Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube RSS

Archive for Category : Issues: Conservative


America In Transition (Gay Delusions)

LINK - America In Transition (Gay Delusions)

You get to be the sex you think you are (and everybody else has to acknowledge it).

I am used to surprises from the New York Times—a newspaper so far from me culturally and politically it might as well be a daily bulletin about life in a parallel universe—but last August I read a personal essay in the “Modern Love” space of the “Styles” section that really brought me up short. “My Husband is Now My Wife” (quite a tabloidy title for this genteel newspaper) was about the deeply ambivalent day the author escorted her husband to a hospital for surgery in which he would “take his first surgical step into womanhood.”

I’m a jaded ex-Manhattanite, awright? “Sexual reassignment surgery,” as it is called, is not news. I know about the clinics in Colorado where they slice up existing organs and then do Play-Doh sculpturing with the tissue that’s left. The surgery thing has been going on since the sixties. And I know from cross-dressing. On my Upper West Side block it was not uncommon to encounter a neighbor—skinny, middle-aged, bald pate surrounded by a cap of stringy graying locks—taking his daily constitutional…on roller skates, wearing a tiara and a pink tutu, blessing passersby with a Tinkerbell wand.

So it wasn’t the soo-last-century, Dude-Looks-Like-a-Lady part that startled, it was the part near the end where the author lets slip that all her fussing about losing a husband and gaining a wife was actually over a hospital stay in which her husband would have “facial feminization surgery, a not uncommon procedure in male-to-female transitions, in which a surgeon carves out a more femininely proportioned version of a male face.”

“In my husband’s case,” she wrote, “this meant higher eyebrows, a smaller nose and a more pronounced chin. A few months later, his Adam’s apple would be shaved down and he would receive breast implants.”

Almost as if it was an afterthought, she added “genital surgery would follow” on some unspecified date.

OK, he hadn’t had the genital surgery yet. It was unclear if he ever would. Certainly, for the average woman, the breast part could be hard to take. But the point is, at the moment, “Husband” had just messed around with his face. So what entitled him to claim membership in the sorority of majestic, complex, mysterious creatures called Women? It was actually a bit presumptuous. (If I were a feminist I would say, “How very male.”)

But here we had our author, one Diane Daniel of North Carolina, telling herself sternly that she must remember to stop referring to Husband with “him,” “his,” and “he.” We meet the couple’s therapist who has been “suggesting for months” that Daniel “use female pronouns at home” when addressing Husband, even before he went into the hospital:

“I will when I need to,” I’d told her on our last visit. “But for now he’s still a man to me.” I’d turned to my husband, dressed in jeans and a black button-down shirt. “When I look at you, hon, I see a man.”

“But she’s a woman,” our therapist countered, her words slicing through my denial.

By the end of the essay, Daniel has re-educated herself. Now she gently corrects nurses when they use the “incorrect” pronoun:

“After he eats a little something, we’ll give him pain pills,” a nurse said.

“Could you say ‘she’?” I asked gently.

Once I looked in to it, I found more “Modern Love” columns where it was just assumed the reader has already accepted that “gender identity” (what you decide you are) trumps “gender assigned at birth” (what your body says you are). There was, for instance, the woman who started her essay by writing, “Before we met, my partner had changed names from a female-sounding one to a male one…”

…and by the time we were together, everyone we knew either called him by this new name or spoke of him with male pronouns. He identified himself as a transgender man, woman to man. It wasn’t until two years after we began dating that he decided to have his breasts removed. For him, chest surgery was the next step in transitioning genders, a symbolic and physical gesture of leaving womanhood behind.

This essay, written by a younger woman than Daniel, was much more philosophically evolved. Apparently this boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever, hadn’t had any medical interventions at all. She merely “identified himself as a transgender man” and began dressing as a man (what does that mean nowadays anyway?) and that was enough, the author says, for everyone they knew to either call him by this new name or speak of him with male pronouns.

WELCOME TO THE Brave New World of “gender identity” versus stick-in-the-mud old “gender.” This subjective aspect—the demand that the world recognize you as what you think you are, simply because you’ve decided you are—is new. It turns out law and theory to support this new definition have been proliferating quietly for quite some time as well.

In other words, when we stodgy old conservatives, not attuned to the latest reverberations of the “progressive” world, think of a “transsexual” or (this is much more correct) a “transgendered person,” we’re probably imagining, say, Christine Jorgensen (if we’re really old) or Jan Morris, i.e., someone who made a good old Protestant Work Ethic effort to “transition” to the other sex. We are thinking of people who have at least put a considerable amount of effort and in most cases, a lot of money, like their life savings, into this illusory project of “becoming the other sex.”

The various stodgy old state laws (it is the states that control issuance of the all-important birth certificate) reflect this attachment to physical reality versus subjectivity. Most state laws are still like those in New York City, which, since 1971, has been willing to issue a “corrected” birth certificate to a transgender person provided he or she is able to prove, via a detailed medical record, that “the applicant has undergone ‘convertive’ surgery, which has generally but not exclusively been interpreted by the Department [of Health and Mental Hygiene] to mean genital surgery.”

This onerous surgery requirement has been excised in a several states but that’s hardly enough, say the gender activists. As lawyer Christopher Daley of the very activist Transgender Law Center explains, a transgender person is one “whose internal understanding of their own gender is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.…Transgender persons seek to live in accordance with the sex that takes proper account of the sex of their brain…” (The Transgender Law Center is apparently even so uncomfortable with the designations like “men’s room” or “women’s toilet” that they refer to “gendered” public bathrooms as “bathrooms intended for people who identify with a particular gender.”)

In the future, as Kristina Wertz of the Transgender Law Center puts it, all of official America will recognize “that gender identity is not dependent upon anatomy or the ability to access expensive medical treatment.” Wertz applauded the State Department for its June 2010 policy change, a small but important one, stating that applicants wishing to change the gender markers on their passports will only need to present certification that they have “undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition.” The State of Vermont has amended its law to say that “hormonal or other treatments” are sufficient for a sex change on a birth certificate.

