Is Palin’s lead a pitfall for the pro-life cause? - ALAN KEYES

Loyal to Liberty ^ | November 27, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

 
I was not at all surprised to hear that Rudy Giuliani has lately expressed views that welcome the rising prominence of Sarah Palin in the GOP. Giuliani is the archetype of the politicians who wear the Republican label but staunchly support the pro-abortion agenda. Of course, he imitates the pro-abortion Democrats by using the "pro-choice" label to dress his position in deceptively American garb. The use of that term is one of the most clever rhetorical ploys in the history of American politics. If the slaveholders had thought of it, people like me might still be doing stoop labor for no wages. After all, what could be more American than choice? Isn't that what freedom is all about?

Actually, no; not in the sense of the political liberty the American people have up to now enjoyed. Our liberty is based on the idea of unalienable rights articulated to justify our nation's assertion of independence from Great Britain. "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."

[surfer]

Well said...

[EternalVigilance]

The only way to stop sin of any type, is to have Jesus Christ become real in their life. All of this world is temporal. People die every day. Many die from murder, that are not unborn children. God is the ruler of all.

Your theology is, shall we say, unusual.

So, again, are you suggesting that ours should be a nation without laws or law enforcement?

[EternalVigilance]

Romans 13

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

[WVKayaker]

Your theology is, shall we say, unusual.

Yes. I am a Christian. I believe that God created this world. I believe He gave us laws to reveal our sinfulness, and dependence upon His Grace, He came to earth in Human form, born of a virgin, according to prophecy.

I believe God, as we called Jesus, the Christ, lived upon the earth and fulfilled the human requirement of a redeemer. As a sinless man, He was crucified, died, and on the third day after, rose from the dead. He appeared after death, and then arose to His throne, wherever it is.

I believe that through His death, according to His prophecies and promises, we can, through simple faith in HIm, receive eternal life (existence forever) in His Kingdom.

Did I miss something. To put it more simply, I am Christian.

I never said we should be a nation without laws. Why are you trying to distort my words? My agenda is clear. I am supporting a good prospect to become our nations leader. Yours appears to be clear, as well.

[WVKayaker]

John 4: (New International Version)

4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11”Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”

13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

16He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”

17”I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

19”Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

The Disciples Rejoin Jesus

27Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?”
28Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29”Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ[b]?” 30They came out of the town and made their way toward him.

31Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.”

32But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”

33Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”

34”My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.”

Many Samaritans Believe

39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers.
42They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

[EternalVigilance]

Nice passage. But the difference between the verses I posted and the ones you posted is that mine actually have something to do with the topic.

[EternalVigilance]

Those in government have a sworn obligation before God to protect the innocent, the weak, and the helpless; without favoritism, equally.

You’re here promoting a personality. I’m here pointing people back to the cornerstone principles upon which our free republic and our liberty are premised.

[WVKayaker]

Nice passage. But the difference between the verses I posted and the ones you posted is that mine actually have something to do with the topic.

Are you a Christian? Do you drive 56 in a 55? If so, you broke the law. God knows, even if you're driving 105 on 70 mph empty highway! My verses were quite clearly on topic. They just do nothing to further your legalistic, misogynist misguided scheme of moral superiority. Man can make laws for the rest of time, but they will do nothing to stop people from doing terrible things. Have you seen the Federal Register?

In my verses, Jesus spoke to people's hearts. He didn't waste a lot of time condemning. People received the free gift of Grace resulting in eternal life (that's forever, you know), through the hearing of His words.

God is still in alive and in charge, in my world. YMMV!

[WVKayaker]

The government is the people, Friend. Documents only define rules and relationships.

[WVKayaker]

... the ones you posted is that mine actually have something to do with the topic.

BTW, I came into this thread because the topic was Alan Keyes trying to cash in on the Sarah Palin notoriety. He takes on competitor Rudy by swiping at the most prominent conservative on the scene. Do you back that kind of guy?

I am supporting Sarah Palin. I get tired of black guys who must use slavery and others, to try and get attention. Keyes is little better than Jackson or Sharpton, or any other race baiters. He justifies himself with fancy words of legalism and pokes at the hypocrisy of others, No thanks. If I want oratory, I can get that from the TOTUS!

[EternalVigilance]

So many straw men, so little time.

[WVKayaker]

So many straw men, so little time.

