More Government Propaganda While Canada Once Again Stands Alone

A very strange Oped piece appeared in the Globe and Mail on the weekend, written by none other than Stephen Harper. It was a follow up to a government announcement that we would be giving the Ukrainian military another 220 million dollars, on top of the 300 million already provided, to assist in their battle with rebel forces.

It reads like a typical propaganda piece, laying all of the blame on Russia's doorstep, for the horrific downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, that killed 298 innocent civilians.

Had this appeared under a different byline, it would simply reflect the views of the author. However, when it comes from the leader of a country, it is something much more.

An official position. And that position is pretty clear. Russia is our sworn enemy.

The United Nations is investigating the incident, and most in the international community are taking a wait and see approach, before becoming judge, jury and executioner.

While there are calls to strip Russia of their right to host the The World Cup in 2018, British Prime Minister David Cameron, is calling for cooler heads to prevail, and FIFA see it as a potential "force for good". It might just be the golden ticket for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, since sanctions don't appear to be working.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot, has actually called Vladimir Putin personally, to discuss the situation. This is something that is no longer an option for Canada, as our government has already burned too many bridges with the Russian leader, making us irrelevant.

Australians still don't approve of Abbot, but do believe he is leading the way in diplomacy, with a position contradictory to Harper's.

It is not inconceivable that the shooting down of the passenger flight was an accident. As the National Post points out, '-Iran Air Flight 655—shot down on July 3, 1988, not by some scruffy rebel on contested soil but by a U.S. Navy captain in command of an Aegis-class cruiser called the Vincennes.'; it's happened before.

The Reagan administration tried to cover it up, but eventually the truth came out, as it no doubt will in this latest tragedy.

Conservative MP, Peter Goldring, is joining Sarah Palin, in calling for an all out war with Russia, reminding us of Harper's Reform Party and their bumper sticker foreign policy. Simple and dangerous solutions to complex issues.

Obama may provide equipment that would help to reveal 'specific locations of surface-to-air missiles controlled by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine so the Ukrainian government could target them for destruction', but with only 17% of Americans supporting military engagement in the area, I doubt he would consider doing anything more.

Besides, the optics may not be good, given that Joe Biden's son now works for a Ukranian company that is pushing for energy independence from Moscow.

So what is Harper's endgame here? Is he trying to earn some respect, given his abysmal record on foreign policy?

In 2003, when Leader of the Opposition, he spoke out in favour of Canada joining the U.S. In Iraq, and now that country is in shambles, with 63% of Republicans believing that it was a mistake.

He escalated our involvement in Afghanistan, and now the Taliban is stronger than ever, even winning in areas they never held before the invasion.

Canada led in the regime change in Libya, and despite spending $800,000 on a "victory" celebration, Libya is in a bloody mess. Republicans blame Obama, but who should we blame?

Engaging in a war of words, with an enemy he will never have to actually fight, (despite the views of the crazy wing in his Party), is a safe way to inflate his ego. However, I think there may be another motive.

Vladimir Putin was tanking in the polls, until he took a firm stand on Western interference in the Ukraine. Now his popularity with Russian citizens is overwhelming.

Is Stephen Harper hoping that by taking a firm and very public stand with Russia, that Canadians will view him as not so bad after all, despite his horrendous policies?

Could be.

Sadly, it might just work.

Would a Romney Victory Mean the End of the Conservative Movement?

Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary with 40% of the vote and appears to be heading toward winning the Republican nomination.

Unlike most of his opponents, he has not "surged" but just plodded along, attacking when he needed to attack, and standing up to the blows from his tag-teamed conservative opponents.

In the weeks leading up to these important votes, there was a lot of talk about the conservative movement mobilizing to knock him out, yet they were unable to do that.

They appear instead, to have burned themselves out, by focusing too much on issues that are now non-issues.  Same-sex marriage (more than half of Americans now support it), gay rights, abortion and immigration.  It's getting old and at a time when the American economy is in crisis, people are looking for someone whose attention will be on that.

