So I guess I've been identified as a sucker as well.

This showed up in my e-mail box the other day: 

Do you remember the moment Bernie kicked off the political revolution? 

Bernie Sanders has spent his life fighting against injustice and inequality. But it was his eight-hour long filibuster in 2010 that turned him into a national leader. As Charles Chamberlain explains in the email below, Bernie took to the Senate floor to challenge a deal President Obama had cut with Republicans that included an extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. 

His speech wasn't just about that bad deal. He used his time to speak about corporate greed, the recently announced Citizens United decision, and the decline of the middle class. His speech laid out his early vision that became the people-powered campaign that rocked the foundations of the Democratic Party. Bernie's vision should still motivate us today -- and that's why DFA is offering a chance to read this amazing document while helping build a political revolution. 

Do you want to read the speech that started the "political revolution"? Pitch in $37 or more now to support DFA and we will send you your very own copy of Bernie's "The Speech: On Corporate Greed and the Decline of the Middle Class" -- we will even cover the shipping charges for you! 

Your donation will not only get you this historic book by Bernie -- it will also help DFA continue the work we began during the primary. We're building the political revolution across the country, and fighting for candidates who share Bernie's values. We're even training thousands of activists to help win in November and beyond. 

Thank you for spreading the word about Bernie's speech -- and helping change America. 

I am not going to bother sharing all of it with you but it goes on to accuse President Obama of "cutting a deal with the Republicans that was filled with goodies for the 1%," smears all "Washington politicians," and of course makes Sanders out to be some kind of modern folk hero.

It also continues to push the meme that Bernie and his supporters are going to change politics in this country and that it can all be done if they just keep donating to the "revolution" and of course buying his books.

Of course all of us here have seen this before, and we know how it ends.

And lines like this, "Every penny of your donation will go toward helping elect Bernie-style truth-tellers to every level of government, from City Council to the U.S. Senate, this November and beyond," should not fool anybody.

I know that the true believers will have difficulty accepting this, but this political grift has been going on for years now.

We have already seen the damage that it can do as evidenced by the Republican party.

We just don't need to see it happen on the Democratic side.

If we want to change how money influences politics we need to overturn Citizens United, which can eventually happen with the help of Clinton selected Supreme Court justices, and work to pass campaign finance reform, for which we need more Democrats.

We don't need a revolution, we just need to keep our eye on the ball and continue making the same kind of progress that President Obama has already helped to put into motion.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I know, I know, "How is this helping to elect Hillary Clinton?"

Next couple of posts I promise.

Bernie Sanders' wife explains that there will be no financial disclosure. "Why bother?"

Courtesy of Yahoo News:  

Sen. Bernie Sanders has pushed hard for transparency on U.S. trade and campaign finance, but has been far less aggressive in disclosing his own personal finances. 

Now his wife and campaign confidante, Jane O'Meara Sanders, is defending the senator's decision not to file a candidate personal finance disclosure and talking about the purchase of a new vacation home. 

Sanders and his campaign asked the Federal Election Commission for two 45-day extensions, in mid-May and late June, on filing the personal finance disclosures candidates are usually required to produce, and then decided not to file at all once he dropped out of the race and endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Jane Sanders confirmed Thursday. 

"I guess our campaign just said 'why bother'," said the wife of the Vermont independent senator who challenged Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Jane Sanders went on to explain that there was really no new information about their finances to share anyway.

Speaking of no new financial information Jane also talked about that new house they purchased.

On another financial matter, Jane Sanders said she and her husband paid cash — $575,000 — for the four-bedroom summer house they recently bought in North Hero, Vermont, on the Lake Champlain shore. She said she sold her share of her family's long-time vacation home in Bridgton, Maine, to her brother for $150,000, added some money from her retirement account and from an advance her husband got on a book he is writing to come up with the money to buy the couple's third home. 

They also own property in Burlington, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.

Oh so their share of the family vacation home only came to $150,000. Interesting.

In other, completely unrelated news Sanders is still accepting donations for "Our Revolution" which is scheduled to launch next week: 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will address supporters on Aug. 24 to tout "Our Revolution," a new organization intended to harness the energy of his supporters and help progressive political candidates across the country.

