Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Monday, September 01, 2008

How Pathetic: Sarah Palin's Seventeen Year Old Daughter Pregnant

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Just when you think things can't get any worse or any lower, someone has to step up to the plate and prove it definitely can. We've just seen it again with the rumors apparently being spread that Bristol Palin was actually the mother of the baby born to her mother in April. She isn't, but what if she were? So what? What business would it be of the American people? None! What would it say about her mother's ability to be vice-president? Nothing! So what was the point?

With people rushing to spread false rumors, it was announced that Bristol is in fact pregnant and will be marrying the father of her child. Now that the news, which is actually nobody's business beyond the family, is out there -- it will hopefully put the brakes on the trashy gossip carriers' wrongful efforts to exploit a child. If not, perhaps those around them might point out that children should -- without question -- be off limits in campaigns and especially in attempted smear campaigns. And if they can't comprehend this little bit of ethics, perhaps someone should point out to them what their behavior says about them.

I find it absolutely pathetic that rumors were started about Bristol in the first place and even more pathetic that her pregnancy had to be announced to the world to prevent further lies being spread in regard to her. Needless to say, I find the people who brought a child into the campaign war and involved in spreading rumors about her to be about as pathetic as they come.

I also find it rather ironic, that while we have people preaching that choice is a right and everyone should be allowed to have sex with whomever, that anyone would have even thought it of interest to spread the rumor that Bristol was actually the mother of her brother. But then... there is little logic in many things many people do in this day and age.

The Palin family should not have had to share the news that Bristol is expecting. It has nothing to do with running the country or the ability to do so. However, it does show how low some in our country have sunken. Perhaps this is a wake-up call and proof we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves (our society) in the mirror to see what we have become and where we are headed before it is too late. After all, if we get where we are headed, we might not be able to ever get back, and I, for one, don't want to be there. I hope I'm not alone.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Anonymous said...

To his credit Obama has been emphatic in his denunciation of attacks on Bristol Palin from the left wing blogs such as moveon.org, but apparently all Obama operatives haven't gotten the message. Chicago Ray, quoting the American Spectator, has a piece about Obama campaign officials fishing for dirt on Sarah Palin's husband, going so far as to offer $5000 rewards for such information. This may be "change" to some people but such tactics are simply the way it's always been done by the Chicago Machine.

Carrie K. Hutchens said...

Pathetic indeed! Let's see if Obama takes his own words (and opinions) seriously and seeks out those in his campaign who are trying to dig up information -- any information -- on Palin's "family."

Haggs said...

And let's hope that Republicans will also discourage members of their party from similarly attacking family members.

jjfoley said...

When you're running for Vice President of a party who has had as a pillar of its platform "abstinence only" insanity, unfortunately, the irony will not be lost now that the first born daughter has proven the failure of such idiocy and failure to face reality. Since Mrs Palin would gladly force my own daughter to carry through a pregnancy even in the case of rape or incest, why should she mind the public sticking their noses into her business? Get a clue. The red Bush voting states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country. The evangelicals are a dangerous bunch of looney tunes. I can't even believe it's come to this...must be the self wrought "end times."

Anonymous said...

Stories like this give me a smile of grim satisfaction. It's yet another notch on the Republican Party's bedpost of shameful and embarrassing sex-related scandals that demonstrate their continual hypocrisy (not to say that Democrats, or anyone else, aren't hypocritical, of course). Republicans are not perfect, but they should not act like their being pro-family/pro-life means by default that Democrats and others are not.

Look at McCain. How can he say he's pro-family and a consistent defender of marriage, when he DESTROYED his own years ago by divorcing his first wife so that he could legitimize his affair with his mistress, the current Mrs. McCain? He obviously had such little respect for the institution he now claims is sacred that he couldn't even honor his first marriage vows. A forgivable mistake? Of course. A lapse in moral judgment? Definitely. But come on, how can he honestly say that between him and his opponent, he is the more pro-marriage candidate? How can he honestly say that he's not pandering to pro-marriage voters?

Conservatives can say what they want about Obama. At least he has both the political consistency and the personal integrity to keep his marriage vows intact, not break them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you are pro-marriage, you should STAY MARRIED, not divorce your wife because you've found someone you like better.

And now we have Sarah Palin, a potential vice president who claims to promote abstinence and wants to see abstinence-only education in our schools, but she obviously failed to instill such values in her children. How can she expect millions of strangers to wait until they're married to have sex, when not even her daughter could manage it?

If a mother cannot effectively teach her own child to be abstinent, how can a public school teacher fare any better?

