Skip to main content

I know we haven't really bothered to have a conversation, but it's well past time to sit down and really have it out and put everything on the table.  One Progressive to One Sarah Palin.

One thing is clear, you really seriously don't know much about us "Not Real" Americans, but we know plenty about you considering how much the Media fawns over your every minor comment and tweet. And of course there's your new book and Manifesto "America By Heart".

Extended Excerpts from ABCNews.

Take a seat, get a Coffee, this is going to take awhile to get all this off my chest.

Before we begin let set some facts straight.  When you're railing about the "Left Coast" and those progressive who just want to sit on their laurels for a hand-out let's just remember which states are actually doing most of the financial providing in this country.

Map of Federal Tax Donor and Begger States:

It seems to me that it's us on the West Coast with our innovation and entrepreneurial Silicon Valley, our California Bread Basket and Entertainment Industry (Where America Ranks #1 in World Wide Exports), as well as the Financial Sectors on the East Coast that are all DONOR States for Federal Taxes which are raked in by the "Heartland" in Farming Subsidies and other largess.

So when it comes to being American Entrepreneurs, we don't just talk about it - We Do It.  Unlike Alaska who for all their Frontier Spirit are all individually paid a Government (Welfare) Stipend of between $600 and $1500 every year, we have to make it on our own.

But somehow Obama is the one attempting to Redistribute Wealth by putting the tax code back to where it was when we had a booming economy and budget surplus?

We on the Progressives and Left side, not being all that afraid of the "Book Learnin'" or the Google Search are well aware that You Didn't say "'Thanks, but No thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere". Congress Did that - but You and Alaska still took the money anyway.

In your book you talk about your favorite movies such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington while railing that Hollywood wouldn't make such a movie today.

Call it corny, but Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of my favorite movies. It's a movie about hope. It's a movie about good triumphing over evil and idealism defeating cynicism. Most of all, it's a movie about the timeless truths of America handed down to us from our forefathers and foremothers. In other words, it's a movie Hollywood would never make today.

In case you've forgotten, Mr. Smith is about an American Everyman, Jefferson Smith, who goes to Washington to fill the Senate seat of a corrupt senator who died in office. The political machine chooses Smith because he is an ordinary man, a nonpolitician, and they think they can control him. But he holds fast to his ideals—the ideals of the American founding—and eventually defeats the machine. The movie was made in 1939, but its message is timeless: there may be corruption in politics, but it can be overcome by decent men and women who honor America's founding principles, the way the American people do.

Want an example of recent successful uplifting Hollywood film that pits a lowly underdog against the powerful corrupt Government?  Try Fair Game featuting Mr. and Mrs. Wilson which has an 83% Rotten Tomatoes Rating. You say Hollywood is afraid to make our soldiers look like heros in movies like Green Zone, except that Matt Damon IS the Hero - while still managing to be a soldier.  And did you forget a minor little Academy Award Winner like "The Hurt Locker"?

Here's a Newsflash: Mr. Smith was trying to get an Earmark.  He wanted to spend government money on some needy people, orphans, instead of having the money spent on business interests.  He was doing something very much like Trying to Get Health Care for 9/11 First Responders.  Of course, if you only watch Fox News you would think it was the Democrats who stopped that bill - but the truth is that our real life Mr Smith is Senator Bernie Sanders who railed against giveaways to corporate fat-cats for eight hours, not Senator Jim Bunning who blocked much needed unemployment relief while whining that he's just missed a Basketball game.  Also the film's "Smith" wasn't just an "everyman" he was a beginner, a Freshman - arguably if he'd been more experienced he might have gotten exactly what he wanted without all the drama, more like Charlie Wilson's War.

You do know that Eddie Murphy essentially remade "Mr Smith" over a decade ago with The Distinguished Gentleman??, Also - Right?

But to you it seems, the ideals and drama count for far more than the facts.

Jefferson Smith loves the words of the Declaration of Independence, not because he's mindlessly pro-American, but because, as he says, "behind them, they . . . have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a little lookin' out for the other fella, too." He understands that those words are a gift, not just to Americans, but to all humanity. But that gift is being corrupted by special interests and forgotten by Washington.

That's what I think so many of the people who make the big laws, run the big corporations, write for the big newspapers, and make the big movies today have forgotten. Americans love this country because it means something, and it has since the beginning. That meaning, many of us feel, is being lost today.

First of all, most of us in Blue Donor America haven't forgotten any of that.  We don't all personally "make big laws, run big corporations, write for big papers or make big movies" - although we may work with people who do, or they may be part of our families - we still continue to believe in those ideals, and further we try to live by those ideals in order to prove, not just assume, that America does indeed mean something.  We believe that America stands for Justice.  That means Justice for all persons regardless of race, sex, religion, orientation, or the circumstances of their arrival on these American shores. It means that the power of the Government should not only be used to Kill people, but also to Save Them.

But apparently those ideals are not what you truly believe.

When Dr. Laura berated a Black Woman on the Air for being "Oversensitive" and used the N-Word with her 12 times - you told her not to "Retreat, but to Reload".  You think her N-Word Bandoleer needed a Refill?  When Rahm Emmanuel said that the ideas of some progressives were "F-ing Retarded", you claimed he should resign and apologize for attacking Your Son Trig, who to my knowledge has never advocated any Progressive Policies.

"Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the "N-word" or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking,"

Any public figure, except for Dr. Laura it would seem.

Then when Rush Limbaugh actually did call Progressives themselves "Retarded People" - you defended him while proclaiming...

"They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh," she said, when read a quote of Limbaugh calling liberal groups "retards." Rush Limbaugh was using satire...

Yes, Rush is great big comedian who should be excused for using satire - but apparently David Letterman isn't and shouldn't get an inch of slack because he can't tell one Palin daughter from the other.

But of course Franklin Graham deserves all the benefit of doubt, even though he'd said "Islam is a very evil and wicked religion, " you criticized his being dis-invited to the Pentagon's National Day Of Prayer.

"Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can't abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith?" Palin asked. "What a shame. Yes, things have changed."

Yes, it is a shame.  Especially when Franklin went on to claim that Obama was born with a "Muslim Seed" - even though as a point of fact, his father was an Athiest.

You were also the one who thought it was politically convenient to say that Obama "Palled Around with a domestic Terrorist", except that the man you were talking about has never been tried or convicted of any violent crime .  Ever.  Thanks to COINTELPRO.  As a result there's no legal reason NOT to "pal around with him", meanwhile you pal around with Glenn Beck while one of his supporters got into a shootout with police on his way to Murder members of the ACLU and Tides Foundation. How Domestic Terrorist-Adjacent of you.

When David Brock stepped forward and asked you to condemn the Bomb Threats against NPR for the firing of Juan Williams you laughed at him.  So okay, you're not responsible for your choice of pals like Beck or other Fox Contributors like Bernard Goldberg whom  admitted Murderers have credited for their inspiration, and even though G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North appear on Fox News everyone else there isn't responsible for Watergate or Iran-Contra but somehow Barack Obama is responsible for what Bill Ayers wasn't prosecuted for almost 40 years ago when he was 8-years-old?

That thinking isn't Fair or Balanced.

As a result of this an other KOOKY and/or MEAN politically opportunistic statements of yours - we progressives aren't your biggest fans, but I guess you know that.  In fact, I'm sure of it.  You seem to thrive on it. Swat the Liberal seems to be your favorite game.

But the point here is (most of us) don't HATE you. Most of us think you're embarrassing, hilarious and ridiculous, some may think you're dangerous to the nation and a Serial Fact-Mangler - some of us may resent being repeated called some Lesser Form of American -  but for those outside Alaska who you haven't done anything to personally, there's no reason to really Hate. However it seems pretty clear that You May Hate Us.

The epitome of progressive thinking was Barack Obama's promise, just before the 2008 election, that "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." I guess you could say he warned us! But the problem is that Americans don't want a fundamental transformation of their country. Americans are awakening to the fact that, of course our country has changed a great deal since it was born, but our Founders hit on some timeless truths that will never change and should never change. More and more of us view our founding truths as a bulwark, not just against bigger government, but against losing that fundamental sense of decency that Senator Smith fought for. If we forget these truths—or reject that they are timeless—we lose something fundamental about ourselves. No, "transformation" won't save America; "restoration" of our honor, dignity, and freedoms will save America.

Here's another Newsflash: Obama isn't a Progressive - he's a Pragmatist and a Centrist. The America he was talking about was one that would reach across the political and partisan divide to accomplish BIG THINGS in the name of Nationalism and Patriotism. He was expressing a fervent Hope that America could come together and succeed as a Team, not as a rag-tag band of petty rivals.

It's always true that a team working together can accomplish far more than any single individual working alone.  You ought to know that from your Basketball days Miss Barracuda.

Rugged Individualism is great, fine and often necessary - particularly if you're playing Checkers or Table Tennis - but in the real world, what really works is Teamwork, especially when we as a nation are in competition with other nations who certainly will not hesitate to commit their national resources to beat our team technologically and economically.  America is hardly number #1 in anything anymore, except as I said exporting films, and building mountains of debt.

Some problems exist on a scale and scope that is far too broad for single separate individuals to address, and simply because groups (either industry or government) attempt to address the problem it does not mean that "individual freedom is diminished". It means the problem gets fixed.  I have yet to see a single individual build an Aqueduct, Interstate Highway System, or Space Program.  Big jobs and big problems require big teams to tackle.  To me, and many progressives, whether they are public or private teams is largely besides the point as long as there's a minimum of graft and price gouging.

No, it's clear you don't have the first clue about what Progressivism is, nor do you seem to care.

It's worth asking: Who are the real "progressives" in America today? As President Coolidge said, to deny the principles of our founding isn't to go forward (to "progress") but to go "backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people."

Those who run down American values and think our founding principles are somehow intolerant or theocratic have it exactly backward. The words of the Declaration of Independence, brought to life in the words of the Constitution, are the most liberating, most human-rights- respecting words ever written. They assert the moral and political equality of all men and women, no matter who their parents are or how much money they have. What could be more "progressive" than that?

On this we would agree, the words of the Declaration of Independence ARE Progressive.  Very Progressive.  In fact, America is Progressive by design and in it's creation.  The crux of the problem has been with America's Failure to actually Live up to those Ideals.

Words are one thing, Actions are another.  Fulfulling Americas promise requires more than being a flag waving Cheer-leader, it requires getting things done. Difficult things.  Things that just might piss some people off.

Take the recent health care debate as an example. The folks pushing President Obama's government health care bill seemed to think that we could be bought. But when we say we believe that our rights are God-given it means something.

Those words in the Declaration of Independence mean that our rights are sacred; government can't legitimately violate them or add to them. The proponents of government health care didn't seem to think that Americans understood this principle—or, if we understood it, we didn't really mean it. They seemed to think we could be bribed by pie-in- the-sky promises; that we were gullible enough to believe that government could manufacture a new "right" to health care and we wouldn't pay the price with our freedom, such as our freedom to keep what we earn, to choose our own doctor, and to buy—or not buy—health insurance.

Basic facts, the Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution and the Constitution can be added to and changed.  This is something that Conservatives never seem to get right.  They seem to read the Preamble, about half the First Amendment, 2/3rds of the Second Amendment then Skip to the Tenth Amendment and miss everything else in between.  Particularly the Ninth Amendment which says this...

Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Rights of the People are indeed Sacrosanct, but the Constitution is not a Laundry List of those rights, rather it is a list of responsibilities, powers and limits on Government.

Part of those responsibilities includes "Providing for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the People" through all "Necessary and Appropriate" means. That may mean Defending the Nation from an Invading Army or an Invading Disease.

Our private Health Care system has massively failed the American people, it is now absolutely necessary and appropriate for Government to take a role in correcting that problem in order to provide for the Common Defense of the people.

Just as our Second President and Founding Father John Adam's determined when he signed the First Health Care Mandate into law 212 Years Ago

In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase health care insurance.

This legislation also created America's first payroll tax, as a ship's owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor's monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.

So is Obama violating the Principles and Ideals of our Founding Fathers or is he Implementing Them when they've gone ignored for so long?

Apparently you don't think that Americans really should be protected from all that will harm, kill or maim them - even when they've already done their best to protect themselves.

They were wrong, and for proof you don't have to look any further than the shameful way in which Obamacare was written and passed. It was written in secret, behind closed doors, far from the promised C-SPAN cameras. And it wasn't long before we found out why: To win the support of nervous politicians, President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to resort to trading pork in the bill for votes, cutting sleazy deals behind closed doors like the infamous "Louisiana Purchase" (in which a Louisiana senator's vote for the bill was secured in exchange for $300 million in extras for that state) and the "Cornhusker Kickback" (in which a Nebraska senator's vote was secured in a similar fashion). Not only that, but to pass the bill, congressional Democrats had to resort to all kinds of legislative shenanigans to avoid an up-or- down vote. At one point, Speaker Pelosi told a national audience that we'd have to pass the bill to "find out what's in it." She even hatched a plan to pass the bill without the House ever actually voting on it!

And why? Because the support in Congress wasn't there. And the support in Congress wasn't there because public support wasn't there.

You mean C-Span Cameras like these?

First of all, cutting deals and making concessions are always how Congressional Bills are made and always how they will be made. Secondly, the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" was removed from the bill using the "legislative shenanigan" of Reconciliation.  Nancy Pelosi didn't actually USE "Deem and Pass" to assume the Senate Version of the bill as already passed through the house.  And lastly, all the polls showed that the American People wanted and support Health Care Reform - only that the majority actually wanted Even Stronger reform than was ultimately passed, not weaker.

It was the lack of Stronger Reform that Depressed Democratic Turning this November, not the passage of Health Reform in general.

At President Obama’s recent health care summit, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans breathlessly touted an “average” of recent public polls showing large majorities opposing health care reform.  McConnell’s polling average was dubious to begin with, but he was also getting well ahead of himself.[i] In fact, a flurry of recent polls show support for health care reform slowly but surely on the rise. A new survey from The Economist/YouGov released yesterday shows majority supporting passage of reform for the first time since December.[ii] Moreover, recent polls that dig deeper than the topline numbers demonstrate even more support for passage of reform, with the most recent Ipsos survey showing a majority of Americans either supporting the current reform option or hoping for an even stronger reform package.

In this case yet again, it was Democrats who were at least trying to fight against the Fat Cats of the Big Insurance Industry who've been gouging and denying care to 50 Million Americans, leaving them like Mr. Smith's Orphans out in the cold, where an estimated 45,000 of them DIE every year. (Most) Democrats were fighting to help them, while Republicans (and some Democrats) were blocking and fighting to help the Fat Cats.

Still, the bill was passed and the damage has been done. In the end, this unsustainable bill jeopardizes the very thing it was supposed to fix: our health care system. Somewhere along the way we forgot that health care reform is about doctors and patients, not the IRS and politicians. Instead of helping doctors with tort reform, this bill has made primary care physicians think about getting out of medicine. It was supposed to make health care more affordable, but our premiums will continue to go up. It was supposed to help more people get coverage, but there will still be twenty-three million uninsured people by 2019.

There are 50 Million Americans uninsured now, so "leaving 23 million Uninsured" is frankly a vast improvement - one that "Tort Reform" has shown no evidence of correcting.  There's nothing in this alternative that addresses Pre-Existing Conditions, nothing that addresses better Preventive Measures or greater efficiencies to bring down costs, nothing that increases access to Medicaid or Local Clinics.  Nothing that solves the problem of price gouging by Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

But of course the real issue of the Health Care Debate wasn't the facts - it was the "Race Card" being played.

The worst thing you can say about a fellow American in politics today is that he is a racist. It just doesn't get any more damning than this accusation. That's why so many of us were horrified to hear news reports that people protesting the passage of the health care bill had shouted racial epithets at an African American congressmen as they walked to the Capitol to cast their vote. It was a serious charge, made by supposedly serious men, and repeated endlessly in the mainstream media. At a critical moment in the debate, it overshadowed all the arguments that opponents of Obamacare had made—that the bill would put government in control of our health care, cost too much, and explode the deficit. The racism charge painted opponents of the law with the lowest form of hate, not the best interests of their country or their neighbor.

But was it true? Despite the fact that everyone walks around these days with a cell phone capable of capturing video, evidence to support the charge has never emerged. In the weeks and months after the alleged incident, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart even offered huge cash rewards to anyone who could produce proof that the health care protesters had shouted racial slurs. No proof ever emerged.

Yeah, and despite all the UFO's flying around there aren't any good cell phone pictures of them either. Imagine, that?

The arguments that the Health Care Bill would "Explode the Deficit" were baseless - since the CBO had repeatedly Scored that it would  REDUCE THE DEFICIT by $132 Billion - so that issue drowned itself out by simply being a Lie.

You say no "Proof" has emerged? Here's proof of Tea Party Bigotry right here from John Lewis's answering Machine.


CALLER:  I ain‘t getting the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) health insurance, that (EXPLETIVE DELETED).  Don‘t tell me I got to get some (EXPLETIVE DELETED) health insurance.  I ain‘t paying no (EXPLETIVE DELETED) a fine. Tell that (EXPLETIVE DELETED) he can come put my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) in jail if he don‘t like it.  (EXPLETIVE DELETED) worthless (EXPLETIVE DELETED), all them other (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that voted for that (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Obama and all them white trash honkies that voted for that (EXPLETIVE DELETED) communist socialist stuff.  Dumb mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

I ain‘t getting the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) mandatory health insurance son of a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED) bunch of (EXPLETIVE DELETED) white trash honkies, son of a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) communists voting for this (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

I ain‘t going to fight no (EXPLETIVE DELETED) war, I‘m not going to be forced to do something I don‘t want to do.  So (EXPLETIVE DELETED) all y‘all (EXPLETIVE DELETED).  You, John Lewis, you (EXPLETIVE DELETED) worthless, communist (EXPLETIVE DELETED).


Also what's the excuse for Barnie Frank being called "Faggot" in the Halls of Congress because that was caught on Video, not just on Audio like the N-Word-athon above? What? Is "N**ger" a bridge to nowhere too far for you, but "Faggot" is just Okey Doke?

Brietbart was Wrong about Acorn, and Wrong about Shirley Sherrod - he was also wrong about the N-Word (and F-Word) used against Congressional Democrats as the Health Care Bill was passed because there were Eye-Witnesses to the Event.

Despite all the protestations, the facts show that Tea Party Conservatives really are Far more Racially Biased than almost anyone else.

In a broad study  of adults in Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and California conducted between February and March, the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Sexuality (WISER) asked a number of questions about "racial resentment" — such as whether blacks don’t try hard enough or have gotten more than they deserve. Conservatives are 23 percent more likely to be racially resentful, and Republicans 15 percent more likely than Democrats. However, the institute found that this racial sentiment isn’t simply a byproduct of white conservativism:

   [E]ven as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment.

It is untrue, as political commentator Dave Weigel argues, that racism in the Tea Party is merely reflective of its conservatism. The WISER study found that compared to other conservatives, Tea Party supporters are:

  – 25 percent more likely to have racial resentment.

   – 27 percent more likely to support racial profiling.

   – 28 percent more likely to support indefinite detention without charges.

Tea Party supporters are also significantly more likely to hold racial stereotypes, with a majority believing blacks are not hard-working, intelligent, or trustworthy. Their fear of others transcends race, however — the WISER study found that a majority of tea party adherents distrust Latinos, Asians, and other whites as well.

Now, I don't point this out to Smear Conservatives in general.  Any individual within any particular group may or may not subscribe to any of these biases, including Progressives. Nobody and no broad group is perfect. This is just looking at the general trend - y'know - kinda like a PROFILE, which is something You seem to Support when you don't think you're going to be on the receiving end of it.

It's also interesting that you don't seem all that shy yourself (even if it is the worst thing you can say about someone politically) to accuse others of Racism when it suits your purposes.

People like Reverend Wright.

The second reason the charge of racism is leveled at patriotic Americans so often is that the people making the charge actually believe it. They think America—at least America as it currently exists—is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country. Barack Obama seems to believe this, too. Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband starting winning elections. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn't surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church listening to his rants against America and white people.

So the Real Racist is Reverend Wright, eh - whatever happened to letting a "Christian Minister have his views?"  Amazing that you dredge up this old argument, yet here it is.  For those few rare people who actually bothered to listen to More than just 5 Seconds at a Time of Wright's statements it becomes clear that his larger point was that we should "Trust in God, Not in Governments." That "Governments may Fail us - and have, but that God Does Not". And most importantly, that "Even if God may Condemn, and Damn our actions - he also Forgives and Redeems".

When Wright Said the following was he more out of line than Jerry Falwell's comments blaming 9-11 on God's wrath over the ACLU and Gays - or was he actually making sense?

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said it a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost,"

Is Wright a Racist because he's NOT ENEMIES with Louis Farrakhan, when Farrakhan has said something very much like your pal Franklin ("Islam is Wicked") Graham when he claimed that "Judiasm is a Gutter Religion?" Your friend says "Wicked", his friend says "Gutter" - how's someone supposed to keep up and Refudiate it all?

Would it shock you to know that Wright was actually quoting Reagan Ambassador Edward Peck, and that the basis of his comment is backed up by former CIA Bin Laden Desk Chief Michael Sheuer in his book "Imperial Hubris"?

In the context of the ideas bin Laden shares with his brethren, the military actions of al Qaeda and its allies are acts of war, not terrorism; they are part of a defensive jihad sanctioned by the revealed word of God, as contained in the Koran, and the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah. These attacks are meant to advance bin Laden's clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy goals: the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state; the removal of U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian Peninsula; the removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera;

Do you really think former U.S. Marine Jeremiah Wright is a bigot and an Anti-American because he's made claims, based on history and research, that sound a great deal like your own "Death Panel" charges - or do you simply think he's a handy political foil?  Fact is, even though he may be a bubble and half off plum, Jeremiah Wright has been just as misquoted and misconstrued as Shirley Sherrod.

Would you like to see some extreme sounding comments from your own Church and Pastor Muthee, about Witchcraft Exploited in this way?

Playing the Wiccan Card really didn't do much for Christine O'Donnell.

Or do you think that taking one isolated event, or comment, and blowing it completely out of proportion and applying it to an entire 20 year history (as the "Lame-Stream Media" is certainly wont to do) is just as completely unfair as taking a small set of horrifically bigoted signs by Tea Partiers and assuming that all Tea Party Members are Bigots?.

That sword cuts both ways Sarah.

