When you write blazing articles about Governor Palin, you aren't just hurting her, you're hurting her husband and children. Have you thought about that? No, she didn't bring this on herself. You've chosen to disrespect a women who deserves our respect for her accomplishments. And when you put her down, it has to hurt her husband and kids. How would your family feel if one of your family members was being put down this way?

When you question her ability to be a mother and a mayor or governor, you question all women in that position. (It should follow that you're questioning fathers in the same position, but that's obviously not what's happening.)

When you question whether or not being a mayor of a small town is a difficult job, you're asking the same thing of small town mayors all over the country. Sure, there may be some who work part time. But my experience in small towns has been different. They have worked full time and worked hard to fulfill their duties.

When you think that being a Governor isn't such a big deal, you're saying that to governors all over the country. Or they probably think you are.

If you question Governor Palin's faith, are you also questioning the faith of millions all over the country? The Barna Group (the group that does church statistics) says that their latest polls show that 44% of all Americans are born again Christians and 7% are evangelical. Are you questioning their faith when you question Palin's?

One of the churches with which Palin has been associated is the Assemblies of God Church. According to their web site, there are almost 2 million members and almost 3 million people who attend their churches. When you question Sarah Palin's faith, are you also questioning theirs?

55 million people in America are Republicans. When you make fun of Sarah Palin for being a Republican, are you also making fun of them?

In the United States, approximately 350,000 families are affected by Down syndrome. Approximately 5,000 children with Down syndrome are born each year. If you want to make an issue of the Palin family having a baby with Down syndrome, have you considered that you might be causing distress in some of these other families as well?

When you joke about Governor Palin having been a beauty queen, you are disrespecting other women who have won pageants.

Did you know that....

Oprah Winfrey won the 1971 Miss Fire Prevention and Miss Black Tennessee titles.

Diane Sawyer was chosen as America's Junior Miss in 1962. She used her pageant scholarship money to attend Wellesley College, worked as a weathergirl, then press aide to Richard Nixon during his presidency and after his Watergate resignation.

Paula Zahn competed in numerous pageants and made the finals of the 1973 Miss Teenage America Pageant. She then entered TV journalism, wracking up credits on The Health Show, ABC's World News This Morning, and CBS This Morning with Harry Smith.

Imelda Marcos reigned as Miss Manilla 1953 before reigning as First Lady of the Philippines by the side of Ferdinand Marcos.

Deborah Norville, from Inside Edition and Today, was Georgia's Junior Miss in the 1976 America's Junior Miss Pageant.

Girls, teens and young adult women often compete in beauty contests so they can get scholarship money. Are you trying to make them feel bad by making fun of Governor Palin?

When you question Sarah Palin's choice of college, are you saying that if one does not attend an Ivy League school that one's college experience is not valuable? Do you know how many people in the United States attend colleges other than Ivy League universities? Are you disrespecting them as well?

When you say, "Well, she was just the Governor of Alaska. That doesn't count. The population is only 670,000 the same as the city of Memphis. That's nothing" - do you understand that you've insulted an entire state?

If you meant to do these things, then carry on. There's no hope for you.

But if you didn't mean to make fun of so many people, perhaps you'll stop and think about that the next time you're ready to show disrespect.

Women, when we discover another woman who has been successful in balancing career and family, someone whose faith is strong, and whose resolve is unshakable, we should be rejoicing.

In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was passed giving women the right to vote. In 1963 Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, openly criticizing the prevailing stereotypical role of the American housewife and mother.

Forty-five years later, some are suggesting that this strong and successful woman would be better off at home with an apron around her waist. Have we made no progress at all?

Where does it say that to be a "real" feminist one has to be a liberal and a Democrat? Where is it written than in order to be successful in balancing career and family one has to be pro-choice? Have you considered that if you decide that there is only one choice - abortion - that there is not really any choice at all? If you're against anyone making a choice to choose life over abortion, then perhaps you should rethink your position and call yourself "pro-abortion."

Oh, and by the way. When you cannot think of any REAL arguments for your case and merely toss around the words "moron" and "idiot" to any who disagree with your politics, don't worry. We don't take offense at all. We just consider the source. Since you have chosen to NOT research your own candidate or your own party (except for believing what any blogger spills out) we know that you don't really understand. We know that if you did, you'd either be making wiser decisions or at least keeping quiet about the foolish ones you have made.

