Most Tea Partiers Agree: Innocent, Unborn Life is Sacred

Warning: If you can actually watch this without experiencing visceral anguish, anger and outrage, you might be an Obama-bot. In all seriousness, it is extremely graphic. To all of my conservative-in-every-way-but-social friends who believe that if a child isn’t going to be born into “perfect” circumstances (e.g. a two-parent home with financial stability) that this kind of slaughter is justified, perhaps this video will cause you to reconsider. I can’t imagine any of you wish to be aligned with the grotesque worldview of people like Virginia Ironside and the global warming alarmists.

Note: I’d originally written the piece that follows about a year ago for Palin Drone, but felt it was worth a re-post in the wake of this revolting piece of eco-terrorist propaganda, Virginia Ironside’s soulless advocacy for child murder in the name of “compassion”, the upcoming midterm elections and the latest finding that most Tea Partiers are social, fiscal and national security conservatives.

That the last bit would surprise anyone is perplexing. As an avid, active Tea Partier here in South Florida since Tea Party Fort Lauderdale set up its weekly gatherings at the corner of US 1 and Oakland Park Blvd in February of 2009, I can report that the overwhelming majority of participants are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, pro-war on Global Jihad, pro-limited government and  pro-personal responsibility and freedom.

 

Posing with Danita Kilcullen, one of the founders of Tea Party Fort Lauderdale.

 

If pro-abortion advocates had their way, many of the world’s greatest achievers and contributors would never have been afforded the opportunity to leave an indelible mark upon civilization due to the less-than-ideal circumstances surrounding their births and physicality (not to mention the whim of their mothers). After all, Winston Churchill had a speech impediment. Abraham Lincoln was born into poverty. And Leonardo da Vinci was the illegitimate product of an unwed mother.

Not too long ago, I attended a BBQ at the home of a close friend. In the midst of the merriment, the conversation somehow digressed into an impassioned abortion debate as we sat around the kitchen table, in one of those strange progressions where a simple, innocuous inquiry like “How is your family?” segued into a heated argument over whether life begins at conception.

Ok, that’s quite a stretch, so let me explain.

The friend in question’s family is still dealing with the ramifications of losing a very young child to an aggressive, destructive brain tumor a few years back. Later that day, she was going to attend a family dinner commemorating what would’ve been his eighth birthday. (Having been deeply involved with the family during the horrific, 10-month ordeal in which every instinct of the grieving, heart-broken parents centered around how to best comfort, love and ease the child’s pain, I find Virginia Ironside’s comments that much more repugnant and offensive).

Somewhere in the mix of lingering grief, heartache and anger, she launched into an understandable tirade about the unfairness of it all, especially given the fact that the boy had two loving parents who provided a good home. Up until that point, I agreed with everything she’d stated.

However in the next breath, she began railing against pregnant teenagers, unwed mothers and even young married adults who willingly reproduce (i.e. choose life) long before they themselves have reached a certain level of maturity and financial security. Now I certainly don’t condone teenagers having babies, or even partaking in the activity that leads to their creation; in an ideal scenario, everyone would wait until marriage, or at least until their 20s (when the chances of emotionally maturity are much higher) before having sex — and when they did, they’d take proper precautions if not ready to care for the needs of an infant. And in a perfect world, if they did actually use birth control, it would never fail. Not ever. Not even once.

But as I said, we don’t live in a perfect world. Does that somehow designate unplanned life as disposable?

Pro-life advocates who walk the walk like Briston Palin don’t think so.  And as someone who knows how difficult it is to practically abide by one’s belief in the sanctity of human life, she’s actively reaching out to teenage girls in an effort to help them prevent pregnancies until securing a better future for themselves, one that hopefully includes a loving, devoted spouse and father.

Having said that, let’s take a look at the issue from the “ideal circumstances” standpoint.

In a side-by-side comparison, if a married couple in their 30s with stable careers, and two 16 year-old high school sweethearts lacking two nickels to rub against each conceive a child, is the life of the former couple’s unborn child somehow more worthy than that of the latter, though neither unborn creation had actually been given a choice — so to speak — about their conception?

Using my friend’s logic, the answer would be yes. She’d flatly stated that since young people are “too selfish” to give up their babies for adoption, they should abort them if they cannot adequately provide for their material needs. Of course, if we didn’t live in a “hook up” culture that glamorizes meaningless, casual sex, devalues God and preaches moral relativism, there would be far fewer unplanned pregnancies to deal with in the first place. But that’s a discussion for another post.

