Palin ≠ Torquemada

A perennial Palin smear that won't abate is the general stereotype that she is a religious bigot who wishes to install a totalitarian theocracy, as illustrated by Chris Buckley's attack on McCain's running-mate:

who nominated as his running mate a know-nothing religious extremist

There is not a single documented case where Palin ever discriminated against anyone based on their religious beliefs. Conversely, it it patently obvious that Buckley stereotyped, prejudged, and discriminated against Palin because she belongs to one of those store front churches with folding chairs versus nominally belonging to a denomination with Gothic cathedrals and mahogany pews, such as Buckley does. Buckley is simply projecting his hatred and bigotry onto others.

The left, and the trust fund Republicans, create an illogical syllogism:

(1) Palin is a theocrat
(2) Theocrats are bad
(3) Therefore, Palin is bad

Their premise (1) is false leading to the erroneous conclusion (3).


A subset stereotype is that Palin opposes safe sex education in school, which is patently false, as she has clearly stated:

"I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something I would support also."

The National Review points out the absurdity of the left wing attack machines and their fallacious conclusions:

Quick, can someone check: Didn't Bristol have contraceptive sex-education in her high school? Does that prove contraceptive education caused her pregnancy?

The evil flying monkeys in the MSM would serve this democracy better if they became proficient at reporting the facts versus simply creating straw men arguments and knocking them down.