By endorsing Rand Paul Palin confirms she’s pro-choice (for states)

[As background for this article, it would be helpful to read these previous posts: Palin’s Choice: An Afterword, The saving grace of the republican imperative, Guaranteeing republican government-a little dialogue, Is Palin’s lead a pitfall for the pro-life cause?, Sarah Palin-Personally pro-life, but…?, and Kentucky’s Bill Johnson-a thoroughbred conservative for the U.S. Senate.]

I was with Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Bill Johnson when the news came that Sarah Palin had endorsed one of Bill’s opponents, Rand Paul, in the race for the Republican nomination. We were in the Student Center cafeteria taking time out for a little refreshment after speaking to a group of pro-life students at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. After he received the report by cell phone Bill filled me in on the details, which were later confirmed by new reports such as this one found on

“US Senate candidate Rand Paul tells WHAS11’s Joe Arnold that Sarah Palin is endorsing his campaign. “It’s huge,” Paul said, adding that he has never spoken to the former Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican Vice-presidential nominee. In her endorsement statement Palin says “I’m proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul. While there are issues we disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it’s time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas.”

If Palin hasn’t bothered to talk to Rand Paul, I wonder how serious this supposed endorsement can be. If it’s intended as a serious step, it puts Palin in a poor light. The 2010 elections are a life and death watershed for the future of American liberty. The Kentucky US Senate seat has been in the hands of a conservative stalwart, retiring Sen. Jim Bunning (R). As was the case in NY’s 23rd District, there’s a strong, genuinely conservative constituency in the State of Kentucky. It represents the chance to send a conservative to the US Senate who embraces the moral ideas on which the Constitution is based and consistently applies those ideas to the issues and challenges that are vital to the survival of the republican form of government we have in the United States (as required by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.)

I endorse Bill Johnson, and have been doing all I can to contribute to the rising tide of conservative grassroots support for him, because he is the only candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky who stands with true conservative conviction on all those vital issues.

Given the undeniably critical importance of the 2010 elections, I can’t imagine endorsing a candidate, sight unseen, in an election that represents such an important opportunity to do what’s best for the country. Hard experience has taught us that political pronouncements, commercials and websites offer no assurance that people will follow through on the positions they espouse to get elected. (Scott Brown’s haste to hoist the Jolly Roger of his pro-choice position on abortion is just the most recent illustration of that sad reality.) Shakespeare rightly observed that “There is no art to find the mind’s construction in the face.” But there is still no substitute for the effort personally to assess a candidate’s commitment to represent what’s on the heart of the people, especially  now that so many are roused to defend America’s future against the gloomy specter of totalitarian socialism.

What Sarah Palin has apparently done with this endorsement reminds me of the Washington politicians from both parties who are willing to vote for bills without reading them, even though they claim to disagree with some of the provisions they contain.   The claim to disagree on certain provision is often just a ploy intended to shield the calculating politicians against the electoral consequences of their uninformed votes.  Whatever they say about “shaking things up”, people who imitate the careless practices of such Washington politicians are hardly likely to put an end to them.

In this case, though, the disclaimer also serves to distract from an issue on which Palin and Rand Paul agree. When dealing with the vital issue of respect for the unalienable right to life, both of them have consistently used formulations that contradict the heart of the pro-life position. To get pro-life votes they loudly proclaim their opposition to Roe v. Wade. Individual mothers should not be the ones who decide whether the child’s innocent life should be destroyed. Government should decide, but at the state level. This contradicts the simple truth on which the pro-life cause depends: the unalienable right to life, like all unalienable rights, comes from a decision by God. It cannot be taken away by any human decision- not the mother’s decision, the Supreme Court’s decision or the decision of any State legislature.

According to the principles of the US Constitution, people institute government (at any level) in order to secure the unalienable rights given to each person by the Creator, God. It is therefore not legitimate (lawful) for government at any level to use its delegated powers to destroy the security of those rights. The term “limited government” refers in the first instance to this just limit on the use of government power. It makes no sense for politicians to proclaim themselves to be staunch advocates of limited government, but then espouse a position that rejects the premise of limited government when it comes to perhaps the most vital and dangerous power of government, the power to decide who should be put to death. Yet this is exactly what Palin, Rand Paul and other “pro-choice for states” politicians are doing.

Contrary to Palin’s statement of support for Paul, it isn’t enough to send people to Washington who will shake things up. Obama is “shaking things up.” Like Obama’s cry for change, this is a phrase that begs the most important question. Will the result of the shake-up restore liberty or continue its destruction? Will it restore the moral premises of limited, constitutional government or cast them aside? Will it bring government at all levels back under the control of the sovereign people of the United States, or continue the overthrow of their sovereignty?

