Thread: Sarah Palin's Answers: Very Troubling By Chuck Baldwin

Sarah Palin's Answers: Very Troubling
By Chuck Baldwin
September 16, 2008


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/c ... 80916.html


Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave her first exclusive interview as John
McCain's Vice Presidential running mate to ABC's Charles Gibson last week.
Her answers were very troubling, especially to those of us who believe in
constitutional government. On foreign policy, especially, Palin reveals
herself to be just another neocon; one who would enthusiastically promote
Bush's preemptive war doctrine.

Speaking of the Bush doctrine, it was extremely enlightening that Sarah
Palin demonstrated surprising ignorance as to what the Bush Doctrine is.
Gibson asked: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" Palin's response: "In
what respect, Charlie?" Continued questions revealed that Sarah Palin was
totally ignorant of the Bush doctrine.

When Gibson properly defined the Bush doctrine as being the determination of
President Bush to unilaterally, preemptively launch anticipatory military
attacks and invasions against foreign countries (without a Declaration of
War from Congress, I might add), Palin said the President "has the
obligation, the duty" to launch such attacks. No wonder John McCain likes
her so much.

Palin went on to make further statements that must have made John McCain
proud. When asked if she would be willing to take America to war with Russia
in order to defend Georgia, she responded by saying, "Perhaps so."

Egad! Do John McCain and Sarah Palin envision--even desire--war with Russia?
John McCain is already on record as supporting sending troops to Georgia;
now Sarah Palin suggests that even war with Russia is a possibility. Over
what? Has Russia deployed troops along our borders? Has Russia threatened to
invade the United States? Are McCain and Palin truly willing to launch a war
with a nation that has thousands of ICBMs in its nuclear arsenal, when our
own security has not been threatened? And just how many other countries are
McCain and Palin willing to defend with American toil and blood? All of
Europe?

Instead of promoting European states such as Georgia joining NATO, America
should promote dismantling NATO. The reason for NATO's existence ended when
the cold war with the former Soviet Union ended. It is past time for
European states to take responsibility for their own defense. To promote
American hegemony in Russia's backyard (which is exactly what we are doing
by promoting the expansion of NATO) not only serves to reignite the cold
war, it could inflame an all-out, very hot war. Is this what McCain and
Palin want?

With Palin's willingness to launch a possible war with Russia, I suppose it
is a small thing that she has no problem with the United States invading
smaller countries such as Pakistan. To quote Sarah Palin, "We have got to
have all options out there on the table."

Many people familiar with John McCain have tried to warn the American people
about the warmongering, hot-tempered senator. To quote one of McCain's
fellow POWs, Phillip Butler (who was a POW for 8 years, 2 1/2 years longer
than McCain), "I can verify that John [McCain] has an infamous reputation
for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have
experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger I want
next to that red button."

Only one time during Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson did she
refer to the U.S. Constitution, constitutional government, or her
responsibility as Vice President to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States. This is very troubling. Can it be that
Sarah Palin is simply another politician who is ignorant and unconcerned
regarding constitutional government? If so, the fact that she is a social
conservative would make this dereliction no less egregious.

Speaking of social conservatism, Sarah Palin's response to Charles Gibson's
question regarding abortion is also troubling. Everyone knows that John
McCain is extremely weak on the life issue. He openly and repeatedly
supported embryonic stem cell research. Ms. Palin says she opposes it. So,
how would this conflict affect her position as McCain's Vice President? It
wouldn't.

According to Palin, she would not let a "personal opinion" interfere with a
McCain administration's policy that differed from hers. In other words, she
would support McCain's pro-embryonic stem cell research decisions. I am sure
this would also be true as John McCain increases federal funding for
abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, which is something that
McCain has also repeatedly done. Pray tell, how many other "personal
opinions" is Sarah Palin willing to sacrifice in order to be John McCain's
running mate? Already my previous column's cogitations are being borne out.
( http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/c ... 80903.html )

Since my last column, I have discovered that Sarah Palin did nothing to
prevent the state of Alaska from being a sanctuary state for illegal aliens.
The La Frontera web site
( http://lafrontera.mojo4m.com/2167/ ) credits Lou Dobbs as noting that,
according to an August 14, 2006 report by the Congressional Research
Service, at least two Alaskan cities have don't ask, don't tell sanctuary
policies in place for illegal aliens: Anchorage and Fairbanks. Beyond that,
Alaska has a statewide policy that forbids state agencies from using
resources to enforce federal immigration law.

It makes perfect sense that Sarah Palin would embrace (or do nothing to
oppose) John McCain's pro-illegal immigration policy, as this is one of the
issues he is most passionate about. It is absolutely inconceivable that John
McCain would ever select a running mate that did not share (or that would
oppose) his pro-illegal immigration convictions.

Of course, Charles Gibson never bothered to inquire concerning Sarah Palin's
attitudes toward the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
free trade deals (such as NAFTA, FTAA, etc.), the burgeoning North American
Community, the NAFTA superhighway, etc. It really doesn't matter. I think we
all know where Governor Palin comes down on all of the above. She will
continue to support America's participation in and financial support for the
U.N.; she will, as former Presidents and Vice Presidents have done,
ingratiate herself with the CFR. Good grief! Her boss, John McCain, is a
longstanding member of the CFR. She will enthusiastically support free trade
deals, which destroy American jobs and encroach upon American independence
and sovereignty; she will not oppose the North American Community, or any
other form of globalism. And if called on, she will promote the NAFTA
superhighway.

In other words, Sarah Palin will offer no resistance to the escalating New
World Order (America's greatest threat), her conservative leanings on social
issues notwithstanding.