Which is AlanKeyesspeak for you have no argument. You can talk all you want about laws. You display no clue about God's economy! Quoting Paul is great. Be careful, if you're Catholic. They only like certain verses from him. Here, he's speaking of folk that sound a lot like you do...

Romans 2: 17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

[WVKayaker]

Did you ever fudge on your taxes? Have you ever taken something not yours? You may be a saint, but we all are sinners. I have only Jesus as my defense.

[sitetest]

Dear WVKayaker,

“Abortion will not end, with or without laws.”

What a silly thing to say. We have laws against murder, but murders take place every day. We don’t legalize murder because of it. We have laws against bank robbery. Last I checked, bank robbery hasn’t ended. Securities laws didn’t prevent Mr. Madoff from running a large, illegal scam.

Going back only a few decades, every state had laws against abortion, and every state enforced them sufficiently so that few people sought out abortion. The number of abortions from the pre-legal period to immediately after Roe went from under 100,000 per year to over 1.5 million per year.

OBVIOUSLY, laws against abortion WORKED, and to say otherwise is to betray either a complete ignorance of recent American history, or a pro-abort agenda.

“My question was simple. How do you enforce your morality?”

Morality? Unaided by law? Shame, shunning, humiliation, guilt.

But with the assistance of law? As in, it’s illegal to privately kill someone? By enforcement of the law. Prosecution. Fines. Jail time. Capital punishment, where appropriate.

We do it all the time. If you hold up a 7/11 and shoot the clerk, they will hunt you down. Upon capture, you will be incarcerated until trial. You will be tried, and quite likely convicted. And then, you will serve time in jail.

This prevents some offenders from offending again, but what it mostly does is dissuade most folks from a life of crime. Even so, some people insist on violating the laws that are broken when one holds up a 7/11 and when one shoots the clerk.

But just because the laws don't completely prevent some small number of folks from breaking the law doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of the relevant laws.

“You have said to lock up the practitioners, but do you also incarcerate the women? What penalty would there be? Are the men (or female Drs.) more guilty than the women seeking the killing?”

As I have already stated that the laws are most appropriately formed and enforced at the state level, these seem to be questions most appropriately answered by each state. Didn’t you read my post at all? You show no signs having either read it or understood it.

In the past, women who sought abortions were seldom prosecuted. Prosecution was usually of the baby butchers, and anyone else who derived a profit from the commission of the killing. Penalties for the baby butchers could range from simple loss of medical license up to and including heavy fines and prison time. Personally, I lean toward heavy prison time, but it's ultimately a legislative question best answered by the people's representatives.

It's a question that doesn't implicate the simple binary question of whether or not abortion should be legal.

“The Constitution guarantees a lot of things, but enforcement is always local. I give you Joe Arpaio as example.”

As I said, didn’t you read my post? Of course enforcement is local. But if a state refuses to give equal protection under the law to persons residing therein, then such a state is in violation of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. And then, the federal government can use the means necessary, including force, to make the recalcitrant state to protect the rights of the persons that reside therein.

The federal government has intervened before to vindicate the rights of persons when states have refused equal protection undr the law.

“Where we disagree, FRiend, is that abortion will end.”

Abortion will no more end than any other crime, whether murder, or bank robbery, or securities fraud.

That’s hardly an argument to legalize all these activities.

Criminalizing abortion, however, will bring an end to legal abortion, and will reduce the numbers of abortions committed in the United States each year by a large amount.

But let me ask you a question: Why is abortion a sin?

sitetest

[WVKayaker]

Why do you keep posting these long suppositories to me. I don't need to be informed about abortion. I have a perfect understanding, and not posted in favor of legalization.

But, because I disagree with your premises, I am unaware of any requirement to do so. I have already stated what I believe. You are twisting my thoughts if you think I am your kin. I believe God will overcome all sin.

My kin is a goel...

Sin is "missing the mark". Anything not directly in the bullseye (God's perfect will) is sin. Laws don't change that!

[sitetest]

Dear WVKayaker,

I keep posting to you because you seem to be “missing the mark.” Or at least the point.

In terms of the legality or illegality of abortion, the question of sinfulness isn't the most relevant.

I'm interested in that dimension of abortion which violates the fundamental human rights of persons. Unborn persons, in this case.

The Constitution is designed to protect rights.

In fact, a basic function of government is to protect the innocent, in law, from the aggression of others.