The conservative movement was successful only when they downplayed the social conservative elements, instead working behind the scenes to pursue their agenda.  Ronald Reagan was able to play the role of a moderate, despite the fact that he was anything but.  Stephen Harper appears to be having some success with the same strategy, though the extremism is always there just beneath the surface.

The candidates endorsed by conservatives wear their views on their sleeves and because of that, will never be able to win an election, when the majority of Americans simply don't share those views.

What is telling about the New Hampsire results, is that Ron Paul, the Libertarian, came in second with 23%. 

On Chris Matthew's Hardball this week they discussed the possibility of Paul running as an independent, since he seems to be a hit with the younger generation.  He's not a social conservative, opposes big government and government spending, is anti-war and believes that marijuana should be legalized.

He may not win the presidency, but could split the right-wing vote.

Mitt Romney's chances would depend on who he chose as a running mate.  I actually liked John McCain and believe that he would have done much better, had it not been for Sarah Palin.  The thought that she would be president if McCain's health failed, was terrifying.

Romney also appears to be reaching out to corporate America, where the real Republican clout is. In his speech after the Iowa caucus victory, he said that he would get America on its feet with the help of the "job creators", conservative code for lowering taxes for the wealthy.

Same old, same old.

The FAMILY LEADER Drops 'Slavery was Good for Blacks' From Presidential Pledge, But it Changes Nothing

Historian Joseph Crespino has written extensively on Racism and the Religious Right, especially their aversion to the Civil Rights movement.

Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the Moral Majority/Religious Right, made it abundantly clear that the movement was not in response to the Roe vs Wade decision, that legalized abortion, but the IRS decision to drop the tax exempt status from Bob Jones university, because of their segregation policies.

Weyrich and several of his cohorts got together and determined that it was time to take their country back. Right back to the 1950's, or more specifically 1954. (Backlash, Susan Faludi, 1992)

Why 1954?

Because on December 1, 1955, the wonderful Rosa Parks, a black woman, was arrested for refusing to surrender her seat to a white person. This launched the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which launched the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

Weyrich wanted a clean slate, erasing the years 1955-1968, and the Bob Jones decision gave him the opportunity. By using a reverse discrimination argument, they didn't sound quite so racist to those who might be afraid to show support for the "whites only" college. (Sarah Palin uses the same argument in her book)

In 1978, Robert Grant, Paul Weyrich, Terry Dolan, Howard Phillips, and Richard Viguerie found Christian Voice, to recruit, train, and organize Evangelical Christians to participate in elections.

By 1980, the Republicans were pledging to "halt the unconstitutional regulatory vendetta" against the segregation academies, and on April 29, high-profile Christians marched on Washington DC, in an effort to support Ronald Reagan's presidential run.

Citing "Southern alienation" they touted Reagan as the man who would right this wrong, and he did not disappoint.

Addressing students at Bob Jones University, he recycled the theme of 'reverse discrimination', arguing that the IRS policy was tantamount to 'racial quotas' and that: "You do not alter the evil character of racial quotas simply by changing the colour of the beneficiary". The blacks, he affirmed, had the run of the place, and he would do something about it. (In 1982, he restored the school's tax exempt status, but the Supreme Court slapped it down).

At the Neshoba fair in Mississippi (photo above) Reagan championed "states' rights (to deal with their own racist policies) and lauded segregationist Strom Thurmond, a failed 1948 presidential candidate.

Said Reagan: "If we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today". (Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s, Chapter Five by Joseph Crespino)

As I've mentioned before, Reagan lost the black vote, but it didn't matter. 90% of African Americans voted Democrat, but only 30% voted at all.

So this week, when it was learned that yet another branch of the Christian Right is working with Republican candidates, exacting pledges to uphold their beliefs, it should not have been a shock that the group, FAMILY LEADER, suggested that slavery was the best time for black families.

... a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

Forget that at any time, mother, father or child could be sold, traded or lost in a poker game.

