Category Archives: Sarah Palin

How a member of the “Christian Left” Thinks

I try, I really do. I really try to give an open mind to people who claim to be “Christian Left,” “pro-life Democrats,” etc., but it just doesn’t work. To be a part of the Christian Left, it seems that one must:

1. Turn a blind eye towards, if not condone, all the moral filth promoted by the Left in general, while condemning members of the Christian Right for being political allies of some people who are greedy or racist.
2. Support Socialism, even though the Popes have unequivocally and consistently condemned it.
3. Repeatedly insist, “Judge not lest ye be judged” when it comes to abortion, contraception, homosexuality or divorce yet simultaneously (and at the same time) insist that everyone who supports a conservative position is secretly racist, sexist or greedy, even if the latter’s words give no indication of those positions.
4. Clairvoyantly insist that all who profess to be pro-life or pro-family are just covering up deep-seated hatred for women, gays, or humanity in general.
5. See “racism” in any political cartoon, joke or photoshopped image regarding Barack Obama, yet say that even the most offensive depictions of George W. Bush or Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum are excusable because “rich white guys deserve it.”
6. Ignore statements like, “It’s Constitutional, m*****f****s” or even defend such statements as acceptable political speech yet say that “You’d have to be an idiot to think Obamacare’s giving you anything for free” is offensive and crosses the line.
7. Ignore if not support horribly sexist comments about Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Ann Romney, etc., but say that Rush Limbaugh crossed the line by saying an unmarried girl who claimed to spend $1000 a year on birth control is a “slut.”
8. Again, while supporting “freedom of choice,” “same sex marriage,” etc., you insist on condemning “hate speech” and labelling any statement of traditional Christian morality, even from the Bible itself, as “hate.”
9. Make no comment when liberals say, “Republicans are nothing but a bunch of hatemongers,” but when a conservative friend quotes Russell Kirk or Dietrich von Hildebrand and tries to philosophically explain his position, and the liberals just jump in and say, “See? Another hate-monger,” you tell the conservative to cool it.
10. Most of all, to be a member of the “Christian Left,” you must support the notion of “progress,” even though if you’re truly a believing Christian you’ll know there’s no such thing: the only “progress” in human history happened 2000 years ago, and there is only the choice between accepting Christ’s grace through the Church and the Sacraments and not accepting that grace. There is individual progress in holiness, but the world can never have “progress,” especially when “progress” is defined as moving *away* from the principles of Christendom.
“Progressives” condemn the Christian Civilization of ca. 400-ca. 1800 as “the Dark Ages,” by definition condemning the Christianity that informed those times, so how could any Christian be a “progressive”?
“Progressives” ascribe to a false Marxist view of history, or at least to the Hegelian system upon which Marxism was based, which runs contrary to the Christian view of history elucidated by St. Augustine, so how can any Christian be a “progressive”?

I hate it when I lose thoughts

There was some big story earlier this week that I wanted to comment on, and didn’t, and of course forgot which story and what I was going to say. Hate it when that happens.

And there have been a lot of big stories, so I thought I’d just give a run down of opinions:

1. The Arizona shooting:
a. the whole thing is a huge win for Obama.
b. If Giffords was so concerned about safety, why didn’t she use better security? She didn’t use basic security protocols at these events, and she put people’s lives in danger.
c. Everyone keeps trying to claim the shooter for the other side, but he really just exemplifies what I’ve been warning about since 2006: a generation of people who’ve been raised on MTV and Comedy Central, Michael Moore and Glenn Beck, who don’t necessarily have a coherent political philosophy other than anger at “the establishment.”
d. Sarah Palin is evil because she used a “targeting” metaphor (and I agree the way she did it was in bad taste, especially for a pro-lifer, and especially someone who has been a victim of some equally vicious rhetoric). But let’s not forget 8 years of “kill Bush”, Alec Baldwin’s tirade about Henry Hyde, and all the hateful things that the liberals have said and are saying about Palin. They are such hypocrites.

2. The arrest of Abortionist Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania. Yet another example of the kind of depraved monsters who engage in this “medical practice.”

3. Rick Santorum says it’s hypocritical for Barack Obama, an African American, to suggest we can define who is and isn’t human, and the liberals say that Santorum should apologize for making such an “offensive” comment. HUH?

4. EWTN is acquiring the National Catholic Register. Good to get the Register out of the hands of the Legion of Christ, but is it a wise move for EWTN, which is in perpetual financial trouble, to buy a newspaper, when print news is a rapidly dying medium? And, as one of my Facebook friends pointed out, they should have bought the National Catholic Reporter and then fired everyone who works for it.

5. John Paul II’s speedy canonization will proceed with a beatification on May 1. So much for the photos showing JPII standing with Maciel and Maciel’s illegitimate family. So much for concerns that too many of JPII’s “friends” were speaking out of turn. They won’t beatify Pius XII because of calumnies that are spread against him which have no basis in fact and scandalize non-believers, yet John Paul II, who did so much to scandalize faithful Catholics, is getting fast-tracked. I don’t even necessarily question his sainthood, but I get tired of the attitude that we are supposed to just ignore the Koran Kissing, the pagan sacrifices at the Assisi Conference, his association with Maciel, and other damaging facts. These need to be *explained*. The explanations are there. I often use some them myself. Some things I’m still waiting for better clarity on. But if they’re going to beatify him, and they’re *not* going to beatify Pius XII, then they need to do some explaining.

6. Monday our country honored the life and death of Martin Luther King, Jr., a man who said we should judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. King was himself an adulterer, and one of his closest associates, Bayard Rustin, was a Communist and a homosexual. Forty years after his death, Americans elected Barack Obama, a man of no discernible character, due to the color of his skin.

7. A secular news story has tried to make a stink about the disappearance of Fr. Thomas Euteneuer from public eye. Most notably, Euteneuer’s book on exorcism which came out last summer is out of print and is selling for hundreds of dollars online. HLI says that the book merely sold out, and they opted not to reprint it, since Fr. Euteneuer left HLI.

When Fr. Euteneuer announced his resignation from HLI, I said at the time I didn’t think this was any conspiracy or “smack down.” There are ways things are phrased. When the Jesuits tried to use obedience to silence Fr. Fessio a while back, his public statements honored obedience while making it clear he didn’t agree with their decision. When Cardinal Egan recalled Fr. Pavone from Priests for Life, Fr. Pavone said he was complying but looking for options (and did).

Fr. Euteneuer’s statement expressed full compliance. I think he requested to be recalled by his bishop. Exorcists are supposed to be generally out of the spotlight, for a variety of reasons (avoiding sensationalism, maintaining personal humility, etc.) I think that he has chosen this change in direction of his life, and we should honor that.

8. As if Ellen Degenerate wasn’t bad enough, that strange looking creature they hired to replace Simon on American Idol is just too disturbing to look at, even on advertisements.
That brings up the point that one of the effects of my dissection is that I’ve narrowed down a lot of my viewing even more. I’m trying to avoid anything that will unnecessarily raise my blood pressure, and trying to avoid anything that might possibly be an occasion of sin.

Still feel like there’s another big news story of the week I wanted to comment on, but that covers most of ’em.

So, the Obama Administration finally “Bares All”

The Department of Health and “Human Services,” presided over by “Catholic” Kathleen Sebelius, recently completed the most extensive long-term study ever done of abstinence teaching (particularly by parents) and teen fornication. At first, the Obama Administration tried to resist publicizing the results (obviously having something to hide; that is Obama’s m.o., right?), but several appeals got the results released, and LifeSite News has a summary as well as the whole text.

As we all know, the “conventional wisdom,” pushed by the liberal establishment in the media and the educational system, is that “abstinence education” “doesn’t work,” that parents and schools alike need to teach teenagers about artificial contraception “because they’re going to have sex anyway.” I even heard these arguments in Catholic school–I heard these arguments in Catholic school from classmates whose parents were NFP instructors! (This led to my traditionalist bias against NFP). Of course, in the past couple years, Bristol Palin has been the poster girl for “abstinence doesn’t work.”

In a debate on this subject, an Internet friend of mine was responded to a comment of that sort by suggesting that the liberal in question count the number of people who are traditional minded Catholics, orthodox Jews or Evangelical Protestants whose teenagers getting pregnant compared to the number of secularist families whose teenagers are having sex and getting pregnant.

Indeed, the HHS study has shown, in summary, that abstinence education *does* work. Families with religious values or conservative attitudes are less likely to have teens who engage in sex. Teens who come from minority or less educated families are more likely to opposed sex before marriage. With the exception of African Americans, teens whose parents oppose fornication are less likely to engage in it.

