So let's compare. Sarah Palin has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant. Does this mean that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for championing family values? Does this make her a bad parent? Here is what Palin has to say about the matter: "We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart...Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of love and adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional support."
This to me is the true humble and Christian response. No one is perfect. And there are consequences for actions which people have to live with. Even so, parents can admire the young girl's decision not to take the easy way out and have an abortion. They love their daughter unconditionally, and accept the grandchild unreservedly. I predict that this will strengthen Palin's support both with evangelical Christians and with the American people.
Now let's contrast Palin's behavior with that of Barack Obama. Here is Obama, from his speech at the Democratic National Convention. "It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it." Obama faulted McCain for his cruel and insensitive philosophy, which he defined this way: "Out of work? Tough luck. No health care. The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your boot straps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."
Obama rejected the bootstraps philosophy in favor of a Christian alternative. In his interview with pastor Rick Warren, Obama said his favorite passage in the Bible is the one where Jesus says: whatever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me. Obama has actually used biblical language to make the point that we are our brothers' keeper. Obama insisted that these are the ideals that have guided his life and the ones that he would bring to the Oval Office.
Now how can Obama's self-description be reconciled with news reports that Obama's younger half-brother lives in a hut in a shanty town on the outskirts of Nairobi? Vanity Fair caught up with twenty six year old George Hussein Onyango Obama, and what he had to say is as shocking as it is pathetic. "No one knows who I am. I live here on less than a dollar a month." George's shack measures 6 feet by 10 feet, and yet he says that Barack Obama has done nothing to reach out to him or to help him. "I live like a recluse. If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed." The two Obamas only met twice, once when George was five and then again in 2006 when Senator Obama visited Nairobi. "It was very brief," George says. "We spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger."
So far what has Obama said about his half-brother? Absolutely nothing. Yet the Obama campaign has not denied the story. And Obama's supporters, attempting to cover up for their man, have basically said that young George Obama is trying to benefit from Barack Obama's success. Their argument is that Obama owes his sibling nothing. So the Obama camp has a message for George: "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own." Obama's accusation against McCain turns out to be an accurate description of his own practical philosophy.
Could there be a more striking contrast between Palin's loving approach to her family and Obama's stern rejection of his own half-brother? The media seems to be implying that Palin is hypocritical because she stands for "family values" while her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. But parents don't have full control over their teenagers' actions. Moreover, isn't Obama an even bigger hypocrite for championing aid to the down-and-out while his own sibling lives in an African hut on pennies a day? By the way the Obamas made several million dollars last year! They are certainly in a position to relieve George's condition if they cared enough.
The major newspapers and networks know about George, and they seem to recognize how damaging this story is for their favorite presidential candidate. So they are not reporting it, even though it is one of the most revealing stories about the candidate's character. And thus, with the GOP convention under way, we have the ridiculous spectacle of Obama getting credit for talking about compassion while Palin gets criticized for practicing it.
A slightly different version of this article appears in the online edition of National Review.
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 46)
91. You people keep talking about things that arent your business. What is in a womans business is just that; a womans business. When it comes out, then you can go apeshit and form a protective cordon around it.
When people start telling other people what to believe, we end up down the road with the authoritarian government. You hardcore christians would love it, it would mean that you would never have to think for yourselves again.
Pope Cack IV at 3:09PM on Sep 2nd 2008
92. Richelle,
Not everyone that is pro-choice has an abortion, but being pro-choice gives tacit approval to abortion on demand. The unwillingness to condemn abortion as murder encourages the belief that it is somehow acceptable. Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal; contributing to the perception that abortion is a viable alternative to an unwanted pregnancy. It is similar to how Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 made segregation legal. Imagine if the Supreme Court had said, “separate, but equal is wrong. You cannot discriminate based on skin color”. How would race relations be today?
