Category: Politics

Newt and Callista Gingrich are BadNewsBears

You Republicans who support Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney are high on mushrooms made of meth that were dusted with cocaine and had weed sprouting out of them.

Not cuz Newt is crazy evil or anything like that, and not even because he looks so…. ug… like that. but because you’re tripping balls on this “not socially conservative enough” bullshit. If that’s your litmus test then Santorum’s your guy. Oh, you don’t want him? Then you have no one.

I understand you people giving him a shot and a fair look. but it’s too late for that now. It’s obvious you’re only going for him as a Mitt alternative and that’s stupid. He doesn’t differ with Mitt on anything that matters, has all of his weaknesses x2, none of his strengths except for debate performance and isn’t nearly as electible.

There’s no in between on Newt support: his supporters are either super politically educated policy wonks who are blinded by how fascinating his Presidency could be and ignoring how impossible his candidacy would be – and then there are the people at the other end of the spectrum who just think he’s a safer bet to not instate mandates, and protect fetal babies or something. Idk. But the point is: y’all are freakin nuts.

Ya’ll better get your shit together fo reel. This is what makes independents like me think you’re nutty and dangerous.

From NewtCantWin.com:

This combined with the fact that Newt is now on his third wife will give the media and the comedians more than enough fodder to turn Newt into a complete joke. The fact that his third wife has a bad case of “crazy eyes,” talks like a Stepford wife, and controls him to the point where he had a huge line of credit to Tiffany’s (a story which also has a damaging lobbying element to it) already has the same lefty comedians who destroyed Palin practicing for Newt. (Note the reference in that comedy bit to his fake Twitter follower “scandal,” which will also help cement the “this guy is a joke” narrative.)

Callista may be a great person for all I know, and if Newt was a Democrat none of these things would fair game for the media, but, sadly, this is not the case and the reality is that she would be a significant liability.

At Citizens United productions (run by Gingrich sycophant Dave Bossie, who was fired by Republicans on the Whitewater investigation for manipulating tapes to make the Clintons look bad) it was well known when I worked for them that Callista Gingrich was a complete nut who controlled Newt to the point where she forced him to put her in his movies despite the fact that she was horrible on camera. (Interestingly, Newt’s tendency to switch positions based on who is paying him is illustrated through his evolving stance on the issues related to the much misunderstood and largely bogus Citizens United Supreme Court case.)

Then, of course, there is the issue of his first two wives. Yes, the story of him serving his second wife divorce papers on her death bed is a myth but as we have learned from the assassination of Palin, media created myths still have lots of power to destroy a candidacy.

But the media won’t even need to dredge up that old storyline because, unfortunately for Newt, his second wife is still very much alive and has been VERY outspoken about exactly why there is “no way” Newt will ever be president.

When you have ex-wives, they better at least still endorse you, especially when you are a Republican running against a media darling like Obama. Should Newt be nominated, the media will make sure that every American will know what his second wife thinks of him.

Which leads to one of the biggest problems Newt would have in a general election: the gender gap would be massive.

Newt would have more than three strikes against him with women. First, a majority of women already vote for Democrats on a good day and they still tend to like Obama personally. Second, at least one of his multiple ex-wives doesn’t think he should be president. Third, his appearance and demeanor obviously don’t exactly appeal to the majority of women.

These are legit points that only the willfully blind and brainwashed-against-Mitt can ignore. Newt is not going to win and the longer you drag out this nonsense in the primary, the longer you are hurting yourselves, Republicans.

Stop being so immature, ignorant, and foolish. Newt has redeemable qualities as a human being but not as a presidential nominee.

Peculiar Pot Smoking Punk ass Protestors Pepper Sprayed Prudently

This Occupy protesting nonsense is dragging on and accomplishing nothing positive. Shocking… The wests Tahrir moment, it aint. Some are under the false impression that rich people are somehow getting richer in this bad economy despite the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million of income declining from from 400,000 back in 2007 to just 235,000 in 2009. Others are just annoyed that the world isn’t perfect in their estimation so they’re out bitching about anything and everything and feeling super noble about it. Sometimes though, the whole “breaking the law and being a dick about your protests over nothing” thing has consequences and that only makes irresponsible people more outraged that they’re not getting what they want. Tragic.