But I didn't write this just to go tit-for-tat on the political posturing, or play Quien es Mas Bigoted.  The real issue is what our various competing visions of America really entail.  For example you say this.

It also makes sense, then, that the man President Obama made his attorney general, Eric Holder, would call us a "nation of cowards" for failing to come to grips with what he described as the persistence of racism.

But at the same time you proclaim that "political correctness" blocks of from addressing sensitive issues and subjects - well - Those are the Same things.

Eric Holder was absolutely correct, America has hidden from it's legacy and failed to courageously address them in a way that could help finally correct it's problems rather than exacerbate them. It's only by having the Courage to confront these issues and challenge our own preconceptions - knowing full well that at least some of them might be true- that we can hope to move anywhere on Race issues.  Pretending there are no issues, has let them simply fester unattended for decades, if not centuries.

It's on THIS that we disagree.

Many on the left also believe that the current call for a smaller federal government and a return to federalism—otherwise known as states' rights—is code for a return to white supremacy.

But is it racist to believe in the principles of the American founding? To revere the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and to invoke the Tenth Amendment? To want leaders and national policies that respect the wisdom and humanity of these documents?

No, it's not.  We on the Left remember that it was President Bill Clinton who actually DID shrink the Federal Government by an average of 15%, while improving it's efficiency, bolstering the economy and balancing the budget at the same time. We aren't AGAINST those ideas in principle. But many of us on the left realize that if not for Federal Intervention Slavery would never had ended. If not for Federal Intervention Segregation would never have ended - if not for Federal Intervention the Great Depression would have left us with a permanent underclass, decimated in despair, poverty and sickness - particularly the elderly. Many of us realize, unlike Conservatives who support the traitorous concept of "Nullification", that the Constitutions Supremacy Clause makes Federal Law - the Final Law of the Land.  

The States are NOT Supreme under the Law or Constitution, they are not Countries onto themselves. We are United.  The Strongest of us, strengthens and supports the weakest to become stronger.

Again you invoke "The Constitution" but you clearly haven't read all of it, only the parts you like (or can exploit).  You ignore the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment both of which limit Federal Power and protect personal privacy and Liberty, and as I mention before the 9th Amendment which shows that the Constitution is not a LIMIT on the rights of the people, only a limit on the powers of Government.

You seem to have the Constitution confused with the Articles of Confederation which actually did grant supreme power to the individual states and was a complete and total failure.   Individual States couldn't have fought and protected the Nation during the War of 1812.  Or during any serious conflict from the Spanish American War to World War I or World War II.

But your question is vital and shouldn't be ignored - should the wisdom of the Constitution be respected?  Of course.

The answer is important, because it speaks to the kind of country we are, and the kind of country we were meant to be. Did our founding values produce the country of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's rants? A place where African Americans or any minority would be justified in saying, "God damn America," instead of "God Bless America"? Or did our Founders enshrine a set of principles that gave birth to a just society, despite the obscenity of slavery? Did they, in fact, set the stage for the elimination of slavery? Does America really need, in the words of President Obama, a "fundamental transformation" in order to be a good and decent nation?

I would argue that their values did not produce the country or the atrocities that Wright speaks of, but their actions and failures to act did.

Americans can well ask how, in light of these historical facts, the idealistic words of the Declaration are not the words of hypocrites? How can the meaning of the Constitution not be that African Americans were, and were destined to be, considered less human than white Americans in the United States? If you've attended an elite college or even taken a high school history course, you have probably heard the infamous three-fifths clause denounced as evidence that the founding generation was morally blind, thus all of their works are irredeemably tainted, just like that label on the Constitution warned.

Seeing as you never went to such an "Elite College" how exactly would you know what they teach there?  You then go on to argue that the ideals of the Constitution were ultimately destined to overthrow it's flaws, such as the 3/5th clause - which you say was really an attempt by the North to diminish the power of the South.  Yet, it also reduced their taxes, so it's not fair to argue the South received nothing from the deal.

In this argument you ignore the prohibition on Congress from ending the importation of slaves until 1808.  You ignore the Fugitive Slave Clause which required Non-Slave states to enforce and bolster Slave State Laws.  You ignore that all of these elements, not just the 3/5th clause led directly to the Dred Scott Decision which stated that the Constitution Simply Did Not Apply to Africans whether they were Slaves or FREE.

Some of us would say that's a rather severe flaw, but the larger issue is that the 14th amendment which removed and was intended to fix all these flaws - also failed to accomplish that task largely because of the Plessy V Ferguson Decision which established Separate and Unequal in 1896 despite the clear equal protection language of the 14th.  Yet again, the promise and ideals may have been there - but the actual practice and implementation wasn't, leaving the promise empty and ideals a hollow shell without substance until the 1954 Brown V Board decision.

But do Conservatives openly welcome that correction?  No!  They instead attacked the nomination of Justice Elena Kagan because she had clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, who had been the victorious lead Attorney in Brown.

To our great and lasting shame, slavery continued in the United States for almost a century following the adoption of the Constitution. Although the controversy never went away, in the end it took the bloodiest war in our nation's history to end the evil practice. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died, but slavery finally died with them. And in an important and overlooked way, our Founders began this painful process.

In other words, when it comes to America, there is a difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner. To acknowledge honestly the stain of past slavery and racism is not the same thing as saying that America is a fundamentally racist country.

Of course it isn't.

The difference between Jeremiah Wright's position and yours is you seem to think Slavery (and Racism) ended with the Civil War and that's simply not true.

In fact, it wasn't even completely ended by the 13th Amendment which has a rather large exception built into it.

Amendment XIII. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So you tell me did we end slavery, or did we simply transfer it into the Criminal Justice System?  Does that not explain why people have color have become targets of law enforcement, particularly for drug crimes, even when they aren't anywhere near the most prevalent users of drugs?

The fact is that despite the 14th Amendment which promised the "Equal Protection of the Laws" we still had the "Black Codes" and Jim Crow for nearly 100 years.  The fact is despite the 15th Amendment which "guaranteed" Blacks the Right to Vote - there were still Poll Taxes and "Literacy Tests" used to deny that right, also for again, nearly 100 Years AFTER the End of the Civil War!!.

How many Centuries are we supposed to wait for America's Ideals to become America's Reality?

The fact is that it takes more than empty platitudes and ideals to protect and preserve the rights of people.  It takes Action and a commitment to implement those values even when it's the most difficult thing to do.

Without Action, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are just empty promises with no real meaning, something that Reagan knew all too well as he did everything he could to dismantle the implementation of them both, leading us to lingering issues such as the Agriculture Dept. Pigford Discrimination Suits.

The repeated failure by conservatives to walk their own talk is easily shown by the fact that they can't find a Conservative Bigot with a GPS, Map, Flashlight and Magnifying glass even when one of them is Running The Tea Party Express.  And when any "Liberal" group tries to point it out people - like you Sarah -  attack them, and demand they apologize to Mark Williams, the bigot who repeatedly claimed Obama was a "Indonesian Muslim turned Welfare Thug-In-Chief".

I'm sure the NAACP is still waiting for it's apology from you now that Williams and the entire TPE were kicked out of the National Tea party Conference.

You quote and reference Brietbart, but Shirley Sherrod hasn't received a sincere apology from him yet.

You see, Sarah, living up to your ideals sometimes means doing the Right Thing even when that requires going against people on "Your Side" when their wrong.

As a nation, it means we don't give in to the temptation to use Torture to gain a tactical intelligence advantage, especially since it was General George Washington who originally banned it during the Revolutionary War.

It means we don't toss the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments out the window at the first sign of a threat, or a Scary Muslim Multi-faith Prayer Center in Manhattan that also happens to have a 9/11 Memorial inside it.

As Eric Holder said, living by our ideals take Courage, not Fear.

Rather than wishing that America be "Fundamentally Changed" in a manner that somehow violates the Ideals of the Founding Fathers, what Progressives want is for America to Actually have the COURAGE TO LIVE UP TO THOSE IDEALS.

We want to take the American Dream out of the realm of fantasy for so many and into the world of reality.

That requires recognizing that bigotry has not disappeared, that racial, religious, gender and economic injustice continues, it's not just a fading memory of the past. It's not what it used to be, but It all lives on.  The facts and the Statistics on this do not Lie.

White Applicants with Criminal Records are more likely to be called back for a second interview then Black Applicants without one, even when all other qualifications are the same.

Black Males with College Degrees are more than twice as likely to be out of Work than thier White Conterparts.

Companies like Wells Fargo were deliberately roping black borrowers (to whom they referred as "mud people") into high-cost loans, targeting them for these instruments, and even falsifying credit histories to make black applicants look like greater risks than they were, so as to justify the scam?

Neither do these pictures, please note all of this happened After Slavery and the one in the upper Right hand Corner was During the 80's.

After all this we had the fascist racial terrorism, shootings, beatings and lynchings of Ron Settles, Yula Love, Rodney King, Johnny Gammage, James Byrd, Abner Louima, Amadour Diallo, the Jena Six, and most recently Oscar Grant.

When exactly did the oppression ever "End" because that's not what I call Over, but neither would I simply say "America is Racist".  America Tolerates and Excuses Racism far too easily.  It tolerates Injustice far too often.

Just as you would like to argue that it's Not Racist to criticize Health Care Reform, it's also Not Racist for people like Reverend Wright to Criticize America's repeated failure to embody the ideals that it expounds with events such as the Tuskeegee Experiment.

Wright was pillaried for saying AIDS may have been deliberately spread, but it is true that the Reagan Adminstration was shamefully slow in responding to the epidemic contributing to the deaths of thousands, and whether it's origin was indeed manmade is still an open and hotly contested question that various Scientists, including Harvard Researcher Leonard Horowitz have looked into, but we now know that the U.S. Government actually did experiment with Syphilis by deliberately Injecting it into Guatemalan Patients.  Isn't that horrible enough?

America can do better than that. It has to be better than that. It can do better than the reflexive and paranoid internment of Japanese during WWII.  It can do better than resorting to profiling. It can do better than GITMO and Abu Ghraib. And it seems at times, that you know this too, when it's convenient...

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution—a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

My only wish is that President Obama would follow through on this hopeful view of America. To want a better and brighter future for our country does not mean a rejection of our founding or a "fundamental transformation" of who we are. Instead it means following, in part, the wisdom of the most powerful American voice for civil rights of the twentieth century, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Famously, Dr. King called not for a rejection of America's founding principles, but for America to "rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed."

It's interesting that you invoke Dr. King within pages of intimating that Rep. John Lewis - who Marched with King into Selma and had his head bashed in for his efforts - is now some kind of Race-Baiting Liar.

It's also interesting that you champion now Dr. King's message when at the time he actually made his statements he was called "Socialist, Marxist and Anti-American" by the Conservatives of his time exactly as Barack Obama has been recently, just as you complain the Tea Party has been labeled simply to delegitimize their message.  Yeah, that tends to be the problem with all forms of name calling, facts get lost in the finger-pointing.

Be that as it may, you have the answer half right, the answer to the problem was indeed contained in (part) of the Constitution and it simply required living up to those ideals and correcting the flawed parts.  But that didn't happen without Sacrifice, Struggle and an ONGOING TRANSFORMATION of this Country.

True Progress isn't easy or comfortable.  I see Barack Obama, even with the various disappointments we Progressives have with him, as being far more of a person attempting the bring America in Line with it's True Constitutional Ideals than I see coming from ANY Conservatives, including yourself.