I can and often do agree to disagree with friends, for the sake of the relationship. In this case, the woman in question is a wonderful person for whom I’d do just about anything. What was frustrating to me on that particular day though, was her unwillingness to let me put forth my point of view; every time I tried to make a counter-argument she’d cut me off. It didn’t help that our other female friend kept interjecting hard luck stories about her boyfriend’s childhood to support the financial wealth justification — notwithstanding the fact that he’d gone on to achieve great success after growing up a poor kid in a large Irish-Catholic family.

It was kind of like being a guest on The Factor: Before I could complete a sentence, one of them would cut me off. Or, they’d immediately shoot down my premise. For example, when I mentioned that I was once an unplanned pregnancy and as such, was also very grateful that my parents were pro-life, my statement was dismissed because after all, my father was a doctor:

Me: “Yes, that is true but at the time my dad was struggling to get his surgical practice going, barely paying the mortgage on our two-story colonial, which he couldn’t afford to fully furnish.”

Friend: “Bah! Your parents knew that once he got his career off the ground, the money would come in.”

Me: “Fair enough, but suppose God forbid, my dad had been in some kind of accident, leaving him incapacitated and unable to perform surgery while my mom was still in the first trimester. Would that have then justified an abortion? Or what if it had happened years down the road, forcing my mother to take over as breadwinner. She’s a pretty smart lady, but in all likelihood, would never have been able to replace my dad’s income, which would have taken us down quite a few notches on the economic scale — maybe even into borderline poverty. We would then be in the dire financial circumstances that according to your premise, justify abortion.”

My point again: there are no guarantees in life. Even if a child is born into a near-perfect situation, it could all change in the blink of an eye before he or she is out of diapers. When you get right down to it, innocent human life is innocent human life. Either we believe it is sacred — flawed though it may be — or we don’t. There is no in-between.

And whether it’s Hitler or Stalin committing mass genocide against the handicapped and entire races of people they deemed inferior; government bureaucrats determining whether it’s cost-effective for your 75 year-old mother to have her recommended hip-replacement surgery; or well-intentioned people buying into abortion based on a subjective quality of life argument, all have one thing in common: a deliberate rejection of the laws of God and nature in favor of some Utopian pie-in-the-sky ideal. I can think of 50 million reasons why that is just plain wrong.

Small Wonder for Conservatism, Sour Grapes for GOP

My latest Parcbench piece takes a look at Christine O’Donnell’s incredible victory over Mike Castle in the Delaware senate race, and the contemptuous response of a dying GOP establishment that refuses to support her:

In the most shocking demonstration of sour grapes, the sore losers at the NRSC wasted no time announcing there would be no funding for O’Donnell — before she even had a chance to make her acceptance speech. Yeah, the same NRSC that, in kneejerk fashion, endorsed establishment RINO Charlie Crist over principled conservative Marco Rubio waaay back in May, 2009. And sent their lawyer off to Alaska to help incumbent RINO Lisa Murkowski (another ungracious loser) in her failed attempt to find enough votes to prevail over Tea Party Republican Joe Miller.

Click here to read the entire thing.

The Battle of Delaware

My latest post for Parcbench examines the contentious primary contest between career RINO Mike Castle and Tea Party Express-endorsed candidate, Christine O’Donnell. An excerpt:

But the divisions this race has exposed on the right side of the aisle are telling, more so for their sheer vindictiveness than anything else. It’s not really a surprise that establishment-embracing publications like National Review and The Weekly Standard would partake in the “electability” rationalization, in spite of the fact that — among other things — Castle voted for Cap and Trade in 2009; the $26 billion Edujobs/BigGovJobs bailout just weeks ago; and the TARP bailout in 2008, as Michelle Malkin notes in a must-read column.

None of Castle’s supporters seem to have an answer as to why it took him until July 30 to sign onto the repeal of ObamaCare, though Mark Levin wonders if the relentless pressure from Christine O’Donnell had anything to with his motivation. Had he not been facing a challenger in the primary, would he have opposed Obamacare at all? And why, Levin asks, does his opposition come with a caveat, i.e. he’d consider repeal if we had a different president? With two years to go in the Obama term, this stance seems mighty contradictory to me.

