AMERICAN HISTORY, TEXAS TEABAGGER STYLE

I've been (slowly) compiling a "Texas Board of Education version of American History" post for the past two weeks. Not only did the rockstars over at We Are Respectable Negroes beat me to it, though, and they did such a good job with it that I have to concede. So for the first time in the 10 year history of this website, I am simply going to provide you with content from another source. I have nothing constructive to add to this masterpiece. Rather than blockquote all of this and make it more difficult to read, I'll point out once again that all of the following content is from WARN. Enjoy.

The Essential Dates and Events of U.S. History as Approved by the States of Arizona and Texas

1607– Jamestown founded. Capitalism, which can trace its roots to the Bible, is now firmly rooted in the New World.

1660-1800Triangular Atlantic trade continues to bring wealth and prosperity to America while giving opportunities to new immigrants.

1776–War for Independence against the tyrannical, evil British empire. Colonists suffer oppression that is unprecedented in human history. Minutemen singlehandedly defeat the evil British Empire in 1783.

1788–The United States Constitution is signed as a document to stand for all time, inspired by God, and never to be changed.

1803-1848–America continues to expand westward into empty territories. American settlers make the land bloom with the help of friendly Indian tribes.

1823–America guarantees the freedom of all countries and people in the Western Hemisphere with the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine.

1848–Mexico, in an act of friendship following their humiliation at the Alamo by the great Republic of Texas, gives their territories to the United States.

1860s-1900s–The Gilded Age of prosperity. American capitalism provides opportunities for all people to grow wealthy, secure, and happy. Liberals and Progressives begin working against American freedom and capitalism by forming unions, demanding unfair compensation from their employers, limiting the rights of children to work in factories, and imposing restrictive regulations for the “safety” of employees. Many brave men die fighting Communist influenced unions as they riot in America’s cities.

1861-1865–Civil War fought because of an overreaching, tyrannical federal government and its desire to limit the freedoms of all Americans. 620,000 people die including many brave and noble black Americans who fought on the side of the Confederacy. Northerners and Southerners eventually find common ground through Redemption and move forward as brothers and sisters in the USA.

1865-1870s–Democratic terrorists called the Ku Klux Klan begin a reign of terror in the South until brave Republicans defeat them.

1906–Using the Antiquities Act, Theodore Roosevelt establishes the National Park System. In one bold stroke Roosevelt establishes Socialist policies that steal land from the American people.

1913–More Socialism and class warfare ushered into the U.S. with the federal income tax system.

1917–America enters and wins World War 1 singlehandedly because the French are cowards.

1929–Great Depression begins. Tens of millions unemployed because of FDR’s failed economic policies. His New Deal introduces the nanny state, prolongs America’s economic collapse, and weakens the economy until Ronald Reagan renews America.

1941–Patriotic Japanese Americans volunteer to place themselves in gated communities so that America will be safe from Imperial Japan.

1941-1945–America enters and wins World War 2 singlehandedly because the French are cowards. Out of necessity, the United States drops atomic bombs on Japan.

1945-1965–A high point in U.S. history, as freedom and prosperity reign over all Americans.

1950–Senator Joseph McCarthy fearlessly highlights how America is infiltrated by communists from Russia and China. Big Hollywood and the liberal establishment are brought to their knees by his brave efforts.

1954–Brown v. Board of Education removes the parental right to send children to the schools of their choice and with the company they desire. A dangerous and unconstitutional era of activist Supreme Court decisions begins.

1955-1968–George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. lead a Civil Rights Movement to ensure that all Americans are judged by “the content of their character and not the color of their skin.”

1964-Barry Goldwater ignites a revolution in Conservative thought and values that resonates to the 21st century.

1968–The cinematic classic The Green Berets starring John Wayne, America’s greatest actor, debuts.

1971–America largely withdraws from Vietnam on the cusp of victory because it was weakened by The Gays, The Women’s Movement, and “The Counter-culture.” The French are cowards whose failure forced the U.S. to intervene in Indochina.

1973–Roe vs. Wade, the worst legal decision in the history of the Supreme Court is decided.

1974-Phyllis Schlafly, pioneer for the rights of women, takes a stand against evil Leftist feminists who want to ban motherhood, force mothers to work at jobs outside the home, join the military, become lesbians, and receive advanced educations which they do not need.