The independent senator also wants to empower “the next generation of progressive leaders by inspiring, recruiting and supporting progressive candidates across the entire spectrum of government – from school board to U.S. Senate.”

Damn, I am getting such a feeling of deja vu here.

A failed campaign, a new house, a PAC dedicated to "changing politics in America." Hmm, where have I seen all of this before?

Bernie Sanders buys $600,000 summer home in Vermont, while continuing to accept donations for his "revolution."

Courtesy of The Hill:  

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has purchased a nearly $600,000 summer retreat on Vermont’s Champlain Islands, the Vermont newspaper Seven Days reported Monday. 

“We’ve traveled up to the islands many times over the years — almost always on day trips,” Jane Sanders, the former White House contender's wife, said in a statement. "The entire family is very excited about it.” 

The Sanders family also owns a row house on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and a house in Burlington, Vt..

Well for a Democratic Socialist Bernie does pretty well for himself.

But where does this kind of money come from?

(Update: According to Snopes the money for this house came from the sale of a house they inherited. That information was not readily available when I wrote this post several hours ago, and I apologize for anything misleading I may have insinuated. However instead of deleting it I will leave it here as I think the second part down below is still worthy of conversation.)

 Courtesy of the Washington Post:

When he endorsed Hillary Clinton and spoke on her behalf at the somewhat-contentious Democratic convention last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pledged "to do all that I can" to make sure she defeated Donald Trump this fall. Since the convention, his new group, "Our Revolution," seems to be devoting its energy to … defeating the Democratic Party establishment that backed Clinton. 

Sanders has sent at least two emails to his army of grass-roots supporters since the convention ended, asking for money to continue his "revolution," a critical element of his primary-season pitch. The emails mentioned the Democratic National Committee, former committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democratic Party, and the Democratic establishment multiple times. They did not mention Clinton, Trump or the Republican Party (which would need to suffer a crushing defeat for Democrats to gain the majority Sanders would need for his progressive priorities to make it through Congress.)

I'm just going to leave this here without comment.

After all I wouldn't want to be accused of being a "Bernie Sanders hater" now would I?

Update 2: By the way if the Sanders' sold a house they inherited why did that money not go towards funding his "revolution" rather than use the money toward the purchase of a third house?

After all how many houses does a socialist Senator from Vermont need anyhow?

So is Bernie Sanders following in the footsteps of Ron Paul or Sarah Palin?

Courtesy of USA Today: 

Sen. Bernie Sanders began fundraising Wednesday for his new political organization, tapping supporters in an email for contributions to “continue our critical work to take back our country from the billionaire class.” 

“Our Revolution,” the former Democratic presidential candidate writes, aims to bring “millions” of working and young people into the political system; recruit and support the “next generation of progressive leaders” running for office, from school board to U.S. Senate; and educate the public about “the most pressing issues confronting our nation” that he says the “corporate media” fails to emphasize. 

“Our goal will be the same as in our campaign: we must work to transform American society by making our political and economic systems work for all of us, not just the 1 percent,” wrote Sanders.

Okay now I know that Bernie Bros are already hyperventilating over the fact that I would dare to compare their hero to Ron Paul or (Gasp!) Sarah Palin.

However the comparisons are viable.

Now according to this USA Today article the "Our Revolution" organization is supposed to launch later this month, but right now they are soliciting and receiving donations that go through Act Blue, a Democratic PAC that was established in 2004.

If Bernie is going the Ron Paul route we can expect to see him have some impact on the Democratic party in certain places around the country (Remember the Paulites, led by Joe Miller, took over the Alaska Republican party for a short while in 2012.), but no real noticeable impact on national politics.

However if he is going the Sarah Palin route then he will simply be giving lip service to the idea of political change while pocketing the money for himself to pay for things like air travel, "consultants," and of course keeping his family members flush with cash.

And before anybody scoffs at that last paragraph remember there is precedent since Sanders illegally used campaign money to visit with the Pope during his campaign.

All I am saying is that if you have ever mocked those who contribute to SarahPAC, and then turn around and give money to this Sanders "revolution," you might want to have a serious conversation with yourself in the mirror.

