Sometimes, dogs intuitively know, what Sarah Palin has never learned.
Who could forget this memorable piece from Wonkette when Bristol announced her latest unwed pregnancy. Wonkette has doubled down on their assault on Bristol:
“And so Bristol, after checking her womb to make sure Jesus hadn’t tagged her with another litter while she was sleeping, read this email what mentioned her mommy, and commenced to gleefully LOLing, which caused her to cough so hard on the smoke from her Virginia Slim, she peed a little...”
“No, Bristol. Hillary Clinton is not “terrified” of your mother. Hillary Clinton knows that your mother is an obtuse, barely literate skidmark on the dirty Pull-Ups of America, a woman who really should learn to speak English and assimilate into our culture if she’d like to stay here. She knows your mother’s indecipherable toddler-speak is to the American wingnuts’ liking, and she probably calculated that, at that very moment, it would be a giant pain in America’s collective ass for your mommy to be out there riling up the paste-fucking hordes, while the Obama administration was busy doing grown-up work.”
My personal description wouldn’t be so colorful. However it demonstrates Bristol’s sick and delusional perception of Sarah Palin to suggest that Hillary Clinton would ever be “afraid” of the quitter. To use the term “afraid’ gives insight into the mind-set of the Palin family. If you are adverse to them, you are an enemy. The way the Palins deal with enemies is to threaten them and hope they are “afraid.”
Oh Sorry, Sarah didn’t hold that one. It was this one she really held.
The first is funny. The second is offensive. It is offensive, not because Sarah considers herself to be Christian, but because of what the sign represents. This picture was posted on Sarah’s Facebook yesterday. The picture was inspired by Ben Carson’s response to the shooting of 17 people in Oregon.
It was the Oregon shooters targeting of Christians, that inspired these signs.
What a misguided, absurd, and offensive response to the Oregon shooting. It’s as if Ben Carson and Sarah Palin feel that victims should have been proud to stand up and declare their religion to be Christianity,and be glad to be shot for that decision to declare their religion as Christianity. It is Sarah Palin declaring that the Second Amendment right of the deranged shooter was more important than the 1st Amendment rights of those he killed. When the child played dead during the Sandy Hook massacre, nobody suggested that the child was a coward. We marveled at her composure,insight, and intelligence demonstrated during a life-threatening confrontation to play dead to avoid being targeted by the shooter. If any of these students in Oregon had opted not to stand up and proclaim their Christianity, nobody would tell them that they should have stood up and taken the bullet to prove their devotion to their religion. If they had realized that Christians were the targets the shooter sought, surely all of them would have remained seated.
The Republican response to the Oregon shooting was predictable, but no less tolerable. The Donald offered his advice that the teachers should have been armed, and then everyone would have been “a hell of a lot better off.” It is a typical response of all Republicans to suggest that restricting firearms from the mentally ill is not appropriate. The ironic thing is that the Republicans seem to feel it should be the responsibility of our teachers to defend their students with their lives. Yet those same Republicans don’t feel it is their responsibility to defend their voters when they are having a campaign rally. Republicans refuse to allow people to bring guns to their campaign events, thereby limiting the chance that they will be shot, but limiting the Second Amendment rights of their supporters. Republicans, including Sarah Palin, are glad to have their pictures taken with guns, but they don’t “come packing” to their campaign events.
After each of the recent spate of mass shootings that have haunted America over the past several years, Republicans’ delusional response has remained the same: More guns would have allowed the good guys to stop the bad guys. Yet even at the GOP debates the members of the audience were not allowed to carry, and the debaters didn’t bring their guns.
- As Governor of Florida Jeb Bush passed the “Stand Your Ground” laws that played a role in the shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis in 2012.
- Donald Trump has advocated an end to “gun-free” zones, though his own hotels and golf courses have a different policy.
- Ted Cruz — who recently released a video of himself proudly cooking bacon by wrapping it around the barrel of a machine gun — has advocated for soldiers to be able to carry concealed weapons on military bases; at least until he was rebuffed by John McCain and military leaders who informed him such a plan would bring greater danger to soldiers.
- After 20 students and six school employees were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, as New York and Connecticut legislatures approved stricter gun control legislation, Rick Perry actively sought to recruit gun manufacturers from those states to come to Texas.
- Chris Christie is the one hold-out of the group. Christie opposes concealed weapons permits and called opponents of an assault weapons ban “crazy.” (Between that and the Bridgegate controversy, is it any wonder Christie has failed to gain any steam in the primary?)
So why is the Republican Party, which loudly espouses the safety benefits created by average folks packing heat wherever they go, holding its debates in venues that don’t allow concealed weapons? If Trump, Cruz, Bush, and their ilk think unlimited access to guns makes the general public safer, why do they take such a different stance on their own safety?
Much speculation has surrounded John Boehner’s sudden resignation as Speaker of the House. The amazing thing is that he resigned his position as Speaker of the House, and his position as a member of the House. With the Budget debate and the possibility of another government shut-down, it was understandable why he would no longer wish to fill a leadership role within the Republican Party. But why did he resign as a member of the House, an elected official from Ohio? He was elected in 2014, so he had served less than half of his term. Such an unplanned move “threw Ohio Republicans into chaos “No one, not even some on Boehner’s staff, had received notice the U.S. House speaker planned to resign.” He has been a member of the House since 1991, 24 years.
The answer may be as predictable as the resignation of any other politician who is caught doing something immoral, unethical, or illegal. Politicususa reported that a federal investigation had been launched two years ago into excessive campaign contributions. It was reported that:
“The Federal Election Commission is examining whether dozens of political action committees and individuals contributed more than the legally allowed amount to House Speaker John Boehner during last year’s election cycle.
Letters the Federal Election Committee sent Monday to Friends of John Boehner indicated that donors including coal, energy, and gambling interests, exceeded contribution limits to Boehner’s committee by more than $150,000.
Among the groups that were allegedly overgenerous to Boehner were Coalpac and Minepac, which represent the mining industry, as well as political committees representing the Exelon, Constellation and Luminant power companies, and the Ceasars and Penn National gambling enterprises.
“Although the commission may take further legal action concerning the acceptance of excessive contributions, your prompt action to refund the excessive amount will be taken into consideration,” the letters say.”
Certainly Boehner has been known for his ability to raise substantial donations. After the announcement of his resignation, the New York Times reported:
“Even Mr. Boehner’s most strident opponents will almost certainly miss him for his ability to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, for his critics as well as his allies.”
Boehner seems to have taken pride in his ability to raise large sums of campaign contributions. In June 1995, Boehner distributed campaign contributions from tobacco industry lobbyists on the House floor as House members were weighing how to vote on tobacco subsidies. In a 1996 documentary by PBS called The People and the Power Game, Boehner said:
“They asked me to give out a half dozen checks quickly before we got to the end of the month and I complied. And I did it on the House floor, which I regret. I should not have done. It’s not a violation of the House rules, but it’s a practice that‘s gone on here for a long time that we’re trying to stop and I know I’ll never do it again.” Boehner eventually led the effort to change House rules and prohibit campaign contributions from being distributed on the House floor.
Boehner was “Tightly Bound to Lobbyists” and “He maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R.J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS.”
We will watch in the weeks ahead to see if the Federal Election Committee is about to take “further legal action.”