Advocates of states’ rights need to remember that state governments have no rights that are not derived from the God-endowed individuals in whom all unalienable rights originally reside. Those rights reflect the obligations that arise from the determinations of God (His laws) that make human existence possible. The key to the pro-life position is the understanding that individuals cannot disregard the law of God that authorizes a right without destroying their claim to it. Since government derives its right to act (just power) from the delegation of such individuals, the state can have no right to act that supersedes the individual obligation from which the right arises. Therefore, if individual mothers cannot have the right to decide to murder their innocent children, state legislatures cannot have it either.

Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul confirms that, though personally pro-life she is pro-choice on respect for the unalienable right to life as a matter of constitutional law and public policy. By promoting the demonstrably false notion that state governments can legitimately decide to permit the murder of innocent life, politicians like Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and John McCain also reject the idea that no government can legitimately depart from respect for God-ordain justice (right), which represents the limit in principle on government power at every level. Since this is the basis in principle for the concept of constitutionally limited government, such politicians are not constitutionalists either.

I believe that many of the people around the country who are rising up against the Obama faction are doing so because they want to see constitutional government and the sovereignty of the American people preserved. They know that it will do no good to shake things up, if when the smoke clears all we get is another brand of self-serving elites quietly intent on tearing America down. I think people have joined the grassroots uprising because they want to see respect for the unalienable rights of individuals restored and reflected in all the policies of the government. I think they know that the unalienable right to liberty is utterly subverted once government achieves totalitarian control of our economic life. Therefore, they want to see government abuse of our national resources ended, with primary control of those resources taken from the government and returned to the people themselves.

But we will never achieve these critical positive results by backing politicians who careless or maliciously discard the self-evident truths that unite and justify our efforts to achieve them. Even though elite sophisticates may shrink from saying so, positive results require a positive commitment to “truth, justice and the American way.”  Bill Johnson is no superman. He’s just a regular guy who isn’t ashamed to stand by that commitment. But the extraordinary potential of the faith, common sense, and decency of just such regular folks is what built America’s greatness. We must elect as our representatives people willing to display those qualities. That’s how we’ll save the constitutional liberty that ought to be more precious to us than greatness. Another election round of “lesser evils”; ignorant or unprincipled compromisers; and timidly silent equivocators won’t get that job done. Americans won’t get good choices until we dare to put our trust in God and make them.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Since when is this endorsement now a surprise? Sarah Palin has now endorsed JOHN McCAIN for his senate bid and Governor RICK PERRY for his re-election bid. Rest assured that she is indeed planning a run for the white house in 2012. She is laying her foundation for quid pro quo daily. Never trust a politician. Watch them like a hawk. That even applies to you Mr. Keyes. Now keep up your great work, knowing that we are awake and watching even you.

    Ken Lowder

  2. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    Trite, and probably…well, true, but only probably so. The point being, it isn't my favorite saying. But it does apply here.

    I agree that legal (and particularly state sponsored) abortion is morally wrong. I'm not pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, as I regard human life as having very minor innate value. But what value it does have comes by virtue of…well, virtue. Which abortion destroys.

    But there are other virtues. I'm not particularly opposed to the killing of abortion doctors, as long as the killers take responsibility for their own actions. I am opposed to consolidating the power to regulate abortion (or any other action that is not essentially an act of a state government) in the already unrecognizable Federal government.

    Yes, this means I regard further corruption of the Federal character of the national government as a worse crime (and sin) than the occasional killing of murderers. A few shootings of abortion doctors wouldn't destroy a nation of hundreds of millions. Whereas the overreach of the central government has already all but accomplished it against the greatest nation in human history.

    I can applaud the sentiment that recoils in horror from contemplation of the slaughter of tiny babies in their mothers' wombs. It is right and proper to so feel, and I could wish I were able to do so. But in defense of your principles, you must think rather than feel.

    Abortion, like murder, is not a Federal issue. I am willing to acknowledge that the Federal government can ban active participation in abortion by state governments, or even that the Federal government may dictate that abortion is to be considered legally equivalent to murder (or at least homicide). I actually support both these measures in their good season. But that is as far as one can stretch the Constitution in this matter.

    There are dangers to this position. Mandating equivalence of abortion and homicide is likely to cause some states to rewrite their laws in ways that legalize infanticide and "euthanasia" rather than make abortion illegal. There are limits to what the Federal government can do under the Constitution…that is rather the point, but it cuts both ways. A wise policy might be to let the pro-life movement appeal to the conscience of the nation rather than to its government.

