Sarah Palin wants to throw 49ers quarterback out of the country for refusing to stand during national anthem. You know, because FREEDOM!

For those who have not been following this closely: 

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has willingly immersed himself into controversy by refusing to stand for the playing of the national anthem in protest of what he deems are wrongdoings against African Americans and minorities in the United States. 

His latest refusal to stand for the anthem -- he has done this in at least one other preseason game -- came before the 49ers' preseason loss to Green Bay at Levi's Stadium on Friday night. 

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

That of course caused all kinds of folks to freak out, especially those on the Right Wing, when it first happened several days ago.

However Sarah Palin, who as we know has recently been taking blows to the head, was a little late to jump on the ole bandwagon.

But here she comes to pile on as well: 

America - let's sack this ungrateful punk. Kaepernick - yeah, you're really "down with the oppressed" in this nation. Enjoying your $114 million contract, your previous adoring fans, sucking up a life of luxury... GOD AND COUNTRY GAVE YOU THIS OPPORTUNITY. You can't acknowledge that? Then on behalf of every Vet I'm privileged to know: GET THE HELL OUT. 

- Sarah Palin

Gee what a nice measured response, if you were SATAN!

It's almost as if Palin thinks that freedom only pertains to gun ownership and not freedom of expression.

Interestingly enough her new son-in-law provided a far more reasonable response: 

If that’s what he feels he wants to do with his fame and his platform, that’s his choice. 

But Colin Kaepernick needs to remember that a lot of men and women bled for that flag he refuses to stand for. 

A lot of those men and women were African-Americans who fought, bled, and died on behalf of that flag and those freedoms. 

That flag stands for freedom and has nothing to do with the issue he is trying to portray. But, if he feels this is something he has to do, he should rock on. Because that’s what freedom is all about.

Okay well Dakota got his little conservative dig in there about blood spilled for our freedoms, but in the end he still recognized Kapernick's right to exercise his first amendment protected free speech in that manner. 

And compared to Palin's rabid screed it sounds almost Gandhi-like.

I am actually beginning to wonder if she is not on the verge of yet another psychotic break.

Citizens United and Breitbart to give Duck Dynasty star "free speech" award for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. I should be more surprised at this right?

Courtesy of Politico:  

Citizens United and Breitbart News will be honoring “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson with a free-speech award after last year’s controversial comments on homosexuality. 

The Hollywood Reporter wrote on Tuesday that Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, and Breitbart News, a conservative news organization, will give Robertson, 67, the “Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award” at the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference

The award comes over one year after Robertson called same-sex relationships “not logical” in an interview with GQ Magazine. 

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical,” Robertson said for the January 2014 edition of the magazine. 

During the interview, he also compared “homosexual behavior” with bestiality.

I wonder what's next?

Will  Rand Paul get a "Defender of the First Amendment" award for suggesting that vaccinations lead to "profound mental disorders?"

Perhaps Scott Walker should receive the award for responding to a question about evolution with "I'm going to punt on that one as well."

Or maybe former Breitbart journalists Charles C. Johnson will receive the honor for recently claiming that President Obama's birth certificate, and virtually all family photos of him, are fake?

You know just maybe Citizens United and Breitbart are confusing free speech with simple ignorance and an inability to separate fact from religious fables or conspiracy theories.

I guess next on their agenda is to give the Flat Earth Society a life time achievement award for not buckling under to overwhelming scientific research, or even common sense,

Guess who's now considered a terrorist in Saudi Arabia. That's right, me.

Courtesy of Human Rights Watch:  

Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism law and a series of related royal decrees create a legal framework that appears to criminalize virtually all dissident thought or expression as terrorism. The sweeping provisions in the measures, all issued since January 2014, threaten to close down altogether Saudi Arabia’s already extremely restricted space for free expression. 

“Saudi authorities have never tolerated criticism of their policies, but these recent laws and regulations turn almost any critical expression or independent association into crimes of terrorism,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “These regulations dash any hope that King Abdullah intends to open a space for peaceful dissent or independent groups.”

