Conservatives attack credibility of students who survived the school shooting in Florida. Seriously? Update!

As of this morning, the teenaged Florida mass-shooting survivors have variously been criticized as:
-Soros plants
-The biased children of FBI agents
-Too traumatized to have worthwhile opinions about an event that directly involved them https://t.co/YbZmsBGsuL

— Matt Pearce 🦅 (@mattdpearce) February 20, 2018

Courtesy of Think Progress:

David Hogg, a senior at the school, was one of the first to appear on national television and demand action. “We’re children. You guys are the adults. You need to take some action and play a role. Work together. Come over your politics and get something done,” Hogg said, looking directly into the camera. 

Hogg is now being targeted by Gateway Pundit, a far-right blog that has press credentials from the Trump White House. A post published on Monday by the site’s White House correspondent, Lucian Wintrich, features Hogg’s photo with the word “EXPOSED” stamped in red.

Wintrich says Hogg and other students throw up some “red flags.” The first “red flag” is that Hogg’s father is a retired FBI agent. (Hogg freely admitted this on national television.) The insinuation is that Hogg’s father, who does not even work for the FBI, has tasked his son with talking about gun control to take the heat off the agency. 

Wintrich also uses an edited YouTube video of Hogg having some difficulty answering questions for a taped interview as evidence that Hogg is “heavily coached on lines and is merely reciting a script.” There is no evidence, in the video or elsewhere in the article, supporting this claim. 

Wintrich then drops all pretenses and fully embraces the conspiracy: 

Why would the child of an FBI agent be used as a pawn for anti-Trump rhetoric and anti-gun legislation? Because the FBI is only looking to curb YOUR Constitutional rights and INCREASE their power. We’ve seen similar moves by them many times over. This is just another disgusting example of it.

Is anybody else having a Sandy Hook deja vu?

Some version of this conspiracy theory has now spread across social media.

Pro-Trump media really reaching for attacks on Fla. shooting survivor David Hogg. The latest: True Pundit says Hogg going on a tour of CNN HQ, apparently years ago, is proof that he's up to something. pic.twitter.com/rMi114quJf

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) February 20, 2018

It has even been embraced by Donald Trump Jr.:

Don Jr. has liked at least two tweets pushing content that attempts to discredit one of the most vocal student survivors of the Parkland school shooting. pic.twitter.com/YI9ANh5dlL

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 20, 2018

And Hogg is not their only target.

Writer for Jim Hoft's The Gateway Pundit now saying student survivors of the Parkland school shooting are "are milking the deaths of their peers for careers" and "only care about their SJW agenda" pic.twitter.com/YAIgguU8tO

— Timothy Johnson (@timothywjohnson) February 20, 2018

Trust me when I say that I have seen the conservatives go low before, but to attack these kids, or suggest that they are "milking the deaths of their peers for careers," is so incredibly disgusting that it literally makes me sick to my stomach.

I understand the fear that the Right is feeling right now, if I saw these kids coming after me and my party I might be wetting my tighty whiteys as well, but all that attacking them accomplishes is to make them even more determined and erase ANY hope of convincing them that the conservatives and Republican party are not their enemies.

To use perhaps too apt of a metaphor the conservatives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot right now.

And while all this is going on a critically clueless conservative journalist is suggesting that the gun control debate needs to wait until people start showing respect to gun owners:

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough just to vent and march. It’s necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points. There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war. 

You know I have heard of "tone deaf" before, but this David Brooks guy is just "deaf deaf."

(Buzzfeed by the way has a rather expansive article on the student's grass roots activism, that essentially drives a stake through the heart of the whole "manipulated by the Left Wing" narrative.)

Update: People are starting to lose their jobs over these smear campaigns.

JUST IN: Aide to Florida GOP lawmaker fired for spreading false claim that shooting survivors are "actors" https://t.co/uY4WGB7IQX pic.twitter.com/revhfMj8aN

— The Hill (@thehill) February 21, 2018

Nice to see a little justice served. 

Donald Trump Jr. claims that criticism of his father springs from an "atmosphere of hatred."

Courtesy of Newsweek: 

Donald Trump Jr. has sprung to the defense of his father, President Donad Trump, over his reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, critizing what he called an “atmosphere of hatred.” 

He said that criticism of Trump’s response to Charlottesville—after which the president said that "both sides," white nationalists and left-wing protesters, were to blame—was due to the spread of hatred by students on liberal university campuses and the left-wing media. 

Speaking at an annual fundraising event for Faulkner University, a private Christian institution in Alabama, Trump Jr. said: “He condemned...the white nationalists and the left-wingers. That should not have been controversial, but it was.”

He then took aim at left-wing protests where conservative figures have been scheduled to speak, and a culture at colleges that he said taught young Americans to “hate their country” and “hate their religion.” 

“‘Hate speech’ is that America is a good country... that we need borders... anything that comes out of the mouth of the president... the moral teaching of the Bible,” he said.

So to paraphrase apparently the only reason that people are criticizing Donald Trump is that left wing universities are teaching their students to hate America.

Or....it could be that better educated people simply see through Trump senior's bullshit and know a racist liar when they see one.

And if Junior really wants to see an "atmosphere of hatred" he should go back and watch tapes of his father's 2016 rallies.

Barack Obama slams Republicans for trying to once again repeal Obamacare. Update!

Courtesy of Yahoo News:  

Former President Barack Obama mocked Republicans in a speech on Wednesday for repeated efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, his signature health care law also known as Obamacare. 

“The legislation that we passed was full of things that still needed to be fixed,” Obama said at an event hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in New York City.

“It wasn’t perfect, but it was better,” he continued. “And when I see people trying to undo that progress for the 50th or 60th time with bills that would raise costs or reduce coverage or roll back protections for older Americans or people with preexisting conditions — the cancer survivor, the expecting mom or the child with autism or asthma, for whom coverage would once again be unattainable — it is aggravating.”

