Bristol Palin's had her "come-to-Jesus-moment," all the way to the bank

Bristol Palin's was interviewed by Christianity Today and a few points jumped out of the page:

Q. In your book, you described premarital sex as a sin. Do you worry that by calling it a sin, it might distract non-Christians?

A. You know, it might, but for me I do think of it as a sin. And, if that distracts other readers then I'm sorry, but that's what I believe.

Q. A few years ago you said abstinence for teens isn't realistic. Do you still believe that?

A. You know, that quote was taken out of context. What I was trying to say is it's not realistic for everyone. I know that it's not realistic for every single person. But for me, my sisters, and my family, I believe that that's the right way.

Here's the context:



Abstinence was the right way for her family, starting with her grandmother.

Lorenzo Benet wrote about the Heaths in Trailblazer:

...in the summer of 1961, Chuck and Sally applied for a marriage license and wed at St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church in Sandpoint. Sally gave birth to a quick succession of children -- Chuck Jr. arrived on February 7, 1962.

Summer: June, July and August. Do the math - from the earliest summer month to the next February there are only eight months. There are no records of Chuck Jr. being premature.

Then it worked for her own mother:

Sarah Heath eloped with Todd Palin and they were married on August 29, 1988. Track was born on April 20, 1989, eight months later. Track was not premature.

(From the Wild Ride transcript: "But none of my babies had been early and being my fifth child I know what labor feels like.")

According to Bristol Palin, she was born into a family of sinners. Sally, Sarah and herself, they're all sinners!

Bristol also spoke about the Candies Foundation:

Q. I've heard some complaints that Christians try to make abstinence "cool," when maybe it should not be cool, maybe it should be hard to practice. What messages should Christians be sending?

A. I just think that they need a different approach to it, a younger approach. If you look at the Candie's Foundation, their approach to teen pregnancy prevention in general is funny. It's fit for regular teens.

Candies is very funny, Bristol is right. Pathetic would be a better word, though.

Q. Your messages seem focused mostly on abstinence or a safe-sex message, but you write about the decisions women make to abort a baby who has Down syndrome or a baby born out of wedlock.

A. I am completely pro-life and believe that every human life is so valuable. I think that all women should have their babies. If they don't want them, they can give them up for adoption and there are other options. I would much rather attend a pro-life event than an abstinence type of event just because I'm much more passionate about pro-life things.

The pro-life bandwagon is more profitable than the abstinence gig and she wouldn't have to deny herself the pleasures of sex. She could have loads of babies, each time reinforcing her pro-life credentials. Go for it, Bristol. You can give your purity to all and sundry, as long as you have all your babies. I'm confused about the other options, she didn't say what they are.

Q. I wanted to touch on the parts of your book where you talk about your faith. You wrote that you had never had the same sort of conversion experience as your mother. Was there a point when you had a conversion experience for yourself?

A. I had always grown up knowing that God existed, that God was there, but I wasn't really close with God until that moment when I hit rock bottom [after having Tripp] and said, "Lord, I'm broken, please fix me." I grew up in a Christian household where I knew that he was there and I knew that I wanted him to guide my life, but I really had my come-to-Jesus-moment that night.

Bristol Palin has jumped on the God bandwagon as well, just like her mother and some other opportunists. To these people, God is simply a marketing tool.

God has this thing about his name being taken in vain:

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

I'm sure God knows how to deal with sinners. Bristol and her family should pay more attention to their precious bible and sin a bit less.

You're more broken than ever, Bristol Palin.

(H/T to VN)

Pro-life politicians - What do they know about life?

I did a bit of googling about the pro-life movement and found this overview on Wikipedia:

Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by Conservative Christian values, especially in the United States, and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others, as such benefits are coming at the expense of the life of a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalic fetuses.

It made me go into one of my rants, so bear with me.

Abortion evokes many strong emotions in every person, in every country. In the United States, it's a hot political issue and certain politicians and political celebrities use it constantly: Being pro-life somehow qualifies them for office.

These very same individuals, who defend the sanctity of life, are enthusiastic about gun rights, wars and the death penalty. When does an individual's life become less valuable?

Christian Conservatives talk about the potential of the embryo. It's all very good and sounds admirable. But what kind of potential can this latent life fulfill when these people also oppose universal healthcare, public services and some even oppose public education? What about the quality of life?