1974–Nixon forced to resign by liberal conspiracy.

1980–Ronald Reagan, America’s greatest president, restores American providence by ushering in a new era of economic prosperity, cutting the federal budget, and corrects the unfair federal tax code in order that the hard work of the richest Americans is justly rewarded.

1989–The Berlin Wall falls. Ronald Reagan wins the Cold War singlehandedly.

1992-2000–Democrat president Bill Clinton in office. His reckless personal behavior and irresponsible foreign policy choices weaken America internationally. The U.S. economy is almost destroyed by his tax policies. His wife Hillary Clinton furthers the march towards Socialism by advocating for free public health care and to destroy the insurance companies that drive us economic growth.

2000–George Bush elected in a landslide.

2001–Terrorists attack America on September 11th. Because of Bill Clinton’s policies, a weakened border, a lax immigration policy, rampant multiculturalism, and the Democrats’ weakening of the military, America is left open to attack.

2003–Dr. King’s vision is finally made real. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court strikes down the reverse discrimination policies of the University of Michigan. Freedom rings across the land.

2003–The country of Iraq, a rogue state, part of the Axis of Evil, and led by the dictator Saddam Hussein–a co-conspirator in the 9-11 attacks–is liberated by President George Bush.

2008-Arizona war hero John McCain introduces Sarah Palin to the world.

2008–Barack Obama is elected. America is in a Constitutional crisis as Obama is unable to prove that he is a U.S. citizen.

2008-the present. Brave Americans begin joining Tea Parties and 9-12 freedom groups. Millions of their members march on Washington DC.. Freedom fighter James David Manning, places Obama on trial in absentia for treason and sedition.

2008–Sarah Palin, mother, governor, author, actress, comedienne and role-model begins here meteoric rise to political stardom. She ushers in an era of robust, common sense approaches to political problems tempered by real American values.

2010–Barack Obama remains President although his rule is illegitimate. Brave patriots such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh continue to lead the people’s resistance against his tyrannical rule.

2010-Patriotic legislatures in Texas and Arizona lead the battle against racial quotas and ethnocentrism as they draft legislation to defend all of America from an unending and unfettered stream of foreign invaders.

TO BE CONTINUED…

Be Sociable, Share!

42 Responses to “AMERICAN HISTORY, TEXAS TEABAGGER STYLE”

  1. J. Dryden Says:

    Awesomeness. And all revoltingly plausible versions of the "everything looks bad if you *remember* it" crowd.

    The one element of revisionism that has begun to disturb me recently is the Civil War revisionism–that whole "Confederacy Month" kerfuffle in Virginia recently sparked a lot of public dialogue about "what the war was really about," and a lot of it scared the hell out of me. I mean, I knew this particular moral blind-spot existed, but I thought it sort of quaintly antiquated; I've always heard about Old Timey Southerners who insisted on referring to it as The War of Northern Aggression and who invariably invoked "States Rights" as the reason for the South's rebellion. But I always figured that such characters existed only among the decaying aristocracy and knuckle-dragging dirt farmers in the fiction of Faulkner and Welty. I also figured that, what with the passage of about 50 or so years and the general recognition that black people were, you know, *people* and everything, that that particularly vile canard had died away, or had at least had the good taste to lurk only in the shadows, along with all the other soft bigotries of the Wonder-bread eaters of America.

    Not so–during the Virginia dust-up (and whenever the issue of flying the goddamned Confederate flag over statehouses comes up), far, far too many people were willing to openly, cheerfully endorse the Confederacy's 'mission statement,' and to regard the North's interference as the true 'crime against liberty' that required the noble idealists of the South to rise in honorable protest.

    To all of which I can't help but say, "Holy shit, really? Really?! That' *still* an acceptable thing for people to think, much less say out loud? *Really*?!" Apparently, it is. And indeed, what with the Civil War receding ever further into the mists of time, it will probably only become more and more acceptable to express "alternative" views of its moral issues. Which just, to end where I began, unnerves the living daylights out of me. To quote Willem Dafoe in MISSISSIPPI BURNING: "What's *wrong* with these people?"