And just how sweeping are these provisions?

This sweeping:

Article 1: “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.”

That's right. Simply believing that there is no God, and mentioning that, is now considered an offense and is dealt with in the same way as a guy who opens fire on a busload of school children.

And we buy our oil from these people!

Should I even mention that there are religious fundamentalists in this country who would gladly impose similar laws if they thought there was a chance they might be able to get it?

Because there are.

Sure Christians and Muslims THINK they are a persecuted group, but we Atheists know who are the real victims of discrimination.

Billboard in Sacramento.

Courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter:  

Just in time for the holidays, a non-profit group is planning on erecting dozens of atheist billboards to let fellow non-believers know they're "not alone." 

The Greater Sacramento Chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has paid for 55 different billboards this year to go up in Sacramento, Calif. 

"It's because atheists are starting to speak up and they're beginning to identify each other," chapter president Judy Saint told a local TV station. 

"There are a lot of non-believers and this time of year, they feel like they're alone. This isn't directed to people who enjoy their church, who enjoy their religion." 

"That's fine. But we're talking to people who don't know that atheism is okay." 

The billboards, all featuring area residents, share non-religious messages such as, "I worship nothing and question everything," or "Science. It works." 

Somehow I don't think this is going to convince the Religious Right that there is no war on Christianity.

But should they care? After all there are billboards all over the country that encourage people to find God, accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and attend church. Actually these are in response to those.

And besides if your faith is shaken by something that you read on a billboard, then did you have much faith in the first place?

As an Atheist I am just glad that we finally feel confident enough to come out of the shadows, show our faces in public, and speak out against the thousands of years of oppression, persecution, and isolation that we have suffered at the hands of those who consider themselves our moral superiors.

During tour to promote her book about Christmas, Christianity, and freedom, Palin has journalists herded into a locked room of a Wausau Wal-Mart. Apparenty the First Amendment is not covered in her book.

When Palin arrived she started right away to spread the freedom.

The press was then informed that they would soon get to access to Palin, sort of, and only for five minutes.

Then finally the moment of truth.

There was even a little video captured of the event.

Boy could Willow look any LESS please to be there?

As expected there was some backlash directed at Theresa Clift over her reporting of the event.

Here were a few follow up tweets in response to challenges and questions.

@jptstewart not physically locked, but the door was guarded and we were told we couldn't leave. #walmartjail
— Theresa Clift (@tClift) November 14, 2013

@Journorati @jptstewart if we wanted to go to the bathroom or leave the store, we had to be escorted, they said.
— Theresa Clift (@tClift) November 14, 2013

her agent says Wausau wasn't chosen because of the holiday concert controversy, yet Palin just posted this: https://t.co/w3TjokQ7kB
— Theresa Clift (@tClift) November 14, 2013

Personally I think that Clift should consider herself lucky that she was only temporarily held captive by Palin. Remember I am the guy that got kicked out of not one, but two different Palin book signings.

Apparently the ONLY part of the Constitution that Palin has ever read is the 2nd Amendment, and she skipped right over that whole freedom of speech and freedom of the press portion.

Let's face it, Palin is really only interested in having HER freedoms protected, and those who think just like her. For the rest of us, it is "Go to your little locked room until I call for you," or "Get the hell out of here."

(H/T to Mediaite.)

Just a reminder as to why ALL Americans, regardless of their party affiliations, should be proud of this President.

Simply put this is one of the most impressive things I have ever heard uttered by a political leader, made even more so by the intensity of the attacks that have come his way since even before he was elected.

Could any of us imagine Mitt Romney dealing with that kind of hate with such sophistication and class?

President Obama addresses the UN. A must see speech in my opinion. Update!

The speech is incredibly far reaching in that it honored the memory of Ambassador Stevens, and addressed in a very adult and honest manner the violence that erupted recently in the Middle East.

