DC Charter School Board senior manager suspended for being a gun toting white supremacist who promotes raping feminists.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

Until today, John Goldman was a Senior Manager of Finance, Analysis and Strategy for the Washington, DC Public Charter School Board. But today Goldman was suspended pending investigation after photos surfaced of him at parties with known neonazis and white supremacists as the pseudonymous "Jack Murphy," self-proclaimed liberal-turned-conservative in the age of Trump. 

"Murphy," it seems, was a foe of Richard Spencer. Still it appears they share some fundamental beliefs, though Murphy/Goldman claims he was a Democrat who now has a man-crush on Trump. Apparently former Democrats can be white supremacist men's rights advocates too! 

John Goldman has now admitted that his online alter ego is "Jack Murphy," but remains unapologetic about his stated beliefs and why he holds them.

By the way here are some of this stated beliefs:  

"Men have a natural tendency towards dominance and women to passivity and submission," Murphy wrote in 2015. "For a feminist who has rejected polarity and embraced sameness, this presents a paradox. The cognitive dissonance between her chosen dogma and the urge to get choked during sex is painful."

This is the argument for his central premise, which is simple: "Rape is the best therapy for the problem. Feminists need rape." 

But he is quick to qualify this by claiming that all feminists need is a man who loves her to rape her but not in a totally evil "illegal alien" rapey way, but a loving rape. Consensual, even.

"Loving, consensual rape" is a new one on me.

But wait, there's more: 

"However, the tragedy of a young girl getting raped in the bathroom at school just might be what turns the attention of limousine liberals from the brainwashing narrative of the Democrats and towards a more sane approach to immigration," "Murphy" wrote in a Medium post last year. 

"Let’s just hope it will only take one, and not an epidemic of heinous crime to finally get those suburban soccer moms out of their denial and into the real world," he continued.

Yeah, anybody else picking up on a rapey theme here?

There is of course more, but this is all I can stomach to post on my blog.

Keep in mind this guy worked for the Washington, DC "school board."

The mind reels.

New York Magazine writer Rebecca Traister says that the media and the politicians do not yet understand the historical significance of the women's marches.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

New York Magazine writer Rebecca Traister, in a discussion with Chris Hayes and organizer Linda Sarsour, asked why the women's marches got so little media coverage. 

"What do you want me to tell the crazy women talking about justice? They ignored us again but they will not ignore us at the ballot box," Sarsour said. 

"This is right. This is symptomatic, the marches and the activism is not taken seriously. Why?" Traister asked. 

"They are women's marches. We know last year single biggest one-day demonstration in this country's history, we heard how afterwards, it was okay but just a march, it's performance, fun, people get together and wear their cute hats, whatever. No one seems to have connected, still, a year later when there is a spontaneous demonstration almost the same size in some places like Chicago, bigger, without a centralized organization drawing everybody. 

"I didn't know about the marches," she said. "I write about women and politics. I didn't know there would be women's marches until January and they were massive. They don't just have cute marches with the hats with the fact it's women clogging congressional phone lines and doing town halls, who have been organizing on the grassroots activist level around state and local office races around the country who have been winning in New Jersey, in Virginia and who are running in unprecedented numbers for the House, for the Senate and primarying Democrats from the left. 

"And apparently, the media's failure to take this seriously as a political movement and not as some social weekend thing that women do once a year, has led Senate Democrats to think it's not a serious political movement," she said.

I have been saying for awhile that women are changing things, and that the #MeToo movement and these female driven rallies are going to be significant.

But I have to admit that even I may not have recognized just how important of this will be to the future of this nation.

Women have clearly found their voice, and they are no longer asking men for permission to join the conversation. They are already having a conversation to which men better pay attention.

John Aravosis of Americablog destroys the AP's story of Hillary Clinton's so-called "pay for play."

You probably heard about this AP story, or at least about the fallout from the story, that while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provided access to big donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The Right Wing erupted in orgasmic delight after reading it and serious media outlets took it and ran with it.

Except, like most Clinton smoking guns, it is all smoke and no gun.

To make this point John Avarosis took to Twitter to point out the holes in the story.

1) Clinton campaign is rightfully slamming AP for refusing to correct an outright lie about the Clinton foundation. https://t.co/Iv665DU8Pz

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

2) AP claimed in blockbuster story that HALF of Hillary's meeting while secretary were w/ Clinton foundation donors. pic.twitter.com/s7zIwEzRR4

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

3) AP then gave numbers: 85 of 154 people who met or talked by phone with Hillary were donors. More than half! pic.twitter.com/zmYlQT3JT3

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

4) Then you think about it. In 4 years as Sec of State, Hillary only met or talked to 154 people? Really?

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

5) AP would like us to believe that Hillary has fewer than one meeting or phone call per week as Sec of State? Uh, no.

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

6) In fact, Hillary met over 1,700 people as Secretary. And if only 85 were donors to foundation, that's pretty lousy rate of pay-for-play.

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

7) Oh but it gets worse for AP. AP devoted 1/3 of the story to Muhammad Yunus. He's their big smoking gun.

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

8) probably because the AP reporters had no idea who Yunus actually is. He's huge. Done more than anyone alive to alleviate poverty.

