Palin Rants Incoherently About Duggar Situation

You gotta love Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, where she engages in ignorant, incoherent stream-of-consciousness rants on a regular basis. This time she’s reinventing history in order to claim a double standard that she herself is also guilty of as she lashes out at the media and those “radical liberals” that exist only in her imagination.

HEY LENA, WHY NOT LAUGH OFF EVERYONE’S SEXUAL “EXPERIMENTS” AS YOU HAUGHTILY ENJOY REWARDS FOR YOUR OWN PERVERSION? YOU PEDOPHILE, YOU

Radical liberals in media who have total control over public narratives are disgusting hypocrites, so says my daughter. Go get ’em, Bristol! Read her post! http://www.patheos.com/…/lets-get-this-straight-liberals-w…/ I’m glad someone’s got the guts to call out these perverts.

The intolerant left’s destructive personal intrusions and narrow-mindedness applied to their chosen targets are bad enough, but their double standards are beyond the pale.

I’m not defending the Duggar boy’s obvious wrongdoing over a decade ago. The main victim in any story like this isn’t the perpetrator, it’s the innocent ones so harmfully affected. I’m not an apologist for any sexual predator, but I’m sickened that the media gives their chosen ones a pass for any behavior as long as they share their leftwing politics. Case in point, they suggest Lena Dunham’s sexual assault on her sibling is cute, and she’s rewarded for it with fame and fortune. Meanwhile, they crucify another, along with an entire family.

In what reality was Lena Dunham given a pass by that evil liberal media? In what reality was she “rewarded with fame and fortune”? In what alternate universe did anyone say that it was “cute”? In the real world the rest of us inhabit, Dunham was hammered for her admission that she had molested her younger sister when she was growing up. Every person I know who is blasting the Duggars also blasted Dunham for the same thing. And her career may well be over because of it.

And there are some differences, of course, like the fact that the Duggars covered all this up for years while pretending to be the perfect Christian family. That did not exist in the Dunham situation. And don’t her accusations of a double standard, if they were accurate, apply to her as well? Here she is calling Dunham a pedophile while defending the Duggars. Here she is lashing out at everyone but Josh Duggar. Her accusation of hypocrisy is, ironically, hypocritical. Quelle surprise.

Such obvious double standards applied to equally relevant stories underestimate the wisdom of the public, discredit the press, and spit on the graves of every American who fought and died for the press’s freedom.

No more than them (allegedly) fighting for the freedom of fucking idiots like you to spout bullshit.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Anri

    Well, of course Palin’s not applying a double standard, just the well-known reality of one rule being good for evil, lust-swollen, slavering liberals, and a slightly different rule being good for angelic, godly, trembling (but never with desire – nosiree!) conservatives.

    It’s not her fault if Gawd set things up for her to be the True Voice of the Oppressed Chosen Ones, she’s just humbly accepting the role ordained for her.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Palin’s right, as usual.

    She also mentioned liberal’s love-fest with Bill Clinton, a serial sexual predator who took excursions to a private island with a convicted pedophile billionaire.

    14 year old Christian kid does something wrong–an atrocity.

    Most powerful man in the world commits sexual assault for decades–elect him president.

    And let’s not ever start with the Liberal Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.

    You lefties are disgusting hypocrites.

  • cptdoom

    So the abstinence-only proponent with the illegitimate child is defending the child molesting hate group (former) employee and “Mama Bear” is right there with her. Why am I not surprised.

    Oh, and from what I’ve read, Dunham was 7 when she convinced her sister to show her genitals. That’s a far cry from 15 (Josh Duggar) or middle aged (his parents) people first committing a crime and then covering it up. And, of course, it turns out the Duggars lied through their teeth – the report on Josh’s actions was not sealed, because he was an adult at the time of reporting. The release of the records, according to the county that released them, was totally legal and above-board.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Ah, conservative hypocrisy. I had to deal with that yesterday on Twitter and ended up being called a bully for insulting someone who insulted me.

  • Evan Brehm

    Sarah Palin, the epitome of the right’s personal responsibility and their shunning of victim mentality.

    Ah, and we have are resident braindead wingnut troll The Dukedog, back.