I found the entire speech quite powerful (Romney might want to simply drop out of the race right about now.), however I found the portion below, where the President discusses how important free speech is to America, to be especially worthy of note.

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

I think THAT pretty much says it all. 

I have heard that the GOP is attempting to create controversy over the fact that the President is not meeting privately with any of the visiting UN dignitaries, but personally I think he said just about everything he needs to say to all them in this speech.

Hopefully they will listen to, and understand the importance of, his words.

(P.S. If anybody finds the video of this speech, send it my way and I will embed it here for everybody to watch. Thanks ahead of time.)

Update: here is the video of the President's UN speech. (And as you know it is ALWAYS much better to hear the President speak, then to simply read what he said.)

Brits may be fired for wearing a crucifix around their neck at work. Oh, THAT is going to make a certain religious group very unhappy!

Courtesy of The Telegraph:  

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross. 

It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work. 

A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so. 

The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. 

He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.

Some of you may be shocked, due to my identification as an Atheist, that I  am deeply troubled by ANY law which allows the firing of a person for displaying their religious faith through the wearing of ornaments or clothing.

While I may have a very different view of allowing proselytizing at work, and this COULD be categorized as a subtle form of that invasive practice, I do not see it in the same light at all.

However though this may seem a simple case of free speech or religious tolerance, it is a little more complicated.

The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” 

The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols. 

They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion. 

The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9. 

Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.

I actually read about this case several days ago, but there was so much going on that I was unable to address it back then. 

Still I think it is a rather fascinating topic and am interested in what all you have to say about it.

Secret Service investigating Arizona teens who killed a t-shirt with Obama's face on it. Oh, they are also investigating the cop who took a picture of it and posted it to Facebook.

Photo courtesy of Gawker.

Courtesy of ABC News:

A picture that shows several teens, a few of them carrying guns, displaying a bullet-riddled Obama T-shirt has led the U.S. Secret Service to investigate. 

The Peoria Police Department is also doing its own investigation since the person who took the photograph is a Sergeant for the department. 

“I don’t think that the shooting of that T-shirt is that big of a deal,” said Sgt. Pat Shearer, who snapped the photo. 

“It was more of a political statement,” he told ABC15. 

Shearer admitted that he was embarrassed by the photograph, which was being shared on Facebook. On Thursday, the Secret Service told ABC15 that the individuals involved have a right to free speech, but that the agency also has a right to question them. 

Shearer said that he stands by President Barack Obama and would sacrifice his own life for the President’s.

“It’s not like they were going to go out and shoot the president,” he said. 

Well of course it was "not like they were going out to shoot the president." He wasn't within range of their guns, now was he?  However that shirt, with his picture, was.

So now that they have felt what it is like to kill a shirt, what happens if the next time the President IS within range?

And the guy who took the picture, AND posted it to Facebook, is a cop? Holy shit!

I am beginning to think that the Secret Service needs to open a special office just to keep an eye on the people of Arizona.

If this had been a shirt with a picture of Bush, while he was still in office, these kids would be lying naked while chained to the floor of a cell in Gitmo right now.

In the unheralded accomplishments department, President Obama saved the internet. You're welcome.

"Nah you don't have to thank me. You know I've got your back."

Courtesy of the Washington Monthly:

At issue are two related bills: the Senate’s Protect IP Act and the even more offensive Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, both of which are generated intense opposition from tech giants and First Amendment advocates. The first sign that the bills’ prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy. 

The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration’s chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” It added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.” 

Until now, the Obama administration had not taken a position on the issue. The response was published yesterday as part of the online “We The People” petition initiative launched by the White House last year. 

Though the administration did not issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form. 

A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

So there you go.

For those of us who use the internet quite frequently, or have an opinion blog that borrows from the writings of journalists to make a point, this has been a rather frightening time.

Not me of course, I had total trust in the President to stop this thing before it got out of hand.

I mean it's not like I was lying awake at night rocking to and fro in my bed weeping or anything. Because that would be, you know, unmanly.