    I applaud your feelings, even though I do not share them. But without thought, they are only fodder for those who specialize in manipulations. They don't care what you want them to do with the power you surrender to their hands, they only care about consolidating that power.

  3. Just read the "Mommy" blog below.

    The GOP is only as good as its leaders. A bold colored plank is only window dressing if nobody is willing to commit to it.

    That's the gist of my post: politicians are in the business of getting and keeping their seats, a genuine grassroots movement must divorce itself of opportunistic career politicians and get back to the basics put in place by our Founders and defended to the death by countless patriots ever since.

  4. CorpsmanUp,

    Read my post again. Terminating a human life is anathema to the Christian Constitutional Conservative dogma.

  5. Lisa Graas,

    I'm curious as to how on Earth you are going to have any effect on the Republican platform when both parties are wholly owned by globalists? World government elitists like Rupert Murdoch and George Soros and their ilk, might allow for some favorable verbiage, but no practical implementation will be permitted. Both parties are corrupt and, in my opinion, beyond redemption. Please consider abandoning the party that has abandoned the Constitution and right reason.

  6. Ben,

    Wouldn't it be better if 2/3 of the states were slave-free and only 1/3 get to own people? That was tried once, remember? Even Lincoln was content to live with the status quo (a pro-choice position, coincidentally), his only requirement was that any new state be a free state. The logic truly is simple if we can just put aside our pride. When it's our own lives on the line 'exceptions' are less tolerated.

  7. joerobertson,

    Let me get this straight. Palin and both Pauls say the states get to decide whether innocent human beings can be slaughtered. And for you that equates to being 100% prolife. Dr. Keyes says no entity, neither an idividual woman nor the state or federal governments, can decide to kill defenseless children, and he's the one who is disingenuous? Maybe in Bizzarro World, where up is down and right is wrong, would your "logic" work. Ever hear the phrase "there is none so blind as those who will not see"?

  8. Ben, it would appear that you stopped reading the Fourteenth Amendment a bit too soon. You missed the part that positively requires the states to provide for the equal protection of the laws to all persons.

    "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    And you certainly missed the ultimate purpose of the Constitution, according to the Constitution: "…to secure the Blessings of Liberty…to Posterity."

    The word posterity is inclusive of all persons as yet unborn. It's promise is not just to some privileged few who have passed your test of worthiness, or for those who are fortunate enough to be physically located in a particular state.

    Ben, would you apply this same line of "logic" to any other unalienable right other than the right to live?

  9. [Michael, read the banner again: Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY]

    Something's rotten in D.C. (the District of Criminals). The problem is the preponderance of career politicians, in contrast to the "citizen-politicians" envisioned by the Founders (think "Mr. Smith").

    Dr. Keyes' brand of principled conservatism will not suffer compromise (the hallmark of a politician). It is the very reason he has "failed" in the political arena. Dr. Keyes is much more than a stalwart defender of liberty, he is controlled by a higher moral imperative -- a "Christian imperative," if you will (not coincidentally similar to our Founders).

    Back to my point. Our Republic was born of God-fearing, liberty-seeking men but will be destroyed by fawning, self-serving, power-hungry pols (a fate also foreseen by the Founders). I fear that history is in the process of repeating itself. Republics historically have a lifetime of a couple hundred years, give or take.

    Ron Paul, a crusader for financial responsibility, is a one trick pony. As an obstetrician he certainly finds abortion abhorrent but as a politician his raison d'etre is reelection. His reaction on being asked why he doesn't question Obama's Article II Section I eligibility: [paraphrased] "I would be laughed off the House Floor." And why did he drop out of the '08 race?

    Other pretenders to the throne of "Christian Constitutional Conservatism" include Paul's son Rand, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Scott Brown and most frightening of all (as Dr. Keyes has predicted) -- the coming coronation of Mitt Romney, the Great Equivocator, the darling of the conservative pundits.

  10. Wow, Good to know that the defining issue is what nobody does squat about after being elected… anyhow.

    Myself -- pro-life and believe it starts at conception because without interfering -- a living person joins the human race.

    Choice too… just that the person makes the choice when they decide to lie down with another.

    Having said that… what a disingenuous argument Dr. Keyes. You know Ron and Rand Paul are 100% PRO-life and they both support the sanctity of life.

    Do you like the current arrangements?

    How many more Souls can be saved if made an issue for the States and then people vote with their feet?

    What is the jurisdiction for murder?

