Discovery

Saturday, I was giving Charlie Gibson the benefit of the doubt. I try to be fair. I still firmly believe that Gibson had every right to ask some of his questions. Equally, we the people had the right to hear the answers. But since the time I wrote the post I am referencing, we have learned some things:


1. The interview was cut and spliced to show an inexperienced religious fanatic.

Most of us have seen the interview by now, perhaps most of us have seen the claims made by Mark Levin. And although I am still not ready to pin this completely at the feet of Gibson, it's clear that someone probably gave the order to hammer her and made the conscious decision to doctor the footage to attain this objective.


2. ABC very likely used trick photography in the interview.

Thanks to AICS at Logic Lifeline, we can look at some compelling evidence made by someone that claims he works is a director in Hollywood. Who he says he is, is not as important as what he is saying right here.

I caught a commercial teaser for the Charlie Gibson interview of Sarah Palin and something caught my attention as a Director immediately: The use of the position and choice of lenses to minimalize Governor Palin.

I am no expert in cinematography, but I would have little trouble believing there is something to this.


3. We do know that Charles Gibson twisted her words.

All you have to do is listen to video here at Newt Gingrich's site. In fact, we know the entire premise of the question was designed to portray Palin as a right-wing Christian zealot. So in one sense, it really shouldn't come as any big surprise. But as Newt's videos also show, Sarah Palin is not the first person to invoke God into a political conversation.

The real key to focus on is not what the media makes her out to be. Focus on her record. There is no evidence she ever used her positions to legislate her personal beliefs. Not only this, but we simply cannot lose sight of the fact that Sen. McCain is the candidate for President, not Gov. Palin.

I am not a member of mainstream Christianity and do not meet the criteria for political evangelical, in any way, shape, or form. As most of you know, I march to a different drummer than most on that topic.

I am a values voter, but never have I supported a political ideology being legislated directly out of a church of any kind. So, I realistically cannot be painted with that brush. But it does seem to me that the secular world is taking this anti-God and anti-Christian crusade way too far. And from the way things are looking today, it would appear that Gibson has played right into their strategy.

It's amazing what you will learn, once a thing can be scrutinized and analyzed, for greater understanding and clarity.