Even as Sarah Palin’s public voice grows louder, she has become increasingly secretive, walling herself off from old friends and associates, and attempting to enforce silence from those around her. Following the former Alaska governor’s road show, the author delves into the surreal new world Palin now inhabits—a place of fear, anger, and illusion, which has swallowed up the engaging, small-town hockey mom and her family—and the sadness she has left in her wake.

Read this story on Vanity Fair

Some famous people have people tweet for them, but not Sarah Palin. I’m pretty sure she’s blasting out her tweets all on her own – straight from her Blackberry to your eyes.

Yesterday she tweeted: Silly media reports“maybe thousands”@Beck’s “irrelevant” event;insinuating MSM sheeple mustn’t believe their own eyes&ears re: event’s truth.

I think she meant to say @GlennBeck and not @Beck. The former is Glenn Beck. He’s that blond guy who sells gold coins on Fox News. The later is musician Beck. He’s the guy who made all that eclectic pop music that was all the rage 10 years ago. You know, “I got two turntables and a microphone.”

Now as for the content of her tweet, aside from being inaccurate and irrelevant, it comes across as really whiny. She likes to do that whole, “look at how oppressed we rightwingers are.” But aside from the people, er sheeple, that follow Palin around like lost puppies, who’s buying it? It’s boring.

Beck’s rally on Saturday drew a crowd of about 80,000 people, it was carried live via CSPAN and heavily reported by all of the mainstream media.

To put this into context, gays and lesbians marched on the nation’s capitol in October of last year and drew about 150,000 people according to the Los Angeles Times. That particular march on Washington was barely covered in the mainstream media and Fox News largely ignored it. And in 2003, hundreds of thousands of people rallied in cities all across the country and around the world to protest the pending invasion of Iraq.

So was Beck’s rally irrelevant? Yes, it was. Beck’s “Restoring Honor” party was just as irrelevant as the pro-peace and the gay rights rallies were. None of these events had any impact on public policy or public opinion, but they made the attendees feel better – like they did something they believed in. I know I felt better when I marched through Seattle in 2003 for peace, but it didn’t stop the war. It was irrelevant. I was, and am, irrelevant. But that’s OK, I still can get out of bed in the morning, drink my coffee and meander through another day of irrelevance.

Tomorrow, President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech about the Iraq War. August 31 marks the official end to combat operations in a war that has dragged on for more than seven years.

It’s also been seven years since President George W. Bush delivered his famous “Mission Accomplished” speech on May 1, 2003. “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush boasted. “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Obama won’t be landing on any air craft carriers wearing a military uniform costume and boasting about victory. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine the end to the Iraq War as a victory. Since the war began in March 2003, “victory” has never been defined.

What Obama will talk about are the sacrifices that the soldiers made for their country. They were asked to fight and die in Iraq, and nearly 4,500 soldiers have been killed and close to 32,000 wounded.

Obama most likely won’t mention that he never supported the war. In 2002, Illinois Senator Obama gave a speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago and said, “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Obama warned that “even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

And when he became a US Senator he continued to oppose the war. In 2007, Obama introduced a bill, “Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007.” The bill was designed to stop Bush’s proposed troop surge and to begin a phased redeployment of US forces out of Iraq. It was referred to committee, but failed to become law.

In 2008, Obama campaigned heavily on ending the war. When he took over as president on January 20, 2009, Obama issued presidential memoranda and executive orders for the military to develop a plan to end the war.

But now, conservatives are claiming that the withdrawal of troops by Obama is proof that Bush’s “troop surge” worked and that Obama’s taking credit for his predecessor’s success. Sarah Palin tweeted that Obama is a failed leader who opposed the troop surge and isn’t giving “credit where credit’s due. Credit due GW, McCain, troops.”

While Palin is correct that Obama did oppose Bush’s “troop surge” tactic, however, the troops are leaving Iraq not because the war has been won, but because of a 2008 Statement of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq.

Article 24 of the agreement says, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

And this phased draw down of combat operations has been ongoing since last year.