Please visit the site to read the whole thing. I am hoping to be able to write a post-primary victory piece for O’Donnell sometime tomorrow evening!

Sarah’s Second Anniversary

Or to put it another way (and speaking exclusively for myself), today marks the second anniversary of the second good thing  John McCain did for his country, via Conservatives4Palin.

Thanks to RS McCain for the Twitter reminder; look forward to celebrating the second anniversary of her stellar address to the RNC — a speech that rendered the Obamaphile media, well, speechless.  At least before they set out on an unprecedented and ultimately doomed smear campaign to destroy her. Little did they know, the Mama Grizzly was not only highly accomplished, intelligent, physically fit and beautiful, she was also incredibly resilient and resourceful.

Ah, why wait a few more days? Let’s relive this memorable moment in history today, too!

Restoring Honor Rally: Sarah Palin’s Speech

H/T: Freedom’s Lighthouse.

“Look around you, you are not alone!” Sarah exuberantly reminds the crowd after paying homage to our men and women in uniform, and three heroes in particular: Marcus Luttrell, James Eddie Wright and Tom  Kirk.

“A Providential hand has always guided us to a better future….You are not alone….You are Americans!”

Doug Giles: Why Do Feminists Attack Sarah Palin and not Sharia?

One of the most irreverent, tell-it-like-it-is conservative writers and talkers, Doug Giles, challenges the hypocrisy of the (alleged) feminists as only he can:

Nope, the fems’ fixation remains on Palin. Palin is the threat. Palin is the She Devil. Palin is the one who gets the nasty jabs—and not Islam and the potential spread of Sharia from sea to shining sea.

I know what you fembots are thinking: Sharia can’t happen here, right? Cha? Yes, we’d never allow Muslims to take us back to Bedrock legislatively. And I’m equally sure that’s what our snaggle-toothed feminist cousins in the UK thought right up until September 2008.

Facts be damned, however. For the feminists, the menacing foe they have to stave off remains Sarah and not Sharia.

Last time I checked, liberal lassies, Mrs. Palin does not believe that …

– Women are inferior to men.

– Women should have fewer rights and responsibilities than Larry the Cable Guy.

– Women count for one-half of a dude in giving evidence in a court of law.

– Women should be horse whipped if they ever make their husband feel like a dork.

– Victoria’s Secret Miraculous Bra (with extreme level 5 cleavage) makes God angry.

– Women can’t say squat in regard to whom they’ll marry, what they’ll wear, where they’ll live, or whether or not they can divorce their cheating and/or abusive husband.

– Girls can be wed beginning at the ripe old age of frickin’ nine.

Click over to read the whole thing. And for all the “feminists” who refuse to believe Islam and Sharia Law are threats to women, here are some graphic examples to the contrary. This is what we have to look forward to if the USA becomes “Sharia compliant”.

The morally bankrupt, abortion-obsessed feminists have proven themselves to be total frauds. Thank goodness for Mama Grizzlies like Sarah Palin, women with moral integrity and boundless courage who are leading the fight to keep our nation safe, free and prosperous.

An Appeal to a Facebook Friend and the GOP on Palin, Conservatism and Squishy Moderation

Recently, a Facebook friend (someone I’ve known in real life from the time he was in high school), posted a status update warning the Republican Party not to even attempt to rid the country of Obama by putting up a “right wing extremist” like Palin as a presidential contender. There were so many inaccuracies contained in his one simple status update  — which, sorry to say, received a “thumbs-up”  from someone else with whom I share an actual history —  it’s hard to know where to start my rebuttal.

But let’s begin with the “right wing extremist” label, shall we?

Perhaps I should cut my friend a little slack; after all, he’s been living in the leftist paradise of California for over 10 years if my memory serves correctly. And though he’s not a big government loving statist, it’s quite possible he’s been hoodwinked by his contemporaries into believing that so-called moderation (what we on the right prefer to call “Democrat-Lite” or “RINO”) is somehow the way to victory in 2012.  It’s also quite possible he’s bought into the false media caricature of Palin as a book-burning, Bible-thumpin’ zealot, whose appeal could never expand beyond the grassroots base of the GOP.

Never mind Palin’s proven record as a reformer who rid the state of Alaska of the Corrupt Bastards Club, sold the previous governor’s taxpayer-funded plane, squelched the bridge to nowhere, sealed the deal on the Trans Alaska Pipeline, vetoed Obama’s stimulus (a decision which was unfortunately overruled by the state legislature) and bequeathed a fiscally solvent state to her successor Sean Parnell and her fellow Alaskans.