  • Ronald Taylor

    Ed, I think you might be off base about the Dunham situation. She was *7* when she looked at her sister’s vagina (out of curiousity according to her, apparently a fairly common occurrence among young children according to child psychologists). Was she really “hammered” by anyone other than wingnuts calling her a child molester and spreading the rumor that she was 17 when the incident occurred? I really didn’t think there was much of a non-wingnut backlash to Dunham.

    That’s pretty different from a 15 year old fondling multiple younger girls while they slept. Seems like the situations shouldn’t be treated remotely similarly, because they’re not similar.

  • Artor

    No surprise, DukeDog is completely ignorant of consent, as he is of most things. Two adults engaging in consensual activity is exactly the same as a teenage kid molesting his prepubescent sister in her sleep.

  • cptdoom

    @2, you want sexual sin, we gots some sexual sin:

    Mark Sanford – adultery, dereliction of duty. Elected to the House of Representatives anyway

    John McCain – dumped his wife (who stood by him during his captivity) for and adulterous affair/remarriage with a hot young blonde with a bank account. Still in the Senate.

    Rudy Guiliani – dumped his wife on television to take up with his mistress. Considered a potential GOP nominee in 2012.

    Newt Gingrich – headed the impeachment of the President for having an affair while simultaneously having his own affair AND arranging for a job for his girlfriend in the Congress. IOW, he traded money for sex with his (now) wife, and the Tiffany’s bill only proves he’s still paying for “services rendered). Considered a potential GOP nominee in 2012.

    David Vitter – frequented a known DC house of prostitution, after criticizing the President for adultery. Still in the Senate.

    Dennis Hastert – currently under indictment for trying to cover up his sexual abuse of teenagers while a teacher.

    Mark Foley – left office under a cloud after sending inappropriate sexual messages to minors.

    Shall we continue with the Hall of Shame of the GOP?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @4-Tabby:

    [Ah, conservative hypocrisy. I had to deal with that yesterday on Twitter and ended up being called a bully for insulting someone who insulted me.]

    It’s tough to be you. You need a safe space.

    @3-Doom:

    [That’s a far cry from 15 (Josh Duggar) or middle aged (his parents) people first committing a crime and then covering it up. And, of course, it turns out the Duggars lied through their teeth – the report on Josh’s actions was not sealed, because he was an adult at the time of reporting.]

    How many senior Democrats knew of Bill Clinton’s brutal sexual attacks on women? How about the current leading contender for the Democrat presidential nomination? Do you think she knew nothing, or do you think she helped cover it up?

    You are manifestly brutal on a family and a fifteen year old, yet strangely complacent, even silent, about the complicity of a political party with a powerful sexual predator.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #2

    Well, at least with Clinton it was with girls over the age of consent unlike Dennis Hastert, the pedophile who raped underage boys. Sounds like Egnorance’s kind of guy.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    theDukedog7 . says #2: You lefties are disgusting hypocrites.

    You left out a few things. While Clinton had affairs – with adult women – he did not campaign on nor govern by controlling the sexual behaviour of others. If you want to wave the “family values” flag, had better live up to it.

  • gshelley

    @6

    There was some discussion of it, though no where near the level of the Duggars

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2014/11/05/did-lena-dunham-sexually-abuse-her-sister/

    which links to

    http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/investigating-lena-dunham-sexual-abuse-claims/

    Palin’s argument is ridiculous either way. not only are the two incidences completely different, so it is reasonable to focus one one and ignore the other, people talk about Josh Duggar because of the coverage it gets, which feeds on itself, and the ways people have tried to defend it, plus the way it shone some light on the reality of quiverful

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance

    Ah gee, considering that the number of boys raped by priests of the Raping Children

    Church far exceeds the number of women who had sex with Bill Clinton, and which church

    Egnorance continues to belong to, that’s a building with very thin glass walls he’s throwing rocks from.

  • observer

    Obviously Clinton was (probably is) a serial adulterer. There’s no evidence, however, that there were any “brutal sexual assaults” on anybody. That’s pulled entirely out of your wingut ass. Personally, I wouldn’t give Bill Clinton the time of day, but the Lewinski affair showed rather well that his inner circle had no idea it was happening.