“All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009,” the agreement says.

Violence in Iraq has not subsided, despite the American public’s lack of interest. Just last week dozens of people were killed when a series of bomb attacks rocked Iraq.

So this troop withdrawal doesn’t mean the US won the war. It doesn’t mean that Bush’s troop surge “worked.” It doesn’t mean anything other than that the government of Iraq wants all occupation forces out of Iraq by the end of next year. Keep that in mind when you listen to politicians and talking heads boast about victory in Iraq. And don’t forget about the more than $1 trillion the war cost taxpayers now and for generations to come.

Glenn Beck held his “restoring honor” rally in Washington, DC yesterday. It was funny and scary all wrapped in an extravaganza of demagoguery.

Sarah Palin whined that “they” are trying to take away her motherhood.

“Say what you want to say about me,” Palin said, “but I raised a combat vet. You can’t take that away from me.”

Beck proclaimed that we must turn America “back” to the once great nation it had been before “they” took over.

Who “they” is wasn’t explained to the crowd of about 80,000 because it didn’t need to be. Everyone knows who “they” are. They are President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. If Beck had delivered this same speech in 1965, the “they” would consist of President Lyndon Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives John William McCormack and Martin Luther King.

Beck sees himself as a Dr. King type of figure, which is why he held his “restoring honor” rally on the anniversary of Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. Beck sees himself as someone who’s going to radically alter America’s course for generations to come. But unlike Dr. King who looked forward, Beck wants to go back to the good old days before the Civil Rights movement of 1960s, before Roosevelt’s New Deal and the creation of Social Security and unemployment insurance, and long before Medicare and Medicaid.

“Something that is beyond man is happening,” Beck told his followers as their heads nodded with affirmation. “America today begins to turn back to God. For too long, this country has wandered in darkness.”

Beck’s utopia is one in which labor unions are outlawed, banks, corporations and the wealthiest of the wealthy are allowed to do whatever they want and everyone else just has to deal with it. You know, back when the Ford’s, Dupont’s and Rockefeller’s ruled the country as they saw fit. There was no Environmental Protection Agency or Occupational Safety and Health Administration telling businesses what to do.

In Beck’s Garden of Eden, African Americans couldn’t vote in much of the country, particularly in the Jim Crow South, and before Women’s Suffrage. That was a time of “honor” for Beck and his followers. It was a time before “they” took over.

–

Related stories:
Martin Luther King ‘I Have a Dream’ Speech (Video and Transcript)
Radio Host Joe Madison Confronts Glenn Beck On Claim Obama Is Racist
Beck: God Will Wash This Nation With Blood
Glenn Beck Mocks 6-year-old With Asthma

Rightbloggers, Fox News and conservative politicians are purposely conflating Al Qaeda with Islam. While it’s true that Al Qaeda members claim to be living the lives of righteous Muslims – the fact is that they are terrorists. Members of the Ku Klux Klan make similar claims about Protestant Christianity, but they are terrorists too.

Many religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, attract a lot of crazy fundamentalists – people who claim to be the “real” Christians or the “purist” practitioners of Islam. But these groups are nothing but ignorant terrorists whose hearts are filled with hate.

While this has been going on for a long time, what’s disturbing is that this equating of a terrorist organization to the entire religion of Islam has reached mainstream American politics. The current uproar is over the so-called “Ground Zero mosque,” which isn’t a mosque and it’s not located at ground zero.

Interestingly, when George W. Bush was president, there seemed to be a concerted effort to keep this type of hate-filled rhetoric on the sidelines, but not anymore.

Politicians, rightbloggers and Fox News have latched onto to this ground zero mosque issue to spread hatred of all Muslims. They’re equating Muslims, such as Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to Osama bin Laden. He’s a radical. He’s a fundamentalist. They’re doing this to spread fear. They’re doing this to divide the nation – to pit us against them. They want Muslims to be seen as the “other,” someone Americans should hate.