Palin discussing ANWR and energy with Larry Kudlow in 2008.

Set aside the fact that with one thoughtful Facebook note or even a 140-character tweet, she not only shapes the debate on a critically important issue such as energy, socialized medicine or the proposed Ground Zero mosque, she consistently beats every other alleged Republican 2012 contender to the punch. Not being a creature of Washington D.C., Palin is not constrained by considerations of political expediency, but driven by moral clarity and conviction.

Yet no matter how stellar her fiscal record, she’s somehow a “right wing radical” because she also believes in the sanctity of human life (demonstrated by her decision to give birth to her Down syndrome baby), devoutly practices her Christianity and believes in American Exceptionalism.

Gee, if I’m not mistaken, her views are in alignment with some pretty formidable figures in American history, including Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers. Guess they were “right wing extremists”, too.

But back to the whole concept of squishy moderation as the path the victory. The irony here of course, is that my friend is actually echoing the sentiments of the very GOP establishment he’s excoriating — you know, the “establishmentarians” and members of the “ruling class”, as Angelo M. Codevilla so aptly described them. Like Goldwater and Reagan before her, they would like nothing  better than to destroy Palin politically, so it seems my friend’s concern is misplaced.

He and the Republican Party elites are on the same page where she’s concerned, still stubbornly adhering to the misguided notion (in spite of the failed campaigns of George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996 and the ultimate RINO John McCain in 2008) that the road to electoral victory is paved with insipid pandering, “feel good” platitudes and watered down rhetoric, so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of the elusive “moderate” swing voters.

You know, those folks who don’t bother to do their homework or pay much attention to politics until two weeks before a presidential election, and then vote for the “cool” guy? Yeah, those people.

What my friend fails to comprehend is that these voters took one look at old D.C. relic and mushy moderate John McCain — who in essence was no different from Obama on many key issues, including the TARP bailout  —  and figured heck, if they’re both offering the same thing, I’m voting for the young, hip, sophisticated, super-cool black guy. My friend also conveniently forgets that if not for Palin turning out the grassroots base of the Republican Party, McCain would’ve lost in a landslide.

Last but not least, my friend is either ignoring or is completely ignorant of Palin’s accomplishments, none of which bear the hallmark of an “extremist” but rather as a public official and servant of the people who governed in accordance with her state constitution as well as that wonderful document we call the United States Constitution, conceived by such “right wing radicals” as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson  and Benjamin Franklin.

I am not saying he has to support Sarah Palin for president, if in fact she chooses to run for the office. But I am urging him to get his facts straight before condemning her as a radical right winger and dismissing her impressive achievements in his rush to inaccurate judgment. As I’ve said before, her detractors on the left and right are incapable of constructive criticism.

One of my favorites from Conservatives for Palin.

Whatever her ambitions, she’s the de facto leader of the conservative movement and the voice of everyday Americans who are frustrated and alarmed by an overreaching, ever-expanding, evermore corrupt federal government. And that’s a result not only of her political track record but also because — unlike milquetoast RINOs like Romney — Palin speaks with bold clarity in layman’s terms, guided by integrity and principle. She’s also an exceptional retail politician who connects with middle class voters in a way Mitt Romney never could. Believe me, after attending a rally for him in Boca Raton in January of 2008, I know this to be true. While he’s a nice-looking man with a beautiful family, he came across as stiff, plastic and even a little uncomfortable — all the while displaying his trademark grin and repeating the mantra, “Washington is broken! So we’re gonna go to Washington and fix it!”

And yes, I still voted for him, but only because Fred Thompson dropped out of the race.

Whatever happens in the race for 2012, here’s my demand for the GOP: This is not a monarchy, so get rid of the “next in line” mentality. Or you may soon find yourself a footnote in the annals of American history when the Tea Party/Silent Majority funnels its energy and resources into a new party that will actually represent them.

As for my Facebook friend, stick to arguing on the facts, please. Character-assassination is so unbecoming of a good guy like you.

Sarah and the Judge

For those so-called conservatives and Ron Paul freaks who attempt to pigeon-hole her as an exclusively social conservative, while ignoring her record of reform and fiscal responsibility, check this out from The Right Scoop.