Legal abortion abridges the obligation of government to protect unborn persons from aggression. Thus, abortion must be illegal, and government must enforce laws against those who commit the crime.

YOU keep bringing up sin. And thus I asked you, why do you think abortion is a sin? You don't have to answer if you don't want to. But since you were bringing up the whole sin thing, I just thought I'd ask.

sitetest

[WVKayaker]

government only serves as a design, FRiend. Implementation is the problem. Your idealism is great, but impractical. Laws are just an compilation of words.

I haven't missed the mark. You wish to make a point with which I don't agree! Opinions are like a..holes. everybody's got one. That's why we have courts to decide.

Please refrain from further reply. It will serve no useful purpose. I only came onto the thread because it was an article promoting schism among conservatives. Keyes is good at that!

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

It is a worthy goal to build up from scratch, from the lowest level, elected officials who are completely pro-life, and completely understand that the Constitution should be interpreted to uphold the rights of unborn persons.

In the meanwhile, we still have to elect presidents. Knowing of no potential candidates who might meet these criteria, I gotta go with what I can get.

As well, interpreting the 5th and 14th amendments as protecting the right to life of unborn children, no matter how such an interpretation is effected, undoes Roe.

Thus, the overturning of Roe, whether by appointing enough justices who will vacate Roe, or whether by passing legislation removing appellate jurisdiction over abortion law from the courts, or whether through constitutional amendment (or by any other means that I've left out), is the first step toward the complete vindication of the rights of unborn persons.

In fact, it could be the penultimate step.

If enough people in each state were thoroughly persuaded 1.) of the personhood of unborn children and 2.) that the 5th and 14th amendments protect the rights, and require equal protection under law, of all persons, born or unborn, then each state legislature would pass laws protecting unborn children, and things would be set aright.

Think about that. By overturning Roe (one way or other), we return to the states the authority to meet their obligation to protect in law unborn persons. And if every state meets that obligation, then there isn't any need for further federal intervention.

When politicians state that Roe should go, and the issue returned to the states, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about the statement. When Gov. Palin says that this a matter for the states, she is correct, as far as she goes.

It is generally for the states to deal with law enforcement.

Thus, the problem with what Gov. Palin says is not that it's wrong but that it's incomplete.

What is incomplete is the answer to the question, What if a state refuses to protect unborn persons in law? It's only in that case that the federal government would need to act further.

Certainly, because every state has laws to protect the rights of born folks not to be murdered, there is little reason for the federal government to do much to protect the class of born persons from murder, to vindicate their rights, to provide for equal protection under the law. Since the states usually do a pretty good job of this, there is only a potential role for the federal government. It's only when a specific state refuses to give equal protection in law to some class of persons that the federal government's potential role is actuated.

Now, I'm pretty sure that when Roe is overturned, many states will fail to act to protect the rights of unborn persons. And that will require that we fight on.

But because we find that we have to fight further is not reason to disdain the victory in a significant battle along the way.

Overturnig Roe will permit individual states to begin to again vindicate the rights of unborn persons.

I won't criticize any politician who says, “Roe must go, each state must deal with the issue,” and leaves it at that.

That is the right constitutional first step.

When we get to the next step, it likely will become necessary to deal with states that refuse to protect unborn persons. At that time, it will become clearer to all that some states will need federal prodding to make them, to force them to vindicate the rights of unborn persons. At that point, some of those who are our allies now in taking the first step - to overturn Roe and return the issue to the states - may become our adversaries, because they will be unwilling to take the next step.

But frankly, EV, I'm not entirely sure that you or I will live to see that day, and I'm not sure that the current crop of politicos will be the group that has to deal with that question. It may be the fight that our sons and grandsons must take up.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear WVKayaker,

Sorry, but your last post fell off the cliff into complete incoherent nonsense. You evince no sign that you understand my points [hint: there are more than one].

Thanks,

sitetest

[WVKayaker]

Prefacing your post by Dear anything lends no more validity of presence to your responses. Itf you think it adds anything, please be informed that it only makes you look silly. I wish to live my life according to God, you wish to place your reliance on the Constitution. Fine. I know who wins in the end.

I repeat. Please refrain from further reply. It will serve no useful purpose. I wish to support Sarah Palin. That is what the discussion is about. Your issue is tangential to mine, and I will not go there any more!