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

9) Yunus won the Nobel peace prize for founding the Grameen bank and pioneering concept of microlending to women in LDCs.

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

10) no shit the Secretary of State met with Yunus. He's global poverty's Mother Teresa. That's AP's big smoking gun.

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 24, 2016

The tweets continue on until they reach 24.

I will not post all of them here, but I will include that 24th tweet.

24) it's only corruption when you're a Democrat. It's only corruption when you're a Clinton.

— John Aravosis (@aravosis) August 25, 2016

This is what I meant the other day when I said that Hillary Clinton is held to a higher, and I would argue unattainable, standard.

Small, almost insignificant issues like private e-mail servers, clumsy explanations about Benghazi, and even her personal health is put under a high powered microscope and examined for any hint of scandal that can be used against her politically.

Yes other politicians receive scrutiny from the press, but nothing compares to what Hillary Clinton has had to face. Or for that matter President Obama.

P.S. You can read the AmericaBlog post that goes along with these tweets right here.

Since it's the last primary day let's talk Hillary Clinton e-mails shall we?

This question of whether Hillary Clinton will or will not be indicted over her private server simply will not go away, despite a number of smart people weighing in and dismissing the possibility out of hand, including the Libertarian VP nominee, a University of Michigan Law Professor, and even one of Bernie Sanders own super delegates.

Sure there are still plenty of others, especially among the Right Wing and Sander's supporters, saying otherwise, but they clearly have an agenda.

So in an effort to put this whole thing behind us I decided to post a few factoids this morning.

First from Lanny Davis who is a Hillary supporter, and also a lawyer who provided legal council to Bill Clinton.

Courtesy of The Hill:

First, the former secretary of State did nothing illegal by having a private email system. The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed to “policies” that were violated but cited no laws that were violated and said these policies were inconsistently applied and need to be further clarified in the future. (This is a point I have made here before.)

Second, Clinton was not trying to hide her use of her own private email address. In fact, 90 percent of all the emails she sent went to State Department employees with a state.gov email address, which she thought, mistakenly, would be automatically preserved on the department’s email server. How could she be seeking to hide her use of a private email address if she sent her private email to so many people at State? (Not understanding how e-mail works is not an indictable crime.)

Third, no email received or sent by Clinton was labeled at any level of classification. Multiple references in the media and in the right-wing blogosphere to Clinton emails containing “classified” information all refer to post-facto opinions — what could be accurately called classification by hindsight. State Department experts disagreed with many of those opinions. (Lot's of differing opinions on this, but I tend to think that Davis is correct.)

Fourth, according to the OIG, there is no evidence that Clinton’s private server was ever successfully hacked. In other words, all the dire and dark warnings from partisan Republicans about the secretary of State risking the nation’s security by using a private server are, in fact, all speculation — based on no facts whatsoever. (Yes I know that this Guccifer fellow is bragging that he broke in, but so far there is no real evidence to back that up.)

 Fifth, as pointed out by the inspector general, there was ample precedent for the use of private emails for official and private business, from Colin Powell to senior aides for Condoleezza Rice. (True, though people for some reason want to differentiate between using a private e-mail address and having a private server.)

Okay so there are those who might dismiss this guy's take on the situation based on his relationship with the Clintons but he seems to have the main facts down.  (Yes I realize that dissenting opinions with links to back them up are being posted as we speak.)

Now I also happened to stumble across this post over at Crooks and Liars: 

First, many government officials have been using personal email for government business. I've been tracking several FOIA lawsuits for some time, and several have to do with government officials in various departments using personal email. 

The government doesn't encourage using personal email, and people can't access private email in secure areas, but for the most part, government officials have been allowed to use private email, as long as they make some effort to ensure the emails are FOIA searchable. In many cases, all the person would have to do is forward the email on to their government email address, or someone else's government email address. 

Now, as to the question of sending confidential email via private email address, the implications of doing so would be the same whether a person used a private email address, or a State email address. Email is inherently insecure. The general State email addresses are not secured to any degree beyond what most personal email addresses are secured. You can't use a personal email address to send confidential emails, but you can't use a State email address, either; not through the internet using a mobile device or home computer—not without very special precautions being taken. 

So, let's fixate a little less on the private versus State email address. The issue of using a private email address is solely about whether the email is transparent, not secure. 

The FBI doesn't care about transparency, only security. It only cares about whether the private email server Clinton used was hacked or not. We already know that the State Department's servers have been hacked.

Unless the Justice Department decides to indict several current and former employees of the State and other Departments—at least three Administrations back—and other assorted and sundry people, it's not going to indict Hillary Clinton.

Now this Crooks and Liars writer does not claim to have a law degree, but they seem to have a pretty good handle on the ins and outs of this "scandal."

However while this writer may not be a lawyer, Hillary Clinton IS a lawyer, as is her husband, and many of their close friends in the Clinton inner circle. Which means that if there were ANY possibility of an actual indictment, they would have already taken that into consideration.

Based on Hillary's attitude and overall mood on the campaign trail I tend to think she is not exactly losing any sleep over the possibility of being indicted.

And do you know who else has a law degree? President Obama, who said this about the e-mail server: 

“I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America’s national security,” the president said. “There’s a carelessness in terms of managing emails that she has owned and she recognizes. But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.”