Why are they doing? In the short-term, it’s for political gain. They’re trying to get Democrats, and liberals, to appear to be supporting terrorists by standing up for the 1st Amendment so that they can take back Congress this year. In the long-term, they’re banking on this being a great wedge issue, similar to gay marriage, abortion and immigration – something that makes one American hate another American.

Conservatives have always sought policies to divide and conquer. The GOP has never encouraged Americans to work together. The whole notion of the GOP being a “big tent” party was a running joke. They will always embrace divisiveness because it’s easier to manipulate a population that is fighting among themselves, rather than working together to solve actual problems.

If Americans are fighting about abortion, immigration, Muslims, etc, they aren’t organizing for higher wages, health care or better pensions.

Let’s call these haters what they are, they’re cheap labor conservatives.

Cheap labor conservatives want you distracted from the real issues while you fight their phony ones. If you’re doing that, you won’t complain so much, if and when you realize that real wages for Americans have plummeted since the 1950s when one income could support an entire family. It’s worth noting that during the ’50s and ’60s was also when organized labor was the strongest. So while you’re hating Muslims and liberals, you probably won’t notice that income inequality has now reached pre-Great Depression levels, and that those tax cuts, they aren’t for you.

The real enemy isn’t Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, it’s conservatives such as Glenn Beck, rightbloggers like Pamela Geller, and presidential wannabes Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

The real problems facing America are jobs, higher wages, health care, tax cuts for the wealthy, affordable education and putting the brakes on a runaway military industrial complex.

Conservatives like things the way they are. They like their money and big tax cuts. They like desperate workers willing to accept low wages, no health care and no pension. They like their kids’ private education. They’re fine with the defense budget funneling trillions of dollars from the Treasury into the coffers of defense contractors. That works well for them, but is it working for us?

Oliver Willis found this little gem today. It’s a video of Sarah Palin confronting a woman in Homer, Alaska who’s putting up a sign that says, “Worst Governor Ever.” Palin was there to do some work on her Discovery TV show.

When she asks the lady what she does for a living, she’s a teacher, Palin rolls her eyes. I guess teachers don’t count as “Momma Grizzlies” or “Pink Elephants” or whatever it is she thinks she’s representing now.

My favorite part is when Palin’s daughter jumps in to explain that Palin quit halfway through her first term as governor of Alaska so she could be “representing America.” Uh huh.

And who’s the dork that keeps trying to block the video camera? Get a job loser.

I know Sarah Palin’s supporters don’t give a rip about facts, details or being right, but Palin sure is wrong a lot.

The former half-term governor of Alaska has put her proverbial foot in her mouth again. PolitiFact.com fact-checked her recent statement that “Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in US history.” They gave her a “Pants on Fire” rating – meaning liar liar pants on fire.

Obviously Palin lashed out at being called a liar. On her Facebook page she said, “Yesterday, PolitiFact.com fact-checked my statement about the coming $3.8 trillion Obama tax hike – the largest tax increase in history. They did such a bad job of it, however, that I feel compelled to fact-check the fact-checkers.”

Go on Mrs. Palin, fact-check your little heart out.

According to her “analysis,” Democrats have failed to put forward any plan to deal with Bush’s tax cuts, which are set to expire if Congress doesn’t renew them. Tax cuts? Tax hikes? You say potato – I say po-tah-toe. She’s correct that if Congress doesn’t do anything, the tax cuts will expire, but she’s wrong that Democrats don’t have a plan to do with them – she either doesn’t like it, or she doesn’t know about it.

“In fact,” PolitiFact responded, “Democrats have repeatedly stated they only intend to let lower tax rates expire for individuals making more than $200,000 or couples making more than $250,000. And that’s nowhere near the largest tax increase in history, as we noted in our rating.”

That’s not how Palin sees it.

“Unfortunately for PolitiFact, no such proposal exists. … Plan? What plan?,” Palin moans. “There is no plan. All we have is smoke and mirrors based on an old Obama campaign pledge that if elected, he would exempt families making less than $250,000 a year from ‘any form of tax increases.’ …

“To prevent PolitiFact from making similar mistakes in future, it would be helpful if the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership finally mustered the courage to table their plans to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Mr. President, publish your proposals, and we’ll duke it out. You can argue in favor of a multi-trillion dollar tax hike in an age of economic uncertainty and mass unemployment, and we’ll argue for fiscal sanity combined with serious spending cuts. I for one look forward to such a debate.”

