Nearly 1 Million babies will be aborted in America this year!!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

REPUBLICANS ARE PRO-LIFE!

by Steve Fair

     The U.S. Constitution provides for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every American- except the unborn.  Since the Roe Vs. Wade ruling in 1973, the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that advocates on issues of sexual and reproductive health, calculates 54 million babies have been aborted in America.  The current population in the U.S. is 320 million, so America has aborted 17% of our population in the past half century.  Based on data from the Center for Disease Control, an estimated 977,000 abortions took place in 2014.  The CDC says that unmarried women account for 85.3% of all abortions. 

     The Guttmacher Institute found black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than white women.  According to blackgenocide.org, 15.5 million black babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade became the law of the land. The founder of the web site, Rev. Clenard Childress Jr. says, “Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions. On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.” 

     Both the Democrat and Republican Parties have strong language about abortion in their platforms.  The 2012 Democrat platform says: The Democrat 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. The 2012 Republican Party platform says: We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.  Four observations about the life debate:

     First, life begins at conception.  For years that was a heavily debated issue, but even the liberals now, for the most part, concede life has a beginning and it is at conception.  Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, said at a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing: “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.”  When an abortion is performed it terminates life.

     Second, God gives life.  While it is a women’s body and it can be debated if another person has a right to tell her what to do with it, clearly God does have that right.  He is the Creator and as such can dictate to his creatures.  Exodus 21, Psalms 139, and Jeremiah 1 are just some of the passages where the sanctity of life in the womb is addressed.  If Americans think God will bless our nation as we continue to kill those in the womb, they have little knowledge of who their Creator is.

     Third, politicians haven’t moved the needle much on this issue.  For decades, politicians on both sides of this issue passionately campaign on one side of the issue or the other, yet little has changed.  One side will gain a victory in legislation or in a court ruling and then the other side will win one.  But steadily each year nearly 1 million children die in America before they are given the chance to live.  More or better legislation may help, but as President Lincoln said about legislation:  "No law can give me the right to do what is wrong."  The real key to stopping abortion is reaching the women who are carrying the child and convincing them to choose life for the child.  Options such as adoption instead of abortion should be promoted and discussed. 

     Fourth, there is a clear difference in the two Parties on this issue.  Granted there are some Democrats who are pro-life, but why?  If your Party is wrong on this important issue, then why are you still aligned with that Party.  If you are a pro-choice Republican, why are you an R?  Align with the Party that agrees with you on the issues.  Where a person stands on when life begins is fundamental to defining them.  Party affiliation can be changed by visiting the Oklahoma State Election Board website and accessing the registration form or you can email hopecsut@gmail.com.

 

I've read the last chapter- God WINS!!!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

GOD WINS!

by Steve Fair

     Ronald Reagan once said, “I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.”   Across the country, there has been a consistent effort to have the Ten Commandments removed from public display.  Oklahoma is not an exception.  Last year, the state Supreme Court ordered the removal of the Decalogue monument from state property, citing the state constitution’s so-called Johnson amendment. 

      Last week, the Oklahoma state House of Representatives voted 86-10 to approve House Joint Resolution 1062.  If passed by the state Senate, it will place on the November ballot a state question that will remove the ‘Blaine’ amendment language from the state constitution.  State Representative Randy Grau, (R-Edmond) said the state high court’s ruling last year to remove the Ten Commandment monument from state property, created the need for HJ 1062.  “When we learned that the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the Ten Commandments monument removed from the Capitol, everyone was surprise. The ruling went against clear legal precedent supporting the placement of such monuments on government property. Our state’s highest court misinterpreted the Constitution, and we had no choice but to send the question to the people of Oklahoma regarding the public display of such monuments. Today, the House voted overwhelmingly to do that, ” Grau said.   It is very likely it will pass the Senate and we will be voting on it in the general election.  It should clearly be approved by the voters and here is why.