He's not perfect, despite your attempts to paint him as a Anti-Constitutionalist Obama opposed the Individual Mandate and only included it in a bill as a way to appease and attract corporate support and Conservatives who championed that idea since the Nixon Administration including the Heritage Foundation.

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

Just like the Founding Father's who had to make a bargain over Slavery in order to establish the country with the hope that it would get better over time, Barack Obama bet on America to ultimately work this issue out. He made a similar deal to preserve Unemployment Insurance, and continue his stimulative tax breaks to business, and payroll tax cuts to individuals.  Time will tell if these pay off.

What we want is what Dr. King wanted. Conservatives (both Democrat and Republican) led by then Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater stood against the Civil Rights Act - Progressives and Liberals  (again, both Democrat and Republican) fought for it. Progressives want to see America finally fulfill it's promising and reach it's potential, not fall backward to an idolized period where the reality was that those promises rang far more hollow than they do now. A time that Conservatives seem to reflexively idolize, without analyzing the context or circumstances of Jim Crow, Robber Barons, Child Labor and an 80% Top Marginal Tax Rate that existed then. Conservative Presidents from Reagan to Bush have repeatedly tried to pull us back and Regress This Nation by deliberately undermining the implementation or Civil Rights and progress without repent,  and today I still I don't see most Conservatives standing up for Equal Rights as they vote overwhelmingly against measures like the Pigford Settlement or repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".  Far from it.

You're own daughter Bristol said this to Margaret Cho when she criticized her reasons for appearing on Dancing with the Stars ending with this comment.

After first worrying for me in terms of being exposed to those who hate us for what we believe in, both my mom and my dad became my number one supporters.


I will set the record straight, though my mom already did in her bestselling book "Going Rogue"; there were a number of reasons President Obama won in 2008, but the primary reason was that the economy was starting to falter and the majority of voters thought Obama could do a better job than my mom and John McCain.  It turns out, two years later, the majority of voters were wrong, but we can talk about that another time.


To my friend Margaret Cho, if you ever have a question, call me girlfriend.  Don't ever rely on "sources" who claim to know me or my family.  You will be taken every time. And we need to talk.  You say you "don't agree with the family's politics at all" but I say, if you understood that commonsense conservative values supports the right of individuals like you, like all of us, to live our lives with less government interference and more independence, you would embrace us faster than KD Lang at an Indigo Girls concert.

Bristol argues that Senator McCain and yourself lost in 2008 because of the economy and that now people "know that Obama wasn't a better choice" because he hasn't fixed the economy (yet).

Except what he has done so far, is this - which saved us from a another Great Depression.

President Obama and his policies are on track to create as many, if not more, private sector jobs this year than President Bush did in his entire Presidency - so the argument that simply implementing more of Bush's policies and nothing more would have produced a better result is frankly ridiculous.  No serious economist supports that idea.

Many people online frm Perez Hilton to TMZ have responded to the Cheap KD Lang crack but I think that's irrelevant and childish.  The important part is her statement of your "Fear of being exposed to people that hate you for your beliefs".

That's called "cowardice", good on you both for not giving in to that fear.

I'll tell you something honesly, I know I don't hate you for your beliefs - but I do think that you're beliefs are based on Hatred of Others whom you don't think aren't "REAL AMERICAN" enough for you.

Despite the perky smiles, the "ah schucks" homilies, and your need to defend yourself from every attack however slight or correct. the venom is never that far from the surface. It comes out in your criticism of people working for Big Business, Big Entertainment, Government Workers, Unions Workers,  and those who've gone to "Elite Colleges". (Big in and of itself isn't bad, Corrupt is bad) It's clear you HATE us.  Or worse, you're simply willing to exploit the Envy and Hatred of others for your own gain.

Somethings are worse than being a Bigot or a Racist, and that's being a Bigot Enabler.  Hating Liberals and Progressives isn't an less bigoted than hating Black or Gays - particularly when it's often the same exact thing and the same persons on the receiving end.

Further Bristol, perhaps channeling your own arguments, claims essentially that Gays like Margaret Cho should feel welcomed by "Common Sense Conservatives" while just about everything Conservatives are doing in terms of policy is Use the Government to Repress their Freedom, including their ability to marry the consenting person of their choice or volunteer for military service without living in fear of being fired for telling the truth.

It's not a coincidence that the Conservative Family Research Council was recently ranked as a Hate Group.

This is enhanced, as we see Senators McCain and Graham retaliating over the passage of DADT by reversing their support on START. So it seems some Conservatives Hate Gays and Progressives more than they fear al Qeada getting lose Nukes.

They apparently care more about "their side" than the American people, or for that matter, the World.

You want to know what we really don't like about you?  It's the fact that you are trying to Twist and Pervert the facts and reality to fit your own self-aggrandized, ever-the-victim view of the world.  

You. Are. Not. A. VICTIM. and not everyone is out to GET YOU or Todd.

And no, It's not the fact that you're not our perfect ideal of a Feminist, it's that you can't even admit a simple honest mistake, when doing so would cost you nothing. You don't have the courage to "Refudiate" even the most ridiculous and extremely divisive political positions.  When challenged, rather than fix what's wrong and improve yourself and your argument - you DIG IN and double down on the mistake.

And then there are many thousands look up to you and take their cues from you, emulating your slanted view of History, limited understanding of the Constitution, and your "they're all out to get ME" paranoia and narcissism. Permanently Dis-informed and resistant to correction or improvement.  Trapped in their own Perpetual Regressivism.

We may or may not ever be friends with you and your Red States of Semi-Real America, but please while you're taking our hard earned cash, and benefiting from our innovations, education and perseverance to Progress - try not to piss on our shoes and tell us it's rain.

"Thank You" for actually Implementing the Ideals you claim to believe in would be nice also, but I'm not holding my breath.


Originally posted to Vyan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:53 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (182+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tookish, Angie in WA State, chrississippi, jmaier, teacherken, mattman, alicia, Shockwave, dsb, frsbdg, JLFinch, chichagof, rasbobbo, dlcampbe, Cassandra77, ask, Ennealogic, badlands, lilnubber, Cedwyn, wader, Texknight, Dube, Dallasdoc, dustbin, delphine, Steveningen, rlharry, Matt Esler, side pocket, zadarum, hayden, maybeeso in michigan, jrooth, The Nose, BluejayRN, PBen, PsychoSavannah, Dave from Oregon, panicbean, basquebob, Gary Norton, dansk47, Pam from Calif, Fury, blue jersey mom, Shotput8, Blue Intrigue, Ekaterin, Snud, alrdouglas, virgomusic, victoria2dc, poleshifter, KenBee, abe57, Naniboujou, triv33, gooderservice, real world chick, JVolvo, Jjc2006, tommyfocus2003, totallynext, ER Doc, Unitary Moonbat, MadMs, nannyboz, AmySmith, Granny Doc, slksfca, Nulwee, Noor B, DrSteveB, dotsright, TC MITS, Loudoun County Dem, tgypsy, possum, karmsy, Van Buren, Jimdotz, ezdidit, Shadowmage36, puzzled, millwood, Progressive Chick, cloudbustingkid, Jahiz, MyBrainWorks, bkamr, sk4p, Devsd, Scioto, RickMassimo, Blackacre, scooter in brooklyn, Involuntary Exile, elwior, lineatus, mikeconwell, moose67, MsWings, temptxan, D in Northern Virginia, jalenth, sewaneepat, GrannyOPhilly, mos1133, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, maggiejean, DontTaseMeBro, greengemini, Michael James, Ohiodem1, allep10, Deoliver47, kevinpdx, reesespcs, hamsisu, Wendy Slammo, citisven, collardgreens, Vita Brevis, Larsstephens, commonmass, coppercelt, littlezen, TFinSF, Vacationland, psfinla, Ann T Bush, legalchic, dagnome, Eddie L, JoanMar, sullivanst, CodenameV, science nerd, Oh Mary Oh, Rockpopple, no way lack of brain, angstall, redlum jak, Front Toward Enemy, speak2me, croyal, sowsearsoup, BlueJessamine, We Want Change, soothsayer99, Radiogabs, GrogInOhio, deep h20, AsianAfricanAmerican, boomerchick, Shes a Riot, Lorikeet, dle2GA, mniowan, Yogurt721, Mongo DeNizen, tardis10, whoknu, MinistryOfTruth, curtisgrahamduff, LaurenMonica, StepLeftStepForward, Regina in a Sears Kit House, AnnetteK, weatherdude, yawnimawke, oblios arrow, SouthernBelleNC49, Susan G in MN, Kyrus, Great Lakes Liberal, BusyinCA, psusennes, RainbowGirl, The Uncola, lunachickie
  •! (48+ / 0-)

    You might have thrown in a few words about selfishness, arrogance, hubris or narcissism - but you've pretty much covered why Palin is a worthless, uneducated soccer mom or mama grizzly, or however the f**k she styles herself today.

  •  Sarah Palin loves America (46+ / 0-)

    She just hates everything it stands for, because American values have always been progressive values.

    She loves America just like she loves the Constitution, and the Bible.  Without appearing to understand the first thing about any of them.  She has all the depth and political maturity of a six-year-old.

    Just putting this here so I can go back and savor your rant at leisure, Vyan.  Thanks.

  •  Vyan, I don't know Mrs. Palin (16+ / 0-)

    personally...but what I've gathered from her over the past few years is that she would prefer about 20 more pics in this letter and 1000 less words.

    Great work!  Gotta finish this manifesto/letter/beatdown!

  •  Oh how much I wish she would see this! (11+ / 0-)

    Great rant!

    If you plant tomatoes you dig tomatoes.

    by nannyboz on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:13:32 AM PST

  •  Hypocritical opportunist & grifter (6+ / 0-)

    enabler=political pyromaniac.

    "Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins." Senator Edward M. Kennedy

    by psusennes on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:18:41 AM PST

  •  Her 15 mins of fame are gone now (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, karenc13, Cedwyn, possum, sk4p, elwior, BusyinCA

    while her worthless POS book tanks.

    It's becoming clear that Quitter Palin's days in the limelight have quickly come to an end.

    What she felt would raise her profile (the reality show) has put the final coffin nails in what one would call a "trainwreck-of-a-life" for everyone to see.

    "Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins." Senator Edward M. Kennedy

    by psusennes on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:20:25 AM PST

  •  By 2012, she will be a pariah to all (5+ / 0-)

    but those racists & bigots out there.

    If you mentioned her intimate ties to the Alaska Secession Party (AIP), I didn't catch it.

    The fact that she's actually a traitor to this country (and Todd maintained those ties even into her governorship) needs to be exposed again and emphasized.

    "Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins." Senator Edward M. Kennedy

    by psusennes on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:22:05 AM PST

  •  Quitter/Grifter Palin: TOXIC goods. n/t (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Nulwee, possum, elwior, BusyinCA

    "Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins." Senator Edward M. Kennedy

    by psusennes on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:22:40 AM PST

  •  Vyan, I wasn't sure I could get all the way (10+ / 0-)

    though this, but WOW am I glad that I did.


    They only call it Class War when we fight back.

    by lineatus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:22:52 AM PST

  •  Excellent! n/t (7+ / 0-)

    Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

    by whoknu on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:23:56 AM PST

  •  Diary of the year. (9+ / 0-)

    Proud to rec. Vyan, amazing work!

