Palin Travels Beyond Alaska Border; Liberals Freak Out

Note: This article was originally posted on April 22, 2009, at Why Mommy is a Republican. Complaints about Palin's travel and other frivolous complaints have since been dismissed.


Yet another outrageously frivolous "ethics complaint" has been filed against Governor Sarah Palin -- baseless, as usual. Conservatives4Palin has the full story. Please do read it because knowledge of truth is power.

You know, when I get a lot of liberal hate mail, I know I'm doing my job. Governor Palin, congratulations on generating the most outrageous outflux of hatred from liberals since the Reagan era. You are far more of a threat to them than I could ever be and I salute you for it.

I saw a poll (I think it was today, but maybe yesterday) at MIXX regarding Governor Palin. It asked, simply, "Would you consider voting for Sarah Palin for President in 2012?" Over 1,300 people had voted and more than 70% voted YES. Polls like this are the reason for liberal venom. Most of it should be ignored but the frivolous ethics complaints waste the time of government workers who have to handle them, thereby wasting taxpayer dollars, and are financially detrimental to Governor Palin who must pay out of her own pocket to defend against them. I think (talking only from my gut) that there should be a penalty for filing what a judge deems after-the-fact to have been a frivolous complaint, but I'm not familiar with the law on things like that. When the people of a state are filing complaints about their governor speaking in another state, you know they're desperately pursuing an unhealthy agenda of some kind.

I must say, I have had to file official complaints with my state government (albeit not against the government itself) for denial of access to my service dog. When I am out driving and have to go to the bathroom urgently, if I stop at some public place and find that my wheelchair won't fit in the bathroom stall, I just leave. I don't sue for millions of dollars under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If anything, I write a letter to the place of business and let them know they really should get that fixed, but usually I just ignore it and go about my business. Life is hard and I have no desire to become a professional whiner. If a denial of access is egregious, I file a formal complaint. I've done it about five times, I think. The state enforcement officer contacts the business, we all discuss it and resolve it like adults. Recently, a person with a service dog was denied access in an identical manner to me, but that person sued through the ADA and got $100,000. Some people are whiners, and trust me when I say that in my sixteen years of political activity, I have found out that liberals are the chief whiners of the nation. There is even a website dedicated to liberal whining.

Sooner or later these people are going to realize the constant whining and attacking is not working. The fact that many ostensibly "popular" mainstream news shows are suffering big ratings drops is an indicator that the tide is turning.

There are a few (precious few) liberals in media who still have certain standards they are willing to fight for. Eileen O'Conner has acted in a professional manner regarding Susan Roesgen's behavior at CNN. Tommy Christopher understands that Sarah Palin is not being allowed to play on a level playing field. He first spoke out on this when he called out liberal bloggers for viciously attacking her family and more recently by criticizing Newt Gingrich for not mentioning her in a list of viable candidates for 2012. Sophia Nelson has called for less whining from liberals and mentioned the trashing of Palin in subsequent comments to her readers. There are a few liberals out there, in other words, who have earned our respect. Many more are so far out there in Whineyville that intellectual and respectful discourse is, by every indication, impossible.

Allow me to elaborate on the seemingly hopeless ones. Do you know there are multiple blogs and Twitter users dedicated specifically to destroying the reputation of Governor Sarah Palin? In "Kentucky-eeze" we say "folks like that are just ate up".

"Ate up": crazy, obsessed and/or completely outperformed in a contest.

The first time I stumbled accidentally upon an anti-Palin blog was after reviewing my stats to see which sites were linking to me. I noticed I was getting a lot of visitors from one site in particular that I had never heard of (and it will continue to remain nameless since I am not in the business of reputation destruction). I clicked the link and got my first look at a genuine, full-fledged, Palin-bashing blog.

The blog in question had linked to a poll we had published regarding Sarah Palin. I was surprised to find that there were many visitors to this anti-Palin blog. Palin-bashers are almost always women and this place was full of them. Women were commenting with glee about the crucifixion of Sarah Palin, the frivolous ethics complaints (which they don't recognize as frivolous, of course), the trashing of her reputation by her former future son-in-law, etc. Lots of women were posting daily and frequently there about how awful they think Sarah Palin is. Simply put, Sarah Palin can do NOTHING right in their eyes.

At first I was shocked, then disgusted, then angry........and then I just burst out laughing as I recalled how I've heard some men talk about women sitting around talking and how the men sometimes compare them to hens cackling with each other in the barnyard. What that analogy means (I know because I have five brothers and no sisters, so I know "man things") is that female banter, at least to the male brain, almost always seems as utterly pointless and fruitless as the cackling of chickens. Men just totally "zone out" and don't "get it". When I saw this pointless, fruitless banter, I immediately envisioned a barnyard full of chickens and I couldn't keep myself from laughing.

I posted a comment. I couldn't help myself. I told them that when I am finished with my work online every day, I am able to discuss my work with my children. I asked, "Can you do that?" I never saw my comment posted. Maybe it was. I didn't stick around long enough to find out. These poor women don't get that a person they despise is, without lifting a single finger and without the tiniest intention to do so, controlling them. Simply by being who she is, the person they love to hate, Sarah Palin controls their lives without even intending to. How ironic that they spend so much time thinking about Sarah Palin. They have devoted their daily lives to her. What irony. Imagine this exchange between a mother and child:

"Sweetie, what would you like to be when you grow up?"

"I would like to devote the majority of my time destroying someone's reputation, Mommy."

Actually, kids don't say things like that because no one wants to grow up to be something like that.

The funniest part, which I found out later, is that the main blogger is respected in the high-traffic liberal blogs. She is RESPECTED there! Laughable.

Sooner or later these people are going to realize they are spinning their wheels. They have already convinced everyone they are ever going to hope to convince (Kool-Aid drinkers all) and have earned the disgust of people on both ends of the American political spectrum who still have principles.

These kinds of bloggers are a joke to reasonable people. Unfortunately, there is another kind of Palin-bashing that is truly sad. Many of the haters are not just bloggers who spend their time trashing people but are actually masquerading as public servants. When you defy your own party's establishment for being corrupt and then, later, campaign against the "messiah" of the other party, those folks can get pretty ticked off.

Example: Last year, the Alaska Legislature adopted a resolution praising Wayne Anthony Ross for his service to Alaska. It passed unanimously. Here is the text. Sarah Palin nominated him this year to serve as Attorney General. They balked. Palin rightly called it what it is -- hypocrisy. It's also politics as usual.

I fear not. Do you know that old saying, "I've been insulted by better people than you?" I think of that when I recall the era of Bill Clinton. Here's a flashback for ya.

Whitewater / Travelgate / Gennifer Flowersgate / Filegate / Vince Fostergate / Whitewater / Billing Recordsgate / Paula Jonesgate / Lincoln Bedroomgate / Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate / Lippogate / Chinagate / The Lewinsky Affair / Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate / Kathleen Willeygate / Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate / Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate / Jaunita Broaddrick Gate / Lootergate / Pardongate

The idea of LeviJohnstongate, Leaving the State for 36 HoursGate and Wearing an Arctic Cat JacketGate doesn't seem to be much of a problem for most people outside of the clueless liberal blogosphere which still maintains the tea parties are partisan despite the booing of GOP Congressmen and placards slamming Republican support for bailouts.

Don't worry, folks. Sooner or later, Obama is going to tax Kool-Aid and then they'll wake up.

Thanks for your time, dear readers. Keep the Faith! May God bless you and keep you.

UPDATE: Thanks to Free Republic reader Eurum for tipping us off to a scene from The Music Man which Eurum calls "Sarah and the Cackling Hens" (Video below.)

Sarah Palin's Choice

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, opines that Sarah Palin made "an eloquent case for choice" during her speech at the annual banquet of Vanderburgh County Right to Life. Below is the comment I left in response to her claim.

~~~

If you were writing in the 17th century, I would certainly understand why you might be uncertain about when human life begins. There is no excuse anymore for anyone to say we don't know. Technology and science show us the answer. It's obvious when human life begins. Dear lady, this is the 21st century and we have known the answer to this question for many many years.

Women experiencing unintended pregnancies necessarly experience a struggle, but the main reason for this struggle is not because she wants to kill. It is for other reasons that she feels trapped -- money, lack of family support, stigma, or perhaps a cancerous uterus can require intervention. Many things can enter into the equation that will make a woman do the unthinkable, but the desire to kill another human being isn't one of those reasons.

Abortion is proof that society has failed women. What reasons did Palin give for considering abortion? Certainly the desire to kill another person wasn't among them. No, it was what so many other women feel -- a lack of support -- a feeling of being forced to do something she really didn't want to do. That is a failure not on Palin's part or any other woman's part who considers abortion. It's a failure of society to support women who are faced with unintended pregnancy.

So what happens to these women? They decide, based on how much suffering they are willing to endure, whether or not to let this child live. (FYI: In the case of the cancerous uterus, it is morally permissible to remove the uterus to save the woman, even if the child dies, provided that there is no intent to kill involved. That is indirect killing, not direct murder.) How many women intentionally get pregnant for the reason that they want to have an abortion and kill the child? None. There is always another motive besides killing involved in the decision. No woman desires to kill........but in the 21st century, we all know, because science now proves it, that it really is killing.

So, the woman who can't bear the pressure goes to have her child killed. Society has failed her. She does the unthinkable because she feels trapped into doing so.

I have counseled many women considering abortion via a lay ministry of the Catholic Church. They all wanted life for their children but were nagged by what our culture tells them about abortion and adoption. Adoption, they would tell me, is "cruel". Society has told them this. In the end, when they understood that now there is open adoption available and when they understood that the Church stood ready to assist them whether they chose to make an adoption plan or to parent the child themselves, every woman I counseled decided against abortion........and were utterly renewed in rejoicing for doing so.

We all know it's killing. We've known for years. We tell women all sorts of things to make them want to choose killing. We fail them when we do this.

The answer? Love them both. Don't choose to love only the mother and kill the child. Don't choose to love only the child and not the mother. Love them both.

If we can reverse Dred Scott, which classified slaves as non-persons, and evolve in a relatively short amount of time, given the entire history of mankind, to elect an African-American as President of the United States, we can end abortion and empower women.

Sarah Palin is hated because she proves that women can be mothers of disabled children and governors at the same time. So, she considered abortion for, as she said, "a fleeting moment". People of character are often tempted to do wrong things when their backs are against the wall. The point is, she decided to love not only the child enough to go ahead with the pregnancy, but also to have enough faith in herself to be a hero and do the thing she knew to be right......and women can be heroes no matter what our culture tells them they can't do.

The "moral" of this story, then, is not that temptation proves we must legalize wrong things. The moral is that women can be heroes and do the right thing even if the law allows them to do the unthinkable.

Many blessings to you.

`````````````````````````
Book Recommendation:
Why Can't We Love Them Both : Questions and Answers About Abortion