By: Marilyn Mackenzie
Marilyn Mackenzie has been writing about home, family, faith and nature for over 40 years. She is an author on http://www.Writing.Com which is a site for Creative Writers. Her portfolio can be found at http://kenzie.writing.com

Imagine that you have raised your child be self-reliant, self-directing, honest, law abiding, considerate of the rights and feelings of others, and committed to cooperating with others toward shared goals for win-win outcomes. Imagine that you have taught your child to act with honesty and forthrightness in his occupational and financial dealings and personal relationships. Imagine that you have taught him the usual standards of decency in respect to sexual, aggressive and acquisitive impulses and that modesty and restraint are better standards than showing off.
Imagine that you have taught your child that when he accidentally harms or injures someone, especially through some negligent act, he is morally obligated to apologize to his victim and attempt to compensate him for the injury as best he can.

Imagine that you have taught your child that he must accept the risks and consequences of his actions, whether good or bad, take personal responsibility for his mistakes, hold himself accountable for his failures, and try to remedy his shortcomings. Imagine that you have taught him to judge the faults and failings of others as objectively as possible, but not falsely blame or scapegoat others for wrongs they have not committed.

Imagine further that you have taught your child that it is morally wrong to use force against others, exploit others, manipulate others, or deceive others for personal gain at their expense. Imagine that you have taught him that in a free society he and every other human being has a property right in his own body that protects him from being enslaved or indentured by anyone, including a government, for any cause whatsoever. Imagine that you have taught him that he has a right to own something that he has earned or acquired by mutual consent or by gift or by luck. And imagine that you have taught him that he has a right to defend himself and the things he owns.

Imagine that you have taught your child that altruism is a virtue and that charitable contributions and volunteer efforts on behalf of persons who are disadvantaged is one way of being a good person, and a legitimate basis, among others, for self-esteem.

Imagine that you have taught your now adult child that if he has children of his own he is obligated to have them in a stable and committed marriage because that institution is the best arrangement we know of for effectively rearing children. Imagine further that your child has learned that once he has his own children, he has a moral imperative to provide them with the love, affection, protection, discipline, moral guidance, education, medical care, and social training they need, even if he has to sacrifice personally and financially for them. Imagine that you have taught your now adult child that his children are his and his spouse's responsibilities, not the responsibilities of anyone else.

Imagine further that you have taught your child that if he is unable to strive for these standards of adult behavior because of some genuine disability, then his first duty is to rehabilitate himself, if possible, so as not to be a burden to others, but if rehabilitation is not possible, then his next duty is to accept the voluntary caretaking of others, express his heartfelt gratitude to them for their efforts, and reciprocate in whatever way he can for their benefit.

Imagine that you have taught your now adult child that although he has been entitled to your caretaking over the course of his childhood, he is not entitled to caretaking or anything else from anyone else in the world, but must instead earn whatever he hopes to get from them by offering something in return. Imagine that you have taught your child that no one owes him anything unless he and they have entered into some binding agreement, and that the obligation to cooperate with others by mutual consent is the logical consequence of individual liberty.

Imagine that you have taught your child that individual liberty is the highest political good, because if it isn't, then there is no limit to the wrongs that can be justified against any individual in the name of some other good, such as the good of "the American people" or the good of "society" or the good of "the poor" or "the little guys" or "minorities" or "hard working families."

Now suppose that this young man or woman you have raised according to these ideals becomes old enough to vote. How eager do you think he or she will be to vote for a candidate whose programs use the power of government to take something from some persons without their consent and give it to others? How eager do you think he or she will be to vote for government regulations that restrict freedom rather than enhance it?

For programs that encourage government dependency instead of self-reliance? For programs that attack the moral and legal foundations of individual liberty? For programs that invite the citizen to become a ward of the state, as if he has been adjudicated incompetent and in need of a guardian?

