Levi Johnston, I Have Three Questions For You!

Bree Palin has just reported the following from the TV-interview with Levi Johnston on "The Insider":

The man interviewer asks "Is Trig Sarah's baby?"

Levi says, "Yeah, Trig is Sarah's baby."

The man interviewer then goes on to say Sarah never appeared pregnant, she traveled very close to giving birth, she never told her advisers she was pregnant.

Then he asks again, "Is Trig Sarah's baby?"

Levis says, "As far as I know, yeah."

Then they ask, "Is Todd absolutely the father of Trig?"

Levi said, "I think so, yeah."

+++

Here is the video of a part of the conversation which "The Insider" has released on the internet, but this clip doesn't include the exchange which I have quoted above. If I can get hold of anything more, I will post it later.

You can comment on the website of "The Insider" here!

+++

Levi Johnston, I would like to ask you: Do you know with 100% certainty for a fact that Sarah Palin has given birth to Trig? And if the answer is "yes", then how do you know?

That is my first question.

Furthermore: You said in the Vanity Fair article: "I was at the hospital when Sarah had the baby at a little after six A.M. on April 18, 2008, two weeks before we told her we were pregnant."

My second question therefore is: Were you really at Mat-Su hospital in Palmer a little after six a.m. on the morning of April 18, 2008, and what were you actually doing there? If you were there, I might add a follow-up question: Why did you answer the question on "The Insider" with "as far as I know", and didn't give the details about what exactly happened for example on that morning? You must have had direct, first-hand knowledge about the birth of Trig because you were there at the hospital when he was born, am I correct?

I have a third question: Levi, when you were interviewed several weeks ago for a magazine, you were also asked whether Trig is Sarah's baby, and your answer then already was "Trig is Sarah's baby" - but then your lawyer Rex Butler, who was present, stepped in immediately and said "that is off the record, we don't know this for a fact" - so, Levi Johnston, why did your lawyer say this, despite the fact that you apparently are sure that "Trig is Sarah Palin's baby"?

Levi Johnston: Playing with words diminishes your credibility. Giving clear, straightforward answers to these questions should be easily possible for you. Or is there anything which might prevent you from answering these questions, Levi?

This is all I would like to know right now.

UPDATE: I have just seen on this website that "The Insider" actually had a very interesting graphic up! Although the appearance of Levi on "The Insider" was in the end again a disappointment, we should not overlook the fact that this was basically the first time ever that somebody on TV openly brought up the question of Trig's parentage and was willing to ask questions. This is a positive development, and the graphic speaks for itself:

Please click on the title of the blogpost or CLICK HERE before using the toolbar below for sharing.

"Inspired" by Sarah Palin: Re-Writing History and the Use of Religion as a Political Weapon

Firstly, I would like to thank Leah Burton from "www.godsownparty.com" for cross-posting her excellent article yesterday on palingates, which should be the start of a fruitful cooperation. In order to maximise forces in the fight against the extreme right and Christian Fundamentalists, Regina and I hold the view that bloggers should seek ways to cooperate in order to extend their readership. Therefore we are very thankful that Leah Burton has agreed to publish further articles on palingates in the future.

Secondly, I am sorry that in the first hours after Leah's article was posted, the comments were dominated by the discussion about a controversial picture with strong content which I had originally posted at the beginning of Leah's article. The heated discussion took attention away from the content of the article, which was not what we intended. The picture proved to be too distracting from the content of the article. This very controversial montage showed Sarah Palin as Jesus on the cross and can be found here. I am just linking to it and won't show it on the blog - therefore, if such a strong parody of religious symbols can violate your feelings, please don't look at it.

However, I found the discussion about the picture also very interesting, and I made a few new discoveries myself.

I understand that people's religious feelings can easily be offended by such an image, but I just would like say that the whole point of posting the picture with Sarah Palin as Jesus on the cross was to point out how Sarah Palin herself abuses religion and religious feelings for example by declaring herself a victim aka martyr whenever somebody criticizes her.

Sarah Palin plays the "victim-card" on a regular basis and clearly aims to prevent that any kind of critical questions are being asked of her by hiding behind her "holier-than-thou" cover. I am quite sure that we will be able to see this again in the "Oprah" interview. Criticizing Sarah will make you instantly part of the potentially evil "liberal media", or even worse, the "anklebiters" - aka the people who are "after her". Sarah has never ever admitted to have made a mistake. It's always others who are to blame. She clearly believes that she is on a mission, and that she can do no wrong.

Although such a picture can easily violate religious feelings, I also think that it proved this point quite effectively.

It's Sarah Palin herself who shamelessly exploits religious and patriotic feelings of citizens on a daily basis. I am a bit sad that parodies on religion provoke such strong feelings nowadays, as so many hypocritical politicians in the USA use religion as a "cover" at the same time and get away with it. These politicians should be called out and should be reminded that religion and government have to be strictly separated in a modern society. However, as an example, the man who "prayed over" Sarah Palin in 2005, "Bishop" Thomas Muthee, who she accepts as a spiritial leader, clearly doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. That's where the problems begin.

