Created Equal....the Pursuit of Life

Senator Obama’s position on infant human rights is well known. We analyzed his illogical declaration in support of abortion here. Senator Biden is pro-choice for women, but pro-death for potentially any of the unborn. Senator Pelosi is ardently pro-choice, anti-life, stating the beginning of human life cannot be known. Both Obama and Pelosi took paragraphs to give convoluted explanations that did not answer Pastor Rick Warren’s or Tom Brokaw’s simple question.

Senator John McCain, presumptive GOP presidential nominee, answered Pastor Rick Warren’s question, "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?" with a quick, short, decisive response, "At the moment of conception."

Senator McCain’s love and respect for life wears shoes in his daily life, in the person of his adopted daughter.

"John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her."

And nominee McCain’s selected VP running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, respects equality and the life of the unborn as well.

"Four months into her most recent pregnancy, Palin learned the child would have Down syndrome, and she said she never had any doubts about whether she would have the baby.

"We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential," Palin told AP earlier this year in describing what she and her husband had confronted. Trig, her fifth child, was born in April."

The contrast between the Democrat and Republican presidential/vice presidential ticket cannot be sharper. One provides no hope for the unborn and possible terminal change. The other provides hope, dignity, respect, equality and the opportunity to pursue life. McCain and Palin value life, not just of the born, but of the pre-born.

I would never argue a president should be elected on the basis of one issue. But this year, there is a very stark contrast between the two contenders on this basic human right.

The McCain/Palin team, which recognizes equality and chooses life and the pursuit of life for all, can be trusted to provide national security which is the fundamental framework we need for the pursuit of happiness in post-natal life.

Do as I say, Not as I do

This seems to be a reccuring theme for Obama, who, like most liberals, think they need to make tons of rules for the rest of us, but not themselves. "...the choice could not be clearer...it starts with equal pay." So says Obama, trying to illustrate the differences between him and Senator McCain. He did so quite beautifully...'eloquently', if you must. Here's the scoop on the two senator Presidential Candidates:

"On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator." CNSNews.com reports of their own findings. "Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman."

In contrast, women outnumbered men on McCain's Senate payroll by 30 to 16. The women were paid an average of $3,000 more than the men.

Well put senator Obama.

Unalienable Rights

Thomas Jefferson declared:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Today we hear much about human rights and far too little about unalienable rights. What are human rights? Here is a dictionary definition:

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

If the word human is stuffed with the above concepts, it might do the job. But imagine Jefferson writing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men have certain human Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The ring and cadence is gone. But more than that—the meaning is shot.

The Founding Fathers believed in unalienable rights, not human rights. There is a difference. "Human" says the rights belong to human beings and not much more. The word says nothing about the divine origin of the rights. The word says nothing about the inviolability of those rights.

When used in some settings, the word "human" focuses attention on those who have rights, not on the Giver of those rights. In other contexts, the rights are understood to be those granted by government. This suits the anti-God crowd just fine for they love words that are devoid of God-talk. It suits big government types because they view government as the fountain of all rights. Unfortunately, both views go hand-in-hand because big government advocates do not have room in their universe for a God who endows all his creatures with unalienable rights.

Imagine the Founding Fathers proclaiming to King George that they had rights—human rights. On the one hand, the monarch would scoff that he had taken away any rights they imagined they had. On the other hand, the self-conceptualizing, ever-beneficent royalty would rebuke them for not recognizing he grants rights to his subjects.

The word unalienable is a necessary modifier of rights. Jefferson told King George all men are endowed with unalienable rights, rights that are not alienable or capable of being sold or transferred. They are absolute, unchangeable, inherent, indigenous, intrinsic, native. They are inviolable, that is, not capable of being violated or infringed.

Life is a right that government cannot grant. Only God can endow each of his creatures with life. Government can destroy that life in this life, therefore, the Declaration argues, ". . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . ."

Government cannot endow a person with liberty. God endows each of his equally created creatures with liberty. Government can impinge that liberty, therefore, ". . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . ."

Governments and governors (of whatever variety) must recognize that the governed and the governors are created equal by God who endowed both with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Any other view will lead to despotism. King George had violated this fundamental fact and therefore they charged him with about two dozen wretched violations of their God-given rights which in their minds entitled them to declare independence. They were uninterested in human rights.

Independence from Bondage

We return once again to the concept of freedom on this our nation’s birthday. Two hundred and thirty-two years ago today, the thirteen colonies declared themselves free. Many of our great-great-great-great-grandfathers subsequently served as Minutemen to back up that declaration with force. That’s a mere seven generations back from us.

While there were many Tories and Loyalists, the desire to be free predominated and they declared:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Liberty was conceived to belong to the individual, not classes of men, but one class—all men—composed of individuals each of whom are equal and therefore cannot be put into distinguishing classes.

The Founding Fathers did not think like modern liberals who conceive of classes, not individuals. The "all men" are differentiated into groups. There are the bashable males and the favored females—the homosexuals and the homophobes—the GLBT and the straight—the rich and the poor—the guilty white and the downtrodden black—the haves and have nots—and endlessly more. Some classes have more rights than others. Some have entitlements. Some classes must dole out limited wealth, limited power and limited position to other classes. And there is definitely the ruling class who approach the realm of royalty to govern the serfs who must remain a subservient class with ever-outstretched, receiving hands which also vote to keep the ruling class in power.

That was not the conception of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration. The revolutionaries said all men are created equal. Station in life was not considered. The titles of Lords and Ladies and Earls and Kings and Queens were deliberately excluded from American thought. In fact, they intended to declare that they themselves, and all colonists, were equal with King George before God as human beings.

Now this was taken as an audacious claim by Loyalists who still thrived on the divine right of kings. The top down approach engenders snobbery which is propped up with the idea that they are created more equal than others. The bottom up approach embraces the dignity of man derived from the creative hand of God and then out of humility before God dares tell a king that he is no different before God than they, all the while respecting his power to destroy them, though not the right.

Living out the principles of individual endowed freedom is attempting to live the way the Creator intended his creatures to live. It is a mission not to insult our Creator by living less than he designed for us. It is a conscious recognition and acknowledgment that God endowed me with certain unalienable rights. But further, that God endowed everyone else with those same rights.

Our Founding Fathers did not view themselves as a class of victims when they confronted the King with his ". . . repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." No, they put themselves into the same class as the King. King or not, he was a man among equally created men who failed to recognize he was a mere man among equal men.

The Founders conceived of one class composed of all individuals, each of whom was endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were not attempting to do away with distinctions such as station in life, male or female, the governors and the governed, the teacher and student, the judge and the criminal, which are all incidental to being equal before God. Being governed by a king was not odious to them. They took great pause before throwing off familiar government (". . . Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient cause. . ."). However, being governed by a king unjustly was insulting to their God-given rights of self-determination.

The principles found in this one sentence in the Declaration of Independence, have been abandoned by the very party which the Democrats claim Thomas Jefferson founded. Today, Democrat thinking creates class warfare and an entitlement mentality that Jefferson hated. Sad to say, many Republicans are not much better. When we remove the endowing Creator from our thinking, we will keep moving away from divinely created equality into governmentally created egalitarianism, which the Founders hated with a passion. The one brings freedom; the other creates bondage.