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."

[EternalVigilance]

What Roe did was over turn State laws against Abortion.

What it did first and foremost was to dehumanize the child, and to therefore strip them of their most fundamental rights.

It was an attack on States Rights

States don't have a right to alienate unalienable rights. They, along with all men, and all governments, lack such jurisdiction.

And in fact, according to the Declaration of Independenece and the Constitution they have an affirmative obligation to protect the God-given, unalienable right to life, providing for the equal protection of the laws. The founders of this free republic recognized and stated that such protection is the very reason for the existence of government.

[EternalVigilance]

I think that one can arrive at the position that abortion should be outlawed from several directions, not merely the one that we've discussed herein.

Not if you're willing to sacrifice the personhood of the child and the obligation of all governments to protect the unalienable right to life, specifically its clearest expression in the Fourteenth Amendment. You've surrendered before you've even started, before even firing a single moral, legal or political shot.

[caww]

Is this a joke? Certain things can be very telling if not.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

You're right. President Ford actually opposed Roe, thought that abortion should generally be illegal, and believed that Roe should be vacated or overturned so that the individual states could pass statutes to protect unborn persons.

It is his wife's louder insistence that Roe was a “great, great decision” that I remembered and misattributed to President Ford.

My apologies to the late president.

sitetest

[caww]

You are exactly right...great post!

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

"Cyanide or arsenic, fast or slow, you’re still dead."

The difference is, though, if any candidate is introducing cyanide to the wine of polity, he must be opposed at all costs, possibly even with extra-legal means. It's questionable whether one could even physically acquiesce to the candidate introducing cyanide. Upon his election, the patriot might be obligated to take up arms against such a tyrant.

If each candidate is introducing greater or lesser quantities of arsenic, on the other hand, by choosing the candidate with less arsenic, and by encouraging candidates over time, through multiple election cycles, to progressively reduce the amount of arsenic they introduce, one has time to resolve the problem, one may accept setbacks to the cause, and one may even find that applied pressure over time can nearly or entirely resolve the problem.

sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

I think that maybe that ship sailed a while ago.

Then the ship will go down with all hands.

Frederick Douglass, in his famous 4th of July oratory, called the Declaration principles we are discussing "the ringbolt of our nation's destiny." This was a nautical reference. The ringbolt was the device that held the mariner, the navigator of the vessel, to the mast in stormy seas.

Of those principles Douglass said:

"I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the RINGBOLT to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in. all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain, broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day-cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight."

[EternalVigilance]

Or, you could simply refuse to drink their poisoned wine.

[Ohioan]

States don't have a right to alienate unalienable rights. They, along with all men, and all governments, lack such jurisdiction.

Your argument totally twists the facts. The States had laws protecting babies against Abortion. The Supreme Court struck those down. If the Supreme Court were to back out of the situation, it would again be a matter for State legislation.

What you propose goes outside traditional American Law, or concept. Stop pretending that what you suggest is the policy of the Founding Fathers. It is not. What you propose is not a reverse of Roe v. Wade. but an abandonment of Federalism.

[EternalVigilance]

That’s fake federalism. States never had any “right” to alienate unalienable rights. In fact the Constitution explicitly requires states to protect innocent human life and to provide for the equal protection of the laws.

Like so many, following the fallacies cooked up by politicians like Gerald R. Ford and Ron Paul, you don’t seem to be able to make the critical distinctions between state powers and individual rights.

[Ohioan]

You are totally confused. If someone murders you or I, they will be prosecuted under the laws of our respective States, in the County of the occurrence. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Federal Courts.

If someone breaks into your home, and steals the fruits of your lifetime's labor--certainly a violation of your unalienable rights--there is no Federal issue. The prosecution, if an arrest is made--certainly no certainty--will be in your County, under your State Law. Why do you imagine that it is any different for abortion? You are coming across as a fanatic on that one crime, but the rules are no different for one violation of one's rights than another, with respect to who has the proper authority to act.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“Not if you're willing to sacrifice the personhood of the child and the obligation of all governments to protect the unalienable right to life,...”

One might assert that this is an issue properly reserved to the states. Once returned to the states, strategies can change or adapt.

Without mentioning the 5th amendment or the 14th amendment, or concepts of "personhood," many states would adopt near bans on abortion. This isn't a bad thing, and it doesn't contravene the philosophical basis of abortion law in the concept of personhood. Most state laws don't refer to abstract philosophical notions of personhood, and don't refer to the 5th or the 14th amendment when they proscribe murder. The legislatures just know that murder is wrong and must be criminalized, and pass the appropriate laws to deal with the problem.