They never had it so good.

After much public outcry, the group has dropped the slavery comment, but hopefully, the fact that it was there in the first place, will help to open people's eyes to the agenda of the Christian Right/Tea Party/Neoconservative movement.

It was founded on and is grounded in racism, which is now going mainstream.

Not unlike the Conservative Party of Canada and Harper's National Citizens Coalition.

And just as Weyrich's Heritage Foundation became a vanguard of the radical right, Canada's Northern Foundation, helped to draw in groups dedicated to creating a white Christian Canada, complete with rampant homophobia and misogyny.

"... the Northern Foundation was the creation of a number of generally extreme right-wing conservatives, including Anne Hartmann (a director of REAL Women), Geoffrey Wasteneys (A long-standing member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), George Potter (also a member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), author Peter Brimelow, Link Byfield (son of Ted Byfield and himself publisher/president of Alberta Report), and Stephen Harper." (Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, Trevor Harrison, 1995, p. 121))

Many of the members are now with the Civitas Society, the policy arm of the Harper government.

If we had a legitimate media in Canada, they would be writing this narrative for the movement that will reshape our country and change who we are as Canadians.

But we don't.

Instead they insist on calling Harper's party "Tories" invoking an historic tradition.

Ironically, whenever I remind people that Harper's Reformers have nothing to do with the conservatism of Sir John or John Diefenbaker, I receive a lot of email from Harper supporters. Not to challenge my statement but to suggest that if he did have a link to the old Tory party, they would not be propping him up.

Oh, and the redneck that Reagan invoked as the saviour of American values, Strom Thurmond? Six months after his death, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, a black American woman, revealed that she was Strom Thurmond's daughter, born to Carrie "Tunch" Butler, a maid who had worked for Thurmond's parents.

Hypocrisy, thy name is the Christian Right.

Is Slavery Really the Best Thing for Families?

If you think keeping track of the myriad of think tanks and AstroTurf groups that prop up the neoconservative movement, is a challenge; try unravelling their Religious Right infrastructure.

Just when you think you've nailed down the Republican, Conservative, funding connections, dozens of new groups appear on the horizon, so you say a Hail Mary and go for another long shot.

The latest to rear its ugly head, is the FAMILY LEADER, started by a former Mike Huckabee campaign chair, Bob Vander Plaats, and while they focus on the same old, same old: abortion, gay rights and the free market, they have a twist.

FAMILY LEADER (they capitalize it) suggests that slavery was actually good for the black family.

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

And there it is. The "Roots" of the Religious Right and their problem with Obama. He's black. And apparently, black marriages only began to break up when he was elected president.

Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the Religious Right/Moral Majority (and yet another American who has done so much for Stephen Harper's career) laid out their agenda at a Washington conference in 1990. Randall Balmer was there and reported:

In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, "that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision." No, Weyrich insisted, "what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies. ”

Bob Jones University had policies that refused black students enrollment until 1971, admitted only married blacks from 1971 to 1975, and prohibited interracial dating and marriage between 1975 and 2000.

Weyrich also worked on the campaign of Ronald Reagan, when he campaigned against the Civil Rights movement.

"With [Ronald] Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the black vote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. Republican ... strategist Paul Weyrich* stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (1)

Presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman has signed FAMILY LEADER's pledge to uphold their agenda and Sarah Palin promises to uphold "white" values.

If it's Good Enough for the Republicans

As with everything else, "white" supremacy is beginning to creep into the lingo of Canada's right-wing media.

Toronto mayor Rob Ford is said to represent the "angry white males". Fox News North calls the Caledonia land claim protests, a struggle between "Indians and white people", and Sun media congratulated Stephen Harper for appointing a "white guy" to act as Governor General.

Harper's Reformers were known for their racism, or what former MP Jan Brown called "the rampant racism of the 'God Squad'".

Just because he now keeps his 'God Squad' silenced, doesn't mean that they don't hold the same views. So unable to voice them publicly, they allow Fox News North to do it for them.