“All of this being done without any demonstrable economic or actuarial or plain common sense rationale, it frustrates,” Obama said. “It’s certainly frustrating to have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on our constituents.” 

Obama said Wednesday that the people who worked on drafting the Affordable Care Act weren’t just politicians and “policy wonks” but parents “who had the experience of a sick child or crushing medical bills that threatened to bankrupt them.” 

“And for the first time, more than 90 percent of Americans know the security of health insurance,” he said. “Paying more for insurance or being denied insurance because of a preexisting condition or because you are a woman, that’s not a thing anymore. We got rid of that and people are alive today because of it, and that’s progress.”

“Those of you who live in countries that already have universal health care are trying to figure out what’s the controversy here,” he said. “I am too.”

I think that these are the strongest statements that Obama has made on this topic so far, but I hope they are only the beginning because I think he really needs to fight to protect the progress he made while in office, or it will be erased for good.

The good news for him is the the Left has been mobilized: 

The liberal activists roused into the streets by President Donald Trump are revving up for one last campaign to save Obamacare. 

The sudden resurgence of Republicans’ repeal push appeared to catch Democrats and their base by surprise. But ahead of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plans to vote next week on a new bill to dismantle the health law, the Democratic grass roots is on what one leading activist called “full war footing.”

From a new six-figure advertising campaign by the pro-Obamacare group Save My Care to a flurry of rallies planned on the ground, the left is throwing everything it can at the new repeal bill from Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

 "The reality is that the progressive coalition has never been more unified or determined than they are right now,” Organizing for Action spokesman Jesse Lehrich said in an interview.

Well that is good news indeed.

If you yourself have not yet joined the fight then please try to find local groups to join, or at the very least send those emails and make those phone calls to Senators, both Republican and Democrat, and tell them how important Obamacare is to you and your family.

Somebody the other day mentioned that they did not think phone calls worked, but the reports from the Senate are that they are currently overwhelmed with calls, and Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins both mentioned that phone calls and emails from their constituents helped to shape their votes last time around.

So yes, your voice does make a difference.

Update: It appears the Republicans are working hard to buy Lisa Murkowski's vote:

A Republican Senate aide told Independent Journal Review Thursday that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) are attempting to buy Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's support through new changes to their controversial Obamacare repeal proposal before an expected vote next week. 

According to the aide, here is a summary of what the new draft of the bill entails: 

"This draft includes 3 separate provisions benefitting Alaska.

1. Alaska (along with Hawaii) will continue to receive Obamacare’s premium tax credits while they are repealed for all other states. It appears this exemption will not affect Alaska receiving its state allotment under the new block grant in addition to the premium tax credits. 
2. Delays implementation of the Medicaid per capita caps for Alaska and Hawaii for years in which the policy would reduce their funding below what they would have received in 2020 plus CPI-M [Consumer Price Index for Medical Care].
3.  Provides for an increased federal Medicaid matching rate (FMAP) for both Alaska and Hawaii." 

This is repugnant as it would have Alaska receive special treatment while other states do without.

The ACA was set up to benefit ALL Americans not simply those living in blue states, Murkowski cannot think this is a good idea.

Alaskans are known for their generosity, to do this would be undermine our very identity.

Donald Trump defends White Nationalists and claims that the "Alt-Left" started the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

(The Nazi support starts around the 7:10 mark.)

 Courtesy of the New York Times:

President Trump angrily defended himself on Tuesday against criticism that he did not specifically condemn Nazi and white supremacist groups following the weekend’s deadly racial unrest in Virginia, and at one point questioned whether the movement to pull down statues of Confederate leaders would escalate to the desecration of George Washington. 

In a long, combative exchange with reporters at Trump Tower in Manhattan, the president repeatedly rejected a torrent of bipartisan criticism for waiting several days before naming the right-wing groups and placing blame on “many sides” for the violence on Saturday that ended with the death of a young woman after a car crashed into a crowd. 

He said that “before I make a statement, I like to know the facts.” 

And he criticized “alt-left” groups that he claimed were “very, very violent” when they sought to confront the nationalist and Nazi groups that had gathered in Charlottesville, Va., to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a park. He said there is “blame on both sides.” 

“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Mr. Trump said. “This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?” 

He noted that the first American president had owned slaves. 

Mr. Trump defended those gathered in the Charlottesville park to protest the statue’s removal, saying, “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”

(Uh..that was a white nationalist protest march. Of course they were white nationalists.)


Again and again, Mr. Trump said that the portrayal of nationalist protesters in the city were not all Nazis or white supremacists, and he said it was unfair to suggest that they were. “Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. 

Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch,” he said, adding that blame for the violence in the city – which also took the lives of two Virginia state troopers when their helicopter crashed – should also be on people from “the left” who came to oppose the nationalist protesters. 

“You had a group on one side and the other, and they came at each other with clubs, and it was vicious and horrible. It was a horrible thing to watch,” the president said. “There is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You have just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. You can say what you want. That’s the way it is.”

You know I often talk about watching Donald Trump speak with my jaw hanging on the floor in disbelief.

And that is certainly how I watched this.

Trump's attempts to blame the counter protesters and suggest that THEY were the ones who started the violence was, simply put, stunning.

He provided cover for the neo-Nazis, Klan members, and White Supremacists who beat peaceful protesters and murdered a young woman.

Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa https://t.co/tTESdV4LP0

— David Duke (@DrDavidDuke) August 15, 2017

And clearly they both heard and appreciated that.

Alexandria shooter acted alone, no "nexus of terrorism" found.

The FBI has assessed that the deceased shooter in Alexandria attack acted alone and there is no nexus to terrorism https://t.co/T5uqoA85rO pic.twitter.com/sPbxTsGppq

— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 21, 2017

Courtesy of Salon: 

The FBI announced on Wednesday that James T. Hodgkinson — the gunman who shot Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., during a Congressional baseball practice — acted alone. 

“We also assessed that there was no nexus to terrorism,” Andrew Vale, assistant director of the FBI in Washington said. 