     First, the vast majority of Oklahomans support the public display of the Decalogue, aka the Ten Commandments.  When the court made the decision and cited the so-called Johnson amendment as justification for removing the monument, it created an uproar across the state.  Even citizens who weren’t political were outraged when the monument was removed.  At some point the people should have some input in a self-governing society and changing the state constitution to allow the public display would likely pass easily. 

     Second,  in 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in a 5-4 decision that having a Ten Commandments monument on state property did not violate the Establishment clause in the US Constitution.  In a case very similar to the one in Oklahoma, brought against the state of Texas, the SCOTUS ruled though the Commandments are religious, the plurality on the court argued, "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."   

     Third, perhaps some of Oklahoma’s leaders would actually read and study them if they were on display.  It is always humorous to watch politicians scramble to support the public display of the Decalogue when many couldn’t come up with half of the ten if asked.  Most are not aware of the real purpose of the law(10 commandments).  It is to show us how sinful we are before a holy God.  The commandments are rules that no one can keep- with the exception of Jesus Christ, the son of God.  When political leaders talk about them and say they keep them, they reveal their ignorance of the purpose of the law.  They need to read Galatians 3:24.  The Ten Commandments provide us a glimpse into the character of God.  It reveals to us what He hates and what He loves. 

    The real fight over the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with the principles or rules they enumerate.  It’s about God.  Without God, the Ten Commandments, and morality in general, are just a list of arbitrary rules. Unless there is a Higher Authority (God) behind the Ten Commandments, all right and wrong are just personal opinion and belief, subject to change.  That is what those who oppose having them displayed publicly are really saying- I will have no one to rule over me, including my Creator.  Fact is, God rules this earth, whether you believe it or not.  It matters not what the Gallup poll says, He wins.

      Contact your state senator and ask them to support HJR 1062.

Corrected version:  In my original post, I wrote that provision in the Oklahoma constitution that prohibits state pproperty or assets to be used by a religious institution to be the JOHNSON amendment.  Dr. Carolyn McLarty, National Committeewoman for the Oklahoma Republican Party, pointed out that is was the BLAINE amendment, not the Johnson amendment.  That is correct.  The Johnson amendment has to do with churches being used for campaigning.  I apologize for the error.  

Esteem others more than ourselves?? Come on!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

AMBITION VS. COVETOUSNESS

by Steve Fair

     Covetousness is defined as a strong desire to have that which belongs to another.  In the Bible, it is listed as one of the most grievous sins.  The opposite of covetousness is contentment in God.  When covetousness for gain increases, contentment in God decreases.  Covetousness is when we start to crave other things- usually those that belong to another- to satisfy the longings of our heart.

     Ambition is a derivative of a Latin word, amberae, which means ‘both or double minded.’  It was used to describe those who were double-minded or two faced.  It was applied to those who have absolutely no convictions, will would do or say anything to gain a selfish goal.  It was the word used in ancient Rome to describe Roman politicians, who would do anything to get votes.  Is ambition bad? Stephen Neill was a Scottish Anglican missionary to India in the twentieth century.  He said this about ambition: “I am inclined to think that ambition in any ordinary sense of the term is nearly always sinful. “  Is he right?  Is ambition to be avoided by Christians?  In a very real sense, Christ came to save us from our ambition, but is all ambition wrong?

     Ambition is defined by Webster as: a strong desire to do or achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work.  Synonyms of ambition are aspiration, yearning, longing, goal, aim, drive and force.  Ambition is applauded in the corporate, business and political world.  It is an attribute that most leaders in our world possess.  They are driven, goal oriented individuals who are focused and goal oriented.  Sad to say they are often willing to sacrifice their family and health to get to the next rung on the ladder.  Blind ambition is when ambition prevents people from seeing what’s happening around them.  Secular leaders often view blind ambition as a great trait to have.  Blocking out what is happening around us in order to do what seems impossible sounds like intense focus, but is also a trait for those with blind ambition.  But is ambition an attribute we should seek in a leader?

     Steven J. Law of the C.S. Lewis Institute sums up how Christians should view ambition:  “How do we purse goals in a God-honoring way?  How can we be ambitious without it corroding our souls?  The secret is summed up in how Paul used to describe ambition gone awry, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.”

     John MacArthur says the apostle Paul was perhaps the most ambitious man the world has ever seen.  His drive to kill Christians before his conversion was only exceeded by his drive to further the gospel after his conversion.  He made three very long missionary journeys, wrote half the New Testament, and spoke before thousands.  “Paul had three dimensions of godly ambition- he looked upward toward a higher calling, he looked outward to understand this world is temporal, and lastly he was motivated by depth for an eternal purpose,” MacArthur said. 

     Thomas Brooks, a Puritan preacher said this about ambition: “Blind ambition has caused many people to sell their souls, compromise their convictions, if they ever had any, violate their beliefs, sacrifice their character and use everybody in their way. And it is true. Ambition is often associated with pride, with sort of evil aggression, with self-centeredness. Ambition is often associated with people that we call driven people, who are utterly insensitive to the people around them, or anything but selfless servant leaders. Ambition could even be associated with the idea of being careless. And it very often leaves principles lying in the dust.”

     Amberae actually means in Latin(Ambition) to campaign for a promotion.  Politicians, fast trackers and hard chargers in business come to mind when you frame the word in that context.  Secular ambitious people seek power, position, fame, approval, and more money.  They will lie, cheat, steal, backbite, and gossip to win elections or get promoted.  Humility and integrity are not considered positive attributes for the blindly ambitious.   

     There is a fine line between ambition and covetousness.  Great leaders are not blindly ambitious and willing to do anything to get ahead.  As you vote in the upcoming elections, seek candidates who are not covetous, but exhibit the attributes of the leaders Moses appointed in Exodus 18. Those leaders were able, truthful, God fearing and not covetous(blindly ambitious).  Those are the kind of leaders we need in America.

ELECTIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

REMEMBER ROBERT BORK!

by Steve Fair

     For the next nine months, much will be said and written about appointments to the Supreme Court.  Already, both political Parties have staked out their positions.  President Obama says he has a constitutional duty to appoint a Justice to replace Antonin Scalia.  The Republicans in the U.S. Senate say they will not approve any appointment or even have a hearing to vote on a nominee until the next president is inaugurated. 

     Just hours after Scalia’s body was found, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, (R- KY), said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”  In response, President Obama said, "I am amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there.  I am going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat and any fair minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my politics would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court."

     Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said McConnell's move was "outrageous." "Elections have consequences," she said. "The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has  a responsibility to vote." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), indicated he has no plans to start up the confirmation process on his panel before next year.  "This president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda," Grassley said. "It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

     First, SCOTUS vacancies have gone longer than a year in the past.  In 1970, Harry Blackmun replaced Abe Fortas after just over a year.  President Tyler had the most difficult time getting appointments approved by the Senate.  One vacancy was open for over two years.  The Senate rejected a total of nine of Tyler’s appointments to the high court.  A Supreme Court vacancy in the final year of a president’s term is pretty rare.  Since 1900, it has happened only three times.  LBJ, in 1968 after he announced he wasn’t running for re-election.  Both of Johnson’s nominations- one for Chief Justice and another for Associate Justice- were rejected.   

     Second, elections do have consequences.  Secretary Clinton is absolutely right.  Republicans control the U.S. Senate and can block any nomination made by President Obama.  For years, there was an unwritten rule that any ‘qualified’ candidate for the high court would be confirmed.  Their ideology and positions on controversial issues would be secondary to their legal qualifications.  But the Democrats changed that in 1987.  Judge Robert Bork was an accomplished Circuit Court judge when President Reagan nominated him to the SCOTUS.  Within an hour of the announcement, then Senator Ted Kennedy, (D- MA) went on television to accuse Bork of envisioning an America “in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids.” Commercials were run by the Democrats featuring Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird attacking Bork’s ideology.  Bork’s nomination was defeated in the Senate 58-42.  The dictionary defines “to bork,” as: “to defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office.

     President Obama has the right to present a SCOTUS nominee to the Senate and the Senate has the responsibility to the American public to put the process on hold until after the next president is sworn in.  This is not unchartered water.  In our nation’s history, appointments to the high court have been a source of great controversy.   Elections do have consequences.  When Republicans took control of the Senate in November 2014, the American people were rejecting the liberal policies of the Obama administration.  Democrats can’t have it both ways.  McConnell and Grassley are right to wait until the next president is in office to make the appointment.  That means this election has more consequences than most.

Antonin Scalia was an ORIGINALIST!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

PROTECTOR OF CONSTITUTION DIES!

by Steve Fair

     After the death of Antonin Scalia, the senior Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, on Saturday, politicians from both sides of the aisle immediately begin to stake out their positions on the procedure to replace him and his possible replacement.  Even for politicians their behavior revealed an insensitive streak.  Would it have been too much to ask for a period of mourning out of respect for Scalia?  Couldn’t the politics have waited just a tad before they started talking about replacing him?  Scalia’s death marks only the second time in sixty years a Supreme Court justice has died in office.  He was 79.

     Scalia was a native of New Jersey, and a graduate of Georgetown and Harvard.  He taught law at the Universities of Virginia and Chicago.  He was a federal judge in DC for four years before President Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1986.   Scalia served thirty years on the highest court of the land.  He described himself as an ‘originalist and textualist,’ which meant he interrupted the Constitution from the position of the original intent of the writers.  Being a constitutional conservative is popular today among many in the Republican Party, but Scalia was that long before it became the rage.  His written opinions were universally viewed as some of the most scholarly in the legal profession’s history.  Scalia often filed separate opinions in many SCOTUS cases and often castigated the Court's majority in his minority opinions, using scathing language.   During oral arguments before the Court, he usually asked more questions and made more comments than any other justice.  The New York Times conducted a study in 2005 that found that Scalia provoked laughter more than any of the other justices- 19 times more than Justice Ginsburg.

     Justice Scalia was a friend to the unborn.  A devout Catholic, he wrote a dissenting opinion in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs Casey: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.  The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”  Scalia’s death comes when a case challenging Texas’ strict abortion laws comes before the high court.  Expected to be heard in March, Whole Woman’s Health vs Hellerstedt will likely deadlock the court 4-4, which means the lower court’s ruling will prevail.

    Scalia believed the second amendment of the Constitution protected the ‘individual’ right to keep and bear arms and was intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. He wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller:  “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

      Scalia’s wit was evident in many of his writings.  After the court ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, he wrote; “Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.  We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”  In a 2002 case, Republican Party vs White, Scalia wrote, “Campaign promises are, by long democratic tradition, the least binding form of human commitment.”  At a 2003 speech before the University of Chicago Law School he said, “You could fire a grapefruit out of a cannon over the best law schools in the country — and that includes Chicago — and not hit an originalist.”       

     Scalia wasn’t afraid to poke fun at himself as evidenced by this statement at his 1986 Senate confirmation hearing:  “In law school, I never understood [antitrust law]. I later found out, in reading the writings of those who now do understand it, that I should not have understood it because it did not make any sense then.”

     In an interview with Fox News Chris Wallace in 2012, Scalia was asked about his possible replacement.  He said, “Well of course. I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I’ve tried to do for 25–26 years. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that, unless you think I’m a fool.”  Scalia wasn’t a fool. 
      Antonin Scalia leaves behind his wife of fifty five years, nine children, and thirty six grandchildren.   He will be sorely missed by the nation he loved and served.   We should mourn his passing before we talk about replacing him.