"How American Politics went insane." An article that every American voter needs to read.

Like Trump, Bernie Sanders appealed to the antipolitical idea that the mere act of voting for him would prompt a “revolution” that would somehow clear up such knotty problems as health-care coverage, financial reform, and money in politics. Like Trump, he was a self-sufficient outsider without customary political debts or party loyalty. Like Trump, he neither acknowledged nor cared—because his supporters neither acknowledged nor cared—that his plans for governing were delusional. 

Trump, Sanders, and Ted Cruz have in common that they are political sociopaths—meaning not that they are crazy, but that they don’t care what other politicians think about their behavior and they don’t need to care. That three of the four final presidential contenders in 2016 were political sociopaths is a sign of how far chaos syndrome has gone. The old, mediated system selected such people out. The new, disintermediated system seems to be selecting them in. 

That is only two paragraphs in an exceeding long article which explains how our current anti-establishment ideas about choosing candidates, implementing policies, and reforming government are actually causing long term harm to our country.

Author Jonathon Rauch, dives deep to explain how things such as party leaders, pork barrel spending, and political compromise, which are all widely derided in today's politics, were actually good for the country and helped to keep in running relatively smoothly until recently.

I found the article to be very informative and somewhat empowering as it reinforced many of the points that I have made here on IM about  the problems with political revolutions and uncompromising partisanship.

It also reminded me of a discussion I had with my daughter about Bernie Sanders during which she said that she admired him because he never compromised his values.

My response to her, and I think I wrote about it here as well, is that while it is great to have strong values, a politician who refuses to compromise is a politician who will never get a damn thing accomplished.

I told her that I found the idea of electing ANY President who thinks that they can force through their agenda without considering the obstruction they will face from their opposition, to be very a troubling thought indeed. Even IF I was in agreement with that President on most issues. 

That is also why I was never really on board with the so-called Bernie political "revolution," which seemed for all intents and purposes to be a left leaning version of the Tea Party.

If the Democrats start electing anti-establishment, extremely partisan, candidates to send to Washington, not only will that fire up the right wing fringe even more, but it will simply pour more concrete into the political machinery of DC resulting in an even worse situation than the one we face right now.

If such a thing is even possible.

So definitely take the time to read this article.

Yes it is a little long, but it is also very thought provoking, and probably the shot of reality that a lot of American voters need right now.

Now it seems that Bernie Sanders is angling for a spot on Clinton's cabinet.

The senator has such a "safe seat" that he's bargaining for a cabinet post.https://t.co/JXIDBHWqtZ pic.twitter.com/rOrxkyqft2

— Al Giordano (@AlGiordano) June 24, 2016

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

Independent Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential runner-up Bernie Sanders was all over the TV Friday morning talking up his political revolution and tinkering with his leverage over the Democratic Party and presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton, but he dropped a quiet bomb right in the middle of one of those appearances. On CNN’s New Day, anchor Chris Cuomo frankly asked Sanders what real difference it would make even if he got everything he wanted into the Democratic Party platform, and would it not be more effective to seek a position within a Hillary Clinton administration. 

Cuomo: Shouldn’t you be pushing for your position in a Clinton administration, if that happens, than just the party platform? 

Sanders: That’s what we’re doing too. 

Cuomo: Your poker face is terrible.

Oh, so THAT'S why Bernie Sanders continues to string the Bernie-bots along.

He's using them as leverage to negotiate a deal with Hillary for a new job in case he loses his old one.

Gee, I wonder how he plans to manage a political revolution while working directly FOR Hillary Clinton?

Here is Sarah Palin threatening that if Donald Trump is not the GOP nominee the people will "rise up."

Courtesy of US News:  

Palin, who has endorsed Trump, said she is confident he will win the GOP nomination, but said she can support Cruz if he emerges as the nominee. 

She said she backs Trump because he is "so reasonable and so full of common sense and knows that for America to be great again we have to develop our natural resources" such as oil and natural gas. 

While some GOP leaders worry that Trump's disparaging comments about women, minorities and others have him struggling in the polls with key voter blocs, Palin said Trump would be the GOP's strongest nominee. Trump has created the "big tent" that party leaders have long been seeking, she said, citing the billionaire businessman's appeal to independents and "blue dog Democrats" in the South and other rural areas.

