Catholic Exchange

Myth Busting by Sarah Palin

Written by

Toni Collins

in

The Republican Party is just a bunch of angry old men.

One look at the fresh, cheery face of Sarah Palin puts this myth to rest permanently.

Republicans hate women.

Have you seen how Republicans, young and old, male and female, have embraced Sarah Palin’s candidacy? Did you hear the cheers for her speech? Did you watch John McCain’s poll numbers jump when he announced his Vice Presidential pick? The world can now see without any doubt, Republicans love women.

Republicans just want to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

Sarah Palin has certainly celebrated life with the joy of having five beautiful children. But have you taken a look at those gorgeous high heels she wears?

Republicans are boring.

Did you hear Sarah Palin tell America how she listed the governor’s luxury jet on eBay? Face it, half her speech at the Republican National Convention had the audience either laughing or cheering. My completely apolitical daughters have been re-playing our video of Governor Palin’s speech, whooping and hollering as she talks.

Republicans ruin everything they touch.

In less than two years as governor, Sarah Palin has done such a fabulous job with Alaska’s budget that she was able to return over $1,000 to every man, woman and child in the state. She also has the highest approval rating of any governor in the country. Hers is definitely a success story.

Pro-Lifers are all a bunch of hypocrites. If they ever had to face a problem pregnancy, they’d be the first in line at Planned Parenthood.

I can’t tell you how often I’ve seen this theme reflected in fictional short stories and novels. It’s a scurrilous stereotype, and Governor Sarah Palin is the most famous person to show the world what a lie it is. She has now faced two pregnancies that the world would call “problems,” and in this pro-choice world of ours, she has chosen life. She may have experienced fear, who knows? Many of us would have. But Sarah Palin has embraced both her Downs Syndrome baby and her 17-year old daughter with unconditional love. There is no hypocrisy here; rather, pro-life Sarah Palin has shown us all that love will conquer and that life is the best choice.

Having a special needs child will ruin your life.

Sarah Palin has just become the most famous mother of a Down Syndrome child, and the second woman to run for Vice President of the United States on a major ticket. Her life was not ruined by her baby. In fact, she will tell you that her life has been enhanced and blessed by this precious little boy. Further, you can see how much her husband and their older children love this baby. How many lives will Sarah Palin and her son Trig save because of the gracious, joyful example this family is setting?

Sarah Palin may go on to bust many more myths before she fades from public life. In the meantime, she has destroyed a lot of false and demeaning stereotypes. On behalf of my four daughters, I am so glad that this strong, pro-life woman has taken our country by storm.

Comments

15 responses to “Myth Busting by Sarah Palin”

  1. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    I was really worried with the misplaced “rock-star” adulation for Obama (who I dislike) and I feel the same of Palin (who I like). I have a natural distrust of all politicians. Has anyone not felt a gag-reflex while watching and listening to ego-headed people, often spending millions in advertisement dollars, attempting to be elected to a $100,000 government office? The corruption of power overwhelms me and I believe most of America’s most serious problems can be laid at the feet of politicians. If elected, governing at the national level under heavy and biased media coverage will reveal if Palin is the true Christian she professes to be. Will she obediently fall in line with the good old boys and be transformed by the corruption of power in Washington, or will she remain an anti-establishment soccer mom from Alaska?