By what line of reasoning will the adult child you have raised convince himself to vote for a candidate whose political culture encourages sexual acting out with its resulting sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, unnecessary abortions and the catastrophic effects of sexual infidelity on marriages, children and families? How eager will your adult child be to vote for a candidate whose political culture rationalizes violence, excuses financial irresponsibility, condones substance abuse, encourages blaming and complaining, insists on political correctness, exploits the victim-villain theme, and authorizes all abortion on demand? By what line of reasoning will your now adult child convince himself that an education or job should be given to someone based on skin color or financial status instead of skills?

It looks like about half of all Americans don't understand how life and liberty really work, or they wouldn't be voting for the madness that passes for modern liberalism. No one committed to the ideals of self-reliance and voluntary cooperation or any of the other ideals just noted can reasonably seek the morally bankrupt collectivism that dominates our contemporary political scene. So we'd better take a second look at how we're bringing up our kids -- and ourselves. We'd better take a second look at what we expect from government. A lot of people these days feel entitled to health care, child care and retirement benefits paid for by someone else. A lot of people expect governments to care about them, feel their pain, and provide for their material security. Not a lot of people these days understand that freedom takes work. Not a lot of us are willing to assume the responsibilities of competent adults. Judging from how we vote, many of us would rather be children of the state. Maybe the burdens of freedom are too heavy for us Americans. Maybe the price of freedom is too high for us.

Not to worry, though; we can take the easy way out. We can give our votes to our parental politicians. They will take good care of us, because they care so much for us. Then we won't have to be competent.

By: Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr.
Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. is a libertarian/conservative writer and physician practicing in the fields of general and forensic psychiatry. He is the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. Please visit http://www.libertymind.com to learn more about Dr. Rossiter and his controversial book.

Sarah Pain is everything feminists esteem, especially the liberal feminist advocacy group National Organization for Women--NOW. She's a competitor, accomplished, intelligent, popular, and a fighter. So, why do they demean Palin's accomplishments? There's one little problem, she's a woman of faith and a conservative.
The Washington Post's Sally Quinn questions Palin's ability to mother and have a career, "I think, when you have five children, one a four-month-old Down syndrome baby, and a daughter who is 17, who is also a child and who is going to need her mother very much in the next few months and years with her own baby coming, that I don't see how you can not make your family your first priority."

Palin ultimately affirms life is precious when she's seen holding her baby on national TV. This flies in the face of the liberal assertion "all babies should be planned and healthy." In an attempt to discredit Palin, they made her mothering a campaign issue. Oops! This turns out to be a major goof for radical feminists. We're supposed to be able to have a career AND a family. Even though they loathe Palin, it's necessary to backtrack on the issue of priorities. A couple of days after Quinn's remark, she made a weak attempt to defend Palin's place on the Republican ticket.

If that wasn't enough drama in the public arena, Palin's pregnant teenage daughter is viciously attacked by the liberal media--only to have the Palin family surround her in love. This dispels another liberal myth, people of faith are hateful to unmarried pregnant women.

Olga Vives, vice president of NOW, vowed to be "very strong and aggressive in letting our constituents know that the McCain-Palin ticket would set women back many years." Exactly how would the McCain-Palin "set women back many years"? If John McCain and Sarah Palin are elected this November, it'll be a significant moment in history for women, not a setback!

"You can't trade one v- - - -a (female body part) for another" bellowed Joy Behar on "The View." Extremely unhappy that Hillary Clinton is not in the running for the White House, either as president or vice president, Behar makes it crystal-clear, only a liberal candidate will be considered a feminist victory.

"She's NO Hillary," Congresswoman Karen Thurman agrees with Behar, but states it more concisely.

Okay, we know Sarah Palin isn't Hillary, already! Why all the venom, lies, and backbiting? What happened to the sisterhood? Palin has single-handedly unmasked the hypocrisy of the women's movement on the world stage. For decades, NOW and other radical feminists have been a deafening shrill voice drowning out anyone, who doesn't agree with their extreme agenda.

Palin is NOW's worst nightmare on steroids. She's everything they aspire to be, but with a moral compass. Ouch! To make matters worse, they're afraid Palin will give a voice to the silent and flesh and bones to what's been an invisible woman. They're terrified that truth will NOW drown out their radical racket!

By: Nonna Joann Bruso
Nonna Joann Bruso is an author, but not a political analyst. You don't have to be a political analyst, to see that we no longer have a free press and we're in danger of voting away the rest of our rights. Obama's promises will quickly bring about a socialist government. Remember, Germany and Cuba voted for change and got more change than they bargained for.