    Is this not giving the unborn “rights”?

    No logic Dr. Keyes. Very disappointing argument.

  11. Ben:
    Article IV, section 4 requires that the U.S. government guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. The defining principles and characteristics of that form of government are set forth in the Declaration of Independence which makes clear that the main purpose of such government is to secure the unalienable rights with which God has endowed all men. Any state that by law abandons this goal with respect to a whole class of individuals abandons the republican form of government. The Constitution obliges the U.S. government to make good the guarantee required in Article IV Section 4 by correcting the situation. By the way, as a matter of practical fact exempting one class of individuals from prosecution when they take the life or property of individuals in another class is one of the features of oligarchic tyranny (despotism of the few.) Clearly, in order to prevent the republican form of government from being subverted or overthrown the U.S. government is Constitutionally obliged to police systematic violations of unalienable rights by the states. You are right to see the states has having the first responsibility for the security of unalienable rights. But if and when they fail to do their duty, the U.S. government not only has the right, it has the Constitutional duty to repair their breach. As constituent members of the "more perfect union" envisaged by the Constitution, the states as such (i.e., by law and in the exercise of the sovereign powers left to them) are even less at liberty to violate unalienable rights than individuals.

    By the way, arguing that the Declaration is no part of the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land)is like saying that the laws of gravity or thermodynamics are no part of an architect's design for a building. Though nowhere spelled out in the plans, they must be everywhere assumed as those plans are prepared and carried out. That's why the early Congress was right to include the Declaration as part of the Organic [indispensable foundational] Law of the United States.

  12. This is my first time here and I couldn't help noticing the name of this website "Alan Keyes's Loyal to Liberty". It should be "Alan Keyes' Loyal to Liberty". It looks a little silly right now.

  13. I wonder how many times do people in this country have to hear the same thing and think it will produce a different outcome. Does anyone know what insanity is? Why would you vote for someone based on their looks or personality, or some contrived statement on a WEBSITE as to what they "believe" or "would/will support" when that is what happens at EVERY ELECTION. AND THESE PEOPLE NEVER TAKE AN 100%, ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH WHEN THEY ARE GIVING A TOWN HALL, SPEECH OR TV INTERVIEW????????????????

    Flip flop, flip flop, and yet we continue to vote so confidently, without ANY regard for the consequences of our decisions. A WEATHER PERSONALITY IS MORE RELIABLE THAN MOST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS!

    People in this country, ESPECIALLY those who SAY they are Republican and/or Conservative need to figure out what that means AND what THEY stand for. We need PEOPLE running for office, not parties, platforms or corporations. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Stop voting for words and vote for a person.

    A person will take a stand WITH CONFIDENCE, even if they are wrong. And then, upon finding out they are wrong, you will know how genuine they are by their quick and heartfelt apology and making the correct choice to undue their incorrect decision/statement/position.

    Most politicians are not people. They are collectives of ideas, advisors, rich people who would rather their sinister plots remain out of the public eye, lobbyists and all other kinds of unfeeling, uncaring, secretive and destructive groups who would turn this country into THEIR image.

    PEOPLE! Learn to think for yourself and don't believe everything you see, hear or read. Dig deeper and pray. Surely GOD would not have us relive the Tower of Babel? Is that what is going on here or are we doing it to ourselves because we are too proud to give an inch and say we are wrong?

    Stand behind a man, not an image!

  14. Tom, you wrote that "God's law, the Natural Law, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the US Constitution, and its Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Reagan personhood pro-life platform" all contradict Rand Paul and Sarah Palin's position on abortion.

    With all due respect sir, you are mistaken. In the United States, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, and the federal government which operates under it only has certain, limited, enumerated powers. All other powers, over all other matters, are retained by the States. The 14th Amendment was written to prevent States from depriving the people of their life, liberty and property. That is why the Amendment states in simple English that no STATE shall deprive anyone of… Private individuals are not States sir, even if they commit dreadful crimes against God's law. Those crimes committed by private people, without State sanction, should be punished as they are now with regards to murder, rape, and theft, at the State level.

    It is certainly true that we institute government to protect our God-given Natural rights, but that does not mean that the FEDERAL government is to be the supreme arbiter and protector of all these rights. We have a federal system of concurrent jurisdictions, where States protect the large majority of people's rights, and the federal government protects the specifically enumerated and delegated remainder.

    As for the Declaration of Independence, that has no legal power whatsoever, as it can not supercede the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is a document of secession from England by 13 colonies, it is not the supreme law.

