Sarah Palin Is Disqualified From Being Vice President and Is Unworthy of the Support of Conservatives
Sarah Palin Is Disqualified From Being Vice President
By Patrick Johnston
Conservatives are so naïve, and religious conservatives are too often downright stupid. All the evidence we require to embrace a candidate is criticism of that candidate from our opponents in the culture war, and the more fervent the spite and criticism, the more lavish the praise we heap upon the Republican being criticized. Why do we think the left is any more sincere when they condemn Republicans as when they praise artificially-inseminated lesbian actresses? Why do conservative leaders sacrifice their credibility and their reputations based upon the words of God-haters, sodomite-sympathizers, and child-killing pro-aborts?
Sarah Palin has the rhetoric in defense of life that has clenched the devotion of pro-lifers, but not the actions. As a matter of fact, her actions cast a grave shadow upon her professed commitment to protect life. Choosing to allow the birth of her Down's Syndrome child and accepting a grandchild illegitimately conceived is not evidence of any commitment to the God-given right to life - after all, pro-abortion feminists have Down's Syndrome children and accept their illegitimately conceived offspring. Are our brains made of jello? Where is the discernment and intellectual commitment to the exclusive standard of right and justice found within the Bible? The word of God declares that we are judge righteous judgment (John 7:14). We are to judge by actions, not just words. Pragmatism is not the Christian's standard of judgment.
My foremost critique is that abortion remained legal in Alaska where she was Governor, and she did nothing to protect the preborn and actually helped undermine the only opportunity she had to restrict abortion. As Governor, she is the chief executive power in the state, and has the divine obligation to be "God's minister" to "execute wrath against evildoers" and be a "terror" to those who would assault God's innocent children. She took an oath to uphold the Alaska constitution which declares "all persons have a natural right to life." She had the constitutional authority to veto and sign all legislation. If she had exercised this divine and constitutional authority, she could have, by God's power, obtained justice for the preborn in Alaska. For example, if she had insisted that she was not going to sign any legislation - NONE! - until the legislature did its duty to protect life within their jurisdiction and pass an abortion ban, she could have brought abortion to a screeching halt. If she vetoed every sing piece of legislation until an abortion ban arrived on her desk, there is a very good chance she would have gotten it within the month! She could have called out the National Guard to shut down the killing centers and cordone off those facilities to be investigated for crimes against humanity. She could appoint the Attorney General and state prosecutors on condition that they will prosecute child-killers and shut down killing centers by all legal means. She could have defied the unconstitutional and immoral Roe v. Wade decision and prosecuted murderers in Alaska.
Instead of doing her God-ordained duty, Sarah Palin did nothing to protect the preborn within her jurisdiction. Absolutely nothing! As a matter of fact, the USA Today reported this week, "This year she rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to add two abortion restriction measures to a special legislative session." Fomer aide Larry Persily said that she opposed the measures because she didn't want to risk offending the Democrats in the statehouse.
The issues on which she did do something productive as Alaska Governor were not friendly to conservatives. For example, she raised taxes on oil companies in Alaska. The USA Today this week declared her energy policy to resemble Obama's and the Democratic Party more than McCain's and the Republican Party. When the Alaska Supreme Court declared that the state could not deny spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, the Alaska legislature appropriately responded by passing legislation that forbid extending these marriage benefits to unmarried gay couples. Governor Palin vetoed that legislation because, she said, it was unconstitutional.
The second, less obvious reason that she is disqualified from being Vice President is that she accepted McCain's offer to be Vice President. If she had even a shallow commitment to the cause of protecting unborn children from death by abortion, she would publicly condemn John McCain for his pro-abortion record (and thus, be an unlikely pick for V.P.). If she was half the conservative that liberals thought she was, she'd loudly protest the audacity of the Republican Party's nomination of one of the most liberal RINO's in the Senate to be their Presidential candidate. What is the duty of the Vice President? In short, to do whatever the President tells her to do! As Vice President, she will be McCain's water-girl. As Alan Keyes wrote recently, her acceptance of McCain's offer to be his V.P. is a de facto commitment to McCain's platform, which includes justifying abortion in cases of rape and incest, forcing taxpayers to fund surgical and chemical abortion, and subsidizing embryo-killing stem cell research.