Sarah Palin represents sound American thinking, responsibility and fiscal discipline, far above, most of the weak but glib and deceptive bunch, that inhabits most of today's U.S. House and Senate.

A First In Today's Partisan Politics-Going After Her Own Party

Unlike nanny-state advocates who go after the opposition party with a vengeance, to further the party interest which in turn furthers their own interest, Governor Palin started out going after her own party, right at the top and right from the start.

The nanny-staters use a lot of words as they promise more, redistribute more and increase taxes and spending. Conversely Governor Palin has already achieved honest, ethical, competent, government, taking on Alaskan big oil interests and excessive government.

The result? A $1200 tax rebate returned to the people of Alaska who were robbed by politicians convicted of taking bribes from oil company executives.

This rebate did not result from one more government slight of hand, raising taxes in one area then giving a tax rebate in another.

Early History - See Sarah Palin - A Lady David, With Credentials to Slay the Federal Spending Goliath for the complete article.

Barack Obama seems like a nice fellow, but he's not ready to be president. He looks like a decent basketball player, considering his age. I like basketball; I like the idea of a black president; I'd like to be voting for Colin Powell this November, he's ready to be president. Barack Obama is ready to start formulating his first piece of legislation for consideration by a more senior democratic committee chair. He is not ready to be a committee chair and certainly not president.

The chances are that Barack will make a fine president. Good looking, well spoken, and an excellent public speaker. He's easy to like. I see no sign of that arrogant smirk that the current commander in chief can't or won't suppress. The truth is, with a veteran team, he will do fine. Unless we have a really serious problem.

Government is too important to be left to the politicians and we don't. Federal Civil Servants do the day to day, month to month, year to year work of running this country. They are good at their jobs, cautious with policy and yes, even the taxpayers dollar. If the government was a 747, we certainly wouldn't let the president into the cockpit. Until of course, the 747 loses two engines and part of a wing. Then the president gets too earn his wings; and therein lays the problem with Barack Obama. - See Barack Seems Like a Nice Fellow for the full article.

In my opinion, while some politicians do go into politics to be of service to their country, most politicians go into politics in order to gain power. This holds especially true for politicians who run for President. It doesn't matter how much money have. They are seeking the power of the Presidency. The power to, in some ways, control or affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The office of the Presidency of the United States has been called by many, the office of the most powerful person in the world.

Senator Barack Obama is currently seeking that office. Over the past several months, he has promised the American people (more so the the lower income and poor people in America) "economic justice". He is promising to be America's Robin Hood.That sounds altrustic and great doesn't it? Unfortunately, his version of "economic justice" means socialism to the extreme degree. Senator Obama's plan is to punish individuals who have worked hard and are financially successful by redistributing their wealth in the form of government "freebies". Of course, most normal thinking Americans' realize that nothing in life is free. But, you say, free health care and free college sound great? Of course it does, if you are not footing the bill, but since this isn't the land of fable we will be. The American people will be paying for all of these grand new programs by being assessed significantly increased taxes. Our federal government will expand to unforeseen levels and America will be turned into a socialisic fiefdom where everyone will owe their contiued welfare to the leaders of America. The losers in the end will be all of us, the poor, the middle class and the rich.

Senator Obama plays the fear tactics in poor communities. This has turned into a very vindictive strategy supposedly aimed at the upper and wealthy class. Like many other high ranking flag carriers, he argues that, if not elected, poor communities will get poorer while the rich keep getting richer. In reality, Senator Obama will not only be "soaking the rich" he will be hurting the very communities he claims to care about. The truth is, Barack Obama is the same old politician trying to woo lower middle class and poor voters into thinking America will give them everything they want. He is even calling for free money in the form of tax credits towards fathers who choose to stay at home and raise their kids instead of leaving their families in order to go to work. Ultimately, many communities across America will feel beholden to more government "giveaways". Under Senator Obama's taxes will increase in virtually every income bracket, all the while, welfare will grow to new heights. Senator Obama will not rescue the poor; he will only make them more dependent on a nanny state. - See Obama Seeks To Make America A Socialistic Fiefdom for the complete article.