Hodgkinson, 66, was known to have an anger management problem as well and his wife has cooperated with the investigation.

Hodgkinson was from Illinois and opened fire on Republican members of Congress last week and was shot and killed by police as they responded to the incident. The investigation is still ongoing and CNN reported that authorities found a list created by Hodgkinson with names of six members of Congress, though their names and parties were not released. Scalise who is the House Majority Whip was the only member of Congress injured during the attack.

In other words this guy was not part of some secret Leftist terrorist cell that was targeting Donald Trump or the Republicans, as has some on the Right have been suggesting.

Look I am not saying that there are not nutjobs on the Left, or even that some of the partisan talk out there did not play a part in getting this guy all worked up enough to open fire.

However I would like to mention that there are really VERY few acts of actual violence coming from the progressive community, and no I don't consider those Antifa assholes to be part of the progressive community.

As a rule those of us on the progressive side of the aisle tend to make our statements through pithy, correctly spelled protest signs, boycotts against Right Wing misogynists, and of course our votes.

ANY violence directed at even the worst example of a Republican politician, or GOP mouthpiece, is to be rejected out of hand.

Yes of course I would like to slap the orange off of Donald Trump, I am after all only human.

But I would never actually do it, nor do I, in any way, advocate such behavior.

Bill O'Reilly claims that he was fired from Fox News due a Left Wing conspiracy, not because he said and did icky things to the women folk.

Courtesy of TV Newser:  

Former Fox News colleagues Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck chatted this morning on Beck’s three-hour morning radio show. This was O’Reilly’s first interview since being forced out from Fox News on April 19 following the report earlier in the month that he and Fox News paid $13 million to five women who accused the star of harassment.

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly together again, hos could this not be batshit crazy?

Despite some prodding from Beck, O’Reilly said he couldn’t get too specific “due to the legality.” 

“Look, the entire ordeal was a hit job, and in the weeks to come, we will be able to explain some of it. It really has to do with destroying voices that the far-left doesn’t like. That’s the general tone,” O’Reilly said. 

Beck then asked if he would eventually come back to explain more or if it would be explained in other venues. 

“Both. There’s going to be an exposition soon, but I can’t tell you when, about who exactly this crew is that terrorizes sponsors, threatens people behind the scenes, that pays people to say things. We’re going to name them, and it will be a big story. The left-wing media will downplay the story, but it’s coming. Unfortunately, I was target No. 1. It’s sad for me, for my family and it’s grossly dishonest. From now on when I’m attacked, I’ll take legal action,” he responded.

Yes there is all kinds of secret evidence that can't be shared because it's secret, and the Left Wing media will downplay it because they only report on facts and not secret evidence that can't be shared.

Stupid Left Wing media!

But here's a hint, it's all about George Soros: 

“I’ll point you to an article seldom seen this week, it’s about nine corporations that are now being targeted by organized left-wing groups funded by George Soros because they allegedly are profiting from President Trump’s immigration stance. That gives you your road map. Soros is putting up big money right now, and this is going to become an even bigger story in the next six months” said O’Reilly.

“Look, people were very sad when it happened. I felt bad not only for me and my staff, but for the viewers and listeners because they really had no idea what had happened. People know the left-wing media hates me and hates Fox News, but they don’t know the full extent of it…We are accumulating information and hopefully it will all be made clear soon.”

Yep, that damn George Soros and his Left Wing orgy partners totally paid all of those women to act offended when Bill O'Reilly suavely used his immense powers of seduction on them and honored them by masturbating during phone calls with them.

George Soros probably also paid O'Reilly's former wife to make these scurrilous claims.

Courtesy of Jezebel:

In the affidavit, which was signed and notarized on October 10, 2011, and later entered as an exhibit in the couple’s divorce proceedings, O’Reilly’s ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy O’Reilly described a sudden spasm of violence on a night in December 2009. 

According to McPhilmy’s account, she discovered O’Reilly engaging in phone sex in their bedroom at roughly 10:30 p.m. one evening. O’Reilly then “flew into a fit of rage” and slammed her into a nearby wall, leaving a hole one foot across. He then, the affidavit claims, wrapped his arms around her shoulders, neck, and hands to immobilize her, and violently dragged her out of the bedroom and down a hallway on the second floor of their 4,600-square-foot, $2.4 million home in Manhasset, New York. 

O’Reilly went on, the affidavit claims, to drag McPhilmy by the neck down a flight of stairs and through the kitchen, as McPhilmy screamed that he was hurting her. In the kitchen, the affidavit claims, a security guard assigned to protect O’Reilly and his family saw what was going on, at which point O’Reilly stopped the attack. When the guard asked her if she wanted to report the incident to the police, she declined, McPhilmy added. 

The guard was startled by O’Reilly’s appearance, McPhilmy wrote, because he was naked from the waist down while attacking her. 

Oh yeah, if it wasn't for those darn Left Wing kids and their Mystery Machine, O'Reilly would still be dragging his wife down the stairs by her neck and engaging in one sided phone sex with unsuspecting women.

Curse that George Soros. Curse him all to hell!

Makes a lot of sense.

Last spring during primaries social media was so consumed w anti-HRC vitriol from the left it was difficult to speak out in support. 1/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

Most HRC supporters just kept quiet, as hateful rhetoric rose to near hysteria by Bernie supporters. Two main reasons for silence. 2/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

a) It was obvious that publicly and strongly supporting HRC would result in immediate attack on social media. Because corrupt, obv. 3/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

b) HRC supporters knew that to engage with the furious Bernie supporters risked alienating badly needed support during the general. 4/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

Consequently, very strong HRC support was muted, and anti-Clinton clamour rose to near hysteria. “She’s going to be INDICTED!” 5/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

The Steele memo suggests that much of this rhetoric was deliberately driven by Russians acting in concert w Trump campaign. 6/ pic.twitter.com/FOPRIbt3CP

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

Further, to an unknown extent, Steele memo suggests that Jill Stein was pulled into Putin’s orbit as part of anti-Clinton pro-Trump plan. 7/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

Steele memo outlining Putin paid to bring Stein, Carter Page, and Flynn to Moscow; photo of Stein, Flynn, Putin at RT dinner. 8/ pic.twitter.com/xtjAnAI4Tc

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

Interesting, in light of Trump pro-Sanders strategy, that Bernie has been absolutely silent on Russian hacks and election interference. 9/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

What’s especially interesting about Sanders’ silence on the Russian hacks is the CV of his chief strategist, Tad Devine. 10/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

Sanders’ chief strategist Devine worked on TWO election campaigns for Putin’s man in Ukraine, Yanukovich.