  2. chauncey devega Says:

    thanks. so you in our logs.

    hopefully we can collaborate together in the future.

    cd

  3. chauncey devega Says:

    i.e. "saw" lest I make a bad first impression.

    cd

  4. Shane Says:

    Nice. Love the inclusion of The Green Berets.

  5. Mrs. Chili Says:

    Thanks, Ed; now I've got yet ANOTHER blog on my reader. I'm going to have to quit my job now; I need time to read…

  6. Brandon Says:

    I bet you could pass this out at a Teabag Party and it would be a hit – but not for the same reason.

  7. displaced Capitalist Says:

    It's missing 1969:

    President JFK lies to the public about "moon landings," to hide his plans for a socialist agenda.

  8. Jimcat Says:

    Nothing to add except that this was a great post.

  9. displaced Capitalist Says:

    Here's some fun reading:

    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/arizona-immigrant-reform.php

  10. Sarah Says:

    Coincidentally, I'm about 80 pages into Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," which is fascinating reading, covering a lot of things which were never mentioned or were glossed over in all of my grammar and high school history classes. It should be required reading for all GOPers and libertarians.

  11. ladiesbane Says:

    This is a scream, and I'm feasting on the WARN site, but there are too many people who take this as straight gospel and don't see the hilarity. When average folks don't realize they're being mocked, I usually wonder how they miss it; but when I recall we live in a democracy and the buggers vote, I cry just a little.

  12. Tosh Says:

    New bookmark? Oh yea baby.

  13. bayou Says:

    Lived in Louisiana for six years while doing my PhD. I had students literally call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. They saw no reason to call it anything else.

    And about those moon landings, everyone knows the US gov't had Stanley Kubrick fake them and then Kubrick confessed in the Shining. http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html and http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html This guy is pretty damned convincing, if I do say so.

  14. lm Says:

    Thanks for the WARNing!
    Although, now I'll never leave the house

  15. Crazy for Urban Planning Says:

    That shit is crazy!!! I wish it was fiction.

  16. Elder Futhark Says:

    Seriously for once, I've often thought that the US should have completely slagged the South. Just raped it down to bedrock and carted everything up north. They've been a ball and chain on this country ever since we let 'em back in. We'd be two hundred years in the future if we'd have just cut 'em loose.

  17. What's in a name? Says:

    This was brought to my attention on Tuesday and is a tad too close to home for someone who will be beginning a career in public, social studies education in the mid-South this fall. This past year of in-class observations, in the wake of decades of massive revisionists efforts, have been eye-opening to say the least. Not surprising, even in a fairly socioeconomically-deprived rural area, people continue to advance opinions and vote in ways contrary to their own interests. Quite a disservice to their ancestors who died in mining accidents or from pneumoconiosis and were blacklisted before they actually succeeded in forming a union in the very same town.

    Several addendum could be made, namely:

    1492 – Columbus, a secret Jew, strikes out in the midsts of the Inquisition to find a place of refuge for oppressed people. Consequently, five centuries later, this justifies United States foreign policy in Israel and beyond as we do our part to usher in the End of Days.

    1620 – 1700 – Scores of Godly people, guided by the Holy Spirit and granted Divine Favour, set sail across the sea to escape religious persecution, found outposts of Christianity in the New World, civilize savage peoples and make better use of their fallowed lands. Efforts in the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay establish without question the Christian nature of this nation.

    1840 – 1900 – By commitment to its mandate from Heaven, the United States realizes its Manifest Destiny. From the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific coast, across the vast expanses: prosperity reigns.

    Etc., etc.

  18. Jon Francis Kennedy Says:

    Tea-bagging [tEE-bag-ING]
    -verb
    1.
    A knee-jerk reaction of a feeble human intellect desperate to cling to a failed status quo.
    2.
    A temporary mental condition in response to a perceived threat on freedom, liberty, or other vagary of perception from a democratically elected leader, who is also black.
    3.
    Placing one's scrotal zone on the bridge of the nose of a sexual partner, or performing said action to an unsuspecting college roommate while under the influence of vast quantities of alcohol and/or bong water yet maintaining a stance that this action is "not gay."

  19. HoosierPoli Says:

    I lost it at "2000–George Bush elected in a landslide."