    Likewise, the preamble of the U.S. Constitution is of no legal force whatsoever, as its role is only to assit the reader in comprehending how to interpret the legal text which follows, the enumeration of limited powers to the federal government.

    The 5th Amendment only applies to the federal government, and forbids the federal government from violating the life, liberty and property of the people without due process.

    The 14th Amendment, as mentioned above, only constrains the States to the same standard as the federal government under the 5th Amendment, it does not reach private people or behavior. If a private individual wishes to discriminate, loathsome as that is, he may do so without fearing the wrath of the government, under the 5th, or under the 14th Amendments.

    Finally, Governor Palin and Dr. Paul support Reagan's personhood pro-life platform, even advocating using the congressional power to limit, under Article III federal judicial jurisdiction over abortion cases, thus allowing State laws, like South Dakota's, to prohibit ALL abortions!

    • Actually, there’s more common ground here than difference, unless we just need to find a reason to divide those of us who should be natural allies.

      The DOI has been confirmed as the basis of and incorporated in our Federal laws. For one, the New Jersey Court’s opinion in Karen Quinlan’s case, affirmed by the SCOTUS, referenced the right to life as in the DOI and that the State government is established to protect that right.
      The rights are unalienable, endowed by the Creator on the individuals, the persons. States are instituted to protect those rights, and the Constitution makes for a more perfect Union of those States.
      In fact, States may define different degrees of homicide and vary in the definition of justifiable homicide, none of the States have legalized murder — Other than those that Blackburn’s SCOTUS carved out.

      Unfortunately, no matter how much we claim that the SCOTUS’ ruling on the “right” to abortion is not Constitutional, the Justice Department and the FBI, along with all the guns and prisons in their power, refuse to see the simple logic that we all understand.

      Last week’s ruling on McCain-Feingold gave me hope that R v W could be overturned. (Hey, SCOTUS and media: Remember Brown v Education!)

  15. Dear Alan,

    I noticed you did not answer my question.

    When I invited you to speak to my group at Hillsdale College a few years ago, you presented a solid message, pro-freedom, pro-family, pro-constitution, but now you seem to have gone off the rails. I have a few questions for you:

    1) Where does the U.S. Constitution grant to the federal government the power to prohibit abortions?

    2) We know the 14th Amendment, —by it's own language "NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE…", not "Nor shall any person deprive"— only prohibits public, State action, through State officers or a State's statutory enactment. How then does the federal government get general police powers with which to invade the hitherto reserved sphere of State powers?

    3) In light of Morrison v. United States, one of the more recent cases (See Printz and Lopez as well) in which the conservative majority has defeated federal encroachment into the domestic police powers of the States, how can you oppose overturning Roe v. Wade merely because it will have the effect of overturning the federal partial birth abortion ban?

    4) Wouldn't it be better for 2/3rds of the States to be able to ban ALL ABORTIONS and for the other 1/3rd to only ban partial birth abortion, than for a ban on partial birth abortions to stand, and younger unborn children continue to be killed?)


  16. Wow, how can so many "conservative" people back a states' rights candidate on abortion? Do you really believe it is okay for some states to allow abortions? You believe that it is okay to kill babies? I personally do not believe that there would be as many states as Rand Paul believes who would actually pass such legislation. Additionally, such legislation would likely be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court--the same court who started this mess in the first place.

    I understand the reasoning of some--better to save a few lives than none at all. However, I think that is false reasoning created by candidates who do not wish to take a 100% stance on abortion. It is a cop-out that allows them to look pro-life without having to bear any of the perceived negative consequences.

    Kentucky has a wonderful candidate in Bill Johnson--much more desirable than Rand Paul, who is mostly a "GOP party boy" like his father. Don't be fooled by the legislative trickery perpetrated by father and son. Neither is truly pro-life. They have the definition of life correct, but fail in other respects.

    One of Chuck Swindoll's books cantained an analogy about how much God people want in their lives. "I'll have $3 worth of God, please. Not enough to disrupt my life, just enough to make me feel good." A loose paraphrase by me.

    Is that what we're doing with the pro-life issue, too? I'll have $3 of pro-life, please. Not enough to disrupt my life, just enough to make people think I am totally pro-life.

    Think about this folks--it matters, and it matters a lot.