  •  Why bother? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, mattman, gatorcog, Nulwee

    Can she read?

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:30:11 AM PST

  •  Wonderful. and if she could read and would (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Nulwee, elwior, MsWings

    read it, would she comprehend?  I don't think so.

    United we stand - Divided we are all truly screwed. Keep them blaming one another - they'll never notice what's really going on.

    by Cassandra77 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:41:22 AM PST

  •  maybe turn it into 5 diaries (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You know SP didn't write and hasn't read her own book don't you? Addressing issues she made in it makes no sense.

    "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

    by ban nock on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:55:46 AM PST

  •  Next round of Palin kids to be named John (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Leap Year

    John, Johnna, Johnette, Johnster, etc

    She owes Grampy McCain everything.

  •  Not so fast re the individual mandate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gatorcog, Nulwee

    In support of your defense of the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance against Sarah Palin's appeal to the Declaration of Independence, you posted this unlinked blockquote (is it a cite?):

    In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase health care insurance.

    Nobody is questioning the constitutionality of a government program such as Social Security or Medicare, where the government collects a tax and spends it for retirement security or health care. The question is whether it is appropriate or constitutional for the government to compel an individual to purchase private insurance. The Act of 1798 did no such thing:

    Sections 1 and 2 of the act impose a 20 cent per month tax on seamen’s wages, to be withheld by the employer.

    Section 3 requires that all the withheld taxes be turned over to the U.S. Treasury on a quarterly basis, and that the revenue shall be expended in the district where it was collected. The revenue shall be spent to support sick and injured seamen.

    So the Act is totally dissimilar to the Obamacare mandate. In the 1798 Act, the government imposes a tax, collects all the tax revenue, and spends the revenue as it chooses. This is a good precedent for programs in which the government imposes a tax and then spends the money on medical programs (e.g., Medicare), but it has nothing to do with mandating that individuals purchase a private product.

    The Act certainly did not order seamen to purchase any form of private insurance, nor did it order them to purchase any other type of private good. The Act is a solid precedent for federal involvement in health care, and no precedent at all for a federal mandate to purchase private products.

    One other little quibble in the spirit of being "fair and balanced" in a political discussion. You linked to this quote from book:

    Those words in the Declaration of Independence mean that our rights are sacred; government can't legitimately violate them or add to them.

    To which you replied:

    Basic facts, the Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution and the Constitution can be added to and changed.

    Umm . . . is that really fair? The Declaration of Independence can't be changed, the Constitution can. She referred specifically to our rights as declared in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But you take her quote about the Declaration of Independence, change it to become about the Constitution, and then say that she's wrong because the Constitution can be changed. WTF?

    Other than that, great diary. Obviously quite a bit of work went into this one.

    •  I was up all night (10+ / 0-)
      so I'm going to take a nap and respond to this properly after I've had some rest.
    •  The reference comes from (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BusyinCA and surprisingly P.J. O'rourke. who isn't really a Liberal.

      In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.  And it's not "dis-similar" are you presume.

      This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.

      This historical fact demolishes claims of "unprecedented" and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty..."

      The Seamen didn't have to pay, it was the Captains who had to pay for the Healthcare, or be fined at least according to P.J.

      I doubled checked according to your link and it doesn't include any more details, but PJ include the text of the act and it says this under Sec 2.

      And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of  men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is

      herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.

      So yes, there was a fine to the Ship Captain for providing false information. Although technically under section 1, the primary money comes out of the Seaman's pay.

      which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

      The Captains were responsible to withold part of the seaman's pay to cover the cost of Healthcare, and if they didn't - or lied - THEY had to pay a fine, not the Seamen. So I would say that PJ is right and Voloch is wrong.

      It was Palin who first conflated the Rights in the Declaration with the Rights in the Constitution when she said this.

      Those who run down American values and think our founding principles are somehow intolerant or theocratic have it exactly backward. The words of the Declaration of Independence, brought to life in the words of the Constitution, are the most liberating, most human-rights- respecting words ever written.

      Clearly the Declaration can't be changed, but the only rights it listed where the rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" - whereas the Constition clearly can be changed and updated.  Also I would argue that the Right to "Life" which is in both the Declaration and Constitution are essentially meaningless if they don't also include a Right to the Ability to Life via access to Health Care.


      •  Correction.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        A right to the Ability to Live via access to Health Care.

      •  Thanks for the response but you didn't (0+ / 0-)

        address the first issue at all. The point I and Voloch made was that there's nothing at all unusual about there being a tax, a penalty, a fine, a disclosure requirement whatever else between a citizen and his government. This has been a basic part of any system of government, starting with tariffs, going through the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, whatever.

        The constitutional issue of the individual mandate has to do with the ability of the government to force you to buy a private product, from a private corporation. If we had passed "Medicare for all" there would be no case or controversy whatsoever. It's the forcing of a private contract between two private parties that is the issue.

        The Act of 1798 then is one of many that has to do with the relationship between citizens and their government, and is irrelevant to the question of whether government can force private parties to enter into contracts with each other against their will.

        •  well.. (0+ / 0-)

          The point I and Voloch made was that there's nothing at all unusual about there being a tax, a penalty, a fine, a disclosure requirement whatever else between a citizen and his government. This has been a basic part of any system of government, starting with tariffs, going through the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, whatever.

          I don't have any disagreement with that and neither does P.J. I'vs written (and argued directly with with Tea Partiers on Twitter) rather extensively over the Individual Mandate, and the way it's written isn't as a penalty, it's written as a tax to be collected via the IRS, which is to be exempted if the personal already has healthcare via an Employer, the VA, Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, or the Exhanges.  If a person can not find an affordable plan available to them, even with subsidies available for the Exchange, they are exempt from the tax.  So in point of fact the way the mandate functions is exactly like what Voloch describes as "Constitutional" and is completely within both the Commerce Clause and taxing authority of Congress.  No one argues that Congress can't tax or offer tax breaks for specific types of purchases.

          Tea Partiers refuse to get that, but I have little doubt that view will be ultimately upheld by SCOTUS as it already has been at least twice.

          The constitutional issue of the individual mandate has to do with the ability of the government to force you to buy a private product, from a private corporation. If we had passed "Medicare for all" there would be no case or controversy whatsoever. It's the forcing of a private contract between two private parties that is the issue.

          True, but that's also the Tea Party argument with it, and unfortunately that's not how the law is written.  If you purchase healthcare as a business or an individual you get a tax credits (for small businesses starting at 35%, and raising to 50% in 2014) and individuals up to 200% of poverty get subsidies to purchase in the exchange.  This works just like the tax credit for a first time home buyer, or deductions for your intest payments.  If you don't buy health insurance,you don't get those tax breaks or credits and you might have to pay a tax.  And if you choose not to pay the tax, there is no further penalty - so are you really being "forced" to do anything?  You can take advantage of the tax break or else NOT and pay a tax - you're perfectly free to make your own choice and then deal with the consequences/advantes of that choice.

          People aren't being "forced" to buy a house either simply because they get a tax break if do, and they suffer a tax "penalty" if they don't.

          The other Tea Party argument seemed to be rather 10ther-ish, in that they all agreed that States have the ability to impose far more harsh insurance mandates, particularly with automobiles and such, but that simply because the states could do it, the Federal Government couldn't do it.  But that simply isn't true, and the SCOTUS settled that issue way back in 1944 with UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS, 322 U. S. 533 when it determined that the Federal Government did have the right to regulate insurance under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

          The Act of 1798 then is one of many that has to do with the relationship between citizens and their government, and is irrelevant to the question of whether government can force private parties to enter into contracts with each other against their will.

          Only in the sense that the Ship Captains and the Seaman didn't have to go out and purchase their health insurance on a private market, once they paid the Tax, the care was provided and essentially paid for by the government.  It was esentially single payer, which as you correctly point out in this context means that the real arguement coming from those against the mandate - even from those on the right - is that they're being required insentivised to go shopping for their Health Care on the Private Free Market instead of having it provided by the Government after paying a Tax (ala Medicare).  Weird to think that if Government Based Single Payer System is implemented - as was done by John Adams, and as Vermont is considering under the "Waivers for State Innovation" included in the bill - the entire "Individual Mandate" arguement would have been rendered moot.

          Also, although the last time I brought this up I was thoroughly bashed about the head and shoulders - there is a Semi-Public Option available through the Exchanges in the form of a Non Profit replacement for the Public Option where the Director of the Office of Personnel Management would sub-contract this service while setting the premiums, profit margin and medical loss ratio for multi-state and/or national venders. As a result you don't have to buy your insurance from a private for profit company, you can also get it from one which is "government managed and price controlled."  

          Anyway, I wouldn't say that the Adam's bill didh't have a mandate as Voloch claims, because it applied to the Captain's not the Seaman. It could be fairly argued that it really was a penalty for Fraud and failure to accurately report how many Seaman you employed and how long they were at sea - but that's really a distinction without a difference.  In effect, the "Purchase" of Insurance is handled by paying the tax, so if you are trying to avoid paying the tax - your also trying NOT to pay for the service that is being provided. But there was no Opt-Out or Exemptions Allowed in the Bill. In many ways, our current law is far more lenient, flexible and "free market friendly" than Adam's "heavy handed government-based" solution.

          In the long run what Adam's began eventually grew into the precursor of Tricare and the VA.


          •  Weird that I just woke up to see your (0+ / 0-)

            comment from ten minutes ago! I swear I'm not unhealthily addicted to blogging! Really, I swear it!

            But anyways, thanks so much for the detailed response.

            I think you correctly state the government's argument here, and you are probably right that the SCOTUS will eventually agree with it. I don't like the SCOTUS' jurisprudence in this area, especially the Raich decision finding that growing pot in your backyard for your own personal use so affects the national market for marijuana that it can properly be regulated by the federal government. Uggh. But I see no reason why Raich will not ultimately provide plenty of justification for PPACA.

            The only wrinkle is that despite your correct analysis that it is a tax, there were quite a few very explicit statements by a variety of very relevant actors during the debate on the bill emphatically denying that it was a tax. Irrelevant "dicta" of sorts? Probably, but maybe a slimmer of hope for those who would like to see it overturned.

            •  Those denials (0+ / 0-)

              are part of the basis that the one Virginia Judge used to rule against the mandate.  But in the final law, it's expressly written as a tax.

              I would expect ultimately that the final bill's wording should have some precedent over various comments made whlie it was being crafted, or else the arguement that it's a "Government Take-over" could be considered legaly valid even though both the Full Public Option and "Medicare-for-All" were discussed, but ultimately didn't find their way into the final bill.

              Also it 's ironic that such ancillary elements could be so heavily weighted when that very same Judge is an investor in a Partisan Anti-Health Care PR Firm that was employed by Virginia AG Cuccinella - who brought the suit in the first place.  Just how much could an Appeals Court consider this Judgs level of impartiality on this issue?


      •  WRT the second part of your response (0+ / 0-)

        Again, I ask is that a fair way to argue. The quoted language is not the same language to which you refer. If you argument is because Sarah Palin once used the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution together in a thought, then you have the right to impute that any statement that she makes about the Declaration of Independence can then be made into a statement about the Constitution, and then declared therefore wrong, just sounds totally disingenuous to me.