Palin is not only calling for a revolt, she is attempting to make money off of a revolt.

It was essentially right after this interview that Palin abruptly changed plans (Or they were changed for her) to go to Wyoming and stump for Trump.

A position that apparently remains open.

At @WYGOP convention, no one manning @realDonaldTrump table. #wypol pic.twitter.com/zAG4khSnVd

— Laura Hancock (@laurahancock) April 15, 2016

Things that make you go "Hmm."

Rolling Stone magazine endorses Hillary Clinton and, more importantly, explains why.

Here is an excerpt courtesy of Rolling Stone:  

I've been watching the debates and town halls for the past two months, and Sanders' righteousness knocks me out. My heart is with him. He has brought the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations to the ballot box. 

But it is not enough to be a candidate of anger. Anger is not a plan; it is not a reason to wield power; it is not a reason for hope. Anger is too narrow to motivate a majority of voters, and it does not make a case for the ability and experience to govern. I believe that extreme economic inequality, the vast redistribution of wealth to the top one percent — indeed, to the top one percent of the one percent — is the defining issue of our times. Within that issue, almost all issues of social injustice can be seen, none more so than climate change, which can be boiled down to the rights of mankind against the oligarchy that owns oil, coal and vast holdings of dirty energy, and those who profit from their use. 

Hillary Clinton has an impressive command of policy, the details, trade-offs and how it gets done. It's easy to blame billionaires for everything, but quite another to know what to do about it. During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders has stuck to uncompromising ideals, but his outsider stance has not attracted supporters among the Democrats. Paul Krugman writes that the Sanders movement has a "contempt for compromise." 

Every time Sanders is challenged on how he plans to get his agenda through Congress and past the special interests, he responds that the "political revolution" that sweeps him into office will somehow be the magical instrument of the monumental changes he describes. This is a vague, deeply disingenuous idea that ignores the reality of modern America. With the narrow power base and limited political alliances that Sanders had built in his years as the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, how does he possibly have a chance of fighting such entrenched power? 

I have been to the revolution before. It ain't happening. 

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates for the presidency in modern times, as was Al Gore. We cannot forget what happened when Gore lost and George W. Bush was elected and became arguably one of the worst presidents in American history. The votes cast for the fantasy of Ralph Nader were enough to cost Gore the presidency. Imagine what a similar calculation would do to this country if a "protest vote" were to put the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court all in the hands of the extreme right wing that now controls the Republican Party. 

I love this line, " I have been to the revolution before. It ain't happening."

I love it partly because it reflects the argument I made to my daughter just the other night, and also because it is undeniably true.

I think a lot of us here well remember the revolutions from the past that perhaps we also supported with all of our hearts, only to have those hearts broken as once again the revolution fizzled out with only minor changes taking hold.

The thing you learn over time is that change is slow and incremental. We are always moving toward progress, but it never comes as quickly as we want.

That is not to say that Bernie Sanders will not have an impact, he will. Just like the Occupy Wall Street protesters had an impact even though many have labeled the movement a failure.

However OWS helped give rise to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Though on a more unfortunate note there are those who think they also paved the way for Donald Trump.

However as Jann Wenner so eloquently says this is not the time for a revolution.

Instead it's the time to make sure we hold onto the White House, and increase our numbers in Congress.

And let's face it, the person with the momentum to do that is not Bernie Sanders, it's Hillary Clinton.

P.S. Make sure to click the link at the top to read the entire Rolling Stone article. There is a lot there, and I only shared a relatively small sample.

Hillary Clinton promises to support and continue the policies of President Obama.

This is a portion of a longer HuffPo article that Hillary posted yesterday:

Republicans aren't just harshly criticizing the president. They're threatening to undo just about everything he has achieved. They want to repeal the Affordable Care Act; in fact they've voted to repeal or dismantle it more than 50 times. They're hard at work dismantling workers' rights and voting rights. They want to take away women's rights to make our own health decisions. Some even want to reverse marriage equality -- one of the greatest civil rights accomplishments in American history. 

In short, they want to drag us backward and undo all the progress we've worked so hard to achieve. We can't let that happen. 