And so did Paul Manafort. 11/ pic.twitter.com/NQmDUlm0nm

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

The whole world watched as Hillary Clinton was dragged through the mud in & humiliated in the most abusive campaign in US history. 12/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

13/ https://t.co/dpklmApjtV

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

And it all worked like a charm. HRC’s approval ratings, which averaged around 60% during/after SoS tenure, suddenly plummeted to 37%. 14/ pic.twitter.com/3wTBvrexum

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

Media danced to the tune like puppets. "Emails Emails Emails!"

Comey/Wikileaks, reinforced message that HRC emails = untrustworthy. 15/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

If Steele memo is to be believed, a great deal of pro-Sanders & Stein/anti-HRC hysteria was a Russian propaganda op. 16/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

It was EXTREMELY effective in silencing HRC supporters early & building the CrookedHillary theme that finally took her out. In 3 states. 17/

— Sandy Garossino (@Garossino) January 14, 2017

I actually was going to write something very much like this, until I stumbled upon these tweets.

And don't think Garossino and I are alone in this either.

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:  

Perhaps the starkest case in point is Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her constituency. In December 2015, the Kremlin feted Stein by inviting her to the gala celebrating the 10-year anniversary of Kremlin-funded propaganda network RT. Over a year later, it remains unclear who paid for Stein’s trip to Moscow and her accommodations there. Her campaign ignored multiple questions on this score. We do know, however, that Stein sat at the same table as both Putin and Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Trump’s soon-to-be national security adviser. She further spoke at an RT-sponsored panel, using her presence to criticize the U.S.’s “disastrous militarism.” Afterward, straddling Moscow’s Red Square, Stein described the panel as “inspiring,” going on to claim that Putin, whom she painted as a political novice, told her he “agree[d]” with her “on many issues.” 

Stein presents herself as a champion of the underclass and the environment, and an opponent of the surveillance state and corporate media, and yet she seemed to take pleasure in her marriage of true minds with a kleptocratic intelligence officer who levels forests and arrests or kills critical journalists and invades foreign countries. Their true commonality, of course, is that both Putin and Stein are dogged opponents of U.S. foreign policy.

To sum up, though we are correct in giving a large amount of the blame for Trump's "victory" to the ease in which the Russians were able to manipulate the Right Wing, we also have to recognize that there are those on our side of the ideological fence who are just as easily manipulated.

Putin's victory was in recognizing that the fringe in both parties are searching for validation, and that once given can be a ring by which to lead them around by their proverbial noses.

Newspaper owned by Donald Trump's son-in-law publishes op-ed calling for the FBI to investigate anti-Trump protesters. And so it begins.

Kushner, with Ivanka and Donald Trump.

Courtesy of Alternet: 

The New York Observer, a newspaper owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, published an opinion piece Friday calling for the FBI to launch a coordinated crackdown on nationwide anti-Trump protests, mobilizations and recount efforts. 

Titled “Comey’s FBI Needs to Investigate Violent Democratic Tantrums,” the article was written by Austin Bay, a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel and adjunct professor at the University of Texas in Austin. 

Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump, purchased a majority stake in the New York Observer in 2006 for roughly $10 million and currently operates as the outlet’s publisher. 

Bay’s opinion piece appeals to FBI director James Comey to “conduct a detailed investigation into the violence and political thuggery that continue to mar the presidential election’s aftermath,” including a “thorough probe of the protests—to include possible ties to organizations demanding vote recounts.” 

“The hard left’s violent reaction to Donald Trump’s election is vile and dangerous,” writes Bay. “Peaceful protests? No, the demonstrators vandalize and destroy. They have two goals: intimidating people and sustaining the mainstream media lie that Donald Trump is dangerous.”

The op-ed also wants the FBI to find out if anybody associated with the protests are being paid by George Soros or any other left wing bogeyman. 

I'm trying to remember, how long did it take Hitler to start throwing dissenters in jail again?

Rush Limbaugh warns that fact checking is a "vehicle for them (Liberals) to do opinion journalism under the guise of fairness."

Courtesy of Dead State:  

“There is no fact-checking,” he declared. 

“The fact that The New York Times, and The Washington Post, and USA Today, and all these other papers and networks now have fact-checkers is for one reason. It allows them to fool you into thinking they have an objective, nonpartisan staff or person analyzing everything the candidates are saying, and telling you what they’re saying is true, or what they’re saying is false.” 

Limbaugh then basically admitted that reality does indeed have a liberal bias. 

“When in fact the fact-checkers are no different than the biased left-leaning reporters and columnists at these papers and on networks. But the fact-check, the idea that it is a fact-check story is designed to say to you that it is objective and analytically fair, and all it is, is a vehicle for them to do opinion journalism under the guise of fairness. Which, if you fall for it, gives it even more power, because if you think that the fact-checkers like PolitiFact or Snopes, or whoever else, if you quote them constantly as the Bible, well then you’ve fallen for it.”

To be clear this is a naked attempt to undermine fact checkers who have been making Donald Trump's life, and let's face the lives of a lot of GOP types, a living hell lately.

If you can smear the fact checkers are left wing operatives then truth becomes a matter of faith rather than a matter of fact.