But PolitiFact says that Obama has indeed put forth a rather detailed plan on how to deal with the expiring Bush tax cuts. The president has addressed the issue at least twice in the annual budget documents that the White House releases.

PolitiFact can take it from here, but the bottom-line is that Palin needs to do her homework before she shoots her mouth off, this isn’t high school debate class, she needs to actually do some research or she’s going to keep looking like a fool.

The president’s 2011 budget, for example, says on page 39, “Allow the Bush Tax Cuts for Households Earning More Than $250,000 to Expire.”

“In the last Administration, those at the very top enjoyed large tax breaks and income gains while almost everyone else struggled and real income for the middle class declined. Our Nation cannot afford to continue these tax cuts, which is why the President supports allowing those tax cuts that affect families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire and committing these resources to reducing the deficit instead. This step will have no effect on the 98 percent of all households who make less than $250,000.”

Lest you think that’s too general and vague, there are detailed estimates in the budget summary tables, starting on page 164, for provisions such as, “Upper-income tax provisions devoted to deficit reduction: Expand the 28-percent rate and reinstate the 36-percent and 39.6-percent rates for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) … Reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) … Impose 20-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single).”

In Congress, key Democratic leaders have indicated they are using the plan outlined in the federal budget as the framework for their legislation. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on dealing with the expiring tax cuts. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee’s chair, said in a July 14, 2010, statement, “I support extending the middle-class tax cuts permanently, as soon as possible, so working families can keep more of their hard-earned money.”

The committee released a budget analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Effects on Economic Growth and Distribution.” That document showed estimates for the cost to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those who are now taxed at rates of 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, “and part of the 33%.” That 33 percent tax bracket, by the way, includes taxpayers who make slightly below and slightly above the benchmarks Obama described.

And then there’s also the U.S. Treasury Department’s “General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Proposals,” known by policy wonks as “the green book.” It outlines in even more detail how the Obama administration plans to increase taxes for high-earners and keep the current rates for everyone else.

“It is very much an official statement of policy. It’s what they propose to do,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “Obviously, Congress will do or won’t do what it will. But I have heard no one on the Hill saying we should let everything expire.”

News coverage from other publications from The Wall Street Journal to our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org have also noted the Democratic proposals and ideas on these issues.

“The Democrats’ plan seems to me to be quite explicit: keep the tax cuts for those under $250,000 and let those for the rich expire,” said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and a longtime watcher of Congress. “Does that mean never, ever taxing the under-$250 (thousand) populace? No. But it is a straightforward policy plan.”

The PolitiFact story can be found here.
Palin’s Facebook post can be found here.

Sarah Palin posted a message on Facebook complaining about the Islamic community center slated to be built a couple blocks from where the World Trade Center towers once stood. Obviously she thinks it’s disgraceful that those filthy rag heads would want to build anything in, near or around Ground Zero (Palin didn’t actually use the words “rag head” or “filthy,” but that’s the message she’s sending).

In response to Palin’s latest form of not-so-subliminal hate speech, The Daily Beast blogger Brian Ries decided to report the post to Facebook as, well, hate speech. Leveraging the power of Tumblr, Ries got more people to do the same thing and Palin’s post disappeared – poof.

It turns out that Facebook’s reporting process is automated, the company apologized to Palin because they had concluded that her post did not violate Facebooks’ terms of service.

But what’s really interesting annoying about this story is how Palin followers reacted to what they see as a war from the left on free speech. One person called Ries a “liberal scumbag censor,” and another said he’s a “typical Islamist.” The Palinistas were hopping mad at this clear violation of her 1st Amendment protection.

And as usual, just like Palin, they’re absolutely and completely wrong.