  2. Patrick Avatar
    Patrick

    Subpoenas to be issued for theTroopergate probe: The Alaska Legislature is hastening its ethics investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of her public safety commissioner, making it far more likely it will be completed before November’s election. – ” I think it’s important that the results of this investigation be known to the American people before voting,” Palin has launched a delaying tactic to put back any decision-making in the ethics probe.
    There is a growing credibility gap between what Sarah Palin says and what the facts are, between what she says she did and what the record shows she did, – highlighting her record on the so-called “bridge to nowhere.” Palin claims to have blocked an expensive federally funded project to build a bridge linking Ketchikan, a town of around 7,600 people, to an airport on the nearby island of Gravina. “I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska,” she has told cheering supporters at the Republican National Convention, at a rally in Ohio this week, and again in Virginia on Wednesday.
    A myth: “Sarah Palin never told Congress, ‘thanks, but no thanks’. In fact, she never told Congress anything — the appropriations process for the bridge happened before she became governor,” he said. And although most of the earmarks for the project — which involved more than one bridge and a road — were removed, On the same day that dozens of news organizations have exposed Governor Palin’s phony “bridge to nowhere” claim as a ‘naked lie, “I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska. If our state wanted a bridge we were going to build it ourselves,” Palin told the cheering crowds. She subsequently retained the Federal Funds she received. Alaska received “every cent of its application.”
    What about her association with the group that wants to make Alaska an Independent Country of which her husband was a member (unpatriotic?) In 2005, Palin wished them a “successful and Inspiring Convention”
    McCain and his running mate have also come under fire for saying that Palin sold the Governor’s private jet on eBay and made a profit. She did try to sell it on eBay but failed. The Legislature then ended up getting rid of it through other channels and at a loss; with a pending claim for $50,000.00
    While Palin has cut by more than half the amount of special funding Alaska requested from the federal government, Alaska nonetheless still asks for more money per capita than any other state in the nation, according to an analysis in the Anchorage Daily News. The paper reported that Palin has requested nearly 750 million dollars in earmarks in the two years she has been Governor, which equates to about 1,100 dollars per person.
    She also hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually while acting as Mayor of tiny Wasilla and brought 27 million dollars in earmarks to the town of 6,300 (?), the paper reported.
    Obama’s requests total about 932 million in his three years as an Illinois Senator, or around 76 dollars per Illinois resident. An analysis by the Anchorage Daily News found that Palin has requested nearly 750 million dollars in earmarks in the two years she has been governor, which equates to about 1,100 dollars per Alaskan.
    In the latest of allegations about the first-term Alaska Governor, the Washington Post reported that Palin had billed state taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office!

  3. guitarmom Avatar
    guitarmom

    Patrick–

    It seems that you’re criticizing Governor/Mayor Palin for doing her job. As governor, and as mayor, it was her job to lobby for appropriate federal funding for her constituents.

    As for the amount of money she successfully brought to Alaska from the federal government, we have to recognize that Alaska has unique challenges. A Medicaid recipient in Illinois might need a short ambulance ride to the hospital; an Alaska resident with the same injury will often require a plane ride.

    Perhaps instead of looking at dollars per capita from Washington, we should look at dollars per square mile. By that measure, Alaska would look downright miserly.

    Further, let’s not rely on innuendo. Does the per diem that Sarah Palin “billed state taxpayers for” require that she stay at the Governor’s residence, or might it reimburse the Governor for travelling to and from her family home? Unless we know the details, it’s not a valid criticism.

    Let’s also look at what Sarah Palin did and didn’t say at the Republican National Convention:
    -She said she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere, she didn’t say she returned the money. The question is, did she put the money to better use?
    -She said she “put” the jet on eBay, she didn’t say that’s where it sold. Her line was funny, not untruthful. The question is, does that $50,000 loss you mention take into account depreciation and operating costs?

    Bottom line, the criticisms I’ve heard of Governor Palin fall into the category of “It depends on how you look at it.” So far, nothing illegal, immoral or corrupt has been proven about her.

  4. Cooky642 Avatar
    Cooky642

    An addendum to guitarmom’s post: Patrick, you have a quote from a “he said”, but never identify the “he”. And, secondly, you mention the Washington Post in your next-to-last line: if the Washington Post said the sky was blue, I wouldn’t believe them. I know nothing of the Anchorage Daily News, but I do know that ALL news is “filtered” through the owner/manager’s point-of-view. There’s a very old adage that says, “Don’t believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see”. So far, I like what I see, but I’m reserving judgement.

  5. wgsullivan Avatar
    wgsullivan

    And Obama and Biden have never met an abortion lobby dollar they don’t like.
    If you’re a Catholic this may and should interest you.

    Get the Catholic Perspective!

    “I know the candidate supports abortion, but I am voting for him because he is SO good on social issues.”

    That remark is not uncommon among Catholics today.
    Is it reasonable to hold this position?

    John-Henry Westin of Lifesite News reports on this issue today.
    (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091203.html)

    During the opening day of the Catholic Leadership Conference yesterday, Baker Oregon Bishop Robert Vasa clarified the teaching of the US Bishops Conference regarding voting in favor of pro-abortion politicians. The question of whether Catholics may remain in good standing with the Church while voting for pro-abortion politicians was raised.