Anyhow now SOPA is dead in the water. And PIPA (The Senate version) actually died a little earlier after six of the GOP co-sponsors begged Harry Reid NOT to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

So what that means for us is that we still get to talk about politics, religion, and Sarah Palin to our heart's content, without fear of being sued or shut down.

And as Martha Stewart would say, "That's a good thing."

President Obama responds to Occupy Wall Street "mic check" with class.

Now look everybody who comes here knows that I support this President.

I also support the OWS protesters, and I find no conflict with that.

So of course it is perfectly reasonable to expect our President to get a mic check just like any OTHER politician who has not done enough to address the fact that Wall Street and banks have done such damage to our economy and today remain virtually unscathed. 

However having said that I have to point out how incredibly well the President handled himself during that interruption. He did not storm of the stage like Michele Bachmann, or yell back at them like Karl Rove, he handled it calmly and even quieted his own supporters who were trying to shout the protesters down.

I watched the entire speech and the President also made a point to go back and mention the protesters, and his support for their cause, a couple more times.

That is how a REAL leader handles dissent.

Teabaggers use intimidation to disrupt Moveon.org meeting in Roseburg, Oregon.

Courtesy of The News Review:

Many members of the Douglas County tea party, including Americans for Prosperity President Rich Raynor, initially defended the party's actions and vowed to use similar tactics to break up future MoveOn meetings.

After the incident was reported, Raynor told The News-Review he received phone calls threatening his family. Raynor said several email accounts and his Facebook account had been hacked. 

Seemingly boastful exchanges between him and tea party member Karen Meier were posted in The News-Review's comment section, allegedly by an email hacker. 

Meier and Raynor said the hackings are being investigated by the FBI. Regional FBI spokeswoman Beth Anne Steele said she was “not aware of any active investigations” involving email hacking.

In a voice mail message, Raynor said he had been “advised not to make any further comment.” 

In a phone interview Tuesday, Meier, who attended the event, extended an apology to the MoveOn group, saying tea partiers got caught up in the moment.

This is a shameful display.  How can people who claim to want to defend the Constitution so callously interrupt someone's attempts to exercise their right to free speech?

They were clearly just being bullies and assholes, and if nobody every stands up to them they will continue acting that way until somebody gets hurt.

Of course it could have been worse for the MoveOn.org people.  When Dennis Zaki and I interviewed Teabaggers in Anchorage two years ago, a number of them were packing guns and wearing shirts that claimed they were members of the 2nd Amendment Patriots. (Later they gathered outside of the Dena'ina Convention Center and dared Senator Mark Begich to come out and talk to them.)

Sarah Palin encourages children to stand up for their right to eat junk food while stomping on the 1st amendment rights of those who came to protest her in Pennsylvania.

From PhillyBurbs.com:

About a dozen people who had gathered to protest Sarah Palin's arrival at a fundraiser in Peddler's Village late Tuesday afternoon were forced to move by police.

Officers from both Solebury and Buckingham, who were providing security in the vicinity of the Cock 'n Bull restaurant where Palin was making an appearance, told the protesters that they could not stand across the street from the eatery's entrance.

Doylestown Township resident Mari Suarez, who was among the group, said police told her that the demonstrators were on private property and had to move.

"I don't think that's right," said Suarez.

"It's unjust," said Marlene Pray, the Doylestown resident who helped organize the protests. However, she said she was not surprised by the police action.

"We were told to expect this," Pray said. "It has happened at other places where Sarah Palin has appeared. It's her draconian security measures."

It seems that Sister Sarah is ALL about protecting the rights of students in Pennsylvania to increase their risks of tooth decay and contracting type two Diabetes, but does not recognize the hypocrisy inherent in the fact that the people who do not agree with her were not able to exercise their first amendment rights which our founding fathers provided to the citizens of this great country.

I can come to no other conclusion than that Sarah Palin hates America, but LOVES childhood obesity.

