Posted on 07/12/2009 9:15:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.
First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"
In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.
Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.
Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.
Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.
I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.
Let's be clear, the Declaration is NOT law. It doesn't matter what it says.
If a state won’t do their sworn duty to protect the rights of the people, certainly the sworn duty of the officers of the federal government kick in, You betcha.
Correct so that means that abortion is a right under the 9th. Same as gay marriage and a whole host of issues that conservatives fight a losing battle against.
The Declaration is NOT law. It is a statement of protest. I don't see how it can even be interpreted as law much less carry any weight.
It is the organic law of the United States. That's why if you go the links of the House of Representatives for the US Code, the links to the organic law, starting with the Declaration, are FIRST.
It doesn't matter what it says.
Oh, it matters. More than everything else put together.
Please explain to me why I'm wrong to believe that those who admit the personhood of the child in the womb and yet deny their protection under our Constitution's clear provisions are worse than Blackmun?
But you deny the protection of the Constitution to little old ladies. Or school age children. Or babies. Or wives, husbands, store clerks, and homeless people. I suppose you don't think they are persons. Why not? Why is Alan Keyes not fighting to get their deaths Federal jurisdiction? All murders should be federal cases, since allowing the States to rule on them is to "deny their protection under our Constitution" and is worse than Blackmun.
Abortion is not a right. Never has been, never will be.
But the right to life is unalienable, because it is God-given.
You’re making less and less sense.
Methinks you misunderstand what the Founders were saying - effectively that there are rights that stand independent of and despite the existance of any law. It was the basis for the American revolution.
So I’m in 100% disagreement with you. It doesn’t matter what ANY law says, the right to life is unalienable.
It is not a "fake" position. It is embedded in the Constitution via the 9th and 10th Amendments.
A States Rights 10th Amendment position can win us a bunch of State governorships and legislatures AND the US Senate, House, and Presidency.
Insisting on purity, on absolutely no abortions will keep us out of most State governorships and legislatures AND the US Senate, House, and Presidency.
To win back most State governorships and legislatures AND the US Senate, House, and Presidency we must agree to permit abortions prior to week six after conception, BEFORE an embryo has the neural development to even feel pain and thus be a sentient person.
To win we must draw the line somewhere after conception. Agreeing to week six would allow us to prohibit the murder of persons AND allow us to win most State governorships and legislatures AND the US Senate, House, Presidency.
We can insist on purity of the sort Keyes preaches, and we will remain locked out of majorities, out of government positions which can prevent abortions after week six.
Leave this issue to the States, just as the issue of all other murder is left to the States by the US Constitution.
I’m sorry that you’ve given up on the possibility of electing men and women to public office who understand the simple principles that our free republic was founded on, the premises that made our great nation possible to build and sustain.
Without adherence to those principles, and without men and women in power who will keep their oath, this republic is finished.
Actually, without adherence to the fundamental principles, you will obtain none of that. You’ve given away the battle before you’ve even engaged in it.
The only person who can change the philosophy of the world is God himself.
Why? Simple. People are stupid.
I like Keyes, and he’s a powerful voice for what is right.
And as I say, we need all the voices we can get. And he needss to keep pounding away at what is right and what is wrong in American politics. He’s not wrong in reminding people that no government has the right to legalize the murder of the unborn. No one does.
That doesn’t really change the reality of it, which is the day that Roe Wade is overturned, the issue will go to the legislative branch. If they legalize it, does it become moral by majority vote? Of course not, and no Christian imagines that it does. The fact that it will become a battle to be fought in congress and in state legislatures does not in any way change that. If the states vote that slavery is legal, does that make it moral? Of course not. Is a man required to submit to an immoral institution just because a legislature voted on it? Of course not.
If Roe Wade is overturned and it goes to the legislative branch, which side do you think Palin will be on?
I don’t think anyone doubts that her opposition to abortion is moral, rooted in her Christian faith and world view. I think Keyes knows that, and I think he is picking her, on purpose, because while he knows she is as pro-life as he is, she needs to sharpen her argument. She needs to be even more bold than she is, as do we all. In for a penny, in for a pound. I’ve reminded pro-abortion people many times that if Bush had thrown out Roe Wade (if only...) it would just go back to the states. What are you afraid of, I would say. But they know and I know that if every legislature voted to legalize it, the fight goes on because murder is murder, and immoral is immoral. Palin knows that, Keyes knows she knows that. But he’s doing his Keyes thing in demanding bolder, sharper arguments, and I’m fine with that.
If you're right, they'll only get stupider listening to leaders who want to excise the most important principles that our liberty is based upon out of our constitutions and our laws.
And now we have the truth. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says or anything else. This is 'Gods Law' so we all have to abide by it because it supercedes our laws we enacted and is super-natural (i.e. non-debatable since logic cannot apply).
We are not arguing Constitutional law but scripture. Just be clear up front on the agenda so I don't waste any time.
In the future, just state that you rely on scripture as the basis of all laws and it clears it all up. Nothing we have done in the 2000+ years since it was written matters so we know that our 'human frailties' count for naught.
Again, keeping to the extreme position will keep us on the extremities.
To be quite honest, the stupidest thing that people do is put their faith in men or women, period.
I have no faith in lawmakers to make any right decisions.
I agree. I had no idea EV had a direct tie to Keyes until others posted that information. Pretty disingenuous if you ask me...basically it’s Astroturfing. Posting a disclaimer when posting your own candidates material would be the honorable and moral thing to do. Not doing so puts your credibility in the toilet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.