        You may not agree, but she's making a reasonable point that lots of people do: the Declaration of Independence doesn't confer rights upon anyone, so there's no rights that can be "added" to it. The Declaration of Indepence states that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", i.e. it is a statement reaffirming previously existing rights, rights that came from God ("we are endowed by our Creator").

        I really don't know what the effect of that distinction may or may not have on whether we have a right to health care or not, but to subvert that whole argument into kind of a silly "gotcha" about whether rights can be added to the Constitution just seems to be out of bounds of mutually respectful political debate. But hey, that's just me.

        •  I'd have to go back and check (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but I don't those too comments by here were that far apart.  I broke up her single thought with two comments on specific element of the thought, but she was attempting to make a consistent point about the link between Smith's Love of the Declaration, The Rights proscribed the Declaration, and how that follows to the Constitution - but after that she attempts to argue that the Rights can't be "Changed" by Government and only referred to the Declaration - NOT the Constitution which is a changable document.

          You may not agree, but she's making a reasonable point that lots of people do: the Declaration of Independence doesn't confer rights upon anyone, so there's no rights that can be "added" to it. The Declaration of Indepence states that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", i.e. it is a statement reaffirming previously existing rights, rights that came from God ("we are endowed by our Creator").

          Well her argment is that the Declaration conferred and codified those rights, and hence it can't be changed by government.  Let's go back to her origihal claim.

          Those words in the Declaration of Independence mean that our rights are sacred; government can't legitimately violate them or add to them. The proponents of government health care didn't seem to think that Americans understood this principle—or, if we understood it, we didn't really mean it. They seemed to think we could be bribed by pie-in- the-sky promises; that we were gullible enough to believe that government could manufacture a new "right" to health care and we wouldn't pay the price with our freedom, such as our freedom to keep what we earn, to choose our own doctor, and to buy—or not buy—health insurance.

          So her construction is that Rights come from the Declaration NOT from the Constitution - she says this at least twice - and that's where I disagree with her. I think our rights belong to the people naturally, irregardless of governments, and are universal.  The Constitution simply documents limits on THIS government, with the intention of preserving a "safe space" for those rights to exist.

          My thinking is the opposite of hers, in that I think government creating a wider safe space for a human right - such as health care - is empowering and freeing to people, not oppressive.  Of course it's going to cost something because it's always true that excersizing our freedoms doesn't come with a cost or a risk.

          As they say, "Freedom is not necessarily 'Free'".


          •  Strangely, I think you're interpreting her words (0+ / 0-)

            exactly to the opposite of what they actually mean, and that means that I think you actually agree with her on this point.

            You have not quoted any text from her where she says that our rights "come from the Declaration". I don't know how you get that from,

            "Those words in the Declaration of Independence mean that our rights are sacred; government can't legitimately violate them or add to them."

            She seems to state quite explicitly that the words in the Declaration mean that these

            rights belong to the people naturally, irregardless of governments, and are universal.  The Constitution simply documents limits on THIS government, with the intention of preserving a "safe space" for those rights to exist.

            That's exactly the point. The Declaration of Independence declares that God (technically "our Creator", which could theoretically be something less religious, but surely falls under the definition of "naturally") endowed us with certain inalienable rights. If we are "naturally" endowed with those rights, then we have them with or without a Constitution and government that's willing to protect them. But the flip side is that if our rights come from God, then only God can grant us any new rights. As she says, we can't "manufacture" new rights.

            Now, I suppose you may be arguing that we were naturally endowed with an heretofore unrecognized and unprotected inalienable right to health care insurance, but that's a different argument that one that says that the rights as "declared" under the DofI can be added to, or not.

            •  I would argue (0+ / 0-)

              that she did that here.

              The words of the Declaration of Independence, brought to life in the words of the Constitution, are the most liberating, most human-rights- respecting words ever written.

              But going back the excerpt.... there is also this.

              To me, the Declaration of Independence is an expression of our ideals as a nation—the ideals of liberty and equality—and the Constitution is how we make those ideals a reality. I found a great metaphor Abraham Lincoln used to describe the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in Matthew Spalding's wonderful book We Still Hold These Truths.

              To illustrate how the Declaration and the Constitution work together, Lincoln cited Proverbs 25:11: "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver." For Lincoln, the principles of the Declaration—that we are granted by our Creator with inalienable rights—are the apples of gold. "The Union, and the Constitution," Lincoln wrote, "are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture."

              So from this Palin states that the Declaration (as the Apples for which the pciture was made) is more important and primary than the Consitution (which is merely the silvery setting framed around it, for decoration). The Constituion comprises the implements, not the meal.

              If we are "naturally" endowed with those rights, then we have them with or without a Constitution and government that's willing to protect them. But the flip side is that if our rights come from God, then only God can grant us any new rights. As she says, we can't "manufacture" new rights.

              I frankly prefer the former option, because I don't subscribe to the religiousity of God either granting or taking AWAY the rights of man.  Which God would that be, the God of Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans or Thor?

              This view could be argued that only those that believe in a particular version of God possess those rights, which would leave Hindus, Buddhist, Ba'hai or unpopular flavors of Christians outside the protections of the Constitution in the same way that Africans were excluded by Dred Scot.  I'm really, seriously not down with that.  Once you start tying our rights to anything besides the people themselves, you start running into ways where the people and their rights can be severed.

              In point of fact, this is how the original Colonies functioned during the pre-slavery period where whites and non-whites alike could be temporarily held in involuntary servitude - unless they were Christians!.

              In another section of her book, Palin actually makes this arguement herself.  Almost.

              For my entire life, many Americans had been told by the propaganda mouthpieces of the Communist regimes—not to mention plenty of others in the free world—that Soviet communism was the way of the future. We had been told it was a more just and democratic form of government because it guaranteed the equality of all. We had been told that it was Americans, not the Russians or the Poles or the Chinese, who were living in an authoritarian society. After all, the Soviet constitution promised its citizens dozens of rights, including the right to work, the right to leisure, the right to health care and housing, and some rights that sound very familiar to Americans, such as freedom of speech, press, and religion.

              None of these rights meant anything in the Soviet Union, of course. They were words on paper and nothing more. The reason, I think, is important for Americans to understand. It speaks as much to the wonderful uniqueness of our Constitution as it does to the hollowness of the Soviet document. In 1987, just a few years before the Soviet Empire began to fall, America celebrated the two-hundredth anniversary of our Constitution. That year, in his State of the Union Address, President Reagan talked with his usual courage and clarity about the special magic of the American Constitution: I've read the constitutions of a number of countries, including the Soviet Union's. Now, some people are surprised to hear that they have a constitution, and it even supposedly grants a number of freedoms to its people. Many countries have written into their constitution provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Well, if this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional?

              Well, the difference is so small that it almost escapes you, but it's so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: We the people. In those other constitutions, the Government tells the people of those countries what they're allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the Government what it can do, and it can do only those things listed in that document and no others. Virtually every other revolution in history has just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters and government is their servant.

              I haven't bothered to read the Constitution of the Russian Federation lately, but I do take her point - excepting the fact that both the American people AND the American Constitution have deliberately and systematically denied the rights of Many of it's Peoples in exactly the same manner that she argues other nations who've violated the tenents and ideals of their own Constitution have.  They simply wished those right away, when they became inconvenient. Sometimes they just ignored them and argued "States Rights", sometimes they used the Courts and sometimes it was an act of Congress and the President - like say the Military Commissions Act which revoked the right of Habeus Corpus for Alien Illegal Combatants in 2006.

              She is correct that true power stems from the people, who then grant responsibilities to the government to protect their rights and themselvse -  and can take that power away if they fail. But Palin only looks at this from the aspect of power belonging with the People, not from the aspect of the Constitution existing to limit and direct government to protect our rights.  She grants the creation of our rights element to the Declaration, not the Constitution.

              I suspect there is also a Fundie reason for Palin to place the Declaration on a pedastal above the Constitution, and that's probably because the Declaration specifically says our rights "are endowed by our Creator", but the Constitution Doesn't Mention God - ANY GOD - at all".

              The Constitution is Agnostic (no matter what Christine O'Donnels says), whereas the Declaration is decided Religious. I see the Declaratiohn not as an Apple in the center of the picture or the Constutition "as decoration" around it, but rather the Declaration as a Seed, and the Constitution as the TREE that grew, and continues to grew, out of that initial seed after having gone through an unending - and at times fitful and difficult - Transformation.

              Now, I suppose you may be arguing that we were naturally endowed with an heretofore unrecognized and unprotected inalienable right to health care insurance, but that's a different argument that one that says that the rights as "declared" under the DofI can be added to, or not.

              Did I not make this clear when I said that the "Right to Life" is meaningless without a "Right to being able to Live?  Many people literally can't Live without Healthcare, for them it indeed is a question of "Life or Death", so I see these as linked.  Has this right gone largely unrecognized? Sure, but I think a simple common sense argument can be made that it's been there all along, and is also inalienable. Government has not manufactured that right, it has simply begun to recognize it finally.

              Yes, it is a different argument than saying government can "Grant" a right - but that's HER argument. She says "government can't create a right that wasn't contained in the Declaration". Well, then there goes the 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment and women gaining the Right to Vote and... Well, you get the idea. She's doing the Electric Slide and slope greased with chicken fat.

              I say the rights are already there, it's simply a matter of whether Governments recognize and protects those rights or not.  The Right argues that Government and the Courts have invented rights, such as the Right to Privacy, and to determine what happens to your own body without government intervention - yet they seem to have no problem with granting human rights to non-living Corporate Entities.

              All of this is how just I think things ought to be, but isn't - yet. For example I think the 8th Amendment should clearly apply to case of torture used to coerce confessions, but that view is not currently recognized in our current Case Law.

              Hence, the transformation toward a more and more perfect union must continue.


              •  This might be one of the first times ever (0+ / 0-)

                that I confess to being just beaten down by the sheer volume of words here. To try to simplify, there are two things at work here:

                1. You disagree with her as to whether or not health care insurance is a "right" under our Constitution.
                1. You falsely accused her of arguing that the Constitution can't be added to.

                With respect to issue #1, that's an extension of an argument that has been waged since the beginning of our nation, and there will be no resolution any time soon.

                As to #2, it's just a fact. She was referring to rights as declared in the Declaration of Independence to be inalienable and natural, and you switched that to talk about the Constitution, which clearly is a much more secular documents, and has amendments, and a history of jurisprudence, and all the rest. I just pointed it out as a correction to an otherwise very thorough, well-researched diary.

                By conflating the two issues, we're going around in circles without bringing much clarity to the discussion.

                •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

                  We can agree to disagree on both these points, I've made my case.

                  I think Health Care is already a natural right, and I think She is the one who improperly attempted to use the Declaration to claim that the Government can't "invent" a Right, when it's clear that through both the Congress or the Courts rights can be recognized (added) or ignored (removed) anytime and have been since our founding.


  •  Wow! Beautiful, awesome, stirring post! (9+ / 0-)

    Somewhere in the higher realms of existence, I think Thomas Paine just read this and thought to himself, "Now, that's what I call writing!"  Very enjoyable, thoughtful post -- can't gush about it enough right now (just finished it!)