The only positive thing that’s come out of the Occupy protests has been the silly Amazon product reviews of the pepper spray used in the Davis-spraying. Aside from that it’s just more cause for whining and outrage. Did you know that forcing people to move who refuse to move from property they don’t own is a “military threat”? Oh ya dude. Totally:

“How Could This Happen in America?” Why Police Are Treating Americans Like Military Threats
Why is the armed might of the state, (necessary in waging war against foreign enemies) being applied to domestic policing of local communities and peaceful protests?

Who is gullible enough to fall for this victim-porn propaganda? These protests are often not peaceful – what with the attacking the police, vandalism, vandalism with feces, vandalism with 200 pounds of feces, other mass filth, corpse-filth, disease, open drug use, overdoses, rapes and death and all – but even during the peaceful ones, it’s painfully obvious that the whining reaction to them are just whining. Oh no.. you broke laws and got arrested or forcibly moved from a place you weren’t allowed to be. and I’m supposed to feel sympathy for that just because you wanted to be there? This is stupid. That article ends with this paragraph:

“Is this still my country?” That’s been a question from day one, asked by Americans of widely diverging views in response to government crackdowns on protest. Objecting to military violence against protesting citizens may be inherently American. The urge to crack down can look inherently American too.

Don’t people usually die in “military violence”? And yet no one has died in the law enforcement tactics used against these fleabaggers while 7 have died within the Occupy dumps. Lets see.. which is worse? Getting sprayed with something that hurts your eyes in response to your refusal to leave a blockade that has no purpose or meaning? Or dying for participating in a protest that has no purpose or meaning?

Update: woman pepper sprays black friday shoppers so she can get her Tickle-me Elmo or whatever.


I double-dog Dare you to think of something more stupid than this caption^

Police haven’t been shitting on any of the protestors. But the protestors have been shitting on the police.
Police haven’t killed any of the protestors. But the protestors have been killing themselves.
Police haven’t been breaking any of the protestors things to express their political opinions. But the protestors have been costing thousands of dollars in damage to public and private property.
Police haven’t stabbed any of the protestors. But the protestors have been knife attacking themselves.
Police haven’t jerked off in front of any 16 year old girls in the protests but… okay – i’ll give them a pass on this one.

UPDATE: Occupy sympathizer threatens to murder South Carolinas Governor. To date, police have not made any such murder threats in their “military action”.

I don’t understand what the argument against it is. When you tell someone to move and you have the legal authority to do so, wtf are you supposed to do? “Hey, those people are not legally allowed to be occupying that space. it’s not theres, we don’t want them there and they need to leave” – “but… they said no” – “Oh, okay. end of story then. I guess we tried!”. wtf? I don’t think so. They’re lucky all they got was a shot of pepper. Morons.

Although, I’ve also never made a secret of the fact that I don’t understand the Occupy protest as a movement either, and it’s not for lack of investigation. It’s an unorganized collection of whining about nothing specific and has no plan of action other than being annoying as a way to get what they want.

When it first started the most common line I saw was that it was against “Corporate Greed” but no specifics were given on what anyone wanted to do about it. Who exactly is breaking the law or doing something immoral? If the former – why are you not revealing their name to any of the thousands of trial attorneys whose mouths are watering this very second at the thought of taking a Wall Street corrupto-crat down and if it’s the latter then why are you not revealing their names either so people know what it is you’re protesting against and can maybe have some sympathy for your smelly disease riddled public park destroying illegal bongo sessions.

Following a pledge to “stick it to taxpayers“, the cost of this feel-good/accomplish-nothing masturbatory movement to the taxpayers is $10,000 a day or $13 million so far.

Thanks a lot, assholes.

UPDATE: this was posted before the following video surfaced that – SURPRISE – tells you more of what you should have already realized if you weren’t a hippie anti-authority romanticizing fruitcake:

Corporations Murder People?

I’ve been seeing the digital image and hand written sign that says “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them” for months and I keep asking “who has been murdered by what corporation?” and no one can ever answer. I suspect I know why…

If the answer is “no one” then the sign is meaningless.

Sorry to give away the ending, but: The answer is “no one” and the sign is meaningless.

It should read “I’ll believe corporations are people when one commits murder”.

If there is a case of an American corporation murdering someone then show it to me so I can publicize the event and look into why it wasn’t properly prosecuted and why the corporation wasn’t executed. It’s not impossible that a Corporation murdered someone and then got away with it while continuing to do business but… no. nevermind. it’s pretty not-possible.