As president, I will carry forward the Democratic record of achievement. I'll defend President Obama's accomplishments and build upon them. I'll work to get incomes rising for middle-class families, make college affordable, alleviate the crushing burden of student debt, protect LGBT Americans from discrimination, preserve women's access to health care and reproductive choice, and keep America safe from threats at home and abroad. And I'll never allow the Affordable Care Act to be repealed. 

We've made tremendous progress over the past eight years. That shouldn't be dismissed or taken lightly. Let's keep that progress going. Let's make sure no one turns the clock back. We've come too far. We've accomplished too much. We can do even more for our families, our communities, and the country we love. And together, we can build an economy and a country that works for everyone. That would be truly revolutionary.

Now see that speaks to me.

We do not need a revolution, because President Obama WAS the revolution.

What we need now is for a reliable person to take over the job and further the progress that Obama has already made.

I am not saying there is not room for improvement, I'm just saying there is no reason to go back to zero and reinvent the wheel all over again.

BTW apparently the Hillary campaign was quick to use that Sarah Palin endorsement for fundraising: 

Hillary Clinton's campaign has begun fundraising off of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump. 

In an email blasted out to supporters, the campaign embedded a clip from CNN's coverage of the endorsement announcement on Tuesday with the chyron, "Palin endorses Trump: "I'm in it to win it." 

"Friend, this could be our next president listening to his Secretary of Energy," Clinton's campaign wrote in the email. "Donate to make sure this is nothing more than a bad SNL skit come to life." 

The campaign provided a link to donate to the campaign.

Well what do you know, Sarah Palin IS helping. 

You know we have not reported on China for quite some time, I wonder how things are going there? Is that tear gas I smell? Update!

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

A wave of protest in Hong Kong further engulfed the city on Monday as thousands of residents defied a government call to abandon street blockades, students boycotted classes and the city’s influential bar association added its condemnation of a police crackdown on protesters. 

The continued public resistance underscored the difficulties that the Hong Kong government faces in defusing widespread anger that erupted on Sunday, after the police used tear gas, pepper spray and batons to break up a three-day sit-in by students and other residents demanding democratic elections in the semiautonomous Chinese territory. 

On Monday afternoon, the Hong Kong government canceled the city’s annual fireworks show to mark China’s National Day, which falls on Wednesday — an implicit acknowledgment that officials expect the protests to continue for days.

The protesters are seeking fully democratic elections for the city's leaders in 2017, and they appear to be fairly determined.

Don't you just love the smell of revolution in the morning?

Update: Here is aerial footage of the protests. Pretty damn impressive. 

rEVILution: The Rise of Right-Wing Terrorism. Perhaps the most frightening 32 minutes of your day.

Courtesy of AATTP:  

A 30 minute YouTube video documents the various plots, murders, and attempted murders carried out by members of these groups, and others who are sympathetic to their cause. 

Using mostly video from news sources, the documentary, called “rEVILution: The Rise of Right-Wing Terrorism,” lays out a timeline of violence committed by right-wing ideologues over the past six years. All of the incidents that made headlines are there, including: 

Jerad Lee Loughner’s attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, an act he called an “assassination.” 

Paul Ciancia, who opened fire in a terminal at Los Angeles International Airport last November. 

The “Hutaree Militia,” nine of whom were arrested in a plot to kill police in an attempt to start a war against the federal government. (Most of the charges against them were eventually dismissed due to lack of evidence.) 

The video also presents some cases of anti-goverment violence that didn’t get major attention nationally, such as “sovereign citizen” Jerry Kane. Kane and his son were caught on a police officer’s dash cam video after a traffic stop in Arkansas. During the stop, a confrontation ensues. Joe Kane jumps out of the minivan he and his father were traveling in, and fires multiple shots with an AK-47, killing two West Memphis, Arkansas police officers. 

Mixed with these examples of right wing terrorists, the video also presents clips of what some believe provide the inspiration for some of these killers: right wing media.

The video is chilling to be sure.

And though some may suggest that it is somewhat sensationalized, the truth is that much of what it is saying is dead on the money.

We are in desperate times right now, and things are only going to get worse, before they get better.