Now you might be tempted to simply dismiss this by saying 'Come on Gryphen you know they idiots are allergic to facts. Why even bother to care that they think fact checkers are on Hillary's payroll?"

That is a valid point, and I would almost agree with you.

Except for this.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

Voters who like Donald Trump have doubts about the legitimacy of November's election, a new poll finds. 

Half of those who view Trump favorably say they have little or no confidence in the integrity of the election, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Saturday. 

Only about one-third of the respondents who identified as Republican said that they have confidence in the vote count. 

"Trump has finally said something that that I've been thinking for years," one Trump supporter from Columbia, Mo. told the AP. "I don't think the votes have been counted properly for years. There's voter fraud and attempts to game the system. I don't trust it at all."

Now this is really where the rubber hits the road.

Because if after Hillary wins this election Donald Trump openly questions its validity we could have an honest to goodness civil war on our hands.

But even if it does not go that far you can bet the farm that when the 2018 midterms roll around that every former Trump supporter, Right Wing fanatic, and frustrated Republican is going to come out in force to "right the wrong" of the 2016 election by voting in a whole bunch of Teabagger types to sabotage every single thing that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats try to accomplish.

It will be the obstructionism that faced President Obama on steroids, and it will be VERY effective.

If facts no longer matter, if there is not at least one news source trusted by all sides of the political spectrum, then our ability to negotiate, inform, and correct misinformation will be lost completely.

There will no longer be anything called "truth," there will only be opinion, and the crevasse that now separates the Right from the Left will widen until we have our own version of the cold war right here within the United States of America.

More infighting among the GOP crowd as the hard right "Freedom Caucus" goes after establishment Republicans in new documentary.

Sneak peek: @TheBlaze’s documentary, “District of Corruption” @RepMarkMeadows and I expose failed promises #GOPe. https://t.co/UmLoFkW55b

— Cong. Tim Huelskamp (@CongHuelskamp) April 11, 2016

Courtesy of TPM: 

Hard right members of the House of Representatives have picked a new venue for fighting with their GOP leaders: a soon-to-be-released documentary film. 

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), an outspoken member of the House Freedom Caucus, touted the documentary produced by The Blaze that he and fellow caucus member Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) participated in Monday. The documentary “District of Corruption," premieres later this week, and judging by the trailer, it takes some serious shots at current and former Republican leaders who have long been in the House Freedom Caucus' line of fire. 

The documentary will examine the "establishment" promises made by Republican leaders like former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) after the Republican sweeps in 2010 and 2014, according to the trailer.

The thing the teabaggers never seemed to understand is that the "will of the people" that they complain is not being represented in Washington is just the will of THEIR people, just like the will of the far left is never represented completely either because policies that they support are shot down by the more conservative politicians.

The whole idea of politics is that each Representative or Senator is elected to represent the wants and needs of their constituencies, and their job is to attempt to get those needs and wants met, realizing of course that there will be compromises that will disappoint those that put them in office, just like there will be disappointments for the people who put their ideological counterparts in office.

If you want a more conservative agenda you elect more conservatives.

If you want a more liberal agenda you elect more liberals.

However if you elect strict ideologues, unwilling to compromise even a little, then essentially none of your policy ideas will succeed because they will always run into a brick wall which will refuse to budge too far in either direction.

By the way the teabaggers are not the only group having trouble understanding that simple truth. 

Bristol Palin angry that her baby bump picture attracted negative comments.

Courtesy of Brancy's blog: Last week I did what a lot of pregnant mom’s do, I posted a “bump pic,” and per usual, the Left showed their true colors. I quickly began trending on social media and was blasted with vile and hateful comments. How dare I be excited about this baby!

Nancy French then links to an article by some lady I've never heard of to support the contention that "The Left" was attacking Bristol because she was pregnant and not considering an abortion.

The author seems to have based this belief on the fact that some people on Twitter had suggested that Bristol would benefit from a visit to Planned Parenthood. Clearly this person does not understand that Planned Parenthood is really in the business of PLANNING PARENTHOOD and is not simply an abortion mill that makes all of its money from selling fetal tissue to evil medical practitioners like Dr. Ben Carson.

The Twitter users were NOT suggesting that Bristol get an abortion (Well most of them anyway,) but rather that she would benefit from some training on just where babies come from, and perhaps a wheelbarrow full of prophylactics.

Nancy French/Bristol Palin sums up her/their stupidity with this:

Every time I feel my baby kick or see an ultrasound, I know I am making the right choice. Life is a gift and I am going to celebrate this precious baby no matter how loud the Left chants their hateful empty messages!

Look as the official spokesman for the Left (Don't look at me like that, you don't know that isn't true.), just let  me say this.

We do NOT care if Bristol Palin gets pregnant a dozen times or more, and decides to keep the babies. So long as she can afford to care for them properly.

We also don't care if she gets pregnant a dozen times or more, and decides NOT to keep the babies. (It's really none of our business.)

We also do not care if Bristol Palin has sex with every sailor who arrives with the fleet each year, and never gets pregnant because she has taken precautions. (Also not really our business.)

It is ONLY when Bristol Palin gets paid for telling young women that THEY should abstain from sex until they get married, and poses as a holier than thou Christian on her ghostwritten blog, all while she goes out and gets knocked up repeatedly while still unmarried, that we have a problem.

The word is "hypocrisy." And we fucking hate hypocrisy.

Does that finally clear that up?

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.

Sarah Palin drops all pretense of being reasonable and goes full retard.

So on Palin's Facebook page today she has the following headline: 

I Want to Hear From Anyone Who Still Supports This Guy; I Want to Try to Figure You Out

Of course she is referencing President Obama and offers a link to a Right Wing blog that is attacking something on his official Facebook page.

She then offers up this graphic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Palin some kind of politician as well?

With this explanation:  

Hey guys: If the General Patton quote offends you, take it up with the General, not me; and then ask your parents why they raised such an overly sensitive intolerant little fellow. (See? Full retard.)