What the legal classification of a Corporation being a person means is not that if you carry it’s documents with you in your car then you can drive in the carpool lane or anything stupid like that – it just means that a corporation can’t be deprived constitutional rights. or in other words: people can’t be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively in commerce (and form a corp). i.e: Corporate personhood says that the government can’t deny fifth amendment rights or free speech rights to a group of people in a corporation just as they can’t to an individual. hippies hate that rule because they hate anything designed to make a profit and that is what a corporation is, so hence their fight against corporate personhood.

But if a corporation murdered anyone then it definitely should be executed. I’m just waiting for the facts behind this phrase…

Dear Hippies: Using clever slogans only remains clever if their content makes sense. If there is no factual basis for your sloganeering then you’re not making a point, you’re unmaking it.

I’m eager to hear all the cases of murder where the perpetrator was a Corporation, so if you’re one of the people who keeps posting this sign on facebook – send em on in!

Show me the time that McDonalds sent out an order to shoot a guy or when Microsoft had someone beat to death in a Dennys parking lot. That’s what murder is, fellas. Willful intent and success at killing innocent humans. Microsoft making shitty products is not murder and McDonalds making fatty food is not murder and only murder is punishable by execution. So. Have at it and i’ll update this post with all your examples.

Current instances of Corporate Murder: 0

UPDATE: Well this is embarrassing. In search of an example that makes this line make sense, I found this image below. Shit. I totally forgot about that time Wal-Mart killed 3 thousand innocent civilians. NEVER FORGET.

This sums up how hippies view private businesses exercising free market capitalism as something to be scared of. which is a sign of a mental disorder or extreme narcissism because people buying things they want would only “scare” the most twisted Communist-minded utopian douche.

Dislike a chain of stores all you want, but if stores selling grooming products, toys, household items, tools, clothes, vitamins, and groceries frightens you, you have some pretty deep psychological problems.

UPDATE: Cory leaves the following comment:

New Forests Company

you lose.

I didn’t know I had bet anything so I don’t know what it is I am losing, but I’ve also never heard of this Corp, so I took to Google which surfaced the following:

The New Forests Company is a UK-based sustainable and socially responsible forestry company with established, rapidly growing plantations and the prospect of a diversified product base for local and regional export markets which will deliver both attractive returns to investors and significant social and environmental benefits.

Oh… UK-based…that might be why I’ve never heard of them and their website says they operate in Africa. I’m not so sure that the American state of Texas can apply it’s death penalty laws to a non-American corporation (nah, I’m just putting it that way to soften the blow. the truth is that I know for a fact that that’s how it works), but if this corporation has been convicted of killing anyone then thats still pretty big, American or not.

[7 minutes on Google later]: It appears there have been no convictions of murder, but some villagers in Uganda gave eye witness reports that New Forests Company security officers killed some unnamed people. Hmm… this is some pretty odd conviction standards: an unnamed eye witness gives an out-of-court report that a non-America Corporation killed an unnamed person or persons in Uganda under unknown circumstances and that has a relation to the American constitution and American law of Corporate Personhood somehow? But of course even if I accept that part – this “some guy killed someone somewhere” is not conviction worth testimony. If Cory – or any of you reading this – has evidence that the New Forest Corporation actually did instruct a murder hit on any individuals in this Ugandan village then even though it’s not American and not subject to our laws, it would be a decent non-American example. I will email Cory and ask if he has info pointing towards just that (which I assume he does on account of me losing) but if you know anything about this you email me too and i’ll update accordingly.

Developing…

UPDATE: Jason comments with more argument that is along the same that leads me to realize more clarity is required for the issue. First, Jasons comment:

Failures of corporations routinely cause harm and death to humans. If you have to ask for sources, then you clearly aren’t paying attention. These abuses are ‘settled out of court’ in civil suits and never reach the criminal justice system.

Google for ‘wrongful death settlements’ and be careful who you believe until you’ve followed their money trail.

I appreciate the attempt in this comment, but it’s no good unless you can also provide examples of when Texas has ever executed someone due to a failure. Who has ever been executed for murder because they failed at safety conditions around their house or property? This comment argues far more that a Corporation is a human than it does against it (again: un-making the point). Humans routinely cause harm and death to humans. So what relevance does that have to the question posed here, which is “What corporation has murdered someone?”. Humans murdering humans are not settled out of court and neither would a corporation murdering anyone. Causing harm is not murder and “causing” death is not even necessarily murder. Wrongful death settlements are in no way examples of murder – they are examples of wrongful deaths.

