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

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

[EternalVigilance]

You don’t have jurisdiction to alienate the right to life. If anyone is “on a high horse,” it is those who think they do.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

Roughly 70% of Americans claim to be Christian.

If 70% of Americans read, understood, and believed this document, we wouldn’t have a problem, would we?

But that’s kind of the problem, isn’t it? The overwhelming majority of Americans wouldn’t sign this manifesto, or agree to the points it makes.

Sad to say.

sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

Sad to say.

Yep. If those who call themselve Christians would simply read and act upon the "big if" in II Chronicles 7:14 the republic would be saved practically overnight. If they continue to refuse, nothing will save it.

[EternalVigilance]

Loyal to Liberty

Monday, November 30, 2009Alan Keyes

 

As I expected, my last post disturbed many who are desperately looking for some reason for hope among the Republicans being built up in the propaganda media as supposed representatives of the intense conservative disaffection that promises to be the decisive force in the 2010 midterm elections.  I suspect that the propagandist are hyping these personalities to serve as "heat sinks" for the vehement tide of anger and dismay against the betrayal of America's moral heart and its constitutional liberty; a betrayal sponsored or tolerated by the leadership in both branches of the sham "two party" system.

Here follows a comment on the article I came across on my Facebook profile page.  I think it typifies the reaction of many goodhearted people who are reluctant to look past the propaganda about her personal views and history to think clearly about Sarah Palin's official actions and public statements on the issue of justice, law and public policy involved in the fight to secure the unalienable right to life of our posterity.     

Anthony Davar Finding enemies in our prolife camp and splitting among strong prolife leaders will only cost us the most important fact: the life of another child. How many abortions were there in United States prior to 1973 vs after? One abortion is too many obviously. Sarah Palin is obviously a strong prolife leader, and with her own life example, has shown without a doubt, where she stands for life! However, as a matter of practical steps to victory, she is smart to go for one step at a time.If the country was on its knees repenting of the evil of abortion, she would be there with us praying for God to turn our hearts to the defense of our children. 

Alan Keyes Anthony Davar: On what grounds do you hold that Sarah Palin is "a strong pro-life leader"? I review both her statements and her actions, and find them in contradiction with the necessary moral logic without which the pro-life position is simply a matter of emotional feeling. Based on this review I conclude that she is not in fact espousing the pro-life public policy position. Without at all addressing the facts and moral reasoning I present, you assert that she is pro-life. Beyond emotional conviction, on what do you base your assertion?

It is obviously not right by law to impose our personal feelings on others, however strongly we feel. This is especially so when dealing with a decision that has deeply personal emotional and other consequences for the individual concerned. So if we reduce the pro-life cause to reliance on personal emotional conviction, we surrender the rational basis for the fight to achieve legal protection for the unalienable right to life of the unborn child.

Sarah Palin's statements and actions are rationally inconsistent with the moral logic of unalienable right which, if true, binds all levels of government and all US public officials to the goal of securing the unalienable rights with which God has endowed our humanity. If we accept her as a pro-life leader we abandon the rational moral basis for the pro-life position. I cannot do this without betraying the principles of liberty, and the will of the Creator God whose authority establishes them as the basis for human justice.

Your rhetoric simply fails to address the facts and reasoning I present. It amounts to saying that she is personally against abortion (about which I have no doubt). But many pro-"abortion rights" politicians say that. The issue before the nation is about law and justice, not personal conviction. Nothing Sarah Palin has said or done supports the view that she is pro-life as a matter of justice, law and public policy. So far as I can tell, she is just a pro-choice politician who turned a laudable personal choice into a seductive, but false pro-life public image. All the choices and statements she has made in her public capacity support this conclusion. If I'm wrong, show me the facts and statements that indicate something beyond the "I'm personally pro-life" position so common among the so-called "pro-choice" promoters of "abortion rights".

Unless Sarah Palin fundamentally alters the views she has enunciated and acted on up to now, I predict that she will disappoint the hope so many sincerely pro-life people are mistakenly investing in her supposed pro-life stand.  I am sure I will pay a price for saying now what others will only realize when it may be too late. I was excoriated starting in 2004 for calling Obama a hard line Marxist bent on destroying America.  That view is not at all so contemned today as it was when facts and reasoning first convinced me of its truth.  Similarly on account of facts and reasoning I and others insist that Obama cease to withhold evidence bearing on whether or not he satisfies the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Office of President of the United States.  For this we are vilified and ridiculed, though many of our fellow Americans now join in this demand.

My view of Sarah Palin's supposed pro-life stance, and the danger involved in following her leadership,  is similarly based on facts and reasoning.  I will hold to it until one or the other clearly compels me to do otherwise.  Experience has taught me that even among those whose pro-life hearts espouse the self-evident truths that make us free, when it  comes to politics the factual standard of truth often gives way to personal feelings and expedient calculation.  Given the crisis we are in, I can only pray that at some point they will realize that this neglect of the requirements of truth is the very reason America's liberty has reached the crisis point.  Before a people finds leaders willing to act in truth, they must become a people willing to submit their own judgments and decisions to its demands.

