As Mayor, Sarah Palin Tried to Ban Library Books

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

According to GOP mythology, John McCain’s decision to select Sarah Palin to be his running mate was because Palin is a tough, reform-minded person, willing to break with the Republican party for the right cause. Would one of those causes be banning library books?

According to a revealing article about Sarah Palin in TIME, Inc:

“As mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. She asked the library how she could go about banning books.”

Palin said some voters thought they [the library books] had inappropriate language in them.

“The librarian was aghast.”

When the librarian refused, Palin threatened to fire the librarian.

Sarah Palin, flushed with the power that comes from being the mayor of a tiny town of 6,500, forgot all about the First Amendment.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics, Republican Lunatics, Sarah Palin and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to As Mayor, Sarah Palin Tried to Ban Library Books

  1. Hadrian says:

    Palin needs to be asked to name the books by title that she found so offensive that she was taking steps to remove them from a public library and then fire the librarian for refusing to carry out her wishes.

  2. fran says:

    Hey Christopher- I just found you a Quote of the day` From Cindy Lou @ the RNC:

    “This is a time when we take off our Republican hats, and put on our American hats”

    So does this mean they were wearing their “Republican Hats” when Hurricane Katrina hit?

    Banning books…. It’s hard to fathom Palin has only been in the national focus for just 5 days. Does it seem longer than that to you?

  3. Christopher says:

    Fran,

    Great quote! “C”-Word, as I read it, seems to be saying Republicans aren’t Americans.

    I agree, Cindy Lou! I agree 100%!

  4. Roger says:

    Hey, Christopher, have you seen this?
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/27894-1.html

  5. lea-lea says:

    This is very troubling.

    What if this power-hungry bitch had been successful and got the librarian to remove the books she didn’t like? Would the only books to remain have to meet a Christian litmus test?

    What about music? What about art? Or food?

    Fish on Fridays or else.

  6. Mauigirl says:

    This is scary – this woman is way too attached to her religious beliefs. Did you hear she campaigned against her own stepmother who was trying to follow her as mayor, because her stepmother is pro-choice? It just goes to show how hardened she is in her religious outlook, that she would take it to this extreme. I mean, when does a mayor even have jurisdiction over abortion in the first place? I am just appalled at her being chosen for the VP spot on McCain’s ticket.

  7. Christopher says:

    Roger,

    I plan to post about these moron LCR tomorrow.

    Thanks for the link!

  8. kellybelle says:

    Why are people treating her like a viable candidate? She’s a loon and a bad mother. Someone should call child services.

    Did you see Barack was briefed on important intel abt national security? Now both candidates and their vps are going to be briefed too. Only guess who doesn’t have clearance? McCandy.

  9. Sasha in MN says:

    “Sarah Palin, flushed with the power that comes from being the mayor of a tiny town of 6,500, forgot all about the First Amendment.”

    WTF!!!!, just imagine what she’d do with real power if she’s a heartbeat away from presidency….
    McFrickinSenile better hire a food & drink taster!

  10. Randy Arroyo says:

    Now there’s a group called Republican Jews for McCain who say Palin is qualified to be veep because she has a flag of Israel on her office wall. Hey, I have a world map in my home office with flags of nations along the border. Am I qualified to be veep?

  11. R.J. says:

    The evangelical right are like the Nazis. We have to stop them.

  12. Winnie H. says:

    Palin is a dangerous extremist.

    She wants to ban library books because of “inappropriate” language……hmmmm…..so how does she explain the incredibly “colorful” language on the MySpace page of the young man she is forcing her pregnant teenage daughter to marry?

  13. I hope the librarian was ready to sue. That could never have stood up in court.
    Of course, most of the rights that the Bush administration has violated should also never have stood up in court. It ticks me off that the Dems never made a bigger deal out of it.

  14. What if she had sought to ban the Bible or books about Creationism? Oh, wait, that has already been done and deemed acceptable.

  15. ncarnes says:

    I love how TIME is in partnership with CNN when you have several of their anchors serving as Obama’s personal media assistants.