During the discussion today, I discovered that only recently the artist Jon McNaughton presented a painting called "One Nation Under God". This painting was "inspired by a vision" that the artist had during the 2008 elections, and it is in my view an attempt to re-write history in order to make propaganda for a theocracy. Jon McNaughton has presented the picture on his interactive website, which loads slowly, but is worth looking at because you can hover over the picture and read detailed explanations about what the painter had intended to express.

A very good website with detailed commentary about this painting can be found here.

In addition, Jon McNaughton's interactive website has been parodied in a very funny way here!

I thought that the art of making paintings for purposes of political propaganda had ceased to exist, but apparently this does not seem to be the case.

The worst thing is that Jon McNaughton tries to re-write history with his painting because he creates the impression that all the "founding fathers" and basically all of the "good people" within the US population would accept Jesus as their "political leader".

A real eye-opener in my opinion is another other picture in which somebody included REAL quotes of some of the depicted people in the painting "One Nation Under God" - here:

(please click on picture to enlarge and read the quotes)

I wonder whether mainstream politicians in the USA today would be able or willing to say similar things (“The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma” - Abraham Lincoln). I think that they will most likely keep quiet in order not to upset any of their voters. That's why ultra-religious politicians such as Sarah Palin can then have a "free ride", and we should all pray to God, if we believe in him or not, that Sarah Palin will never ever become the President of the United States. If that happened, the Americans would not know what hit them. That's the reason why we all spend so much of our free time in the fight against Sarah Palin, because this woman has to be exposed.

There is in my view a very dangerous movement on the rise in the USA with their "back to the ancestors and founding fathers" ideology, in which the views and beliefs of the founding fathers are being horribly distorted. I am actually quite pleased that the artist painted "One Nation Under God" because the picture (especially in connection with the artist's statements on his website) very clearly shows the entire narrow-mindness and hypocrisy of these people, and their shameless attempt to re-write history. As the artist Jon McNaughton painted the picture as a response of his "visions" during the 2008 presidential campaign, it is also not a coincidence at all that the school-teacher in the painting looks like Sarah Palin, that the little child with the mother is "handicapped" and that the "Liberal News Reporter" looks like Katie Couric.

So it doesn't come as a big surprise that the Palinbots just love the painting - in a funny coincidence, C4P yesterday published a post about Jon McNaughton's painting, and predictably as always, they go on to praise Sarah Palin's faith:

"One of the things that impressed me about Governor Palin from the beginning was her 'fearless faith.' She didn't hesitate to express her belief in God and her belief that all children were precious in His sight. Her courage to stand with and stick to her convictions made a significant impact on me."

I personally think that painters should absolutely refrain from making political propaganda paintings in general, after so many abuses of this artform in the past - and "One Nation Under God" isn't the only picture of that kind that Joe McNaughton has created. Also, imagine how the right-wingers would react if a painter for example would make a picture with President Obama in the center, with all the founding fathers, soldiers and "good Americans" surrounding him and admiring him - you would be able to hear Glenn Beck screaming from thousands of miles away!

They would be equally offended by this picture as I am appalled by the abuse of Jesus Christ for political purposes - and propaganda paintings have never done the world any good . After all, they were used with considerable enthusiasm by sinister individuals like...

...and like...

...and a painter is doing his object of worship no favour if he uses the same techniques. We now live in the 21st Century, and we should try to avoid all the grave mistakes which were made during the 20th Century.

Please click on the title of the blogpost or CLICK HERE before using the toolbar below for sharing.

Palin Politics ~ SP is Way More CP than LP or GOP…

Article by Leah Burton - Cross-posted on "www.godsownparty.com"

There has been and will continue to be debate about the formation of a “3rd” Party, and whether or not Palin and the vocal minority that support her are in the process of firing one up.

Essentially, the Republican Party in America is imploding, and the Political Dominionist interests that hi-jacked it 30 years ago are getting some pushback. So what happens now? Well, a battle that could either bring down the GOP, or fracture it severely leaving a dismal chance of recouping even a shred of credibility and legitimacy of who they once were.

To this I say…bring on the split! These dominionism theologists (such as Palin) need to move their extremism into a Party that is conducive to their twisted views of America being founded as a Christian nation. She and her ilk are a minority, but a minority that disbanded the GOP and alienated the secular conservatives who once steered their Party with dignity.

In their drive to wed church & state, they have turned this into a mockery. The embarrassment is international! Simply by allowing bigoted and hateful blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to even pretend to represent any assemblance of GOP leadership was the sign of an irreversible cancer diagnosis for the republican party.

So now…where do they go? I have written a couple of posts in the past few months about this very topic and I continue to get comments from those who defend Palin as a Republican; and then those who argue emphatically that she is actually a Libertarian; but I will hold to my assertion that if she were a FIT for any Party that is already in place…it is without a doubt…the Constitution Party.

So…I offer this analysis in response. Let’s first look at the overriding platforms of both Parties…

Libertarian Party (LP):

"Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."

Already Palin’s wheels fall off the LP track, given that the dominionist theology that she is devoted to wouldn’t have a purpose if they were to endorse individual sovereignty free of their skewed religious beliefs.

"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."

