As presidential hopefuls throw their hats in the ring, one might think that there would be an obvious choice to become our next president. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look that way. We must remember that Jesus Christ is not on the ballot, and therefore, no candidate is perfect. Hence, every election, for any office, becomes a vote for the lesser of the evils (man is inherently evil, you know).
When seeking a future president (or any other elected official) our selection really should be based on the job description outlined for the position. Just as human resource interviewers try to find the best applicant to hire for the job in question, we, the people, should find the candidate who best meets the criteria found in the job description. Just where is this job description? The Constitution!
Article II outlines the guidelines for the president carefully. It is the responsibility of the voter to then read this description and determine who best fits the job.* You’ll notice that nowhere in Article II, or anywhere else in The Constitution, is there any indication that the president should play a role in any social issue. The job description outlined concerns matters of national security, head of the armed forces, give a speech on the state of the union once in a while, appoint ambassadors to other nations, and serve as the figurehead who receives foreign dignitaries. That is all!
Unfortunately, our past choices for president have led us to where we are today. The ills of federal overreach are not restricted to Congress, but we have permitted the Supreme Court and the Chief Executive to stick their noses into matters in which they should never be seen for so long that members of each branch now do this as a matter of course.
So at this point, it is up to the voters to do their homework and research each candidate carefully to inspect for evidence that they may bring more to the office than what we want. As previously posted, the only social issue that any candidate should address is their position on life. Why? Life is the most important issue. How we treat our very most vulnerable, those who cannot possibly defend themselves, speaks volumes as to who we are as a people. If you can’t get this issue right, then you cannot be trusted with any other. A nation will be judged by how they treat their very old and very young.
It is for this reason that we have four Democrat candidates for whom we cannot vote.
- Hillary Clinton – In 2005, Clinton expressed her support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. As a senator, Clinton was given a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.She voted against H.R.1997 – the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which recognized an unborn child as legal victim, and made it a crime to commit an act of violence against and unborn child. It became law on April 1, 2004. **
- Bernie Sanders – voted against H.R.1833 – the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995, which proposed making it a crime to perform a partial-birth abortion, “except where such an abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice.”**
- Martin O’Malley – O’Malley clarified his stance in favor of abortion to Planned Parenthood in 2002. In 2014, he was honored by Planned Parenthood of Maryland with the Betty Tyler award, at their ninth Annual Spring Gala. For the most recent Americans United for Life List, Maryland came in the Top 10 list of worst states, and has consistently done so during O’Malley’s time in office.***
- Lincoln Chafee – On his exploratory committee website, Lincoln Chafee stated he “strongly support a woman’s right to make her own personal reproductive decisions. In 2003, Chafee voted against S 3 – Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibited partial-birth and later-term abortions in most situations. The bill became law on November 5, 2003. **
The statements above are all factual and are taken directly from the candidates themselves, based on their voting record, or from their presidential candidacy website. They are all pro-abortion candidates. In striving for the pro-life cause, I have had the opportunity to work with several pro-life Democrats. There was a time when I didn’t believe that “Democrat” and “pro-life” could be in the same sentence in reference to the same person. I now know this to be false. There are pro-life Democrats, many who are leaders in their communities on behalf of women and the unborn. I’ve learned to have a great deal of respect for these activists. They are standing against their national party platform on the most significant issue. This takes great strength of character. Sadly, none of the Democratic presidential candidates are pro-life. While I have yet to find that perfect candidate for whom to cast my vote, I’m certain it will be a pro-life Republican. It would be nearly impossible for anyone to find a candidate with whom they agree on every single issue, social or otherwise. But the issue of life is where I choose to draw my line.