So what do you get when you have a parent who refuses to teach her children about good nutrition, or the importance of safe sex?

I have decided what I am going to get Bristol for Christmas this year.  A mother who actually loves her.

Perhaps she can find it in her heart to share her with the other members of her family, before it is too late for them as well.

P.S. I actually do feel a little guilty including Bristol's picture in this post, but it certainly seems relevant if her mother is going to protest the efforts of the Pennsylvania school system to protect their students from poor nutrition.  If somebody is going to stick their nose into how the schools and parents of another state care for their children, than obviously it is fair game to scrutinize how that person parents their OWN children. (And of course I am still pretty convinced that Bristol's weight gain is for another reason altogether, but since the Palin's are in denial about that then the only other alternative is that Bristol grew up without learning the importance of good nutrition from her parents. One of which is now giving nutional advice to the children in Pennsylvania.)

Sarah Palin has a short, and selective, memory.

Sister Sarah prodded her indentured servant Facebook writer to post the following in response to news that local radio jerkwad, and Joe Miller supporter, Dan "Are you going to finish that dessert" Fagan had been taken off of the air because of complaints that he was engaging in election fraud :

Individuals like Dan Fagan have a fundamental right to speak their minds without threats from the incumbent Senator from Alaska. It is hard to find a constitutional right Americans cherish more than the right to free speech. This was a right Joe Miller, as a decorated combat veteran – a tank commander tested in battle, was willing to die to defend. Dan Fagan has not always agreed with me, but I will gladly defend his right to speak freely on his radio show, which he has often used to criticize me. In fact, Fagan has actually used his radio show to attack and insult me, my husband, my children, and my family in just about every way possible. He was especially insulting to my son, who left for a war zone to defend Fagan’s right to attack our family. But when I was his governor, I never would have dreamed of threatening his right to free speech. I support him in this fight because this D.C. Beltway thuggery, as exemplified by Lisa Murkowski’s latest threat, is ruining our country. The powers that be want ordinary Americans to sit down and shut up and let the ruling class ride us right off the debt cliff we’re heading towards with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid steering the nation’s car. We can’t let them. Now is the time to put aside our past differences and stand up to the establishment powers.

Okay well encouraging people to fraudulently attempt to cause mayhem at polling places in order to benefit your candidate may not exactly fall under the protection of the First Amendment, but I do agree with Palin that people's right to free speech MUST be protected!

However unlike Palin I also believed that back in December of 2009, when she had ME and my friend  Dennis Zaki ejected from an "open to the public" book signing by the Wasilla police.

The woman who once called on the press to "quit makin' things up" took it a step further yesterday by allegedly banning four members of the media from a book event in Wasilla, Alaska.

So let me see if I have this clear.  Free speech is protected when it might keep a radio host who supports your candidate from being suspended, but not when it means that bloggers and news people who have been critical of you might ask you an embarrassing question in front of your fans Ms. Palin?

You know the Constitution is not a spigot you can turn on and off at will.  Either it protects free speech or it doesn't.  

Hypocrisy thy name is Palin!

CNN misrepresents Bill Maher to defend Ann Coulter.

I am watching CNN's Reliable Sources with Howie "Everybody look at me" Kurtz and they are talking about the horrible things that the Crypt Keeper's sister keeps saying about John Edwards. Anyhow they use the excuse that her quote about wishing that he was killed in a terrorist attack is not so bad because Bill Maher said the same thing about Dick Cheney.

Number one: that in no way excuses what she said, and Number two: no he did not. What he did was talk about freedom of speech in our country, and used the fact that the Huffington Post took down some comments about wishing Dick Cheney dead as an example of restrictions on that free speech. He then followed it up with the comment below.

"I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow."

What he was saying was that he could understand why people would wish for the death of a man they hold responsible for the deaths of thousands of their fellow Americans, and that perhaps they should not be kept from expressing that on the Huffington Post.

Any how you can see the comments in context in the YouTube clip below.