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about reporters going after politicians' family members like this. On the one hand, I can't imagine how mortifying it is for your life to be broadcast on the national stage without your permission, and I'm sure Bristol Palin would love for all this unwanted attention to go away. But on the other hand, stories like this give us an important glimpse into the personal lives of the people who seek to influence OUR personal lives. One would hope that Palin is a mother first and a politician second. The same goes for McCain as a husband. I think the past and present choices politicians make in their private lives are an essential indication of their character, and thus the choices they make both personal and political.

Therefore, if McCain chose to destroy his first marriage because he couldn't control his wandering eyes, is he really the best person to uphold the sanctity of what many Americans deem is society's most important institution? If Palin could not sufficiently teach her own teenage daughter the importance of saving yourself for marriage, is she really the best person to enforce abstinence-only education for millions of people?

On a side note, it's really a shame that Republicans have backed themselves into a corner by being "the party of family values." If things were different, maybe Bristol wouldn't be under so much pressure to enter into a contract she's not ready for. Unless this kid is exceptionally wise and mature beyond her seventeen years, this marriage will not work. She can't even vote, and yet she's expected to take on the vast responsibilities and challenges of marriage? Even if she does marry her baby's father, you know divorce is out of the question -- especially if her mother becomes vice president. As with all political families, appearance is everything. It's really a shame.

Anonymous said...

"And let's hope that Republicans will also discourage members of their party from similarly attacking family members."

I agree, Haggs, but I'm curious if you have some incident in mind. I can't think of any time in recent history that Republicans attacked a political opponent because of a family matter. Certainly, you are not thinking of Michelle Obama's dust-up with conservative commentators?!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bob Ellis said...

Alex, you're as predictable as the rising sun.

If you advocate certain values, yet fail in any way to live up to them, that invalidates the truth of those values?

Hmm. I don't think you want to try that one. That means that if anyone who has ever advocated obeying the speed limit yet failed to obey it, speed limits should be done away with. If anyone ever said murder was wrong and murdered someone, laws against murder should be done away with. Doesn't fly very well, does it?

Yet that's the liberal's "out" to try and excuse themselves from moral behavior: if someone who advocates a value they don't like every fails in any way to live up to it...FREE PASS FOR EVERYONE!

At best, it must be an effort to avoid any semblance of hypocrisy...at the cost of all morality. At worst, I think it may just qualify as the height of hypocrisy AND AT THE SAME TIME undermining morality.

Come on, McFly; think!

Anonymous said...


First of all, I have decided to stop writing sarcastic, disrespectful, and mocking posts on your blog, so your comments about my "predictability" are no longer necessary and no longer welcome, as is your own mocking sarcasm toward me. So consider this a flag of truce.

That said, you are reading way too far into what I wrote. At no point did I EVER advocate a "free for all" or say that if a pro-marriage advocate gets a divorce, then that nullifies the meaning and importance of marriage for everyone. I think you are using what you already think you know about me based on my comments elsewhere to assume I'm saying something about same-sex marriage. I'm not, so please leave those comments where they belong, in the "homosexuality" threads.

What I SAID was that when a candidate who says he's pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-life, etc., fails to live up to his political ideals, he has lost both his credibility and my confidence that he can do his job well. This does NOT mean, as you seem to interpret, that *anyone* who shares these beliefs is wasting his time. It means that if a politician wants to impose certain beliefs onto society and write them into law, he or she had better be consistent. This is their JOB, after all, and if it's our duty as citizens to give someone such a vast amount of power and authority, I expect no less than an exceptional track record. When it comes to upholding the sanctity of marriage in his own private life, McCain fails. And because Obama has thus far honored his marriage vows, he passes.

As for Sarah Palin, the problem with her in this case is that she supports abstinence-only education. Her daughter is living proof that this policy DOES NOT WORK. Yet if elected, Palin will continue to support this policy and thereby affect the lives of countless American teenagers, knowing full well that the very same policy put her daughter in the position she's in today.

Your analogy with the speed limit can actually apply to my comment. However, I'm not talking about "anyone." I am talking about people in authority, whose chosen job is to maintain a higher standard and set an example for the rest of us. Now, if a police officer, who is sworn to obey the speed limit, has publically admitted to breaking it for no justifiable reason while on duty, it does not mean that speed limits should be done away with.

It means that cop should be fired.

Bob Ellis said...

Thanks for your efforts to engage in civil, reality-based discussion, Alex. I appreciate it. I will endeavor as always to respond in kind.

