It is twilight zone time on the Democrat kook left. And no, that does not include all Democrats, but if you are a Democrat, you had better come out and denounce this.
This hypothesis that Sarah Palin's baby was actually her daughter Bristol's offspring, and the Palin family was trying to cover it up by acting as though it was Sarah's so no one would know Bristol was pregnant out of wedlock....
It reminds me of when former Representative Curt Weldon stood up on the floor of the House (I think he was talking about the Echelon Project, but I don't remember for sure) and excoriated the Democrats with this rhetorical question, "How low can we go, Mr. Speaker? HOW LOW WILL WE GO?"
I do not want to EVER hear again about the ugly, Karl Rove-style tactics on the right (even though I know we will). The Daily Kos is one of the house organs of the Democrat Party; its owner, Markos Moulitsas, is given floor time at all kinds of official Democrat gatherings and party bigwigs like Harry Reid attend his annual convention. (Yes, he was Senate Majority Leader when he went.) And the Daily Kos is largely responsible for launching this vicious diatribe, which is, of course, a total fabrication.
Give Barack Obama the credit he deserves for coming out and denouncing this. Good for him. There should be a 0 tolerance for this sort of rumormongering, for both Democrats and Republicans. I would hope our side would have the courage to do the same if a similar story came out about Sasha or Melia Obama (though I think they are a little young yet).
On a completely unrelated note, though this applies to the same news story:
This is none of my business; it is the decision of the Palin family as to how best to work this out. But is it really the best move to make at this point for Bristol to marry the baby's father? I am not so sure. I know we evangelicals are expected to rejoice over this decision, but I don't automatically. Sorry if that disappoints you, but based on my completely unscientific observations, these types of marriages (i.e., a young couple ends up expecting a child outside of marriage, so they decide to get married) seem to end in divorce more often than not. Is anyone better off at that point?
Granted, there is so much that we don't know about this story, and my input is not desired here (nor should it be). But that is my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, I am so fed up with the hypocrisy and stupidity of the left that I just had to pound out something this morning, and I'll put it up as a response to your post:
The Dr. Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde character of liberals never ceases to astound me.
I was offended, for example, the other day when I heard a sound-clip from vice-presidential nominee, Joe Biden, in which he characterized conservatives as “ideologues” and came up with the profound observation: “These people really believe what they say.” His point, of course, was that conservatives are a bunch of nuts who want to keep other people from murdering their babies. That kind of thing.
I’m used to that. What I really wanted to say to the radio was, “And you don’t? Really believe what you say, I mean? So what does that make you?” Either he does not believe what he says in public, which makes him a liar; or he does believe it, which makes him, according to his lights, another ideologue.
Conservatives and liberals, by and large, really do believe what they say. But the great difference is that conservatives generally try to be consistent: if they, for example, protest Obama’s association with a pastor who is saying “God damn America,” it’s because they genuinely love America, and they truly think that such rhetoric belies a deep, real hatred of this great country and a wish, on some level, to destroy it.
Sometimes, of course, conservatives are divided on the issues and are inconsistent. A case in point is shooting an abortion doctor to save babies from being killed. Some conservatives are okay with that. Such behavior arises from a flawed view of life issues, and liberals are right to point out the inconsistency here. (Most pro-lifers agree, by the way, that abortion doctors should not be shot by an individual on his own authority. It’s in Just War theory.)
Liberals have been hooting and hollering in a most unseemly fashion at the news that Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant. What is funny? Why are you laughing? There are several points to be made about this:
First, what would you do if your daughter got pregnant, Mr. and Mrs. Liberal? Especially if you had just achieved a high profile position in politics? What I would expect you to do, a la the example of the Clintons and the Edwards, is first—wait until the media found out about it, and then lie through your teeth. After that, if you are consistent in living your beliefs, you would hustle your daughter off to the nearest abortion clinic and remove the offending tissue, lest your daughter be “punished with a baby.” (And don’t pretend you don’t know whom I’m quoting.) No baby, no problem.
Second, are you laughing because the daughter’s pregnancy seems inconsistent with the Palins’ beliefs as evangelical Christians? It’s funny how, in a case like this, when almost no one wants to acknowledge any more that premarital sex is wrong, it’s suddenly an issue. But I’ll grant you the point—fair enough. It’s wrong; the daughter sinned, and now there are consequences. But maybe you don’t really understand Christian theology or the realistic view that Christians have about sin. Premarital sex is a sin, a consequence of lust, and it causes social problems (but I thought you liberals were all about free sex for everybody, with whomever you please, all the time). But so are avarice, gluttony, pride, anger…. Christians don’t say that no one sins (at least most of them don’t). Christians say, only, that we are obligated to attempt to live in a holy way, and that, if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. Christians don’t pretend not to be sinners; they merely ask for forgiveness, pick themselves up, and start over. I hope this young girl, who must be suffering agonies right now because of her mother’s political choices, will do exactly that.
Third, can’t you at least admire the woman for living up to her own beliefs? For meeting the issue head-on and making an announcement before the media “found out”? (I wonder if this, by the way, isn’t the reason the mainstream media is attacking so savagely: Sarah Palin stole their thunder with her courageous adherence to the truth.)
Fourth, why are you suddenly giving air time (on NPR this morning) to a mother who says women should stay home with their children? I’ve been saying that, Cassandra-like, for twenty years. No one listens, so I try to be realistic about the issue, and I don’t jump on my soapbox in front of my liberal friends, precisely because I value them as friends. You advocate tax policies designed to discourage stay-at-home moms, and you constantly flog women’s issues in high school and college textbooks with writings that present the ideal woman as someone who can have it all: children (or not, as she chooses), husband (unless she’d rather pursue a lesbian relationship), a career (for which homemaking is never presented as a choice). You have effectively silenced and cowed women who believe that a woman makes the courageous choice when she accepts her duty to be at home with her children. And now you’re giving them air time? Why? Isn’t that a tad inconsistent?
Americans may not know or admit when they’re being illogical and inconsistent themselves, but Mr. and Mrs. American can usually detect inconsistencies in politics—because the average American is pretty cynical about politics anyway. So, maybe some Americans, like me, will be unhappy that Mrs. Palin isn’t staying at home to raise her children, and many will be sad about her daughter’s pregnancy. But, while you laugh, they will pray, and maybe—just maybe—God will be merciful and let our country reap the benefits of Sarah Palin’s virtue: devotion to truth and life.
Post a Comment