After reading Ries’ story, I posted the following comment.

Sigh. People who haven’t read the 1st Amendment should be barred from speaking about it – it should be illegal.

The 1st Amendment protects the People from the Government. It doesn’t protect the People from other People.

What that means is that the Government can’t tell you what you can or can not say – there are some exceptions, but for the most part the Government has no legal power to stop people from talking.

What the 1st Amendment does NOT protect is someone saying something and expecting the conversation to be over – that’s that. In other words, Sarah Palin can say whatever she wants, but the People have a protected right to respond to her.

One way of responding could be telling the publisher of Palin’s speech (in this case Facebook) that it’s racist hate speech. Doing that is exercising one’s 1st Amendment right to speak.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says so-and-so can say whatever she wants and nobody is allowed to respond to it.

And of course, people who don’t like the response to Palin’s speech can then voice their ignorant concerns, which they have done so.

But at no point, ever, in this story was anybody’s 1st Amendment right violated. Even when Facebook took the post down, Palin’s civil liberties were not violated because there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires Facebook, or any company, to publish anything Palin has written. She doesn’t have a right to be published – no one does.

You can read Ries’ story here.

In an “exclusive” interview with Sarah Palin, Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller - a right-wing blog – has exposed how truly thin-skinned the former Alaska governor really is.

The gist of Palin’s comments are that the media picked on her (e.g. they asked her questions she couldn’t answer).

She said that when she was given the nomination from John McCain for VP, “hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash ‘reporters’” descended on Alaska. You know, because anyone that asks a probing question of a Republican is an Obama operative, and it’s a fact that Obama has actually been running everything forever.

Palin then whined that it was because of the media scrutiny that she resigned as governor of Alaska. She just couldn’t take it anymore.

“It was too obvious to me, my family, my administration and anyone else who knew me (and my record) that we were in a defenseless position the minute I gave my acceptance speech,” Palin said.

She’s probably right, Palin had a really tough time explaining her record, or naming any newspapers she reads, which Supreme Court decisions she has an opinion about besides Roe, and why being able to see Russia meant she’s a foreign expert whiz-bang.

Palin finally said, “‘Enough. Political adversaries and their political friends in the media will not destroy my State, my administration, nor my family. Enough.’ I knew if I didn’t play their game any longer, they could not win. I would not retreat, I would instead reload, and I would fight for what is right from a different plane.”

So does that mean she’s now going to be shooting reporters from a plane? I thought she did most of her hunting from a helicopter. I’m confused.

But then again her daughter’s boyfriend Levi Johnston, now Bristol’s fiancee, said that Palin quit her governorship because she wanted to make a lot of money, and that she doesn’t even know how to shoot a rifle, whether on the ground, in a helicopter or from a plane.

Now that thousands of barrels of oil are spewing into the Gulf of Mexico by the hour, Republican senators are pretending that “Drill, Baby, Drill” was never a party slogan.

“I think there was a candidate that used that,” Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said. “I think our phrase was ‘drill here, drill now,’ meaning here in the United States and as quickly as oil and gas leases are going,” reported The Hill’s E2 Wire blog.

Read this entire story on Examiner.com.

Whether like it or not, Sarah Palin gets to say whatever she wants, and the mainstream media will simply regurgitate it.

The Associated Press ran a story on Sunday about how Sarah Palin was taken aback by President Obama’s comment regarding the US as a superpower. What she said was a total misrepresentation of the facts and the AP story just went with it.

Here’s what’s got Palin all riled up.

Obama said earlier this week that the United States must do its best to help resolve conflicts peacefully around the world, because if we don’t, it will fall on our shoulders – militarily and economically – to fix the problem.

Obama said:

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

Here’s what Palin said on her Facebook page:

Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?

Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it.

Maybe Palin really is just as dumb as a box of hammers and she just doesn’t understand what the president said, but what Obama meant was that whether we like it or not, the US will get pulled into international conflicts because of our superpower status if we don’t work to resolve conflicts peacefully.

And if we do get drug into a conflict, it will cost American lives and treasure.

