Sarah Palin Wants to Remain Ignorant…She Doesn’t Ask, and Doesn’t Tell

Sarah Palin Wants To Remain Ignorant…

She Doesn’t Ask, and Doesn’t Tell

Virtually every time Half-Term-Ex-Governor Palin gives a speech, she begins by asking the crowd “Do You Love Your Freedom?”  She always thanks the people in the military for their service.  She says she is proud to be an American.  Often Palin is heard to mention that her son, Track, is serving in Iraq.  (Some have suggested that he enlisted to avoid jail.  I have written about the many examples of the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin.  Yet none are more obvious than her stance regarding homosexuality in the military.  Palin opposes repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law.  Given Palin’s stance, she must believe that we love our freedom, but only that portion earned by the heterosexual members of the military.  When she thanks the members of the military in attendance at her speeches, she presumes they are all heterosexual.  She is probably correct in that assumption, as most homosexual people would never think of supporting such a hypocrite.

Palin has a long history of attempting to impose her beliefs regarding homosexuality upon the rest of us.  Many heard that she had attempted to ban books while Mayor of Wasilla.  In fact it was only one book she tried to ban and it was a child’s picture book, entitled Daddy’s Roommate.  Willhoite, Michael, Daddy’s Roomate,1990, ISBN 10-1-55583118-4;  Benet, Lorenzo, Trail Blazer, an intimate biography of Sarah Palin, 2009.  Daddy’s Roommate is the story of a young boy whose divorced father moves in with his gay partner.  It is a book targeting young children who may not understand the dynamics of a man who divorces his wife to live with his gay roommate.  In the last two sentences of 13, the theme of the book is summarized.  The mother in the book explains to her child that “Being gay is just one more kind of love.  And love is the best kind of happiness.”  Ibid.  However Palin wouldn’t know the message of the book since she refused to read it.  Ibid;  Litman, Rebuttal to the Rogue at 21.  When Palin was not successful in banning this book from the library in Wasilla, she stopped construction of the new library, she fired the librarian, and she sent the book to a library in a remote location.  Ibid.  Thus Palin accomplished indirectly what she prohibited from doing directly.  Maybe she should have taken a Constitutional Law Class;  maybe she should have read the book;  maybe it never occurred to Sarah Palin that the concept of an “American” doesn’t include a designation of sexual preferences; and maybe one of the soldiers who saved the life of her son while he was in Iraq was a gay or lesbian soldier. 

Palin’s own church seems to be proud of its teachings that if you are homosexual, you simply haven’t prayed hard enough.  As if homosexuality is an undesirable characteristic, they have sponsored conferences devoted to converting homosexual people to heterosexuality, through prayer.   homosexual

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of repealing the 1993 law which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving in the military unless they keep their sexual identity a secret.  As the law currently stands, if a soldier who is homosexual is exposed as being gay or lesbian, he/she will be discharged.  Already 13,500 soldiers have been discharged because of this ban.  Of those, more than 1000 filled critical occupations, such as engineers and interpreters.  Ibid.    In addition, we lose approximately 4000 members of the military every year due to their voluntary resignation.  Contrast this practice to the policy of the military in granting “moral waivers” to thousands of new recruits, including people with felony convictions.  Ibid. 

This ban on openly gay people serving in the military is not based on any research.  No research has ever shown that openly gay service hurts the military.  Ibid.  In fact quite the opposite is true.  A 2006 Zogby International poll of returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan found that 73% were personally comfortable with gays and lesbians.  Ibid.  Representative Patrick Murphy from Pa. articulated the service person’s perspective when he said that when he served in Baghdad… “My teams did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay if they could fire their assault rifle or run a convoy down ambush alley and do their job so everyone would come home safely.”

The House of Representatives has voted in favor of repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.  Ibid.   The Senate will probably consider the bill next month.  Ibid.  As Americans we value the notion that “all men are created equal”.  Over time we have come to realize that this phrase doesn’t just mean white heterosexual men.  It means all “people”, regardless of their race, religion, gender, and sexual preference.

Oliver North gave a tribute to our soldiers and the members of our armed forces.  As you watch this video, remember that any or all of the soldiers mentioned in the video might be gay or lesbian.  They deserve our respect, our gratitude, and our admiration.

12 thoughts on “Sarah Palin Wants to Remain Ignorant…She Doesn’t Ask, and Doesn’t Tell

Add yours

  1. One of the motives behind repealing DADT may be because, despite the recession, all branches of the military are still having a hard time meeting their recruiting quotas. The reason? Too many overweight teens. They can’t afford to turn people away just because they’re gay.


