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.

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?

History professor's new book investigates how America became a "Christian nation."

Courtesy of NPR:  

Kruse's book investigates how the idea of America as a Christian nation was promoted in the 1930s and '40s when industrialists and business lobbies, chafing against the government regulations of the New Deal, recruited and funded conservative clergy to preach faith, freedom and free enterprise. He says this conflation of Christianity and capitalism moved to center stage in the '50s under Eisenhower's watch. 

"According to the conventional narrative, the Soviet Union discovered the bomb and the United States rediscovered God," Kruse says. "In order to push back against the atheistic communism of the Soviet Union, Americans re-embraced a religious identity. That plays a small role here, but ... there's actually a longer arc. That Cold War consensus actually helps to paper over a couple decades of internal political struggles in the United States. If you look at the architects of this language ... the state power that they're worried most about is not the Soviet regime in Moscow, but rather the New Deal and Fair Deal administrations in Washington, D.C." 

The New Deal had passed a large number of measures that were regulating business in some ways for the first time, and it [had] empowered labor unions and given them a voice in the affairs of business. Corporate leaders resented both of these moves and so they launched a massive campaign of public relations designed to sell the values of free enterprise. The problem was that their naked appeals to the merits of capitalism were largely dismissed by the public.

The business leaders quickly realized that their pro-capitalist message was going to sound self serving, and not terribly palatable so they needed to find the most trusted people in the country to deliver it for them.

Ministers.   

They use these ministers to make the case that Christianity and capitalism were soul mates. This case had been made before, but in the context of the New Deal it takes on a sharp new political meaning. Essentially they argue that Christianity and capitalism are both systems in which individuals rise and fall according to their own merits. So in Christianity, if you're good you go to heaven, if you're bad you go to hell. In capitalism if you're good you make a profit and you succeed, if you're bad you fail. 

The New Deal, they argue, violates this natural order. In fact, they argue that the New Deal and the regulatory state violate the Ten Commandments. It makes a false idol of the federal government and encourages Americans to worship it rather than the Almighty. It encourages Americans to covet what the wealthy have; it encourages them to steal from the wealthy in the forms of taxation; and, most importantly, it bears false witness against the wealthy by telling lies about them. So they argue that the New Deal is not a manifestation of God's will, but rather, a form of pagan stateism and is inherently sinful.

The book goes on to explain how we "In God We Trust" found its way onto our money, and how "One Nation Under God" found its way into our Pledge of Allegiance.

So ultimately the idea of America being a Christian nation is not the intention of the Founding Fathers, but rather part of a cynical advertising scheme to marry capitalism and Christianity together in order to protect big businesses and their profit margin.

Keep that in mind the next time you see a Republican attacking labor unions while in the same breath espousing Christian family values. 

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.

Pope speaks out against greed and inequality. Republicans ripping their hair out and asking why this guy does not understand Christianity.

Courtesy of Reuters:  

Pope Francis said in the first peace message of his pontificate that huge salaries and bonuses are symptoms of an economy based on greed and inequality and called again for nations to narrow the wealth gap. 

In his message for the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Peace, marked around the world on January 1, he also called for sharing of wealth and for nations to shrink the gap between rich and poor, more of whom are getting only "crumbs". 

"The grave financial and economic crises of the present time ... have pushed man to seek satisfaction, happiness and security in consumption and earnings out of all proportion to the principles of a sound economy," he said. 

"The succession of economic crises should lead to a timely rethinking of our models of economic development and to a change in lifestyles," he said.

This has GOT to be driving the Religious Right, and the Republican party out of their damn minds!

First they convince themselves that the President is a socialist and now this guy comes along.

Oh well perhaps he just knows which way the economic wind is blowing these days.

How is Black Friday not a sign of the end of civilization as we know it?

It is like watching a road show version of the Jerry Springer Show.

Look if you find yourself in handcuffs after fighting with a woman over a 25 inch flat screen TV you may want to reevaluate your damn life.The cost of the TV may be dramatically reduced but your dignity should have a higher price tag.

The other day at my Mom's house I had a couple of female relatives tell me they were heading over to stand in line and take advantage of the Black Friday sales.