    "The cure for anything is salt water: sweat, tears or the sea."--Isak Dineson

    by Mongo DeNizen on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:01:22 AM PST

  •  well done - (10+ / 0-)

    very thorough

    "what the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community" - John Dewey

    by teacherken on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:02:24 AM PST

  •  now, vyan (8+ / 0-)

    this is a person whose intellect can't focus much beyond what fits in a tweet or scribbles on her hand. it would take her years to read this, and more for it to be explained to her.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:05:27 AM PST

  •  bleagh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Nulwee

    I contracted Palin fatigue a long while ago. She truly isn't worth the effort to debunk. Those who choose to like her will continue to do so; the rest of us, well, why are we offering her any more of the spotlight?

    Whenever the former half-term governator of Alaska is mentioned, let's all agree to comment with silence, or a quiet, "Sarah Who?"

    •  Not so fast--she could be our next President. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, GrogInOhio, BusyinCA

      Srsly. If we don't see a major, noticeable economic turnaround (with lots more jobs) in the next two years, Obama could lose to a dimwit like Sarah.

      Happened with Reagan--no one thought the former Hollywood movie star could win any kind of national election, and we got eight years of that asshole.

      Democracy for America, still the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

      by boofdah on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:22:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not a diary! Please read the FAQs (7+ / 0-)
    All diaries should be at least 3 paragraphs.

    _"George, when I want your opinion I'll give it to you!" -Dick Cheney 2002_

    by oopsaDaisy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:10:04 AM PST

  •  Righteous rant. (6+ / 0-)

    She'll never read it -- not because she can't read, but because she would never deign to even glance at this site.

    But it's a great verbal bitch-slap anyway.  I hope this goes viral.

    Kos Katalog "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- A'dam Weekly, v3, n18 (-8.50, -7.23)

    by Noor B on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:13:39 AM PST

  •  This should also be aimed (7+ / 0-)

    at the so called news media in this country. Much of it will come as a great surprise to the likes of the NBC and NYT watercooler boys and girls.

    Sanctimonious, Self Satisfied, Liberal and Proud.

    by stevej on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:15:17 AM PST

  •  I hate rec'ing diaries about the Caribue broad (6+ / 0-)

    because her time in the media is way over-cooked.  But this could be addressed to any of the bottom-feeding low life that hang with the right, so you got my rec.  Should be inserted into every school textbook Texas shovels to the rest of the country.  Well done!  Also

    Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law." - Bushy McSpokesperson

    by gatorcog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:17:29 AM PST

  •  Great diary, but I am not sure (6+ / 0-)

    Sarah herself has ever read anything as long as that.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:21:23 AM PST

  •  Wow. I was not going to read this - I just (7+ / 0-)

    reflexively turn away from all things Palin – but I’m glad I did. Well done. Extremely well done.

    "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

    by MsWings on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:22:28 AM PST

  •  Tipped, Rec'd (3+ / 0-)

    Strong framing here. Good work.

    If she is nominated, she will be crushed in the election. That is my opinion.

    One quick edit note: "Founding Father's", I think, ought to be "Founding Fathers."

    Keep up the great work!

  •  Thanks for reminding me... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Leap Year, BusyinCA

    that if she ever becomes President, I'm either fleeing the country or will be willfully ignorant of anything that happens in politics so that I don't have to hear Little Miss Walking Cliche talk, whichever one's more feasible.

    Show me a teabagger concerned about the deficit, and I'll show you the world's worst hypocrite.

    by farleftloon on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:35:16 AM PST

  •  Wow! Now, this diary is book-worthy! (6+ / 0-)
    Sarah Palin's ghost-written platitudes and lies, not so much.
  •  ... (5+ / 0-)

    @Vyan  Why do u hate freedom?
    Thursday, December 21, 2010 9:42:24 AM via Twitter
    tweeted by SarahPalinUSA

    < /snark>

    Real science is rarely done by petition. --John R. Mashey

    by Naniboujou on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:45:54 AM PST

  •  Are her 15 minutes up yet? n/t (4+ / 0-)

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:47:21 AM PST

  •  Fantastic. You correctly point out that Palin (4+ / 0-)

    and her ilk selectively red only portions of the Constitution,

    Basic facts, the Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution and the Constitution can be added to and changed.  This is something that Conservatives never seem to get right.  They seem to read the Preamble, about half the First Amendment, 2/3rds of the Second Amendment then Skip to the Tenth Amendment and miss everything else in between.

    You might want to point out that even their reading of the Preamble is selective since they ignore, "Promote the General Welfare."

    This is a great article. Thank you very much.

  •  Vyan, this is a masterpiece (6+ / 0-)

    I don't know how long it must have taken but it was time well spent. Well done. Thank you!

  •  I hope someone reads this to her... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    temptxan, Texnance, Oh Mary Oh

    ...because I remain unconvinced that she could read it herself, but she definitely should hear it.

    Maybe whoever actually wrote her books could read this to her...

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 08:00:24 AM PST

    •  Yes If she read the books she supposedly wrote... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy

      Agree that there's NO WAY she did.

      So Vyan, you are really just writing a great masterpiece against sara's ghost writers.

      Nevertheless, well done!

      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein

      by Texnance on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:18:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One of the best pieces ever done, Vyan... (6+ / 0-)

    coming from someone who reads everything written on this hypocrite.  I do fear her and feel justified in doing so.  Floridians elected Rick Scott....America could very well elect this moron.  I have lost faith in the electorate, for very good reason(s).

    Front page this diary, kos!


  •  Nominations are now open for... (4+ / 0-)
    Best Diary Ever!
  •  This is great! (4+ / 0-)

    So true! So well-researched! So far above her head, she'll never reach it to read, let alone understand it. This stuff needed to be said, though, and you did it so well!

    And now that you've penned the definitive response to this fucking clueless media-made moron, I'd like to respectfully suggest that we quit talking about her once and for all, after this diary falls off the Rec List.

    We have to stop feeding this beast the way Media wants it fed--let's do our part to see to it that she is marginalized and made completely irrelevant, no matter what else she does going forward.

  •  She won't read this (5+ / 0-)

    but she does hear about things and she has very thin skin and a tendency to lash out. The way to reach Sarah is to threaten her money, and you do that by exposing her basic grifter nature again and again. Also, I have stopped watching any program on that channel that gave her a show.

  •  Hopeless Mess (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Fury, Leap Year

    Sarah Palin and her faimly are a hopeless mess of ignorance, misinformation, deluded fundamentalist bullshit, false pride, silliness, bitterness, outright stupidity, vile racism, zero self-reflection, self-righteousness, bad manners, foolishness, shallowness, emotional immaturity, and a lack of style annd grace.  This will never be overcome.

  •  Too wordy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Big words.
    No pictures.

    Even if Sarah was capable of reading this diary, it is unlikely that she would.

    I asked Santa for a Sarah P. Republican nomination in 2012.
    Palin/Bachman 2012... then maybe we won't have to work so hard to win.
    You betcha!

    "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

    by Niniane on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 08:41:02 AM PST

  •  Hypocrisy (6+ / 0-)

    I just want to take a moment to expand on a comment Palin made that bugs the crap out of me:

    At one point, Speaker Pelosi told a national audience that we'd have to pass the bill to "find out what's in it."

    For somebody who routinely complains about being taken out of context, she certainly doesn't hesitate to do the same when it suits her purposes.

    You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.  But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket.  Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Link

    Clearly, the Speaker meant that once the bill was passed, Americans would see that she and her ilk had lied about "death panels" and "government takeover' and all the other crap she spewed.

    Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

    by Blue Intrigue on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 08:55:36 AM PST

  •  Best Refudiation... (6+ / 0-)

    of Sarah Palin evah!!!

    "The most authentic thing about us is our capacity to create, to overcome, to endure, to transform, to love and to be greater than our suffering."

    by rlharry on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 08:58:54 AM PST

  •  If anyone knows la Palin's email, they might (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, BusyinCA

    send this to her.   It would likely not be too nice for them to publish this so we all could send it.  

    Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. ~Voltaire from La Feminista

    by maybeeso in michigan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:12:18 AM PST

  •  Awesome rant (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, BusyinCA

    Too bad she'll probably never read it.

    I didn't have much time, so I skimmed this quickly, but a possible addition to this might be one that reminds her a "real American" doesn't advocate (along with her husband) for their state to secede from the Union.

    You can't get more "Un American" than that.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:20:43 AM PST

  •  "Use the Government to Repress their Freedom" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Leap Year, BusyinCA

    So true. Bristol forgot to mention that the conservative ideal of government in people's private lives would also reduce or eliminate a woman's access to reproductive health care (which is probably why Mamma Grizzlie is involved in politics to begin with, to prevent all those heathen un-Christian sluts from getting them aborshuns).

    Democracy for America, still the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

    by boofdah on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:21:24 AM PST

  •  All I Want For Christmas, Mrs. Palin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury, BusyinCA

    Is for people who claim to be Christian, especially those in the media, start ACTING like they/you are.

    Christians don't spout the hate you do every time they/you open their mouths.  Christians don't LIE over and over again, ESPECIALLY when they/you know it's a lie but they/you keep repeating it anyway.

    Jesus was not about money, he was about faith.  In case you forgot, or never read it, Jesus told the disciples they had a choice, they could follow Him and get rid of their belongings, or they could stay home and keep them.  They chose faith over stuff.

    Jesus also took care of the moneychangers in the temple.  Remember that?  You deal with moneychangers every day.  In fact, you encourage them.

    Of course, no one is perfect, but real Christians try to do better.  We don't stoke the fires of hatred and racism over and over and over again.  A Christian doesn't root for the rich at the expense of the poor.

    You need to rethink your Christianity, Mrs. Palin.  Where Jesus walks, the devil is not far behind.  Which one are you worshipping?  By their deeds, ye shall know them.

    My Christmas wish for you is to figure out what side you're on.  You can either be a true Christian and stop your hatred and lies, or keep up with the latter and stop trying to make people believe you're the former, because you're not, and you give a black eye to the people who do try to be good Christians.

    And that is the main reason I dislike you.

  •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion-Molly Ivins

    by Pam from Calif on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:31:30 AM PST

  •  Most of us don't hate her? (6+ / 0-)

    Well I guess I'm in the minority then.  I detest this women.  She represents the absolute ugliest parts of America.  Ignorance over reason, base instincts over logical thought, division over inclusion.  I hate her.

    "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

    by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:37:33 AM PST

  •  My hubby is on a no-Sarah diet. Three weeks now! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sigh, me, not so lucky.  Can't we just ignore her?  Guess not.  Excellent diary BTW!

    Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

    by Fury on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:38:21 AM PST

  •  Palin's Most Likely Response: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


  •  Palin and cynicism--Teh PWNing, it burns! (10+ / 0-)

    Call it corny, but Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of my favorite movies. It's a movie about hope. It's a movie about good triumphing over evil and idealism defeating cynicism.

    So Sarah cares about defeating cynicsm. Ain't that sumthin'!!!

    Exhibit A: Who was mocking Obama about "hope" back in 2008?

    Exhibit B: Now, on this second point, the neoconservative Reagan Zombies deserve a fucking award or something because they have totally PWN'd us, no joke.