I used to not feel this way, as I sought some redeeming value in everyone's opinion (Yeah, right!), but today's hijacking of the nefarious political party drives me to agree with the good General. Under its present leadership only the dishonest or frighteningly naive could claim allegiance to the Left wing of the party symbolized by the ass. If you consider yourself one of the good-old-day's Blue Dog democrats or a "Reagan democrat" of old, know those days are long gone. Your party left you. Go Independent. I'd love to hear from any of you who conclude the democrat party has morphed into a fundamentally transformed, unrecognizable monster, thus you've strengthened your spine and walked out of their room. You're better than the contributors to these days of bread and circuses. Save America, go Independent. 

- Sarah Palin

Okay is she  really trying to divide members of Democratic party, while her own Republican party rips itself in two over ideological differences?

Everything she says up at the top is far more descriptive of the Republican party as it is today than any disagreements on the other side of the aisle.

I think what we are seeing is a classic case of projection, not to mention Sarah Palin giving her inner troll free rein to say whatever her editors have kept it from saying for lo these many years.

Of course Palin has virtually nothing to lose at this point.

She will write no more books.

She will have no more contracts with Fox.

Her political career is a bloated corpse that even modern science could never revive.

And her money is running through her fingers faster than she can turn (political) tricks to earn more.

So all she has is her hatred for the man who she believes snatched from her the destiny that she had been convinced was hers for the taking.

Which then reveals the ugliness that many of us knew was there all along.

Partisanship in America has dramatically increased over the last two decades. In other words we are screwed.

 Courtesy of Pew Research:

Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades. These trends manifest themselves in myriad ways, both in politics and in everyday life. And a new survey of 10,000 adults nationwide finds that these divisions are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process. 

The overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10% to 21%. And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past. As a result, ideological overlap between the two parties has diminished: Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican. 

Partisan animosity has increased substantially over the same period. In each party, the share with a highly negative view of the opposing party has more than doubled since 1994. Most of these intense partisans believe the opposing party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.”

This is a totally unfair comparison because the Right Wing policies DO threaten the nation's well being.

I mean who's policies tanked the economy, resulted in rampant crime on Wall Street, and got us into two unnecessary wars?

Damn it that's not partisanship, that's common sense!

And if we are going to compare which side is the most partisan, we can really only do that when a group of Democratic lawmakers gather on inauguration night to plan the sabotage of EVERY single policy put forward by the newly elected Republican President and his party.

So no I don't think that this poll is fair one little bit. 

To me it is a little like suggesting that rapists and their victims have great animosity toward each other, and that both are equally to blame.

So wait, we LOVE Citizens United now?

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

Four years ago, in his inaugural State of the Union address, President Obama famously shamed the Supreme Court's five conservative justices for their decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court, Obama said, "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections." Democratic lawmakers, activists, operatives, and donors piled on, condemning the ruling as "scandalous," a "disaster," and "bad for American democracy." When a subsequent court decision, nodding to Citizens United, opened the door to super-PACs, a new breed of political committee that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash, Obama branded them "a threat to our democracy." 

The Obama of 2010 might not recognize the Democratic Party of 2014. 

In the intervening years, Obama and his fellow Democrats embraced big-money politics. Democrats formed super-PACs to defend the presidency, gain seats in the House of Representatives, and preserve their majority in the Senate. Obama is the first president in history to utilize a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) group, which can accept unlimited sums from anonymous donors, to promote his policy agenda. (Organizing for Action, the president's nonprofit, chose to voluntarily disclose its 2013 donors.) And with an eye toward the 2016 presidential race, Democratic operatives have gone to work for various super-PACs mounting a campaign-in-waiting for presumed front-runner Hillary Clinton. If Democrats hate Citizens United on paper, they love it in practice.

Wouldn't it be just like the Right Wing to fight for a Supreme Court decision that ended up being more of a benefit to the Left Wing?

Still, I hate to be a wet blanket or anything, but this law needs to be thrown out and REAL campaign finance reform needs to be implemented. Period!

The idea that those with the most money get to choose our elected leaders should be something that unifies both the Right and the Left.

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.

Pakistani Taliban:"Wherever we find Americans we will kill them, but we don't have any connection with the Boston Explosions." Update!

"Dear Boston: Sorry for your losses. Your losses are ours, too." - Muslim Peacemaker Teams in Najaf, Iraq

Courtesy of CNN: 

The Pakistani Taliban denied any involvement in a double bombing at the Boston Marathon that killed at least three people, spokesman Ihsanullah Ihsan said Wednesday. 

"Wherever we find Americans we will kill them, but we don't have any connection with the Boston Explosions," Ihsan said. 

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the Times Square bombing in 2010.

Thus far it seems that nobody has taken responsibility for the attacks, which is unusual for Islamic terrorist groups.

Also the injured Saudi that was originally identified as a "suspect" by certain irresponsible media outlets, and gave rise to the idea that this attack was the work of Muslim extremists, has turned out to be nothing of the sort.

This courtesy of the Washington Post: 

U.S. law enforcement officials said Tuesday that a Saudi national injured in the Boston Marathon bombing is regarded as a witness, not a suspect. 

The Saudi, who is recuperating at a Boston hospital, is in his 20s and is in the United States on a Saudi scholarship to study at a university in the Boston area. 

The federal officials’ explanation echoed comments by a Saudi official at the country’s embassy in Washington. The embassy official said that a Saudi national has been questioned as a witness but is not regarded as a suspect. The Saudi official cited information provided to the embassy by U.S. law enforcement officials.

I am not going to say that any of this indicates that there is no possibility that the attacks were not the work of Islamic terrorists, but but as time goes on it seems less and less likely.

I have noticed a rather interesting dichotomy  between the Left and Right media right now.

On the Left many pundits have seemed to focus more on the possibility that this was the work of domestic terrorists, possibly White Supremacists or anti-tax sovereign citizen groups.

