our limited minds.

The debatable details of this proposed health care system almost seem infinite. But as I have read through a fairly good portion of this bill, one issue became a glaring red flag in my mind: the sanctity of human life.

And I don’t see where this bill views all of human life as sacred and worth preserving.

To what do I refer?

Section 122 of the bill [Section 122 (b)(8)] describes minimum care that would be covered would include “preventive services.” These “preventive services” would be recommended by a Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services.

Sounds harmless enough, right?

Ah, now here is where more is said by what is not written than by what is written. “Preventive Services” could be defined by some—especially given the position of the current White House administration—to include elective pregnancy termination, or abortion. Follow me with this line of thought:

Someone in the White House will be selecting this Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services. Is it not reasonable to conclude that this Task Force will include someone with ties to Planned Parenthood?

If that is the case, is it not reasonable to conclude that this Task Force would see elective abortion as a “preventive service?”

And, if HR 3200 is the reform on American health care that would create a government-run health care option, then Section 122 (b)(8) would open the door for elective abortion to be funded with taxpayer money.

And, because there is nothing in this bill that specifically excludes abortion as a funded service, and since the Supreme Court has already said that since abortion was not specifically excluded in the United States Constitution and is therefore a constitutionally protected right, you can be assured that should this bill be signed into law, your money and mine will go to funding elective abortions on a national level.

I have to say, I have a hard time trusting a government that does not view all of human life as being sacred and precious, especially when that government desires to enter whole-hog into the health care industry. And if that government cannot produce a health care takeover bill that specifically excludes federally funding abortion, what else in that bill would demonstrate little regard for the preciousness of human life?

Again, it all comes back to the issue of personhood. When does a human become a person? We have a president who admitted that such a question is above his pay grade, yet he is dictating national policy that declares the unborn the right of personhood. This president desires to install a public health care system that will be administered by like-minded officials. And if they agree that the unborn are not persons, who else will lose their personhood status? The terminally ill? Those on long-term life support?

A slippery slope indeed. I want no part of it.