    1. That may be a factor, but how about the idea that gays have served honorably in the American armed services for the last 200+ years — and want to serve their country?


      1. BW, I agree, and just found out that I am going to be a featured guest on a radio show in Florida of this very topic. It seems the more Palin talks the more people who she offends. Malia


  2. Malia ~
    I think your commentary this time misses the point that many of Palin’s social views stem from her End of Days “Christianity”, a parochial, narrow-minded version that caters to uneducated white folk (only), primarily rural, presumed to be heterosexual, believing in The Rapture, etc.

    That ‘sect’ espouses THEIR view of religion, THEIR view of America, THEIR view of politicians, but doesn’t work hard at education or reading widely or viewing the news beyond their pre-fab world view because that would be too startling, too unsettling. Their narrow vision and smallmindedness can therefore not accommodate gays, Hispanic immigrants, a black President, too many Asians (in Hawaii!)…too much of anything not like them.

    This too is America, but we have to work to make sure that this Fringe view of our nation doesn’t become our national temprament, let alone our national religion.


    1. “End of Days “Christianity”, a parochial, narrow-minded version that caters to uneducated white folk (only), primarily rural, presumed to be heterosexual, believing in The Rapture, etc.” “…‘sect’…Fringe…”

      This is what I used to think. But not anymore. This is not the “Fringe” or “sects”, it IS our national temperament. On deeper investigation and a more sophisticated understanding, I now think that this phenomenon has nothing to do with spiritual beliefs.
      I was raised to offer respect and accomodation to those more outspoken than us in celebrating their beliefs. To be courteous at all times to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventist proselytizing, Baptists asking if I was saved. To be deferential to other people’s efforts to be good and godly, even if it was overbearing and imposing. To appreciate an offer to pray for me, even if not desired. This is personal; one human to another. Not about church.
      Increasing since childhood, from small hurts and rudenesses to this generation’s larger expectations of entitlement, privilege and deference, I’ve come to be hesitant and cautious around people of faith, and to expect some kind of hostile gesture, a poke, a condemnation, a challenge of my beliefs. My tolerance and allowances are met with intolerance and rudeness.
      Then there’s the ignorance – incorrect information, lack of education or even normal curiosity. Statements of “fact” confidently made on any subject that, sadly, are almost always untrue.
      Tenents and teachings of Jesus Christ are neither the focus nor the priority. Behaviours are contradictory on many levels and fail to reflect Christian attributes of charity, kindness, truth, modesty, humility. There is superiority and disdain – agenda replacing truthfulness, hostility replacing warmth, greed and stinginess prevailing over wisdom and grace.
      The priorities are church attendance and financial commitment, obedience and membership. The primary goal of many churches is expansion, locally, nationally and internationally.
      But hypocrisy seems to go without notice or attention. I’ve wondered how this can be and it’s been the main reason that I stopped attending any church. Do preachers and pastors not see what their flocks are doing?

      I’ve been working hard to understand so that I may continue relationships with family and friends that I value; one in this church group and another in a different one. Different towns, different brands, but all branches of evangelical American-invented Protestant religion.
      I know these people very well and I am baffled by subtly-changing philosophies and behaviours inconsistent with personality, upbringing or personal culture. These family members were intelligent good people to begin with. They have not become better people with happier lives full of meaning, but quite the opposite. They’ve become meaner, harder people. Judgemental, foolish, more willing to do harm, less conscientious. And most shocking, they’ve gone from broad education and well-read to willfull ignorance and stunted thinking.

      Even the term “Christian” has come to mean something else. It properly simply describes religions based on the teachings of Christ, as opposed to religions based on teachings of other spiritual philosophers: Jewish, Buddhist, Baha’i, Muslim, etc. Somewhere along the way, Protestant evangelicals (previously known as “born-again”) appropriated the term to mean themselves. Now it seems to mean something else. As an Episcopalian/Catholic, I am certainly of a Christian faith; I’m not Jewish. But I’m never quite sure how to answer when someone demands to know if I’m ‘A’ Christian.
      I found it very disturbing when a family member related an anecdote in routine conversation about a frustrating moment of conflict with another person. He said: “I was so pissed off, but I had to remember that I’m a Christian, you know…”

