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

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

[PhiKapMom]

and then she said it should not be up to the Governor but put to a vote of the people. That is where I disagree — it should be in the legislature not as a referendum on the ballot — we are talking about murdering babies not marriage between gays. Big difference to me — I want my legislature to take the action and do the laws — they are paid to represent us.

Don’t want any outsiders in my State if abortion was put to a vote trying to influence voters. Already had that with Right to Work which we passed but we had way too many outsiders in the state with way too much money to try and defeat Right to Work which would be small potatoes compared to abortion. If my state reps/senators don’t have the backbone to vote on on abortion, then they need replaced.

I do not trust the electorate to make such an important decision. Too many people can be swayed by the con people with the money.

[campaignPete R-CT]

http://www.vincentforras.com/

EV,
IS VINNY your man vs. Dodd?
Simmons will get the Dede treatment if he is the nominee.
At least in local spots, not sure statewide.

[sitetest]

Dear WVKayaker,

"I wish to live my life according to God, you wish to place your reliance on the Constitution.”

As a Catholic, I am the king’s good servant, but God’s first.

Nonetheless, I don’t see any conflict between serving God and upholding the Constitution’s protections of fundamental human rights. In fact, they seem pretty much in harmony to me.

Sorry that you think that the Constitution’s recognition of fundamental human rights is at odds with following God.

“I repeat. Please refrain from further reply.”

Any time you want the conversation to end, just don’t reply. Otherwise, it appears that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, or rather, typing out of both sides of your keyboard. In fact, what it seems like is you want to tell me off, but you don’t want me to have the opportunity to reply. I don’t think that’s quite what Free Republic is about.

The problem here is that you’ve wandered far into the deep side of the pool in this debate, and now you’re drowning. In fact, it appears that you’ve left the pool, hopped into the ocean, and have drifted to about a mile out.

Here’s a hint - if you want to stop drowning, rhetorically speaking, there’s a boat coming by to rescue you. It’s called, “Don't make any more nonsense posts and don't come back.”

By the way, I would happily vote for Sarah Palin in the general election. It’s a little early to figure out who I might support (and send money to) in the nomination contest, but I might support Gov. Palin there, too.

You have so badly misunderstood my posts that you couldn’t see that although I agree with EternalVigilance on some points, I’m not especially keen on his condemnation of Gov. Palin.

sitetest

[WVKayaker]

I am not dear to you, FRiend. I don't even know you. You are the one with the problem. I have misunderstood nothing, I a just don't agree with your tact. I am not Catholic, I am Christian. My only allegiance is to God. If I do His will, I don't affect the Constitution. You're all about rules, and I am all about the reality of God's New Covenant. I don't abide Pharisees, nor hypocrites.

But, you have this thing about abortion that puts blinders toward other POV. I am happy to hear you may support Gov. Palin in 2012. I am sending money because she will affect 2010 before then.

Your defense of the constitution is misplaced here, FRiend. I support it, and have fought to protect it. As a Catholic, your trust is in your group membership. In Protestantism, we declare no allegiance to your misnomered "Pope". Jesus said to call no man "father", yet, there it is! We cannot agree on that, and I don't wish to fight that battle today.

I am not going further, because once again, it is fruitless. Now, more than ever, because it will devolve. to C v. P. Cats and dogs don't mix...

[EternalVigilance]

I like Vinny a lot. He was one of the heroes of 9-11, one of the guys who risked himself for others. That means a whole lot more than many, many other things.

[sitetest]

Dear WVKayaker,

If you are not my “dear,” then I most certainly am not your “FReind.” LOL.

“I don’t even know you.”

I usually use the salutation “dear” when writing correspondence, even to people that I don’t know, or even to people that I don’t like. I recently wrote both my US Senators and my representative, and addressed all three as “dear,” despite the fact that they’re all ultra liberals!

