Sarah Palin: Putting up with a cad like Levi Johnston just might make her Mother of the Year

Colleen O'Connor, political columnist for the San Diego News Network, has suggested that Sarah Palin should be nominated for Mother of the Year - not for taking care of a special needs child - not for having a son in Iraq - not for caring for a her teenage daughter and her baby - BUT for putting up with Levi Johnston! More and more Johnston has over played his cards and has become a bore. His mean spirited attacks have shattered his credibility.

Here is an excerpt from her article which is compulsive reading:

Thus, enter Levi Johnston, the stand-up kind of guy that every parent dreads.
For a few dollars (or lots more), Johnston will tell sordid little remembrances about Palin and her family. True or not, who is to say?
What is absolutely true, is that Johnston’s lack of discretion (let alone chivalry) has given even liberal media columnists reason to pause, and reassess, their dislike of Sarah Palin.
As New York Times columnist, Gail Collins, writes, “For the first time in my life, I feel sympathy for Sarah Palin.”
After reading the Vanity Fair piece, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post calls Levi, “an opportunistic creep.”
These columnists are not referring to his desire to pose for Playgirl magazine, or his desire to “go out and do a movie, maybe even be a celebrity.”
Their revulsion for Johnston’s behavior stems from his non stop whines about the Palin’s domestic life. A life he would not have been privy to had his potential in-laws not welcomed him into their home. Read the full article at The San Diego News Network:

The Anchorage Daily News carries an article titled:Levi Johnston takes on Sarah Palin in magazine story

ACCUSATIONS: Levi's claims about ex-governor don't jibe with past quotes. This article further erodes Johnstons credibility. Read the full article here

Obama's pretence to move to the centre on Abortion is a sham designed to mislead Catholics and Evangelicals

Barack Obama and his supporters in the media have begun a campaign to win a large segment of the Evangelical Christian vote. Some apologists in the media have stressed that Obama is moving towards the centre. Obama is the master of verbal obfuscation.

He is endeavouring to pretend that his beliefs are in tune with those of orthodox Catholics and Evangelicals. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate on social matters. He supports and voted for partial birth abortion. Of course his apologists in the Washington Post, The New York Times and other liberal organs attempt to paint a picture of movement to the centre on social affairs. They along with Obama are attempting to mislead Evangelicals and Catholics. After all if Obama siphons off sufficient Evangelicals and Catholics he is home and dry.
So Obama is moving towards the centre on social affairs, is he? What does move to the centre really mean?

• Is Obama prepared to vote against abortion? No


• Is Obama prepared to put an end to partial birth abortion? No


• Is he prepared to appoint conservative judges? No


• Is he prepared to eschew his general liberal voting record? No

So all this talk of movement to the centre is hot air. It is an enormous sack of gas.It is sanitised language geared to sewing confusion among Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics. Obama and his liberal cohorts are engaged in a wilful campaign of misinformation and lies.
Articles in various liberal organs deliberately omit his extreme liberal record on abortion whilst emphasising any slight genuflection towards Evangelicals and Orthodox Catholics.
Obama is an extreme liberal on social affairs and an extreme left wing politician on the economy.
He is attempting to square the circle. This is not possible on social affairs. You are either in favour of abortion or you are not. You cannot bridge the unbridgeable.

The reality is Obama as exemplified by his voting record on abortion has contempt for the beliefs of conservative Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics.
Obama consistently emphasises the importance of Christianity in his life. Unfortunately he has facilitated the breaking of the Fifth Commandment by his votes on abortion.
Obama consistently speaks about women’s rights. But there is never a mention of the right to life of the unborn child. Where Obama is concerned God’s wishes are sidelined.God does not enter the equation. Obama is a secular humanist first and a Christian second. Obama’s religion is Secular Humanism with a little sprinkle of Christianity thrown in for good measure.
So the reality is that Orthodox Catholics and Evangelicals hold diametrically opposed positions from Obama on social matters.

No Catholic or Evangelical should vote for Obama because of his stance on abortion. Obama supports the anti–Christian position . He is opposed to God's wishes.
We are all answerable to God if we facilitate abortion in any way. You cannot compromise between good and evil. You opt for one or the other. There is no half way house. It is a case of God's wishes versus Obama's flowery rhetoric, which justifies and supports the culture of death. Evangelical African Americans who may be tempted to vote for Obama must put God first. They should vote for McCain on the basis of his strong anti-abortion stance.

The Real McCain/Rubin Interview shows that John McCain has not flip-flopped and is consistent in his stace of no unconditional meetings with Hamas

In an article in the Washington Post titled Hypocrisy on Hamas, James P. Rubin-who served in the Clinton Administration- recounts an interview which he conducted with McCain for Sky News. He quotes selectively as follows and misrepresents John McCain's position: "I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Rubin in his article omitted several key sentences including the following "......It depends on how Hamas acts as a new government". This proves conclusively that John McCain has not flip-flopped and is consistent in his stance of no unconditional meetings with Hamas.