Sarah Palin warns that Hillary Clinton's socialist policies will enslave us.

Courtesy of Professor Palin's Facebook page: 

Please read, especially, the many wise comments below this report on socialism's ramifications. 

Oh how I wish the Left would not deny that socialism is slavery. The uninformed would ignore history and even modern-day economic and cultural collapse of populations ruled under socialism - then totalitarianism - thus leading America to the same end. 

The media won't cover the path we are on back to the horrible days of some Americans being shackled while a "ruling elite" enslave and try to oppress our work ethic, our freedoms, and most significantly - our spirit. The path leads to a desperate population accepting globalism, requiring the dissolution of our entire foundation. 

So we must do the informing. 

This election can not be clearer in contrast: one party will restore freedom, the other will enslave you.

In case you could not figure it out on your own, the party that will "restore" freedom is the GOP led by Donald "Freedom means never paying your workers" Trump and the party that is going to enslave you is apparently the Democrats and their nominee Hillary "Oh god what am I being accused of now?" Clinton.

The post then links to some Right Wing blog's coverage of the rapidly disintegrating situation in Venezuela which Palin is attempting to use as an example of what will happen in America if the Democrats keep control of the White House.

Of course what Palin seems unable to understand is that the candidate with the more socialist agenda was Bernie Sanders, and he did not win the Democratic nomination.

Secondly when it comes to slavery, WE were the folks who used slaves, and we have always been a capitalist country. So the idea that socialism creates slaves, while capitalism does not, is factually inaccurate.  (What Palin is likely referring to is a new program in Venezuela that has Venezuelans working on uncultivated fields to grow organic foods for sixty days. The US media has claimed that the workers were forced to work and were unpaid, but the Latin America news outlets disagrees with that assessment saying the workers are volunteers and are paid their normal salary while working in the fields.)

Thirdly since it has recently been revealed that Donald Trump often stiffs his workers, or pays them less than the agreed upon wage, and has top staffers who have yet to see a paycheck, does that not suggest that HE is the one who treats folks as unpaid slaves?

For the record there is no Democratic policy put forward that will enslave a single person in this country. And the only "freedom" that Donald Trump is interested in restoring is the freedom to be a giant orange asshole and never have anybody call him out for it.

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?

About those polls showing Bernie Sanders doing better against Trump than Hillary Clinton...

Okay so this gets brought up quite frequently by Bernie supporters as their last best argument as to why the super delegates should jumps ship and support their candidate at the convention:

"Bernie Sanders polls better than Hillary does against Donald Trump, and if we choose her Trump will be next President."

I have argued against this repeatedly, but I thought it might be helpful to hear what Politifact had to say about this topic: 

So Sanders is correct that he fares better against Trump than Clinton does in every poll over the past six weeks -- more than 6 points better than Clinton, on average. 

And Sanders is beating Trump by an average of 12 points in these eight polls, so "big numbers" seems like a reasonable description for Sanders to use. 

Case closed? Not quite, say polling experts. 

Clinton has been scrutinized and attacked as a public figure for a quarter century, but Sanders -- even after running for president for a year -- is a relatively new figure to voters nationally. So while a lot of voters’ minds are already made up about Clinton based on her long history in the public eye, it remains to be seen how open potential voters will be to supporting Sanders once Republicans start airing negative attacks, especially ones that note his identification as a democratic socialist. (We have previously reported that, according to polls, being a socialist is a less attractive quality for voters than being an atheist.) 

Kerwin Swint, a political scientist at Kennesaw State University, told PolitiFact Georgia that Sanders shows up so strongly in head-to-head polls because Trump and Clinton have such high negatives. 

"General election polls don’t mean much until the conventions are over and you get to late summer or early fall," Swint said. "A lot of voters don’t look at Sanders as a legitimate threat. It’s almost like he’s an imaginary candidate."

I like that "imaginary candidate" analogy, because in many ways a Sanders campaign is a far left wing liberal dream that has no chance of ever coming true.

Now pay attention to that comment about being a Socialist polling worse than being an Atheist, because that's kind of the key.

As I have written before Atheists often poll even lower than pedophiles in trustworthiness, and being elected as an out of the closet Atheist is a non-starter in a national election.

So if Socialists poll even lower, that means anti-Bernie advertisements for the Republican party simply write themselves.

All Donald Trump has to do is run commercials of Bernie Sanders trying to explain to various pundits that he is a "Democratic Socialist" and his poll numbers will drop through the floor.