      Here’s what’s apparent and frightening clear. It is no longer about meaningful prayer and being good. It has stopped being about higher, deeper meaning. Church and spirituality is now an industry. Just like ‘Big Oil’, we can call it ‘Big Religion’. This is salesmanship and there’s money to be made.
      This is the next generation of money-making charlatan evangelists from Old Timey revival meetings. Remember how they went from town to town, passing the hat, “healing” the sick, “curing” deafness and causing folks to walk again, and passing the hat. And suckering widows out of life-savings. And passing the hat.
      Well, they’re passing that hat again. The folks who invented this are not spiritual leaders, nor men of God. They are investors and financiers. They are in it for the wealth, and the power and leadership that money buys. They know what works and they have a plan. They are business owners. They are deeply invested and they are not about to give it up.
      The key players are intertwined and associated with and through major Conservative Christian organizations and lobbying. They own large communications companies, radio stations, local and national businesses, and hold key administrative positions in secular industries as well. These people are the ones that set the agenda. They are the ones who direct what pastors will preach to congregations.
      Expanding from Jim and Tammy Faye Baker’s television evangelism empire, this next generation is harnessing modern technology and sophisticated telecommunications to generate even more wealth. This is billions and billions of dollars.
      Through political connections, they opened the door to the vault with “faith-based initiatives” – a congressional act that allows churchs to take on charitable non-profit status and be awarded federal grants. (There isn’t extra money for churches, traditional charities now compete for the same pot of money, or less.)
      Churches were given carte blanche to be paid to deliver critical social services like food banks, substance abuse programs and domestic violence services. Of course, they aren’t supposed to require church attendance or spiritual conversion, but who’s watching?
      Churches’ special non-profit niche means that they can have billions of dollars worth of assets that have no purpose in serving God, with no tax liability and no oversight – properties, houses, vehicles, aircraft and profit-generating businesses.
      Preachers and their minions now live in million-dollar estates and drive Cadillac Escalades. They enjoy every secular luxury and amusement, from housekeepers to designer clothing to European cruises. This isn’t rare, this has become convention.
      In every American town, preachers and pastors who used to live the same modest lifestyle as their congregations, now live in nicer houses and neighborhoods that seem disproportionate to what one would imagine a preacher’s income could afford. It’s a good living.

      It’s hard to grasp the scope of this. But this phenomenon is not “Fringe”; this is marketing. “Christian” has morphed into a brand, not a way of life. People are buying name-recognition and association with quality and character.

      When we weigh Sarah Palin’s unChristian-like conduct and philosophies, the hypocrisy and untruths, reasoned-thinkers experience cognitive dissonance: this makes no sense, this is not how “Christians” behave. It’s contrary to our collective expectation of what that implies. We expect that that means superior in character. And we’re confused when it doesn’t.

      ‘Christian’ is just one more well-marketed American product.
      And a pair of Nike shoes doesn’t make you better at sports, even if they feel and look great.


  3. Any politician who wants to pay respect to the armed forces can do so by keeping them out of harm’s way.
    Palin, if she were a politician, would be quick to attack all of America’s perceived enemies. For a religious person, she doesn’t have a problem with hating and killing.
    She never seemed concerned when Track was in Iraq. Probably because she knew he would get a sweet assignment as her son (sorry, Todd), not to mention there would be a greater risk of him getting into trouble at home.
    Palin’s tribute to freedom and the forces is her imitation of Reagan, who was imitating John Wayne. One thing all three have in common – bad acting.
    As for Palin’s view of homosexuality, her God created man first, and woman from the first man, as his helper. I’m not sure who Adam’s offspring had babies with, or who figured out that intercourse not only resulted in orgasm but babies, but I’m pretty sure shame and guilt were human creations.


  4. Hi Malia

    Sarah must never ever be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Sarah’s version of freedom means having power over the lives of others. And as we know resistance (has been and) will be met with some sort of punishment; we just don’t know to what degree or what form.

    Given what happened to the librarian, it is unsettling, but not difficult to imagine Sarah ordering every library and bookstore in the US to censor any and all books wrt homosexuality and/or any other subject/s she finds objectionable. And if they refuse to comply what then? close down the libraries and bookstores? fire everyone? sentence them to jail? sic the military on them?

    What would Sarah do about DADT? would she repeal it and then ban all gays from serving the country? demand witch hunts? jail them? or something much worse?

    And when prayers don’t work in converting gays to heterosexuals what then? will the GLBT community be the object of Sarah’s vengeance?

    I know all of this sounds far-fetched, but when it comes to Sarah I honestly do not have any idea the type of punishment she would exact or how far or to what lengths she would go. The 1-thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I do not want to know.

    If we are to stay free, Sarah must never ever be in a position of power because this woman’s version of freedom is not freedom at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: