Caribou Barbie; Put Bush in a Dress and Add a Little Loon…

Okay, I don't know about you, but at first I found Caribou Barbie to be a lovable dweeb. Then, as she started speaking, I saw her as a slightly befuddled clown, who was in way over her head.

Now, I'm convinced; she's a freaking loon. A complete, unadulterated facsimile of those other loons, wSarah-palin-as-vice-president2ho tend to populate the Freeper Boards with their absolute hatred of anyone who seems to them to be the least bit "liberal," meaning someone who might possibly think someone besides the very rich should 
benefit from the taxes they pay, and that people shouldn't be left for dead if they don't have enough money to pay for an operation.

Look, folks; she's not even remotely ready to be president, and that is, after all, supposed to be the main job of the vice president. If McCain were to win next week, and keeled over at his inauguration from the bitter cold that usually accompanies the January 20 date, we would not only be stuck with her, but she would get to appoint her vice president, as well.

Can we afford even the possibility of this happening?

This woman has zero foreign policy knowledge, at a time when our standing on the world stage is at its lowest ebb. We need a pick-me-up from the Bush foreign policy, which has largely alternates between "Okay, who can we blow up today?" and "Whose oil can we steal tomorrow?" Knowing where Russia is on a map, and getting a few Middle Eastern leader all hot and bothered over your "folksy" ways is no way to run a foreign policy. We have to engage the rest of the world, and work out our differences; we simply cannot afford four more years of a childlike approach to the world that doesn't even attempt to understand the basic differences between people and places. If we're actually going to save the world from itself, we're going to have to talk to it, not ignore everything they say, and try to force them to bend to our will. And if President Palin has no knowledge of how the world works, combined with her obvious far-right-wing mindset, guess whose foreign policy she's likely to follow?

And what about domestic policy? Well, let's see…

As mayor of Wasilla, she came into office with a balanced budget, reduced taxes and increased spending, and left office with a $20 million deficit. Sound familiar? Do we really need another "borrow and spend" wingnut in the Oval Office?

Seriously, do these idiots ever actually listen to their own rhetoric? Aren't they always blasting the poor and working classes for "living beyond their means"? And yet, they don't even come close to that when they run the government.

And you have to be kidding about her claim to have "cut taxes" in Alaska. Alaskans don't pay any taxes that she could cut, really. And when she claims to have "given" Alaskans a record share of oil profits, may I remind you that she did so on the backs of the people in the "lower 48," who had to pay upwards of $4 per gallon to get Alaskans that money. Of course, Alaskans had to pay somewhere around $5 at the same time. Odd that, isn't it? She has all of this "pull" with the oil companies, and was able to get Alaskans a few extra dollars in payouts, but she couldn't reduce the cost of their gas?

There is also a severe level of incompetence in her background, that could translate to another "Katrina moment," if we were to allow her to get that far.

While mayor of Wasilla, she broke ground and started building a municipal hockey complex. Only one problem; the city broke ground, and was in the midst of the building of this complex, when it was discovered that the city of Wasilla did not have clearance for the land. Yeah, that's right; she started building before they had ownership in the land. Can you guess what the owner did? He demanded a lot more than he would have before the city was committed to using the land.

Okay, so you have someone here with zero foreign policy experience, zero knowledge of basic economics, and someone who's incompetent to even cross all the t's when it comes to small money; what will she do when it comes to the big money she'll be dealing with if she were to run the federal government. She's had to deal with a total of less than $6 billion in the state of Alaska, most of it coming from the federal government and the oil companies. That's really nothing, folks. And her ethical troubles in Alaska show her to be as lacking in ethics as the Bush administration. She's sneaky, she thinks her power as governor is all-consuming, and she thinks the title makes her "the boss. Again; sound familiar?

But as much as her inexperience and outright sloth troubles me, the most troubling aspect of Sarah Palin's political career is her incredible lunacy. She's a goddamn nut.

She's attended a bunch of churches over the years, all of which seem to be somewhat extremist, and lacking in, shall we say, "Christian compassion." You want to talk about Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee? Caribou Barbie's pastor has them both beat to hell. He got his start in Africa, believe it or not, where he first made his claim to fame by performing an exorcism, and ousting a supposed witch from a small village. And we have all seen his, um, blessing of Palin's candidacy for governor on YouTube, where he prays that she'll get money for her candidacy, as well as to be safe from all the "witchcraft" she was likely to encounter on her journey to the state house. 

But her church is also frightening for other reasons. A lot of people make hay of Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, saying some incendiary things from the pulpit, but few mention a prominent speaker at Palin's church, very recently; David Brickner, who heads "Jews for Jesus," and who told Palin's church that Jews in the Middle East (Israel, mainly) deserve what they get because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ. An interesting take, given that Jesus never quite said, "Verily I say unto you, unless you accept me as your God, your women and children will be blown to tiny bits by a whacko from another religion that doesn't accept me.

