Sarah Palin's Answers: Very Troubling
by Chuck Baldwin
September 16, 2008
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/cbarchive_20080903.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. http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080916.html