It does not make a scintilla of difference if Donald Trump is a racist, woman hating, Putin dry humping egomaniac, because at least he is not a SOCIALIST!

And that is only one line of attack (Though arguably the most effective.), there is still plenty more opposition research to use against Bernie in the general.

And if you don't think the American people are dumb enough to be so easily swayed then ask yourself how come Hillary Clinton's poll numbers were in the mid to high sixties while she was Secretary of State and have now dropped to the low forties since the Republicans, and of course Sanders supporters, have started going after her non-stop for the last year?

Basically average Americans are easily manipulated sheep simply waiting for somebody to herd them from one place to the other. And in the case of the voting public nobody has started herding them away from the Vermont Senator.

Yet.

Bernie Sanders has high poll numbers because nobody has cared enough about him to try and get them lowered. That is the benefit of being an "imaginary candidate." 

Bernie Sanders threatens small online t-shirt shop with lawsuit, for comparing him to communists.

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:  

Bernie Sanders cares about the little guy. Except when the little guy disagrees with him. 

That’s the message the Democratic presidential candidate sent when his campaign threatened legal action against a small T-shirt vendor who had dared to make fun of him. 

Late last week, a Seattle lawyer representing Sanders’s campaign demanded that LibertyManiacs, a three-employee online merchandising shop, immediately take down T-shirts that humorously portrayed the Vermont senator alongside a pantheon of communist figures, with the caption: “Bernie is my comrade.” (A red star replaced the dot over the ‘i’ in Bernie for emphasis.) 

Using high-priced lawyers to bully a small business that is making fun your campaign is an odd move for a politician who has built a grassroots movement on protecting average Americans from the whims of the rich and powerful.

Okay come on now, if this is not straight out of the Donald Trump playbook I don't know what is.

And if Sanders wants to continue in this race he better grow a thicker skin because this just the beginning.

There is also a book coming out that claims Sanders was kicked out of a commune for being lazy, and renewed discussion of the fact that he spent his honeymoon in what was then the Soviet Union.

Let's face it this is only the tip of the iceberg for the negative things coming Bernie's way.

There is a whole lot that has not yet been revealed that is going to get under his extremely thin skin and cause him no end of irritation should he continue forward.

The difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is that she thrives while under constant attack, and he has not faced anything even remotely like this in the past.

Alaska's one and only Congressman (God aren't we proud) suggests that if elected Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would control "everything" we do.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

Young told WFQD on Wednesday that he initially supported Jeb Bush because he knew his “old man” and now prefers John Kasich. But, Young says, Kasich has no chance of winning because he has no “charisma” and people “don’t think anymore.” 

Still, Young is seeking to rally Republicans around whoever is the nominee, calling this “the most crucial election” for Alaska and the nation. Why? Because Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will seek to have the government “control everything you do.” 

Everything? Yes, everything. Young goes on to earnestly explain that Sanders or Clinton would mandate “when to get up, what to eat, what you are thinking, what school you are going to go to and what you are going to believe.”

When ever anybody asks me if Alaska's elections are rigged, I always respond with "Have you heard about Congressman Don Young?"

There really is no other way to explain how he is still in office, since I have yet to meet one person who will admit to voting for him.

But do you know what? Young has already filed to run in 2016, and there is little doubt that he will easily win again.

Feel free to pity us.

Bernie Sanders explains his Socialism to the American people.

Courtesy of Reuters:

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said on Thursday his philosophy of democratic socialism was aimed at creating a more fair economy that was not tilted to benefit the rich, portraying it as a logical heir to popular government programs such as Social Security and Medicare. 

 In a long-promised speech meant to ease the concerns of some voters about the "socialist" label, Sanders cited former President Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era policies to put Americans back to work and provide a broad social safety net as the model for his democratic socialist agenda. 

"Our government belongs to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires," Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, said in a speech at Georgetown University. "We need to develop a political movement which, once again, is prepared to take on and defeat a ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation."

Sanders went on to say: 

"The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this: I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal," he said.

I actually agree with just about everything that Bernie says here, however realistically I still don't think it will make any difference in the long run.

We live in a world of soundbites, and the line "He's a socialist" is more easily digested by the majority of the American people than "We need to develop a political movement which, once again, is prepared to take on and defeat a ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation."

That may seem unfair, but that does not make it untrue.

