Posted on 12/30/2010 6:31:05 PM PST by Jeff Head
On Sean Hannity's special program on Thursday, December 30th, 2010, he had Sarah Palin on as the guest. He asked her if she was considering running for the Presidency in 2012, and she said she was. That she is making it matter of serious prayer and consideration. that her husband, Todd, would support her, and that she felt the children would. She said if the country needed her, she would offer herself up to public service and we would wait to see who else entered the race. I read it as she was going to be running and that the primaries will sort out who the ultimate candidate would be.
All I can ay to this, if I am correct, is, thank God.
I believe Sarah Palin has the potential of leading a turn around in this nation as big, if not bigger than what Reagan accomplished after Jimmy Carter when he was elected in 1982.
Why? Because the American people are already demanding such a turn around. The Tea party Movement in America exerted that influence in the 2010 elections. I believe in 2012 i will be even stronger and that Sarah would win, and win gig, and that she would have a supportinve majority in both the House and Senate.
I pray to God it is so.
As to her campaign in 2012 for the Presidency of the United States against Barrack Obama, should she win the primaries, I believe the following two pictures sum it up best why she will route the marxist and send them packing out of our nation's capital in 2012.
She, her family, their faith, their values, and their story (particularly of choosing life for their young son and then so obviously being blessed with love for that son and he for them) represent the absolute refutation of all the tired old liberal mantras and victimology and a culture of death that they malignantly use to mentally, psychologically, and financially enslave whole classes of people.
From women's rights, to family values, to gun rights, to abortion, to energy policy, to taxation, to envrionmentalism, to fundamental governing principal, to U.S. soveriegnty and independence, and on and on...Sarah Palin is a wrecking ball to the leftist, liberal, socialist house of cards.
Bush could have been funding non-abortion activities of PP, I suppose, but money is fungible, and they need to be cut off completely.
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.
She supports capping carbon emissions, not cap and trade. She is not for unreasonable demands where technology has yet to be invented, and she doesn’t believe that humans affect the weather.
Like others have said, “If you insult Sarah, you insult us”... and there are millions of us who are average Americans who know that future President Palin is much more capable of not only stabilizing, but rather growing the American economy. Here's too hoping future President Paling moves into the People's House on 1/20/13 with humility, conviction and success.
Tue Jan 20 1981 Inauguration Day
Sun Jan 20 1985 Inauguration Day
Fri Jan 20 1989 Inauguration Day
Wed Jan 20 1993 Inauguration Day
Mon Jan 20 1997 Inauguration Day
Sat Jan 20 2001 Inauguration Day
Thu Jan 20 2005 Inauguration Day
Tue Jan 20 2009 Inauguration Day
Sun Jan 20 2013 Inauguration Day...Sarah Palin Day
Sun Jan 20 2013, prayfully, the day President Palin is sworn in as a Natural Born Citizen who is unafraid to share her background, her birth certificate and her Wisdom.
According to the founders, the very reason for the existence of government, ALL government, is to protect the God-given, unalienable rights of the people. All the people. Equally.
You’re just plain wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment made the imperative duty of the states in this regard explicit.
She’s got fans in Washington State baby!
Let me put this a different way:
If my position prevails, all innocent human beings, from their creation, their biological inception, until natural death, will be protected from being killed, on every square inch of American soil. The highest ideal of the American founding will bear sway. Our Constitution, all of our laws, and the entire power of government in this country will protect the child, or the sick, or the aged, or whomever.
If the Gerald R. Ford, Ron Paul, John McCain, Sarah Palin, pro-choice for states position were to prevail, the only thing protecting the child would be travel inconvenience. Think about it.
Not that the latter position would ever win anyhow, since it gives up every decent moral, philosophical, constitutional, and legal argument that might “overturn Roe,” or convince the officers of the other branches of government to act forcefully in defense of innocent human life.
>> praying to mother mary is out right paganism.
Virgin Mary, the mother of God, Christ our Lord, Jesus? That “mother mary” in lowercase?
It is a fallacy to claim Catholicism is a valid form of Christianity while stating prayer to Mary is paganism. Given the weight of your complaint concerning paganism, it would seem that you don’t really believe Catholicism is a valid form of Christianity.