When is our media going to wake up?

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22

Jim Flaherty and the Tea Party Abandon the Arts

It was once suggested to Winston Churchill that he cut funding to the arts to pay for Britain's war, to which he responded "Then what would we be fighting for?"

A nation's arts and culture are as important to their identity as their historic landmarks.

Yet neoconservative ideology suggests otherwise. If it doesn't make a profit, then it's not art. And in the same way that Margaret Thatcher declared that "there is no such thing as society", the Harperites believe that there is no such thing as a Canadian culture.

The Tea Party/Republicans believe that the National Endowment for the Arts are "elitists" and even go so far as to suggest that their main function is to create propaganda for the left.

Sarah Palin says: "NPR, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, all those kind of frivolous things that government shouldn't’t be in the business of funding with tax dollars — those should all be on the chopping block."

Jim Flaherty listened and has announced that he will be cutting funding for the arts. No big surprise, since Harper himself has referred to artists as those living in "ivory towers".

Lighthouses on stumps, fake lakes and his singing off key, are the only artistic endeavors that we need to pay for. And we are indeed paying for them.

William Osborne wrote a piece for the American Arts Journal several years ago discussing the neoconservative principles of Milton Friedman and the Republicans, when it came to the funding of arts and culture.

He had spent several years in Europe, and was amazed at the divide.

As an American who has lived in Europe for the last 24 years, I see on a daily basis how different the American and European economic systems are, and how deeply this affects the ways they produce, market and perceive art. America advocates supply-side economics, small government and free trade – all reflecting a belief that societies should minimize government expenditure and maximize deregulated, privatized global capitalism. Corporate freedom is considered a direct and analogous extension of personal freedom.

Europeans, by contrast, hold to mixed economies with large social and cultural programs. Governmental spending often equals about half the GNP. Europeans argue that an unmitigated capitalism creates an isomorphic, corporate-dominated society with reduced individual and social options. Americans insist that privatization and the marketplace provide greater efficiency than governments. These two economic systems have created something of a cultural divide between Europeans and Americans.

Canada used to care about cultural events without worrying over whether they produced a profit or fit a mould. The neocons will pick and choose what events they fund, and only those that conform to neocon ideology will ever see a dime.

Gay Pride parades out, reenactments of battles in. Next summer it will be the War of 1812, only in this version, the Americans win and we hand over to them everything we own.

And the Harperites belittle artists to justify their heavy handedness. If you can't sell your painting, then you shouldn't be painting.

Says Osborne:

European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever, broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism, Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the dignity and cultural identity of society.

Ah yes. Jesse Helms. Did I mention that Arthur Finklestein also handled his campaign?

Don't you just love the ignorance of neoconservatism?

Sarah Palin Gives a History Lesson. Oye!

Can you imagine if this woman was ever President of the United States?

The British were coming to take their guns? Paul Revere was a courier?

Where did she go to school, or did she?

Tea Party Served a Tepid Brew in Wisconsin

For all of the hype about the Wisconsin protests being teabagged, the protesters ended up outnumbering the teabaggers 35 to 1. That's what they get for letting Sarah Palin drive the bus. Poor dear is still out there looking for the place, getting directions from Michele Bachmann. They'll never make it.

I wrote yesterday of how the Wisconsin firefighters were standing in solidarity with the public servants, and I love what they said:

"The reason that we are here is because it's important that labor sticks together. There was a message from the governor's office to conquer and divide...collective bargaining is not just for us, police and fire, it's good for all involved. It's a middle-class upbringing."

"When firefighters see an emergency, one thing we do is respond. And we see an emergency in the house of labor, so that's why we're here."

"Every day, if you notice, we lead the AFSCME employees, the SEIU employees, all the public sector employees into the building, because we are here to fight with them."

"Collective bargaining is not about union rights; it's about rights of workers...We ask Gov. Walker to come back and negotiate with the people, negotiate with the state workers' unions, and get things worked out, as opposed to just putting out this bill and we don't hear from him again."