Much of the rest of your post is gibberish mixed in with anti-Catholic insults. If there were anything meaningful in your insults, I might be offended, but frankly, they just make me laugh.

“Your defense of the constitution is misplaced here, FRiend. I support it,...”

There is no evidence in this thread of that assertion. EternalVigilance has pointed out that the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for ALL persons. An intelligent person would be forced to admit that either unborn children aren’t persons, or that the Constitution does require protection of unborn children, and thus, must be read to prohibit legal abortion.

Take your pick.

“As a Catholic,...[blah, blah, blah]”

I don’t know why you even dragged religion, sin, God, etc. into the conversation. The conversation is about the constitutional ordering of our society, and whether legalized abortion can legitimately be part of that constitutional order. Your antinomian riffs on sin and freedom from the Law [of Moses, not of the United States], your boasts that parallel the Scripture, “Thank God I am not like other men,” your insults of other Christians, your incoherent, irrelevant ramblings really have little to do with EternalVigilance’s central premise.

Which is that a proper reading of the Constitution not only finds no warrant for a “right” to abortion, but rather, finds a guarantee to equal protection under the law for ALL persons, born and unborn, and the bound duty of all officers of the United States of America [and of the several states, I might add] is to apply the law in such a way as to protect the rights of unborn persons as much as that of born persons.

If you wish to argue his central point, then you must engage the language of the Constitution, the 5th amendment, the 14th amendment, at the very least. Beyond that, you might talk about the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court since the passage of the 14th amendment to find a little bit of wiggle room on the issue of whether or not the rights of unborn children are actually constitutionally protected, but my sense is that EternalVigilance will run rings around you if you try.

But don’t let that put you off. It would likely be engaging entertainment for others to see.

EternalVigilance’s conclusion from the original premise is that folks who don’t explicitly uphold such an interpretation of the Constitution are unfit to serve in office.

With this conclusion, I disagree, as I laid out in previous posts.

But unlike you, I don’t find it necessary to throw out the premise [or blindly stumble past it, unaware of its very existence, or entirely unable to understand it] in order to reach a different conclusion.

“I am not going further,...”

In your case, that’s probably for the best.

sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

EternalVigilance’s conclusion from the original premise is that folks who don’t explicitly uphold such an interpretation of the Constitution are unfit to serve in office.

With this conclusion, I disagree

I still don't understand why.

If every officer of government, or at least a governing majority, agreed with me and would act on it, the abortion holocaust would end, everywhere in America, and respect for the unlienable rights of ALL, which is the foundation of our liberty, would be restored.

Every American, and certainly every person who claims to be pro-life, should put their own position to the test to see whether they can honestly say that.

[EternalVigilance]

Great post, other than that.

[EternalVigilance]

From the files of the Personhood Imperative forum at AIPNews.com:

----------

The case:  Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Quoting from: http://coworkersintruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/roe-v-wade-breaking-precedent-in-order.html

Book:  Is the Fetus Human?  By Eric Pastuszek 

... On page 51 of the book ... Robert French points out:

"In a New York case, Judge Adrian Burke cited the Declaration of Independence in his dissent from a 1970 New York ruling that permited abortion on demand for the first six months of pregnancy. 'The Declaration,' wrote Justice Burke, 'has the force of law, and the constitutions of the United States and various states, must harmonize with its tenets....It was intended to serve as a perpetual reminder that rulers, legislators and Judges were without power to deprive human beings of their rights.' Burke referred to the 'natural law,' upon which the Declaration was founded, saying, 'The American concept of a natural law binding upon government and citizens alike, to which all positive law must conform, leads back through John Marshall to Edmund Burke and Henry de Bracton and even beyond the Magna Carta to Judean Law.'" (ibid pg. 51)

Justice Burke had it right here. The Constitution is not an isolated document and can never be treated as such. It must be interpreted in a way subservient to the Declaration of Independence which views our right to be a sovereign nation as an entitlement of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". And abortion can never be reconciled by its rubrics and therefore is unconstitutional under ANY circumstances. Especially in regards to matters of human life, the Declaration of Independence has to be recognized as having the "force of law."

