Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Shopping Mall;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page


Sarah Palin is NOT Offering a Pro-Life Stance
(Not consistently in functional practice...)

See also Pro-Life Roe v. Wade Defenders??? on John McCain.
Sarah Palin is NOT Pro-Life....  See this http://prolifeprofiles.com/palin

    [COMMENT:  From Palin's viewpoint, it would appear not OK for the Fed. to justify abortion, but OK to kill babies at the State level.  Sarah Palin does not explain or describe a pro-life position.  Does the child get a veto? 

There is one and only one Christian position the matter.   Every unborn child requires the same protection as a born (or grown) child.  There is no rational reason to believe that life begins at any point other than conception. 

Some have argued that Palin is Pro-Life -- because she is merely noting that getting rid of Roe V. Wade would push the issue back to the states.  It will indeed be pushed back to the states --- IF the constitutional executives of America do not stand up and declare that NO ONE has the right to take a life without due criminal process.  Not likely. 

But... the baby in the womb has an unalienable right from God almighty, not from the constitution, not from the Declaration, but from God.  Palin says nothing to protect the babies from the evil desires of state governments.  A Pro-Life person would have defended the babies against state as well as federal murder.  It would have been quite easy for her to make mention of that fact. 

If Palin was Pro-Life at one time, it seems that she has compromised that to get the VP spot on McCain's ticket -- she is representing his position, not that of God.  Either she is ignorant of what she is doing, or she is being dishonest.  Do NOT vote for McCain/Palin. 

Vote for  Alan Keyes in the American Independent Party --   http://www.aipca.org/index.html    http://AIPNews.com

Throwing away your vote? 

No, how could a vote for truth and righteousness not be the right vote?  You indeed throw away your vote to have the least of two evils, but -- they are both evil.  If you do not vote for the party and candidates who represent truth and righteousness, neither truth nor righteousness will have a voice in public discussion.  That is either ignorance or betrayal of truth and of the Lord of truth. 

You do not need a large voice, you need an honest, truthful, and loving voice -- at any cost to yourself.  God will do the rest.  The Chinese Christians are winning China -- with exactly that strategy.  (See The Coming Influence of China, an astonishing book put out by The Voice of the Martyrs.)  The difference between them and us, they know how to die well, and Western Christians, for the most part, have lost that capacity.

"I do respect other people's opinions" she says.  Does she respect the opinions of child-murderers?  Does she respect the opinions of the babies?  She has fallen for the terribly destructive kind of "pluralism" in which truth waves in the breeze depending on the direction of the wind.  That is betrayal, not leadership.  

"Pro-Life" is not desiring "fewer abortions", it is demanding none of them.  Exception for the life of the mother?  Of course.  But medical folks continually tell us -- the mother's life need never be endangered by delivery of the child. 

Abortion is murder, right out of the pits of hell.   Yet those who take the lives of innocent babies are often the same as those who will not let you take the life of a criminal attacker. 

If this is not a fair or true assessment of Sarah Palin, she now has the bully pulpit and will have plenty of time to set us straight.  I would rejoice if she could do that, and even more if she could make it effective in her relation to McCain (see link at top).  If she does not adequately answer the many questions addressed to her, then we have good reason to reject as false her alleged "Pro-Life" position.  

But my biggest fears are not about any of the four candidates, they are about the terribly inept and controlled condition of Christian thinking and commitment, the people and, more especially, the leadership. 

We Christians (at least!) must stand squarely on the law and the grace of God as the logical and therefore legal foundation of all positive law.  As St. Augustine said, and Martin Luther King quoted, "An unjust law is no law at all."   It has no jurisdiction, and should be ignored by the executive powers. 

I have been rightly told that we need positive law to put the law of God to work.  Indeed we do.  And we already have it -- in the Declaration and Constitution, laws enacted by men, but under the law and grace of God.  However, the early Christians won Rome without much (if any) positive law on their side, just "Jesus is Lord" as the banner under which they stood.  Caesar knew that they meant it as a political statement, "Lord over Caesar..."  which is why he persecuted them.   We need to mean it that way also.  We must do it with truth and grace, and at our own risk of life, fortune, and sacred honor, but we must do it. 

BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLE:  Just as a judicial decision does not make law, so also, no constitution or declaration makes legitimate positive law without prior submission to the law of God.  That is a logical fact, as well as testified to by Jesus to Pilate ("You have no power but what has been given to you from above...").  See also the Great Commission at the end of Matthew 28 --  "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me".   Given by whom?  Caesar?   There is one and only one government in the whole cosmos -- that of the Creator.  All governments of any sort not under the law of God are thus outlaw governments. 

That is why we are told to go and make disciples of all nations.  We are not only outlaw individuals (sinners), we are also outlaw societies.  Is that not obvious from history?   In Tienanmen Square, Beijing, China, some years ago, the rebel students were waving our own Declaration of Independence.  Many of them had become Christians.  Thousands of them paid with their lives that day.  Christians are persecuted because they disturb the national order.  They certainly do. 

And we had better start waving it in front of our own government before our government gets powerful and centralized enough to take it upon themselves to do the same to us.  That is where we are headed.  A Biblical, Judeo-Christian revival is the most feared event of all by government centralizers. 

     In my opinion, Palin is another George Bush, a prop to draw in conservative Christians who have been leaving the GOP in droves.  At first I thought Bush (2) might be a great president.  But he has been one of the worst. 
        I think Palin has not much chance of doing anything significant  in Washington.  I hope that I am wrong.   I fear that she will do more harm than good.  She will win the election for McCain, and then be quietly sidelined.  Or, given her spunk, maybe not so quietly.  But the people who control Washington behind the scenes would kill rather than let an honest Christian control things.  I think America is being scammed by a desperate Republican Party.  Or worse, by those who own both parties and do not much care who wins.   
       She not only does not represent an honest pro-life position, she gave the store away to the homosexual agenda after becoming gov. of Alaska (by agreeing that the courts can rewrite laws -- when she should have told them to go take a bath in the nearest glacial runoff).  If she continues as she has been doing, she will work well with those who are dismantling America and a limited government for a free people. 

        Even if she does it look'n like a cute, freedom lov'n, gun-tot'n roughneck from the tundra.  There are some great shots of her in her habitat being put out by the McCain people.  But none of them have anything to do with being a good vice president, only with defeating Obama.  Vote either for the Constitution Party (Chuck Baldwin) or for the American Independent Party (Alan Keyes).

For more strategy on winning the abortion debate for life, to go First We Defend Law ---  Then We Defend Life  by Kerry Morgan.   A super piece.  It may change your whole outlook on the matter.  See also Morgan's article -- Abortion: State vs. Federal Law

 

And see further comments below in text of the dialogue.   E. Fox]
 


http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=236&posts=7

Sarah Palin on World News with Charles Gibson  --  September 12, 2008

 

CHARLES GIBSON:  In the time I have left, I want to talk about some social
>> issues.
>>
>> SARAH PALIN:  OK.
>>
>> GIBSON:  Roe V Wade.  You think it should be reversed?

      [COMMENT:  Roe v. Wade does not need to be "reversed".  It is not a law that needs to be reversed.  It was, and remains, only a court judgement.  That does not make it law.  
Go to http://www.revivetherepublic.com/pro-life_article.htm  for a superb discussion of how to restore right to life to all citizens.    E. Fox]
>>
>> PALIN:  I think it should, and I think that states should be able to decide that issue.

[COMMENT:    That sentence, as it stands, implies that the states have the right to decide as they wish -- to kill or not to kill.  What is Pro-Life about then?  Are the states not under the law and grace of God, just like the federal government?  (See Declaration of Independence (Prologue) and the Northwest Ordinance  (Read down a ways).     E. Fox] 
>>
>> I am pro-life.  I do respect other people's opinion on this also.  

        [COMMENT:  Respect in what sense?  It is required to give others the right to express their opinions, but that does not require us to respect those opinions as truth, which is what she suggests.  She is equivocating here.     E. Fox]

     >> And I think that a culture of life is best for America.  