And that's another thing we don't need at all. I don't know about you, but I would really like to never see one more "ordained by God" politician running for high office in this country, and she keeps saying repeatedly that, if she and Gramps were to win, it would be because God willed it to happen. I mean, for Chrissakes, folks; can we stop this shit? There's a reason wny the founders made sure God was kept out of politics, and it was to save politics and God simultaneously. God doesn't decide political contests, voters do. (He also doesn't help your team win, and he doesn't give you an advantage when it comes time to battle cancer, either, but that's another story.) From now on, if you're going to claim authority from God, at least have a passing knowledge of the goddamn Bible, okay? Is that really too much to ask?

And I'm sick of her inability to even think a little, and notice that people have not been paying attention to her, as she's repeated the anti-Obama slanders that were created out of whole cloth by idiots like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. No one gives a shit about his "association" with Bill Ayers anymore; that question was settled six months ago. No one in his or her right mind would ever consider Barack Obama a "socialist," anymore than they would consider Bush a "socialist" because he practically nationalized some of the largest banks in the country, or McCain a "socialist," because he supported the "bailout bill," which effectively nationalized the entire mortgage securities market.

But the latest sign that she's a fricking lunatic comes with an appearance in Iowa, in which she suggests that Obama might actually be a rogue politician, bent on creating a United States where people are not free. Why you ask? Because of his "tax policies." No kidding; that's what she said;

"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was
yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else.
If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your
investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to
everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher
taxes, and I say this based on his record… Higher taxes, more
government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into
the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us.
And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our
family, making decisions for us. Now, they do this in other countries
where the people are not free. Let us fight for what is right. John
McCain and I, we will put our trust in you."

Has she even been alive and aware during the neocon era? Rich people in this country have been paying lower and lower taxes for the last 30 years, except for the eight years while Clinton was president, when they ticked up a little, while the poor and middle class have been paying a larger and larger share of the tax burden, and the neocons have been borrowing money just to make their bills.

Let's make something clear here, folks; our wealth already has been appropriated by others. How many times has your retirement account been raped in the last eight years? You think that money just disappeared into thin air? Unlikely; it actually went into someone's pocket. Have you watched stocks drop? A few weeks ago, the entire market lost $1.2 trillion in one day; again, that didn't just disappear; someone received it.

See, this is how capitalism works, Caribou Barbie. Money circulates; it goes from person to person to person to company to company. It doesn't generallly stay in one place. And the only tax "ideology" I'm aware of comes from the right wing, and their insistence that taxes are a penalty of some sort; some sort of punishment inflicted on the populace for some unknown "sin."

Here's a clue, dumbass; taxes are collected to pay for things. In the last 28 years, except for a short 3-year period when a Democrat was in charge, the government has had to borrow boatloads of money just topay its bills. The interest payment on that debt alone is approaching the budget for defense, which is already far higher than all other countries' defense budgets put together. It has to stop. That means, someone has to pay higher taxes. Now, in a tough economic period, you can't very well go after the poorest in the economy for the money. So, you go after those with the most money. I mean, duh! Rch people have to pay more taxes, and they should pay more taxes, because they actually receive more benefit from government than anyone else. Imagine that.

As for the reduction in freedoms, well… one of the reasons why America will probably elect Obama president is because of the loss of freedom we've experienced over the last eight years. As of this moment in time, the United States government can take someone prisoner, based on the word of anyone representing the president, for any reason, keep them indefinitely, without telling anyone about it.
And there is little anyone can do about it, in part because no one even has to know the prisoner exists.
Moreover, the government can listen in on our phone calls, and do whatever the hell it wants with that information, with no oversight whatsoever.

Compared that to raising some taxes, why don't you? A 3 percentage point increase in taxes for any dollar over $250,000 isn't going to kill anyone, it's not going to cause people to not start a business, and it's certainly not enough money for everyone else in the country to live on, so it can hardly be called a "redistribution of wealth." And it sure as hell doesn't qualify as a "loss of freedom," and to even suggest it is, is just plain looney.

We can't elect this idiot Vice President. In fact, I'm wondering if the people of Alaska shouldn't recall her, because she's obviously too crazy to be taken seriously.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 The PCTC Blog

One comment

  1. Most blogs and news services have quoted the same one paragraph of the message that David Brickner of Jews for Jesus delivered at Sarah Palin’s church, giving the false impression that he believes that terrorist attacks are God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus. Please read or listen to the entire message for yourself at so that you can hear Brickner’s remarks in context. Please also take a look at Brickner’s comments concerning his message at Wasilla Bible Church, as well as interviews by Christianity Today and MSNBC with Brickner about this issue, at Among other things, Brickner says, “The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event, whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a biblical prediction of judgment. I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way.”

Comments are closed.