[EternalVigilance]

Revised tagline...

[WVKayaker]

I have missed nothing, nor misunderstood your posts. I haven't spent a lot of time on them. Frankly, flowery sentences don't impress me, but I guess it's your way of expression. It doesn't add, nor detract, from credence. I simply posted an original rejection to a Keyesite, and replied to your posts. I agree abortion is wrong, and could care less what the gum't says about it. My understanding does not extend that far. I'm trusting in God. YMMV.

I am an Originalist. I would vote to disband every "Department" except Defense, and let the unionists loose in the streets to forage, instead of feeding them fat from the producers. I go that far in my thinking. Yes, I do advocate chaos. I'm armed, and well-stocked. It's coming one way or another, IMHO. The ship is heading straight for the iceberg.

If you want to see chaos, keep spending your energies on something you won't change. If you want to see change, I have real hope that it can happen. It will take a lot of prayer and fasting, hitched to a good set of shoes, and a tough heart. It will pit those who produce, with those who take.

I am a creationist. But, I do believe in survival of the fittest. I exercise every day. I eat well, and drink alcohol in moderation. I have a dog for companionship, and friends from every spectrum. I am in process of divorcing my wife, 24 years my junior. I am 62.

I am strongly leaning to running for WV-1 in the US race next year. The D incumbents in the 1st and 3rd Districts should be vulnerable to a good conservative message, after voting straight party on the big tax and control issues. But, mine is as much libertarian. I think the Constitution is pretty clear and concise. We are all entitled to the same "life, liberty', and apple pie".

Abortion is just one question of many, which only God can reconcile. I guess you Catholics don't trust Him as much as I! He's not just a statue dead on a cross to me... and if you think I insult Catholics, don't worry. I insult Mormons and other cultists, too... I'm equal opportunity when it comes to speaking about the triumphant Jesus on His throne.

[B Knotts]

Alan Keyes is N-V-T-S...nuts.

I used to like him, but he seems unbalanced in recent years.

Also, his imposition of views on to Sarah Palin, which are the merest suppositions, is completely unwarranted and unfair.

[B Knotts]

I agree, but really, it shouldn’t be up to anyone to allow something which is not acceptable.

So, whether she thinks the people should be able to outlaw is (which is what she’s really saying in the current context), or the governor, or the courts, is pretty much irrelevant.

[EternalVigilance]

Nah. Keyes nails it.

She has stated several times that she thinks abortion should be left up to the states. I’ll go find the transcript and the video again if you want.

[whatisthetruth]

Sitetest, you have thoroughly destroyed that Kayaker guy in your arguments, a good debate and very enjoyable reading, eventho I understood very little the points WV Kayak was attempting to make, I did understand everything you were saying, it's no wonder WV Kayak has a problem with Keyes' main points.

[sitetest]

Dear WVKayaker,

“I have missed nothing, nor misunderstood your posts. I haven't spent a lot of time on them.”

Misunderstood, no. Failed to read, apparently. If you don't want to wade through my posts, then just say, “I don't care about the facts or the logic, I have my opinions, don't confuse me with reality.”

I'll understand.

“Frankly, flowery sentences don't impress me,...”

Thank you for the compliment! I don't view my prose as flowery, but I'd like to think that sometimes it might show a little bit of eloquence. I aim for accuracy, correct grammar, and sentences that aren't too difficult to read. Unfortunately, because many of the things discussed here at FR aren't particularly simple, writing about them accurately and completely can lead to long, complex sentences. Breaking them up for easier comprehension can lead to longer overall posts.

But when writing, it's often the case that you can have it short and sweet, or accurate and complete, but not both.

“I agree abortion is wrong, and could care less what the gum’t says about it. My understanding does not extend that far.”

