[To my readers - First, let me say I am sorry for the lack of activity here, but this virus I'm fighting is a particularly nasty one; I had thought I was over the worst of it, but then had a setback. It may be a few days before I am back on my feet fully. I hope none of you contracts this ugly virus; it's spread like crazy in my area, and has really hit a lot of people hard.]
Meanwhile, I'm still following the discussion on Sarah Palin, and it appears that the left has decided to spread rumors in an attempt to smear Governor Palin. It seems that their favorite way of smearing a social conservative, especially a Christian one, is to try to find some scandal, a sexual irregularity preferably, so as to throw the 'hypocrisy' charge around.
The rumor that is being spread by the DU mob and the Kossacks is that Palin faked her last pregnancy so as to cover up the fact that it was her teenage daughter who was about to give birth. So the Palins' youngest child is really their illegitimate grandchild -- so the rumor has it.
Read the comments quoted in the above-linked blog entry; you will be disgusted.
This kind of scandal-mongering gossip is absurd. Surely there would be ample evidence to disprove it, but that kind of thing does not deter the left; they will try to discredit every bit of evidence to the contrary as being staged or fake. I hope Mrs. Palin does not dignify these scurrilous stories by 'answering' them.
Even if these rumors were true (and they seem far-fetched) would that discredit the Palins as 'hypocrites'?
I actually think it would be to their credit, were it true. In 'old America' it was not unheard of for parents or other family members to raise a 'chance child' as theirs, thus keeping the child within the family fold while not offering an occasion for scandal to the neighbors. I know of a few cases like this among the older generations, wherein a child was adopted and raised by the grandparents as one of their own children. In some cases, neighbors knew this to be the case, and yet it was simply not talked about.
Hypocrisy? No; it was an open secret, but rather than give some kind of official stamp of approval to illegitimacy, it was handled discreetly. In some cases, the child was relinquished to an adoption agency, or a 'foundling home' in the earlier eras. One can honor the ideals while recognizing that sometimes people fall short of the standards. That is not hypocrisy. Our age has decided to throw out standards altogether and drop any pretense of honoring morality or the Biblical commandments. That's too demanding and 'judgmental', after all.
Nowadays the answer, according to liberal anti-morality, is for the daughter to either keep the child, flaunting her 'mistake', and drawing benefits for the child in many cases, or it's straight to the abortion clinic, which the left seems to see as the 'best' option.
The other thing which the unscrupulous lefties have seized on is the issue of the baby's Down's Syndrome. They seem to think that this is somehow a disgrace. I suppose in their ideal world (heaven help us) there would be no imperfect children; actually there would be fewer children -- except those many children born to the protected 'victim groups' who are allowed to reproduce prolifically, while White Christians are denounced for being 'selfish and irresponsible' for having more than one child.
It was thought many years ago by most people that Down's Syndrome meant that a child would be ineducable and that they would need some kind of institutional care. However in recent years we've seen many people with Down's leading fuller lives, holding down jobs and sometimes living independently. I can think of a couple of cases in my extended family in which late-life babies proved to be Down's children, and they were simply treated like their 'normal' siblings and did quite well. That's the way it was handled in my family. It's obvious that Down's Syndrome people, despite their limitations, can in many cases function quite well, and most importantly they are usually very social and often very affectionate, loving children. We tend to over-value intelligence in our society; character and kindness are so much more precious. Many of those on the left have high IQs, and obviously it has not been of much benefit to them, much less to the rest of us.
For the leftists, these people are mistakes which should be prevented. And it appears that the majority of pregnancies in which Down's is discovered prenatally end in abortion. According to Wikipedia, 92-93 percent of such pregnancies are terminated.
I can believe it; it seems there are fewer Down's children visible among the very youngest ones. My town is something of an exception; there is probably a higher-than-average number of such children here because people tend to be Christian, very socially conservative and pro-life, of course.
To be fair, there are many hard-hearted 'conservatives' who decry the fact that the Palins had this child, as with at least one commenter on this blog. The 'conservative' rationale is that the parents are irresponsible to have such a child, since that the child will be unproductive. And what if the parents are able to take care of their child without any reliance on state help? Surely a conservative or even a libertarian would acknowledge that it is not their prerogative to dictate to the parents.
It really shows how far our society has fallen, when people are not ashamed to make a public issue of something like this, and to concoct stories impugning the character of the Palins individually or as a family.
I hope this low slander is rejected as it deserves to be, and I hope that those who start these rumors (Colmes et al) will be called to account for it.