I will say once again that if the Democratic establishment REALLY thought there was a chance that Hillary would be indicted, they would have put the kibosh on her campaign a long time ago.

So no, Hillary Clinton is NOT going to be indicted over her e-mail server.

So the people voting in the primaries today can fill in the oval next to her name with complete confidence that the only obstacle between her and winning the White House is one Oompa Loompa colored egomaniac named Donald Trump.

And to be honest I really don't see him as that big of an obstacle.

Ohio sovereign citizen blows off both hands making bomb in kitchen.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars: 

Alphonso D. Mobley Jr. was allegedly building a bomb with a powerful, but unstable explosive that he was cooking in the kitchen of a vacant Columbus, Ohio house when it detonated, blowing off both hands. 

Despite his injuries, the 26 year-old man was charged yesterday with possession and manufacture of a dangerous ordnance alongside 21 year-old Roberto M. Innis Jr. 

Uninjured in the Tuesday morning blast, Innis called emergency services to the scene and later allegedly confessed to helping manufacture a dangerous ordnance. 

Triacetone triperoxide, better known as TATP, is an old, but powerful explosive used by suicide bombers in the Paris attacks last year. Long known to extremists as ‘the mother of Satan,' it is easily set off by friction, static electricity, or flame. 

While there is no word yet on where Mobley learned to make the compound, neighbors tell 10TV that both are ‘sovereign citizens,' a category that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies consider at least as dangerous as Islamic terrorists.

Of course as we know this is not a REAL terrorist because he is not an "Islamic terrorist" and that is the only kind that we are supposed to fear. 

Of course in reality this is the more dangerous variety of terrorist, a domestic terrorist who lives, looks, and worships like the majority of Americans.

He could be your neighbor, your workmate, or even your family member.

And yet we are rarely warned to watch out for them because they are not the type of terrorist that justifies beefing up our military or spending millions on Homeland Security.

Federal authorities warn law enforcement to be on guard against retaliatory violence in response to the arrest of the Bundy family members.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

Responding to a rising tide of threats in the wake of the standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore., federal authorities are warning law enforcement agencies (PDF) around the nation to be on the lookout for retaliatory violence from extremists affiliated with the antigovernment movement. 

Eleven people affiliated with Ammon Bundy’s “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom” were arrested in a law enforcement sweep operation on Jan. 26, while one member of the self-described “revolutionaries” – Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, a 54-year-old Arizona rancher – was shot and killed and while resisting arrest. More than two weeks later, on Feb. 11, the standoff ended when four remaining militants inside the compound surrendered to face federal charges for their activities during the takeover, which began Jan. 2. 

“In response to news of the arrests, some militia extremists and their supporters have called for violence or unspecified nationwide action against law enforcement, federal facilities, and US government employees,” the bulletin, issued jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, said. 

Threats have swirled around the scene at the wildlife refuge since it began. Even before the takeover, government offices in Oregon closed due to fears of violence emanating from the antigovernment movement. After the Jan. 26 arrests, federal authorities bolstered security at a number of other wildlife refuges in the region, citing the need to “remain vigilant to ensure employee and visitor safety throughout the region.” At least one refuge – Turnbull, near Cheney, Wash. – closed briefly in response to the occupation. The Oregon State Patrol, one of whose troopers shot Finicum, also has received death threats over the shooting.

This of course reinforces that DHS report from last year which found that domestic terrorist sovereign citizen groups were infinitely more dangerous than Islamic terrorists.

Nice of the Bundy family to sacrifice their freedom to flush out the wingnuts and prove the liberals right, don't you think?

Cliven Bundy is going to jail for a long, long, long time.

My stupidity is this big.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

The indictment of Cliven Bundy is a masterful document, describing a conspiracy to defraud and harm the government for selfish reasons. 

There's nothing in it we don't know, but it does give a glimpse into how far the investigation has delved, and the reach of the charges they intend to bring. 

Bundy is charged with Conspiracy to Commit An Offense Against the United States; Assault on a Federal Law Enforcement Officer; Use and Carry of a Firearm In Relation to a Crime of Violence; Obstruction of the Administration of Justice; Interference with Commerce by Extortion; and, Aiding and Abetting. 

He'll be in the clink for the rest of his life after this trial, alongside his sons.

Gee, and here this moron thought that the laws simply did not apply to him.

Sucks to be so wrong doesn't it?

By the way you can read the entire complaint at the link up above.

It's quite a satisfying read.

Sarah Palin is REALLY pissed off that we negotiated the release of those sailors held by Iran without incident and did not bomb the crap out of them instead.

Courtesy of the Mat-Su Moron's Facebook page:  

Here we go again, coddling the enemy and implementing rules of engagement that prohibit our military from doing its job. Iran captures our warriors before forcing the U.S. to apologize for the ENEMY'S bullying and endangerment, all to send a (false) message that America is now so weak we've fallen insurmountably far under the enemy. As Sen. McCain just said on Fox News, Obama spokesman Josh Ernest is an "idiot" and knows not of what he speaks as actual APPRECIATION is expressed by the Leftist White House for Iran's combatant actions. To praise the enemy for humiliating our military should make all reasonable, pro-"Peace through Strength" Americans agree with what Dean Cain said on Fox this morning: "This makes me sick to my stomach." Then went on to suggest reasons many of America's finest are leaving the military. No question, they're leaving due to the Left's pussy-footing around per the tone set by an extremely weak President who doesn't believe we face existential threats. I'll continue to ask: if democrats still praise Obama's capitulation and bending over for Iran, does it not make you wonder whose side are they on?

