Obama raised by grandparents good Palin does it then bad?

August 31, 2008

The left is saying that Obama is good because raised by his white grandparents. But that Sarah Palin is bad because she may have taken her child’s child as her own to raise.

We can sum this up as:

Obama was raised by his grand parents at key parts of his life, and has little loyalty towards his grandmother, like seeing her grandkids on his last trip to Hawaii which apparently never happened, but expects much of her. On the other hand, if Palin raises a grandchild as her own to avoid shame to the child and an inexperienced parent, that’s a shame on Palin. That’s covering up and keeping information from her supporters who would otherwise trash her for having a teen have a baby.

Vanishing American on this issue has great post


I actually think it would be to their credit, were it true. In ‘old America’ it was not unheard of for parents or other family members to raise a ‘chance child’ as theirs, thus keeping the child within the family fold while not offering an occasion for scandal to the neighbors. I know of a few cases like this among the older generations, wherein a child was adopted and raised by the grandparents as one of their own children. In some cases, neighbors knew this to be the case, and yet it was simply not talked about.

I agree with you VA.

MSM: Edwards, Clinton, etc. they protect for their activity. The MSM doesn’t think Edwards has any responsibility for the child “if” its his.

MSM: Sarah Palin secretly taking responsibility for her granddaughter and raising her without shame is bad, because she even thinks its shameful. Of course, in MSM world, its the hypocrisy that offends them. She is the same as Edwards but she pretends to be better and hides it from her cave dwelling supporters by pretending her wild teen’s child is her own instead of proudly saying its out of wedlock. If she actually believes its a shame, and isn’t doing it just to deceive her supporters, that is worse. Of course, with Edwards that is different. That was just the Republican smear machine. Anyone who disagrees with these MSM views is benighted and likely a covert member of you know what organizations.

Of the 4 people on the tickets, if I had to keep one and throw the rest, I would toss the other 3.



Sarah Palin grandchild


The alleged photo that proves she wasn’t pregnant in February 2008


Where does it say a candidate for president like Obama doesn’t have to reveal his hospital of birth, birth certificate, Indonesian school, religious institution, passport, identity card files, Pakistan passport usage, US passport files, and whatever is in Kenya, Canada, Washington State, Pakistan ISI files, or Saudi files? But on the other hand, a woman has to reveal the birth certificate of her daughter/grand-daughter?

Obama should produce his own birth certificate before he demands the birth certificate of Palin’s child. His supporters should stop calling for the b.c. of Palin’s child, Trig, while calling Texas Darlin and others names for asking for Obama’s b.c.