    Where are all of the articles and the media questioning Obama about Rezco and the land deals they had with each other? How about his association with the unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers? Oh, that’s right, Library books are more important than a presidential candidate’s ties with a terrorist. Liberals could care less that Obama sought approval from Ayers before launching his political career, that he served on a board for a failed business with Ayers, and that Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama. Those are so much smaller issues than library books.

    The liberals attempts to smear Sarah Palin are getting more and more desperate and all you are going to do is turn her into a victim, so keep it up, because the average American from middle America will be attracted to Sarah more than an elitist like Obama. Middle America is where elections are won.

  16. Christopher says:

    NCarnes,

    Your argument is so splayed and misshapen that I don’t know where to begin.

    If you want to pushback against the interviews presented by TIME Inc.’s reporters who traveled to Wasilla, you will need to stay on target and not bring Obama into the discussion. Obama is not the subject here. The subject is Sarah Palin and her attempts to shove her radical, rightwing views down people’s throats. while ignoring the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

    Are you trying to say the librarian is a liar? What facts and evidence do you have to support this claim?

  17. KG says:

    Come no Christopher… it’s as if the democrats as a whole don’t LOVE every opportunity to shove their radical leftwing veiws down everyone’s throats???

  18. Christopher says:

    Come no Christopher… it’s as if the democrats as a whole don’t LOVE every opportunity to shove their radical leftwing veiws down everyone’s throats???

    This folks, is what conservatives do when they’re backed against the wall.

    They try to change the topic and sadly, many Democrats have taken the bait over the years.

    I, however, exist several light years ahead of conservatives, so I don’t let them get away with this shtick.

  19. Pingback: Wednesday WTFs « My 2 Cents

  20. Digital Dame says:

    @ninepoundhammer:

    Which libraries have banned the Bible and books about creationism?

  21. Tiny Dancer says:

    Which libraries have banned the ‘Joy of Gay Sex’ or ‘The Mayor of Castro Street?’

    I bet neither book can be found in the Wasilla Public Library.

  22. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a government school that bans the Bible and forbids the teaching of Creationism–even as an alternative. For that matter, many liberals have argued for (and often been successful) banning Mark Twain’s books for the use of ‘that word.’

    I just grow weary of the liberal line about the First Amendment, blah, blah, blah. They use it as a hammer to ensure the victory of their agenda but discard it at the drop of a hat when it suits them. (Ooops! Did I just employ another one of those pesky conservative canards?)

  23. Digital Dame says:

    We were talking about libraries banning books, not course material. You can walk into any library and find copies of the Bible and books on creationism. Talk to a librarian if you need help.

    Creationism is religion, public schools are prohibited from teaching religion.

  24. michelle2005 says:

    One of the comments above said this is “troubling”. Personally, I find everything about Gov Palin far beyond “troubling”.

    I did a post titled…An Interesting “Vetting” Comparison. This is true, and underscores the way Palin has been ‘shoved’ through and held up as the RNC VP choice. Mc Cain said she had been “vetted for hours”. HOURS! Are you serious? (Take a look at this post and you’ll soon see why her being selected is so outrageous)

    Then to hear women say they’ll vote for her due to her gender. I’m left shaking my head. This woman is against everything the feminists have stood for over 30 years.

    Plus, the “far right” is all about “mom, home and apple pie”…except when it comes to Palin. Today it was suggested that the media and the DNC need to “tread lightly” lest they look harsh…since Palin is a woman.

    Was Geraldine Ferraro or Hillary Clinton some lightweight politicians that needed to be treated with ‘kid gloves’? I think not! What’s wrong with this picture.

    From my view…it appears the ‘gender card’ is the top ticket for the GOP. It reminds me of the classic story of “The Emperor Has No Clothes”

    Michelle

  25. There have been plenty of accounts of Bibles and Creationism books being pulled from library shelves. And, as a matter of fact, Bibles were historically used as course material throughout the U.S. until the ACLU and their ilk began their programme to eradicate anything Christian from schools. You may also reread my comment in which I mention Twain being removed from libraries–his work was also used for coursework.

    Creationism is religion–so? I thought we wanted to present all sides and give students all the information so that they could decide for themselves. Isn’t that the argument agains abstinence education? Besides, the argument can easily be made that naturalism/ evolution is a religion, as well.