The search continues for the American Corporation who has ever murdered anyone, ever – OR – the Texas execution of anyone who has ever been involved with wrongful harm or death of someone parallel to that of a corporate example.

John Huntsman Brings [awkward] Jokes and Cultural References to GOP Debate

Governor Huntsman is awesome at telling awkwardly delivered jokes at these GOP primary debates. He just told Governor Perry (Texas) that “Texas is not the gas capital of the country. Washington DC is”. Perry had no. freaking. clue. that that was a joke… I hope to get the video of this later. When you see Perry’s reaction shot you’ll know what I mean. dude did not catch the joke whatsoever. He thought it was a factual correction about natural gas. Reminded me of when Al Gore was on Oprah awhile ago and she asked him what his favorite cereal was and he thought he was being cute by saying “Oprah”… let that sink in for a second before I explain… Gore had thought she meant to ask his favorite “serial”, as in the old-timey name for a periodically broadcast program. oy.

But Huntsman has a less stiff background than Gore – played in a band, rides a motorcycle – that kinda nonsense – so idk why he doesn’t have a cooler presence than he does on TV.

This is the 3nd time a Huntsman joke to another debate participant fell flat* and the 2nd one to Perry. The first one was citing Mitt Romneys book “No Apologies” saying “I don’t know if that was by Curt Kobain or not”. -wtf? I later found out that Kobain had a song titled “all apologies”. The other was when he told Perry that Perry’s immigration stance “bordered on treason” with a smile. I was like wtf?? but read later on that it was an awkward reference to Perry calling something close to being treason earlier.
harr harr Huntsman.

Later in the debate Huntsman referenced businessman Hermain Cain’s 999 tax proposal (9% income tax, 9% sales tax & 9% business tax and NOTHING else) by saying at first he thought it was the price of a pizza. Get it!? Cain is the former CEO of Godfathers Pizza (a chain i’ve never heard of before this election) and $9.99 could be a pizza price! (in fact i read somewhere that it WAS a pizza price at Godfathers at some point while Cain was there). Oh Huntsman, you little scamp.


The only line that came close to Huntsmans chicanery was when Michelle Bachmann said of the 999 plan that the devil is in the details and to turn it upside down (which makes it 666, the mark of the beast). nice.

I like that they used the coffee table from The View for this one to make the tone more conversational and less “people standing at podiums”.

Beyond that, it’s kindov boring. Huntsmans bad lines were the highlight.

Tinkering with the Electoral College to…help Republicans?

Pennsylvania Republicans are working on a plan that’s as mischievous as it is completely legitimate: apportioning its electoral votes by congressional district instead of the current winner-take-all system. Under the new system, a presidential candidate would receive an electoral vote for each congressional district he or she (but let’s be honest — this year, it’s going to once again be a he) wins, plus two more if he wins the statewide vote count. For example, since John McCain won ten out of Pennsylvania’s 19 districts in 2008, he would receive 10 electoral votes, instead of the zero he took home under the state’s current system. Obama would have received 11 electoral votes — 9 for the congressional district he won, plus two for winning the state — instead of the 21 he was awarded.

Pennsylvania, like every other state, is free to dole out its electoral votes however it wants. Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature as well as the governorship, so if the GOP wants to switch over to a congressional-district apportionment system, all the Democrats can really do is whine.

Interesting push that I didn’t totally understand at first, and still don’t unless this is a conspiracy, which I will get to in a moment. The part that doesn’t make sense is that even though PA has been won by the Democrats in the past 5 elections, the Republicans have campaigned there every time with legitimate hopes to capture it. In theory it is a “swing state” because the margin of victory is thin enough to change over, it just never happens that way. So if the Republicans think they could actually swing the state to their direction, why would they want to change the winner-take-all rule RIGHT when it could benefit them? Further: the extra few electoral votes under this system wouldn’t have changed the outcome of any of the recent elections, so whats to be gained by Republicans by doing this?

That’s when the conspiracy comes in: What if other states that have gone Democrat in presidential elections for the past few rounds but are now controlled by Republican Governors and Republican state congresses did the same thing? Such states are Michigan and Wisconsin, which dont have many Republican voting districts but if the trend continues – who knows?

Below is the electoral map based on Congressional-district apportionment (Red = Republican. Blue = Democrat).