Hillary Clinton, with all of her baggage and factoring in her gender, still seems like a less risky choice for the American people than electing an admitted socialist in a world where that word is the political equivalent of being called "pedophile."

And this is even before we discuss the fact that Bernie would be the first Jew elected as Commander-in-Chief.

Here is the video of Sarah Palin displaying her ignorance about Bernie Sanders.

"He is a socialist though so hells to the no would I ever want him running our country, He is a socialist."

And that is just about as shallow as Sarah Palin and her ilk will ever go to explore just who Bernie Sanders is, and what it is he represents.

As you will notice this video does not contain her answer to that question about Bristol's pregnancy.

THAT is the one I want to see so that I can watch the expression her face while she answers.

Rand Paul wants to debate Bernie Sanders. Oh please, please, please make this happen!

Courtesy of Truth in Media:  

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) posted a video clip on Facebook on Thursday from a live broadcast on the Iowa-based talk radio station WHO NewsRadio 1040 in which he can be seen challenging Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) to a debate. 

“We’ve been saying what a fun, dramatic, and informative debate it would be if Bernie Sanders and I could have an hour-long debate. Can you imagine? Debating over what rights are versus what obligations are and debating socialism versus capitalism,” said Sen. Paul. 

He continued, “See Bernie… he says, ‘Oh, I believe in a benign form of socialism, democratic socialism.’ But here’s the problem—if a majoritarian takes away your rights, it’s not any different or less bad than an authoritarian taking away your rights.”

Now this may seem a far fetched idea to some, but not if you remember that back in May Bernie offered to debate GOP candidates.

Personally I think that Paul is overestimating his debating skills if he thinks he has much of a chance with Sanders.

Bernie knows his stuff backwards and forwards, and I imagine that he would make short work of curly wig man.

However having said that I would LOVE to see this exchange.

I think it would be highly entertaining, and informative, and really could not hurt either of their chances at the nomination.

And what's more I think Rachel Maddow should moderate.

Or considering her past with Rand Paul is that a step too far?

Pope Francis addresses Congress and Conservatives bang their heads on the wall in response.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

Pope Francis, the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, challenged Congress and by extension the mightiest nation in history on Thursday to break out of its cycle of polarization and paralysis to finally use its power to heal the “open wounds” of a planet torn by hatred, greed, poverty and pollution. 

Taking a rostrum never before occupied by the bishop of Rome, the pontiff issued a vigorous call to action on issues largely favored by liberals, including a powerful defense of immigration, an endorsement of environmental legislation, a blistering condemnation of the arms trade and a plea to abolish the death penalty. 

In particular, Francis beseeched a nation that generates a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth to not let money drive its decisions at the expense of humanity. “Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one, the greatest common good,” he told a joint meeting of Congress in an address that cited American icons like Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Of course the Pope did not simply blow kisses to the Conservatives, he also gave them a little something something:  

In his speech, Francis also defended religious liberty and the traditional family at a time when the United States has just legalized same-sex marriage and a Kentucky court clerk went to jail rather than issue marriage certificates violating her religious beliefs. He was less explicit in condemning abortion but called for a defense of life at “every stage of development.”

There you go that was some raw meat for the Religious Right and anti-abortion folks.

But dammit that is just not good enough for some people.

Fox News is calling him a false prophet:

Now, here comes Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the Church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market -- two favorite political targets of the left.

Damn you can almost feel the butt hurt from here.

The folks at Breitbart felt the sting as well: 

For years now, Pope Francis’ more conservative defenders have stated that his words have been consistently misinterpreted by the media. There’s truth to that. But there was no way to misinterpret his speech today, delivered in plain English to an adoring left.

Ouch, you know you might want to put a little Desitin on that boys.

Part of their issue might be that Pope Francis included a shout out to Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worker Movement and a Christian Socialist, in his speech.

Which by the way caught the notice of somebody else.

In citing Dorothy Day, the pope gave us a wonderful example of the never-ending struggle for justice in our country and the world.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 24, 2015

This joins a previous Sander's tweet sure to piss off those on the Right.

10 Times Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis Sounded Alike: http://t.co/0YBG06Oktm pic.twitter.com/T2ytFewTIA

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 24, 2015

Yeah that sting is not going away anytime soon.

And yes I realize that just yesterday I said I would stop talking about the Pope's visit, but seriously how could I NOT comment on this? 

The Nation conducts a very in depth interview with presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders.