Right Wing extremist in Utah arrested over plot to bomb bridges and start a revolution against the government.

Courtesy of WFAA:  

Authorities arrested a 47-year-old Utah man Thursday that they say had been plotting to kill police officers and blow up a police station with the hope the attacks would cause an uprising against the government. 

FBI agents and police in Tremonton arrested John Huggins on Thursday on a charge of possessing an unregistered destructive device, U.S. Attorney's Office of Utah spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch said in a statement Friday evening. 

Huggins built an improvised explosive device and possessed explosive materials and instructions for making bombs, FBI Special Agent Steven Cadiz said in court documents. 

In February, a "concerned citizen" contacted Tremonton police to report Huggins threatened to blow up a Bible study group and had buried bombs around the city of Ogden, Cadiz said. 

Police later determined that information was incorrect, but Huggins had threatened to blow up the Tremonton Police Department and wanted to assassinate two officers before the bombing, according to court records. He also planned to blow up bridges and other infrastructure to prevent emergency responders from being able to help, the court records state. 

Huggins stated he believed the attacks would cause the community to rise up against the government, investigators said.

Sounds an awful lot like those two sovereign citizen types who killed the police officers in Nevada.

And much like the rhetoric that was heard during the Bundy Ranch standoff.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that this country has much less to fear from Islamic terrorists from abroad, than it does from the homegrown Right Wing domestic terrorists being urged on by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin.

Sure we can track down and arrest AL-Qaeda members in Afghanistan for promoting terrorism, yet this far more dangerous threat is allowed to walk around free fomenting dangerous anti-government tactics and spreading harmful conspiracy theories wherever they go.

Just a taste of how the Right Wing media is covering the Bundy Ranch standoff. This is not good.

Courtesy of something called Natural News:  

The second American Revolution has begun. You are watching history unfold in real time now, and of course the lamestream media has intentionally decided U.S. history isn't worth covering because, frankly stated, the media is largely run by anti-American interests who absolutely do not want any victory by the People to be broadcast anywhere. 

While the U.S. government claims to be supportive of freedom in Kiev or Iraq, it is absolutely terrified of freedom within U.S. borders. 

Among big media, only Fox News has dared cover this story with anything resembling responsible reporting, as you can see in this video. The video text says "Govt backs down due to safety concerns." In reality, BLM backed down because they were grossly out-gunned and didn't want to die. 

In this video, Fox Radio host Todd Starnes says, "For the past five years, we've seen the American people become increasingly frustrated with these government intrusions into their lives. [A tweet characterized this] as the 1st salvo of the American Revolution." 

I couldn't agree more. This was the 1st salvo of the American Revolution, and the framework of the Revolution has now been cast. The People now realize they can defeat tyranny by merely showing up in huge numbers armed mostly with mobile phones and video cameras (plus lawfully-obtained firearms as needed). 

 The "BLM backed down because they were grossly out-gunned and didn't want to die." Imagine if this had been said by the supporter of a domestic terrorist, or hate group.

Oh wait, it was.

They are calling this the "Battle of Bunkerville."  Sound familiar?

In their minds this is the beginning of a war against the federal government that they now feel emboldened to wage, and certain they will win.

I knew this was bad when I first started watching it unfold, but it is so much worse than I could have imagined.

This means that every sovereign citizen type, militia member, and scofflaw out there, now feels that they have the right to resist arrest, brandish weapons against law enforcement, and openly threaten the federal government any time they feel like it.

People are going to die. And it could be a whole lot of people.

P.S. Here is the video that the wingnuts are claiming the MSM is keeping you from seeing. It is from Info Wars, that bullshit Alex Jones website so I refuse to embed it. However it does give some idea as to what has these lunatics all fired up.

Kansas group claims science is religion and sues to keep it from being taught in public schools. Wait, what?

Courtesy of Right Wing Watch:  

A Kansas-based group that “promotes the religious rights of parents, children, and taxpayers” is challenging the state’s science standards because they include the teaching of evolution, which the group claims is a religion and therefore should be excluded from science class. 