"Us as firefighters, we have been exempted from this bill...There's a 5.8 percent pay into the pension, there's a 12.4 percent pay into the health care premium benefits...For the betterment of the government, for the betterment of the state, we don't mind helping to pay for that. We don't want to price ourselves out of a job. Ever. What we want to do is have a fair and equitable treatment among our members."

And now these protests are spreading to other states, and even China is a little on edge.

Yeah the people.

And another nice thing happened with these protests, perhaps inspired by the firefighters. The two sides put down their (metaphorical) weapons and talked to each other. Can you imagine political discourse without all the yelling? Be still my heart.

When the two sides in Wisconsin's bitter battle over the future of the state's unionized public employees converged on the Capitol on Saturday for dueling rallies, the fear was trouble would break out. Instead, the day was marked by a surprising civility when the shouting stopped and the one-on-one conversations began.

My favourite photo though, was tweeted from Egypt.



And on that note, it's time to get on your feet again and walk like an Egyptian (and a Wisconsin(ite?)

Sarah Palin Says the Anonymous Army of WikiLeaks Hacked Her Website. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Poor Sarah. Feeling a little left out, she now claims that Assange is after her because she wrote about him on her Facebook page.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

I'm so glad the Right has her.

But if they did hack her space, I've seen nothing on WikiLeaks, so they must have determined there was nothing there worth reading.

Sarah Palin?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Best laugh I've had all year.

If WikiLeaks is Classed as a Terrorist Organization Will it Give the Media an Excuse for Not Doing Their Job?

While Sarah Palin is headed to North Korea to stand with her allies, Republican congressman Peter King is suggesting that WikiLeaks should be designated a terrorist organization.

What will this mean for media reporting?

The Dallas News believes that they should do their job, but with a "but".

.. once such information becomes available, newspapers cannot simply ignore it. Instead, newspapers are charged with ensuring that there is true news value in what gets published.

So what will they consider to be news worthy? In a country where every fart of Paris Hilton's includes photos, videos and lively commentary, how can they not find news in the release of these documents?

Unless the U.S. revives some form of the Patriot Act, they have no excuse for keeping silent.

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, believes that a smear campaign has already begun.

It's quite possible. Isn't that what usually happens when troubling news is uncovered? Case in point in Canada, Richard Colvin.

Fred Kaplan believes that the leaks will actually show Obama in a better light, where he has attempted to use diplomacy in American foreign policy. That could be a good thing.

But I think what the leaks will show best, is top down Imperialism.

And on that note, enjoy this fun little video. I think it cleverly says it all.

Sarah Palin Says That America Must Stand With North Korea

Sarah Palin told Glenn Beck recently that the U.S. must stand with their North Korean allies. Yes the woman who wants to be the next president of the United States (Heaven help us), needs GPS to find the enemy.

And as Mitchell Bard says in the Huffington Post:

If she hasn't already, I'm sure Palin will say that the "elitist," "lamestream" media is doing her wrong, and that she is once again a victim of "gotcha journalism." And Palin's small but passionate group of supporters will undoubtedly argue that Palin made an honest slip of the tongue, something that could happen to any of us. Her supporters are right. Saying "North" instead of "South" is something that any of us could easily do.

But here's the thing: Any of us did not stand up two years ago and claim we were qualified to fill a job that is a heartbeat away from the American presidency. We haven't written books, made speeches, endorsed candidates and spoken to the (mostly right-wing) media as if we were policy experts. And we haven't been scouting office space in Iowa for a 2012 presidential run.

In short, more should be expected of Sarah Palin than any of us, based on how she has portrayed herself, and how she is treated by the media. The real story, though, isn't that Palin said "North" instead of "South." Let's be honest: Vice President Joe Biden could have just as easily blown a line like that. No, the real story is that Palin was discussing a complex, precarious, highly dangerous issue as if she were an expert, even though she clearly isn't.