    That being said, I am no Sarah Palin fan. I am a conservative, but I see right through McCainiac’s manipulation of the evangelicals and their (repeated) gullibility in that area. Palin aside, he’ll give us more war, and more fascism (as will Obama, don’t fool yourselves).

    A pox on both their houses.

  26. Walk on Socks says:

    I have no trouble with a King James version of the Bible being available in my public library and I’m a liberal Democrat.

    Just as long as it is kept in the fiction section.

  27. Marianne says:

    I am on Palin’s side. You do not need trash and filth in a public library where children come.

    If people want pornography, they can order a copy of Playboy.

    Would you prefer the opposite view, supported by Obama? Homosexual, sexual perversion pictures and sexually filthy language everywhere, and pictures of aborted babies, with the politicians and abortionists rejoicing as they kill the baby?

    marianne
    http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/

  28. Pants says:

    UGH. Banning books makes me sick.

  29. mbmdl says:

    I’m a mother of two and we have a lovely and well funded library in our community. I’m not sure what sort of “filth” Marianne is referring to? I live a middleclass suburb that always votes Democratic and I don’t ever recall seeing any pornographic material on the shelves. Are you referring to Henry Miller’s ‘The Tropic of Cancer?’ Or maybe, Maya Angelou’s ‘I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings?’

  30. Billup says:

    The only filth I see is Marianne’s insane rant.

    Have a drink, go shopping or get laid. But just calm down.

  31. Digital Dame says:

    ninepoundhammer said There have been plenty of accounts of Bibles and Creationism books being pulled from library shelves.

    Please cite one instance of this with dates, location.

    Creationism is religion–so? I thought we wanted to present all sides and give students all the information so that they could decide for themselves.

    If it’s taught as mythology. The schools’ job is not to teach religion. Otherwise which religions will be taught? Only Christianity? Or will you be as broad-minded if the subject is Wicca?

    Besides, the argument can easily be made that naturalism/ evolution is a religion, as well.

    How so? There is no mythological being, no supernatural entity involved in evolution.

  32. @Digital Dame, Sure:
    Bible banned on school playground: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44223

    Bible banned here, too: http://www.berkshirecc.edu/library/humanities_BannedBooks.html

    Who decides that it is ‘not the school’s job’ to teach religion? That is the crux of the matter; cultures/ civilisations–the PC Zeitgeist notwithstanding–are held together by shared language, custom, and yes, religion. Our civilisation was founded on Christianity–and I am NOT speaking of 1776 but more than a century earlier when the English Puritans, et al. settled in North America to establish Christian society. So, yes–we should only teach Christianity.

    As for naturalism/ evolution being a religion (besides the fact that evolution, contrary to the shrill insistences of many, has NOT been proven as a fact), the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term, in part, as: ‘a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.’ A belief in a supernatural being is not necessary for a belief system to be a religion.

    I am not really interested in debating the particulars here. My only point in posting here to begin with is to point out that conservatives and evangelical Christians do not hold a monopoly on hypocrisy. I have read much wailing and gnashing of teeth over book banning, yet those same types have screamed for the banning of many books themselves under the auspices of Political Correctness (the Bible being only one example).

  33. Maithri says:

    Its laughable really…

    speakin of laughable have you seen this one?

  34. @Maithri:
    While I think McCainiac is a warmongering fascist, it appears to me he is not ‘checking out’ Palin as much as he is glancing at her speech on the podium trying to see how much longer he has to stand there pretending he is happy.

  35. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  36. MisterJost says:

    Ninepoundhammer –

    Do you understand that a school playground is not a library?

  37. No I don’t. Can you explain it to me? You mean a library and a playground are different? Really?!

    My goodness, you’re straining at gnats. It’s the same point.

  38. Jake Johnson says:

    State schools do not teach religion because the Constitution forbids the government from endorsing a religion. Those who claim to want religious freedom usually have another agenda: to have their own religion taught. They want “creationism” taught, but would object if a Buddhist, atheist, Hindi, Mormon, or Muslim teacher taught his religious views in a science class. Their objections would be well-reasoned: religion has no place in public schools except in comparative religion courses taught by qualified instructors.