See Following comment from Raw Story thread


August 31st, 2008 at 13:07:07 From:
McCain’s Anti-Choice Choice
McCain’s selection of Gov. Sarah Palin to serve as his VP, is for all intents and purposes, a ridiculous attempt to hoodwink the angry pro-Hillary supporters in America to come over to his camp and is the most insulting, condescending, slap in the face to women I have ever seen on such a scale. And the most frightening aspect is – there are many women AND men who will fall for this complete load of crap and do just that. Progressives need to understand that Sarah Palin is no friend to women. She is rabidly anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, plus she has an intense hatred of the gay and lesbian community, is a card carrying member of the NRA and opposes any legislation to put any requirements on gun ownership, is anti-environment/anti-species protection, pro big oil, highlighted her opposition” to “that bridge to nowhere” — but not her previous reported support for it. She and her husband are ‘said’ to have five kids, the last one being born with Downs Syndrome. But there is an intense debate going on over the suspicion that this fifth child could possibly be that of her oldest daughter. People in the know (classmates) claimed Palin’s daughter had developed a bit of a paunch and then disappeared from school for over five months (some say it was eight). The reason given for her absence was that she had a prolonged case of “mono”. Now, mono can last anywhere from two weeks to three months, but an eight month infection is a freak oddity. Now, for those who don’t know, this is a typical excuse given by many Christian parents to cover up and avoid the terrible stigma of their teenage daughters becoming unwed mothers. And being the daughter of such a high profile, bible thumper as Gov. Palin is, bearing a child out of wedlock has the potential to do even more damage to her mother’s overly pious image and squeaky clean reputation. Sarah Palin’s aides and co-workers were completely unaware that she was pregnant until early March. And they claim she never actually appeared or behaved as if she were pregnant. She continued to wear the same clothing she had worn up to that time and had shown no perceptible bulge to anyone’s recollection. She claims she was at an energy conference in Texas when her water broke. Then she related that it was only a slow leak of amniotic fluid and not a full gush. Then she claims she gave a 30 minute speech, while in labor, left the hall and got on a plane for the long, eleven hour ordeal and eight hour flight back to Alaska. None of the people at the conference, flight attendants or the pilots were ever told of or made aware of her condition. Her plane then made a landing in Anchorage, Alaska. Does Sarah then visit a medical facility that can accommodate a premature birth in Alaska’s most equipped city? No. She drives 45 minutes away, to Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, right outside the small village she used to govern as Mayor, Wasilla. “Trig Palin” is then delivered one month premature, Friday night. Sarah returned to work after three days. The inherent need to absolutely have Trig delivered in a remote and possibly ill-equipped facility for premature deliveries, where Sarah would likely have numerous contacts and the control to keep things from the media, does not sit well. The doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, approving of all of these actions borders on malpractice. Not properly treating leaking amniotic fluid leakage can cause severe infections, and time is of the essence after one’s water breaks. The final point of interest in this story is that Trig Palin has been diagnosed with Down’s syndrome . This is an interesting point, as chances of having offspring with Down’s Syndrome increases from under 1% to 3% after a mother reaches the age of 40. Although many supporters who are trying to throw water on this story, claiming it’s nearly impossible for a teenage girl to have a Down’s baby, 80% of the cases of Down’s Syndrome are in mother’s under the age of 35 through sheer quantities of births in this age group. Adding even more fuel to the fire on this story, the Alaska Department of State has now removed all photos of Sarah Palin and her family from their website. Word of the pregnancy scandal is spreading around the Internet like wildfire. According to one source, people “in the know” from Alaska are stating it is true, and that Sarah Palin did hide her daughter’s pregnancy. And that the child, Trig Palin, very likely belongs to her daughter, Bristol. And why else does this matter? Sarah Palin is intensly anti-abortion. Great to see she sticks to her guns. But it’s too bad she felt some need to lie about her own daughter being pregnant because of the fact that: Sarah Palin is an avid proponent to abstinence only education. Maybe this needs repeating. Sarah Palin is an avid proponent to abstinence only education. One more time! Sarah Palin is an avid proponent to abstinence only education. Are we beginning to get the picture? Seems as though she needs to spend more time being a mom and less time being a politician if her own daughter was getting knocked up at the tender age of 16, or if Sarah has a new baby that requires extra special care. If Bristol Palin truly did give birth to Trig Plain on April 18, 2008 then this blows open a huge hole in her highly touted, flawlwess, Christian parenting abilities and the abstinence only arguments she supports. Keeping a close watch on your teenage daughter’s activities and behavior is something most responsible parents have known for years, regardless of the intensity of their religious beliefs or political affiliation. You need to educate your kids about sex, but you also need to make them understand there are preventative measures that can be taken when there is a rejection of the abstinence argument. It also shows that John McCain has obviously made one more bad decision in a long string of bad decisions. Lying, secrecy and deceit have become so much a part of the Republican’s modus operandi over the past 30 years that it will likely be very difficult to ever get to the truth of this matter. The fact that it could have been her daughter that gave birth to this child is not the problem though. The problem is the cover-up and her ability to do so with such success that this may be the big attraction that the Neocons had been looking for in a female candidate. So, if this is true, to hell with her political inexperience, right? She’s the kind of champion John McCain’s administration needs when it comes to pulling the wool over the eyes of her gullible supporters and constituents. She can attract the women’s vote and she can be trusted to toe the line when it comes to continuing the lies and deceit if McCain were to kick the bucket during his term of office.
August 31st, 2008 at 13:40:31 From:
13:07:07 – you may want to also check her oldest child’s birthdate against her wedding date and do that calculation.
August 31st, 2008 at 14:16:26 From:

The above comments are almost exactly the same as the spoof version. Those in the Obama reality zone are predictable. That means Obama is too. Which means he will follow his heart not his head. That’s not good for us.




