The Pursued and the Protected

“Oh my! What a surprise (not)” the much spun report into whether Republican Vice Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin abused her power as State governor of Alaska when she fired Walter. C. Monegan, the vengeful pen pusher who had refused to fire Palin's State Trooper brother in law, (the one who used a taser on his 11 year old sepson) has found that ...... wait for it .... she did ...er.. well .. sort of. To quote: “Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan's refusal to fire State Trooper Mike Wooten from the state police force was "likely a contributing factor" to Monegan's July dismissal” but the report goes on to say that Palin “had the authority to fire him” anyway.

The fact that a report, deliberately timed to reach its findings weeks before the election, has found against her (or as much as it could) is hardly surprising, in fact it would probably have more credibility had it been report conducted by Robert Mugabe into Morgan Tsvangirai. Do the people behind this really believe that the US public will really fall for it?, and those who were planning to vote Republican will say “Ah shucks! I really liked that Palin broad, but after that I guess I should vote for that nice Mr Obama, after all there ain't ever anything nasty about him on the news!”?

The American electorate can occasionally be gullible, bur even they are not that dumb (I hope).

Of course one part of such an analysis would be correct there never is anything nasty about Obama in the press. The media treat the man whom Louis Farrakhan apparently calls “The Messiah” as if he is some delicate Spring flower who should never be forced to deal with anything so taxing as a serious question.

On the other hand, as far as the media is concerned, it is open season on Sarah Palin, and it is a credit to her that she has stood up to the onslaught quite as well as she has.

The attack has been relentless, in the lead up to the US elections in November the US TV channels are falling over themselves to provide non-stop daily satire featuring Sarah Palin, day after day the satirical skits and impersonations are only exceeded by by carefully edited news stories accusing Mrs Palin of “gaffes”, inexperience, negative campaigning or just being an all round Religious “nut”.

I know there are a number of reasons to feel a bit concerned about Sarah Palin, and she has certain characteristics which are a gift to comedians and impersonators however, the same applies to her Democratic opponent Joe Biden and even so to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Yet Joe Biden troubling characteristics are all but ignored, and, as for Obama, he is treated with a manner not that far removed from how the North Koreans treat their “Dear Leader”.

The lack of balance in the treatment of the two is outrageous, but only to be expected, given the deep bias of the US media.

If challenged, the funny people on Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show will probably claim that Mrs Palin is subject to excessive parody, because she is a “Religious nut”. However, that is the image they have chosen to present of her, but how close is it to the truth? Certainly there are a lot of leaders across the world who are far more deserving of the title "Religious nut" than she is, however, the politically correct conformists in the media would never think of mocking them in the same way as they do Palin.

Furthermore, is she really that much of a “nut” and are her views really that unusual?

She is allegedly a creationist, which is unusual in the Godless country which Britain has become, but actually not so unusual in America, where large sections of the population have deep Religious faith. Odd as it may sound to a Brit, versed as we are in secular certainties, whilst the origin of man remains unproven Creationism is one of a number of legitimate view points. Darwin's theory is compelling but remains a theory, Whatever Professor Dawkins may tell you, science has not yet proven conclusively how the universe was created, and many, many people across the planet believe in a creator, why is that okay if they are Arabs, Africans or Mexicans but not okay if they are Europeans or Americans?.

If we believe in a creator, then we believe in things beyond out understanding, and if that disqualifies someone from running a country then most world nations will be looking for new leaders, including secular Britain. Furthermore, how exactly does her belief in a God as the creator, which she shares with the vast majority of the inhabitants of our planet, and certainly with the founding fathers of America, effect her ability to be an effective vice president?

Another stick which is used to beat her with is that she is opposed to abortion. Well frankly I think she has a point. Don't misunderstand me, I accept that there are times when abortion is necessary, indeed vital, but they are in the minority of cases. A significant number of all abortions in America and Europe are carried out for the sake of convenience, and it is there that I part company with the advocates of choice.

She is also pro-gun ownership, I disagree with her, as I do with most Americans and half of the population of Finland on the issue, but she is entitled to that view, and it certainly does not disqualify from standing for high office.

She is opposed to gay marriage, I think she is wrong on the grounds that a law which declares some citizens less equal than others is a bad law and devalues all citizens. However, I would guess that most of you who are reading this agree more with her than with me, and I respect your right to do so. In any event she shares that view with the leaders of Turkey, Russia. Poland, most of Africa and South America and all of Asia, and the current incumbent of the White House, are they all Religious wackjobs?

Her soon to be son in law, Levi Johnson, declared “I'm a fucking Redneck” who “Can't keep my Johnson in my pants” and “I don't want kids” .... er... well no he didn't actually, but the media never bothered to correct the story when Levi's alleged facebook page turned to be a fake.

Of course a lot is made of Palin's lack of experience, but exactly the same applies to Obama, after all, having a Kenyan Daddy no more amounts to a knowledge of foreign affairs than being able to see Russia from your porch. As to experience of leadership, Palin has run a state, Obama was a "community leader" in Illinois how does that make him so much more experienced than her?

Obama's main claim to fame is that, he voted against the war in Iraq, which with the benefit of retrospect can be made to appear a wise and intelligent position. However, that ignores the fact that, at the time he actually voted, most politicians and every intelligence agency in the West, including the French, Russians and Germans believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to use against her neighbours, and possibly against Europe, which puts a slightly different perspective on his vote. At the very least it leaves his motives open to question. Of course, when it comes to Obama the questions are never asked.

There are other questions, including:

Why won't he publish a full sized copy of his birth certificate?

What was his connection with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko, who allegedly helped him and his wife purchase their home?

How close was he really to Bill Ayres co founder of the 1960's left wing radical group The Weather Underground?

Is it true that, until it sanitised it's website nine month ago, the church he had belonged to for twenty years declared that its first loyalty was to Africa?

Barack Obama may have perfectly good answers to those questions, however the press never ask them, and the satirists hardly ever touch on them except to mock those who do. I have a lot of contempt for so called Comedians, who are happy to mock one side but not the other, or like Sarah Bernhard, say that Palin "should be gang raped by black brothers" but would not dare say anything disrespectful about Obama.

Of course these tactics are nothing new to the Obama loving pundits, during the Democratic primaries, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, relentlessly mocked Hillary Clinton, but treated Obama as if he was untouchable.

It seems that to question or criticise Obama is to risk accusations of "racism" which is a risk no Western media personality will take. As we see across the world, leaders who can not be criticised or questioned are the most dangerous, and if this politically correct politeness follows Obama into the Oval Office then the world is in danger.

__________________