The Nation article is extremely informative and give insights into every thing from Sanders' opinions on race, politics, Hillary Clinton, the wars, the NSA, you name it.

There is of course no way I could, should, cover the whole thing here, but let me give you just a taste of what Bernie Sanders has to say.

On the Patriot Act: 

I did vote against the Patriot Act. I said at the time that it gave the government far too much power to spy on innocent Americans, and I believe I’ve been proven right about that. What frustrates me is this false choice that says the United States of America cannot pursue terrorists and protect people from harm while still respecting the Constitution and civil liberties. I didn’t believe that was the case in 2001, and I do not believe that is the case now. So I’ve raised these issues, and I will continue to raise them. And one other thing: I believe it’s important—vitally important—to recognize that it isn’t only what the federal government does that should concern us. We have to recognize that corporations collect huge amounts of data on us. There is no question in my mind that technology is outpacing public policy in this area, and I do not think we should be casual about this or say that it’s something we should let the corporations figure out. We should all be talking about this—about how we’re going to maintain our privacy rights in very rapidly changing times.

On Hillary: Now, I’ve known Hillary Clinton for many years. Let me confess:  I like Hillary. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on many issues. My job is to differentiate myself from her on the issues—not by personal attacks. I’ve never run a negative ad in my life. Why not? First of all, in Vermont, they don’t work—and, frankly, I think increasingly around this country they don’t work. I really do believe that people want a candidate to come up with solutions to America’s problems rather than just attacking his or her opponent. If you look at politics as a baseball game or a football game, then I’m supposed to be telling the people that my opponents are the worst people in the world and I’m great. That’s crap; I don’t believe that for a second…. I don’t need to spend my life attacking Hillary Clinton or anybody else. I want to talk about my ideas on the issues. 

On debating Republicans:   

The Republicans get away with murder because what they do and what they want is not seen, is not understood by the American people, because it’s not talked about…. So I think the more that we can confront Republicans about their ideology of tax breaks for the billionaires and cuts to every program that is a benefit to the American people, and can expose them for their subservience to the billionaire class—I think that wins for us every single time. 

So this is what I would like: I would like as many debates as possible, and I would also like to break new ground and have debates with Republicans and Democrats. I think that will be very positive for the American people in that we’ll be able to focus on issues. Let the Republicans defend why they want to give tax breaks to the billionaires and make massive cuts in Medicare. I would love to hear it.

Gee I swear if this guy keeps talking like this I am going to sell my house and send him all of my money. 

There is much more so I urge all of you to read the entire article a the link provided above. 

Excellent point.

Is Bernie Sanders the presidential candidate that the liberals deserve but will never have?

Courtesy of Yahoo News:  

Sen. Bernie Sanders isn’t afraid to be called a socialist. In fact, the Vermont Independent proudly labels himself a Democratic socialist. 

“Do you hear me cringing? Do you hear me running under the table?” Sanders said rhetorically when asked if Democratic socialist is an accurate description. 

Sanders is so delighted with his brand of politics that he said in an interview with “The Fine Print” that it would be a “damn good platform” on which to run for president. 

"If the American people understand what goes on in countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and other countries, they will say, ‘Whoa, I didn't know that!’” Sanders said, pointing out that health care is considered a right, “R-I-G-H-T,” among even the most conservative politicians in Denmark. 

Sanders described his credo as a fight to protect America’s working class from what he sees as the threat of an approaching “oligarchic form of society.” 

“You have today in America more income and wealth inequality than any time in this country since 1928 and more than any major country in the world,” Sanders said. “So, you got the top one percent owning 38 percent of the wealth in America. Do you know what the bottom 60 percent own? 2.3 percent.” 

“You know what that is?" he said. "That's called oligarchy."

Sanders goes on to say that while he would really like to run for President he is not sure that he has the support to make a real run at the office.   

“Look, it's easy for me to give a good speech, and I give good speeches,” he said. “It is harder to put together a grassroots organization of hundreds of thousands of millions of people prepared to work hard and take on the enormous amounts of money that will be thrown against us.”

And then there's Hillary.  

One of Sanders’ most likely competitors, should he choose to seek the Democratic nomination, is Hillary Clinton. And while Sanders praised Clinton for a successful career, he was critical of the Democratic Party’s seeming coronation of the former secretary of state. 

"She has accomplished a lot of very positive things in her career, but I'm not quite sure that the political process is one in which we anoint people,” Sanders said. 

Though he stopped short of criticizing Clinton directly, he said she is not a sufficient champion of his message for the middle class.

Look I like Bernie I really do.

With his unruly crop of gray hair, and his fierce eyes, he reminds me of my college Anthropology professor who always came to class in a rumpled suit and bed hair, but was incredibly brilliant and gifted at holding the attention the drowsy student in his early morning class.

However he will never be elected.

Never.

And since I have lived through the pain of the 2000 loss of Al Gore, and the eight years of George W. Bush, I am simply unwilling to support a candidate for purely ideological reasons.

Yes, Bernie Sanders would be an incredible choice for the country, and yes I think he is up to the job, but I also realize that his courageous pro-socialism stance makes him almost as hard to elect as an Atheist.

Which by the way I would ALSO like to someday vote into the Oval Office.

Once again Sarah Palin's ghostwriter fails to do her research and writes a Facebook post that makes her employer look like a fool. (To be fair there really IS no way to keep her from looking like a fool. At least not for long.)

So Nancy French, or Ram, or however is looking up hard words for Palin these days put up a post on Facebook yesterday:  

Here's why in almost every one of my speeches or interviews I use the term "Orwellian”.

Palin's ghostwriter then links to an article over at Townhall,  a terrible place full of Obama hatred and little actual journalism, that I try to avoid at all cost

In the Townhall article the author claims that under President Obama we have now entered the world warned about in George Orwell's "1984." You know because it was the Democrats who stole national elections, and started unnecessary wars while lying to the American people,  and of course it was Obama who started the domestic spying program that so many find troubling today.

The ghostwriter, channeling the Wasilla Wendigo,  however did not seem to care about hypocrisy:

As I sit the bleachers today at middle school sports tournaments, I look out at our future and confirm the necessity to get America back on the right road, soon, before it's too late. Please explain this article to your children, as many have been, unfortunately, shielded from reading the staples “Nineteen Eight-Four” and “Animal Farm” in school. (And exactly which groups work to ban these books in public schools Sarah?) Then encourage them by your actions to be engaged and NOT LET IT HAPPEN.

Remembering when Palin actually visited an Animal Farm.

I can assure you right now that Palin most likely has never read a book by George Orwell, and if by some miracle she has, I would bet my house she did not comprehend what she was reading. 

And as for the idea that any of her supporters have the mental capacity to explain the TV Guide, much less this article on "1984," to one of their children, well you know how dimwitted they must be, don't you.

Fortunately for me the great folks over at Wonkette got their teeth in this story ahead of me and dismantled the Townhall article point by point.

However it was the last bit where they decided to spike the ball: 

Victor (Author Victor Davis Hanson) wraps up with what should have been a big finish, but actually falls flat after all the BLAARRRGGGGHHH about how Bamz is Big Brother: both left and right make shit up, but Orwell was more concerned with the left ipso facto ergo Obama bad. Whut? Victor, Victor, Victor. You really do not get this Orwell guy at all: he hated Stalinist communism, but mostly because he hated what it had done to pervert and ruin socialism. In “Why I Write” (1946), he makes it clear that he did not see the glorious free market as the cure for communism: 

The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. 

Got it? George Orwell is not on your side, Victor. 

You see Orwell was not warning about a President using his executive powers to help the country make progress in the face of an obstruction for obstructionism's sake Congress. He was warning against a party that keeps its citizens constantly in fear, attempts to repress their sexuality, and bans access to information that would undermine their control.

None of that sounds like President Obama or the Democratic party.

But I do know which party it DOES sound like and it rhymes with Perublicans.

Of course somehow I think that Palin did NOT want parents to explain the book to their children quite that well.

Every once in while it's important to remind everybody of these facts.

Remember the conservatives can make up whatever they want but the history of this country has been written down. You just have to take the time to look it up and refute the BS.

The video that the Koch brothers and Tea Party do no want you to see, and the book they do not want you to read.

Courtesy of Americans Against the Tea Party: 

Her name is Claire Conner, and she’s written a book called “Wrapped In The Flag” that the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party don’t want you to see! 

According to her website, 

“Claire was twelve years old when her parents dove into the world of paranoid politics, a world dominated by the John Birch Society, an anti-Communist, anti-federal government movement. “We’re taking back the country” was the Birch mantra. 