      [COMMENT:   She is arguing like almost all pseudo-conservatives -- pragmatically.  It is not "best for America" in a pragmatic sense, a "good idea".  It is required and commanded for America by God -- an absolute, unalienable obligation.  The question is not "her opinion", the question is what is God's opinion?      E. Fox]

     >> What I want to do when
>> elected Vice President with John McCain, I want to be able to reach out
>> and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know
>> that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in
>> America, and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that
>> women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life.
>>
      [COMMENT:  It is absolutely not true that the other side is willing to shut down abortions to the "minimum needed" whatever that might be. 
        Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars on these abortions, and is not about to give in.  The globalists are convinced that they need to get rid of the "surplus population", and are not about to cooperate with limiting abortions.  The UN is going full steam ahead with abortion as a required right.   Palin is either ignorant or trying hard to fit in with the McCain agenda.  
      Should we be willing to "work with" the "other side"?   Yes, in the sense of forcing an honest public forum aimed at the truth of the matter, not at the terribly destructive pseudo-pluralism which says that truth can contradict itself.  That is nonsense of the worst sort.  My experience has been that in most cases, neither pseudo-conservatives nor pseudo-liberals are much concerned about truth.  They just want to win. 
      The Culture of Life will not be enhanced until (1) there is a commitment to truth, and (2) there is a commitment to the legitimate law of the land

      Positions are plural, truth is singular.  The task of public debate is to bring all the relevant viewpoints together to decide which of them is the truth.    E. Fox]

>> That's my personal opinion on this, Charlie.
>>
>> GIBSON:  John McCain would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest.
>> You believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in
>> danger?
>>
>> PALIN:  That is my personal opinion.

      [COMMENT:  She keeps sidelining herself (to protect herself?) by saying that this is her "personal opinion".   So what?  We all operate by our personal opinions.  Every legislature, every judiciary, every executive.  By what else could they operate?   The question is whether they submit their personal opinions to honest critique, to the will of God, and to the legitimate law of the land -- that all persons, of any sort, have an unalienable right to life.  That is a settled issue -- under God's stare decisis.  

     
Abortion is quite OK -- (Read the fine print...)    IF God says, "Taking the life of another person is OK to solve your problem." 
     
      That might apply if you were being viciously attacked, then you might have the right to take his life.  Has anyone discovered where God has said that about little babies in the womb?   Viciously attacking? 
      This sentence in red is a good sentence with which to challenge people.  It forces them to think about the real issue -- is the entity in the womb a child?   and if so, the absolute moral obligation to defend it.    E. Fox]
>>
>> GIBSON:  Would you change, and accept it in rape and incest?
>>
>> PALIN:  My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the
>> mother is endangered.  Please understand me on this.  I do understand
>> McCain's position on this.  I do understand others who are very passionate
>> about this issue who have a differing view.

      [COMMENT:  She does hold her ground on this, Deo Gratia!   E. Fox]
>>
>> GIBSON:  Embryonic stem cell research.  John McCain has been supportive of it.
>>
>> PALIN:  You know, when you are running for office, your life is an open
>> book, and you do owe it to Americans to talk about your personal opinion,
>> which may end up being different than what the policy in an administration
>> would be.  My personal opinion is we should not create human life, create
>> an embryo, and then destroy it for research if there are other options out
>> there.  And thankfully, again, not only are there other options, but we
>> are getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount more of options,
>> like, as I mentioned, the adult skin cell research.
>>
>> GIBSON:  Homosexuality: genetic or learned?
>>
>> PALIN:  Oh, I don't know, but I am not one to judge.  And, you know, I am
>> from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse
>> backgrounds—and, you know, I'm not gonna judge someone on whether they
>> believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic.  I'm not going to judge
>> them.

[COMMENT:  It is not a matter of "judging" in the moral sense, as she suggests by her language.  It is a matter of getting the facts. 

Is homosexuality inborn or learned behavior?   The evidence is quite clear.  There is no evidence at all to show that it is genetic.  But they keep trying.  Let them.  But we must make our decisions on the evidence now in hand, not the evidence they hope to find one day.  Palin is not being credible here.   She is in a position of power and authority in a culture where these issues are tearing America apart.  She has an obligation to get the evidence and to make her judgement on the matter (go here and here).        E. Fox]

See (or hear) also http://www.aipnews.com/media/2008_09_13yuille_hoefling.mp3

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Abortion;   Politics;   ROAD MAP

Date Posted -  09/12/2008   -   Date Last Edited - 09/15/2012