Oh dear, you've just contradicted what you said above, “I have missed nothing, nor misunderstood your posts.”

If your understanding doesn't extend to how the government should deal with abortion, then you don't understand my posts.

“I am an Originalist. I would vote to disband every ‘Department’ except Defense,...”

Internal contradiction here. No specific departments are authorized by the Constitution, even the original Department of War [there wasn't any Department of Defense initially]. However, the Constitution is pretty clear that the Congress may establish whatever departments it sees fit.

“Article Two, Section 2 [US Constitution]

“[the president]...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Even George Washington had Departments of War, Treasury, State, an Attorney General and eventually a Post Office Department. These functions - the power to wage war, the power to execute taxes and appropriated spending, the power to negotiate treaties and other foreign relations, the duty to faithfully execute and enforce laws, and the power to operate the posts - are all laid out as powers of the executive in the Constitution.

“...and let the unionists loose in the streets to forage, instead of feeding them fat from the producers. I go that far in my thinking. Yes, I do advocate chaos. I'm armed, and well-stocked. It's coming one way or another, IMHO. The ship is heading straight for the iceberg.”

If you wish. There are so many things wrong with this thinking, that even if I were to spend a day or two responding, I'd barely scratch the surface.

But I'll ask, what of someone born with Down Syndrome? Or spina bifida? What do you advocate for these?

Oh wait, here's the answer, “But, I do believe in survival of the fittest.”

I just needed to read a little further.

Wow. Such a Christian attitude.

“If you want to see chaos, keep spending your energies on something you won't change. If you want to see change, I have real hope that it can happen.”

You're the one who advocates chaos, so why would you think I'd want to see it? Don't project your desires onto me.

“I am in process of divorcing my wife, 24 years my junior. I am 62.”

Sorry to hear that.

But I'm not sure why you're telling me all about your personal life and all. That wasn't what we were discussing. This most recent post of yours seems more irrelevant (but refreshingly more coherent) than all the other ones combined.

“I think the Constitution is pretty clear and concise.”

I agree.

So, go back and read the 5th and 14th amendments. Are unborn children persons? If so, could you explicate how current abortion laws provide “equal protection under the law” for unborn persons?

The Constitution is pretty clear and concise on the issue of the obligation of states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons who reside therein.

“We are all entitled to the same ‘life, liberty, and apple pie’.”

Who are “we”?

Who is included? Who is excluded? Why?

“Abortion is just one question of many, which only God can reconcile.”

What's to reconcile? Abortion is the killing of an unborn person. Every time. It is a private killing. Every time. In the United States, private killing has always been categorized into some species of unjustified homicide, ranging from involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, all the way up to capital murder.

How is abortion different from any other sort of unjustified homicide?

Do you advocate not prosecuting other forms of unjustified homicide?

“I guess you Catholics don't trust Him as much as I! He's not just a statue dead on a cross to me... and if you think I insult Catholics, don't worry. I insult Mormons and other cultists, too... I'm equal opportunity when it comes to speaking about the triumphant Jesus on His throne.”

God I trust. Men, not so much. That's why the founders said that we would need no government if we were a nation of angels. That not being the case, government and laws are necessary. I see that you again retreat to irrelevant insults. My Catholicism has little or nothing to do with the fact that the Constitution obligates the government at each level to provide equal protection under the law to all persons.

Do you believe otherwise? In that this is the explicit language of the Constitution, how could you believe otherwise and call yourself an originalist? In fact, how could you believe otherwise and call yourself someone who believes in the Constitution in any way at all?

“I am strongly leaning to running for WV-1 in the US race next year.”

Good luck with that. LOL.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“I still don't understand why.”

For two reasons.

The first is that I don't view fitness for office as being a light switch kinda thing - either on or off. To me, it's more of a scale.

The second is that in an incomplete sense, folks who say, “return it to the states” are correct.