    Back in the late '40's, a pre-neoconservative conservative, Richard M. Weaver, wrote a little ditty of a book called Ideas Have Consequences. Have you read it? Well, I have and, to sum it up nicely for those who haven't, it's a very flowery, sentimental, faux academic apology for the basic conservative belief that the world can't change, but when it does, it's very, very bad. It has some good stuff in it--some stuff about personal liberty and virtue and aesthetics--but usually wrapped in a fatty coating of racism, intellectual elitism or classism, then deep-fried in sophisticated rhetoric, because Weaver doesn't want  you to forget for one second that he thinks he's smarter than you. And while fatty, deep-fried truthiness can be alluringly tasty, it's nowhere near as healthy for you as the truth itself. But Weaver is a master fry-station rhetorician. Unless you're well grounded in the liberal art curriculum than he's drawing from and manipulating, and/or have some well refined, surgical-sharp critical thinking skills, you'll likely feel persuaded to some degree (just look at the zombie applause the book gets on Amazon).  

    But I LOVE the title. It can, more or less, sum up the neoconservative movement that evolved out of Weaver's era of conservatism, from Reagan to Palin. And most importantly, that title, and the book, offers us some much needed insight into the neoconservative awe-inspiring mastery of cynicism.

    Look at this title: Ideas Have Consequences. It's a cause-and-effect relationship. Now, Weaver's premise was:

    1. old ideas = no change = GOOD!
    1. new ideas = change = BAD!

    But what this premise ends up evolving into from the 50's to the late 70's is a re-evaluation of conservative priorities based on this very cause-and-effect relationship between ideas and their consequences. So we get this neoconservative equation:  ideas are just a means to an end, so who gives fuck about the ideas themselves--all we want are the end results!

    So no longer was the conservative movement about retaining old ideas, or about the old philosophies or old aesthetics or old virtues. It was about ideas as a means to an end. The integrity of the ideas no longer mattered. All that matter was:

    1. Championing ideas that help achieve your long-term goals through the consequences they bring
    1. Being the first ones to stick these ideas into the heads of voters so every other ideas that follows it, whether supporting it or opposing it, will be seen through an already biased mind
    1. Distract and exhaust the opposition, who still cares about the integrity of their ideas, by attacking them on--what else?--the integrity of their ideas (which serves the dual purpose of making you look like you still actually care about the integrity of ideas)
    1. Using all this to be become a permanent majority in American politics, if not by elected seats, then by the pervasiveness of this kind of cynicism in the minds of the elected officials and the voting public

    And on top of all this, they carried on with Weaver's and his conservative contemporaries' delicious recipe for wrapping truthy ideas in a fatty coating of something polarizing--racism, the old standby, and anti-intellectualism seem to be the big hits--and then deep-frying them in uppity, contentious rhetoric that gives your truthiness that alluring gush of greasy tastiness that satisfies an American's need for instant gratification, even if the GI and cardiovascular troubles that follow are a potentially fatal nightmare.

    Seriously, they should get an award. It was a brilliant plan, masterfully executed. Our government is thoroughly broken by it, our voting citizenry is addicted to it, our democracy is hobbled by it. And now, we have Palin--the folksy, zombie torch-bearer of the neoconservative campaign against the integrity of American mind and the American democracy, still talking about ideas like she really cares about them when they are still just a means to an end for her.

    That's the textbook definition of cynicism, my friends.

    (-8.50, -7.64) "Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'." - Hans Asperger

    by croyal on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:46:17 AM PST

  •  Bravo!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RustyCannon, BusyinCA

    This is an excellent diary.  recommended and shared on facebook. Just clean up the typos.

    thank you.

    "Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine

    by liberalconservative on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:54:56 AM PST

  •  Like all Republicans, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    littlezen, BusyinCA

    Call it corny, but Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of my favorite movies. It's a movie about hope. It's a movie about good triumphing over evil and idealism defeating cynicism. Most of all, it's a movie about the timeless truths of America handed down to us from our forefathers and foremothers. In other words, it's a movie Hollywood would never make today.

    Palin is about the dashing of hope for most Americans. She thrives on the crushing of idealism. Sarah Palin's yearnings for return to a past that didn't ever exist is simply dishonest. She would make this country even more of an unregulated stomp-the-people corporate Shangri-la than it already is.

    Palin is ruthless. She's a self-promoting huckster, a flinty shrew with a cash register for a heart. Her public persona is schtick. Greed is her guiding principle. With lightning speed, she's stuffed her pockets full of loot.                        

    Obligingly, the "lamestream media" Palin pretends to rail against goes along with it. They ignore or marginalize anyone who objects to her insulting charade. And we peons, we're not supposed to be in on the joke.

    Good grief.

    Most troubling of all, America's Palin fascination says more about America than it says about Palin. For example, take her nauseatingly overwrought claim that her presidential hopes are a prayerful consideration. Does anyone think that's Palin's extemporaneous phrasing? I wonder who coined that line for her. How much do you think she's paying them? I don't know much ... but I know if America is somehow foolish enough to make Palin president, we'll deserve all the consequences that would result.

    I'm eager to watch the country-club-boardroom-Wall Street Goopers struggle to stamp out Palin--but somehow manage to avoid losing support from the teabagger imbeciles forming her bloc. How furious the GOP sophisticates (they're the ones who shop Nieman-Marcus instead of Walmart) must be at John McCain. McCain is that sore loser guy who dumped this noisy, radioactive turd into their laps, and then for an encore lost the election to a black guy with a weird name.

    But regardless of all that, most male Goopers want to sleep with Palin. Why is beyond me. But they do. What a show she's been already. And just think ... the Palin saga is barely over two years old. To me, it seems like she's been around forever.

    It's average Americans versus all of them--establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats alike--especially Barack Obama. --Jeff

    by Wom Bat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:57:34 AM PST

    •  Agree , Wom Bat... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wom Bat, BusyinCA

      but uprated for this:

      McCain is that sore loser guy who dumped this noisy, radioactive turd into their laps, and then for an encore lost the election to a black guy with a weird name.

      Payback is such a bitch, isn't it?  LOL!

      "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." - Le Petit Prince

      by littlezen on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:33:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Vyan, you articulate how Democrats fight back. (0+ / 0-)

    By showing that the Democrats plan is more "Constitutional"/1787-ish.

    Read my lips, no tax extension for the rich.

    by buckshot face on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:17:29 AM PST

  •  DIE ZEIT (in German) had an article about Palin (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    yesterday.. Headlin basically "Woman without Qualities: (Frau ohne Eigenschaften)

  •  Thank you Thank you Thank you (0+ / 0-)

    What a wonderfully researched answer to a vexing problem.  You said what I would with to say, but with better data to support why you think the way you do.  Thank you for your passion and hard work!

  •  NIce diary (0+ / 0-)

    but I don't think she's listening.

    Somewhere a senator sits behind a big wooden desk...he took his money just like all the rest- Neil Young

    by ctami on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:02:58 AM PST

  •  Vyan a great diarist... (0+ / 0-)

    but you broke my brain within the first sentences by forcing me to think about Sarah Palin. I still can not get over the degree to which ignorance is now celebrated in this country. Going to go scream now.

  •  Righteous Smackdown! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Write on, Vyan, Write on!

    "in Order to form a more perfect Union"
    Basta de Guerra. No más. Enough War. No more.

    by Angie in WA State on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:23:38 AM PST

  •  Great diary! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Way above Palin's comprehension skills. As well, it's an affront to her critical thinking skills or lack thereof.  Mostly she has to many bigoted views to get by in order to read with an open mind.

  •  Vyan, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    I'm late to this party, but thought you may like to know that this diary has been hit by a lot of tweeters and got twitted out everywhere.


    makes me feel all orange alerty - Laurence Lewis 12.7.10.

    by AnnetteK on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:37:06 PM PST

  •  Thank you for FPing this. It quickly fell from (0+ / 0-)

    the rec list yesterday, much to my dismay.  This is the best SP diary I've read on dkos!  Thanks Vyan.

    Live simply so that others may simply live.

    by Ann T Bush on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:47:06 PM PST

    •  Strange. When I clicked the link to Dkos (0+ / 0-)

      This diary appeared and I thought it was FPed.  Sorry.  I wish it had been.

      Live simply so that others may simply live.

      by Ann T Bush on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:50:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Meteor Blades, jbou, CT Yankee, Tookish, OkieByAccident, JWC, BrooklynBoy, lowkell, teacherken, zonk, mattman, alicia, Shockwave, dsb, Carnacki, hubcap, chichagof, rasbobbo, Babsnc, dlcampbe, Cassandra77, lippythelion69, teresahill, Ennealogic, Pintlala, lilnubber, Cedwyn, antirove, wader, Texknight, Dube, Dallasdoc, dustbin, JimWilson, On The Bus, Steven Payne, rlharry, Timbuk3, Matt Esler, zadarum, hayden, lyvwyr101, Dave in RI, maybeeso in michigan, marina, spuds, NoMoreLies, jrooth, Dave from Oregon, panicbean, basquebob, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, Gary Norton, boofdah, Papagoose, dansk47, Pam from Calif, Fury, Shotput8, Rogneid, Ekaterin, Snud, Mehitabel9, alrdouglas, tarheelblue, BlueInARedState, liberalconservative, Hear Our Voices, poleshifter, KenBee, jwhitmill, triv33, global citizen, gooderservice, gatorcog, Crashing Vor, real world chick, JVolvo, tommyfocus2003, myrealname, ER Doc, Unitary Moonbat, MadMs, nannyboz, AmySmith, Granny Doc, slksfca, Nulwee, rufusthedog, Noor B, DrSteveB, TC MITS, Loudoun County Dem, tgypsy, possum, FishOutofWater, Jimdotz, ezdidit, Strabo, bnasley, jayden, millwood, technolinguist, cloudbustingkid, spearfish, Da Rock, sable, vet, chicago minx, MyBrainWorks, mconvente, Scioto, RickMassimo, Blackacre, scooter in brooklyn, ScottyUrb, Involuntary Exile, bythesea, elwior, lineatus, Its any one guess, mikeconwell, moose67, hwmnbn, MsWings, D in Northern Virginia, Tango Uniform, valsagem, GrannyOPhilly, mos1133, LaFeminista, clent, maggiejean, Ran3dy, DontTaseMeBro, greengemini, juca, Michael James, matmak, RustyCannon, Ohiodem1, manucpa, allep10, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, Cats r Flyfishn, jimmylutherking, reesespcs, hamsisu, citisven, collardgreens, Vita Brevis, Larsstephens, bronxcharlie, richdoll, commonmass, smileycreek, coppercelt, littlezen, flitedocnm, TFinSF, Vacationland, Ann T Bush, legalchic, Eddie L, sullivanst, SoonerG, CodenameV, abrauer, Texnance, science nerd, Oh Mary Oh, Rockpopple, no way lack of brain, ocliberal, spindr27, angstall, Front Toward Enemy, knivesout, speak2me, coquiero, croyal, sowsearsoup, wildlife advocate, BlueJessamine, We Want Change, GrogInOhio, SJohnson, AsianAfricanAmerican, tkwasny, boomerchick, Shes a Riot, Lorikeet, sasidechick, dle2GA, mniowan, Mongo DeNizen, tardis10, KayJ503, marshstars, whoknu, MinistryOfTruth, curtisgrahamduff, Wom Bat, James Protzman, LaurenMonica, idahorebel, StepLeftStepForward, Regina in a Sears Kit House, AnnetteK, weatherdude, IndyGlenn, yawnimawke, KiB, Kyrus, CLL29, Great Lakes Liberal, RainbowGirl, The Uncola, lunachickie, mauikat

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site