Inexcusable. I don't know what they are putting in their tea south of the border, but I think they've gone nuts if they actually think that this woman is smart enough to run their country.

Sarah Palin Playing the Race Card is Absurd

Sarah Palin's new book, America by Heart, comes out today, and according to the UK Guardian, reads like a treatise by a would-be US presidential candidate.

Palin claims to be tired of Obama's apologies for America, and suggests that he is almost embarrassed to be American.

If that's true, he has plenty of reasons to be embarrassed, not the least of which is Sarah Palin.

But what I find disturbing is that she is pulling out the race card, which may be a bit of a preview of her election campaign, should she decide to throw her hat in the ring.

One of the most controversial parts of her book deals with race. McCain avoided this during the White House campaign, partly because he did not want to be accused of having fought an election in which he had made Obama's colour an
issue. Ignoring the advice of some Republicans, including Palin, his vice-presidential running mate, he also refused to exploit provocative comments made by Wright, Obama's long-time pastor and mentor in Chicago.

After suggesting that she belongs to a group of "patriotic Americans", as opposed to the current president, she quotes Michelle Obama as stating that she had "never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections".

She got it wrong, however, because what she really said was: "What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something--for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction, and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

An entirely different meaning, but it won't matter. The people who read Palin's book will believe it, and an "us against them" mentality will be the result. And of course the "us against them" is getting dangerously close to becoming "whites" against "blacks".

Read Palin's next comments that follow that misquote:

"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."

You can almost see the white sheets.

Anger vs Hurt

My first experience with bigotry, that I can remember, was when I was in elementary school. We had a new student join us mid-term, who was of German descent. He was tall, blonde and very good looking. And he was nine.

One day at the end of class, our teacher dismissed the new student but asked that the rest of us remain behind.

One at a time she had us stand up and disclose what we knew of our heritage. "My grandmother was from Ireland, my grandfather Poland", that kind of thing. The exercise was to remind us that we were all descended from immigrants.

She then moved on to name calling. She said that if we called a classmate stupid, it was just a word, unless that person was a slow learner. She used other examples that I can't remember, but what I took from that was the difference between saying something that might make someone angry, and saying something that would hurt.

Apparently at recess, some boys had called the young German boy a 'Nazi' and an 'Aryan' something or other. Both terms no doubt came from parents, since I doubt they really knew what they meant at that time. But for the boy whose family had escaped Nazi Germany, those words hurt because he knew exactly what they meant.

They were not just words.

I hear the argument from white nationalists all the time, that if blacks can be proud of their race, why can't they? If they can be called "whitey" why can't they use the "N" word?

But the difference is that white people in America have no history of oppression. Black power was used to make African Americans proud of what they had been able to overcome, and though the struggle is far from over, attitudes had been changing.

"Whitey" may make a person mad, but it does not hurt. Overall, there is no history of pain.

Not that either is right, but there is a fundamental difference between the two.

While few come right out and say it, the problem with Obama, for many who have joined the Tea Party gang, is that he is black. It's below the surface, but it is there. Read their signs.

"He is Muslim" (a terrorist). "He is a socialist" (a Communist). He is Kenyan (black). He embodies all of their hatred and fear.

He's actually a Christian, social-Democrat, born in Hawaii, with a black father and white mother. In other words, an American. But it doesn't matter.

If Sarah Palin uses a kind of "white pride" associated with patriotism, and the good old USA, this could very well ignite a race war, as opposed to a political campaign.

Let's hope she doesn't run. Or if she does run, keeps running. The political climate in the United States is volatile enough.

Barbara Bush Disses Sarah Palin. Does She Forget Who Her Son Is?

Barbara Bush was on Larry King with her husband, and when asked about Sarah Palin:

"Thought she was beautiful. And she's very happy in Alaska," Bush said, chuckling. "I hope she'll stay there."

How much better the world would have been if she had kept her son in Texas.

Hello Pot. Meet Kettle.

