Why Sarah Palin should be in Sudan

Last week, Sarah Palin reversed her plan to go to Africa for July 9th creation of the world's newest nation: South Sudan. That's too bad. No matter what you think of Sarah Palin, she really should go there. Her presence quite possibly could save lives. Here's the deal: Sudan is suffering from genocide, and when famous folks go there, the region gets media attention—and that makes it harder for mass murders carry out their evil deeds. That's why George Clooney went... good for him! And Franklin Graham has gone dozens of times, setting up hospitals, and doing other charitable work.

In the Arab (and Muslim) north, they want to operate under Sharia law. In the Black (and Christian) south, they don't. That's the reason for splitting the country in two. But if that was all there was to it, this wouldn't be much of a story. The thing is, as Graham explains it, northerners have been exterminating those in the south. Graham adds that “Pastors were nailed to trees. We have been able to identify 1,000 churches destroyed.” The genocide continues because the world has not paid much attention. But when celebrities show up.... well, the world notices. Things get better. That's the power of celebrity (like it or not!)

Sarah Palin had announced she would go for the July 9th birth of the nation, but last week she cancelled—without a good excuse. Fox personality Greta Van Susteren also planned to go... then she cancelled too. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cancelled her plans to go because of "security concerns." That's all too bad. We need more famous people in Sudan, not less. Hey, let's send those Kardashians over... maybe they can do something useful for a change.


2 comments:

  1. Aren't you the least bit uncomfortable with your simplistic, just-a-little-misogynistic graphic at the top depicting the men--one of whom is a known peddler of nonsense and misinformation, including his horrifically hypocritical downplaying of the Darfur conflict (which victimized Muslims) at the International Criminal Court so that he could keep his stronghold in the Christian south and keep "savin' souls" down there--are depicted as "brave," whereas the women are depicted as "not-so-brave"? Evangelism disguised as humanitarianism is not brave. And canceling a trip to a wartorn region because of obvious security concerns is hardly "not-so-brave." Use your brain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My brain's working pretty good, my friend. I am a big fan of Mr. Graham, given his record building hospitals, providing food, and offering compassion to people of all faiths. Anyone who goes to a wartorn country is brave in my book. As to the photo, you make a good point! I originally had Sarah Palin on the brave side... then she changed her mind about going. Unfortunate. To be a leader, you have to take a bit of a risk, I think. Mr. Graham is there right now, Ms. Palin should be too--if she considers herself a leader.

    ReplyDelete