Serendipitous Aspects of the Writing Process, Continued

Halloween 2008: Me as Sarah Palin and my "sister" Theresa as my "Muslim Secret Service Agent".

Aside from a devoted family, there is nothing quite so precious as a loyal, trusted friend. I’ve heard the saying many times, that if you have one good friend, you are truly blessed; I have been blessed infinitely in this area, since I have many dear, loyal friends whom I know have my best interests at heart. One of them is the real-life inspiration behind the character of Elyse Lombard, my beautiful, blonde “adopted sister”, Theresa.

Being the fiercely protective Mama Grizzly (or perhaps more accurately, Big Sista Grizzly) she is, Tre wasn’t shy about expressing her disapproval with my plan to contact the real Ken to apprise him of the nature of the book I was getting close to releasing on the internet. In fact, she was pretty adamant about not going there, offering some pretty compelling reasons to back up her assertion.

And being the strong-willed woman I am, I listened patiently and then determined in my mind to make the call anyway for reasons I mentioned in my last post.  This led to a series of emotionally charged conversations, punctuated with a few serendipitous revelations.

Good friends Kathy (left) and Theresa threw a party to celebrate the publication of Water Signs: A Story of Love and Renewal.

After checking out the Water Signs website (which I’d given him on the first call), I received a voice mail message from Ken, who appeared to be rather flattered, surprised and even a bit shocked by what he’d read in the synopsis on the home page:

Madeline Rose is a sweet, sheltered and eternally youthful young woman of 25-the youngest child of a prominent Philadelphia neurosurgeon. Despite the unending support of a loving, close family, she battles formidable insecurities, thanks to a recent, bitter break-up with her first real boyfriend and a turbulent adolescence characterized by a few extra pounds. Unsure of her future, she struggles to live up to her potential as well as her highly educated pedigree, given her fortunate placement in an impressive ancestral heritage.

Still adjusting to civilian life after four years in the United States Navy, handsome, affable and ambitious Ken Lockheart has two goals in life: to rise above his blue-collar Shore town roots and to marry his true love. Though the epitome of the classic, all-American male with his boyish good looks, six-foot frame and broad, muscular body, he retains a basic humility borne of a relentless work ethic and an inner drive to succeed.

When a chance encounter in a Somers Point nightclub initiates an unexpected relationship, neither one of them is prepared for the ensuing odyssey of heartbreak, personal growth and spiritual development that fuels their individual life lessons and leads them full-circle to a Divinely guided conclusion.

Although at that point in time the nearly complete, unpublished manuscript was still in a Word doc in my laptop and on a securely hidden CD, the synopsis description alone was enough to affect “Ken” fairly deeply; when we actually spoke, he noted how accurate my description of him had been, how I’d captured the essence of who he was and what he was trying to accomplish in his life.

I can’t recall if it had been that same conversation or one that followed shortly thereafter, but during one particularly heart-wrenching discussion, a few interesting things were revealed — things that seemed to confirm my intuition when crafting dialogue for the characters and/or expressing their thoughts and feelings.

For example, in Chapter 30, as a newly reunited Ken and Madeline are enjoying a cookout in Ken’s new house, they reminisce about past events and resolve previously unsettled matters. Of particular import is Maddy’s memory of a significant holiday they’d spent together:

“That was the best New Year’s Eve I’ve ever had in my entire life,” she confessed softly, thinking back to all of the fun they’d had dancing and joking around with her siblings and their dates at The Media Inn.

And as an author, I invoked creative license to have Ken respond with, “Me, too.”

I had no way of knowing if the character’s human counterpart felt the same way; in fact, I was pretty certain that after 16 long years, he’d probably experienced at least a few New Year’s Eve’s celebrations that far outshone the one we’d spent in a little town in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. After all, in South Florida there’s no shortage of glamorous locales from which to pop the bubbly and make out at midnight. Perhaps he and his wife had once taken a luxury cruise or a trip to the Caribbean to welcome Baby New Year?

Interestingly enough, I’d just completed this chapter when the real Ken and I had this particular phone exchange, prompting me to test the validity of character Ken’s response to Madeline’s statement. Keep in mind, the book was still unpublished at the time; there was absolutely no way he could’ve read this chapter — or any portion of the book, other than what was posted on the website. And that consisted merely of a synopsis, testimonials and an author bio — I hadn’t even gotten to the point of loading selected chapters for preview yet.

