Suggestions of a New Banner?

Guys, it’s no secret that I have loved Sarah Palin since her arrival in November.  I thought she was cool with her no-nonsense persona and loved that her family and life were really very similar to that of the rest of the nation.  Even after the election, the more liberals continue to call her “stupid” or “corrupt,” the adjectives seemed to make me love her even more – seeings as what some of those same people say about Reagan to this day.

My problem is with Bristol – her daughter.  I have no problem ridding the Republican party of phony conservatives like John McCain or any of the members of Congress who voted “yes” to any part of Obama’s spendorama.

Bristol and the father of her child I gather are officially announcing a split.  No marriage and no two-parent home for the baby they just brought into the world.

This girl (Bristol) was raised by two loving parents and is now purposely subjecting a child to a life without a permanent father figure.  I cannot support this and will not even though her mother is the best thing for our country in my eyes.

The question is, where does this leave Sarah?  Of course Bristol is an adult now.  Is Sarah obligated to make a statement on this?  Or is this still just a private family matter?

Knowing what single motherhood has done to this country in terms of crime and poverty, it seems to me that issues which start out as “private family matters” become public matters when someone is victim of a crime committed by a child raised without a strong father or our tax dollars are raised to support children who are being raised by single mothers without educations or careers.

I’ve seen it first-hand and I’ve seen it abroad.  Kids raised without dads have a 50-times higher rate of turning out to be crappy adults that the rest of us have to put up with forever.  I wouldn’t have a problem with “private family matters” if the troubles that come out of the situations stayed within the families as well.  But frankly, it doesn’t.

The governor should encourage her to put that kid up for adoption at once, should adopt the child herself to be raised by her and Todd, or should encourage Bristol to get over herself and to marry the guy she once loved enough to make a baby with. 

This child deserves a dad who is not around only on the weekends.

Palin’s daughter Bristol splits from fiance

Coulter’s Bitter Whip of Knowledge Strikes Again

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5CzavxLzz8]

I was thinking of coming out in defense of Ann much earlier in the week, but I happen to know she’s thoroughly enjoying the “firestorm” she seems to miraculously create every time she cites problems in our society.  In fact, the same problems she cites are the same problems liberals cite when they’re trying to convince us to be more tolerant of illegal immigration or to explain why they need to take more of our money to pay for the irresponsibility of others – or as a liberal would call them: “social in-justices.”

Coulter’s appearances also demonstrate exactly what is wrong with liberals – and why their reasoning is lacking.

On “The View” Monday, Whoopi immediately begins the segment by throwing in (and she throws it up again toward the middle of the interview) by stating that Ann Coulter is not married or a mother.

Whoopi demanded to know “what is your problem with single mothers?” in response to Ann’s brilliant chapter in her new book “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America” that addresses the problems of illegitimacy.  Coulter cites statistics showing that illegitimacy has grown over 300% since the 1970’s and goes on to deliver other facts like that 70% of the prison population is a product of single motherhood, like huge percentages of gang members, teenage runaways, high-school dropouts being the products of single mothers, and like stating how the black/white crime rates become balanced when you erase the factor of single motherhood.

I’m curious.  Why do liberals feel that Ann’s marital status is relevant?  Why does Whoopi suggest that Ann would have to have children to offer a more informed opinion?

What kind of an idiotic argument says: “before you can attack a problem, you must first contribute to it!”  This would be like me telling liberals that they couldn’t have an opinion on taxes until they actually pay some.  How about someone tell Whoopi or Joy that they can never again criticize the Iraq war until they start a war of their own?

Coulter goes on to validate the fact that some women do; in fact, do it on their own when they have no other choice like; for example, in the case of Barack Obama whose father left his mother to raise him alone.  In doing so, she points out that Obama’s book revealed Obama identifying himself more with his father because he was black than with his mother who stayed around and paid the bills.