You can read the full text here.

In related news, here’s a nice little blog post on the link between oxytocin and the psychology of sex and promiscuity. The importance of oxytocin (and dopamine and endorphines, which are its predecessors) to human psychological development, relationships (sexual and otherwise), addictions and morality has been a big area of interest to me for the past year and a half or so. There’s really a lot of scientific evidence that validates traditional morality, yet of course the secularists ignore the moral implications of the research, and you don’t often hear Christians talking about it, so it was nice to see this piece.

Haley Versus Barrett: Who’s more Pro-Life?

As we prepare for the run-off in the 2010 South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary, I hope to do a series of pieces comparing candidates Nikki Haley and Gresham Barrett.

First, obviously, is pro-life.

On Haley’s page, under “Right to Life,” there are three items.
The first is this video:

The second is this text:

I believe every life has a value and is blessed by God – my husband was adopted and my pro-life convictions stem from the fact I feel the blessings of that value every day knowing someone chose life for him. I see it every day in my two children as I watch them grow. My hope is that we continue to encourage and work towards educating that value of life to everyone.

OK, pretty generic Republican speech.

The third item is a letter from Holly Gatling of SC Citizens for Life, certifying Nikki Haley’s 100% pro-life voting record.

At one point last year, when I first heard of her campaign through Facebook, I found the state website that shows various pieces of legislation and legislators’ votes on them. Most of the votes were procedural, and full of so many double-negatives, I couldn’t figure out what was saying what. However, Haley had added her name to the list of co-sponsors for the South Carolina human life amendment.

Meanwhile, contender Gresham Barrett emphasizes self-congratulation on the meaningless partial birth abortion plan and the specific legislation for a 24 hour waiting period in South Carolina.

Granted, neither candidate expresses a particularly activist agenda on abortion, but there are key differences.

a) Haley, advertises her 100% rating which includes the Human Life Amendment; Barrett’s rhetoric shows him to be a dyed-in-the-wool incrementalist.
b) Haley emphasizes her personal commitment to the pro-life cause (due to her husband being adopted), versus Barrett’s focus being more clearly political,

I have always favored pro-life women over pro-life men, because most people do think of this as a “women’s issue.” I have always maintained that the only way to truly stop abortion is to have pro-life women in office, or men with strongly pro-life wives. Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush are all pro-choice. Former SC Governor David Beasley’s father-in-law was an abortionist.

Secondly, male or female, every truly committed pro-lifer has a personal reason for being so. For Sarah Palin, it’s her son with Down’s syndrome and her out-of-wedlock grandchild. For Nikki Haley, it’s her husband.

Whatever Nikki Haley’s Religion and Ethics May be, Andre Bauer’s are Plain as Day

Will Folks, a Republican blogger, and Larry Marchant, a former paid consultant for current South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, have both claimed to have had “inappropriate physical relationships” with State Representative Nikki Haley, current front runner in the SC GOP gubernatorial primary.

She’s running against Bauer, who tried to make political hay out of current governor Mark Sanford’s adultery last year, but has lost huge support since his comments this past winter comparing people on school lunch programs and unemployment to “stray dogs.”

In radio interview, Haley denied the allegations wholeheartedly. As Columbia CBS station WLTX 19 puts it,

Haley once again defended herself against a claim that she had a sexual encounter with consultant Larry Marchant Thursday afternoon on “The Afternoon Drive with Keven Cohen/560 WVOC Radio.”

On a side note, I’d like to point out the dangling preposition in the above sentence, which indicates that the alleged affair took place on the radio show, not the interview.

Anyway, when asked if she would resign if evidence were presented that proved the allegations, Haley replied,


This is very disheartening in and of itself, because in political liespeak, this basically means, “Yes, I did it, and if it’s proven, I’ll admit it.”

After all, if the allegations were completely *untrue*, wouldn’t she have said, “Since the allegations are untrue, no evidence can be presented to prove them”?

Or, maybe, “I admit we were alone for such-and-such a time, and apologize for the impropriety, but nothing happened”?

Nevertheless, the fact that both accusers have close financial ties to the Bauer campaign creates a great deal of doubt.