  20. Crazy for Urban Planning Says:

    Gosh darn – What's in a name? – Is that really what you are running in to at the High School level these days? Holy cow! Yo no comprende! I don't understand… How can other people be so dumb or ahistorical? Are they just uninterested in facts? Where do they get it??????????

  21. bb in GA Says:

    Elder:

    Basically what you said – happened, except for carting everything off 'cause thay didn't need to. They broke everything of industrial and infrastructure value.

    For instance, Union troops regularly tore up RR tracks, burned many of the x-ties, and built an on-the-spot furnace to sufficiently heat rail sections for oak tree steel bow-ties.

    Kind of counter productive if you eventually (or your children^4 or 5 – that'd be YOU) have to drag the load. Of course, the people who suffered most were the least – that'd be the newly freed slaves….hmmm.

    And then they rigged the system to keep it that way for a long time. Perhaps if they had the time they could have plowed salt in the furrows like the Romans did to Carthage…As my Daddy would say – "Damned foolishness."

    Reconstruction, carpetbaggers, scalliwags, and the infamous differential freight rates are subjects for further study if anyone cares.

    The reason the war is called "The War of Northern Aggression" or "The War Between the States" hereabouts is that classically a "Civil War" is when two or more factions fight for control of the Central Government.

    The WONA was brought on by a failed divorce attempt.

    It resulted in a War for Independence not a Civil War. Back at the adoption of the Constitution in 1788, the States didn't think they were joining La Cosa Nostra where the only recognized way out is death.

    At the time of Secession well over 90% of White Southerners (BTW Virginia there were Black slaveholders too – see census data) owned 0 slaves. With few exceptions (a county or two in NC and Alabama) the CSA received overwhelming common man support. No draft riots like they had in NYC (twice where about 1500 were killed)

    I am kind of sorry after the slagging you wanted actually took place that the US didn't take your advice Elder, but the whole premise of the WONA was that the CSA represented an illegal rebellion. To cut the South loose would have been pretty inconsistent after spending all that blood and treasure.

    What is tremendously inconsistent is that the States participating in the "illegal rebellion" had to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in order to get back into the Union (including re-admission to Congress) that they never left. Huh?

    I think the monstrous government we have today is rooted in the consolidation of Central Government power that conflict produced and the end to the Jeffersonian view of the States versus the Federal Government.

    Though he was long in the grave by 1865, Alexander Hamilton's view won the day.

    //bb

  22. moonbat Says:

    The sad thing is, a significant number of people in this country lack the critical thinking skills, or basic historical knowledge to see through this snark. Even so, it is magnificent. Thanks for posting it.

  23. Elder Futhark Says:

    bb,

    Nah. Wrong. You guys got off easy.

  24. What's in a name? Says:

    @Urban Planning,

    Those specific arguments came from conservative historical publications, classmates I have had over the years or from a book that I mentioned in a previous post. Most students tend to parrot the views of their parents, Ed has discussed this on many occasions and it is nothing new. However, I only graduated high school eight years ago, and the politicization of the classroom seems to have accelerated in that time frame. I took U.S. History AP and the aforementioned Zinn book was one of our two texts, but now I would be weary to use it before I reach tenure.

    @bb,

    Your idea that secession received overwhelming support from the common man is off the mark. Most of the Appalachian region was vehemently opposed to it, claiming it was a part of the "slave power conspiracy." Let's not forget West Virginia was formed during the Wheeling Conventions as those counties opposed their Virginian counterparts and sought re-entrance to the Union. Similarly, my own area of East Tennessee attempted to break away from the rest of the state but was occupied by Confederate forces until liberated by the Union army. Western North Carolina as you mentioned had similar experiences. All of these areas included instances of guerilla warfare, sabotage and reconnaissance to help the Union forces.

    There are other issues with your post, but that was the most glaring and easiest to rectify.

  25. bb in GA Says:

    WIAN:

    Overwhelming support by numbers. You fight wars with numbers. Appalachia has always been sparsely populated and had few resources necessary for war.

    And you are correct about WVA and E Tenn. Most people don't know that Tenn got the nickname The Volunteer State because when Abraham the Treacherous first called for volunteers, The East Tenn gang jumped up in support. And of course, his illustrious VP successor Andrew Johnson was from Green County, E Tenn if I remember correctly.