The girl to Coulter’s right is basically pointless in this interview as well.  First she asks if Coulter had compassion and if she had worked on developing a solution to the problem; meanwhile her fellow-black co-worker, Whoopi is asking Ann why she doesn’t contribute to the problem herself before having an opinion on an issue that is affecting all Americans.  Of course Coulter has compassion.  I have compassion.  Our compassion does not lie with the “victims” created by liberals to argue for insane cases like illegal immigration or higher taxes.  Our compassion lies with the real victims Ann describes in that chapter like the kids themselves who often grow disconnected and frustrated without a dad.  Our compassion lies with the victims created by one of these frustrated kids when they shoot a convenience-store-worker as part of some crackpot gang initiation, when they rape somebody, when they steal from someone, etc.  Yet rather than offend one out of ten single-mothers who happen to churn out kids that do not become criminals, the entire left-wing media and left-wing of the Senate want to continue to put that burden onto us.

Then, in an attempt to cool Barbara’s fire from Ann’s comment about her tone as she read excerpts from her book before Ann came out, the girl decided it was time to drag out the “you’re too mean and I don’t appreciate that” card to impress the scores of simple minds in the audience.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck also proved just how irrelevant she is to the Republican Party in this interview.  Like her co-hosts, she decided to focus on Ann’s tone rather than the substance.  Excuse us Elisabeth, what were we thinking?  After all, we see how successful you have been with your liberal counterparts by handing them lollipops on a daily basis.

When will “Republicans” like Hasselbeck understand that “sweet and acerbic” does not work with liberals who are “working” tirelessly to destroy this country?  Take a look at the blogs, or hell, watch MSNBC for more than ten seconds.

The funniest thing is the way liberals are reading the title.  The headline today on GayWired reads that Coulter and Matt Lauer are both “hypocrites of the week” because:

NBC’s Matt Lauer interviewed conservative author Ann Coulter on the Today Show this week after previously claiming she couldn’t be invited back on the program simply to be ‘outrageous,’ and because Coulter squirmed her way back onto the show to promote her new book about ‘Liberal Victims’ by playing the comely victim.

Of course she was a victim.  The Today Show tried to ban her.  Since when is censorship an American thing?  Which radical Iranian leader was invited to speak at Columbia University again?  This is how simple a liberal’s mind is.  They immediately assume that Coulter is proclaiming that there are no such things as “victims.”  Wrong!  She’s saying that liberals turn the wrong people into victims and because of such they simultaneously open the flood-gates to real victim hood. 

Now, of course, liberals want to pretend that her research and facts are false.  Even if liberals were half right (which they never are), we can then say that in lieu of 70% of the crimes committed by juveniles and young adults happening at the hands of illegitmacy, we can settle on 35%.  That would mean if we wiped out single motherhood tomorrow, that our country would be 35% more peaceful. 

Moreover; liberals use the same facts and blatant common knowledge to press their own issues.  In an article a couple of years ago, Lourdes Garcia Navarro (coincidentally in the middle of the conservative fight to keep illegals out of our country) stated:

When Mexicans migrate to the United States, many leave their children in the care of extended families. That’s causing problems back in their home communities, with children doing poorly in school, dropping out or turning to crime.

In the rural village of San Andres Nicolas Bravo in the province of Malinalco, Alexis Silva Carreno, 14, has nearly been expelled from school several times. He says his troubles can be pinpointed to the day in 2001 when his father left for the United States.

Alexis began drinking and hanging out with friends who were part of a local gang led by Mexican youths who had grown up in the United States. He started doing drugs and was eventually sent to a state home for troubled kids.

The headmistress of the school attended by Alexis then said:

“When they don’t have their father or mother, they lack confidence … in the academic sphere,” she says. “It means that they will be more likely to miss school and to drop out. They are also less respectful of their grandmothers or uncles or their teachers.”

And in one bleeding-heart attempt for us to give a damn about illegal aliens from Mexico, activist Ellen Calmus cried:

because crossing the border illegally has become more difficult and costly, migrants don’t want to risk returning to see their families.

But let Ann Coulter cite the similarities in order to expose the scrupulous misguidance of the left and the victim cards they hand out, we get the pleasure of watching Barbara Walter’s head explode while her less-than-competent co-hosts pick up the pieces.