Regarding the first reason, some folks are more fit than others. There are some folks who are so poorly fit that we might as well say that they're unfit. Some guy named Obama comes to mind.

But many folks are not entirely unfit, and few folks are exceedingly fit.

As well, having the most correct concept of constitutional theory isn't the only measure of fitness, at least not in my view. Having the ability to govern is another measure. Having the ability to get elected is still another measure. Having that Reaganesque knowledge of when to take a half loaf, or even a quarter loaf, because the whole loaf just ain't there for the taking right now, and you see your way clear to how to use the taking of the partial loaf to go back and get more is a really, really important measure.

Thus, I view a candidate who says, “Return it to the states,” and who doesn't go much beyond that as having laid out correctly a very good first step.

Because, if the states do their duty propertly - that is, protect unborn persons in law - there is nothing else that needs to be done beyond returning it to the states.

Even the politician who says, “Return it to the states, and wash the federal hands of the issue,” is partially correct, and much, much more correct than the folks who say that Roe was properly decided.

So, until I have a candidate who is more fit than, say, Sarah Palin, it seems reasonable to support someone like Sarah Palin.

I know what the end goal is: The protection in law of every person, born and unborn, in every state of the entire United States.

I also know that there is no one who could get elected who could run explicitly on the argument that the Constitution, AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, obligates each state to this, and failing that, obligates the federal government to require each state to do its duty.

And finally, I know that as long as Roe is called “the law of the land,” and has de facto effect as such, no state can even try to meet its ordinary obligations to provide equal protection under the law to all persons who reside therein. Electing completely-fit pro-lifers at the state level will achieve little as long as the force of the United States is used to uphold Roe.

So, since it doesn't appear that I can help elect anyone who will get us to the end goal in one big step, I'll try to help folks who could get us to the interim step.

The first reason comprises the practical argument. The second reason provides for the theoretical underpinning.

The fact is that the Constitution actually does make it the obligation of the states to provide equal protection under the law. And as long as Roe remains in place, the states can't even theoretically undertake their obligation.

So, those who say, "Get rid of Roe and return it to the states," are CORRECT, in so far as they go, and in line with the theory of the Constitution that we both accept.

If the states will do their duty, we both want Roe to go and the states to act.

Returning it to the states is not only the right practical first step, but the right first step in the proper theory of the Constitution.

Thus, I can, in good conscience, support, even enthusiastically support (all other things being equal), any politician for federal office who says that Roe must go. I can reserve my continued support for that officeholder contingent on what they answer when the need for an answer to the next question arise - what to do with states that don't provide equal protection under the law - when that question stops being hypothetical and starts being practical.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Thanks!

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

You're preachin’ to the choir. ;-)

Now all we need is about a hundred million voters to agree with us, and we'll be all set!!

The difference between us, I think, is that I look at things how they are right now, and I don't see anyway to get to how they should be in one step. I only see a path of interim steps, each one imperfect, each one flawed, but less imperfect, less flawed than the one before it.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear B Knotts,

I don't think that Dr. Keyes is nuts. I just think that from certain angles, he appears that way.

He's a really bright guy, but really, he's an academic at heart, not a politician. He kind of reminds me of Mr. Gingrich in this regard. Sometimes folks like this open their mouths, and stuff comes out that would be interesting, provocative, stimulating in an academic environment, but utterly foolish in a political environment.

As well, when he's doing the political thing, sometimes the solutions he develops for his own campaign problems are quite theoretically reasonable, but evince a political tin ear. I remember when he ran for the Senate in my own state, Maryland, and he paid himself a campaign salary.

The problem was that Dr. Keyes was not an affluent man, and couldn't afford to go without an income during a full-time Senate campaign. Solution? Hire himself onto the campaign payroll. Legal? You betcha. Ethical? Why not? Did it solve the problem of enabling him to campaign full time to take on an entrenched incumbent? Absolutely!

But... politically bone-headed? Oh yeah.

sitetest