Chaz Bono, one of America’s most famous female-to-male transgendered people, was a beneficiary of California’s liberalized law. On May 2, 2010, Bono was able to leave a Santa Monica courthouse officially a man, after the court’s acceptance of a vaguely worded letter from a doctor stipulating that he had “performed an irreversible surgical procedure for the purpose of altering Chaz Bono’s sexual characteristics from female to male.” (At the time Bono had had a mastectomy and lots of testosterone.) Meanwhile the press had never questioned that Chaz Bono was anything other than all man, from the moment the Chaz persona appeared on the scene and throughout “his” turn on “Dancing With the Stars.” When Hollywood Reporter reviewed the documentary Becoming Chaz, it obediently informed us that Chaz Bono “was a male trapped in a female body since birth.”

Outside of the Mainstream Media, there are, of course, still some dinosaurs skulking around who are not comfortable with the notion that you can change your sex by whacking something off and soldering something else on. There is the matter of chromosomes, and wombs, and the fact that the newly constructed genitals aren’t good for much of anything except just kind of sitting there—like a trophy, a symbol. They are useless for procreation. Both kinds of sex reassignment surgeries, female-to-male and male-to-female, render the recipient irreversibly sterile. And they are not too good for other uses either. As Chaz Bono explained on the David Letterman show, she has not been rushing the decision to get what the trans community calls “bottom surgery” because “you can end up with something functional but very small or something that’s more normal sized but without much erotic sensation.” (Chaz did admit that “There’s different ways to do the surgery, from real basic to more and more options. It’s like a car.”)

In short, the long-standing “surgery requirement” laws may have seemed silly when they first appeared, but they now stir up something like nostalgia. At least they are a nod to the idea that gender is rooted in anatomy, and that maybe human beings are defined by their role in the procreative project.

SO IS THERE SUCH A THING as “the sex of one’s brain”? Questions like this raged back and forth in 1966 when Johns Hopkins Hospital opened its Gender Identity Clinic and became the first hospital in America to do sex change operations. The doctors had a variety of opinions about why these operations were worth doing. Some, bolstered by a new genre of psychological theory, were downright messianic about “correcting the body to match the real gender.” Some seemed to feel that the surgeries were like a nose job or any other cosmetic surgery, a chance to make a body-part-obsessed person feel better. Some, like psychiatrist Paul McHugh, who did psychological screenings for the program, eventually became fiercely opposed. He saw other doctors’ relatively easy acceptance of the project as a kind of abdication of the professional’s role and a symptom of a social climate in which “all standards by which behaviours are judged are simply matters of opinion—and emotional opinions at that.” The new relativism was even reflected in new attitudes toward schizophrenics—who, increasingly, were deinstitutionalized as a matter of course and treated as if they were just expressing “a different lifestyle choice.” With a similar reluctance to “be judgmental” about someone else’s life choice, McHugh felt that patients were too often approved for surgery without much probing, out of “the spirit of doing your thing, following your bliss, an aesthetic that sees diversity as everything and can accept any idea, including that of permanent sex change, as interesting and that views resistance to such ideas as uptight if not oppressive,” he wrote in a scathing article for the American Scholar titled “Psychiatric Misadventures.”

“Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should,” wrote McHugh. In his intake interviews, the typical applicant claimed it was “torture for him to live as a man, especially now that he has read in the newspapers about the possibility of switching surgically to womanhood.” But “[u]pon examination it is not difficult to identify other mental and personality difficulties…” which McHugh believed, unless resolved, would follow the patient into his new body and torment him again after attaching to a new external target.

“It is not obvious,” he note, “how this patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia nervosa that she is obese despite her emaciated, cachectic state.”

“We don’t do liposuction on anorexics,” he wrote. “Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely, the fault is in the mind not the member.”

BUT THE STANDARDS McHugh complained about in the late sixties have become so entrenched, I may as well be quoting cuneiform off a stone tablet. Allowing some patriarchal white male Ob/Gyn to have the power to take a cursory glance at your baby genitalia and “assign a gender” doesn’t seem to fit in a world where “self-definition” has become a mantra.

And this may explain why, according to the New York Times, “a growing number of high school and college students…are pushing for the right to change their pronoun whenever they feel like it.” Katy Butler, one of those high school students, identifies herself as part of the “nonconforming gender community” and is one of those enthusiastic about “Preferred Gender Pronouns” (PGPs).

“You have to understand, this has nothing to do with your sexuality and everything to do with who you feel like inside,” Katy said, explaining that at the start of every Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Association meeting, participants are first asked if they would like to share their PGPs.

A PGP can change as often as one likes. If the pronouns in the dictionary don’t suffice, there are numerous made-up ones now in use, including “ze,” “hir,” and “hirs,” words that connote both genders because, as Katy explained, “Maybe one day you wake up and feel more like a boy.”

Butler is lucky enough to live in the anything-goes enclave of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Out in the hinterlands the idea that a newly chosen “gender identity and expression” must be tolerated at all times does not always go down so well. Men who have recently decided they are women, for example, and show up at work wearing a dress have been fired or been harassed until they quit. There have been a number of savage attacks on trans people who attempted to use the public restroom corresponding to their gender identity.

Enter what the New Republic last year called “America’s Next Great Civil Rights Struggle,” the struggle to end discrimination against transsexuals in housing, the workplace—and eventually any other place a trial lawyer can discover it. Sixteen states (plus D.C.) and 143 cities or counties have added “gender identity or expression” to their protected categories lists—alongside the usual race, religion, gender (the other kind of gender), age, and disability. A more subtle but telling sign that more states will probably add the new category is the news that 207 major corporations (places like Coca-Cola, Apple, Chevron, Kellogg, and Best Buy) now offer insurance covering the cost of full-scale “transitions.” According to 2011 numbers collected by the Human Rights Campaign’s annual Corporate Equity Index, this is an increase “from just 85 a year earlier.” When HRC began following the issue a decade ago, no corporations covered the surgery.

A number of recent gender identity discrimination cases have been settled in the plaintiffs’ favor. If Johnny is hired as a paper pusher, and then starts to come to work as Jane, and then is fired, his lawsuit for workplace discrimination and wrongful termination is relatively straightforward, because the defendants cannot usually prove the sex change affected the job of paper pusher.

Things get murkier when a workplace has established a “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” to justify hiring only males or only females. Yes, there are jobs where one can still discriminate. Take “urine monitors”—the people who would watch you pee into a cup if you went for a drug test.