In this way, these states would be returning to a legal regime that pre-dates Roe, and really, much of the turmoil of the 1960s related to abortion.

This would be a good outcome in these states.

One need not resort to arguments based on the 5th and 14th amendments to argue for the recognition in each state of the fundamental rights of unborn persons. Failing to make a specific argument, especially because it might not produce the desired effect, isn't the same thing as repudiating the argument.

One might argue to overturn Roe today, and remain largely silent TODAY on the question of what each state should do. What one argues tomorrow, after Roe is gone, is another question.

Why might a politician follow such a path?

Because it might work.

If you tell folks that what we're gonna do is we're gonna strike down Roe, one way or other, and simultaneously force the entire country to recognize the absolute legal personhood of every fetus, from conception to natural death, and thus, all abortion in the United States (and a lot of contraception, too) is going to be illegal from this day forth, you're not going to get more than 20% of the vote.

That result, by the way - a complete ban on all abortions and all potentially abortifacient contraceptions - is quite a good one, in my view. No abortion, no potentially abortifacient contraceptives (the Pill, IUDs, Plan B, etc.). I'm Catholic. Works for me. ;-)

But much as I'd love such a result, I don't think that I'd get it via this path.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

Short of leaving the country, or going into active, armed rebellion, each one of us drinks the bitter, poisoned wine forced on us by those who win high office.

I haven't figured out how to subtract out my tax money going to ACORN, porkulous, Medicare Part D, the National Endowment for the Arts, the federal Department of Education, etc., etc. At least not without a process that begins with a little notice from the IRS and, if I don't acquiesce, will lead to prison.

If healthcare “reform” passes, especially without some protection against funds going for abortion, I don't know how I will keep my money from being used to murder unborn babies.

I live in Maryland (and have many constraints to continue to live here, including the health of my younger son who is a long-term patient at Johns Hopkins Hospital in *puke* Baltimore), and am forced as a taxpayer to pay for government-provided abortions, as an employer to recognize the employment “rights” of homosexuals, transgendered individuals and, worst of all, Democrats. My property tax money is used for public schools that teach contrary to what I believe, and to force high school children into “public service” to obtain their high school diplomas. In one case, my local county public high schools gave their students credit for their graduation-requirement “public service” for going down to the capital and protesting for higher teacher pay. On taxpayer-funded school buses.

Sorry, EternalVigilance, as far as I can see, just being opposed to what is done wrongly isn't the same as refusing to drink the poisoned wine.

If the day comes that I withhold my taxes, refuse to abide evil laws, and go into armed rebellion, at THAT time, I will have refused the poisoned wine.

Until such time, I'll work to reduce the amount of poison, so that I may live another day to peaceably change what I see is wrong.

sitetest

[sitetest]

What if a state repealed its laws against murder? Or refused to prosecute those who committed murder?

[EternalVigilance]

Perhaps, since few seem to be listening, it's time for me to adopt more of the attitude of Frederick Douglass.

"At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would, to day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced."

[EternalVigilance]

No, it is you who is confused. If Ohio allowed one class of people to have their homes ransacked under the color of law, your state would be in rebellion against God, the natural law, the Constitutions of the United States and of Ohio, the people of your state, and against all the people of the United States.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

Good photo to post in this thread. It reminds us what the issue really is. The murder of unborn babies. Thanks.

It is precisely photos like that that make me willing to take a fifth anti-Roe justice in the relatively short-term, and actual laws in actual states actually reducing the incidence of what is displayed in that photo by hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year, then to wait for the blessed day when sufficient numbers of citizens will agree to the more complete remedy.

Nonetheless, don't give up on your understanding of your duty.

sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

[EternalVigilance]

Think about the change which would be wrought if every individual in America who calls themselves a Christian would sign this:

The Personhood Imperative
Proclamation and Pledge

To become effective January 1, 2009

By the undersigned Citizens of the United States of America:

A Proclamation and Pledge of Non-Cooperation with, and Perpetual Resistance to, the enablers and practitioners of abortion and euthanasia

Whereas, more than three thousand innocent pre-born American children continue to be unlawfully and unconstitutionally killed every day, by cruel and unusual means, and the evil practice of euthanasia against the elderly and the infirm grows daily, the undersigned citizens of these United States do hereby, in accordance with America’s founding principles, declare that:

“All human beings, without exception, unborn and born, from the very first moment of fertilization, the beginning of biological development, until natural death, existing within any State or Territory of the United States, in accordance with natural rights that preceded, and are preeminent to, the formation and existence of our government, are fully Persons, with the self-evident and attendant God-given, unalienable Right to Life that is possessed by all citizens of the United States; and shall henceforth, and forever, be protected in their Lives and in their Persons under the self-evident principles contained in the Organic Law of the United States: the provisions of the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, which binds all state governments to enforce the unalienable rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the specific provisions of the Fifth, the Eighth, the Ninth, and the Fourteenth Amendments to that document, and in the clear provisions of the constitutions of all fifty States in the Union.