janesophie1 at 3:14PM on Sep 2nd 2008
93. I have always marveled at how liberal zealots can selectively ignore truth. Leftists have always operated according to their primary commandment: the end justifies the means. For them truth and morality are subordinate to political power. Communists have always believed that there is one truth for their enemies and one truth for themselves, which is why they have such a pathetic track record of honoring treaties. The leftists in this country are no different, and their own hypocrisy bothers them not.In short, they have no integrity. The entire Democratic party is rife with unwed mothers, gays, lesbians, drug addicts, and people who have zero respect for morality, yet they become morally outraged that a person who advocates morality, and TRIES to live by a moral code isn't perfect. What they are essentially saying is that if you believe in goodness, you have to be perfect, a singularly leftist non sequitur. A drug using, philandering, dishonest, corrupt, advocate of infanticide(composite of actual liberal politicians) is far less offensive, or perhaps not at all, than a christian who falls short of perfection, or has a child that makes a mistake. How ill is that? Democrats were attacking John Edwards wife for alledgedly covering up his cheating, while she is dying of cancer, and trying to raise her children, because it could have hurt the party politically. This is ruthlessly sick, but not uncommon thinking by liberals. Nowhere in the Christian teachings is there a commandment that says "you have to be perfect". In fact, the bible is filled with acknowledgement of human frailty and failure. The whole point of morality, and living by a moral code is to be the best person you can be. Morality is not a punishment, as most liberals see it. It is the code of human survival. Without it we would destroy ourselves. The left vehemently rejects Judeo-Christian morality, and tries to replace it with "political correctness". The problem is that political correctness is essentially might makes right. The dominant political culture is dictating what is right and wrong. Is it politically correct to attack someone because their daughter is pregnant? According to the leftist inverse morality it is, because the end justifies their cruel or ruthless means.
ep at 3:16PM on Sep 2nd 2008
94. Botts post 80 - I am not a JM fan, yes SP has more experience than both JM and BO. I am not a big fan of do nothing politicians, shame on JM and JB for their supposed service as our representatives for the past 20 something years and we being in the shape that we are.
Yes, I believe SP would have been one of his nominees for VP if HC had been BO's VP chioce. It is a political move. I actually thought Condaleeza Rice was a better political choice, to grab both the women and the blacks vote. Again that is politics. Both parties are so rooted to their party at the expense of "We the people...." By now you should know that I abhor politicians. (period)
Man_in_Wilderness at 3:15PM on Sep 2nd 2008
95. Having a baby out of wedlock is not the best decision, but it need not lead to a dim future.
janesophie1 at 2:12PM on Sep 2nd 2008
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks for your little anecdote, Janesophie1. That was nice. You are nice. Your sister is nice. your neice is nice.
And this is supposed to be the convincer? You and your nice people should be able to control every woman the way your sister controlled her poor daughter?
No thanks. Please go away and hide in your little Norman Rockwell world.
birdinhand at 3:19PM on Sep 2nd 2008
96. --The question that has to be asked is if you are consistent: do you favor capital punishment?, war fighting? What is your stance on 'collateral damage' (that repugnant term for killing of the innocent), euthanasia, death with dignity statutes, etc. Do you feel that it is ever reasonable to take a human life? I'm not trying to be objectionable merely curious.--
Pliny, you raise a valid concern here, and I will do my best to answer it. First, I have not been speaking of killing in general but rather murder in particular (the killing of an innocent human being). This does not apply to the issue of capital punishment and war (generally speaking), so I am in favor of those things. Euthanasia, like abortion, is an example of taking the life of an innocent human being (aka murder), so I am against that. The issue of collateral damage presents a huge challenge to military leaders, as they must weigh the long-term benefit of an operation (innocent lives saved) against the short-term cost (innocent lives lost). The term "collateral damage" sounds unfeeling (and maybe it is), but the word "collateral" is an accurate one, for the damage done (innocent lives lost) is not intentional. Unlike collateral damage, abortion is very intentional, to the point that people pay good money for to have one.
I hope this clarifies my position for you. I am against the intentional killing of innocent humans, which perfectly describes both abortion and euthanasia. Bottom line: these are acts of murder.
