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.
Roe overturned all STATE LAWS against abortion.
There were no FEDERAL laws concerning abortion, at that time.
Simply put, overturning Roe WOULD make abortion a State ISSUE once again.
Idiots like Keyes want a “Human Life Amendment” and virtually nothing else will satisfy them, even though such a process is probably impossible to pull off, successfully.
Last time I checked, elected officials work for us. So I don’t understand your question.
The day when we can’t question the Constitutional adherence of those in office, or those who seem to aspire to office, is the day that this free republic is truly dead.
So, just to get things cleared up, you’re agreeing with Alan Keyes and opposing Sarah Palin because of the abortion issue. Am I correct?
Secondly, to clear it up, you are saying that the abortion issue should be taken up on a federal level, similar to what happened back in 1973, only with a different result. Am I correct?
“I just don’t know why you have a problem with that, because honestly, it’s just the way I feel.”
Where did I say I had a problem with your fantasies? You are entitled to them. Notice that I said that I hoped that “we are not all THAT shallow.”
If so, we are screwed.
Get yer jollies where you can, makes no difference to me...
Ok, but it's a thought.
I don’t know why you want to try and conflate the lawful killing of the guilty, which is both biblical and constitutional, with the killing of innocent children. This is nonsensical.
I am not "conflating" any such thing. I am saying that the State's have the authority to enforce their laws regarding homicide, and abortion is homicide. Abortion is not in the Constitution, and is therefore reserved to the States and the people. If it isn't, then neither is anything else. Either we defend the integrity of the Constitution, or we bend it to our purposes.
Do you believe that the child in the womb is a PERSON, “cothrige”?
Yes, I do "EternalVigilance." I believe that nothing, whether it be rape, incest, birth defect or direct instruction from a higher power, can change what it is. It is evil, in all cases whatever.
Because if you admit to the obvious truth that they are PERSONS, and you still say that a state can allow their wanton killing, in a very true sense you’re worse than Blackmun.
I think you are assuming much. I absolutely oppose abortion, but I also oppose a federal tyranny. Our Constitution protects us, and we must defend it. I am all for ending abortion, but it is not a federal issue. It is that simple, and there is no getting around it. It is no more a federal issue than is the right of the States to execute criminals, or allow citizens to kill people in certain conditions. I am not saying these things are morally analogous, but only that all are the taking of human life and all belong to the States to enforce. I am not defending abortion, but the Constitution.
We don’t need a Constitutional Amendment to end the abortion holocaust. What we need are elected leaders who have actually read the Constitution, with comprehension, and who will do their sworn duty to uphold it.
If folks want to gut the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the very purpose that the Constitution states for itself, and the the provisions of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, let THEM try for a Constitutional Amendment.
But even if they passed it, such a thing would still not be lawful. The destruction of innocent human life is a violation of God’s Law and the laws of nature, both of which precede, and are preeminent to, any mere human document.
But what Alan Keyes represents has cost us losses.
What Sarah Palin represents can win us back our country.
The protection of innocent human life is the sworn constitutional duty of all. At every level of government. In fact, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, it is the very reason for being of government. All government. At every level. On every square inch of American territory.
“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul.”
Without the protection of innocent human life, liberty cannot survive.
Just what do you think you will “win” with this fake federalist “pro-choice for states” position?
Are children in the womb PERSONS?
“Let your yes be yes, and let your no be no.”
I will ask my questions again, and this time a yes or no answer will suffice, because those two words do make things clear.
Again, just to get things cleared up, you’re agreeing with Alan Keyes and opposing Sarah Palin because of the abortion issue. Am I correct?
Secondly, to clear it up, you are saying that the abortion issue should be taken up on a federal level, similar to what happened back in 1973, only with a different result. Am I correct?
Please address the questions as they are asked, using “yes” and “no” for answers. It will make things much easier for people like myself to understand and process.
I never said you couldn’t question her adherence to the constitution, so don’t throw up that straw man. What I meant was that she has been successful numerous times in running for office, whereas you and Mr. Keyes have not. It’d be like taking advice from Bob Schrum or some random person off the street. Many here want her to defeat Mr. Obama in 2012, and the only way that can happen is for Governor Palin to follow her own instincts. The fact that she is not “pure” enough on abortion for you and your party means less than nothing to those of us watching Mr. Obama and his fascists tear apart this country and hoping for someone to take him to task and defeat him. She is the most conservative, real candidate on the horizon with even a glimmer of a chance of taking on the Obama machine. Please remind me of how many votes Mr. Keyes garnered in the 2008 election. Was it more than Cynthia McKinney?
Again, this is not an either/or situation. As I’ve repeatedly said, ALL officers of government, at EVERY level, have a sworn duty to protect innocent human life.
States have no “right” to “decide” on UNALIENABLE rights that came from our Creator, not from any man. If they did, they would no longer be unalienable.
Actually, you have no idea what YOU are talking about.
There, I fixed it for you!
The protection of innocent human life is at the very core of our Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Securing the Blessings of Liberty to our posterity is the Constitution's own stated ultimate purpose.
But, that is not an argument of law under the Constitution. People argue that the "Blessings of Liberty" support abortion rights. Either you read and understand the Constitution, including that it reserves everything not explicitly given to the Federal Government to the States and the People, or you don't. Abortion is not one of the Federal powers, and therefore it belongs to the States. You may not like that, but it is a fact.
You seem blinded by emotionalism regarding how evil abortion is. But, all murder is evil. Killing little school children is evil. Killing store workers to get money is evil. Killing little old ladies so you don't have to care for them is evil. All are morally evil, as is abortion. And all are for the States to enforce and rule on. Not the Federal Government. The Constitution reserves all of these to the States and the People, and I really don't understand why you would argue that we should say otherwise just because they are evil. The law is the law, regardless.
Hey, if electoral success is your only plumb line, you might just as well be an Obama supporter. After all, he “won.”
Especially when the article is an attack on another party's candidate.
Your lack of concise answers kills any argument you make.
You had a potential convert to the AIP. You lost me by refusing to answer.
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.