“Commencing on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and nine, we hereby call upon the Executive Branch of the United States Government, including the law enforcement and military authority thereof, upon the Congress of the United States, and upon all members of the Judiciary of the United States; as well as the executive, legislative, judicial, and law enforcement authorities of all member States and Territories of the United States; to give due regard to the imperative duty created by their sworn oaths made before God, and to therefore recognize and actively protect the unalienable Right to Life of all such Persons, and to do no act or acts to repress such Persons, or to allow or effectuate the taking of any human life; the only exceptions being in the conduct of lawful and just war, justifiable homicide, or after trial and conviction by a jury on a capital offense as explicitly provided for in laws ratified by the elected representatives of the People or by the People themselves.

“The undersigned citizens hereby call upon the President of the United States, and the chief executives of the several States and local jurisdictions, to give due regard to the imperative duty created by their sworn oaths made before God, and so to, by proclamation or executive order, declare the Humanity of the aforesaid Persons, from fertilization until natural death; and to henceforth use the power and authority of their offices in the perpetual task of protecting the God-given, unalienable Right to Life of said Persons, and to use all the power of their offices to enforce the constitutional guarantee of their right to the equal protection of the laws.

“The undersigned citizens hereby call upon the Congress of the United States, the Legislatures of all the States, and the legislative bodies of all local, municipal and county governments, to give due regard to the imperative duty created by their sworn oaths made before God, and so to, by legislation, declare the Humanity of the aforesaid Persons, from fertilization until natural death; and to henceforth use all legislative power to resist those who would alienate the God-given, unalienable Right to Life of said Persons, and the constitutional guarantee of their right to the equal protection of the laws.

“The undersigned citizens hereby call upon the Supreme Court of the United States, and all lesser Federal, State and local courts in the United States, to give due regard to the imperative duty created by their sworn oaths made before God, and so to immediately recognize the self-evident Humanity and the unalienable Right to Life of all aforesaid Persons, from the genesis of their physical being until natural death, and to henceforth use all judicial power to resist any who would attempt to alienate the God-given, unalienable Right to Life of said Persons, and the constitutional guarantee of their right to the equal protection of the laws.

“The undersigned citizens hereby call upon each and every elected or appointed official or officer of the United States, and of any of the States, to henceforth give no assistance of any kind to those who enable or effectuate abortion or euthanasia, and that they adhere faithfully to their sworn oath of office, made before God, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, whose central principle is the preservation and protection of innocent human life.

“We hereby solemnly pledge to our fellow citizens as a sacred obligation to withhold, from this day forward, any and all political or financial support from any candidate for public office, at any level of governance, who fails or refuses to adhere to the explicit provisions of this Proclamation. We also hereby pledge to withhold, from this day forward, support of any kind for the continued employment in government of any person or officer of the United States who fails in their sworn duty to protect innocent human life from its bodily genesis.

“The undersigned, by virtue of the power and duties vested in them as citizens, in time of rebellion against the natural law and nature’s God, as well as against the transcendent founding principle of our Republic, the unalienable Right to Life, as a fit and necessary measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, beginning on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and nine, and in accordance with our purpose so to do publicly, proclaim our intent to peaceably, but boldly and resolutely, resist any individual, political body, or organization, that perpetuates or effectuates the practices of abortion or euthanasia. We do so in accord with the primary stated purpose of the United States Constitution: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

“The undersigned hereby pledge continuous active opposition to the enablers and practitioners of abortion and euthanasia, and to those who enable or effectuate human embryonic scientific research that destroys human life at any point after its biological inception.

“This Proclamation will remain in full force until such time as all of its provisions have been carried into law and practice throughout the jurisdiction and territory of the United States, and into perpetuity.

“Upon this compact, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the United States Constitution, upon societal necessity, we invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

“In witness whereof, the undersigned have hereunto set their hand, in their own names, for the sake of posterity.

“Done this first day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty third.”

By the undersigned,

http://www.banabortionnow.com/

[Ohioan]

Get off the “high horse.” Your demonstration of your own failure to understand the concept of jurisdiction only hurts the cause of getting laws against abortion reestablished.