[EternalVigilance]

You can direct your responses to Dr. Keyes himself at his Loyal to Liberty site.

[whatisthetruth]

Keyes, here, has gone over to the Republican Left, on this one point. I actually supported him in the 2000 Republican Primary in Ohio, for President.

On what basis do you say that Keyes has gone over to the Republican Left? I think being pro-choice on abortion would be considered the Republican Left and Keyes makes it clear Palin's position on abortion falls under that category.

If you supported Keyes for President at one time, why has your support for him waned? Did you support him when he said that Obama's eligibility to be President is in question? Did you support him when he said that Obama is a radcial Marxist and he needs to be stopped? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE9cF7Ag2Xs Are you anti-Keyes now only because you're pro-Palin?

[whatisthetruth]

And so, the only peaceful remedy available to those who can actually read, and understand the simple scientific fact that children are human persons from their creation, is to restrict our political support exclusively to personhood pro-life candidates for public office.

I'll be sure to keep that front and center when voting for any future considerations for office, seems like a pretty uphill battle when it seems very few (including myself) really understand thoroughly the Constitutional principles that this Nation should be subscribing to but aren't, after all we can't hold our politicians accountable to constitutional principles if we don't even understand them ourselves.

That's why I like to listen to Keyes and read helpful threads like this so as to become more knowledgeable to the way this country should actually be governed. BTW what is your opinion of the Constitution Party?

[EternalVigilance]

Well, the leaders of their Nevada affiliate just came out against our personhood campaign in their state. For extremely specious publicly-stated reasons.

[EternalVigilance]

By the way, they do have some very good people, folks who are supporting personhood, like their Illinois, Mississippi and Missouri leaders.

[whatisthetruth]

Excellent response by Dr. Keyes to the Palin supporter, EV, will be especially interested to see Sitetest's response to it, could be Palin in her heart 'believes' she's pro-life but doesn't understand the weakness of her public policy states' rights position or maybe she just doesn't understand fully the Consititution, or could be that she thinks, like Sitetest, that she's going only for what she feels she can get in our current system that seems to be totally compromised taking advantage of a confused and dumbed-down populace.

The only problem would be who would challenge Palin's pro-life position other than a Keyes? Certainly not the liberal media, or Hannity, or O'Reilly, or probably any of the conservative media.

[whatisthetruth]

So why doesn’t Keyes’ Party and the Constitution Party join forces?

[EternalVigilance]

We tried when we left the GOP, but there were too many Ron Paul-types. Isolationist on foreign policy, and many of them also hold this same Palin pro-choice for states position.

[pissant]

Did Keyes ever vocalize support for Hunter’s many attempts to define human life as beginning at conception?

[whatisthetruth]

Don’t know, so how is your Party different than Keyes’ Party and/or the Constitution Party?

[deport]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2007760/posts

[whatisthetruth]

Unbelievable! Guess they felt 'obliged' out of loyalty to vote for this Baldwin. Can't believe this Baldwin character would command a Constitutionally-minded audience the way a Keyes would.

I'm beginning to have a sickening feeling that Keyes color may indeed be a 'hidden' factor that is working against him on the right side of the aisle, what say you E.V.?

[Kansas58]

The “States Rights” position is, perhaps, the STRONGEST legal position to have on this issue.

Keyes is simply jealous that he does not have the support that Palin has.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping. WOW, the thread has really grown (I was in the 1st 50 posters and hadn’t checked back). Without reading all of the others, I like your analysis at #310 where you pinged.

OUTSTANDING article by Alan Keyes.

GO Sarah!

[Ohioan]

On what basis do you say that Keyes has gone over to the Republican Left? I think being pro-choice on abortion would be considered the Republican Left and Keyes makes it clear Palin's position on abortion falls under that category.

His attack on Palin is not based on a disagreement over abortion, but over the role of the States, which under our Constitutional system are entrusted with the Police Power--that is they are the ones to deal with abortion, if it is again allowed to be criminalized by the Supreme Court. In this Keys is advocating a sort of fundamental anarchy--not that that is much different than what the Federal Supreme Court has been accomplishing since FDR.

I also felt that he crossed a line when he did a Hillary Clinton and moved into Illinois to run for the Senate; and then followed that up by proposing some ridiculous program to counter the Obamanist calls for some form of Reparations. On probably 90% of the issues, I would still agree with him.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Constitutionally influenced

What other unalienable rights do you think states can alienate besides the right to live?

And how do you reconcile your claim that Mrs. Palin's "it's up to the states" position is "Constitutional" with the clear words of the Fourteenth Amendment?

"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."

Isn't that the point? The Federal Government completely steps out of the decision on Roe v Wade and Each State then lines up with the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Therefore it's not a Federal Law, it's a State's Rights Law for the Citizens of that particular State. (Hopefully ALL 57 [sic] will declare the unborn as a person and protect the unborn.] Won't that mean that any contention would have to be settled at the State level and the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to overturn a State Law?