John McCain's positions are critical to the reasons Mrs. Palin is disqualified to be Vice President. Let us not forget that the main reason she has been chosen to be Vice President is to help McCain get elected. With only 21 months of experience as Governor, hardly can she be considered to have the most impressive resume. But look at what her nomination has done to rally conservatives around the Republican nominee for President! John McCain couldn't attract conservatives because of his two decade record in the Senate as a "Maverick" liberal Republican, all his election year conversions notwithstanding. But picking Palin as his V.P. has endeared him to pro-life and pro-family conservatives, without whom McCain was doomed to defeat. How can Palin's helping one of the most liberal, pro-abortion Republican Senators get elected to the office of President be consistent with pro-life commitment?
It cannot be denied that John McCain supports the killing of some innocent preborn children by abortion. Although he claims to be pro-life on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly justified abortion in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the pregnant woman. That is, he thinks it is okay to murder some innocent children by abortion. In what way is that pro-life? If abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being, how can it be justified on the basis of the father's crime or the circumstances of conception? How many people must a murderer murder before he's committed a crime that disqualifies him to live freely in society? How many murders must a politician justify before they are disqualified for government office?
As recently as his 2000 Presidential election campaign, he said "Certainly in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous (abortion) operations." In a South Carolina debate with George W. Bush before the 2000 election, John McCain expressly opposed the pro-life plank of the Republican Party platform. John McCain publicly supports federal funding of embryo-killing stem cell research. This Nazi-ish experimentation on the body parts of exploited preborn children shouldn't be legal, much less funded by taxpayers, yet John McCain has voted for and publicly given strong support for massive corporate farms of little children who are exploited and destroyed for profit.
John McCain has voted to fund Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing organization in the world, and he has voted to fund abortion by voting for HHS funds for Title X and Medicaid. American Right-to-Life stated in a press release, "John McCain funds the killing of countless children, for example, by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby's father is a criminal, that is, a rapist. The official Senate.gov site documents McCain's Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office documents that McCain's vote authorized funding for surgical abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal as the law states, SEC. 507. (a) ‘funds are appropriated in this Act' that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) ‘if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.'"
John McCain has voted to fund government distribution of abortifacients like the morning-after pill and progestin-only birth control pills to unmarried adolescents, which can be given to underage children without the parent's knowledge and even in spite of the parent's objection.
John McCain is not supporting a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor is he supporting legislation in the U.S. Senate right now which would end legalized child-killing in America.
McCain has publicly stated that he will support "strict constructionists" to the judiciary; however, if what he has done in the past is any indication of what he will do in the future, he will have no qualms about appointing "pro-abortion" strict constructionists. After all, he voted to confirm pro-abortion Stephen Breyer and pro-abortion ACLU-activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. He called Sam Alito "too conservative". McCain also voted for David Satcher for Surgeon General, who supports partial-birth-abortion.  McCain's National Campaign Chairman in 2000 and his most likely choice for U.S. Attorney General was a pro-abortion Senator who opposed the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. He was part of the "gang of 14" Senators who legitimized the Democratic Party's filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees. If John McCain has "always been pro-life" as he claims, perhaps his previous votes inform us as to what kind of pro-life President he would be: one who has no problem ushering child-killing Judges onto the Supreme Court.
He sealed his compromise with his family investment into properties that are rented with their permission to abortionists. John McCain personally profits off of the killing of innocent children by abortion.
That he has received the endorsement of National Right to Life is more informative about their compromise than it is about John McCain's commitment to protect children in the womb. After all, John McCain was the second endorsement choice of "Republicans for Choice" when Giuliani was still in the race; now he's their first choice!
And conservative leaders have the audacity to throw their reputations and their influence behind John McCain just because he picked Sarah Palin as his Vice President? Indeed, how evident it is now that the salt has lost its savor!
John McCain's other positions have been dealt with more exhaustively in a previous article. In summary,
1. John McCain supports the criminalization of some free speech against political incumbents,
2. John McCain has supported amnesty for illegal immigrants,
3. John McCain has opposed George W. Bush's tax cuts,
4. John McCain has worked to implement business-choking leftist environmental policies,
5. John McCain voted to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners, received an "F minus" from Gun Owners of America, and was called "the worst Second Amendment candidate" by the NRA,
7. John McCain endorses homosexual "civil unions," which is basically gay marriage by another name,
8. He has expressed public disdain for evangelical leaders. Focus on the Family President James Dobson has publicly indicted McCain for unethical behavior in the "Keating 5" scandal, for notoriously profane speech, compared him to Bill Clinton, and said that he would not vote for him.
This is the record of John McCain in Washington, D.C. This is the man that Palin is helping get into the office. And we're going to trust them in the White House?
"Isn't McCain the lesser of two evils?"
Some conservatives will insist that John McCain and Sarah Palin are simply "the lesser of two evils" compared to Obama, who is openly pro-choice when it comes to the killing of innocent children in the womb. Indeed, Obama is even complicit with the killing of babies who survive an abortion attempt! But at least Obama is honest about being pro-choice. I'd rather have the enemy across the battle lines in front of me than a Judas Iscariot behind me.
If we adopt reasoning that the "lesser of two evils" is always the best choice, will we one day support a fascist over a Communist? Would we have endorsed Hitler over Stalin, because Hitler was "the lesser of two evils" in Naziism's competition with Communism for the minds of the German people in the 1930's and 40's? Hey, Hitler carried the Bible, went to church, and will protect Germany's culture, unlike that atheist Stalin and his Communist goons who want to paint the world red. Can't you see that if conservatives continue to bite the "lesser of two evils" bait, we will continue to endorse and support any evil, child-killing, adulterer the Republican Party throws at us as long as he is a little more conservative than his Democratic opponent.
If we can't draw the line in the sand at the killing of innocent children in the womb, then we are nothing but accomplices in the Abortion Holocaust. Better to lose the election and safeguard your soul than sacrifice your soul and your principles for a seat at the Republican Administrations' table. Hands stained with innocent blood and the bitter wrath of God may be the consequence of our unwillingness to stand with God against the child-killers and in defense of His innocent preborn children.
I think the case can be made that Obama, with a Republican majority in Congress, would be the best option to protect our freedoms than McCain with a Democratic or Republican majority. This is painful to admit for a man who ran as a Republican candidate for State Representative in my Ohio district, and recited the Republican Party platform repeatedly on the campaign trail, but we must be honest about our malady before we will ever adopt the right remedy. Let's face it: with a Democratic President, at least Republicans in Congress will do something they have rarely done since Bill Clinton was in office: they will act like fiscal and social conservatives again! The Republicans in Congress would resist Obama's initiatives like they resisted Clinton; they will hold true to the conservative values upon which they campaigned. As we saw time and time again during the Bush Presidency, conservatives in Congress betrayed their conservative principles in order to vote with their Party on legislation proposed by their Republican President, legislation they would have vehemently opposed if a Democratic President proposed it. We have a better chance to protect our freedoms with Obama as President and a Republican-dominated Congress to check him than with John McCain. The Republican Party deserves a spanking for nominating John McCain and for thinking conservatives naïve enough to vote for their "lesser evil" every four years.
Pat Buchanan warned that if the Republican Party nominated McCain, it would lose its soul. The GOP is setting the stage for a rise in the prominence of a third party that is uncompromisingly pro-life and serious about protecting our constitutional liberties and restraining the power of the central government with the chains of the Constitution. Too many conservatives know they are being fed a load of lies about McCain in his attempt to convince conservatives that he is true to our values. McCain's record is clear: he loathes and detests conservatives and our values and is only using us - and Palin - to gain power.
For whom, you ask, am I going to vote for President? I'm certainly not going to waste my vote. I'm writing in Ron Paul's name. Call it a protest vote - I'm protesting the evil choices by not voting for them. The future of our country depends more upon the success of Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" than it does upon the outcome of this Presidential election. Click http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ and join today!
 Romans 13:1-7
 Denver March for Life Speech, 2005, http://rightremedy.org/articles/15. A Biblical Argument for the Re-Criminalization of Abortion State-wide -http://rightremedy.org/tracts/6. The Line in the Sand - http://rightremedy.org/articles/29.
 The USA Today, September 12, 1A, "In targeting big oil, Palin governed from the center"
 The USA Today, September 12, 1A, "In targeting big oil, Palin governed from the center"
 Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999
 www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/037960.html, http://lefemineforlife.blogspot.com/2008/01/pro-abort-mccain-voted-for-hhs-funding.html, 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
 Matthew 5:13
 http://www.newswithviews.com/Johnston/patrick6.htm, P.S. The Constitution Party is an option with present leadership's dishonesty and their abandonment of pro-lifers - http://rightremedy.org/letters/227