Maybe that’s the part Palin really likes – seeing people killed and taxpayer money spent on international conflicts – and any attempt to prevent that is just un-American gosh darnit.

Thanks John McCain. Thanks for introducing Sarah Palin to us, because now we get to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking her outrageously ignorant lies. It’s not like we don’t have anything else to do.

Today Sarah Palin brought her Tea Party Express to Boston.

During her speech she rolled out her usual suspects.

“Drill baby. Drill,” Palin said and the crowd chanted her slogan calling to expand domestic oil drilling.

A couple weeks ago President Obama announced that he too wanted to see more domestic oil exploration.

The crowd was about 3,000 people. Most people weren’t native Bostonians, but Tea Partiers who’ve been following Palin’s Tea Party Express national tour.

At least half of the crowd couldn’t hear Palin because the volume was turned down so low only those near the former Alaska governor could hear what she had to say. All of the other speeches were delivered loud and clear.

Many of those from Boston were either just curious or outright opponents of Palin and her Tea Party followers.

“Fake America welcomes Sarah Palin,” one sign read – referring to Palin’s claim that “real Americans” don’t live on the east coast, despite the obvious reference to the Boston Tea Party that is a fundamental symbol employed by the Tea Party.

As usual, the message of the Tea Partiers is confusing. They claim to be against taxes, and at the same time supportive of the Iraq war.

While Tea Party followers are sensitive to accusations of racism, at least subtle racism was on display today.

“Don’t tax me bro,” said one Tea Partier’s sign. Not overtly racist, but if Obama weren’t black, the word “bro” probably wouldn’t have been employed.

One can’t help but wonder where the anger over taxes was during the Bush Administration. Obama hasn’t raised taxes, and if anything, additional tax credits have resulted in lower taxes under Obama.

Perhaps they just don’t like a “brother” managing their money.

Update: The “Don’t Tax Me Bro” sign was likely a reference to University of Florida taser incident in which a man said to the police, “Don’t tase me, bro, don’t tase me!” I didn’t catch that reference, but there you have it, likely no racial connotation meant here.

Tina Fey is a hoot, but when she does Sarah Palin she’s rididonkulously hootie. Here’s her as Palin doing a commercial for the Sarah Palin Network.

I don’t know what’s scarier, Victoria Jackson screeching into a microphone, Joe the Plumber bragging about his big truck and guns, Andrew Breitbart claiming liberals “firebombed” a church or that there are people out there that watch Glenn Beck every day.

Here’s a video montage of Tea Party rallies across the country this week.

“Take Steve Driehaus, for example,” Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) said. “He may be a dead man. He can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati.”

That was Boehner last week. Since then, Driehaus (D-OH) did vote for health care reform and he’s had several threats against his life. Photos of his children have been used in attack ads.

And over in Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother has been inadvertently targeted by right-wing extremists. A conservative blogger posted what he thought was the representative’s home address and told his followers to pay him a visit. It turned out to be Rep. Perriello’s brother’s address.

“Federal and local authorities are investigating a severed gas line at the home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother, discovered the day after Tea Party activists posted the address online so opponents could ‘drop by’ and ‘express their thanks’ for Perriello’s vote in favor of health care reform.”

When the blogger realized his mistake, he said, “Do you mean I posted his brother’s address on my Facebook? Oh well, collateral damage.”

Free speech has its limits. Inciting violence is not protected speech. Sooner or later someone is going to be injured or killed and these people will need to be held accountable for their recklessness.

–
Boehner last week: Driehaus (D-OH) could be a “dead man”
FBI Investigating Severed Gas Line at Perriello’s Brother’s House
Palin puts rifle targets on Democrats

Last week on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren,” former half-term Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin is “interviewed” by Van Susteren who clearly has arranged this setup question with Palin so she can use some of her “zingers” against President Obama and health care reform.

Read the entire story on Examiner

Barack Obama has been talking about health care reform since 2007. Back then he talked about single-payer and universal health care – and you elected Obama with a landslide victory. While you didn’t get universal health care or single-payer – you did get health care reform.