They defend the individual's right to be born, then what?

Women don't have abortions for fun. It's a very serious decision, not taken lightly and not for selfish reasons. A woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy has to weigh many factors. Their ability to provide for the child comes top of the list. Some may not be able to provide financially, others don't feel capable of providing emotionally, many live in less than ideal circumstances or and have violent partners. Some don't have partners. Concerns about the potential of the unborn child is possibly the main reason for a woman to seek an abortion.

It may sound paradoxical, both camps concerned about the potential of the embryo, arriving at opposite conclusions.

The anti-choice brigade favour adoption as a solution. As a woman, I find the prospect of carrying a child for nine months, feel it growing, moving, then going through labour, giving birth, feeling my breasts engorged with milk then just giving the baby away absolutely horrifying. How could it be considered less traumatic than having an early abortion?

Deciding to have a termination is hard enough without women who choose to have one being branded as murderers.

It would be a good thing if these politicians stopped using women and embryos as political pawns, especially as they oppose anything that improves the quality of everybody's lives. They talk about entitlement. So, people are entitled to be born, but not entitled to live their lives with dignity? They have to forgo healthcare and services, because they're considered privileges? Women are supposed to bring children into this world in precarious conditions, perpetuating a vicious circle or be reduced to mere breeding machines. Where's the dignity in that?

I'm as pro-life as the next person, I love life, but a life where potentials CAN be fulfilled. I believe that life should have quality, I believe people should have the right to live with dignity. I believe every life should be valued and not just at embryonic stage.

Until these so called pro-life politicians start advocating for and passing legislation to ensure a decent quality of life for all instead of fighting it every step of the way, I believe they have no right to legislate over anybody's bodies and have no right to tell anybody how to live their lives. They offer those precious embryos a very poor deal. From the minute they're born, they're on their own.

"Palin4Life" in Dallas needs your money! $ 75,000 for a "foursome" with Sarah Palin!

Please also read our follow-up post.

+++

Sarah Palin has truly become a precious item. Two months ago, "VIP" visitors in Columbus, Ohio had to pay $ 1,000 for a "private reception" with her. I actually thought that this was a lot of money. Was I wrong?

Sarah is currently on a tour to meet "real Americans" all over the country. We know that it's a lucrative tour, as her regular $ 100,000 speaking fee is no secret anymore. On April 30, 2010 she will be in Dallas, Texas, at an event for an obscure organization called "palin4life".

The real Americans she is going to meet then will need big pockets. Very big pockets. But the good news is: All you need is $ 1,000. This will give a ticket for the dinner, but don't expect to get close to Sarah. Touching will cost ya. If you want the "VIP reception", you will need to spend at least $ 10,000 - per person. This will make you a "silver"candidate.

May I present the other options to you?

Have a look:

"Gold": $ 25,000 for 2 tickets

"Platinum": $ 75,000 for 4 tickets

Strangely, two tickets for $ 25,000 apparently give you the same return as two tickets for $ 10,000 each, but I don't even want to try to understand it.

Therefore, it seems that a lot of people will pay a lot of money to see Sarah. $ 75,000 for four tickets surely is a lot of bucks to see the Queen of the Quitters. Definitely out of reach for the ordinary teabagger.

In addition, this event will happen in Texas, which is one of Sarah's most favorite locations and where she has got some very, very suspicious "oily" connections, as we reported a short while ago.

Therefore, we have several reasons to become curious.

This is what we have found out so far:

Don't expect to find any details anywhere about this organization called "palin4life". You won't find anything. No contact name, no address, nothing. The website is registered with an anonymous provider, and no information is given on the website.

However, on their hompage "palin4life" claims to be a "501(c)(3)" non-profit organization. Where have we recently heard that before? Oh yes, Sarah Palin's "Alaska Fund Trust", the one with the missing reports and the unresolved ethics complaints, can "donate unspent funds to qualified 501 (c)(3) organizations". Could there be a connection? We don't know, but it immediately caught our eye.

Further investigation reveals more curious details:

Although "palin4life" claims to be a "501(c)(3) organization", it is not registered as a 501(c)(3) on the IRS Publication 78 website. The "Dallas Observer" reports that "the local spokesman is looking into it".