Whose side are we on? How about the side of those sailors and their families?

Because of the actions of this administration a situation that in the past might have lasted weeks, months, or even years, was over in a single night.

Of course Palin is not alone. (Because as we know she only jumps on bandwagons these days, she never hitches them up herself.)

Here are some of the conservative responses courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson tweeted: "While POTUS is preparing to talk about his so called "accomplishments", 10 of our American sailors are being held by #Iran." 

And former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tweeted: "If our sailors aren't coming home yet, they need to be now. No more bargaining. Obama's humiliatingly weak Iran policy is exposed again." 

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also joined in the Obama-bashing. "This is the latest manifestation of the weakness of Barack Obama, that every bad actor ... views Obama as a laughingstock," he said.

Mitch McConnell had this to say: "I was very concerned that he's missing where the challenge of the world is with security -- he sits and talks positively about Iran when they just took 10 of our Navy sailors," he said after the speech.

And John McCain, the man responsible for inflicting the Wasilla Wendigo on America, said this:"Ten American sailors have been taken into custody in Iran," he said in a statement. "But President Obama completely omitted this latest example of Iran's provocative behavior so as not to interfere with his delusional talking points about his dangerous nuclear deal with Iran."

Now as egregious and short sighted as all of those responses were, they were at least given when the fate of the sailors was still up in the air.

However Palin's response, which by the way is no longer originating from New Orleans, was posted today well after the sailors were returned safely to their ship.

Which makes her not only a day late, but a truck load of brain cells short.

P.S. By the way not that any of these idiots care, but now we are learning that the sailors did indeed enter Iranian controlled waters due to a navigational error.

Do any of us believe that if an Iranian military force entered our waters that we would not act in a similar fashion? 

Yes the problems the Republican party faces today can indeed be traced back to Sarah Palin and the 2008 election.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

We need look no further than the 2008 nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president to understand when the Republican Party left the rails. 

Seven years on -- following two crushing defeats in presidential elections and the likelihood of a third in November -- the destruction that the former half-term governor of Alaska has wrought is immense. And continues to grow. In a much-quoted Washington Post op-ed piece, former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley wrote that Palin set "a new standard" for the Republican Party that has gifted us Carson and Trump, among other buffoons: 

"Once John McCain put Sarah Palin on the ticket, Republican 'grown-ups,' who presumably knew better, had to bite their tongues. But after the election, when they were free to speak their minds, they either remained quiet or abetted the dumbing-down of the party. They stood by as Donald Trump and others noisily pushed claims that Obama was born in Kenya. And they gladly rode the Tea Party tiger to sweeping victories in 2010 and 2014. . . . 

"It's hard to feel much sympathy. The Republican establishment's 2008 embrace of Palin set an irresponsibly low bar. Coincidence or not, a batch of nonsense-spewing, hard-right candidates quickly followed, often to disastrous effect." 

Daley may seem to be belaboring the obvious, but the deeply toxic effect that this narcissistic, power abusing kook and liar (who now threatens to take on Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski out of sheer spite) has had on the GOP still is not fully appreciated, and only barely so by historians as well as Republicans who mourn the destruction of the GOP Big Tent and the party's descent into pooch screwing. 

Nor is McCain's decision to invite Palin to join the ticket after spending less than two hours with her (his man in charge of vetting veep nominees never even met her face to face) properly understood to be the most irresponsible decision in the history of presidential campaigns.

Palin is not the only reason for the Republican Party's dysfunction, but her toxic lip lock is evident in the hapless 2016 presidential campaign.

As I am sure all of you know this is the song that I have been singing for years.

THIS is why I continue to cover Sarah Palin, And THIS is why what is happening to her today, helps to explain what will happen to the Republican party tomorrow.

I still maintain that without a Sarah Palin we would not now see a Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson, or Donald Trump, on the national stage.

She blazed the trail that they are navigating on today, and helped to identify the lunatic fringe that would support them if they tapped into the magical unhinged rhetoric which triggers their paranoia.

Way back in 2009 when Palin up and quit her job I attended a rather festive gathering of Alaska bloggers, where the high fives were many, and the jubilation was contagious.

However when most of them were talking about never having to write about the Wasilla Wendigo ever again, I was the lone voice saying that her story was not yet finished and that she would continue to have a destructive impact in the years to come. And that it was our duty to cover her until the bitter end.

I was right, and by staying on top of the story from the dizzying heights of her first book tour and almost constant media presence, to the inevitable crash that many of us predicted as far back as 2010, she has remained my barometer for determining where the Republican party itself was headed as well.

So today virtually EVERY GOP presidential candidate has a book they are hawking, and many of them seem far more concerned about building up their brand for speaking tours and consulting jobs, than they seem to care about winning the nomination.

In fact a few, like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, seem as if they were to actually get close to winning the damn thing that they would quickly sabotage their chances in order to take the pressure off.

Sarah Palin NEVER wanted to work in politics again, but she knew that there was big money in making people believe that she might.

Sarah Palin, as far as I can tell, was never REALLY part of the Republican party. But she knew that the party had piles of cash, and gullible supporters.  

So she shook her money maker in their faces, twirled the tassels on her pasties to the beat of the music, and leaned back as fistfuls of money were shoved into her g-string.

Donald Trump may not have Palin's once upon a time good looks to seduce the conservatives into supporting him, but he certainly knows how to put on a show and to hit the notes that reverberate within their gullible little hearts. And apparently in this election cycle that is enough.

But in the end Trump might end up accomplishing what Sarah Palin started back in 2008, and has nurtured and promoted ever since, the destruction of the Republican party as we know it.

Mike Huckabee suggests that Congress defund the White House. Seriously?

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

"He's got a Republican Congress that has never tried to slow him down on his unconstitutional actions. They don't try to slow down the judicial branch when it goes into judicial overreach and practices what Thomas Jefferson would have called judicial tyranny. They've ignored the typical checks and balances that are the constitutional duties of the other branches of government. So I think Obama's going to just go ahead and do whatever he thinks he can get away with, and up until now he's gotten away with pretty much anything he wanted to do. 

"And I hold the Republican Congress responsible and accountable. It's time for them to step up, and if they have to cut the funding out of the White House and simply not appropriate funds for him to function, they have the power of the purse, they simply need to start exercising it."

Holy shit that is a boatload of stupid!

This of course is the same idea floated by professional moron Louie Gohmert over a year ago, so that gives you some idea of the level of wingnuttery we are dealing with here.

If Congress were to attempt such a step it would open them up to charges of sedition and would certainly open a rift between the executive branch and the legislative branch that would have long term ramifications lasting long past the end of the Obama presidency.

Only an idiot or an anarchist would suggest such a thing, so which one is Huckabee?

P.S. By the way you might notice that this interview was giving to Newmax, which is the same low rent Fox News knock off that invited Sarah Palin to spew nonsense after the last Republican debate.

Which just goes to show how far the Huckabee candidacy has fallen these days.

And that is so far that he now has been excluded from the grownups table during the next RNC debate.

Gee what a shame. 

Jeb Bush is outraged (Outraged I say!) over Donald Trump's disrespect for John McCain's military service. Seemed less so when it was John Kerry being disrespected.

Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans - particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) July 18, 2015

So as you can see Jebbie is livid that "The Donald" would suggest that John McCain should not be considered a hero because he was a POW during the Vietnam War.

And that should be admirable.

Except for the fact that Jebbie sent this letter to the men calling into question the heroism that earned John Kerry's a Silver Star during the same war.

So to be clear, it is outrageous that people would dismiss John McCain's heroism over the fact that he was captured by the enemy, but suggesting that John Kerry did not earn his medals while fighting for his country is perfectly reasonable.

Did I get that right?

(H/T to Crooks and Liars.)

During Iowa campaign stop Rick Santorum takes time to talk with his supporters. Both of them.

Photo courtesy of Crooks and Liars.

What if you threw a campaign and nobody came?

Well Rick Santorum is only two people away from finding that out.

Here is more courtesy of WTAE:  

Even when you're the defending champion of the Iowa caucuses, there's no guarantee you'll find big crowds at every stop. 

When Rick Santorum stopped by Sam's Soda and Sandwiches in Carroll, Iowa, on Monday afternoon, he was met with three of his own staffers, two Democratic campaign trackers, a waitress, two diners and one CNN reporter. 

Though it may not have been the reception he hoped for, the former Pennsylvania senator took it in stride, spending about an hour drinking a chocolate milkshake and chatting with the two diners.

The article goes on to remind people that Santorum won the Iowa caucus back in 2012, but clearly this is NOT 2012. 

I'm going to hell for getting a case of the giggles from this aren't I?

Yep, I thought so.

P.S. After I wrote this last night I learned that the report saying that only two people showed up to Santorum's Iowa campaign stop was false.

Four people showed up.

So you know that's better. Right?

Well it appears that there are other bloggers out there who do not think we should stop pursuing babygate either.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

Rumors, innuendo and inconclusive photographs do not a true story make, but the fact of the matter is that seven years after the birth of Trig Paxson Van Palin, there is no proof that right-wing sweetheart Sarah Palin is his biological mother and evidence he may be her grandson. 

If you believe that I - or anyone else - has no business pursuing the question of whether John McCain's 2008 running mate put over an enormous hoax on the American public because the whole idea is so . . . well, yucky, then you need read no further. Besides which, a kid with disabilities having a home with a family that has plenty of dough is enough for many people who are averse to questioning Palin's serial evasions. 

But if you, like me, remain curious about the evasions concerning her alleged pregnancy and Trig's birth, as well as her unwillingness to provide any proof to tamp down rumors that she faked the birth of the Down syndrome child, then stick around. Palin still will not even release a copy of Trig's birth certificate although she hectored Barack Obama to release his. 

This story deserves to have legs because the former half-term Alaska governor turned author and reality show princess and most recently Tea Party carnival sideshow freak not only has not gone away. 

