I really don’t consider a family’s “good looks” to be an indicator of a moral life. If one is ugly does that make them immoral?
Secondly, I don’t know if Sarah’s children are leading a more moral life than Chelsea Clinton. Do you? I’m not a Clinton fan but when is the last time Chelsea was involved in a bar fight or a party brawl? And she WAS married before she gave birth I have to give her that. I give Bristol marks for being anti abortion as compared to Chelsea.
Sarah married August 29 1988. Her son Track was born April 20th of 1989. I suppose Track could have been born early.
The point is that it is awfully difficult to tell a child not to do what you have done. There is nothing wrong with teaching them about your mistakes but children will often just use the “well you did it” excuse and it’s difficult for parents to refute that.
Whether or not Sarah was pregnant before she was married is besides the point. I have a lot of respect for Sarah. She married the father of her child and has stayed married for all of these years leading a good Christian life. I respect her. Not so much her daughter.
And like the whole Josh Duggar fiasco, once you put yourself out in the public eye, and Bristol definitely wanted celebrity, you also have to take what goes with it. You can’t cry for people to mind their own business afterwards.
To her brother’s credit, he seems to want to stay out of the limelight. He is trying to keep his private life private. Not so much his sister. She has done damage to her mother more than once. Remember her engagement to the father of her first child after he told those horrible lies about her mother? She seems to be a problem child and I would be happy to never hear about her again.
“I would be happy to never hear about her again.”
Me, too. I personally don’t like it when we excuse actions from some people simple because we perceive they are allies. What if this was a liberal woman telling us she thinks it’s OK to sleep with whoever she wants, i.e. no lectures? We’d probably condemn the sin and some would likely go so far as to call her a slut.
It doesn’t matter if we’ve all done sinful things. The issue isn’t whether we’re fallen creatures or not. The issue is acceptance and promotion of sin as being OK. I just don’t really see the difference between Bristol defiantly saying fornication is OK and homosexuals saying sodomy is OK. It’s all evil. It’s all destroying our society. And it all deserves to be properly called what it is.
While I am not personally close to either the wonderful Palins or the reprehensible KKKlintoons, from afar it's clear to me that even with their occasional missteps, every single one of the Palins take the moral highground. While they have sinned (we are all sinners), they remain resolutely pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun and anti-sodomy.
Turning to horsey Chelsea (yeeechhhh) KKKlinton, like their entire klan, she's anti-American. Her support of slaughtering innocent children is well known as is her stance on behalf of the abomination of sodomy. I've never heard Chelsea speak of God (and if she has, it was hypocritical). Plus, I've never seen her shoot a gun -- as have the Palins. And her so-called marriage? Everyone knows it's nothing but a sham.
So adding it all up, and even factoring in the occasional shortcomings on the Palin side if the ledger, they come out far better in the final analysis then the morally bankrupt KKKlintoons. I guess it really boils down to this. Would you rather have pro-American Patriot Bristol Palin as your next door neighbor or the 'RAT Chelsea KKKlintoon? That, at least to me, neatly settles the question.