Claire’s parents were the first two Birch members in the entire city of Chicago. Her father, Stillwell J. Conner, became a National Council member and remained in top leadership for thirty-two years. Her mother was a partner in all things Birch.” 

Claire’s new book is about the unholy coalition of Tea Party, libertarians, huge corporations, violent gun-nuts,, the religious right and the revamped John Birch Society. 

“Extremism broke my family,” Claire says. “I don’t want it to break my country.”

It is no secret that the Tea Party was wholly dreamed up and funded by the Koch brothers, and has been used to destabilize our government and render it virtually impotent. 

Understanding who is funding the group, that their agenda dates back to the John Birch society, and that the model for their astro-turf organization comes from the cigarette companies, might help us to fight them and wrest control of our country back from those who would turn it into a wasteland.

That is if it is not already too late.

US Marines official Twitter account quotes Sarah Palin, thinks better of it, and takes it down. Uh oh. are those tinfoil hats coming over the horizon?

Here is the quote, captured by the totally not overreacting SooperMexican:

Personally I don't see a problem with quoting this. After all Palin said something nice about the Marines, she is a national figure, and they felt grateful.

No harm, no foul.

And this Sooper Mexican guy agreed, but he also made a prediction:

It’s a perfectly innocuous quote, but Sarah Palin seems to bring the most evil, disgusting and obscene side out of the liberal left. I just hope they don’t wuss out and delete their tweet like the various US Embassy twitter accounts have recently.

Well as you can imagine it WAS deleted, apparently after some mocking on Twitter from other military personnel and civilians.

So you know what THAT means, LEFTIST SOCIALISTS ARE MAKING THE US MARINES DELETE TWEETS!

Or, and this is just me thinking outside of the big box of crazy, the person who posted that on behalf of the Marines was told by his commander, very likely NOT a Leftist, that quoting Sarah Palin made the Marines look like idiots and asked that it be taken down.

But hey, what do I know? After all I am just a Leftist.

Want to piss off a Teabagger? Sure you do!

Then read them this list compiled by the good folks over at Forward Progressives:  

Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we’re a Christian nation. 

In fact, no where in our Constitution does the word “Christian” appear even once. 

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion—it also doesn’t specify any particular religion. 

The 2nd Amendment actually refers to a “well regulated militia.” While it says the right for Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the phrase “well regulated” obviously infers that this right doesn’t come without regulations. 

Our Constitution doesn’t mention anything about our nation having to be based on pure Capitalism. 

A corporation is an entity, not a person, and our Constitution wasn’t created to protect the rights to entities—they have none. 

Education is more important than national defense. What’s the point of a strong national defense if there’s nothing worth defending? 

There are far more poor and middle class Americans than rich. If you continue building a society based on taking from the many to benefit the few, then we’re not going to have a nation much longer. 

Rich people didn’t become rich by giving away their money, Trickle Down Economics is the biggest con our country has ever seen. 

Decades ago we all paid a much higher tax percentage, and our economic policies protected the people more than businesses. During these times our nation saw historic growth and unheard of economic prosperity. None of that was done by basing our policies on giving more to the rich. 

Perhaps most news seems liberally biased because your news sources refuse to report facts. 

Being Muslim doesn’t mean someone isn’t American. Islam is a religion, not a nationality. 

George W. Bush actually did double our national debt, President Obama has not. 

Bush also inherited a balanced budget. It was his tax cuts and unfunded wars which sent us back into budget deficits. 

Social Security and Medicare is socialism—and millions of Republican voters benefit from, and receive, these benefits. 

Health insurance is you paying for another person’s health care—in fact all insurance is you paying for someone else. 

We had record oil prices under Bush, not Obama. 

The “Great Recession” started in 2008, while Obama took office January 20, 2009—you know, after the recession started. 

If Obama is the cause of our economic problems, why do Republicans avoid, at all costs, being associated with George W. Bush?

Okay now THAT was satisfying.

Though I think reading it aloud to one of your conservative family members might result in an actual physical altercation or perhaps they will simply put their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, I can't HEAR you!" until your lips stop moving.

It's funny how facts have a liberal bias, don't you think?

It looks like the Teabaggers were right, Obama IS a socialist. Here he is with Karl Marx.

Wait for it, it will come to you .

You know I'm not sure that the National Review thought this cover design through very carefully.

Well that's just awkward.

(And yes the National Review is indeed a Right Wing rag.)

A little something for the Teabaggers to keep in mind.

There, is that clear enough now?