However on the Right they seem to be working overtime to suggest that this HAD to have been the work of some Islamic group hell bent on the destruction of America. And some have even gone so far as to blame President Obama as well.

Like I said, I really do not have enough information to form a strong opinion, however I think that when we DO find the perpetrators one side is going to go on the attack, and the other is going to become very defensive.

And I find that very interesting. And not a little troubling.

Update: This is happening now:

A suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings was taken into custody Wednesday in a breakthrough that came less than 48 hours after the deadly attack, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation said Wednesday. 

The official spoke shortly after several media outlets reported that a suspect had been identified from surveillance video taken at a Lord & Taylor store between the sites of the two bomb blasts, which killed three people and wounded more than 170. 

The official was not authorized to divulge details of the investigation and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The suspect was expected at a Boston courthouse, the official said.

A news briefing was scheduled later Wednesday.

So we should know sometime today.

Batten down the hatches kids, this is going to get ugly.

Update 2: Oops now some new outlets are walking back reports of an arrest.

CNN now walking back reports of arrest. NBC may have been first and only outlet reporting correctly that there has been no arrest.
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) April 17, 2013

Hoo boy!

Update 3: The FBI just sent this out:

Contrary to widespread reporting, no arrest has been made in connection with the Boston Marathon attack. Over the past day and a half, there have been a number of press reports based on information from unofficial sources that has been inaccurate. Since these stories often have unintended consequences, we ask the media, particularly at this early stage of the investigation, to exercise caution and attempt to verify information through appropriate official channels before reporting.

I don't think they are very happy.

Only a day after the anniversary of the Tucson shooting, true to form, Sarah Palin plays the victim while using one of her children as a shield against criticism. Update!

Courtesy of Lunatic from Lake Lucille's Facebook page:  

Ben Shapiro has a great new book out called “Bullies: How The Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America.” Ben’s premise about the left’s silencing tactics is absolutely correct. Obviously I’ve witnessed the left’s bullying behavior up close and personal when it’s been directed at those so close to me. And, of course, I’ve seen how nasty it can be for other conservatives as well. You know, there’s something especially ugly about the way the left goes after children of conservatives. I still find it highly ironic that the supposedly “tolerant” left has done nothing but bully, demonize, and judge my daughter Bristol for making the right decision to keep her baby and work so very hard as a single mom to care and provide for him. I don’t know of any conservative “war on women,” but I sure have seen the left’s war on conservative women! 

Please read Ben’s book and consider his advice about how we must stand up and push back twice as hard against this bullying. We must not allow ourselves to be frightened into silence. Yes, it’s hard to “keep on keeping on” when being pushed around – but like Ronald Reagan said: when we stiffen our spines, those around us can stiffen theirs, too! Press in, press on. Don’t retreat, friends!

 - Sarah Palin

First off I have to say that the VERY idea that Sarah Palin, a well established bully in Wasilla and on the media, would use her equally vicious daughter to play the victim of similar behaviors is a level of hypocrisy that is almost jaw dropping.

And then to identify the Left as the bullies in this hyper politicized world we now live in is the ultimate hypocrisy saturated cherry on top of her batshit crazy fudge sundae.

The idea that the Left in this country could even COMPETE with the conservatives in this arena would be laughable if their tactics had not proven to be so harmful to our citizens.

After all which side of the ideological aisle outed the CIA wife of one of their critics in order to punish them for revealing that the war they were dragging the country toward was based on lies?

Which party came up with a color coded system to keep Americans frightened while sending its young people off to die in unnecessary wars?

Which fringe part of that same party now holds their politicians hostage to an untenable conservative anti-tax litmus test with threats of a primary challenge if they refuse to play ball with them?

Bullying? The liberals are light years behind the conservatives when it comes to intimidation techniques and Middle school name calling.

Of course equally disgusting is that the Grizzled Mama put this post out yesterday only the day AFTER the Tucson massacre, where thirteen people were shot and six died, and after which Sarah Palin came out in a video playing (You guessed it!) the victim and claiming there was a "blood libel" against her.

After over a week of silence apparently Palin could not let this terrible anniversary pass without reminding people that the true victims in this country are she and her family.

Of course it is probably anti-climatic at this point to reveal that the author of this book, which Palin is so effusively pimping was written by a Breitbart "news" editor Ben Shapiro. (He also wrote such delightfully non-partisan books as "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth" and "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future.")

You remember the founder of Breitbart News, Andrew Breitbart, don't you?

And if you do of course you know he was an EXPERT on bullying tactics. So who better, than one of his editors, to write a slanted book on bullying in politics that unfairly vilifies the Left, and who better, than the queen of conservative hypocrisy, to endorse that book?

P.S. You know I almost missed this cry for attention from Klondike Kardashian, you would think she would want to get on television to hawk this book and get her rapidly dwindling fan base talking about her again. Oh wait......

Update: Okay well this just took a turn for the surreal.

Here is a clip of Ben Shapiro, the guy whose book Palin is pretending to hawk while of course using her daughter to play the victim, identifying Palin supporters as bullies who will aggressively go after ANYBODY who dares to criticize her or suggest she is not running for president.

Oh this is TOO good!

Sarah Palin blames conservative woes on the "liberal, leftist, in the tank for Obama" press in this country. Says this on Republican propaganda machine Fox News.

Lately it has become virtually impossible to talk about Palin's interviews without mentioning her appearance. This time is no exception.

There have certainly been times when i was not certain she was wearing a wig, but not this time. The attempts to tuck it behind her ear to make it look more natural is an EPIC FAIL

That, plus the poker chip necklace, makes her look like an aging Las Vegas streetwalker. (I imagine the necklace must indicate some bizarre Wasilla tradition that encourages you to wear your poker winnings around your neck the next day. I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that she was not playing strip poker. No telling WHAT would be hanging around her neck if she had!)

Well victorious at poker or not, it is clear that the Grizzled Mama is NOT in a very good mood. (I do believe that Perseus once held up a severed head with a similar expression to hers in order turn people into stone.)