I always liked Barbara Bush, but c'mon.

Lordy Lordy. Sarah Palin May Make a Run For the Presidency in 2012

Sarah Palin is hinting that she may take a stab at the presidency in 2012, according to the New York Times.

Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, spoke with Mary Hart of “Entertainment Tonight” from her home is Wasilla and told her, “I still have not decided what I’m going to do in 2012.”

Can you imagine a country with that much military power being run by an idiot?

Mind you I don't think she'd have much of a chance, even with the tea baggers now swelling the ranks of the Republican party.

I watched Bill Maher last week and he had a GOP operative on his panel who argued that Palin was very popular and how people loved her. But Maher pointed out that those who go to hear her speak do love her, in the same way that those who attend a rock concert love the band.

But polls indicate a very small number (I think less than 10%) who would actually vote for her.

Let's hope that trend continues.

Sarah Palin Agrees With Jason Kenney. Maybe Two Plus Two Really is Five!

It's interesting that a recent interview between Barbara Walters and Sarah Palin, revealed the beliefs of the former candidate for the vice presidency of the United States.

Like Stephen Harper, her foreign policy was going to be based on biblical prophesy.

Following the teachings of men like John Hagee, all Jews are to be put in boats and lovingly assisted to Israel, before they can feel the rapture.

And like Jason Kenny and Charles McVety, she believes that this is going to happen sooner rather than later.

This is why any criticism of Israel is deemed to be a hate crime, and why all of our humanitarian organizations are being terrorized by Kennyism.

Now I'm not suggesting that Sarah Palin and Jason Kenney share the same IQ. After all, she's written a book. I doubt Jason Kenney has even read one.

Sarah Palin Supports Stephen Harper's Private Health Care Plan

Though the majority of Canadians want our public health care fixed but not scrapped, Stephen Harper should take some comfort in knowing that he has one ally in his fight. She'll lead the cheer for his battle cry "It's high time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act".

So long as she can find the right building, she'll be there .... and remember your name ... or what the subject is ... ah, hell. Poor Stevie doesn't stand a chance. Even with a string tied to her finger that's attached to the door of the building, she'll still get lost.

Sarah Palin Tricked by Canadian Comedian Again
Huffington Post

At a recent stop on her "Going Rogue" book tour, Sarah Palin told Canadian comedian Mary Walsh that Canada should get rid of its public health care system.

Walsh is the co-creator and star of This Hour Has 22 Minutes -- a nightly news parody show in the same vein as The Daily Show -- and she arrived in character, as the conservative Marg Delahunty, to the Borders where Palin (the "Alaskan Aphrodite") was signing books.

"I just wanted to ask you if you have any words of encouragement for Canadian conservatives who have worked so hard to try to diminish the kind of socialized medicine we have up there." Walsh shouted to Palin as she approached the table.

Palin's handlers tried to help her by ushering Walsh out of the Borders, but Palin could not be deterred. When Palin left the signing, Walsh caught up with her in the parking lot, where Palin suggested that Canada should get rid of its public health care system. "Keep the faith" Palin said, "because common sense conservatism can be plugged in there in Canada too. In fact, Canada needs to reform its health care system and let the private sector take over some of what the government has absorbed."

Raw Story points out that it is unlikely this plan will go over well among Canadians -- even among conservatives.

A recent study found that 90 percent of Canadians support universal, single-payer health care. A poll taken last summer shows 82 percent of Canadians believe their health care system to be better than the US's, despite constant grumbling about waiting times for treatment of non-life-threatening conditions.

This is Palin's second brush with Canadian comedians. Last November a comedian from Montreal convinced the former governor she was speaking with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Later, Walsh remarked to the Canadian Press that "It was great fun, but also very strange."

Walsh said, she found it equally bizarre that no one was allowed to ask Palin any questions at the book-signing....

"We're in a bookstore, at a public event, in a place one would think was a bastion of free speech. And no one was allowed to ask questions. What are they afraid of?"