Clinton Or Lincoln?

BY RYAN BOMBERGER. There are times in political discourse when you realize that there is a barrier so high it seems insurmountable. That barrier is delusion.

Democrats — no matter how many times they invoke Abraham Lincoln — are not the Party of Lincoln. Eric Sapp gives in to that chronic compulsion by comparing Lincoln to Clinton. Hillary doesn't even feign to be a moderate on the issue of abortion, so I want to believe it was a comedic attempt at hyperbole.

In the seventh session of the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, the eventual history-making Lincoln declared: "I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental Government, and from our ancestors."

Hillary doesn't regard abortion as evil. She sees it as "equality".

It is true that during Lincoln's first inaugural address, in a crucial and desperate attempt to preserve a crumbling Union, he assured Americans of his intentions with slavery: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists."

Justice is always an incremental thing. Sapp completely misrepresents Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps he's not aware that Lincoln advocated for the emancipation of slaves in 1849 when he was a senator. As president, he signed DC's Compensated Emancipation Act on April 16, 1862 freeing 3,100 slaves in the nation's capital — nearly a year before he issued an Executive Order freeing slaves in rebel states via the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Lincoln's evolutionary trajectory moved towards more humanity, not away from it. Playing a vital role in that was a man Lincoln valued as a friend and an advisor — Frederick Douglass — a former biracial slave who was conceived in rape. Douglass helped to reshape the wartime President's conscience on slavery's war against humanity and helped to transform the president into a staunch abolitionist.

Clinton, a Democrat (who claimed that she dodged bullets on a tarmac) doesn't believe that we're all created equal. She is more willing to risk the lives of women to protect the violent and corrupt institution of abortion (especially abortion giant Planned Parenthood which funds her campaign) that dehumanizes and kills and sells those, in whole or in parts, deemed less than human. Lincoln, a Republican (whose life was taken by a real bullet), believed that we're all created equal. He was willing to risk his very life to end the violent institution of slavery that dehumanized and killed those who were deemed less than human.

Scripture tells us "putting away lying, let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor," yet Eric Sapp's articles continue to promote lies disguised as "honest dialogue."

Hillary Clinton radically supports abortion without any restrictions. She plainly said in her last debate, in response to Trump's remarks on late-term abortion: "The government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families, in accordance with their faith, with medical advice, and I will stand up for that right."

Clinton invoked Roe v. Wade as the ruling which held that the "life and the health of the mother" is to be protected. It was Doe v. Bolton that explained what that phrase actually meant: "… medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

This ruling, in conjunction with Roe, allowed abortion through the entire pregnancy, for any reason, including partial birth abortion.

Medical judgment should always be used to sustain and protect all lives, in and out of the womb.

"This naked emperor is parading around for all of us to see if we'd only look," Sapp writes as a Democrat who will never show what abortion actually looks like.

We have, as a culture and as a Church, anesthetized ourselves to the reality of abortion, keeping it in the abstract to assuage our feelings. This is what Clinton defends (warning, this is extremely graphic … this is abortion).

I did find a speck of common ground between Sapp and I. A 100% Voting Record shouldn't be bestowed upon anyone who votes for exceptions. But, even as someone who was conceived in rape, I will passionately take a 99% prolife voting record over anyone's (including Hillary Clinton's) 0% prolife voting record.

Sapp's condemnation of Republican pro-life bills is bizarre, considering they are the only attempts at legislating any restrictions on abortion. Yes, numerous times, the GOP has caved by adding the exceptions but they've acted to protect the other 99%. The Democrat Party, with the exception of a handful of pro-life Democrats, have acted to protect abortion-on-demand 100% of the time.

Sapp won't mention the many federal and statewide efforts of Democrats to protect the abortion industry. He doesn't call them out for attempting to repeal the Hyde Amendment and enabling Planned Parenthood to receive even more taxpayer dollars for abortions. Or, how about the deceptively named Women's Protection Act, a Democrat bill to prevent any government restrictions on abortion?

California recently passed the dishonest Reproductive FACT Act, forcing pregnancy resource centers to promote and refer for abortion. New York's pro-abortion Democrats tried, unsuccessfully, to decriminalize all abortions (making it legal through the entire pregnancy), eliminate any regulations of abortionists or abortion facilities, eliminate an "unborn child" from homicide crime codes, and remove the ability to charge abortionists with involuntary manslaughter if they kill a woman during an abortion. This failed bill is called the Reproductive Health Act.

There's a reason why Sapp is silent about pregnancy care centers. Democrat politicians oppose them. There's a reason why Sapp is silent about government-imposed fatherlessness. Democrat leaders depend upon it. There's a reason why Sapp is silent about the failed War on Poverty. Democrat politicians are still waging that same impoverishing battle against families and communities.

My allegiance is, first and foremost, to Christ, not to a political party and especially not to a man I never supported. American politics, as it is, has delivered two disgraceful candidates vying for the most powerful leadership position in the world. But I'll take the "Party of Trump," any day, over the Party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, same-sex "marriage," forced speech, LGBT fascism, the climate con, and abortion-on-demand.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/lincoln-hopeful-liberator-hillary-clinton-hopeless-liberal-abortion-171331/#hKzMrz8HjQrHgegC.99