In a somewhat agitated state Palin wastes little time in throwing out great handfuls of word salad, even before Greta Van "Sucks that I have to interview this loser" can even get out the first question.

Example right out of the gate:

"Hey heady stuff we're talking about today Greta, when you consider that the essence of America is liberty and many of us believe that  Obamacare essentially evaporates much of that essence. (Angry look.)

I know right? Personally I just hate it when my essence gets evaporated.

Greta attempts to ask Palin her opinion on how the Supreme Court decision on health care might impact the race, but Palin's answers are so nonsensical and convoluted that it is hard to actually decipher what she said. However the gist I believe is this, "Obamacare bad, imaginary Republican solutions to same problem good!"

However I would like to address Palin's response to the question of what the Democrats will do if the health care law is deemed unconstitutional. Here was her response:

"Well because the Leftist media, which is the dominant in our society today, because they protect President Obama, they will try to just dismiss the whole issue of it being deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, if that's the way this ends up, and they'll just try to divert attention  from voters and they'll move on to other issues. So very important that voters stay focused on the fact that, if it is deemed unconstitutional, that President Obama, WHO CLAIMS TO BE SOME CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR would try to cram down American's throat this idea that big, centralized government would be able to usurp not only the will of the people, constitutional enumerated limited powers of federal government."

Did you catch that part? Apparently President Barack Obama is only CLAIMING to be a Constitutional scholar. So I assume that those twelve years spent TEACHING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the University of Chicago Law School, were simply imaginary accomplishments that Obama simply made up in his head?

My assumption is that Klondike Kardashian is so used to simply "making things up" concerning HER accomplishments, that she just assumes everyone else does the same. Unfortunately for her, our President is a man of actual accomplishments, not imaginary ones.

Later Greta, looking like she would rather be having a root canal than interviewing Palin, asks the Grizzled One's opinion on Santorum's "bullshit" comment directed at reporter Jeff Zeleny.

"Yeah Santorum's response to that liberal leftists, in the tank for Obama, press character, really revealed some of Rick Santorum's character. (Yeah I thought he looked like a dick too! Unless of course she got something ELSE out of that exchange?) And it was good! And it was strong! And it was about time! Because he's saying enough is enough of the liberal media twisting the conservatives words, putting words in his mouth, taking things out of context, and even just making things up. So when I heard Rick Santorum's response I was like, well welcome to my world Rick! And good on ya! Don't retreat, you are saying enough is enough, and I was glad that he called out this reporter. And he and the other candidates, all of them, they need to do more of this because, believe me, the American PEOPLE are tired of what that leftist media continues to do to conservatives." 

So there you have it folks. Sarah Palin believes that ALL of the conservatives problems stem from the "liberal, leftist, in the tank for Obama, media making things up."

And her completely unsolicited advice to the candidates (Except Romney of course), is to portray themselves as victims and throw a tantrum whenever they are called out on the stupid things that come out of their mouths. After all, we certainly know how well that worked out for Sister Sarah.

You betcha!

In aftermath of "Fingergate" Jan Brewer's office was deluged with angry correspondence from people all across the country.

As I am sure many of you have certainly not forgotten. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer caused quite an media brouhaha after she was photographed welcoming the President to her state by jabbing her finger in his face.

At the time many of us here on the Immoral Minority, and other liberal leaning blogs and news outlets were justifiably horrified at her behavior.  However many thought that her actions would improve her Right Wing credentials with the fringe. Which it did.

However if you are like me you may have wondered how the majority of Americans felt about that exchange, given the deep partisan split that separates the Left and the Right in this country.

Well now we know.

Courtesy of the Arizona Republic:

In the days after Gov. Jan Brewer pointed her finger at President Barack Obama, her office received more than 12,000 letters and e-mails from people across the nation. Most of the communications condemned the governor, according to her office. 

The Arizona Republic filed a public-records request and obtained 100 letters randomly selected by the Governor's Office after it received them in the wake of the Jan. 25 encounter on an airport tarmac. 

The letters were written by housewives, veterans, middle-school students from New Orleans and even a former gubernatorial counselor who now lives in Peoria. The letters were e-mailed, handwritten and composed on old-fashioned typewriters. 

Each of the e-mails was read by Constituent Services staff. Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson could not say if the governor actually read any of the letters. 

Many of the writers were disgusted with the governor, calling her "trashy" and "tasteless." Others offered etiquette tips on how to behave when welcoming a head of state. 

"If you approached me like you did the president I would have taken great comfort by poking you in the nose," wrote Eleanor Tafolla from Cathedral City, Calif. "You might want to work on you (sic) prissy attitude you project. Whoa lady you did not deserve a talk with the president or anyone else for that matter." 

Some questioned whether Brewer would have pointed her finger at a White president and behaved as though she were in the Old South. 

Deborah Gross of Michigan wrote, "Your racism and crude behavior is typical of the GOP. Karma will not be kind to you and your fellow regressive, racist Republican friends." 

Still others said they would never again visit Arizona or support the state while Brewer is governor. "The stamp I use to mail this message will be the last cent I ever spend on anything related to the state of Arizona," Linda Bowers of Ohio wrote. "I suppose a populace that would elect the likes of you deserves the contempt and disbelief with which the rest of the nation views you and your state."

Of course, as you can imagine, there were some who supported her wholeheartedly. Some even wished she had been even MORE inapprorpatie and even LESS professional.

One writer lamented it was "too bad you couldn't have slapped him instead." 

Agnes Brunetti of Shenandoah, Iowa, wrote that she was "so very proud" of the governor for "standing up to that narcissist, egotistical, smug, puffed up President!!" 

However like I said that kind of response was not the  majority opinion, and in the end it was clear that Americans do not like it when anybody disrespects their President, whether they agree wit hall of his policies or not.

Which I think might be a good lesson for certain Republican candidates as they vie for the job of facing off with Obama in the upcoming 2012 election.