El’Jai Devoureau is currently embroiled in a gender discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Urban Treatment Centers of Camden, New Jersey. Devoureau, a fortysomething who claims to have been dressing as a man for years, to have had years of hormone therapy and some kind of surgery which she/he has so far been very opaque about, and who even has a “male” driver’s license, applied for the male-only job but was fired after two days because Devoureau’s supervisor said rumors were going around that she/he was not a man. Devoureau, who wears long corn rows, sports a wispy beard, and looks a bit like the ’80s singer Terence Trent D’Arby, said, “But I am a man.” The supervisor said something to the effect of, “Um, we don’t think so.” And the standoff began. The case has thus begun its crawl through the New Jersey court system. More evidence to support Devoureau’s claim may have to be…er, unveiled to support Devoureau’s claim—but maybe not. As the New York Times says, the outcome could turn on “the question of what is a man.” It could certainly be precedent-setting.

WHAT I FIND REALLY ODD about this “new Civil Rights movement” is that it’s happening now—after decades of struggle over the boundaries of sex roles and a great expansion of norms. As one of the online commenters to the New Republic’s “Great New Civil Rights Struggle” article put it, “Isn’t the trans-sexual phenomenon at heart conservative? Instead of enlarging the range of human behavior, it narrows the options down to ‘girls act one way and boys another so if you act one way, you have to be trapped in the wrong gender’s body.’   ”

But exactly. As a sign of how far we have come, there is a film, Alfred Nobbs, currently in theaters. It’s about a 19th century woman “living as a man” apparently because she seeks the love of women. But in 2012 no woman has to dress as a man in order to openly partner with another woman. (Well, in most parts of the country!) No woman has to attempt to “pass” as a man to take a job on a highway crew, or to enter a training program for fighter jet pilots.

Another curiously retrograde part: Once they “transition” many transgenders become the most devout standard-bearers for sex stereotypes. “When you discuss what the patient means by ‘feeling like a woman’ you often get a sex stereotype in return—something that woman physicians note immediately is a male caricature of women’s attitudes and interests,” Paul McHugh wrote. “One of our patients, for example, said that, as a woman, he would be more ‘invested with being than with doing.’”

“Ever since I became a woman, I just can’t do math anymore,” trills the main source in the New Republic’s “Civil Rights” article.

Chaz Bono is now infamous for having become a walking sexist-comment-machine. (“I can be a a-hole; I can be insensitive.…There is something in testosterone that makes talking and gossiping really grating.…I’ve stopped talking as much. I’ve noticed that [my girlfriend] can talk endlessly.…I got way more gadget-oriented.…Definitely since transitioning I’ve wanted to be up on the latest, coolest toy.”)

Accordingly, Warren Beatty’s oldest child (who started life as Kathlyn but is known, after hormone treatments, as “Stephen Ira Beatty”) has taken to excoriating Bono from her blog, with flamers like: “I don’t want any rich white trans guy…telling the media that testosterone made him a misogynist…he has some deep-seated misogyny to work through.”

If your head is spinning with all this gender-bending, join the club. But keep in mind that there is one reference point that will hold steady like the North Star: With this new category of victim slouching toward Bethlehem to be born, the trial lawyers are girding happily. I await the day a male-to-female trans applies for a job at Hooters.


Adopted Son Says Jerry Sandusky Molested Him

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Adopted Son Says Jerry Sandusky Molested Him

Matt Sandusky, one of Jerry Sandusky’s adopted children, has said that he was molested by the former Penn State defensive coordinator, according to a statement from his lawyers.

The allegation comes as Sandusky is awaiting the verdict in his child rape trial. Matt Sandusky, who has defended his father as he faced child rape charges, said through his attorneys Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici that he met with prosecutors this week to tell them he was a victim for the first time.

“During the trial, Matt Sandusky contacted us and requested our advice and assistance in arranging a meeting with prosecutors to disclose for the first time in this case that he is a victim of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse,” Matt Sandusky’s lawyers said in a statement obtained by InSession. “At Matt’s request, we immediately arranged a meeting between him and the prosecutors and investigators.”

No further details were released about the circumstances surrounding the alleged molestation or when Matt Sandusky claims the abuse occurred.

“This has been an extremely painful experience for Matt and he has asked us to convey his request that the media respect his privacy,” a statement from Matt Sandusky’s lawyer said. “There will be no further comment at this time.”

Sandusky is currently facing accusations of sexual abuse from 10 alleged victims. Sandusky, 68, has pleaded not guilty to charges of child sex abuse over a 15-year period. He faces 48 counts in the trial.

All you need to know about allegations, how case unraveled

Sandusky defense: A ‘smoking gun’ and David fighting Goliath

‘The Sandusky 8′ describe seduction, molestation and betrayal

During closing arguments, defense attorney Joe Amendola sought to poke holes in the prosecution’s case, pointing to inconsistencies with the testimony of Mike McQueary, a former graduate student and assistant coach who said he saw Sandusky apparently sodomizing a boy in a university shower.

He also reminded jurors of the lack of physical evidence and accused the alleged victims of conspiring for financial gain while blaming the media for what he described as biased coverage.

Lead prosecutor Joseph McGettigan followed Amendola, rebuffing the defense’s account of a coordinated action among Sandusky’s accusers allegedly bent on financial gain.

“The great thing about conspiracy theories is you just let them go on and on, until they collapse under their own weight,” he said.

McGettigan described the former coach as a pedophile who systematically preyed on his victims with a calculated and repeated approach.

“The Commonwealth has overwhelming evidence against Mr. Sandusky,” he said.


Video: WH Press Secretary Forgets Name of Slain Border Patrol Agent

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Jay Carney forgets the name of the border patrol agent Brian Terry killed with guns from operation “Fast and Furious” (June 21, 2012).

There is an impeachment process, … it’s occurring on November 6th.


Holder Will Lose Executive Privilege Fight

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Holder Will Lose Executive Privilege Fight

President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from complying with congressional subpoenas on the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco will blow up in the White House’s face. But not for the reasons you’ve heard on the first day of this legal fight.

Some Republicans are saying—and some media commentators are reporting—that executive privilege only applies when the president himself is involved. That’s incorrect as a matter of law.

It’s important to get this right, because some are suggesting that today’s invoking of the privilege means Obama himself is involved, a smoking gun that could make this the next Watergate. Not true. The White House might be involved, but we don’t know one way or another… yet.

As I’ve written before, there are two types of executive privilege. One is a strong form rooted in the Constitution, called the presidential communication privilege. But there is another type, much weaker and rooted in common law instead of the Constitution, called the deliberative process privilege. That second, weaker variety is what President Obama invoked today regarding Holder.