    //bb

  26. Clambone Says:

    1984: Austrian rock star Falco records..

    ROCK ME AMADEUS!!!

  27. What's in a name? Says:

    Again, history is just not with you. The quite populated East Tennessee counties on two separate occasions prevented the secession of the State by voting it down in plebiscites.

    As too our "Volunteer State" moniker, there are two conflicting theories one dealing with the Battle of New Orleans (Andrew Jackson) and the other with the Alamo (Davy Crockett, et al.): nothing to do with the War Between the States.

  28. bb in GA Says:

    WIAN:

    I bow to your superior knowledge of E Tenn specifically, but do you contend that the Appalachian region as a whole was population pivotal in the Confederacy and that things ground to a halt or at least there was major sand in the gears because of their counter-insurgency? That hasn't shown up in the histories I have read.

    What resource besides coal did the region have? Steam engines of the day were multi-fuel (wood or coal) with wood being about 40% as efficient as coal.

    I can't source my Volunteer State name origin, but my version was hardback printed and years ago before the web existed. Again, I bow to your version.

    According to Wpedia:

    Tennessee is known as the "Volunteer State", a nickname earned during the War of 1812 because of the prominent role played by volunteer soldiers from Tennessee, especially during the Battle of New Orleans.[53]

    From Tenn history for kids:

    The November 12, 1885, edition of the Knoxville Journal contained a long editorial about the origins of the phrase "Volunteer State." Here is an excerpt from it:

    "Many years ago Tennessee earned the sobriquet of 'Volunteer State,' growing out of the alacrity with which her sons have enlisted in the various wars in which the country has engaged…..Tennessee's quota was always full, and scores of men enrolled their names whose services were never called for at all. And in the late war [the Civil War] Tennessee fully maintained her reputation as the 'Volunteer State.'"

  29. Robert Says:

    I frankly don't give a damn how many white Southerners owned slaves. Either slavery was not essential to the Southern economic/political/social system, in which case why were they seceding, OR it was essential, in which case the war was justified to eradicate it from the Republic.

    Also, I'll believe that the 'there were black slaveowners, too' line means a Goddamn thing when you show me historical evidence of a black slaveowner in the South who owned at least one white slave. Mustees don't count.

  30. beau Says:

    @bb – "…when two or more factions fight for control of the Central Government" is an extremely limited definition of what might constitute civil war. Although far (really, very far) from an expert on the subject, "The War of Northern Aggression" looks to me to be an exercise in heresthetics (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/04/27/heresthetics/).

  31. Elder Futhark Says:

    @Robert

    bb is engaging in what's called any number of logical fallacies, which is why I saw no reason to address it further than I did.

    But, if you wish…

    "90% of Southerners owned 0 slaves" Combination of Red Herring and Excluded Middle not ot mention Severely Twisted and Fucked-in-the-Head Revisonism. I.E. in bbullshitty speak: "See, we were really all Nice Guys! 90% is almost the same as 100%! It's almost as if there were no slaves at all! And some of the slave owners were black, which excuses the whole institution of slavery, since they were black, see?! This is just an unending stream of the rankest bullshit presented as logical argument, and it goes south from there.

    Which is why my respone more than sufficed.

  32. justme Says:

    Re: the original post. It would be funny if it weren't true.

  33. bb in GA Says:

    Nothing to do with nice guys. I don't need your love.

    The 90% argument is evidence that most on-the-ground supporters did not have a direct economic interest in the slavery biz. Something else seems to have motivated them. Perhaps unbeknown to the individuals involved you might make an argument that the "free" labor of slaves narrowed their economic possibilities.

    Blacks as slave owners excuses no one, but points out that the whole deal is more complicated than first appears. The same problem presents itself with the more than 60,000 Black Confederates some of whom served with notorious distinction at Antietam.

    //bb

  34. chauncey devega Says:

    Thanks all for the comments. I couldn't resist the point on Blacks soldiers in the Confederacy and must comment.

    To bb, the Southern slaveocracy was pyramid like in its structure. Yes, the majority of whites who fought in the Civil War did not have slaves. Begs the question, why fight? The answer: the psychic investment in white supremacy that was at the core of the Southern slaveocracy. There are many documents from the era, including several written by the VP of the Confederacy where it is stated that the South is fighting because it cannot accept even the notion of equality between black and white Americans.

    There was instances of black Southerners owning slaves. But, in most cases these were family members "owned" in order to "free" them from white slaveowners. Likewise, the strawman that is the "blacks fought on the side of the South" is ill thought and dishonest–white slaveowners would "donate" their human property to the war effort. Also of substance here is that there were generals in the South who proposed freeing black slaves after a period of military service–guess what? it was rejected as being against the core and essence of what the Confederacy is/was.

    I just don't get this Southern heritage Confederacy fixation, so please help me understand. Is it because the South lost a war and is fixated on that defeat and thus can't get past it? Why cherish treason, and white supremacy? Or is it that those are inconvenient truths hidden behind stories of "honor" and "glory"? Honor and glory conveniently deployed in the service of maintaining a barbaric State?

  35. moonbat Says:

    @chauncey, I wish I could provide a link, but in recent weeks I came across an article about the Civil War, that argued, beyond the significant slavery/racial issues/the planation system, the war had its roots all the way back in Europe. The argument is that the north was settled by and large from people from England proper (as well as from other countries), but the anglos in the south came from "the provinces": Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.

    Hence the different perception of what America should be. Those that inhabited the south were quite happy with a rural, independent kind of existence, whereas those in the north came out of a more urbane culture.

    Anyway, people who've studied this more than I can illuminate or dispute this; it sounds like part of the reason why the south seemingly cannot "get over it".

  36. HoosierPoli Says:

    Every confederate soldier could have been hung for treason.A little carpetbagging is a pretty damn small price to pay.

  37. Hudson Says:

    Wow, did Howard Zinn's estate really give permission to publish this posthumous work?

  38. gruaud Says:

    Forgot one:

    1968 – The REAL Woodstock, as cops beat the livin' shit out of the dirty fucking hippies at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

  39. Simply Sutton Says:

    Can we get back to the point, people?

    Unfortunately, I find The Respectables' post excruciatingly unfunny, except for the continuing refrain, "because the French are cowards*". It's just too painfully close to the truth. This is exactly what people are saying and believe.

    @CforUP: Unfortunately, kids can't engage in critical thinking (a) if they haven't been taught it, and (b) if their foundational facts aren't straight. It is sad but true that (a) they aren't, and (b) they aren't. So we have whole generations growing up deliberately taught to be ignorant, even being given skills with which to assiduously maintain their ignorance in the face of all evidence.

    Their parents and grandparents, who are perpetuating this shit via school boards everywhere, were raised the same way from approximately (at least) 1950-1970. In the South, anyway: That's where I was raised, and this is what we were taught.

    Just as one wee example, the Triangle Trade, as it was referred to in the textbooks of the day, was all about something (I forget what) coming in from Europe, cotton and tobacco and other cool stuff going out from here, and rum traveling both ways from the islands. The slaves were sort of an oh-by-the-way-some-black-folk-coming-in-from-Africa who were, after all, sold by their own people in the first place.

    And it hasn't much changed in the intervening years. It wasn't that long ago that my current home county mandated that every science book be plastered with a sticker that said that evolution was only a theory (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/4737_90.htm lest you think I am making this up).

    *One of my grandfather's favorite WWI stories is about the courage and downright bullheadedness of the French. Gotta love 'em.

  40. Katie Says:

    Two thumbs-up to this gem. I am spreading it around like the black plague, which everyone knows was really started by communists in an effort to clear the land of "honest" conservatives and establish their own anti-capitalist city-states.

  41. Simply Sutton Says:

    Aw, dang, I almost forgot that one! Thanks for reminding me, Katie.

    Add to WARN's list: The entire civil rights era was fomented by "outsiders", usually, if not always, the dreaded Communist agitators.

    Even as a 12-year-old I was absolutely stunned by the complete denial of reality embedded in that one. I mean, what, you people don't think Black folk have plenty to be unhappy about here? Like they're only marching because somebody from somewhere else put them up to it? Get real!

    One of my all-time favorites: Revising history while it's still happening.

  42. Xynzee Says:

    This story reminds me in a way of "Team America". Where those on the Left can (or should be able to) see the satire and the parody of both the Right *and* of themselves. Yet the Right sadly just won't get it and see it as a blatant endorsement of their views.