She continues to inject herself into national politics, having campaigned early on for the 2012 Republican president nomination until even she realized that her brand was tarnished despite a small but hard-core conservative constituency that continues to cling to her every statement as if they were Biblical missives.

Gee all of that sounds awfully familiar to all of us here on IM. Nice to hear it said someplace else though, isn't it?

C and L then links to a post over at Kiko's House, updated from 2011, which does an admirable job of laying out Palin's birth story, as well as all of the reasons that it does not hold water.

The author, Shaun Mullins, also quotes from Geoffrey Dunn, Joe McGinniss, and Andrew Sullivan as well.

There are also a few quotes from Professor Scharlott, mostly a refutation of the two Trig's theory that many of you may remember he did not exactly agree with me on. (Actually I think I proved my point with this post, but let's not open old wounds.)

Interestingly enough the updated post was put up on Saturday, which was the same day that I wrote this post wondering out loud if anybody cared about the story anymore.

I have no evidence that Mullins was responding directly to my post, but it does answer the central question.

Apparently yes, it certainly DOES matter to quite a number of people.

Well, I guess it's time to roll up my sleeves again and get to work.

Sarah Palin's Freedom Summit speech the day after.

Just one of a number of SarahPAC graphics cobbled together from the few lucid moments of Palin's speech.

Now as all of you know I am certainly not new to Palin's word salad. And I have transcribed some crazy ass speechifying in my day. But last night may have been the most batshit craziest of all the batshit crazy that came before.

I have to admit that while I listened to a good portion of it before putting together my last post of the day yesterday, kind of skipped ahead at certain points just to get the general idea and did not listen to the entire thirty five minutes until this morning, and I have to admit I kind of wish I never had.

But don't take my word for it, just take a gander at what other news outlets had to say.

First the Daily Mail felt certain that Palin's teleprompter had frozen, and that it was to blame for her incoherence: 

Republican firebrand Sarah Palin is rarely at a loss for words but became unmoored on Saturday in Iowa after her teleprompter froze and left her without portions of her prepared speech. 

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee flipped through a binder of notes and strung together a series of one-liners – and some of them made little sense. 

'The man can only ride you when your back is bent,' she said, as audience members looked at each other quizzically. 

'So strengthen it! Then the man can't ride you, America won't get taken for a ride, because so much is at stake.' 

Addressing the controversy over the virtues of the late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and the 'American Sniper' film that tells his life story, she shouted: “Screw the left in Hollywood!' 

Others claimed that her teleprompter was workign just fine, with Palin supporters stomping their feet and screaming that she was not using a teleprompter, because their heroine doesn't fucking need them!

Right Wing Watch took Palin's word salad at face value and called her out over her unmitigated attacks on the Left: 

Palin said that Republicans need to prepare for attacks from the liberal media, which seeks to “crucify” conservatives, warning that liberals use Saul Alinsky-inspired political tactics, such as charges of “racism” and “sexism.” 

Republicans should reject these “Orwellian” and “disgusting charges from the left,” Palin said, before calling on conservatives to label liberals as the real racists and sexists: “Reverse them, for it is they who point a finger not realizing that they have triple that amount of fingers pointing right back at them revealing that they are the ones who really discriminate and divide on color and class and sex. We call them out. We don’t let them get away with it.” 

She urged conservatives to expose the “real war on women with truth because we can handle the truth,” explaining: “It is they who defeat women, they shackle them to the good old boys running Washington, pimping this promise that they have to provide for these little ladies’ every need, because ‘there, there, a woman is just not capable.’” 

Oh yeah, that's pure Palin. 

And while others, like Crooks and Liars took note that Palin went out of her way to call the President a "boy," the Des Moines Register tried to polish the mooseturd up a little for public consumption: 

Beyond the Iowa references, Palin's 35-minute speech was a free-form reflection on Republican presidential strategy, Democratic dishonesty, personal slights, the glory of the United States and its military, and several other subjects.

Nice try, but we know excrement when we see it.

Other news outlets were not so charitable, and decided to post their observations unvarnished.

From Hot Air: 

The order of speakers got juggled around too, and led to a strange up-and-down effect at the end. Sarah Palin, who was supposed to be the keynote speaker, gave a crowd-pleasing but stream-of-consciousness address. She offered support for King for his part in the revolt against Boehner, which got a large round of applause. However, her speech seemed to run out of gas after a few minutes, and the audience responses thinned out notably. 

What in the hell is she talking about?

 Politico was even more blunt:  

Sarah Palin, who has been teasing the press with hints she might actually run for president, appeared to end much hope of that Saturday by delivering a 33-minute speech of such incoherence that even veteran Palin-watchers were puzzled. 

Some sample lines from Palin: 

“Screw the left and Hollywood!” 

“Coronation, rinse, repeat.” 

Obama “is so over it. America, he’s just not that into you.” 

“The man can only ride you when your back is bent.” 

I would provide some context, but there wasn’t any. It is possible she was improperly inflated.

However it was another reporter from the Des Moine Register who summarized it best: 

Sarah Palin's speech was like passing a burning wreck surrounded by ambulances on the highway. You know you should just keep driving, but you can't help slowing down to look. If she had ambitions for 2016, she should pursue them somewhere besides Iowa.

