Go to: =>
What's New? Page;
Emmaus Ministries Page;
Sarah Palin is NOT Offering a Pro-Life
(Not consistently in functional practice...)
Pro-Life Roe v. Wade Defenders??? on John McCain.
Sarah Palin is NOT Pro-Life....
[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
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
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 --
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
delivery of the
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
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.
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]
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
>> 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.
http://www.revivetherepublic.com/pro-life_article.htm for a superb
discussion of how to restore right to life to all citizens.
>> 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
(Read down a ways).
>> I am pro-life. I do respect other people's opinion on this also.
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.
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?
>> 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
>> that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions
>> America, and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that
>> women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of
>> [COMMENT: It
is absolutely not true that the other side is willing to shut down abortions
to the "minimum needed" whatever that might be.
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.
of Life will not be enhanced until (1) there is a commitment to
truth, and (2) there is a
commitment to the
law of the land.
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.
>> That's my personal opinion on this, Charlie.
>> GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in the cases of rape and
>> You believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in
>> 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
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.
>> 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
>> about this issue who have a differing view.
[COMMENT: She does hold her ground on this, Deo Gratia!
>> GIBSON: Embryonic stem cell research. John McCain has been supportive
>> 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
>> 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
>> there. And thankfully, again, not only are there other options, but we
>> are getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount more of
>> 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
>> 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
[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
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Date Posted - 09/12/2008 - Date
Last Edited -