As to the Fourteenth, I suspect some of the folks you're talking about would be making the sort of distinction that came up in Shelley v. Kraemer - that the 14th Amendment only forbids "state action" and that most abortions are private events and not the act of the state government. I think even those folks might agree that the 14th Amendment would prohibit a state from imposing an abortion contrary to the mother's wishes.
In any event, I suspect the the folks you're talking about are making that kind of distinction and thus feel that a state can properly refuse to make private abortions illegal. Does the 14th Amendment require states to criminalize all forms of homicide?
I see your point and I think the Shelley case provides some ammunition for your position, but I can imagine a Supreme Court going the other way.
A related question is whether the Federal Government would have the power to pass a law banning all abortions nationwide. I think that it does have that power, but I recognize that there are some states rights fans who would disagree with me on that.
It not only has the power to do so, it has the imperative obligation.
Every state is guaranteed a republican form of government.
The idea that you could possibly have an American republic that allowed the murder of the innocent is ludicrous.
Such an idea is a gross violation of the country’s most important cornerstone principles.
I swear, people have lost their minds. They’re straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
By the way, if you visit the US Code at its primary home, the US House of Representatives, you will see that the Declaration of Independence is the first part of the organic law of this country.
It is our nation’s charter.
It is every bit as much a part of the law as a cornerstone is part of a building.
And just as important.
The Constitution, at least after its opening statement of purpose - which, by the way, abortion violates in every single clause - is the rule book.
So who is your candidate?
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was announced or discovered by Rome in 1852. The dogma of the Assumption in 1951. Nobody asked me about it or brought it to my attention until now.
I think the problem most non-Catholics have with these strained expressions of faith, or attempts to explain the unexplainable—that Catholics insist we accept as fact—is that Matthew informs us (13:55-57) that Mary had, besides Jesus, four sons and some daughters as well.
The `Assumption’ was arrived at to explain the logical dilemma, if the wages of sin are death, then Mary could not have really died because that would suggest that She was only mortal and not completely without sin, like Jesus Christ.
So we’re asked to accept that a mother of several children had a one-way birth canal and upon her death was levitated heavenward to avoid the unpleasantness of something that all mortals must do eventually—draw their last breath.
But (extensive throat-clearing) now we’re talking about hi-jacking and Catholicism and “Jumpin’ Jim” Jindal, and how much better he would be on the issue of all things sexual than **Sarah Palin,** the actual subject of this thread.
And our next president.
I don’t have one as yet.
But, I will assure you, I will only support candidates who are dependably personhood pro-life.
And that includes every office in the land, not just the presidency.
They all swear the oath, which includes the duty to protect innocent human life, and to provide for the protection of the laws for all persons equally. If they won’t do that, they can’t be trusted to uphold any other part of their oath.
Well, try to be patient with them. I think most of them are sensitive to states rights issues and assume that the states did not by adopting the 14th Amendment transfer their power to design their own criminal laws to the federal government. If you look into the matter, you will find that state laws differ as to which homicides are crimes and which are not. You might specifically look into homicides that are committed to protect one's own life or the life of another or one's property or the property of another. Consider also that state laws differ as to requisite mental capacity and sanity to render homicides criminal. State laws differ as to age and capacity to commit crime. If a police officer intentionally shoots and kills an "innocent" person because of a reasonable mistake of fact, it is not necessarily a criminal act.
Not everyone agrees that the adoption of the 14th Amendment rendered all these issues federal issues and that all state homicide laws must be uniform. The 14th Amendment also protects "property" and not everyone agrees that the adoption of that amendment requires all states to have uniform laws to protect folks from the loss of their property.
That's the problem you're running into here. Historically, states have had the power to define and punish crimes and a lot of folks don't want to turn these kinds of things over to the federal government.
If the national government, and all governments in this country at every level, won’t protect the supreme right of the people, it’s all over for our country.
It’s gotten to the point where they refuse to even recognize such a right, much less protect it.
When the moral basis of the law is gone, the law is gone, and liberty is gone, and self-government is gone, for all practical purposes.
Instead of a government of laws based in the moral natural law we are now under government by the whim of men.
In other words, tyranny.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
This surely means you never have voted any viable presidential candidate. Git out of the way then if you can’t be of any help. The perfect has become the enemy of the good.
One wonders how abortion was ever allowed “at all” — and yet it was (albeit with stringent limitations), or often not punished as felony, WELL before Roe v. Wade. If you stand on a philosophical theory which fails to bear itself out in actual history then you stand on quicksand.
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.