So I decided to conduct a little “test” to see if my creativity had unknowingly contained a kernel of truth by telling the real Ken (quite sincerely) that our New Year’s Eve was the best one I ever had. I think I might have even prefaced it by admitting, “As pathetic as it sounds…”

And without missing a beat, flesh-and-blood Ken replied, “It was for me, too.” Which — needless to say — sent shivers up and down my spine, for a myriad of reasons.

Did he actually mean it?

In that moment, I believe he did, although there’s always the possibility he was simply affirming what he thought I wanted to hear.  In any case, the fact that he hadn’t read any portion of the book, yet repeated a line attributed to his character verbatim did leave an impression.

Another interesting enlightenment came when I shared my bout with panic and anxiety disorder, only to discover that he’d also experienced the same problem, concurrent with me. He even related a story about driving down I-95 on his way to make a big corporate presentation, when all of a sudden, overcome with an acute attack of sheer terror (pounding heart, etc), he had to pull over to avoid an accident. I listened with empathy as he noted (paraphrasing), “Here I was, this blue-collar kid from New Jersey about to stand in front of a bunch of corporate bigwigs, feeling I had no right to be there. Who did I think I was?”

“Ken” seemed a  bit rattled (as was I) by this entire exchange, during which he’d also noted “We’re a lot alike, you and I” and announced that he didn’t even think I was that attracted to him, since I tried to avoid being alone with him and maintained some strict boundaries when we were. As a 25-year old young man with “raging hormones” my behavior had been a bit perplexing.

But knowing my family, he understood when one of the many reasons I offered for keeping him at arms’ length was my absolute terror about accidentally becoming pregnant and bringing dishonor to my parents. As I told him, it was probably the most disgraceful, hurtful thing I could ever do, though they would’ve forgiven me (us) eventually. However, with this kind of mood-killing mindset, there’s no way I could’ve simply relaxed and enjoyed it, even if we’d used every type of contraception on the market.

“Can you imagine their reaction if I’d gotten pregnant?” I asked.

“Yeah, your dad would’ve taken me out back with a shotgun,” he laughed.

Which is probably an accurate statement, though I’ve often thought my father would’ve been the calmer parent in this scenario.  I could be wrong, of course. And to this day, even at my age (assuming it could still happen), I’d never want to test my theory. 😉

More intrigue to come in my next post.

Conservatives Channel the Left in Polarizing Palin

Please take a few moments to watch and listen to Mark Levin’s video/monologue on Obamacare.

There’s nothing quite like the fury of a disgruntled conservative with an ax to grind against Sarah Palin. Over at Parcbench, my last post entitled Palin, Haley and the Palmetto State Primary explored the rather distasteful reaction of some conservatives to Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Nikki Haley. Without ever referencing the trend of voters’ rejection of candidates who supported TARP, and the slime-ball tactics employed by the stereotypical good ol’ boys in South Carolina’s GOP establishment — both of which played a significant role in Haley’s impressive double-digit victory over Gresham Barrett — some disgruntled Barrett supporters have ascribed all the blame for their guy’s loss exclusively on Palin.

In doing so, they are simultaneously insulting their fellow Palmetto State residents through the insinuation that they are just a bunch of Palin Kool-Aid drinkers, incapable of making their own decisions at the polling booth. But rather than accept the decision of the majority of the South Carolina Republican Primary voters, these folks have taken an adolescent approach to defeat that would make Saul Alinsky proud.

In a glaring display of sour grapes, they altered the name and purpose of their formerly pro-Palin Facebook  group page, without first alerting group members to the impending change. I know, because I was one of them. This new Facebook group now professes a clearly defined purpose of telling Sarah Palin to stay out of states races — never mind that endorsements have always been a part of the political process — because “she doesn’t have to live with the consequences.” (Needless to say, I deleted myself from membership)

Gee, maybe I should add his endorsement of Bill McCollum to my own list of grievances against Newt Gingrich (behind sitting on the couch with Nancy over “climate change” and throwing his support behind uber-liberal RINO Dede Scozzfava in NY-23). After all, Newt doesn’t live in Florida and thus, won’t have to “live with the consequences” should Bill McCollum prevail. By the way, I haven’t yet made up my mind in that race, but I respect any politician’s right to endorse another. And whoever wins the primary will get my support in November.