As for Democrats retaliating by doing the same in traditionally Republican voting states? Not so much…

The only states that John McCain won where Dems control both houses of the state legislature are Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia. West Virginia is too small for splitting the electoral votes to have much effect, and Mississippi has a Republican governor. That leaves Arkansas, another small state — and one where McCain won every district handily in 2008.

No matter how you slice it, splitting up according to districts helps Republicans since Democrat districts are more solid-democrat than Republican districts are solid-republican. I know this from living and traveling across the country: there are far more areas where you can bet large amounts of money on picking a person at random at knowing for certain they will lean Democrat and hardly anywhere in the country where the same is true for Republicans. Even the most conservative areas of a fiery red state still has plenty of democrat influence. As Michael Barone of the conservative American Enterprise Institute wrote last year:

[I]n 2004 John Kerry won 80% or more of the vote in 19 congressional districts, while the number of congressional districts in which George W. Bush won 80% or more was zero. Similarly and even more starkly, in 2008 Barack Obama won 80% or more of the vote in 28 congressional districts, while the number of congressional districts in which John McCain won 80% or more was zero.

Normally I am not one for conspiracies but this one just might be hatching… Stay tuned…

Obama Reverses on Costly Enviro-Regulation

President Obama has changed his policy on a piece of legislation that held back business in favor of protecting Mother Earth. When President Bush did things like this it was cuz he wanted babies and old people to choke on oil exhaust so he would have something to masturbate to. What’s the spin when Obama does it?

In a dramatic reversal, President Barack Obama on Friday scrubbed a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America’s ailing economy.

Withdrawal of the proposed regulation marked the latest in a string of retreats by the president in the face of GOP opposition, and it drew quick criticism from liberals. Environmentalists, a key Obama constituency, accused him of caving to corporate polluters, and the American Lung Association threatened to restart the legal action it had begun against rules proposed by President George W. Bush.

The White House has been under heavy pressure from GOP lawmakers and major industries, which have slammed the stricter standard as an unnecessary jobs killer. The Environmental Protection Agency, whose scientific advisers favored the tighter limits, had predicted the proposed change would cost up to $90 billion a year, making it one of the most expensive environmental regulations ever imposed in the U.S.

Wtf is going on here? Certainly there is a conspiracy, since we all know that government forcing businesses to do things that hippies want done is the only way they will ever stop polluting the planet into an irreversible death spiral. So what say you, then, hippies? Does Obama want everyone to choke on corporate America’s gaspipe schlong just like those evil Republicans? Or were you lying about the evilness of those Republicans and now that a Leftist administration is making the concession that goes against that talking point, you’re ready to admit that you were just using that ad hominem smear to demonize people who stand in your way of your unrealistic utopian ideals?

If an actual hotel lobby of hippie-convention attending survey takers were to be polled, I would bet on the choice being to throw Obama under the bus because the lie about evil corporate greed being at the heart of mamma-earth protecting cultist ideals is too much a staple in hippie doctrine to give up. The quote above, displays as much already. The only viable option someone who has bought that line of thinking has is to claim that Obama has been co-opted by the evil corporate machine or something and is now going to coldly kill us all.

Why Christine O’Donnell walked off Piers Morgan

I think I know what happened here… First the setup: in the 2010 midterm election, things were looking bad for Democrats, and they turned out to be. But Democrats kept control of the open senate seat in Delaware made vacant by Senator Biden becoming Vice President Biden. Barack Obama’s Illinois Senate seat was won by a Republican, Mark Kirk, and Bidens seat was marked as an easy pickup for Republicans at the beginning of the race, which would have been an interesting symbolic victory as the opposition party took both senate seats of the sitting President and Vice President. but it didn’t happen that way because of Christine O’Donnell who played the “pesky kid” who Scooby Doo’ed the Republicans track to grab the seat.

A guy named Mike Castle was running for the Delaware senate seat but the Tea Party wing of the Republican party did not consider him sufficiently conservative and so Christine O’Donnell, who had ran against Biden and lost the last time around, ran against Castle in the primary and beat him for the Republican nomination. While Castle, Delaware’s only congressman at the time (that one congressional seat is now in Democrat hands) and the states former Governor was widely popular in the state and expected to win in a landslide, O’Donnell instead lost in a landslide because she was portrayed as ditzy, a religious nut and way too conservative for the state.