As the AP reports, Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) claims that public schools “promote a ‘non-theistic religious worldview’ by allowing only ‘materialistic’ or ‘atheistic’ explanations to scientific questions.” The group argues that by teaching evolution “the state would be ‘indoctrinating’ impressionable students in violation of the First Amendment.” 

COPE’s challenge [PDF] states that the teaching of evolution “amounts to an excessive government entanglement with religion” and violates the rights of Christian parents. 

Indeed, COPE’s stated mission is to create “religious[ly] neutral” schools that do not promote “pantheistic and materialistic religions, including Atheism and Religious (‘Secular’) Humanism” - a category under which it includes “Darwinian evolution.” 

I am not even sure where to begin.

Well first let me say that I sort of saw this coming decades ago when I first heard the argument proffered that "evolution was just a theory, which scientists believed to be true." I knew then that it was a blatant attempt to bring the teaching of evolution into the same realm shared by religion, as simply a matter of faith, because essentially it was the ONLY way that religion could challenge it.

Over the years I have watched Creationist polish their argument and even some of these debates between scientists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss with young earth Creationists like Kent Hovind and William Lane Graig, which can be found all over YouTube, are attempts to position themselves in the same rarefied air that only scientists should really occupy. 

Personally I am all for this Kansas case actually going to trial, during which those who want to teach Intelligent Design (The camouflaged version of Creationism.) in public schools can explain exactly WHAT they want to teach and what evidence they will use to teach it, and the scientific community can do the same.

I am also interested in how this group defines "religion" and how they would make the case that the teaching of science fits within it. And does that definition apply to ALL science taught in schools, including botany and astronomy, or does it only apply to those scientific disciplines which might negatively impact their ability to explain the world to children using fairy tales?

Active duty Marine has some words of advice for those Teabaggers calling for a revolution. Updated!

Please read this article and then send it to any of your friends or family who are Teabaggers or talking about overthrowing the "Obama-nation" or starting a revolution.

For those of you calling for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you're saying. Look around your neighborhood and your city. Now imagine using that terrain to survive. Imagine dodging semi-automatic rifle fire as you scramble from cover to cover, dragging your wounded child behind you. Imagine the deafening report of a mortar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the overpressure enough to shatter your teeth and perforate an ear drum. Try and envision a Stryker rolling through neighbor's front lawn or a F/A-18 making lazy loops over your head in Close Air Support for the troops in the distance.

Now I 'd like to disperse a myth here - many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can't speak for all, but in my case - the moment you declare civil war, you're no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you're now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I'm not alone.

Update:  For some reason the marine's letter was taken down.  You can still read it here. I am interested as to why the origianl post was removed.

Update 2:  Here is the Marine's rewritteen post after he and his family were theatened. Now somebody please tell me again that the Teabaggers are simply partiotic Americans expressing their opinions peacefully.

Is revolution in the air?

Former Boston University professor and political activist Howard Zinn last night said Americans need to “withdraw our obedience from our government” in response to what he called government deception surrounding modern wars.

“The war on terrorism is a sham,” Zinn said at Morse Auditorium. “Terrorism is an idea that exists all over. You can’t make war on it. If terrorism is the killing of innocent people for some presumed important purpose, then making a war on people is terrorism. War is terrorism. The terrorism of our war in Iraq has killed far, far more people than were killed in the twin towers.”

Zinn said a revolution is the only option Americans have to bring about change and charged his audience of more than 200 to form a “people’s” movement toward a “different world.”

I consider myself to be quite the rabble rouser, and can argue the issues with the best of them.

It pains me to think that we are the point in our country where taking to the streets to form a true revolution is our only option. But I have indeed felt that sense of despair.

NO politician seems capable of stopping the madness that is dragging our nation into the abyss.

I look to Obama with hope, but wonder if he has the strength. I look to Edwards with hope, but wonder if he has the ability to take charge of such a complex situation. I don't look toward Hillary with hope at all.

If we rose up against our government, what would we do next? Who do we have that might be able to take the reins of power? Do you want the job? I don't!

I am in favor of protest.

I am in favor of speaking out.

I am in favor of using the Internet to make as much noise as possible, and organizing our voices to be heard above the din that tries to drown us out.

However, I am not in favor of a revolution.

At least not today.