The domain registration shows that the website was only created on March 8, 2010.

So who is really behind this organization?

There are clues, and they only point in one direction. The website states that this event "benefits a new women's center in uptown Dallas". A property, apparently costing $ 1.8 million, is supposed to be bought:

"Women's center" + "Sarah Palin" + "life" = anti-abortion movement (?)

The "Dallas Observer" finally managed to receive more crucial details:

"Heinbaugh (mayor's chief of staff) responds, "It's a fundraiser for the Uptown Women's Center. He's doing a welcome." The mayor's chief of staff also sent the URL for the UWC, which redirects you to Palin4Life.com. But, as it turns out, the Uptown Womens Center will be a satellite office of the Downtown Pregnancy Center on S. Ervay, which has been eying a location on Turtle Creek Boulevard and needs money in order to make the purchase."

So it will be a fundraiser for a "satellite" of the "Downtown Pregnancy Center". Why not say this right from the start?

What about this new "URL" which they were given? The "Dallas City Hall Blog" was also on the case today:

"I googled the Uptown Women's Center and clicked on this address - uptownwomenscenter.com- which took me straight to Palin4life.com."

This address: www.uptownwomenscenter.com

...which is now dead. Strange!

The address was registered with Vicki Garza, who runs Garza Communications, a marketing company in Dallas.

Therefore it seems possible that Vicki Garza also created the "palin4life" website as a web designer.

Let's turn our attention to the "Downtown Pregnancy Center". As suspected, it's a pro-life organization:

"Join the Downtown Pregnancy Center for its annual "Light of Life" fundraising dinner and gala. Keynote speaker, Texas Governor Rick Perry, will be honored for his leadership in the pro-life cause as the Downtown Pregnancy Center celebrates 252 babies saved last year.

Who:

• Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas
• Carolyn Cline, Executive Director, Downtown Pregnancy Center"

So why all the secrecy? Why set up a new organization and give no information about the people behind it whatsoever? Why not organize a fundraiser directly for the "Downtown Pregnancy Center"?

As always: No easy questions, no straight answers when Sarah Palin is involved. She surely loves Texas. At least that we know. The announcement on the website of "palin4life" that it "will be her only appearance in Dallas in 2010" seems somehow premature to me. Just a hunch!

.

Sarah Palin and Pam Tebow: between "choice" and a hard place

RadarOnline exclusive:

Famed womens' rights campaigner and powerhouse attorney Gloria Allred has joined the ever growing hoard of people angered at the CBS network's decision to allow an pro life ad to air during the upcoming Super Bowl on February 7th.

In the controversial ad, Pam reportedly shares the story of her difficult 1987 pregnancy which occurred when she was working as a missionary in the Philippines. In her harrowing tale she says she fell ill with amoebic dysentery while pregnant and was treated with robust antibiotics, which she says doctors told her had caused fetal damage, prompting them to urge her to terminate her pregnancy, but she refused their advice that she have an abortion for her own safety. Going on to give birth to Tebow, the now-famous quarterback who went on to become a Heisman Trophy winner, leading the Gators to two BCS wins.

Allred's objections stem from dishonest claims in Pam Tebow's story.

In her exclusive interview with RadarOnline.com Allred slams the ad and CBS's decision to air it, pointing out factual inconsistencies with Pam's story. One glaring one is the fact that the act of abortion is totally illegal in the majority Catholic country of the Philippines - under all circumstances including rape and incest, and even without a provision in the circumstance that the mother's life is in danger. The law has been in effect since 1930.

Allred says she believes it an impossible scenario to believe that Philippino doctors would have ever suggested abortion as a viable option for Tebow in the first place. And when you learn that physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions - no matter the reason - may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years, it's easy to see why.

Allred warns, "If this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her "choice", then I intend to file a formal complaint of misleading advertising with those federal commissions."

Sarah Palin spoke about the controversial ad with Greta Van Susteren:



The fact remains, Pam Tebow did not make the choice to give birth to her son against medical advice. The only way she could have chosen not to have her baby would have been in an illegal backstreet abortion, risking a prison sentence in a foreign country. She had no legal choice at all. All she had was luck and her son was born healthy. Will the ad reflect that?

Will Sarah Palin continue to praise Ms Tebow's "choice" if the ad turns out to be dishonest?