  39. TJ says:

    Palin makes me sick!!!
    McCain could not have been thinking about the American people when he chose Palin… he had to have been thinking only about the votes he may be able to get from women and evangelicals. It makes me sick to think that if McCain were president and something were to happen to him (he is getting up there)… this monster could be running our country!!!! She has proven, more than once, that she abuses her authority. We don’t need a “pittbull” in the white house, we need a work horse to fix what’s been broken. All she did at the RNC was make sarcastic remarks toward the media, dog Obama, and try to sugarcoat her “family” issues (hypocrit). She said squat about what she would do about the issues that American’s have been dealing with for the past few years. She should stay home, in her “tiny town”, and finish raising her children.

  40. @Jake Johnson–Your comment is not quite accurate. The u.S. [sic] Constitution forbids the CONGRESS from making a LAW naming a national church. State schools, therefore, unless their individual constitutions forbid it, are legally allowed to have official churches. In fact, most of the original 13 states had official state churches for years (Massachusetts up until 1828, I believe).

    That notwithstanding, the First Amendment was not meant to make the Federal Govt. ‘neutral’ on religion. If one studies the writings of the leaders/ framers and what actually occured during the early years of the republic, it becomes abundantly clear.

    Now, can someone demonstrate to me how Congress has made a LAW respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion? Anyone?

  41. Lisa W says:

    As a woman on the religious left (and yes, conservatives, there IS a religious left), I find this disgusting. Being Christian means leading and ministering by example. Mother Theresa?Jesus? Hello? Plain and simple: the Government and the church should never mesh.

  42. An interested Bystander says:

    To NinePoundHammer – I am not going to debate the merits of your argument, only the current premise. The US Supreme Court has, over the last 60 years, decided cases that make the First, Fourth, parts of the Fifth, Sixth and parts of the Eighth Amendments of the US Constitution binding on the states in a doctrine called “incorporation.” This means that the freedom a citizen enjoys to give his opinion on, say, talk radio, is not halted at a state lien just because another state has made a law limiting freedom of speech.

  43. @An interested Bystander:
    First, that is irrelevant to my argument. The First Amendment reads as it reads; the Framers also left many writings related to its intent and how it should be enforced.

    Secondly, the SCOTUS really doesn’t get much truck with me. The Constitution nowhere gives them the power to interpret said document.

    Thirdly, the First Amendment applies only to the Federal government, not to the States. The restrictions are applied to CONGRESS.

  44. An interested Bystander says:

    To ninepoundhammer

    First, it is entirely relevant except if you choose to not accept that the document could be amended. Those Framers not only put placed a method to amend their first attempt, but then used it almost before the ink was dry. Without this amending procedure, there would be no First or Second Amendments, nor any other of the Bill of Rights. If original intent is the final answer, then no Bill of Rights. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying because you keep referring to the first AMENDMENT.
    Also, without amendments, we would still confer no rights on women, non-landowners and on non-whites, who would be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation and taxation. (Art 1, Sect 2, Para3).
    Since the Framers made the Constitution amendable and their method was followed, then I would presume you have no objections to the legality of the 14th Amendment, conferring citizenship on former slaves. And if you do, in fact, accept that this was a legally constituted amendment, then you have to accept its due protection clause, to wit – “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Section 1)
    By this clause, equal protection of the laws (including federal and constitutional law) extends to all citizens and cannot be interfered with by States.
    That then means that the First Amendment is now extended to the States – your point 3.
    Note that no Supreme Court references are used in this argument

  45. @An interested Bystander:
    Again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent my argument. I’ve never denied that the Constitution can be (and has been) amended; that is a non sequiter argument on your part.

    My point remains that the First Amendment is confined to CONGRESS; it does not read that States cannot do this or that, it clearly places limits on Congressional power, a la the TENTH Amendment: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’

    As for the Fourteenth Amendment, I DO NOT agree that it is legal. It was illegally passed during Redestruction, having been coerced out of the several Southern States. In fact, Oregon and New Jersey rescinded their ratification but the Congress pushed it through–again, illegally–anyway. That Amendment, much like the oft-abused ‘General Welfare Clause’ has been miscontrued and abused so as to render much of the rest of the document moot.

    The fact of how the Constitution is used/ misused de facto is quite different from its true meaning de jure.

  46. Obama4life says:

    Only books that liberals disagree with shoudl be banned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s