The Democratic Party's response to the speech was both short and sweet:

You know way back in 2009 I predicted that someday Sarah Palin would have destroyed herself so completely that she would be reduced to late night one liners and $200 questions on Jeopardy.

I think that after this performance that would actually be more than she could possibly hope for. 

Personally I cannot help but find it ironic that on the weekend during which Palin has tried so hard to create buzz about a possible 2016 presidential run in order to convince news outlets to start taking her seriously again, that she ends up giving them all the ammunition they could possibly need to continue painting her as a laughingstock and an embarrassment to the Republican party and to the country at large.

Though to be honest I can't say I am surprised.

Despite her reputation as a political tease there are still a number of news outlets ready to take Sarah Palin seriously about a 2016 run. Update!

Courtesy of Bloomberg.

Courtesy of The Washington Post:  

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin told The Washington Post in an interview Friday that she is “seriously interested” in running for the White House in 2016. 

“You can absolutely say that I am seriously interested,” Palin said, when asked to clarify her thinking about a possible presidential bid. 

Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee, said she stood by comments she made Thursday in Las Vegas to ABC News, where she first expressed enthusiasm about potentially competing for the Republican presidential nomination. 

“I am. As I said yesterday, I’m really interested in the opportunity to serve at some point,” Palin said Friday, as former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, a potential 2016 rival, looked on. 

Palin’s comments, made in an interview in the lobby of the Marriott hotel here, came hours before she is scheduled to address a group of conservative activists at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a gathering hosted by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an immigration hard-liner.

The Washington Post is by no means the only outlet that thinks Palin is actually going to tear off her crusty panties and deliver the goods. 

Politico, ABC News, The Christian Science Monitor, as well as others are also rising to the bait.

It's kind of sad that these idiots still think that Palin is serious about an actual presidential campaign. It reminds me of that schmo who starts to believe that the scantily clad, heavily glittered, stripper that he paid to undulate on his lap is actually falling in love with him.

She isn't.

I actually do understand why this excites some in the news business. With the 2016 lineup appearing to feature candidates who have already run, and who are well known to the American public, the idea of a new face to report on, especially one so constantly controversial, cannot help but seem exciting.

However it is also interesting that during the same weekend that so many news outlets are rubbing themselves raw at the prospect of a Palin presidential bid that the other big news about her concerns this picture.

As it turns out TPM, Crooks and Liars, The Inquisitr, and even Fox News Radio are far more interested in this story over the typical Palin political prick tease.

Of course for all of us who have been paying close attention there is no mystery as to why Palin is suddenly spinning her tassels in everybody's face.

All you have to do is check out her recent SarahPAC filings.

The most recent one only covers the period between November 25 to December 31 but it is enough to tell the tale of a political PAC in desperation.

The PAC only took in $56,633.93 during that time period, which is much lower than in times past, and they spent $118,693.20. Which follows the same pattern we have been following for over a year now. (Update: Did anybody else notice that she paid over $2,000 for Christmas cards?)

Simply put Palin is running out of money, and unless she does something drastic she may actually be forced to get a real job in order to support herself, and her lazy good for nothing family.

And nothing frightens her more than that.

So apparently NBC's Chuck Todd is now helping to craft commercials for Mitch McConnell.

Seriously WTF?

Todd is smart enough to realize, now that he is hosting the prestigious Meet the Press, that what he says can be used by one candidate or another to attack their opponent. And yet he casually gifts McConnell with a statement that can now be used to help bury Grimes in Kentucky.

Not too long ago my attitude was "anybody but Gregory," but Chuck Todd has suddenly made me reconsider that sentiment.

(H/T to Crooks and Liars.)

Members of church upset that their televangelist leader forces them to have abortions and vasectomies, and sexually abuses their children. Clear case of nitpicking.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

Former members of Grace Cathedral have accused televangelist Ernest Angley of forcing them to have abortions, and vasectomies. And they said that he sexually abused boys in the church, which he has denied. 

In the first part of a six-part series on Sunday, the Akron Beacon Journal said that church members had provided it with a recording of a recent church service where 93-year-old televangelist Ernest Angley addressed accusations that he had inappropriately touched a former pastor. 

“I’m not a homosexual. God wouldn’t use a homosexual like he uses me. He calls me his prophet, and indeed I am," Angley explained. "They called Jesus a homosexual, did you know that? And still do. Because he was with men." 

As for the claim that Angley encouraged men in the church to have vasectomies, he said that he had "helped so many of the boys down through the years." 

“They had their misgivings," he recalled. "Sure, I’d have them uncover themselves, but I did not handle them at all." 

"And I would tell them how that would work. And they’d have to watch it. I’d have some of them come back to me that I felt needed to. And I would tell them, I would look at them, their privates — I, so I could tell how they were swelling," the pastor told the congregation. "I was a farm boy. We thought nothing about undressing. We didn’t know about homosexuals. We talked about women." 

Becky Roadman, who left the church last year and moved to Georgia, told the paper that "none of us have kids because he makes all the men get fixed." 

“You’re not allowed to have babies there," she insisted. 

Angley also pushed women to have abortions, according to multiple former members. One of those who left, Angelia Oborne, said that Angley advised a friend to think of the fetus inside her as “a tumor.”