You are correct that when someone fails to live up to the ideals they espouse, that it damages their credibility, but NOT the validity of those values.

It seems you still seem to believe that to some extent, though, since you still indict abstinence based on the failure of Palin's daughter.

The same could be said of our efforts to convince people not to do drugs, vandalize property, drink and drive, etc. because we still have people who do these things, even though we teach the proper way.

The truth is, we always WILL see some people violate what is right. That's simply a reality when dealing with a fallen human race that has a sin nature.

What would help reduce those numbers, though, would be if all areas of society would once again get on board with teaching young people what is right--and holding everyone (young and adult, alike) accountable. When parents teach abstinence, but the education system teaches "abstinence if it isn't too much trouble," and music teaches "screw your brains out" and television teaches "screw your brains out" and movies teach "screw your brains out" and the public square teaches "we can't teach you anything for fear of seeming "intolerant," then people aren't getting the kind of consistent message they were 50 years ago.

You are right that McCain has failed in personally upholding the sanctity of marriage in his own life. Whether he's repented of that or not, I don't know, but the fact remains that he did.

In the end, though, I hold someone in higher regard if they strive to promote the right way, even if they fail to live up to it perfectly, than I hold in regard someone who said, "It doesn't matter."

And Obama clearly teaches "It doesn't matter."

Anonymous said...


Thanks for your thoughts. I understand what you mean by holding someone in higher regard if they strive to promote the right way despite failing occasionally. It shows both humanity and humility.

However, when it comes to choosing the next person who will run our country, I would prefer someone with a consistently exceptional history -- as close to perfection as one can get. As for whether these things really matter to McCain, no one can be sure. I can't help but think he's just pandering for votes. He's a politician, after all, and no matter he says, he's looking out for his job first and what's right second.

You wouldn't entrust your health to an overweight, chainsmoking personal trainer. Nor would you seek out marital advice from an adulterous divorcee. Personally speaking, I find it unconscionable to grant power to a man like McCain, who is imperfect on so many levels yet claims to have the authority to tell me how I should live.

On the other hand, Obama is far from perfect as well.

So, to borrow what you've said about the media and entertainment: we're screwed.

Bob Ellis said...

Wonder of wonders, it looks like we're mostly in agreement on our election prospects.

I never have been a fan of McCain (at least not for the last 8 or 9 years). I've had to decide that he is the lesser of two evils and come to hold my nose to be able to support him, largely in part for that pandering you mentioned...though too much of it has been pandering to the media and people on the Left that will never support him when it counts.

As bad as McCain is, though, there is still a very clear difference between McCain and Obama. But when you consider that if McCain/Palin wins in November, we get a boost for someone who is ideologically much better for America...even if we have to wait a few years to get her.

Carrie K. Hutchens said...

"As for Sarah Palin, the problem with her in this case is that she supports abstinence-only education. Her daughter is living proof that this policy DOES NOT WORK. Yet if elected, Palin will continue to support this policy and thereby affect the lives of countless American teenagers, knowing full well that the very same policy put her daughter in the position she's in today."

Alex, I must readily disagree with you. This is living proof that the policy may not have worked with her daughter, but not that it does not work. And... "the policy" did not put her daughter in the position she is in today.

I don't believe in Planned Parenthood's methods, nor what they (and their methods) have led us to.

Parents should have a say in when children learn about sexual matters and should have a say in who provides the information when the time comes. However, Planned Parenthood et al have decided otherwise, telling (if only by suggestion) children that they do not have to listen to their parents or abide by the teachings of their home. Instead, it is as though Planned Parenthood et al suggests to go do whatever and they will help bail the kids out, rather than teach them what it means to be accountable for one's actions.

Anonymous said...

"This is living proof that the policy may not have worked with her daughter, but not that it does not work. And... "the policy" did not put her daughter in the position she is in today."


Oh I beg to differ. First, Bristol's little "predicament" certainly does not bode well for her mother. How can Palin expect millions of teenagers to be abstinent when she couldn't even get her own daughter to do it? Mother first, politician second, right? Well, Palin failed on the first part; why should I believe she can succeed on a national scale?

Second, while Bristol is of course the one who's ultimately responsible for her actions, I absolutely believe that the policy of abstinence-only education (I do hope I'm clear on that; I don't mean the virtue of abstinence itself) is one of the reasons why she's in her situation today. The lesson she got about sex was boiled down into four words: wait until you're married. Palin does not believe teenagers should learn much more than that, as cited in a questionnaire from the Eagle Forum in 2006: "Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." So this left Bristol totally in the dark about sex and contraception.

Assuming that Bristol is a normal teenager, she has had at least a few passing thoughts about sex; pity she knew next to nothing about it, thanks to abstinence-only programs. Common sense tells us that the less we know about something we think is interesting, the more we want to find out. Clearly, Bristol has found out. If she had learned about contraception, maybe she would have known how to protect herself from pregnancy. Yes, yes, condoms fail. But if you use a condom, you can't argue that you have a better chance of NOT getting pregnant than you would without one.

Instead, Bristol was subjected to an abstinence-only education, a fantasy world in which teenagers are not curious enough about sex to engage in a little independent learning, and where they all promise to save themselves for their spouse. And of course, such an education also leaves people in the dark about birth control for when they actually do get married!

If you have a daughter, would you really want the extent of her sexual education to be "wait"? Surely your daughter is not perfect; surely she makes mistakes. If and when she does, wouldn't you want her to be prepared to mitigate the risks of sex at least a little bit?

These are hypotheticals, of course. If you have a daughter, I'm sure you would assume the responsibility of teaching her about sex as you deem appropriate. But what about parents who do not? Shouldn't there be SOMEONE out there who can compensate for parental negligence and teach kids about contraception, in the event that they - like millions of their peers - want to discover what this elusive thing called "sex" is all about? This "someone" needn't be Planned Parenthood; personally, I think it should be public schools. My high school education included a mandatory twelfth grade health class in which we learned about sex and STDs (complete with slideshow), and my teacher even demonstrated how to use a condom (don't worry, she used her hand). At no point were we told, "Go out and have fun!" Rather, our teacher dispelled many myths about sex, as well as much of the taboo and mystique surrounding contraception. Today, I know about various forms of birth control, which STDs are bacterial and which are viral, and many more useful facts - all thanks to my school's comprehensive sex ed program.

Carrie K. Hutchens said...


While a law enforcement officer, and merely traveling through life, I have seen "excellent" parents have problem children and the "worst" ever parents have ideal ones. The way a child turns out is not necessarily representative of how the child was raised by the parents. Likewise, I have seen the results of influence reeking from society, Planned Parenthood and DFS. It's not a pretty sight as they undermined the guardians of our children.

Alex, who is to say if a parent is neglectful in educating the children? Who is to say that their way isn't the right way? Why do you think that the public school system has a right to determine that a minor child will take a sex education class and that the parents have nothing to say about it? That is the system saying they are in charge -- not the parents. This is what I have a problem with.

Do you think that it is right for a social worker to tell parents (in front of the children) that they cannot spank the children and that if they do, the children are to contact DFS? That is telling the children that they do not have to listen to their parents and if their parents try to discipline them, DFS will intercede. Likewise, Planned Parenthood et al tell children all the time that they do not have to listen to their parents and that is wrong. That sends mixed signals to the children. That tells the children that whatever their parents are saying, it must be wrong. The parents are ignorant and/or not with it. The parents just don't understand. The parents are old fashion and just don't want them to have any fun. In short, it undermines the parents and their efforts. So, Alex, remove all of that over-powering outsider influence and then we can better see what will and won't work and who is to blame if it all goes wrong.

PS. A social worker did in fact undermine parental authority with the threat of taking the children, if her "PERSONAL" ideology was not followed (just because she could). And this was all in spite of the fact that the parents hadn't done anything in appropriate in the first place. Oh what a power trip some of these government employees and socialist activists get on. You know... the ones who always know better than the parents and let the children know they do.

Anonymous said...


I understand your frustrations, but frankly I think you're being melodramatic. You act like parents have no say in their children's sex education, when they actually do. The "system" may think it has authority, but if you're a good parent, you'll say, "Screw what the system says; I'm in charge of my child's education." If you don't like what public schools are teaching, take your kid to a different school. Teach them yourself. Put them in private school. But don't act like you don't have a choice. If you disagree that strongly with the sex-related information your kid gets at school, you won't throw up your hands in surrender. You will do something about it.

My question still stands: If a politician could not get her own teenage daughter to remain abstinent by using one-on-one parental guidance, do you believe she can succeed with millions of teenagers by using laws and policies? This is not a hypothetical question. It is a valid examination of Governor Palin's ability to execute abstinence-only education. In my opinion, she has forfeited her credibility on this issue. You needn't even be an advocate for comprehensive sex ed, like me, to make the same conclusion.

But, being a typical politician, she'll no doubt go into November saying, "It didn't work for my daughter, but it'll work for yours!"

Carrie K. Hutchens said...

Boy, are you naive, Alex! You go on living in your make believe world.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the well-reasoned, mature, and intelligent response, Carrie.

Anonymous said...

You know if her personal life is so inappropriate in a political arena, then why is she parading her children around on the stage? How is it fair to say "well, personal family issues are important only so long as I agree that it should be public". That's crazy! Of COURSE it is significant. If you look at the statistics, when children get pregnant it is often because they have been haven't been getting the supervision they need from their parents. Maybe if she spent more time at home with her kids, and less time hunting and politiking it would help. Don't get me wrong, I'm a mother to, a single parent in fact, and if this happened to ME, everyone on earth would be saying what a terrible parent I was for not having proper "family values" in my home. Sad, truly sad.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Roxannew. I look at it this way: if one of Obama's daughters gets pregnant out of wedlock in a few years, will Republicans be showing as much support for him as they are for Palin? Uh, no. He'll get a wave of "I told you so"s instead of this hypocritical outpouring of "family values" affirmation.

Carrie K. Hutchens said...

You are most welcome, Alex!

Carrie K. Hutchens said...

Roxannew, we see Obama's little girls all the time. Are you saying that we have a right to know if they bed-wet or got an "F" on a paper? Remember that Obama stresses education, so wouldn't his daughter getting an "F" show that he failed with his daughter in this area? Wouldn't that make it, by your argument, the right of the people to know and judge him by?

Anonymous said...

Well yes Carrie, it actually WOULD be relevant. Getting an "F" on one paper is not quite the same as getting pregnant, however. But, by this assumption anyway, if a candidate who stresses educational values has a child who flunks out of school, for instance, then yes, I think that's highly relevant. How would he be capable of carrying the responsibility of millions of children's education if he cannot even keep his own child from flunking. It is highly relevant in my mind. Keep in mind here that these individuals will be in a position of power that will directly impact YOUR FAMILY! Don't you think how they run their own family should be criteria for whether or not they are capable of doing that well?

Anonymous said...


I'm with Roxannew on this one. The academic performance of Obama's daughters is very relevant, given the senator's policies on education. If one expects a politician to successfully execute federal policies regarding education, he'd better be able to make it work for his kids.

And as for your bedwetting example, if Obama campaigned for the White House on a strict anti-bedwetting platform but treated his daughters' yellow stained sheets as a blessing that in no way contradicts his policy, and if fellow anti-bedwetters rallied behind him in support, ...then yeah, we would have a right to know.

If it's our job to elect a few people who want to micromanage the lives of millions and make political issues out of personal issues, then I think it's only fair that they receive the same treatment from us.

Carrie K. Hutchens said...


First of all, I said nothing about flunking out of school. I asked if you felt we had a right to know about bed-wetting and an "F" on a paper. Where is the line drawn to right-to-know?

An "F" on a paper does not define a child's life, nor is it, in and of itself, necessarily representative of a child's ability. To determine "accountability", we would need much more information than the mere fact an "F" had been received. Do you believe the news media is actually going to provide us with all the variables that brought about the failing grade?

This was said on AMNH, "He excelled at math and science, though he often got only mediocre grades in other classes." Do you feel that the parents failed their son? Do you think that it looked bad on the parents or the boy that he only received mediocre grades in some of his classes? Do you feel I should be worried that his influence might impact my life? Well, actually it did. It affected your life as well. The "he" that did not do well in all classes was Albert Einstein.


Pregnancy likewise does not, in and of itself, define the individual or require that the parents be identified as ones who failed in their responsibility. Again, there are numerous variables involved -- it's certainly not cut and dry. And it isn't as though the parents are the only ones influencing their children. Agencies such as Planned Parenthood and DFS have been undermining parents for years. The latter are the ones that I truly worry about having an impact on the lives of families. I think their power should be rescinded and/or at least limited and parents should be allowed to get back to parenting without the wrongful influence being imposed upon them and their family. I also think these agencies should be held accountable, rather than to have so much freedom and then able to walk away when things go wrong, leaving the parents to pick up the pieces. (If there are any pieces left to pick up.)

People make mistakes. Children definitely make mistakes as they grow and learn. To put their failures and mistakes out there for the world to see looks as though we are getting desperate for a victim to pick apart.

Anonymous said...

Carrie I agree with everything you've said. But where I disagree is that I still believe these issues are relevant. And I repeat again, getting an "F" on a report, is NOT the same thing as getting pregnant!

But, I will agree, to disagree with you on the fine points :)

Clicky Web Analytics