March 2005 and we are bombarded with comments, suggestions and hints regarding who will battle for the President of the United States in November 2008. We are three and half years away from voting! President Bush has nearly four years left of administration. He has a far reaching, aggressive agenda. We really should be dominated by the careful scrutinizing of the presidents policies and plans, not focused on who might do what in 3 years. But that isn’t reality in American politics, is it?
So who might run for the GOP nomination? Rudolph Guliani, a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, social moderate? John McCain, a renegade, make-a-name-for-myself, self-styled, fiscal conservative? Tom DeLay, a purported conservative Christian who as blameless as Vito Corleone? Dr. Bill Frist, (now we are talking) a quiet, behind the scenes, tough negotiator, a fiscal conservative with an aggressive bent towards foreign policy!
All road appear at this point to be leading to the ever popular Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State. Dr. Rice is very diplomatic, aggressively conservative in foreign policy, and genuinely an expert in the region of the world that currently requires most of our foreign policy attention. She has a far reaching network of trusted advisors. She is academic, yet down to earth. She claims to be a born again Christian and her outwardly displayed fruits appear to back that claim. Admittedly, I do not know much about her domestic policy, specifically in regards to fiscal concerns (which incidentally is a major concern to me with the current administration). However, what I do know about her social policies is very disheartening.
Dr. Rice appeared with the ever smug Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday March 13. After making light work of Mr. Russert’s pointed questions regarding, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, and poppy in Afghanistan, she waffled on a vital social question of our day. Observe:
MR. RUSSERT: You told the Washington Times on Friday you were mildly pro-choice. What does that mean?
DR. RICE: It means that like many Americans I find the issue of abortion very difficult. I believe it ought to be as rare as possible. Nobody wants to see anyone go through that. I favor parental notification. I favor a ban on late-term abortion. But I, myself, am not a fan of the government intervening in the laws.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not outlaw it?
DR. RICE: No.
You can read the whole context at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7173024/.
When I heard Dr. Rice admit, without any hesitation at all, that she would not seek to outlaw the brutal practice of abortion, she lost my vote and all my support for the presidency. She is and will continue to be a very good Secretary of State, serving under the authority and administration of President Bush; however, I cannot support her as a presidential nominee.
But I must say that her response was not at all surprising. It is the prevalent mantra of the socially moderate and left leaning American. “It is a difficult issue.” “It should be as rare as possible.” When is murder a difficult issue? Rare? That’s like saying domestic abuse should be rare. The goal is the eradication of such brutal crimes, not a decrease in their occurrence. Dr. Rice went on to say that she doesn’t favor the “government intervening in the laws.” Is that not the God-ordained and constitutionally dictated role of the government? Isn’t that what the Congress is supposed to do? Article !, Section 8 of the constitution specifically state that the Congress “shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”
Someone should remind Dr. Rice of the Powers given to the Congress by the Constitution.
In reality, this is all irrelevant. We do not need the Congress to pass a law to ban murder. The laws regarding murder are already on the books. There never has been a law that makes abortion legal. There was an overreaching, legislative decision made by the Supreme Court that excused murder in the case of a child that is yet unborn. But there in no law originating in Congress (as the Constitution requires) for the legalization of murdering unborn humans. By calling abortion legal, we are buying in to the radical thought the judges can legislate from the bench. I just paused to reread Article III of the Constitution (that would be the section defining the role of the judiciary, in case you were unfortunate enough to attend one of most government schools that don’t teach our constitution anymore). The role of judges is not to make law. In fact it is not even to interpret law. The role of the judiciary is judicial. Profound? The Judicial branch the American government is called to enforce existing law. Our Supreme Court went beyond that reach by failing to enforce what had been the law of this land for 200 years. In fact, murder continues to be against any law in this country. We just don’t have a judiciary that will enforce the law. We don’t have legislature with enough will to exercise their Constitutional responsibilities.
I hope someone reminds Dr. Rice that our laws specifically forbid murder, including unborn humans. It is in fact the job of the government to intervene in the law, whether she favors it or not.
I cannot support Dr. Rice for President on the grounds that she fails to be willing to enforce the existing laws of the land and fails to recognize the right of all humans, even those as of yet unborn.
Let us pray that God will send a leader to our great land that has the wherewithal to lead, according to laws of the Constitution.
Grace to you!
No comments:
Post a Comment