Troy at 3:24PM on Sep 2nd 2008
97. Botts post 82 - My apologies I was taking it out of context. I was refering to the issue of caring for our brothers and sisters in general, not BO and his half brother. Again sorry about that.
Mokele post 83 - well said... give me a hut in the wilderness.... a good neighborhood with the lions, tigers, and bears... oh my....
Ryan post 84 - that is the responsibility she takes on when she spreads her legs. Once she has taken that action and life begins it is murder.
bird post 86 - life begins when the egg is fertalized.
Crack pot post 87 - Then why have any laws?
Shanker post 89 - yeah a lifetime of a racist bigot's ministry. And you are praising that... Puhleez
Man_in_Wilderness at 3:25PM on Sep 2nd 2008
98. Alyssa post 91 - Anyone of us could die today or tomorrow.
Man_in_Wilderness at 3:26PM on Sep 2nd 2008
99. "The unwillingness to condemn abortion as murder encourages the belief that it is somehow acceptable"
Legally, it's not murder. The definition of murder is the intentional killing a person with malice aforethought. Got that straight from my criminal law textbook. And not even the most conservative judges will call a non-viable fetus a person. Therefore there is no murder.
Alyssa at 5:23PM on Sep 2nd 2008
100. "Leftists have always operated according to their primary commandment: the end justifies the means. For them truth and morality are subordinate to political power."
Isn't it funny how two people can apply exactly the same sentence to two completely different groups? That has always fascinated me. I'd say the exact same thing about those on the right.
Alyssa at 5:25PM on Sep 2nd 2008
101. MIW: "that is the responsibility she takes on when she spreads her legs. Once she has taken that action and life begins it is murder."
Maybe, but it's still her decision to make. Not yours or anyone else's.
Ryan Anderson at 3:33PM on Sep 2nd 2008
102. --Troy, can you tell us exactly how abortion equates to murder? In a secular way that all of us can relate to? (No bible quotes, please).
Would you also explain to me, clearly, why you or any group or any government should be able to seize control of a woman, seize her privacy, and compel her to acceed to your demands to carry to term another human she does not want?--
birdinhand,
I would love to tell you why I think abortion is murder. My argument is outline below:
1. Murder is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
2. Abortion is an act that intentionally kills the object upon which it acts, an innocent human being.
4. Therefore, abortion is murder.
Since abortion is murder, the issue of a woman's right to not have a baby becomes irrelevant, since human life is more valuable than mere human convenience. Or do you think the opposite, that convenience is more valuable than life? If you believe this, as Ryan does, I hope you never run into a person who thinks their life would be more convenient with you dead.
Troy at 3:34PM on Sep 2nd 2008
103. Troy post 95 - well said, thank you for spelling it out is such a way.
Man_in_Wilderness at 3:35PM on Sep 2nd 2008
104. "First, I have not been speaking of killing in general but rather murder in particular (the killing of an innocent human being). This does not apply to the issue of capital punishment and war (generally speaking), so I am in favor of those things."
Troy, your definition of murder is not the legal definition of murder. Whether the victim is innocent or not, the intentional killing of that person with malice aforethought is murder. And please, define innocent. If a pedophile is gunned down by a victim's parent ten years after the child was abused, is that not also murder? Clearly this victim was not innocent. As far as I'm aware "thou shalt not kill" did not come with any disclaimers that it only applied to the non-innocent. You manipulate this law of god to suit your own purposes. You make up exceptions where there were none provided.
Even the most heinous criminal is due the right to live.
Alyssa at 5:26PM on Sep 2nd 2008
105. I get why people are against abortion, I think they are wrong, but I get it. But euthanasia? I cannot conceive of any argument against euthanasia unless it's involuntary euthanasia (then that's actually murder). Why would anyone think that the state has a right to tell anyone that they must continue to live. Stupid.
PS: obviously, their are laws against suicide. They are as stupid and intrusive as they are unenforceable.
Ryan Anderson at 3:38PM on Sep 2nd 2008