I know that people get irritated with me for blaming this kind of thing on religion, but let's face it would any of these people have allowed this person to exert such influence on them if they were not gullible enough to believe that he had Jesus on speed dial?

This guy is a grade "A" pervert, and masochist, hiding behind the comforting camouflage of Christianity like so many before him. 

Militia plans to show up at the border and point guns as immigrants appears to be suffering a setback.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

What if militias announced a showdown with the feds and nobody came? 

That’s pretty much what happened in Texas this week, after a handful of militia activists called on their fellow militia members to intervene in the increasingly fraught humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border, involving large numbers of children from Central America who are straining the government’s ability to process their complicated cases. 

For a Texas militiaman named Chris Davis, there was nothing complicated about it. In a video he posted at YouTube – which he has since been removed – he offered a simple solution for dealing with the young border crossers. 

“How?” Davis asked rhetorically. “You see an illegal, you point your gun right dead at them, right between the eyes, and say ‘Get back across the border, or you will be shot.’ Simple as that. If you get any flak from sheriffs, city, or feds, Border Patrol, tell them look — this is our birthright. We have a right to secure our own land. This is our land. This is our birthright.”

So did manly man Chris Davis and his rag tag group of camouflaged dipshits show up at the border to wave their metal penises at the immigrant children seeking asylum?

It appears not.  

However, Davis’ militia muster call quickly vanished into virtual thin air. Shortly after he began receiving media attention – including accounts in the McAllenville Monitor, Brownsville Herald, San Antonio Express-News and Los Angeles Times – he not only took down all his YouTube videos and deleted his channel there, he also deleted his Facebook page and all its incendiary antigovernment content.

Bummer it looks like Captain Courageous has a yellow streak running down his spine. 

And guess what else we know about him.

Courtesy of TPM:  

Chris Davis, the reported leader of the militia that encompasses many of the same groups that supported Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy in his standoff with federal authorities, was cited by San Antonio police for disorderly conduct because he and two other men were openly carrying firearms outside a Starbucks last year, the newspaper reported. It identified him as a member of Open Carry Texas. 

Davis was also reportedly discharged from the U.S. Army in 2001 "under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court martial." Davis had served in the Army from 1996 to 2001. The Express-News reviewed a summary of his military service, which relayed those "other than honorable conditions" for the discharge, but did not provide more details.

So dishonorably discharged from the military and now  trying to pass himself off as a poor man's General Patton.

What more could we expect from this bunch of idiots?

Bill Maher's New Rules from Friday night's Real Time.

"Yes to explain Benghazi Susan Rice used talking points, but at least she did not have to read them off her hand!"

Love that!

(H/T to Crooks and Liars.)

Stop Handgun Violence founder: "The dirty little secret is that the NRA loves high-profile mass shootings."

Earlier today I was browsing the net looking for interesting stories to share with you,when I stumbled across the above statement over at Crooks and Liars.

Here is the post that caught my eye, and sent a shiver up my spine:  

Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced on Thursday that sales had spiked 48 percent in its second fiscal quarter of 2013, setting a record of $136 million. 

"The increase was led by continued strong sales across all of the company's firearm product lines, including M&P™ branded products, such as pistols, modern sporting rifles, and the recently launched Shield™ pistol designed for concealed carry and personal protection," the company said in a statement. 

Smith & Wesson also predicted year-over-year growth of 30 percent for the remainder of the 2013 fiscal year. 

Those are the kind of statistics that boggle the mind and make you ask "Why?" Why with so muhc gun violence in the news would gun sales ACTUALLY be going up?


Apparently some questions are better left unanswered.


Stop Handgun Violence founder John Rosenthal told Current TV's Elliot Spitzer on Wednesday that gun companies were making record profits because lobbying groups like the National Rifle Association had been successful at making sure that the industry was largely unregulated. 

"The dirty little secret is that the NRA loves high-profile mass shootings," Rosenthal explained. "The more gun violence, the better. The more fear, it causes people to buy guns, more profits for the gun industry. And then they funnel it into intimidating Democrats into submission. And then they fund the Republicans and the Republicans just roll over."

 "The dirty little secret is that the NRA loves high-profile mass shootings. The more gun violence, the better. The more fear, it causes people to buy guns, more profits for the gun industry."

Have you ever read something that you hoped with all of your might wasn't true, while at the same time being absolutely certain that it was?

That is how I responded to the above statement. On the face of it it seems counter intuitive. But when you think about the psychology of how human beings react to fear, you realize the obvious truth.

The stunning, frustrating, yet obvious truth.

So how do you counteract a primitive response to fear married to a society that conditions people to believe that possession of handguns equals safety?

I quite literally don't know.

Sharing statistics like this: Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates. Means nothing to somebody who is frightened and believes that simply possessing a handgun  will calm their fears.

I think many gun owners literally have NO intention of ever using their gun for anything other than target shooting, and that is undoubtedly the truth for most. But a handgun in the house is an instrument of death readily available to ANYBODY who is suddenly frightened, angered, or unable to make rational decisions.

And it provides the power to end a life to any person in the vicinity with the ability to flex their finger. No matter their state of mind, no matter their gender, and no matter their age.

Guns don't JUST kill people. They make killing them something even a child can do.