  17. @DougSt2: I went to your link directing us to Rand Paul's position statement on abortion.
    It is very carefully worded to first state his scientific belief that life begins at conception.
    He further states that he would support "legislation" which opposes federal funding for abortion and pro-choice agencies.
    He supports Sanctity of Life "legislation" and "legislation" which would restrict courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade.
    He does say that it is the duty of government to protect life, yet he falls short of saying that it is the duty of the federal government to protect life.
    This direct quote is troubling:
    "In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many – including Kentucky – would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives."
    This is a States Rights position which the National Right to Life organization has stated is a pro-abortion position. It would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act which prevents the dismembering abortion procedure of ending the lives of in utero third term babies, up to and including while in active labor.
    Obama is the ony other politician I am aware of today who would ardently agree with Rand Paul's position. I do know that over one half of the states have indicated they would not legislate Pro-life laws if granted that authority.
    Rand Paul should not think that he can have it both ways. He is either Pro-life or he is not. He will either fight for all unborn persons or he will not.
    His position is clear. He will not. He would relegate that authority to the states.
    Bill Johnson has said he would introduce a Constitutional amendment to confirm personhood rights to the unborn. He would not just fight to save "millions" or "hundreds of thousands" of lives.
    Johnson would fight to save every life.
    Paul would abrogate federal authority on the issue and is therefore, by default, a pro-abortion advocate.

  18. Dr. Keyes, thank you for the link to my article. I am inspired by your steadfastness on this issue. The people who are currently outraged by us in defense of Palin have not taken the time to research the issue. I would like to point out that we are all making history with this debate because we are already in the process of defining what the next Republican platform will be. We are in the infant stages of defining what the party is to become and whether or not it will continue to have a position on life issues that is in accordance with the very arguments you and I have been making. Sarah Palin is right to continually point to the planks in the Republican party platform, but in her endorsement of Rand Paul over Bill Johnson, she has said "NO" to a legitimate Human Life Amendment. Now, her feet must be held to the fire. I would vote for Sarah Palin with JOY if she would simply show support for what she continually points to as our guide……..the planks in the Republican Party platform. I have great hope that Palin may come around on this issue and truly stand for the principles of Ronald Reagan and the pro-life plank in the platform, both of which she claims to love so dearly. Sarah Palin has great power to lead the nation into a period of renewal on this issue. Now is not the time to bow down and "go with the flow" like a "dead fish". We must stand for life. We must do it now. I pray that she will answer the call and lead us as she is quite capable of doing on this issue.

  19. To those who question the facts re Rand Paul please read the excellent analysis provided here:, of the 'Sanctity of life" act Rand Paul endorses. We simply can't afford to listen to shrewdly prepared campaign rhetoric without examining the details and thinking them through.
    For convenience I've also linked to this article as the Featured Link in the left hand column.

  20. Alan,

    Rand Paul has never said he DIDN'T favor a federal solution. You've picked out things he's said int he past where he spoke of a bill that he believed would save lives now (Sanctity of Life Act) and decided it was his only position. That is simply not true Dr. Keyes

    From the moment I've heard him speak on the issue, he noted his support for FEDERAL abortion bans (and this goes back to last summer, before he or anyone else had heard of Bill Johnson).

    You can ask the National Pro Life Alliance, who have a 10 question federal survey, which Dr. Paul answered in support of a federal Human Life Amendment and federal ban on abortions over 6 months ago after meeting with them.

    You can ask Concerned Women for American, who have endorsed Rand Paul after noting his strong pro life views.

    Respectfully sir, you have your facts wrong.

    Again, you're entitled to support whichever candidate you choose.

    But you seem to not be properly informed on the other candidates positions, and as such, are mischaracterizing them.

    Even if, as you say, you don't BELIEVE what he's saying, then say so. Because sir, that's very different than simply asserting that he hasn't taken a position that he clearly, publicly and in writing has taken. One is your opinion that you're entitled to (I don't believe him). The other is simply making up y our own facts (he isn't taking a pro life position)

    In my opinion,it's dishonest on your part to simply assert that he has a different position than the one he is taking.