    Bishop Vasa responded referencing the document of the United States Catholic Conference titled “Faithful Citizenship”, noting a pro-abortion stance disqualifies candidates from consideration by faithful Catholics.

    LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Bishop Vasa after the session. Describing the deliberation among US bishops over the “Faithful Citizenship” document, he said: “When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’.”

    However, during the discussions mention was made of the document by Pope Benedict just prior his elevation to the pontificate which noted that Catholics may in good conscience vote for a politician who supports abortion in the presence of “proportionate reasons.”

    Bishop Vasa explained the notion of proportionate reasons, saying, “The conditions under which an individual may be able to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would apply only if all the candidates are equally pro-abortion.”

    He added: “And then you begin to screen for the other issues and make a conscientious decision to vote for this pro-abortion candidate because his positions on these other issues are more in keeping with good Catholic values.” In that case, he said, “It doesn’t mean that you in any way support or endorse a pro-abortion position but you take a look in that context at the lesser of two evils.”

    Speaking of politicians with a pro-abortion stand he said, “When we have someone who has that stand on a disqualifying issue, then the other issues, in many ways, do not matter because they are already wrong on that absolutely fundamental issue.”

    Only when taken to a level of insanity could a ‘pro-war’ candidate be considered on par with a pro-abortion candidate in the Bishop’s view. “If we had a candidate in favor of a war in Iraq in which we decimate the entire population and we kill as many civilians to impose as much terror on everybody as possible to make sure . . . If that was in opposition to a pro-abortion person then I’d have a real conflict of conscience because you’d have a direct and intentional killing of innocent persons on one hand and the direct and intentional killing of persons on the other hand, said the Baker Bishop.

    “But we don’t have that issue with capital punishment, we don’t have that issue with the war in Iraq we don’t have that issue with the present Administration,” he added.

    Bishop Vasa explained that as a man from the Midwest, the analogy of a combine worked well to describe how a sifting of candidates could be undertaken. He described a combine as having a series of sieves, the first of which eliminates the largest and most obvious refuse. In the analogy the first screen would eliminate pro-abortion candidates, “to weed out the greatest evil,” he said.

    He concluded saying, “Abortion needs to be in our country a defining issue and we ought not be afraid to make it a defining issue because when we do that we will have an end of abortion in this country.”

    Is it a MORTAL SIN to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

    While the article does not directly address this question, the answer can be found by considering what constitutes mortal sin.

    Mortal sin requires that all three conditions be met:

    an issue involving grave matter
    taken with full knowledgeand
    full consent
    1) Taking innocent life is grave matter.
    2) If the voter knows support for legal abortion is an official plank of the nominating party or knows it is officially supported by the candidate, the voter has full knowledge that the candidate intends to take innocent human life.
    3) If no one is coercing the voter to vote for such a candidate, then any freely given vote to that candidate is full consent to the candidate’s stated public intention.

    So, yes, in this election it is mortal sin to vote for the pro-abortion candidate.

    Thus, anyone who knowingly votes for a pro-abortion candidate should, in good conscience, refrain from receiving the Eucharist until they attain true sorrow and receive absolution for this sin in the sacrament of Confession.

    It should be noted that Senator Joseph Biden is already being told not to approach for the Eucharist in the Archdiocese of Denver and the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania.

    Delaware Bishop Michael Saltarelli, Senator Biden’s own bishop, has publicly embraced this policy as well.

    Talk to your family, your friends, and your co-workers about this.
    We are supposed to care for the least of our brothers.
    We care for them by keeping them headed towards heaven.

    Steve Kellmeyer
    Bridegroom Press
    http://www.BridegroomPress.com
    Get the Catholic Perspective!

  6. myerhaven Avatar
    myerhaven

    Great comments on the facts. Thank you so much for clarifying our Catholic Faith.

    As usual the Democrats are trying to find a way to put down a threat to their mantra, ie Sarah Palin.

    I was just looking for some bumper stickers today in Catholic support of McCain and Palin. To my surprise I saw bumpers stickers that stated the following:

    “Catholic Liberal” and “Catholic Democrat” and “Catholic for Obama”

    The fact that the Democratic Party supports abortion even partial birth abortion and the fact that Obama even belives that if a baby survives the abortion process that he or she must “still” be terminated (KILLED), I can not agree that anyone voting for Obama understands what it means to be a Catholic.

    Martin Luther left the Catholic Church because he did not want to follow the Catholic principles. I suggest that anyone who wants to make a cafeteria of the principles follow suit…its all or nothing!!

    Lord help us to reach our lost brothers and sisters!!

  7. heinz Avatar
    heinz

    And yet the liberals tout their “virtue” (vice) of separation of Church and state! And what about the latest smear: Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor. I just don’t understand the liberals. If they are going to try and accuse Sarah Palin for being inconsistent in her actions, these guys should get their words consistent first!

  8. Cooky642 Avatar
    Cooky642

    Heinz, if they were consistent, they wouldn’t be liberals! If they were consistent, they’d unmask themselves for the Communists they are! Asking them to be consistent is like asking a zebra to take off it’s stripes: then, it’s just another donkey!

  9. naja57 Avatar
    naja57

    Patrick,
    So much for trying to open some minds. I just joined this site, but will now “uhjoin”. I didn’t come here to have a political argument with people who refuse to see how the right wing has bamboozeled them into voting against their best interest by danging the abortion carrot.
    Good luck all.

  10. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    Does abortion carrots go well with Peking Duck, and can you “super-size” that order of bamboozles?

  11. christinasanders Avatar
    christinasanders

    naja and Patrick,
    If you didn’t already notice – this is a CATHOLIC website. Like Faithful Catholics are subscribers! Maybe you can try to open some minds somewhere else. Our minds are already made up if we follow our well formed consciences and the wisdom of our sheperds. Thank the Lord for answered prayers in our Bishops standing up for the preborn!

  12. wgsullivan Avatar
    wgsullivan

    naja57,
    Please reconsider. If you’d hoped Patrick could change some minds wouldn’t it be prudent to know how those minds work? With your openess of mind you can handle anything mentioned here and weigh it fairly, correct?
    God bless

  13. CatholicsFirst Avatar
    CatholicsFirst

    As a Catholic, it saddens me that we would put one issue (although and important one) above all else in this country. Pope Benedict, and Pope John Paul II before him, said that we must also address poverty, war and famine in this world as well.

    And in my mind, to put a Baptist/Methodist and a Pentecostal evangelical in the highest seats of government because of their stance on abortion without considering how they would address poverty, war and famine, seems a bit abrupt.

    Additionally, evangelicals are noted Catholic haters. Why should I support someone who left the Church just because they want to outlaw abortion? Once that’s done, will they outlaw the Catholic Church?

    And will abortions stop just because they are outlawed? Women were having abortioins in this country before Roe v. Wade. What we need to be doing is reaching out to young people in an effort to make them aware of the moral implications of their decisions. Hate the sin, not the sinner!

  14. mkochan Avatar
    mkochan

    Just because we put life issues first doesn’t mean that we don’t care about poverty, health care, the environment, etc. It just means that we recognize that you have to be alive in order to enjoy finacial upward mobilty, health care, clean air and water, etc. To vote for someone who wants to kill babies because you like his economic policy is really sick!

    Also we ARE reaching out to young people to help them understand the moral implications of their decisions — including to help them understand that a decision for abortion is a decision for murder and decision to support abortion makes you an accessory to murder (how’s that for a moral implication?). But the largest provider of abortion in the US, Planned Parenthood, is devoted to the moral corruption of youth. And one party in the country is all for giving PP more of our tax dollars to spread their evil here and abroad while another party in the country has a policy of oppossing increases in PP funding and keeping them from using our tax money to kill babies overseas (targeting especially the babies of the poor) — so which parties do you think those are, huh?

  15. wgsullivan Avatar
    wgsullivan

    Poverty. The poverty of not enough compassion for the unborn. Remember Mother Teresa’s quote about poverty?
    War. The war on children in the womb. The blood bath of(conservatively)45 million babies, since 1973, makes all other wars, combined, pale in comparison.
    Famine. The faces of millions of children we will never see on this earth. Europe is facing an indigenous famine. Demographers have done the math and the verdict is indigenous Europe, barring a miracle, cannot recover.
    Were women having abortions before 1973? Yes. Does it make it right?
    Love the sinner by leading them to light and making illegal the right to kill the most vulnerable among us.
    Remember Bishop Vasa’s combine analogy? The first and largest sieve would be the sieve that shakes out and discards the supporter of abortion. The greatest evil facing us.

Leave a Reply

More posts