But back to the conservative Palin-bashers. As if it wasn’t enough to change the Facebook group, which is of course, their right, they’ve now taken a page out of the left’s playbook by constantly maligning and ridiculing her — using lefty blogs as a resource. Lest anyone think these Facebook friends are posers simply pretending to be conservatives, I can assure you that’s not the case. In many ways however, it’s worse — as ugly as liberals can be, especially toward Sarah Palin and her family, it’s unfortunately something we’ve come to expect. However, when conservatives display the same inability to objectively criticize and disagree without character-assassinating, it gives new meaning to the word distasteful. It also wreaks of immaturity, while also providing plenty of new fodder for the Palin-haters on the left.

For these Palmetto Staters, expressing disappointment, outrage and anger isn’t quite enough. Neither is starting a group page dedicated to barring Palin from making endorsements in state races. No, now they feel compelled to take endless pot-shots at her, using none other than Bill O’Reilly, every conservative’s “favorite” (a term I use loosely) blow-hard. For my take-down of Bill from a few months ago, click here.

The other day, one of them took great pleasure in posting a feature from a blog called The Immoral Minority. As if the name of the site alone isn’t enough to give any conservative serious pause, the blog also refers to Fox News as Faux News and includes on its blog roll such illustrious sites as Progressive Alaska and Palin Baby Gate (sorry, but I refuse to link to either one). The site owner, the self-described “middle-aged blogger in Alaska who questions everything”, also follows “renowned” members of the blogosphere like Shannyn Moore.

Hey is it just me, or does anyone else get the distinct impression The Immoral Minority doesn’t much care for conservatives or their “antiquated” values, much less Sarah Palin?

And yet, the anti-Haley crowd proudly posted on Facebook a link from this site describing Sarah Palin’s appearance on The Factor last Friday, during which (surprise!) Bill constantly interrupted her and refused to allow her to clearly articulate her position on immigration. While it’s no shock that The Immoral Minority blog would suddenly find new respect for Bill O’Reilly (someone they view as an “evil” conservative), and mock Palin’s understandable expressions of frustration at not being able to get a word in edgewise, what is rather astounding is that Blow-hard Bill has apparently garnered a whole new level of respect among the Gresham Barrett faithful. These folks gleefully parroted the blog’s schaudenfraude at Palin’s inability to make her point, thanks to Bill’s boorish behavior. Apparently in the minds of some on the right, extreme rudeness is now acceptable — at least when Sarah Palin is the interviewee.

As I noted in my Parcbench article, Palin’s detractors on both the left and right are thoroughly incapable of constructive, even impassioned criticism. They cannot simply state their case, they have to attack her character. They’re also compelled to dismiss every impressive accomplishment on her resume in their zeal to accuse her of not really being a conservative.

And while I certainly believe that no politician is above criticism (and have, in fact, questioned some of Sarah’s endorsements), I am also more than a little nonplussed at my fellow conservatives for losing sight of the big picture.

What if John McCain had never selected Palin as his running mate? Who would be leading the charge against the radical Obama administration? It scares me to death to even contemplate that possibility.

If that sounds a little dramatic, you’ll have to forgive me. I am having a tough time envisioning milquetoast Tim Pawlenty redefining the healthcare debate with a keyboard, a Facebook membership and one simple phrase, death panel. Would Mitt “Romneycare” Romney have the guts to do it? How about pro-life statist Mike Huckabee?

Nah, didn’t think so. In fact, I haven’t seen much in the way of principled, outspoken opposition to Obama’s agenda from most of the prominent GOP boys. Oh sure, they eventually get around to it — usually after Sarah Palin has already blazed the trail.

Ever since stepping down as Governor of Alaska (and conservatives, please don’t pretend you don’t know about the concerted effort to destroy her that led to that decision), Sarah Palin has been a courageous, desperately needed voice on the national stage. As McCain once famously said, “She stands up for what’s right and doesn’t let anyone tell her to sit down”.

Is Palin a fallible human being? Absolutely. Does she merit criticism on occasion? By all means.

But at the same time, let’s not forget or diminish her invaluable contributions to the Tea Party Movement, the conservative revival, and the necessary articulation of the radicalism of this administration. Unlike the go-along-to-get-along crowd, Palin has no qualms about putting the messiah in his place and exposing him for the fraud he is. With our country on the brink of disaster, we need her voice now more than ever, and I for one, thank God she has a national stage on which to make a potentially earth-shattering difference, come November, 2010.

Anyone who claims to cherish the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the United States of America would do well to remember that.