LP Platform Statement of Principles (only these two are necessary to make my point)

"1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

These two LP principles alone are counter to Palin’s religio-political beliefs without a shred of doubt!

Now let’s re-visit an excerpt from the…

Constitution Party (CP):

"Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States."

Okay…right here in the first paragraph…SOLD! Now this is talking Palin!

"This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries[...]

[...]The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules. We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights."

Now let’s look at the two CP principles on abortion and homosexuality that we covered above in the LP principles….and I am confident that you will instantly recognize the stark contrast between these two diametrically opposing view points and that it would be against Sarah’s religion to even consider complying with a pro-choice of anything preamble and platform.

"1) Sanctity of Life

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government – legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

2) Family

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions."

Now -you tell me. If you were a Palin ideologue…which party would you feel an affinity with? It is abundantly obvious and very disturbing…


Please click on the title of the post or CLICK HERE before using the toolbar for sharing.

The Levi Johnston Blues - Sung by Ben Folds, Lyrics by Nick Hornby

We have a nice fun post for you today before we move on to more serious matters - Kathleen just discovered on youtube the "Levi Johnston Blues", sung by US singer Ben Folds, and the lyrics have been written by no-one else other than UK writer Nick Hornby ("HighFidelity", "Fever Pitch")!

Here is the video - there is also a live version available on youtube:



Here are the lyrics - will Levi get any royalties?


"Woke up this morning, what do I see?
Three thousand cameras, pointing at me,
Dude says, You Levi?, I'm like, Yes, that's me sir,
Well, you've knocked up the VP nominee's daughter

So I tell him, No, you got it wrong, mister,
Already with a girl, and her name's Bristol
They all laugh and say, where you been, sonny?
Your mother-in-law's a heartbeat from the presidency

I say, Mother-in-law? No, we ain't getting married
They say you will be soon, boy, she just announced it
I get on my dirt-bike, ride to my girl's home
I'm gonna lay down the law, tell her what's going on

CHORUS:
I'm a fuckin' redneck, I live to hang out with the boys
Play some hockey, do some fishing, kill some moose
I like to shoot the shit and do some chillin', I guess
Ya fuck with me and I'll kick your ass

So we talk and it turns out we don't believe in abortion
And sex outside marriage is against our religion
And when I try to tell them I'm eighteen years old
They say Levi, it's too late, you gotta do as you're told

CHORUS
I'm a fuckin' redneck, I live to hang out with the boys
Get on my snowboard, do some fishing, kill some moose
I like to shoot the shit and do some chillin', I guess
Ya fuck with me and I'll kick your ass"

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/ben-folds-nick-hornby-pre_n_315950.html

Please click on the title of the post or CLICK HERE before using the toolbar below for sharing.

Guest post by Leah Burton

Cross-posted on "www.godsownparty.com"

There has been and will continue to be debate about the formation of a “3rd” Party, and whether or not Palin and the vocal minority that support her are in the process of firing one up.

Essentially, the Republican Party in America is imploding, and the Political Dominionist interests that hi-jacked it 30 years ago are getting some pushback. So what happens now? Well, a battle that could either bring down the GOP, or fracture it severely leaving a dismal chance of recouping even a shred of credibility and legitimacy of who they once were.

To this I say…bring on the split! These dominionism theologists (such as Palin) need to move their extremism into a Party that is conducive to their twisted views of America being founded as a Christian nation. She and her ilk are a minority, but a minority that disbanded the GOP and alienated the secular conservatives who once steered their Party with dignity.

In their drive to wed church & state, they have turned this into a mockery. The embarrassment is international! Simply by allowing bigoted and hateful blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to even pretend to represent any assemblance of GOP leadership was the sign of an irreversible cancer diagnosis for the republican party.

So now…where do they go? I have written a couple of posts in the past few months about this very topic and I continue to get comments from those who defend Palin as a Republican; and then those who argue emphatically that she is actually a Libertarian; but I will hold to my assertion that if she were a FIT for any Party that is already in place…it is without a doubt…the Constitution Party.

So…I offer this analysis in response. Let’s first look at the overriding platforms of both Parties…

Libertarian Party (LP):

"Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."

Already Palin’s wheels fall off the LP track, given that the dominionist theology that she is devoted to wouldn’t have a purpose if they were to endorse individual sovereignty free of their skewed religious beliefs.

"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."

LP Platform Statement of Principles (only these two are necessary to make my point)

"1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

These two LP principles alone are counter to Palin’s religio-political beliefs without a shred of doubt!

Now let’s re-visit an excerpt from the…

Constitution Party (CP):

"Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States."

Okay…right here in the first paragraph…SOLD! Now this is talking Palin!

"This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries[...]

[...]The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules. We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights."

Now let’s look at the two CP principles on abortion and homosexuality that we covered above in the LP principles….and I am confident that you will instantly recognize the stark contrast between these two diametrically opposing view points and that it would be against Sarah’s religion to even consider complying with a pro-choice of anything preamble and platform.

"1) Sanctity of Life

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government – legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

2) Family

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions."

Now -you tell me. If you were a Palin ideologue…which party would you feel an affinity with? It is abundantly obvious and very disturbing…