Last night’s vote in the House of Representatives to pass health care reform was historic. But what makes it so amazing is that the Democrats didn’t cave – they actually passed a huge piece of important legislation despite the lies and fear mongering spewing from the mouths of Republicans and so-called “conservatives.”

The campaign to misinform you about health care was quite effective. Support for health care reform did fall substantially as more and more Americans started to believe Republican liars. Sarah Palin kicked off the “death panel” lie. And who knows where all the crazy numbers about the cost of the bill came from – yesterday someone said the bill could cost $10 trillion. Abortion, the GOP’s old fallback position, became a central theme for the opposition. Some Republicans even said that this bill will not only fund abortions but it will “promote” them – as if you’re going to see ads on TV for abortions next to ads for Viagra.

The list of outright lies are too many to list but they’re irrelevant now.

What is relevant is that Democrats did what they needed to do and they didn’t cower in the face of the vicious hate-filled opposition to health care reform. They didn’t quit when they were called socialists, communists, niggers, faggots, baby killers and when they were spit on. So if you have a moment, send your member of Congress an e-mail or call them on the phone and say thank you.

And remember that while it’s easy to say that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans – there is. Paul Krugman made a great point in his column today by highlighting a fundamental distinction between what Democrats and Republicans believe.

The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made … And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

The GOP sees the world in purely cynical political terms. They don’t see you. They don’t see your family. They only see the next election and the next tax cut or war profit. And maybe Gingrich is right, maybe passing civil rights legislation was wrong politically, but who, besides racists, can argue that it wasn’t the right thing to do.

Looking back at our nation’s history, how many politically challenging decisions were still clearly the right choice? Civil rights, Medicare, Social Security, and let’s not forget that great Republican President Abraham Lincoln who ended slavery despite a nation that had yet to cleanse itself of overt racism. President Lincoln was murdered for that decision.

No, despite the cynicism of people like Gingrich and Karl Rove, politicians sometimes need to make unpopular decisions, even if that means they will lose their seat in Congress. That’s what a republic is. To paraphrase James Madison, a republic is virtuous men making virtuous decisions in spite of what an excited faction may want.

So please, call your members of Congress and tell them you’ve got their back. Tell them you will vote for them in November. While you’re at it, why not sign up to volunteer for them too?

Here’s a video of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and vice presidential nominee speaking at an Alaska church in June 2008.

Rumors have been gurgling on the Internet since 2008 that Sarah Palin is not the mother of her son Trig. There’s been no hard evidence that Trig isn’t her son, but there is some compelling new eyebrow raising evidence that something fishy is going on here.

An Alaska blogger, Gryphen, has been all over Palin for years. Yesterday he published a story “A Tale of Two Babies by Sarah Palin.” In it Gryphen provides photographic evidence that the baby Palin lugged around just after she allegedly gave birth to Trig in April 2008 is not the same baby we see her schlepping around today and on the campaign trail in 2008.

While it’s not true that photos never lie – check these out. Take note of the alleged Palin baby’s ear.

These photos were taken during the baby shower.

Now here’s a close-up of the baby’s ear Palin claims is her baby.

Here are the photos Palin took at the shower with her alleged son and introduced him to the world.

Here’s the baby trig on the campaign trail in 2008. Now he has perfect little ears.

The deformity that the baby Palin held in the baby shower would not go away on its own. Doctors interviewed by Gryphen said that surgery would not have been done until the baby was 4-years-old. And even if surgery were done on a baby, there would be scaring and the ears would not be perfect.

Gryphen said that he interviewed several doctors and all of them said that there is no way the baby at the baby shower is the same baby Palin had been toting around on the campaign trail.

I showed the baby shower picture to a number of medical professionals, including an Ear, Nose, and Throat Specialist, a physician, an audiologist who specializes in children’s hearing issues, and a pediatrician (None of them knew they were looking at a picture of Sarah Palin’s child). Each agreed the ear is visibly malformed. I asked them if this defect could “heal” or disappear on its own. “Of course not”, they each replied. I then showed them pictures of Trig Palin’s ear from the campaign. Again, none knew they were looking at a photograph of Sarah Palin’s son. I asked all if it could possibly be the same child, four to five months later. The answer: “No.”