It’s still the White House asserting the privilege, because only the president can assert executive privilege for his entire administration. (Except that the vice president can also assert it, but only for matters directly involving the VP.) So Obama has invoked it on Holder’s behalf.

Others are also incorrect in saying executive privilege only applies to military matters, diplomatic secrets, or national security situations. The courts have repeatedly held that executive privilege covers much more than that, most recently in 2004 in Cheney v. U.S. District Court, where the Supreme Court considered whether the VP’s conversations with energy industry leaders was protected by the privilege. Executive privilege is strongest when those three issues are on the table, but it’s broader than that.

There are several factors courts look to. The most important is whether the president was involved, since that determines which privilege (presidential communications versus deliberative process) is in play. Beyond that, several factors weigh in favor of Congress and against Holder here. This was domestic policy (not foreign), in an operation out of an agency (not the White House), where crimes may have been committed, and none of the president’s constitutional prerogatives are implicated by the case. Factors favoring Obama are that this is not legislative policymaking, and it does have a diplomatic angle because of relations with Mexico. But surveying 200 years of court precedent shows that Congress has the better claim here.

The only way to beat an executive privilege claim is by court order. To take this issue to court, the full House must vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, then—when federal prosecutors predictably inform the House that they will not prosecute their boss—the full House must pass a second resolution authorizing Rep. Darrell Issa to file suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. on behalf of the entire U.S. House.

Holder will lose the court fight. He’ll appeal, of course, but eventually the appeals will be over, and we’ll all learn the truth of what really happened in Fast and Furious.

And whom to hold accountable.

Breitbart News legal contributor Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, and author of Making Executive Privilege Work, published by Cleveland State Law Review.


Krauthammer: Mainstream Media Can No Longer Ignore Fast & Furious

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Krauthammer: Mainstream Media Can No Longer Ignore Fast & Furious

“It has several immediate effects,” syndicated columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer said about President Obama using executive privilege to protect Attorney General Eric Holder from the Fast & Furious investigation today.

“The first is, as you mentioned in the grapevine, there’s no way that the mainstream media, which have studiously tried to ignore this can do that anymore. In fact, as you pointed out, NBC, which has shown exactly ten seconds of coverage of this on its Evening News in the last year-and-a-half, is now going to have to explain the whole thing since the viewership has no idea what it’s about. So, number one, it becomes huge national issue,” Krauthammer said on a special edition of the panel on FOX News’ “Special Report” broadcast this evening.

“Secondly, it involves the president. Not that he was involved in the actual communications but he is the one that has to issue the, as to authorize the claim of executive privilege. Once he does that, clearly he is connected even though it’s not — it wasn’t claimed on grounds of presidential communications, which is the first way to do it,” Krauthammer analyzed.

“Nobody is saying it was the president, it was communications with the president which are now being protected. It’s being claimed on a second level of executive deliberation, meaning something happened inside the Justice Department,” he said.

Krauthammer also said this could come back to hurt the Republicans.

“But the final effect could be the one that hurts Republicans. As you have heard, from the talking point of Democrats in Congress, this will be characterized of another case of overreaching, obstructionism, opposition, blind opposition to the administration and distraction of real economic legislation or activities. And that is the line that the Democrats will take. it could, in fact, hurt Republicans among some of the electorate,” Krauthammer explained.


Dislike soda bans? Then restore the Constitution

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Dislike Soda Bans? Then Restore the Constitution

Last month, the day before National Doughnut Day, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced plans to tackle obesity by banning the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. Eager for the newly nicknamed “Soda Jerk” to Think Again, comedian Jon Stewart joked that Bloomberg’s proposal “combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect.”

The website “Renegade Chicks” reflected citywide disapproval in asking, “Weren’t there bigger issues at hand (like) … say the declining economy and rising unemployment rates? If this soda ban is passed, what’s next?” Apparently, milk drinks and popcorn, which goes to show that there is nothing so bad that politicians can’t make worse. At least New Yorkers can move to a different city.

Not so for Americans wishing to escape the interventionist sweep of the Affordable Care Act, whose constitutionality we’ll soon know. Perhaps more important than whether the law stands is whether the Supreme Court decision will enable the steady mission and power creep of the federal government beyond the boundaries set by our constitutional framers.

Those who advocate such creep believe in a “living Constitution” that allows government to concentrate power in order to meet societal challenges, a noble goal. The ends justify the means for such advocates as UC-Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who asserts, “Congress can force economic transactions” and “in theory … use its commerce power to require people to buy cars. Power can be used in silly ways, and the Constitution isn’t our protector against undesirable government actions.”

One needn’t be a constitutional scholar to know that unlimited and unchecked federal government power was the evil our founders wanted to prevent. They designed the government to limit federal authority to enumerated purposes, leaving remaining powers to sovereign states and individuals. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained, “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

Embedded in our founding documents is a uniquely American and revolutionary set of governing principles designed to protect our natural rights and liberties, not create man-made ones. This philosophy created the freest and most prosperous society on earth by proclaiming that every human being is born free, equal, and independent with inalienable rights that are permanent parts of our nature. Because we’re equal, no one — not a king, a neighbor or a mayor — can be the ruler of any other human being, and each of us is equal in our natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Since a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed it must be, as Thomas Jefferson said, a “wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

Nevertheless, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate trade, has been used to justify dramatic federal government expansion. Congress wants to stretch this power further to include the regulation of individual choices never before considered commercial or interstate — like deciding not to purchase health insurance. If Congress can mandate Americans to purchase health insurance simply because we’re alive, what constitutional principle prevents government from forcing individuals into other purchases?

The debates surrounding this question, and other constitutional issues like executive privileges and orders, are instructive. Not only have Americans learned more about the Constitution, we’ve discovered that many lawmakers neither understand nor respect the document they’re sworn to uphold. Even worse, we have leaders intent on fundamentally transforming the relationship between the citizen and government in a manner the Constitution doesn’t allow.

By allowing these politicians to create and impose solutions better left to sovereign states and individuals, we permit their government-driven agenda to trump our liberties and their Leviathan government to limit our choices and make our decisions. This is not the fulfillment of our Founder’s dream — it’s their nightmare.

Americans must ask: Do we want a government whose role is limited by the sovereign people to certain designated purposes, or an amorphous and unlimited one that can do to us whatever it wants? How long before the federal government deems a 32-ounce soda oversized or worse, a $320,000 salary excessive?