While many outlets yesterday reported the possession of “texts” by Folks that allegedly document the alleged affair, the texts in question–if they are real–only document a *discussion* of the allegation among various campaign workers.

However, given the fact that our current governor, who built his name on his “Christian values” then turned out to be a total sleaze, has put this state, and the Republican Party, through enough already, and given the fact that SC’s traditional GOP leaning is tenuous at this point, don’t we need a little more certainty?

Yet again, if the allegations *are* false, that would be precisely the motive for making them up.

Folks’ “evidence” consists of phone records documenting numerous phone calls, most of them late at night, sometimes several hours long. The phone calls date to a time when Folks *worked* for Haley.

At least Marchand has the evidence that he and Haley were *away* attending the same out of state convention.

I mean, as Ben Matlock would say, “COME AWN!”

PHONE CALLS? I’m sure someone can dig up hundreds of hours worth of phone calls between Karl Rove and George W. Bush. . . .

I first learned of Haley’s campaign through Facebook, and I’ve been following her Facebook pages for a year now. Haley’s definitely adept at New Media, and one of the things I’ve picked up on from her FB statuses is that, unlike most politicians, she makes time for her family.

If a former advisor wants to make the claim they were carrying on an extensive affair, shouldn’t he be proving they *didn’t* talk on the phone?

On the one hand, we who Haley claims to be: a busy politician and mom, involved in her kids’ life as much as her political work, staying up late and talking on the phone to a campaign aide about campaign matters when she can squeeze the time in.

On the other hand, the claim that she was doing all those things *and* callling this guy late at night for hours *and* sneaking off to have sex with him??? Huh?

Evidence of an affair would be hotel and restaurant receipts, showing they were actually in the same places at the same times.

Sarah Palin has reaffirmed her endorsement of Haley, comparing the accusations to the numerous trumped up ethics charges that drove her out of office in Alaska.

Meanwhile, ex-First Lady and Adultery Victim Jenny Sanford has come out in Haley’s defense, saying that “our state is better than this” (I don’t know about that one).

Sanford, whose endorsement given her own background ought to mean something, was referring both to the sexual allegations and to racist concerns about Haley’s Indian ethnic background.

Haley is presently a state representative representing Lexington County, and the senator from that county, Jake Knotts, recently referred to her as a “raghead” in an interview, applying the racial epithet (which is wrong on numerous levels) to both Haley and Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, CBN’s David Brody has compared Haley to Obama in a more honest way; apparently, Haley has been ambiguous about her exact religious leanings in the past.

In April, the statement “Are you a Christian” on her campaign’s FAQ page was a vague reference to Almighty God; at present, it says “Christ.” In 2004, when she ran for state senate, she claimed to be practicing both as a Methodist and Sikh, attending both services weekly. Newspapers in the US and India praised her as the first Sikh to be elected to US political office.

I don’t know a lot about Sikhism, but from skimming the Wikipedia entry, I’ve deduced how it’s the kind of religion that can be easily meshed with liberal Christian theology, and Christian denominations don’t come more liberal than the Methodists (let’s remember–Hilllary Clinton’s a Methodist). As I’ve heard it said by former Methodist’s on The Journey Home, one needn’t “believe” anything in particular to be a Methodist–there’s no required credo–just a required hymnal.

Now, it’s possible Haley has sincerely adopted a more sincere Evangelical Christianity over the years, and dropped away from regular Sikh observance. It’s also possible her Christianity is in the mode of George W. Bush or, worse, Mark Sanford.

At least she’s able to make a firm statement of belief in Christ–that’s more than Barack Obama can do. He can only mmuster that Jesus is one of many “great teachers,” or that “I believe in the Sermon on the Mount” (even though he apparently ignores the parts about adultery, lust, divorce, greed, serving two msaters, etc.).

As I’ve said many times, I care less about what a candidate’s religious beliefs are than I do about whether he or she is sincere in those beliefs. I care more about whether the candidate is honest, and whether the candidate believes in Natural Law.

Spiritually, I can understand that we are all fallen, and, as a Catholic, I know how hard it is to live in a state of grace *with* the sacraments. I am honestly surprised people without the sacraments don’t commit adultery all the time. One also has to consider that, to Evangelicals, as has been stated by some of them on this blog, Christ’s forgiveness often means the ability to just go on sinning that grace may abound.