This begs the question – why did Palin lie? What’s her motivation to go to a baby shower with one baby and then campaign with another child? It doesn’t make any sense. These photos are the best evidence that Palin was lying about her baby, but they present more questions than they answer.

Well, maybe the mainstream media will pick on this and see where it leads, but I doubt it.

Also interesting is what Palin’s doctor did to perpetrate this hoax, if it is one. Her doctor’s name is Cathy Baldwin-Johnson. Alaska’s State Medical Board should look into any wrongdoing by Baldwin-Johnson. If not felonious, she certainly could have acted unethically. Visit Alaska’s State Medical Board Web site or file an official complaint with the State Medical Board here.

Read Gryphen’s story “A Tale of Two Babies by Sarah Palin.”

Here is Sarah Palin’s Facebook posting made on Feb. 17, 2010. In an effort to maintain the public record, Palin’s entire message is published here. It was downloaded from Palin’s Facebook page on Feb. 17, 2010 at 11:04 a.m. Eastern.

Stimulus Bill Anniversary Proves Not-So-Stimulating
Feb. 17, 2010 at 7:04am

One year ago today, President Obama signed a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package and handed our children the bill. What did we get for that massive price tag? Many promises, but the promises have proven false. On this stimulus anniversary, Washington needs to hear our message that Americans expect, and deserve, better.

Americans were promised the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. It’s now well over that. We were promised it would be targeted and pork-free. It’s been loaded with pork, corporate giveaways, union bosses’ goodies, and other manners of waste. We were promised there would be no fraud, but our government now tells us it can’t even verify the eligibility of people applying for the $325 billion worth of stimulus tax provisions. We were promised there would be strict oversight, but billions of dollars apparently were allotted to congressional districts that don’t even exist. We were promised it would provide “green jobs” for Americans, but 80% of the $2 billion they spent on alternative energy went to purchase wind turbines built in China! We were promised it would help state governments weather the recession, but states receiving the stimulus bait will be in worse fiscal shape now because local governments will be on the hook for new unfunded mandates and continuation of government programs they couldn’t afford in the first place – as many of us governors warned state legislatures.

One year later, we see plainly that the stimulus was not a well-thought out plan. It hasn’t revived our economy; instead the debt-ridden package will prove to be a drag on our economy. It hasn’t put us on the path to a better future; instead it’s unfairly mortgaged our children’s future and stolen opportunities from them. It hasn’t strengthened us; instead it endangers our freedom and security by making us even more beholden to foreign lenders. The legacy of the stimulus isn’t jobs or economic growth – it’s more dangerous debt.

But there is hope! And this hope lies in draining the swamp in D.C. and sending Commonsense Conservatives to Washington who understand the need for fiscal restraint. Those who are willing to rein in spending, respect Constitutional limits, and repeal the stimulus should get our support, and those who have been part of the problem should be replaced.

In this election year, we’ll see many daring Davids take on entrenched Goliaths. Just one of these many brave souls is a northern Wisconsin patriot named Sean Duffy. He’s running in Wisconsin’s 7th congressional district against a liberal Goliath who’s been in Congress over 40 years now and has the dubious distinction of being the author of the stimulus bill. To commemorate the anniversary of the signing of the stimulus, Sean Duffy is holding a fundraising “money bomb” for his campaign so he can replace the career politician who drafted this government-bloating behemoth.

If you’re frustrated about the waste in the stimulus bill, please support a solid fiscal conservative who will work to repeal it. Please visit Sean Duffy’s website and help him help us correct the mistakes of this past year.

On this first anniversary of the stimulus, let’s send a message to the big-spenders in Washington by helping Sean Duffy unseat the author of the stimulus. Let’s put government back on our side and get to work revitalizing America!

- Sarah Palin

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=307630368434