On July 4, Americans celebrate the liberty and natural rights for which our Founders fought. They gave us a brilliant political system which, to paraphrase William Gladstone, was the most perfect ever devised in the history of mankind. Now, it’s up to us to reclaim it.

Think Again — your liberty depends on it.

Melanie Sturm lives in Aspen. Her column runs every other Thursday. She reminds readers to Think Again. You might change your mind. Melanie welcomes comments at .


Malkin Unloads on Liberal ‘Hannity’ Guest Over Fast and Furious: ‘The Blood Is on Your People’s Hands!’

Original Article - Malkin Unloads on Liberal ‘Hannity’ Guest Over Fast and Furious: ‘The Blood Is on Your People’s Hands!’

Michelle Malkin Tells Tamara Holder The Blood Is on Your Peoples Hands on Hannity

Last week, Michelle Malkin stoked the conservative fire after she challenged Juan Williams for calling her “just” a blogger. But if that was stoking the fire, what she did Wednesday night on “Hannity” to liberal Tamara Holder was torching the place with napalm.

Malkin was a guest along with Holder on a segment talking about the day’s Fast and Furious news (Obama granting executive privilege and Holder being held in contempt). About three minutes in, Holder tried to use the liberal talking point that the entire operation was really started under the Bush administration (the “blame Bush” mantra is really popular these days). That’s where things first got tense, after Holder scolded Hannity who tried to make a point and told him, “No no, let me finish. Give me the same amount of time you give all your Republican friends.”

Michelle Malkin Tells Tamara Holder The Blood Is on Your Peoples Hands on Hannity

But after Holder continued to try and use the argument, Malkin eventually had enough.

“Can I just go back to this, the tiresome blame Bush card, because I don‘t think that Tamara knows what she’s talking about when we talk about the difference between Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver and Project Gunrunner,” Malkin said.

“Excuse me!” Malkin shouted back when Holder tried to interrupt. “This is not a partisan thing!”

Holder, clearly offended, took a shot at Malkin: “Sure, sure, I don’t know what I am talking about. No no, to be attacked and say that I don‘t know what I am talking about just because I’m not a New York Times best-selling author–.”

Hannity stepped in and let Malkin finish, who delivered another blow: “For some of us the core issues of national security, Second Amendment rights, integrity in government actually matters, it is not just some sort of TV game debate for us, Tamara.”

Holder did not appreciate that, and there were plenty more raised voices before Malkin pointed out that Wide Receiver was “planned, controlled delivery and retrieval“ and that ”they got those guns back,” but that didn’t happen in the Obama administration because there was “underlying gun control agenda that is clear in these documents.”

“Clearly they are the ones with the ideological zealotry that caused bloodshed in this country. The blood is on your people’s hands, Tamara!” she said passionately.

“No, actually we‘re all Americans and it’s on all of our hands,” Holder responded, before saying these things just “take time” to figure out and that the contempt charge is too soon.

Malkin interrupted, and when Holder objected Malkin shot back, “No, I’m not going to let you get away with that lie!”

Watch the segment below. The setup starts at about 3:30, but the fireworks show begins about two minutes later:


Southern Baptists: Gay Rights Not Civil Rights

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Southern Baptists: Gay Rights Not Civil Rights

A day after electing their first African-American president in a historic move that strives to erase its legacy of racism, Southern Baptists passed a resolution opposing the idea that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

Thousands of delegates at the denomination’s annual meeting in New Orleans on Wednesday were nearly unanimous in their support for the resolution that affirms their belief that marriage is “the exclusive union of one man and one woman” and that “all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful.”

The nation’s largest Protestant denomination is attempting to broaden its appeal beyond its traditional white Southern base. At the same time, leaders said they feel it is important to take a public stand on their opposition to same-sex marriage.

The resolution acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience “unique struggles” but declares that they lack the “distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections.”

“It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of ‘same-sex marriage’ have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement,” the resolution states.

Another resolution passed on Wednesday is intended to protect religious liberty. It includes a call for the U.S. Justice Department to cease efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and for the Obama administration to ensure that military personnel and chaplains can freely express their religious convictions about homosexuality.

It also condemns the administration’s mandate requiring religiously affiliated institutions, but not houses of worship, to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.

Leaders of several other faiths and Christian denominations, especially Roman Catholics, have also organized and filed lawsuits against Obama administration policies that they see as threatening religious expression.

The Rev. Dwight McKissic,

In this June 19, 2012 photo, IN this June 19, 2012 photo, participants in the Southern Baptist Convention, listen during a debate about changing the name of the organization, at the convention in New Orleans. The nation’s largest Protestant denomination has voted to adopt an alternative name for churches that feel the title “Southern Baptist” could be a turn-off to potential believers. Although the denomination’s name will officially remain Southern Baptist Convention, many delegates still opposed the optional “Great Commission Baptists.” ((AP Photo/Gerald Herbert))

pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, was one of the authors of the gay marriage resolution.

“It’s important to sound the alarm again, because the culture is changing,” he said in an interview after the vote.

McKissic, who is black, said it was “an unfair comparison” for gays to equate same-sex marriage with civil rights because there is not incontrovertible scientific evidence that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color.

“They’re equating their sin with my skin,” he said.

David W. Key Sr., director of Baptist Studies at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology, said that as gays and lesbians become accepted in the larger American society, the Southern Baptist Convention

In this June 19, 2012 photo, participants in the Southern Baptist Convention, listen during a debate about changing the name of the organization, at the convention in New Orleans. The nation’s largest Protestant denomination has voted to adopt an alternative name for churches that feel the title “Southern Baptist” could be a turn-off to potential believers. Although the denomination’s name will officially remain Southern Baptist Convention, many delegates still opposed the optional “Great Commission Baptists.” ((AP Photo/Gerald Herbert))

is trying to separate itself from some of the more hateful rhetoric while still staying true to its beliefs.

The resolution includes a statement that the SBC stands against “any form or gay-bashing, whether disrespectful attitudes, hateful rhetoric, or hate-incited actions.”

But even with those disclaimers, Key said statements like this could hurt evangelism because they are likely to be objectionable to many people who are “not necessarily affirming, but also not rejecting” of gay rights issues.

Key said the Southern Baptists have continued to be outspoken on issues regarding gays and lesbians where other denominations with similar beliefs have not made the same type of public statements. He noted the SBC’s previous eight-year boycott of The Walt Disney Co. for its gay-friendly policies.

The civil rights resolution comes at the same time the 16-million strong Nashville-based denomination is taking stands in other areas that will help it reach out to new members.

The election of the Rev. Fred Luter Jr. on Tuesday as the first African American president of the SBC was hailed as historic by denomination leaders who see it as a sign that Southern Baptists have truly moved beyond a divisive racial past.

In a news conference after the vote, Luter said he doesn’t think his election is some kind of token gesture.

“If we stop appointing African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics to leadership positions after this, we’ve failed,” he said. “… I promise you I’m going to do all that I can to make sure this is not just a one-and-done deal.”

Delegates to the annual meeting also voted to adopt an alternative name for churches that feel the “Southern Baptist” title could be a turn-off to potential believers.

Supporters of the optional name “Great Commission Baptists” argued it would help missionaries and church planters to reach more people for Christ.

And the Southern Baptists have been less provocative on gay issues than they once were. The denomination ended its Disney boycott in 2005 and this year, as outgoing President Bryant Wright passed the gavel to Luter, the new president asked about Wright’s plans.

“I’m going to Disney World!” Wright said.


Pelosi Rips Holder Contempt Charges: ‘I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove on Any Given Day’ (Liar!)

Original Article - Pelosi Rips Holder Contempt Charges: ‘I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove on Any Given Day’ (Liar!)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attacked House Republicans for pursuing contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday.

“I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,” Pelosi said on Wednesday, The Huffington Post reports. “I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol. If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”

“Oh, any number” of charges could have been brought against Rove, Pelosi said. “But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress.”

Pelosi also criticized Republicans pushing for justice for Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — as House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings has on numerous occasions — as “just strictly political.”

“It’s just the irresponsibility of the Republicans,” Pelosi said. “We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”

Pelosi attacked House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa too. “‘Loose cannon’ would sort of be like such a compliment to Darrell Issa,” Pelosi said. “‘Loose cannon’ would be a moderate phrase. This is an explosive device. It doesn’t serve our country, and it undermines the true purpose of contempt of Congress.” (GUILTY AS CHARGED: Issa’s committee approves Holder contempt citation)

“That’s why I didn’t arrest Karl Rove when I had the chance,” Pelosi added. (DOC BLOCK: Obama invokes ‘executive privilege’)It’s unclear if Pelosi is aware Rove did not serve in a Bush administration position that’s identical to Holder’s in the Obama administration. Rove was a senior policy adviser — a position that’s more similar to Valerie Jarrett’s or David Axelrod’s on President Barack Obama’s team. Holder is the attorney general, the top law enforcement official in the United States. Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami wouldn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked if Pelosi was aware of the distinction.

Rove was not immediately available for comment.


Mont. GOP Displays Bullet-Riddled ‘Obama Outhouse’ (F’ing AWESOME!)

Original Article - Mont. GOP Displays Bullet-Riddled ‘Obama Outhouse’ (F’ing AWESOME!)

A bullet-riddled outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library” containing a fake birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama and graffiti that read “For a Good Time” and a reference to first lady Michelle Obama was on display at the Montana Republican Convention in Missoula.

The display on Saturday also contained “For a Good Time” references to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, her name circled in red.

The display was parked outside Missoula’s Hilton Garden Inn that drew some 500 convention goers.

The convention also includes a raffle for a shotgun, shovel and duct tape, a reference to shoot, shovel and shut up involving the illegal killing of wolves or federally protected species such as grizzly bears.


MSNBC Host: 9-11 Gave America PTSD… ‘Muslim Terrorists’ Were An ‘Imagined Racial Enemy’ for White America (Video)

On Monday, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry made some startling accusations. Harris-Perry told her audience that 9-11 gave America PTSD. She added that Muslim terrorists were an imagined racial enemy for “whie America.”

It’s whitey’s fault.


The Blaze reported:

Wow. She may even out-crazy Michael Moore.
Congratulations MSNBC. You’ve got a real jewel there.


Glenn Beck’s New Book “Cowards”: A Must Read

No matter what you think about Glenn Beck’s politics, you have to admit that he has a point. The premise of this book is simple: we’ve gotten to a point in our society where diverging from the status quo is uncouth, socially detrimental, and even dangerous. There is a standard in our culture today, built by politicians, academics, media, and business leaders, and anyone who steps out of line will be instantly questioned, denounced, and perhaps even censored. As a result, we are living in a strict ideological tyranny that allows only the status quo to proliferate, a condition that will end up bringing us to our self-destruction.

Beck would know–he has been defying the status quo for his entire career, and, from personal and tertiary experience, he has seen exactly how detrimental that can be. Just by challenging the standing beliefs of what is necessary in government, he is trashed, called insane, and belittled.

As Beck argues, this is in every way anti-American. Not only is dissent subdued, but the lie that stands as the standard is explicitly opposed to the American ideals of freedom, industry, diversity of thought, and moral duty.

In this scathing diatribe, Beck identifies thirteen major issues that have not been treated justly in the modern debate, and will probably be shunned in the coming election cycle as well. In order to help provide an alternative to this Orwellian dystopia, Beck surveys each of these issues and offers the contra to popular culture’s status quo.

Focusing on the issues as he does, Beck does not offer a grand examination of how we got into this mess or even how to get out. For that, I recommend the superb Juggernaut: Why the System Crushes the Only People Who Can Save It, which any reader of Glenn Beck will cherish.

Meanwhile, stock up, because something’s in the air!


The Angry Black Man – Whatever Happened to Common Sense? (Video Awesomeness)

Buy the Book “Whatever Happen To COMMON Sense”

Website: http://www.whateverhappentocommonsense.com
Twitter: Commonsense39


Lawrence O’Donnell Mocks Ann Romney for Riding Horses to Combat Multiple Sclerosis

Original Article - Lawrence O’Donnell Mocks Ann Romney for Riding Horses to Combat Multiple Sclerosis

With each passing day, the Obama-loving media stoop to new lows in attacking the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his family.

On MSNBC’s The Last Word Monday, host Lawrence O’Donnell mocked Ann Romney for having the nerve to combat her multiple sclerosis by riding horses:

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: In tonight’s Rewrite, Mitt Romney rewrites the definition of an Olympic athlete.


BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST OF “FACE THE NATION”: I hear you’ve got an Olympic athlete in the family.

MITT ROMNEY: Isn’t that something? Yeah, it’s not me. It’s my wife, of course. She’s the athlete, but in this case, it’s not her personally, but she along with two other people purchased a horse and have trained it up.


O’DONNELL: She’s the athlete. That’s what Mitt Romney just said. She’s the athlete.

Actually, that’s NOT what Romney just said. He said, “But in this case, it’s not her personally, but she along with two other people purchased a horse and have trained it up.”

Exactly what about that clarification to Schieffer’s question wasn’t clear enough for O’Donnell to understand?

The host of Face the Nation said, “I hear you’ve got an Olympic athlete in the family,” and Romney replied, “But in this case, it’s not her personally.”

Is the intellectual capacity of MSNBC anchors and commentators dropping as Romney rises in the polls, or is it just their professional integrity?

Or both?

Let’s continue:

O’DONNELL: So what will the athlete in the family be doing in the Olympics?


ROMNEY: So she’s quite thrilled and I’m sure she’ll be watching. I have a campaign to attend to, so I won’t be able to see it perform. But I’m very pleased for her.


O’DONNELL: That’s right. The Romney family definition of an Olympic athlete is a person who participates in the purchase of an Olympic athlete, in this case, a horse that the Romneys own. Now, Mitt Romney has always told the story of the family’s entry into the breathtakingly expensive so-called sport of dressage as a therapeutic option for Ann Romney’s multiple sclerosis.


SCHIEFFER: Dressage?

ROMNEY: Yes, it’s the sport of dressage. Not many people are familiar with it, but something for which she has a passion, and frankly, her getting back on a horse after she was diagnosed with MS was able, she’s convinced, to help her regenerate her strength and renew that vigor.


O’DONNELL: Now, this is not in any way to make light of Ann Romney’s difficulty with MS, it’s obviously a very difficult thing to bear. And there are a lot of things you can do to try to deal with MS. But, come on, dressage does not appear in any of the more traditional courses of treatment. And if it’s true that dressage is how wildly rich people deal with this very difficult personal health problem, then why, why does the horse appear on Mitt Romney’s tax return as a business expense, that in 2010 produced a $77,000 business deduction. Not a healthcare deduction, a business deduction for the Romney Limited Liability Corporation that owns the horse as a business.

Mitt Romney was afraid to identify a single tax deduction that he would eliminate or reduce, but I think we can be sure that the Olympic athlete in the Romney family, the horse that masquerades as Ann’s horse, but that is never actually ridden by Ann, would continue to be a fake deductible business expense if Mitt and Ann ever get to watch their Olympic athlete on a TV in the White House.

This is so disgusting it’s nauseating.

First off, what business is it of O’Donnell’s how Ann Romney chose to deal with her illness?

If going for walks, going to the museum, watching television, or, heaven forbid, riding horses helped “regenerate her strength and renew [her] vigor,” isn’t that a good thing?

Why should that be the subject of scorn and derision, especially from a representative of a so-called “news network?”

As for Romney’s taxes, it is safe to assume that their LLC purchases horses as an investment just as most people do. Income is derived from breeding and/or selling them. As such, expenses associated with their training and upkeep are deductible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. But why should we expect an ignorant shill such as O’Donnell to understand that?

Furthermore, who is O’Donnell to ridicule anyone for his or her wealth? According to Celebrity Net Worth, his estate is valued at $8 million.

That makes him just another rich liberal castigating Romney for his wealth.

It never ends, does it?

(HT @PoliticalPAW)

*****Update: I received a very interesting email message from NB reader Jeffrey Peters who is a volunteer to Maryland Special Olympics and 4H (with permission):

Dressage is a very common technique to help many types of disabilities, and is one of the few that tends to work for many problems that lack effective treatment. Therapeutic Riding is a major event and is a fundamental component of the Special Olympics. In Maryland, over 100 riders participated in the Special Olympics Therapeutic Riding event earlier in June. Dressage is not for “rich people.” Most of the Special Olympians are from lower income families. Most participants are just honest people who enjoy a very popular sport. This is a part of the matter that is so often ignored. It is honestly upsetting to see such hate against an event that helps so many special needs adults and children.

One such facility is the Maryland Therapeutic Riding center:

Maryland Therapeutic Riding (MTR) is a non-profit organization located between Baltimore and Annapolis, Maryland on a beautiful 25-acre farm. Utilizing certified instructors, licensed therapists, volunteers and specially-trained horses, we offer high-quality horseback riding programs to open new pathways of healing for children and adults with a wide range of physical, mental, and emotional challenges.

Therapeutic Riding is a treatment for rehabilitating a range of physical, mental, and emotional disabilities. PATH certified instructors use the horse as an instructional tool to teach riding skills and reach individualized goals and objectives. Conditions served include: cerebral palsy, spina bifida, neuromuscular disorders, post-traumatic brain injury, autism, ADHD, and cognitive disorders. Riders see an overall improvement in their quality of life. They experience improved self-confidence, strength, balance, coordination, attention span, and language and social skills.

I also discovered that therapeutic riding is used to help “wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan improve their balance, coordination and hone other valuable physical therapy skills.”

As fate has it, suburban Chicago’s Daily Herald just published a piece on this issue on – wait for it – Saturday (HT @CindyCoops):

Documents from Ancient Greece show horse therapy dates to 600 B.C., with the practice growing in popularity in recent years around the suburbs and across the country.

Earlier this month on a three-day campaign stop in Florida, Ann Romney, wife of the former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential hopeful, visited a therapeutic horse-riding facility telling patients she was unable to walk at one point because her multiple sclerosis symptoms were so severe. But, Ann Romney said, the “excitement of getting on a horse” helped her build her strength and caused her symptoms to ease.

Once again, this article was published only three days ago!

As such, shouldn’t an MSNBC anchor either know of the medical and psychological benefits of therapeutic riding or have someone on his staff investigate it before mocking a presidential candidate’s wife for claiming it helped her overcome her serious illness?

Or might uncovering the facts inconveniently interfere with his agenda?

*****Update II: NB reader Mark Neidl offered his thoughts via email (with permission):

My son has Cerebral Palsy and therapeutic riding benefitted him as well as many other children and adults who suffer from many different ailments. People like the Romneys support organizations such as these and without their gifts and donations, people like my son would not have had the opportunity to participate in a program such as this since we are not wealthy as are 90% of the people who have benefitted from therapeutic riding. I recall my son competing in “Dressage” once a year which allowed him to compete against other riders and showcased his abilities to everyone. We have ribbons to prove it and my wife and I are positive he improved because of this program.

Mr. O’Donnell’s comments and mocking of Dressage were quite insulting.

Here is the website for this wonderful program: http://www.sheacenter.org/

Mr. Neidl informed me in a follow-up message, “Our son graduates this Wednesday, quite an accomplishment for him since his diagnosis at birth was pretty dire. Throughout his life he has been helped by a lot of people and, God forbid, many of them wealthy.”

*****Update III: Today Show Covered Benefits of MS Patients Riding Horses Same Day O’Donnell Mocked Ann Romney For It.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/19/lawrence-odonnell-attacks-ann-romney-riding-horses-combat-multiple-sc#ixzz1yIeiWTpU


Daily Caller Whines That ‘Increasingly Irrelevant’ Palin Hasn’t Endorsed Romney

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 19, 2012

Original Article - Daily Caller Whines That ‘Increasingly Irrelevant’ Palin Hasn’t Endorsed Romney

Something about that Old Guard and that establishment. There’s a schedule to keep and a list of rules to follow. Apparently, Sarah Palin shredded her copy and it’s starting to rub the media the wrong way.

Despite saying dozens of times over the last year that she would eventually back the GOP nominee in her #1 mission to replace Barack Obama, apparently the media expects more.

An article written by The Hill yesterday notices: “Palin Doesn’t Mention Romney In Address To Conservative Bloggers” saying:

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rallied conservative media activists for “victory in 2012” as the keynote speaker at the RightOnline conference in Las Vegas on Friday, but never mentioned the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

Instead, Palin directed fire at her two favorite targets – President Obama and the mainstream media.

Considering who Romney’s opponent will be in November, you’d think this was enough — but apparently not.

The Daily Caller reiterates: “Sarah Palin Hasn’t Formally Endorsed Romney Yet” while they also concede that she “has made it concretely clear that she’s opposed to President Barack Obama’s re-election.”

Then, this morning the snark kicked in at the Daily Caller again:

Sarah Palin has become increasingly irrelevant, but her endorsement still remains sought after by GOP candidates. And Mitt Romney has yet to become a recipient of her beneficence, reports TheDC’s Alex Pappas.

Sounds to me like some are starting to get a little grumpy. First, it is absurd to suggest someone is “increasingly irrelevant” (especially with a blog owned by an “increasingly irrelevant” pundit known solely for his abundant collection of bow ties) when you’re beginning the top of the page of your precious blog space to mention it. If that in and of itself isn’t enough to disprove their claim of increasing irrelevance, we have Palin’s endorsing of Richard Mourdock for Senate in Indiana labeled by the Washington Post at the time as the “highest-profile endorsement yet for the primary challenger and it pits Palin against her old running-mate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who just cut a radio ad for Lugar.”

Soon afterwards a series of Johnny-Come-Latelys joined the Mourdock-backing-party — including Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. But it is well known by now that if any one person’s endorsement carried Mourdock to the finish line, it was Governor Palin (with the help of the grassroots tea party activists in Indiana who look up to her).

Also, when Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum were endorsing the obvious winner-to-be judging by projection polls in Nebraska’s Senate race, Jon Bruning, Palin came out a week before the primary and endorsed Deb Fischer. By the end of that week (just two days later) Fischer had closed the long-time gap she had all the months prior leading up to that primary. On election day, Fischer won the primary by a healthy margin.

And the good-old-boy network in Texas was sure going strong when many outside politicians as well as Governor Rick Perry endorsed Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for U.S. Senate. Then once again, Palin came in to save the day for Ted Cruz — a favorite among Tea Party activists in Texas who up until that point was running 12-points behind Dewhurst. Because of the Palin nod and energy Cruz garnered from that endorsement, he was able to get a huge surge of votes toward the end forcing Dewhurst into an upcoming runoff election.

So the Daily Caller apparently wants to marginalize Palin’s influence even though she continues to contradict such claims day after day after day through her actions. Why did they even report on her RightOnline speech if she was irrelevant? Why was she picked to give the speech? For the same reason she’ll be asked to give many more: the same people who are tired of being condescended to by politicians and accompanying surrogates in the media are seeing it play out through Gov. Palin. And judging by the snarkyness in this piece at the Daily Caller, I’d say it’s working splendidly without Palin having to do anything but speak with honesty about common sense conservatism and against the establishment.

Interestingly enough perhaps the most compelling part of her speech which seems to be missed in the various articles written up on it states:

Sometimes you gotta rage against the machine … to hold them accountable … Whatever the outcome is in November, please do not get co-opted by the permanent political class. Granted you will not make many friends in the Beltway or in Hollywood … or in HBO … you won’t be one of the cool kids … doggone it … aww … sometimes you’ll find yourself under the bus … but you need to stay outside of the machines … sometimes you gotta rage against it … stay outside of the political establishments in order to hold them accountable … don’t spin the GOP failures the same way the left does for President Obama.

Despite being committed to firing Barack Obama, Palin let the entire establishment know that she’s going to be on them like white on rice after November. Since we know this sole quote gets to the heart of their “increasingly irrelevant” mantra, I warn all to get ready for more — and welcome it with a smile.

I see November and a Romney win as a double-win for grassroots conservatism for the long haul. We fire Barack Obama and with Governor Palin after the election, the GOPe will no longer be able to effectively guard their own.

Update by Stacy: I find it odd that the Daily Caller and The Hill used the RightOnline conference speech as an excuse to bring up the fact that Governor Palin has not formally endorsed Mitt Romney. They both should know that the conference was hosted by Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) and that the group is a 501(c)(3) organization. What does that mean? It means that nobody standing at a podium at their event can endorse a specific candidate:

Via the IRS:

The type of tax exemption determines whether an organization may endorse candidates for public office. For example, a section 501(c)(3) organization may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.

I was in attendance at the conference, and I didn’t hear one speaker mention Mitt Romney’s name. It would have violated AFPF’s tax-exempt status.

Crush Marxism!
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Boycott The Home Depot!

Take The Traditional Marriage Pledge!

Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab

Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Twitter Feed
Follow @wewintheylose (20449 followers)
Welcome , today is Friday, June 22, 2012