  21. @DougSt2: Under pressure from Bill Johnson Rand Paul has several times changed the formulation of his position, without explaining why. I see no reason to trust such expedient reformulations or to trust that they will last beyond election day
    @Christian: This isn't about subsidiarity, it's about respecting the Constitution of the United States.  The fact that the US Government ignores or even acts against a Constitutional obligation doesn't change the obligation.  The duty of citizens and officials loyal to the Constitution is to help build the political forces that will restore respect for its provisions, not adopt a position that violates its vital principles.
    I would have no quarrel with the Palin/Rand position if they followed up by promoting state action to defend innocent life, as I do.  The states have the right, indeed the duty, to defend the life of the unborn.  When the legislature in South Dakota passed a law to do that, I devoted much time and effort to the political fight to defend their action. I support the personhood laws that are being promoted in many states.  Palin doesn't.  If she in fact held the position you ascribe to her, she would support them.  Instead she argues that the states should have have the choice to decide the abortion issue, refusing to recognize that their moral and constitutional obligation already guarantees them the right to do so.  Whatever she has done in her particular personal circumstances, in general her stand abandons the principle that justifies the pro-life movement, and validates the government's unconstitutional and false assertion of authority to decide whether or not to murder innocent people. (Whether the false assertion is made by the Federal courts or the state legislatures is immaterial.  It is still false.)  That's why I oppose her position, and work to help others see the danger it poses to the future of the pro-life cause in the US.
    If Palin and the others were following the Catholic teaching they would be battling for state laws that fulfill the moral and Constitutional duty of all government to secure the unalienable right to life of the innocent.  Instead, she accepts the notion that the Supreme Court's unconstitutional violation of the doctrine of unalienable rights should be treated as law, and fights for the right of government (albeit at the State level) to legitimize the murder of innocent children.
    Its disingenuous, (and perhaps even dishonest) rhetoric to use the formulation "freedom for states to reject abortion" as if it isn't the freedom to go either way.  Some people may not know enough of logic to see through the ploy, but anyone who exploits their ignorance to falsely score a political point certainly doesn't have the integrity we will need to restore America's constitutional integrity.  They may pose as champions of life, but in fact they are false guardians whose ambition impels them to serve as witting or unwitting tools of the evil that is destroying our liberty.
    In this reply and in my articles I rely on careful reasoning.  Pejorative characterizations (rant?) and rhetorical tricks are no substitute for a reasoned response.  Should you care to make one, I'll give it careful thought.

    Alan Keyes

  22. Perhaps Alan, you have chosen to endorse the better candidate in this race. I don't know enough about him to comment.

    However your rant, (and it is a rant), against Sarah Palin and Rand Paul is without justification. If there were a federal ban on abortion, preventing individual states from choosing to legislate for abortion, the opposite would be true. There is no such federal ban, instead there is a federal imposition of abortion on an entire union, which by and large would choose to be free of it.
    Therefore the choice you condemn Dr Paul junior for seeking for Kentucky, is the freedom to choose not to have innocent human beings slaughtered through the evil of abortion.
    As a Catholic, you will be aware of Catholic Social Teaching on the principal of subsidiarity. You, who defend the right to life to the point of being arrested, (I have not yet shared that honor) now find yourself condemning those who favor subsidiarity to save those innocents whom you and Dr Paul cherish, in defense of a jurisdiction which orders their slaughter, though logic, (as you've revealed), suggests the opposite should be the case.

    Although I continue to admire your courageous vocal & physical defense of the unborn I suggest that in this case, you have made a mistake. Neither Dr Paul, nor freedom for states to reject abortion, but the champions of death, whether at local, regional, state, or federal level are the true enemies of the unborn.
    God bless you and your work.

  23. Dr. Keyes,
    It is always amazing how you can cut right to the heart of an issue. There are a lot of folks in America today that seem to have forgotten that the Constitution and the very foundation of America was based on certain G-d given rights as you have said time and again.America is becoming weak because so many of our leaders from the local level up to Washington display no virtue, no honor,no principle and refuse to uphold the Constitution ? I don't think we can last much longer if we continue to elect folks that will sell their souls and the country for a mere bowl of soup. I don't care how popular a candidate is, nor how much money they can toss into a campaign and neither do I care who endorses them. I doubt anyone one actually remembers who endorsed them when they go to vote in the first place.Bill Johnson has everything I look for in a solid candidate he shows integrity,honor,virtue and understands how the Constitution was framed by our forefathers,that is why I support him and why I will vote for him. It's not a popularity contest as some of those running like Rand Paul would have us think, it about choosing the right person to represent " We the People"!So I guess than Palin and Paul are a good match because they neither one get what it means to be pro-life.

    @ Tom H,
    I doubt you will get an answer to your Paulian question about which other unalienable rights the states should decide. I haven't yet !

  24. Alan, I noticed you ignored the first comment, which pointed you toward Rand Paul's website. on it you will see his full pro life position. You are distorting this position. Have you bothered to read what he says? It is beneath you to ignore inconvenient facts. Please read the full position and state clearly why you think that position is not pro life

  25. Derek P: I would do so without hesitation. But because I won't accept a party line that requires that I lie to people who put their trust in me (e.g., about McCain being pro-life, about the importance of the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the Presidency) the current leaders of the GOP have by and large shunned contact with me, and tried by all means to keep me from being heard. Though I have enthusiastic support among people in the Tea Party movement, GOP influenced people have nixed my presence at several Tea Party events, including the famous 9-12 gathering in Washington. Except for grassroots interest and support around the country, I would have no hearing at all. (BTW, Newt Gingrich has been the exception to this behavior (even after I criticized his support for Scozzafava in NY's 23rd District special congressional election.) Sarah Palin not at all.