Sarah Palin's answers did reveal one positive: she seems to be solid on the
right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is encouraging, because with
the way that both Republicans and Democrats are leading America, it may not
be long before we will need to actually exercise that right.

Good grief, here we go again....the lady merely stated under the Nato TREATY, we would have to come to the defense of other Nato countries. That's the only possible answer. What's she going to say, "No, we won't honor the treaty?" It's a "gotcha" question. Either way, she gets attacked for her answer. I think John McCain is the last person to want to go to war having suffering what he did and people tire of this notion that he is itching to start a war. Besides, there is this group called Congress that has a lot to say about such things.

The stem cell question is a moot question. They have discovered a way to use other cells and make them mimic the ones in question. This was a talked about on Paul Harvey last week. This whole issue should be put to rest.

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

Sarah Palin's Answers: Very Troubling
By Chuck Baldwin
September 16, 2008


Since my last column, I have discovered that Sarah Palin did nothing to
prevent the state of Alaska from being a sanctuary state for illegal aliens.
The La Frontera web site
( http://lafrontera.mojo4m.com/2167/ ) credits Lou Dobbs as noting that,
according to an August 14, 2006 report by the Congressional Research
Service, at least two Alaskan cities have don't ask, don't tell sanctuary
policies in place for illegal aliens: Anchorage and Fairbanks. Beyond that,
Alaska has a statewide policy that forbids state agencies from using
resources to enforce federal immigration law.

It makes perfect sense that Sarah Palin would embrace (or do nothing to
oppose) John McCain's pro-illegal immigration policy, as this is one of the
issues he is most passionate about. It is absolutely inconceivable that John
McCain would ever select a running mate that did not share (or that would
oppose) his pro-illegal immigration convictions.

Of course, Charles Gibson never bothered to inquire concerning Sarah Palin's
attitudes toward the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
free trade deals (such as NAFTA, FTAA, etc.), the burgeoning North American
Community, the NAFTA superhighway, etc. It really doesn't matter. I think we
all know where Governor Palin comes down on all of the above. She will
continue to support America's participation in and financial support for the
U.N.; she will, as former Presidents and Vice Presidents have done,
ingratiate herself with the CFR. Good grief! Her boss, John McCain, is a
longstanding member of the CFR. She will enthusiastically support free trade
deals, which destroy American jobs and encroach upon American independence
and sovereignty; she will not oppose the North American Community, or any
other form of globalism. And if called on, she will promote the NAFTA
superhighway.

In other words, Sarah Palin will offer no resistance to the escalating New
World Order (America's greatest threat), her conservative leanings on social
issues notwithstanding.

Sarah Palin's answers did reveal one positive: she seems to be solid on the
right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is encouraging, because with
the way that both Republicans and Democrats are leading America, it may not
be long before we will need to actually exercise that right.

I think it was from this part down that the poster was really referring to. My $.02

She is against comprehensive immigration reform.

See:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-130418-0-da ... rasc-.html

Speaking of the Bush doctrine, it was extremely enlightening that Sarah
Palin demonstrated surprising ignorance as to what the Bush Doctrine is.
Gibson asked: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" Palin's response: "In
what respect, Charlie?" Continued questions revealed that Sarah Palin was
totally ignorant of the Bush doctrine.

BULL!! She wanted the question clarified, which part??.
This is a sexist complaint! She said it was Foreign Policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People are just hunting because she did a wonderful job and Charlie was condesending to her.

Bush Doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


President Bush makes remarks in 2006 during a press conference in the Rose Garden about Iran's nuclear ambitions and discusses North Korea's nuclear test.The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

Central to the development of the Bush Doctrine is its strong influence by neoconservative ideology,[6] and it is considered to be a step from the political realism of the Reagan Doctrine.[6] The Reagan Doctrine was considered key to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, just before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence, but later spoke of a peace dividend towards the end of the Cold War with economic benefits of a decrease in defence spending. The Reagan Doctrine was strongly criticized[7] by the neoconservatives, who also became disgruntled with the outcome of the Gulf War[6] and United States foreign policy under Bill Clinton,[8] sparking them to call for change towards global stability[9] through their support for active intervention and the democratic peace theory.[8] Several central persons in the counsel to the George W. Bush administration consider themselves to be neoconservatives.

There has been at least 4 different Bush Doctrines as defined by the press.

"Instead of promoting European states such as Georgia joining NATO, America
should promote dismantling NATO. The reason for NATO's existence ended when
the cold war with the former Soviet Union ended. It is past time for
European states to take responsibility for their own defense. To promote
American hegemony in Russia's backyard (which is exactly what we are doing
by promoting the expansion of NATO) not only serves to reignite the cold
war, it could inflame an all-out, very hot war. Is this what McCain and
Palin want?"


The very heart of the matter here, we have done everything in the book to piss Russia off, including putting an ABM system in Poland. This kind of Geo-Political Doctrine on the account of the United States will only further alienate Russia and eventual force a confrontation where neither side will back down..........the rest ill leave to your imaginations

Originally Posted by gofer

Good grief, here we go again....

The stem cell question is a moot question. They have discovered a way to use other cells and make them mimic the ones in question. This was a talked about on Paul Harvey last week. This whole issue should be put to rest.

They get stem cells from babies umbilical cords.
Conservatives still complain... They are upset that there's a way around fetus stem cells.

I bet they will be first in line if their kids needs a new organ or they die...

I was hoping Chuck Baldwin would rise above the gutter fighting.

It's federal funding for embryonic stem cells that is being opposed. The research is still going on in a lot of places.

I have heard of any upset conservatives over a way around it. THey were discussing in on a recent talk show and people were happy the issue may no longer be an issue.