So now it’s awhile after the election and she has a new book talking about it and is making the rounds to promote it. Piers Morgan asks her a bunch of Socially Conservative and religious based questions which she was specifically told by her handlers to stay away from since that is what gave her such a bad rep in the first place. Indeed she started this strategy on debate night against her opponent, now the junior Senator from Delaware, Chris Coons, where she stuck to fiscal policy and legislation. Clips from her appearances on Politically Incorrect and an MTV special form the 90s where she espoused her hardcore Catholic religious views were being played everywhere and sinking her credibility as a viable candidate. So when Morgan brings these subjects up again, she keeps trying to steer the conversation away until finally coming out and saying “I don’t want to talk about this shit” (not an actual quote). Piers naturally responds “why the fuck not?” (more accurate, but still not a verbatim quote) and she doesn’t know what to say other than to repeatedly ask him to stop asking such questions.

On the one hand, Piers is asking these questions precisely because they play to the negative stereotype O’donnell is trying to clear her name of, but on the other… c’mon. battle it out with him instead of being the outraged Duchess at the tea party (pun intended) and chiding him for being rude to his guest. Her minders in the studio with her go as far as to stand in front of the camera as they direct her to walk out of the interview. Bizarre…

The same thing happened with Miss California on Piers’ predecessor, Larry King and I mean exactly the same thing: her handlers told her to not ruin her image further with this religious and social conservatism crap and she got frustrated when the host of the show she was on wouldnt oblige that request.

Glenn Beck news site writer is confused about political orientation

Glenn Beck is best known for his chalkboard writing Professor imitating monologues/speeches/sermons/whatever you want to call them, explaining political ideology and their representation in history and current events. Evidently though, he needs to send one of his writers for his news website The Blaze, Jonathon M. Seidl a few of his courses.

In a post titled Is the Oslo Gunman Really Right-Wing?, Seidl contests the claim by pointing to a Daily Mail article which opens its profile on Anders Behring Breivik with some information that allegedly “would seem to shake up any simple explanation of who he is or what he believed”:

The man responsible for the massacre in Norway was a member of a Swedish nazi forum which encourages attacks on government buildings.

It was also revealed by local police that he had extreme right wing views who hated Muslims.

According to Swedish website Expo Anders Behring Breivik is a member of ‘Nordisk’ which has 22,000 members and focuses on political terrorism.

[…]

[His Facebook profile] also listed interests such as body-building and freemasonry.[Emphasis added]

Okay? Despite lefties liking to call people on the right Nazi’s or claim that Hitler and the National Socialist (Nazi) movement movement was a right wing movement, the truth is that elements of both were involved

Next in the list the Blaze posted from the Daily Mail is uncited “right wing views” and Muslim hatred, where again – bigotry is not a qualifier anywhere on the political spectrum. After that is membership of a group that “focuses on political terrorism”. Again, not an ideology factor. True, it is more common on the left (presidential assassination, animal liberation, eco terrorism) than the right (the only conservative terrorism I can think of are the 8 or 9 people who have attempted or succeeded in abortion shootings or bombings) but “what is more frequent within” is not the same as what “is” or what defines an ideology.

And lastly, The Blaze puts in bold his activity in freemasonry, which is a culty conspiracy kindov thing often associated with Nazi’s. In fact, Hitler included in his declaration of war against America that FDR was allegedly a Freemason.

So far, that doesn’t add up to anything. Nazi + anti-Muslim + Nordisk + freemasonry adds up to kook. not right or left wing kook. So to decipher whether he is right or left in his belief system (which I acknowledge is a completely academic pursuit anyway, having no actual value), you have to go outside of these examples.

The Blaze however, does not. The Blaze says immediately after the list above (emphasis mine):

That’s certainly a mixed bag. And some of that information would seem to hint at a possible extreme leftist position, perhaps anarchism, would it not? It certainly doesn’t reflect the views of a conservative Christian, as he claimed to be.

The last part is right – he clearly wasn’t a “conservative Christian” even if he thought he was, but that isn’t what is being alleged. The allegation is that he was a far right wing extremist and anarchy is a far right extreme, not left. The far left extreme is Communism.

The error caught my interest only because Beck himself is so passionate about these differences. For someone who takes such care and effort to broadcast the differences between right and left, having the opposite of those definitions on your truth-news website is kindov a big deal.

For future reference, I’ll text-map the left/right divide for you (start in the middle and go left for more state control over the individual and right for more personal freedom):

Communism <– Socialism <– Liberalism <– POPULIST –> Conservatism –> Libertarianism –> Anarchism