I told them they did not have to bother, and that I would gladly hold up a flaming hoop for them to jump through right there in the living room. I also filled them in on why they should avoid shopping at Wal-Mart.

But it did no good, these are my relatives who get all of their information from Facebook, and refuse to read my posts because there are "too many words." (Yeah there's simply no helping some people.)

Let me just say that I have three flat screen televisions in my home, of varying sizes, and that I did NOT ONCE stand outside in the cold for six hours, nor bitchslap a fellow consumer, in order to get my hands on any of them.  Perhaps I am simply not a good example of the American capitalist, but I think I would feel some sense of shame if I had injured another human being or froze my testicles off in order to watch reruns of "How I Met Your Mother" on a slightly larger screen.

Just a reminder that America's ostentatious displays of religiosity are not about reaffirming the fact that many believe this is a Christian nation, and all about reminding the world that we are capitalists.

Courtesy of Religious Tolerance:

In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy anti-communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust." The president signed the resolution into law on 1956-JUL-30. The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and un-American as is communism. The new motto was first used on paper money in 1957, when it was added to the one-dollar silver certificate. By 1966, "In God we Trust" was added to all paper money, from $1 to $100 denominations.

The same was true in the case of adding "One nation under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Courtesy of Historic Documents: 

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today: 

It should be noted that in 2002, Michael A. Newdow, an Atheist from Sacramento, CA, was successful in having the phrase "under God" declared unconstitutional by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, an act by Congress limited the power of the Judiciary, thus preventing the removal of the phrase.

So not only were the "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" phrases added to reinforce America's true religion, Capitalism, even after the addition to the pledge was deemed unconstitutional, the Congress simply circumvented the wishes of the Founding Fathers.

How patriotic of them.

Apparently nothing is quite as important as making sure that Socialism, Communism, and let's not forget Atheism, are not allowed to gain a toe hold in this country.

But hey, I'll try not to let it bother me.

Bulletproof backpacks gain popularity as American politicians do NOTHING to protect our children from gun violence.

Courtesy of God Discussion:

Producers of bullet-proof backpacks are seeing sales of their children's line of backpacks surge, Jewish News One reports. 

With gun-control reform going nowhere in Congress, a growing number of American schools and parents are encouraging children to wear bullet-proof backpacks while outside to help protect them from potential gun attacks. The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre last December, in which 20 children died, has created a climate of fear that is contributing to the wider use of bullet-proof backpacks. Gun control advocates say the trend is a sad one.

I don't think I have the words to adequately express my disgust with people who would pray on the fears of parents to sell a product that clearly has no value, and CANNOT do what it is advertised to do.

There is NO way that in the middle of  a school shooting an elementary age child will have the presence of mind to defy the teacher's direction of getting down under a table, walk to their cubby, grab their bulletproof backpack and hold it in front of them to deflect incoming fire from a lunatic.

And even if they could perform those steps it will simply not work as a form of protection.

But do you know what would work? Keeping those weapons out of he hands of people how might use them to do harm to ourselves or our children.

Fewer guns mean fewer bullets. Fewer bullets mean fewer deaths. It is the kind of simple mathematical formula that you would think that most people would learn in elementary school.

Or perhaps they were too busy cowering in a corner, while hiding behind their backpacks, to pay attention to the lesson.

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?

Did you know?

Yet more ammunition to help you stand up for the truth when dealing with the Fox news zombies. And always remember that TRUTH has a liberal bias.

If clicking the image does not enlarge it for you, try clicking here.

Sarah Palin and the "Will campaign for cash" crowd.

THIS is why I believe that, despite her horrible poll numbers, Sarah Palin will run for President.

There are sheep to shear and running for office provides a very effective set of clippers to use.

Taking advantage of the ignorance and fear drummed into the average conservative voter by Fox News for profit may be one of the most hateful ways to make a buck in this country that I have ever seen. But Sarah Palin has shown them the way.

Selfishness in place of civil service, the needs of the candidate taking precedence over the needs of the voter, and the focus on the campaign and not on the job they are campaigning for, welcome to Sarah Palin brand politics in 2010.