To say the least, I would be in 7th heaven to wake up everymorning for 8 years to see her face in the white house everyday. That may be the closest I will ever get to waking up with her.
I am definitely in love with an image I see, yet do not know.
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.
Dude, your gonna get the same treatment as you did hitting at ol Fred, methinks. The coronation has already started.
Palin is 100% correct on this issue; abortion belongs to the states.
Abortion was granted as a right in the 9th amendment regardless of whether someone thinks it is ok or not. Let the states decide whether they support it or not and exercise their 10th Amendment rights.
Wouldn’t it be gratifying to actually go back to the rule of law at some point?
Keyes nailed the Palin Amen Chorus with this comment.
I loved Allen Keyes in “Borat.”
I find Keyes questioning Palin's morality quite humorous, as he has basically disavowed his lesbian daughter.
Doesn’t matter. Roe v Wade was and is a States Rights issue and she is a Governor. Why do you think the left wants to keep it in Federal hands, so it will never be voted on.
Keyes is a one issue person, God Bless him but he knows he is not being honest about this. He is splitting hairs and to call Palin anything but Pro Life is unfair.
Pray for America
And so, like Alan, I'm willing to endure any scorn, any abuse, to stand on behalf of the full import of the following words:
"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"No State shall...deprive any person of life...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Watching Alan Keyes over many years, I have sadly come to the conclusion that he his in love with himself. I say that sadly, because in his earlier years in politics, he was a refreshing voice for Conservatives.
After those productive times, he started slipping in influence. Out of nowhere he moved to Illinois and put up a very inadequate campaign against Obama in the senate race.
Now when I see him on tv what comes across is nihilism....he loves to hear the sound of his own voice, and he is very proud (rightly so) of his command of English.
If he was as influential as so many of his backers seem to think, what have been the results of his influence on members of his own race?
I might get flamed for this as being a racist comment, but really, where did this guy think he could do the most to further the Conservative cause?
Good point, we don’t want Keyes endorsing Palin not helpful. I just don’t think he comes across as respectable.
It is a states right and not a constitutional right...In all likely hood if put to a vote in the states, most states would again make laws against it....And the concentration of anti-abortions people would only have several states to influence instead of the federal judges and liberal congress critters in Washington...It would remove a big democrat push.....
Do you believe the same thing about your unalienable right to keep and bear arms? Your right to free speech? Assembly? Petition? What?
Please explain to me why you, and Governor Palin, can claim that the right to keep and bear arms is for all persons, but that the first right, the right to live, is somehow "up to the states"?
Alan Keyes fairly drips with self-rightousness. Alan Keyes cares about Alan Keyes and therefore pays little attention to the veritable lumber yard in his own eye.
No he doesn’t. He has addressed Governor Palin with much solicitude and respect. He’s simply challenged her concerning some of the most basic premises of our free republic, ones that she clearly has wrong.
It has nothing to do with personalities. What is at stake is the most important non-negotiable principles upon which our republic and our liberty rest.In this case, Alan Keyes is right, and Sarah Palin is wrong.
Please think about this. Abortion is the taking of a human life, and therefore a homicide. Killing an intruder in your home is the taking of a human life, and therefore homicide. Many states have laws which define justifiable homicide, such as self defense, and do not prosecute a person for using force in such instances. What you, and apparently Mr. Keyes, are actually saying is that states have no jurisdiction to make this definition, and all homicides must be acted upon by a federal power. Do you honestly believe that? Does Alan Keyes really believe that? I doubt it.
In this case, Sarah Palin is right, and Alan Keyes is wrong. Very wrong.
Note to self: Ignore the posters who are acting towards Alan Keyes like the Left has acted towards Sarah Palin and Alan Keyes.
No, it is you who have it wrong. All officers of government, at all levels, have a sworn duty to the Constitution to protect innocent human life. No officer, no government, no state, no individual, has a right to abet, act, or allow the killing of innocents.
I hear ya. But, unlike Alan, however, you do realize that Palin is an ally of the pro-life movement. I’m all for a constitutional amendment (even though I think simple legislation SHOULD be more than adequate), but I’m ALSO for overturning R. V. W., which is apparently Palin’s position.
Note to self: Ignore the posters who are acting towards Alan Keyes like the Left has acted towards Sarah Palin and Alan Keyes.
Please. I voted for Alan Keyes! I never voted for Palin. But, in this instance, he is wrong.
You cannot argue that the right to life is too fundamental to belong to the states. All people have the right to life, otherwise it isn't "unalienable," and yet the states have some executed, and some are killed by other citizens without violation of the law. If what Alan Keyes is saying is true then only the Federal government can define whether a criminal can be executed or whether a citizen can act in self defense. Who in their right mind would argue for that?
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.