    As for Hillary’s awareness of his infidelities, I would imagine that spouses either see what they want to see, or they come to some sort of agreement. Who cares? There’s still no evidence she knew of, or covered up sexual assault, because there’s no evidence of any assault.

    In Palin’s case, she’s comparing the actions of a seven year old child with the actions of a 15 year old boy in the midst of puberty. One action was confessed to, the other covered up. The entire comparison is fatuous. There’s simply no double standard at work here.

  • raven

    So the abstinence-only proponent with the illegitimate child is defending …

    Sarah Palin is the poster person for hypcrites and religious morons.

    1. One teenage daughter got pregnant by some guy she barely knew and dropped out of high school.

    2. The oldest son had a shotgun wedding with his pregnant girlfriend followed shortly afterwards by a divorce.

    3. The others are too young to seriously screw up yet. Probably they will find something dumb to do. They do have a history of drunken brawls now. Excessive alcohol use always helps a lot.

    The biggests myth is that religion is a source of morality. It’s not and never has been.

    It’s a lie that the GOP is pro-family. They are…anti-human.

  • http://composer99.blogspot.ca composer99

    I’m going to rehash a comment I left on a blog post at Love Joy Feminism discussing the matter last week, and then re-posted to Facebook when I saw a “Trending” item about Palin today:

    —–

    It is unsurprising to see people trying to discredit criticism of the Duggars with reference to Dunham’s misbehaviour, as if somehow criticism of Josh Duggar, his father, their subculture, etc. is any less valid just because the critic hasn’t made a public statement about Dunham (or hasn’t said the exact same thing about Dunham as about Duggar, or what have you).

    It must be said in response that, not only is this a non sequitur logical fallacy, criticism of the Duggars as regards this case is not only about Josh having sexually assaulted some of his sisters (and a babysitter) at the age of 14.

    To whit:

    (1) The Duggars belong to an incredibly authoritarian, misogynist, childist, Christian-theocratic subculture with disproportionate influence on one of the two largest political parties in the United States.

    (2) The Duggars espouse and enforce an ideology of family that positively discourages setting of healthy boundaries, that sets up inappropriate parent/child relationships between siblings, that expects immediate, unquestioning, cheerful obedience to authorities, and that uses violence as a routine tool for discipline and conditioning (such as blanket training).

    (3) The incredibly harmful aggregate of beliefs, with respect to human sexuality, that make up “purity culture” are a fundamental part of the Duggars’ cultural milieu.

    (4) The Duggars are not only bigoted, but proudly so (Josh having worked for the Family Research Council, a known hate group; Michelle recorded a transphobic robocall for use in political campaigning; doubtless other examples could be found).

    (5) Not only are there all the above problems with the Duggar corporate family culture, but they also believe themselves to be morally superior to other sorts of Christians, secularists, feminists, non-Christians, etc. in spite of these problems. What’s more, they believe that these harmful beliefs and practices make them morally superior.

    (6) Many of the Duggars’ problematic cultural beliefs and practices have been promulgated by people who themselves turned out to be sexual predators (i.e. Bill Gothard), and sexual abuse is rife among Quiverfull families (as many ex-Quiverfull people can tell you). (In a classic example of the psychological phenomenon of projection, I have seen apologists for the Duggars assume that this sort of behaviour is more prevalent among non-Quiverfull families, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.)

    I leave it to the Duggar apologist to contort their logic to show how any of these points of criticism of the Duggars are in any way weakened by reference to Lena Dunham.

  • raven

    From “Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches”, by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73:

    “A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father.

    But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes.

    (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983;

    Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). (emphasis in original)

    1. Fundie xians are leaders in child sexual abuse. The second highest predictor of child sexual abuse is parental membership in conservative religious cults. This seems to have been established in multiple studies.

    2. Even the Duggars admitted that saying that they asked their co-religionists and they said child sexual abuse was…common.

    3. There is nothing new about this, it’s been known for decades. It’s happened before. It will happen again.

    4. Parents, watch out. The fundies are coming for your kids and they can be more destructive than you can imagine.

  • bushrat

    “Palin Rants Incoherently About Duggar Situation”

    Was there a time when Palin said anything that was coherent?

  • sinned34

    Dukedog7:

    Palin’s right, as usual.