Article II of the US Constitution requires the president be natural born, not that the son of the vice president be her own child instead of her grand child. BTW, Trig is a natural born US citizen and not a dual citizen like his mom, whoever his mom is. Sarah, Bristol and Trig Palin and in fact the entire Palin family are all natural born US citizens and once 35 all of them qualify under Article II. But Obama’s extended family can’t say that. Its Obama who has to prove that he is a natural born citizen, not Trig to prove which Palin was his mother. Obama has to reveal his files from Indonesia, Hawaii, US Passport office, Pakistan travel in 1981, etc. He has to prove in Philadelphia in the Berg lawsuit that he is a natural born citizen and was never a dual citizen. But the AP photo says he was a citizen of Indonesia and the US Supreme Court has upheld cases of losing US citizenship by a similar fact pattern.

==Daily Kos photos and videos of Sarah Palin during period in question prior to birth of Trig Palin.

Kos article says Sarah Palin not mother.


There could be calls below to delete this information. Calls that this type of information is muckraking and ‘below us’. The truth is not below any progressive, nor any citizen of the world that is one heartbeat away from having Palin as leader of the free world. We simply ask that she be forthright, honest, and not waste our time with such juvenile games that anyone with eyes can see as fabrication.

Bristol Palin rightfully should be able to embrace her child in public as her own, with no shame, and no quarter. And a mother should be just as accepting.

Obama Zone Reality = spoof. This is why the New Yorker cover was the same as reality.

Great links below:


Early post on it:


Wasilla Police Department
On February 8, 2008, at 1737 hours, Wasilla Police responded to two vehicle collision at Seward Meridian Parkway and Fireweed Drive . Investigation revealed that Bristol Palin, age 17 of Wasilla, was driving a 4-door sedan and attempted to turn into a business when she struck a 2-door sedan driven by Joshua Moffet, age 19, of Wasilla. Palin was issued a citation for Failing to Use Due Care to Avoid a Collision. Moffet was issued a citation for an expired registration and no proof of insurance. 4:15 PM – 7 Comments – 8 Kudos


Some local Alaska comments:




The whole story is based on an insulting view of fundamentalist Christians; that they’d be so freaked out by a teenage pregnancy that they’d have the Governor — the most highly visible and public women in the small fishbowl of Alaska — fake a pregnancy to cover up the sins her of daughter Bristol.



4 Responses to “Obama raised by grandparents good Palin does it then bad?”

  1. Ennealogic Says:

    Obama has produced his birth certificate, and it has been verified. See http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

    However, the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, where Trig Palin is said to have been born on 4-18-2008 doesn’t take note of it:


    I have no idea if the rumors are true. If untrue, when Gov. Palin flew back to Alaska at 8 months pregnant and after her water broke, I’d say her reverence for her unborn’s life was seriously lacking, and her judgement needs to be called into question. Heck, a woman with a special needs infant who accepts an invite to campaign across the country and then possibly have a job as VP of the US, must not care much about her own family. This is family values?

    If the story is true, it would show that Gov. Palin is capable of pre-meditated falsehoods, something we’ve had entirely too much of over the past 8 years. Lying to avoid public embarrassment is nothing new. Such deception has ruined many political careers.

    I’ll reserve judgement until further investigation has been done, but either way — her child or her daughter’s child — the implications are not good.

  2. John Maszka Says:

    An Escalation of the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a Very Bad Policy.

    Raising children aside … Conservatives and liberals can argue the merits of the surge in Iraq, or the need to deal with terrorism now rather than later. I want to focus on something else: the impact of the perspective of 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. I’m not implying that it is somehow homogeneous, just relevant; more relevant than my opinion at least.