However, anyone who campaigns as a “values” candidate needs to be extra careful.

Sadly, in this midst of all this, Mike Huckabee has reiterated his own support of Andre “stray dogs” Bauer.

I can tell you this much: I don’t know whether Nikki Haley is a good Christian or not, but I do know that Andre Bauer is *not* a Christian.

When will that word be considered equivalent to the “N” word?

It’s not just insulting to the mentally handicapped; it’s insulting to all disabled people.

And when it’s used by Rahm Emmanuel, whose brother advocates the very “death panels” Sarah Palin was accused of being a nut for speaking against, it is all the more monstrous.

Thus, when the poorly-named Emmanuel used the word “retarded” to describe some Democrat political strategy, Sarah Palin rightly called on him to resign.

Is this met with any kind of “she’s right” from the ultra-sensitive, tolerant types on the Left? Apparently not. The same people who think that Trent Lott saying “If he’d run again, Strom Thurmond would have made a great president” was equivalent of a lynching seem more perplexed at Palin’s perturbation! One of the headlines, as linked on Yahoo, reads, “Why Palin was incensed,” as if we shouldn’t know why she’s upset!

Meanwhile, Yahoo saw this as a wonderful opportunity for another link: “Palin’s shadow over AK“. Shadow??? The shadow of the Democrats’ many phony ethics accusations, you mean? The shadow of the Democrats’ dirty politics, you mean?

While another governor made ethics headlines for using government jets to fly to Argentina to “hike the Appalachian trail,” Palin’s “ethical” problem was taking her family with her while travelling on government business!! Oh, what a horror! Like 6 extra people on a government plane is that big a deal! Like the president never does something like, Oh, fly Air Force One over New York to take his wife out to dinner!!

Of course, Democrats hate children, and Democrats hate families, and hate the idea of a family who are actually close, or that people might actually value time with their children, and supervise their children, rather than surrending their children to the care of daycares and public schools during all waking hours.

“We’re not out to get Sarah Palin; she’s just a rotten person!”

Had the dyspeptic experience of  being forced to hear (P)MSNBC during breakfast at an establishment this morning.    I was sitting there for about two hours, listening to this harpy go on  and on about Sarah Palin’s memoir:

MSNBC Anchoress (and I paraphrase): “In her new memoir, Going Rogue, Sarah Palin accuses the media and some McCain staffers of trying to sabotage her and destroy her reputation.  This is patently false, and here to prove it on this media program with me, a member of the media, is a former McCain staffer who thinks Sarah Palin is a big doodyhead.  I mean, come on, this woman had no qualifications, her daughter was pregnant, and there are questions about whether she deceived McCain about that, and she is a partisan figure, and nobody likes her.

Mr. FormerMcCainStaffer, on your website,, you say that everything she says in her memoir is a lie.  Is that what you really think?”
FormerMcCainStaffer: “Yes,  Ms. Anchorbabe.  I don’t know how she comes up with all these lies.  Everyone knows she was a bad pick for vice president, and this just proves it.  She destroyed McCain’s chances of getting elected, and she’s trying to blame us.”
Anchorbabe: “True, but isn’t is also that Sarah Palin is an idiot, and a backstabber, that she lied about her daughter’s pregnancy [which can hardly win support among values voters] and she’s ungrateful to the McCain Campaign for giving her a chance?  Her approval ratings among pro-abortion Democrats are at rock bottom.  Yes, she’s got huge approval with the certain segment of the partisan, hateful, anti-abortion traditional values Far Right Fascist crowd, but nobody likes them anymore.  And she can hardly have support among the social conservatives because her teenaged daughter was pregnant and she tried to keep it secret, isn’t that right, Mr. Staffer?”
Staffer: “Absolutely, AnchorBabe.  And this so-called memoir will just sink her approval ratings even lower.  All she does is paint herself as a victim, and nobody likes a whiner.  No one ever got elected president by playing the victim in a memoir.”
Anchorbabe: “And then there’s that whole teenaged pregnancy thing.  Did I mention there are questions about whether she lied to the McCain campaign about that? . . . .Well, that’s all the time we have for this segment.  Up Next: Sarh Palin’s controversial new memoir: Is she committing libel against the media and the McCain campaign?  A former McCain staffer will be here to listen to my opinion!”