    And I think we’re done here. I’ve never seen somebody give such a succinct description of their intellectual capacity. In a mere four words we’ve been informed just how little capability for thinking Dukedog7 has.

    Starting off a comment like that is like when people say “I don’t mean to sound racist…” You know you can (and probably should) safely ignore whatever’s coming afterwards. We have confirmation that we can pretty much ignore anything Dukedog7 says at this point.

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    Dunham was 7. Her behavior was neither pathological nor unusual. It’s consistent with normal development and reflects the natural sexual curiosity of children. Public understanding of childhood sexuality is woefully inadequate. Parents who encounter such behavior simply need to discuss it in a non-panicky way in terms that help young children develop appropriate boundaries.

    Duggar was older, and presumably into puberty. His conduct is less commonplace and often associated with large, troubled families. I would still look at Duggar and take into consideration his youth and the greatly intensified experience of sexual drive to appreciate that he may well have matured out of such conduct, as has been the case with many people I’ve evaluated as a clinician. People calling him a pedophile are way off base. Pedophilia is a real diagnosis and we simply don’t know that he is diagnosably a pedophile based on the history we know of.

    Had this been any other case, I’d also be very troubled by the leak of information about a minor since this information is usually confidential, if not entirely expunged from the record. I think juvenile law appropriately treats responsibility differently from the way it’s treated under adult law.

    My sympathy for Duggar is, however, diminished because a person with that personal history accepted and worked in a leadership position that has smeared gays as child molesters. I think that because of his adult decision to pursue the family campaign to demonize GLBT people, it’s not entirely out of line to expose his history. His parents are hypocrites as well and any shame this history brings to them is deserved.

  • https://plus.google.com/101060696320014364594 Darren VanDusen

    Would anyone like to place a wager on whether Palin knows what the phrase “beyond the pale” means (or where the “pale” was located) ?? I’m not saying she has used the phrase incorrectly; it’s just I would be surprised if she actually knew

  • Hoosier X

    Geez Louise! I hope the conservatives got a good deal on the False Equivalences they are throwing around on the Duggar issue!

    Buy in bulk, guys! I hear the Sophistry Warehouse is having a big sale on false equivalences and straw-man arguments for the entire D-Day Weekend!

    Be sure to stop by, dukedog. We all know you’ll find a use for them.

  • Nick Gotts

    Obviously Clinton was (probably is) a serial adulterer. There’s no evidence, however, that there were any “brutal sexual assaults” on anybody. That’s pulled entirely out of your [egnorance’s]wingut ass. – observer@14

    No, the allegations of sexual assault and harassment by Bill Clinton are not pulled entirely out of egnorance’s ass, and are not confined to the right, although AFAIK few if any were in the public domain before 1998, so unless he can show the contrary, egnorance is being dishonest when he says:

    Most powerful man in the world commits sexual assault for decades–elect him president.

    That’s an absurd thing to say in any case, of course, because Clinton was not the most powerful man in the world until he became President. But there is enough consistency in the allegations to make a pattern of sexually abusive behaviour highly probable. How much Hillary Clinton knew when, of course, is another matter, but she probably will – and should – be questioned about this as a candidate for the Presidency. If she knew of abusive sexual misconduct on her husband’s part, and covered it up, she is unfit for office.

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    By the way, I marvel at how viscerally reprehensible I still find virtually every utterance that escapes Sarah Palin’s viscous little pie hole, even when channeled in writing. The perspective, tone and cadence of her expression, even in writing, gives me the skeeves.

  • Michael Heath

    Dr. X speaks for me @ 20 and 24.

  • colnago80

    Re Nick Gotts @ #23

    There is no question that Clinton was a serial adulterer, as was John Kennedy. Kennedy had prostitutes brought into the White House off the streets of Washington to service his desires. However, most of the issues raised in the article seem to involve consensual sex. The first one cited occurred before he even met Hillary Rodham.

    The most serious charge was made by Juanita Broaddrick, who made a charge of rape against Clinton. However, there seems to be some controversy as to her claims. See attached link. This seems to be another he said/she said affair. Since she didn’t report it to law enforcement, there isn’t any forensic evidence.

    The last reported “bimbo eruption” was Monica Lewinsky. There seems little doubt that this was consensual blow jobs administered by Lewinsky.

    One of the things that concerns me about the article is that it reports that Broaddrick took a polygraph test and showed deception on several of her answers (the notion that she passed or failed the test is piffle; she either showed deception or failed to show deception and that’s as far a a reputable examiner will go). The writer of the article wrote the test off on the grounds that polygraphs are total bullshit. Before making such a claim, I would want to know who the examiner was and where the test was administered. If, for instance, the examiner was Ed Gelb, I would be inclined to place some credence on the results.

    http://goo.gl/0RwioH

  • carpenterman

    Why are we still listening to Sarah Palin? She’s the Paris Hilton of politics: she’s famous because people pay attention to her, and people pay attention to her because she’s famous.

  • felidae

    My favorite part of the Kelly interview was the introduction where a clip from the Duggars show explained the rules for touching between the sexes: no holding hands before engagement, no kissing until the wedding–somehow the part about not squeezing your sister’s tits was left out for Josh

  • Phillip Hallam-Baker

    the notion that she passed or failed the test is piffle; she either showed deception or failed to show deception and that’s as far a a reputable examiner will go

    The idea of a reputable polygraph examiner is as laughable as the idea as a reputable witchsmeller.

    Of course Palin is right about this being an example of rank hypocrisy – her own. She jumped onto the bandwagon attacking someone she considered to be a ‘liberal’ for things she did when she was 7. Then she leaps to the defense of Josh Duggar for things he did at 14.

    On the Clinton thing, the reason why liberals didn’t find Juanita Broaddrick particularly credible is that she only came forward in 1998 after Ken Starr had already spent five years pursing a barrage of trumped up and obviously false charges. There would probably be a lot more skepticism about the allegations against Cosby if it was widely known that some billionaire was spending twenty million dollars a year trying to fabricate stories discrediting him.

    Palin with her ‘Death Panel’ lies is of course one of the main reasons liberals don’t find rightwing conspiracy claims credible.

  • dan4

    Wait, so conservatives lash out at someone who committed sexual abuse once when she was seven but defend someone else who committed sexual abuse FIVE times when he was fourteen…and it’s the LIBERALS who are the hypocritical ones in this situation?!

  • dan4

    I also like how Palin implies that it’s significant that Duggar’s misbehavior was “over a decade ago”, when Dunham’s incident with her sister was actually two decades ago.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    We have confirmation that we can pretty much ignore anything Dukedog7 says at this point. We already had that confirmation long ago. But it would have saved us a bit of time if he had just started out by saying that Sarah Palin is right, as usual. Reminds me of the time Rumsfeld said in reference to GWB, “Of course the president is right … whatever it was he said.”

  • colnago80

    Re Phillip Hallam-Baker @ #29

    The idea of a reputable polygraph examiner is as laughable as the idea as a reputable witchsmeller

    Well, the late physicist Bob Park would agree with you. He considered polygraphs to be voodoo science. However, the polygraph can be a useful tool if used properly. Unfortunately, all too many examiners who work for prosecutor’s offices and police departments do not use it properly and overlook its limitations (all too many of them consider an uncertain result to be evidence of deception) . For instance, a sociopath can take a polygraph and not show deception. The FBI and police departments around the country have routinely used forensic tools such as hair comparisons that are a lot more dubious then polygraphs.

  • jonathangray

    Ronald Taylor @6:

    She was *7* when she looked at her sister’s vagina (out of curiousity according to her, apparently a fairly common occurrence among young children according to child psychologists).

    “As she grew, I took to bribing her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying.”

    And how could we forget Roman Polanski or Woody Allen? Or Cardinal Danneels?

  • caseloweraz

    Colnago80: Well, the late physicist Bob Park would agree with you.

    AFAICT, Robert L. Park is still with us.

  • colnago80

    Re caseloweraz @ #35

    Im glad to hear that. His website is defunct and I assumed he was too. I miss ole Bob and his trenchant comments against pseudoscience and other fantasies and human space flight. In response to a comment I left on his former blog, Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait said that Park didn’t know what he was talking about relative to human space flight. Park was was especially acerbic about proposed manned missions to Mars. Don’t entirely agree with him about polygraphs though.