  26. conservativerob:
    I am saddened when I see people who seem to have conservative views adopting the tactics of the left. Since the leftists usually don't have right principle, reason, facts and logic on their side they respond to those who do with ad hominem arguments (such as your comments: "Johnson is angry", "You are agitated" etc.)
    The argument I make is obviously not a reaction to the situation of the moment. I made the same principled case with respect to McCain, and paid a heavy political price for refusing to support him. I pointed out the problems with Palin's statements on the right to life issue from the start (back in 2008).
    If we want to save our constitutional liberty, we have back those who are committed to doing so, not those who say they are but take positions that contradict the truths that make liberty possible.
    America isn't the first society to be powerful and economically successful. Ruthless tyrannies (like the Roman and Mongol Empires) have done the same. Our identity, and our unique contribution to human history, consists in being the first nation to build our success on godly principles of justice that recognize and encourage the individual rights and responsibility of the people. If we want to save America, we must first and foremost restore and practice those principles.
    I support Bill Johnson because he is committed to that priority. I supported him when everyone said he had no chance. I support him still as he rises in the polls to overtake his competitors. I don't support him because I know he will win- I support him because when he does it will be a victory for America's faith, America's constitution and the strength that we have built upon our liberty. Given the crisis we are in, I think that makes more sense than a vague desire to "shake things up" without a clear idea of the positive good that will come of it.

  27. The Center for Media Research has released a study by Vertical Response that shows just where many of these ‘Main Street’ players are going with their online dollars. The big winners: e-mail and social media. With only 3.8% of small business folks NOT planning on using e-mail marketing and with social media carrying the perception of being free (which they so rudely discover it is far from free) this should make some in the banner and search crowd a little wary.

  28. Dr. Keyes,
    Thank you for your eloquent address on this issue. I appreciate that you are consistently exhibiting your understanding of the 14th amendment and it's importance in the abortion issue.

    I am amazed that in spite of your well written article, that there are still those who cannot, or will not see the evidence before their eyes.

    For those of us in Kentucky, who yearn to do more than simply change the gaurd, only to end up with the cousin of the same old gaurd, I thank you for your support for Bill Johnson!

  29. I agree with Keyes's on abortion personally. I am however a fervant supporter of both Palin and Keyes.

    Mr. Keyes, I believe Palin is pro-life and she lives according to what she believes. But, to play this purity test thinking Johnson would have beaten the democrat anyways is a little far fetched. Johnson is angry because now he sees the writing on the wall, Palin's support of Paul is too much for his campaign to overcome. You are agitated because you came out and campaigned for Johnson. Libertarians in the House would not be the worse thing in the world. Heck, they might be able to check the spending more and more. Libertarians would make poor presidents for the stances on abortion and cowardice foreign policy however.

    I would support a Palin- Keyes ticket and I think you should support the only big anti-Obama fighter right now…Governor Palin.

  30. Dr. Keyes, would you consider sitting down and having a face to face with Sarah Palin? Or has that bridge been burned? (Through no fault of your own mind you.)

  31. Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and John McCain have all made it abundantly clear that they hold Ron Paul's Stephen A. Douglas Democrat, Gerald R. Ford Republican, position vis a vis abortion.

    They're ocompletely out of line with God's law, the natural law, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the US Constitution, and its Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Reagan personhood pro-life platform. They simply pretend that these things do not exist.

    My perpetual question for all these pro-choice for states Paulites, one that is NEVER answered, is: OTHER THAN THE RIGHT TO LIFE, WHICH OTHER UNALIENABLE RIGHTS DO YOU THINK STATES CAN ALIENATE?

  32. Alan, where does the U.S. Constitution grant to the federal government the power to prohibit abortions?

    We know the 14th Amendment only prohibits public, State action, through State officers or a State's statutory enactment. How then does the federal government get general police powers with which to invade the hitherto reserved sphere of State powers?


  33. O, Alan. Rand Paul is Pro-Life to say otherwise is distortion of a high degree. His official position is here:

    I get it, you don't like Rand Paul. But you should be excited and proud as a conservative that he is doing so well. I've met with him and his wife several times. He's a good man and will be a huge protector of the Constitution when he becomes the next senator of KY.