it looks like Sarah Palin's new book is just about to be released.
And with that is already coming a new storm of "Sarah Slamming."
--Make note, you heard that phraise here first.
on a new-to-me website, nymag.com forum, I found myself back
in the Sarah-defense mode. And we all know what happened
Yes, you guessed it. Yours Truly, became the topic.
That's okay. It is not that I mind it. Actually, we all know that I
get a big head off of stuff like this. As you see from the screen
shot pic of my post on the site, it received the "Editor's
Pick" check. You know this red-headed hoppy-toes gal, loved
that! I'd like to thank all of my fans up in the balcony.
I suppose it just comes naturally.
Yes, some things do
just come naturally, like defending the person who is in the right
and on the right, in this case. Once I managed to get the topic,
somewhat, off of me and back onto the article's dislike for Sarah,
I began to make some true headway. In a follow-up post, on the
same thread, I was able to post on the topic of Sarah running
in 2012, the following:
If Sarah runs, it
will be a fabulous campaign. She will show how it is
Sarah went from being a concerned mom that ran for and
won a spot on the school board, to being the governor of Alaska.
A governor actually has more power of his/her state, than
the president has over any given state.
Sarah did great
things as the governor of Alaska, including, balancing the state
budget, cutting taxes, and she set the ground work for new economic
growth in the state.
What I find truly interesting is that
liberals can complain up and down about Sarah Palin, but they can
never give true good cause for their complaining. They can never
give anything of any substance, to back up their complaining.
What exactly do liberals not like about Sarah Palin? Is it
her faith-belief and all that comes with it? If it is, then they
should at least be honest and come right out and say that they
simply do not like her strong Christian faith-belief and all that
comes with it.
was met with a number of responses. One being the following, from a
poster who goes by the user name, JBA123:
Debra, Good question. I, for one, don't enjoy the idea
of Alaskan women having to pay for their own rape kit. Anyone
gave me a great oprotunity to show how things go wrong and people do
not get all the info on a topic. My response, was as
In response to
your comment on Alaskan women having to pay for their own rape kit.
Sarah was the mayor of Wasilla, when Alaska's legislature passed a
law that made it illegal for police departments to charge for rape
kits. The situation was not just limited to Wasilla, it was in other
towns, as well. The controversy over the police having charged for
the kits in Wasilla, came up during Sarah Palin's vice presidential
campaign. The following is an excerpt from a CNN article:
forensic nurse, said charging victims "retraumatizes
"Asking them to pay for something law enforcement
needs in order to investigate their case, it's almost like blaming
them for getting sexually assaulted," she said.
Legislature agreed. The bill passed unanimously with the support of
the Alaska Department of Public Safety, the Alaska Peace Officers
Association and more than two dozen co-sponsors.
became law, Wasilla's police chief told the local paper, The
Frontiersman, that it would cost the city $5,000 to $14,000 a year
-- money that he'd have to find.
"In the past, we've charged
the cost of the exams to the victim's insurance company when
possible," Fannon was quoted as saying. "I just don't want to see
any more burden on the taxpayer."
He suggested the criminals
should pay as restitution if and when they're convicted.
End of excerpt
Some towns, simply cannot afford
to pay for a "no limited number" of rape kits used in its town, at
$1,000 a kit. It makes sense to bill the woman's health insurance
and or to seek the money in damages.
There's much more to the conversation. Hop
over and check it out: click here --And get ready, all you Sarah
lovers, our work has just