    Taking the war on terror back to Afghanistan (and most likely Pakistan) is bad for a number of reasons: the perspective of the international Muslim community; the fact that a military solution has not worked thus far, so why keep kicking a dead horse (especially when it has the potential to trample you); the delicate balance of power in the immediate theatre and in the broader region; the likely negative reaction of other states; and last but not least, its potential impact on the price and availability of oil.

    Pakistan’s reaction to the Bush Doctrine has been somewhat mixed. Musharraf was caught in the middle between pleasing the U.S. to ensure continued military and economic support, and the preferences of his constituents who resent the U.S. presence there. The region is already very unstable because of this tension between the US applying pressure from the outside and the internal desire of the populace to rid themselves of the unwanted American presence.

    We can say the exact same thing about Afghanistan, Karzai is in a very similar position as Musharraf was. In 2006, Karzai had to start rearming the warlords to maintain order. Similarly, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan – a loose group of Waziristani chieftains, closely associated with the Taliban, who now serve as the de facto security force in charge of North and South Waziristan.

    If Senator Obama becomes president, and refocuses the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the best we can hope for is another five to six years of what we’ve seen in Iraq. But this best-case scenario is very unlikely.

    In addition to a multiple-front war, we would be dealing, not with a fallen state as with Iraq, but with two established states. This could possibly work in our favor as long as they continue to remain on our side. But as already mentioned, the tension is high, and there is a very delicate balance keeping Karzai in power. What if Karzai falls to a coup or assassination? And now with Musharraf stepping down, what happens if Musharraf’s successor plays to the popular demands of the people? We could find ourselves fighting the armies of the sovereign states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, in addition to insurgent forces there. If we consider the history of this region, we realize that this is not as far-fetched as it might sound on the face of it.

    As we all know, the Taliban was comprised of Sunni Islamists and Pashtun nationalists (mostly from southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan). The Taliban initially enjoyed support from the U.S., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates in the early 1980s to fight the Soviets. By 1996, the Taliban had gained control of most of Afghanistan, but its relationship with the U.S. and most of the rest of the world became strained. Most of the international community supported the Taliban’s rival, the Afghan Northern Alliance.

    Still, even after the U.S. began to distance itself from the Taliban in late 1997, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates continued to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Even after 9/11 when Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates officially stopped recognizing the Taliban, Pakistan continued to support it. The Taliban in turn, had tremendous influence in Pakistani politics, especially among lobby groups- as it virtually controlled areas such as the Pashtun Belt (Southeast Afghanistan, and Northwest Pakistan) and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

    Going back to the perception of the international Muslim community … When the U.S. demanded that the Taliban turn Bin Laden over, it initially offered to turn Bin Laden over to Pakistan to be tried by an international tribunal operating according to Sharia law. But Pakistan was urged by the U.S. to refuse. Again, prior to the beginning of U.S. air strikes against Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden according to Islamic law, but the U.S. refused. After the U.S. began air strikes, the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral state to be tried under Islamic law, but the U.S. again refused. This is important because in the eyes of the greater international community, the war in Afghanistan was justified (at least initially). But in the eyes of the international Muslim community, especially given the Taliban’s offer to turn over Bin Laden, it was an unnecessary war. This, combined with the preemptive war in Iraq, has led many Muslims to equate the war on terror with a war on Islam. Senator Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan will only serve to reinforce that impression.

    Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an Islamic political party in Pakistan, won elections in two out of four provinces in 2003, and became the third largest political party in the Pakistani parliament – with substantial support from urban areas (not just border regions). This speaks to the tremendous influence Islamic groups enjoy in Pakistan.

    This strong influence is fueled by the fact that the Pashtun tribal group is over 40 million strong. The Taliban continues to receive many of its members from this group today. In fact, the Pakistani army suffered humiliating defeat at the hand of these so-called “insurgents.” Finally, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Many saw the Pakistani government’s acknowledgment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan as not only a military necessity, but also a political one as well – a concession in response to the growing internal pressure on the Musharraf administration from the people of Pakistan who resent the U.S. presence and involvement in the region.

    Just consider the many, many public protests against the Pakistani government’s compliance with the United States. For instance, on January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area.

    On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the U.S., attacked a madrasah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced the U.S. military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam. On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, without ever offering their condolences to the families of the slaughtered children.

    Last year troubles escalated surrounding the Pakistani government’s siege of the Red Mosque where more than 100 people were killed. Even before Musharraf’s soldiers took the Lal Masjid the retaliations began. Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center.

    There are countless more examples; too many to mention in detail. Likewise in Afghanistan; April 30, 2007 for example, when hundreds of Afghans protested US soldiers killing Afghan civilians. Why can’t the powers that be recognize that we’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly seven years, and in Iraq for over five; a military approach is not working. If we must focus the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, let’s focus on winning the hearts and minds of the beautiful people of these countries, rather than filling their hearts with bitterness and hatred toward us. With their support, we can offer them the financial and technical assistance that they need to rebuild their infrastructure, their agriculture and their economy. With their support, we can offer them the needed resources to rebuild their human capital and start attracting foreign direct investment. But without their support, we cannot possibly have any positive influence in this region at all; our only influence will be that of brute force, bribery of corrupt officials, and outright coercion. It will be a long, hard, costly and bloody endeavor, and the people of these countries will continue to suffer.

    Let’s not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Let’s not also forget that this is a highly Muslim-concentrated area, the Islamic concept of duty to come to the aid of fellow Muslims would no doubt ensure a huge influx of jihadists in this type of a scenario. Why on earth would we want to intentionally provoke a situation that would not only radicalize existing moderates in the region, but could also potentially cause the influx of a concentration of radical jihadists from elsewhere into an already unstable region (that has nuclear weapons no less)? We would be begging for a nuclear proliferation problem.

    We like to assume that we would have the upper hand in such a scenario. But we have been in Afghanistan since October of 2001. And we have yet to assume the upper hand. The fight in Afghanistan has the potential to become much more difficult than it already is. Nor would it be unheard of to expect other major powers to back these radical jihadists with economic and military assistance in much the same way that the US backed the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Beyond the fact that roughly 1/5 of the world’s population is Muslim (approximately 1.5 billion people- 85% Sunni, 15% Shia, Ibadiyyas, Ahmadis and Druze), we have to remember that Muslims are the majority in 57 states (out of 195). Most of these have Sunni majorities, which gives them added political power.

    China has traditionally backed Pakistan. What would China do if the US were to find itself at war with Pakistan?

    India has tremendous economic and security interests in the region. Let’s not forget that while India has been in nearly continual conflict with Pakistan, primarily over the Kashmir issue, it has the second largest Muslim population in the world next to Indonesia. What happens if India were to side with the U.S. in a potential conflict with Pakistan? It will have a very difficult task justifying that position with its very large Muslim population. A U.S.-Indian alliance could also spark more terrorist attacks in the Kashmir region; it could also create added tension to the already tenuous relationship between India and Iran, which has a long history of support for Pakistan. Or, if radicals gained control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, a nuclear attack against India could spark a nuclear altercation between the two nuclear powers. Or, what if radicals then gained control of India’s nuclear arsenal?

    On the other hand, what happens if India for some reason (either via a coup or due to Muslims gaining the upper hand in the long-running Hindu-Muslim conflict) were to side with Pakistan against the United States? It seems unlikely now, but not completely unrealistic considering the on-again, off-again relationship between the U.S. and every country in that region. We constantly flip-flop in our foreign policy. An attack on Pakistani soil would be a perfect example of this type of wishy-washy foreign policy, as the Bush administration guaranteed Musharraf that the U.S. would never do such a thing (as much as Karzai wants us to). Speaking of Karzai, what if he is ousted and we find ourselves at war with Afghanistan. What would India do then, given its friendship with Afghanistan?

    Also consider the U.S. position on Kashmir, which has a predominantly Muslim population. Pakistan wants a plebiscite, as called for in a 1949 UN resolution, to essentially allow the people to decide which state the region should belong to. India refuses a plebiscite, claiming Kashmir and Jammu as an integral part of India. The U.S. is arming both sides through billions in aid to Pakistan and selective proliferation to India, but insists Pakistan stem terrorist activities flowing from inside its borders, and at the same time discourages India from attacking Pakistan. Yet an escalation of war in the area could backfire badly.

    Beyond all that we still have to consider a slew of other states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia – not to mention the central Asian states – all of which have economic and/or political and security interests in the region. How will they react to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    Finally, what would such a scenario do to oil prices and availability? I’m 100% in favor of America developing alternative energy sources, but again that’s my opinion, and the oil conglomerates have not been listening to me. Unfortunately, the facts are that the oil lobby is a very powerful entity. Even more to the point, our country could not ween itself off of oil overnight, even if it wanted to. We have to consider what such an escalation would do to oil prices, and the overall availability of oil.

    The oil embargo of 1974 (in support of Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur war against Israel), in retaliation against the U.S. for its support of Israel had devastating economic and political consequences on the U.S. and much of Europe. Also, the more recent boycott of Danish products across the Muslim world, in retaliation for the 2005 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, demonstrates the ability of the international Muslim community to act collectively.

    Escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan would also demonstrate the fickle and hypocritical nature of America’s foreign policy. We supported the Taliban when it served our interests (to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan) in spite of clear human rights abuses. But now we condemn the Taliban (and much of the Muslim world) over the very same human rights abuses (against women … etc.), while we also continue to ignore similar or same human rights abuses in China, Saudi Arabia, Israel … etc., when it’s convenient for us to do so. We did the same thing with Saddam Hussein; arming him in spite of clear and egregious human rights abuses when he was our ally, and condemning the same actions when he wasn’t.

    The U.S. practices selective proliferation with India, and selective sovereignty with those it chooses (today Pakistan, tomorrow someone other than Pakistan), while at the same time violating the sovereignty of other states- depending on its whim at the time.

    The United States government insisted that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden, but the United States itself has refused on several occasions to return foreign nationals (being held on death row in America) to their state of domicile because the U.S. wanted them to face execution, and the home state did not uphold the death penalty. We also continue to refuse to acknowledge the ICC because we don’t want American military personnel tried in an international court. How is that so different from the Taliban wanting Bin Laden tried in an Islamic court?

    Rather than blindly accepting that America holds some God-given moral superiority over the rest of the planet, we need to realize that everywhere, humanity has a God-given right to live, love and prosper. Our children have the right to grow up in an environment free of air strikes and constant assault from an external enemy. They have the right to attend schools without fear of being maimed and killed inside of them. And they have the right to be children, instead of orphans. No state has the right to take that away from your children, or from mine. Imagine now that Senator Obama is planning to escalate the war on terror where you live.

  3. Vanishing American Says:

    Old Atlantic, looks like some liberal blog has linked to you.

    I wonder what commenter #1 would like us to say? That ‘family values’ are a fraud and that we should abandon all such ideals?

    Surely the left makes no show of even believing in any sort of family values, and they sneer at any mention of such on the part of White conservatives. So I suppose in the ideal liberal world, we would announce that any attempt at maintaining values and standards of any sort is ‘hypocrisy’ and must be derided and discredited and jeered at whenever anyone expresses such ideas.

    The world is imperfect; that’s a given. Human beings are imperfect; that’s a given. Heck, even Christians are imperfect, and admit it. The only thing different about Christians and conservatives is that we at least maintain some beliefs and try to live up to them, and above all, when we fall short, as all human beings do, we take responsibility. We pick ourselves up and try again. The left prefers to pull down every ideal and trample on it, saying that only ‘hypocrites’ believe in such things. What a world we would have if their way were universally adopted.

    So what do the liberals want people like Sarah Palin to do? Stay home and bake cookies, as Hillary Clinton once sneered in an interview? I thought liberals believed in full equality for women to pursue careers and live up to their potential. I suppose her real crime is in choosing to have more than one child, and to have a marriage instead of a marriage of convenience like, say, the Clintons.

    And commenter #1 claims not to know if the rumor was true, yet is happy and gleeful to pass it on. Rumormongers always do that: feign innnocence while passing gossip on.

  4. Old Atlantic Says:

    VA, good comments. Hope you are feeling better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: