Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

September 12, 2008

Keep it up! You’re doing great!

Suddenly, anti-Christian, separation-of-church-and-state liberals everywhere are proclaiming the name of Jesus.

Embarrassed by how singularly ridiculous Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani made Barack Obama look when he cited his experience as a community organizer as just as good a qualification for being president as being a governor, they have latched onto a little phrase and are parroting it frantically, somehow thinking that this rejoinder is effective.  Susan Sarandon took it upon herself to recite it on the red carpet:  “Jesus (Obama) was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate (Palin) was a governor.”  They’re really grabbing for straws now.  This is even better than I thought.

Other celebrities to recently be affected by PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) are Eva Longoria Parker, Matt Damon, the ladies at The View, and Pamela Anderson, who said that Palin could, and I quote, “Suck it.”  Pam, with all due respect, hasn’t that traditionally been your job?

All I can say is, keep up the good work, people!  Once again, you are illustrating how out of touch you (and the far left in the party you represent) are with ordinary folk, who actually admire Palin for the qualities you hate.  And I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:  it will backfire.   It already is.  Sarah Palin scares the left because of what she is doing: gracefully and effectively pulling away women voters from that camp just for being Sarah.  She is so utterly normal, so real, so authentic, and so like us.  Each and every time the left attacks her, it feels like a personal attack on every mom out there who has had the audacity of holding a job while rearing children, or of joining the PTA, or of desiring to make a change and just going for it.  I hate crying out any sort of “ism,” but if this treatment isn’t blatant sexism, then I don’t know what is. 

As for all the “hatas,” I don’t fully understand it.  I mean, some of the attacks on Sarah Palin are vicious.  And it doesn’t stop with her; her poor kids are targeted as well.  I don’t agree with any policy of Barack Obama’s, but I don’t hate the guy, for crying out loud, and I certainly don’t go after his daughters. 

Meanwhile, in Medialand and Blogworld, it seems like a limbo contest.  How low will they go?  I don’t know.  South Carolina’s Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler (wife of a national party chairman), stated that the only qualification Palin had for vice president was that she hadn’t had an abortion.  Wow.  ABC News has blatantly misrepresented Palin in her interview with Charles Gibson.  What aired on TV is far different than the transcript that is posted on their website.  (go to http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/ for full story.)  And CNN’s John Roberts actually said “we” when referring to the Democratic party.  (see http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/12/cnns-roberts-refers-democrats-we) How’s that for journalistic objectivity?     

One thing’s for certain:  The left is out to destroy Sarah Palin, and they do not care how it happens, or how low they have to go to accomplish it.  As I’ve said before, Americans admire fairness, and can recognize its absence.  It will backfire.                 

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. Absitively Posolutely Right.

    Comment by Jonathan Hart — September 12, 2008 @ 8:34 pm |Reply

  2. I can do nothing but agree. I always feel sorry for the WW 11 generation, having to listen to this culture’s lack of politeness and civility. They must worry for their grandchildren and great grandchildren. And blogs seem to encourage the internet bullies….

    Comment by Dee — September 12, 2008 @ 8:40 pm |Reply

  3. Back to economics: I’ll quote a dear relative (who shall remain anonymous) on his opinion of “Supply Side vs Bottom Up” economics:
    “First, both terms are slippery, in that there is no specific definition of either. So, proponents (and opponents) can argue pretty much whatever they want.

    As I see it, the difference between the two is who controls the money. Supply-side puts the money in the hands of individuals and how it is spent is wholly the (moral) responsibility of the individual. Bottom-up puts the money in the hands of the government and how it is spent is not the (moral) responsibility of any one person, therefore, it is not the responsibility of anyone.

    Bottom-up presumes that only government can provide “investment” in education, training, and “infrastructure” (another word which means whatever the user wants, an Alice-in-Wonderland word). A cynical person might say that bottom-up types want to fund the groups that support the “left” politically. Government education/training schemes rarely produce anything useful.

    Supply-side is chaotic. Bottom-up types want organization and structure.

    Actually, only supply-side provides increases in net GDP.”

    …So, if we want to help large companies be prosperous, we would hope also that they would not be corrupt, so their good fortune could “trickle down” to the rest of us… There seem to be an abundance of corrupt companies in the world. The government’s role, then, would be to regulate with fair taxation laws and to monitor corruption. Therefore, we need MORAL people governing us and with the Judeo-Christian ideals upon which this country was established.
    End of speech.

    Comment by Dee — September 13, 2008 @ 7:33 am |Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: