Then again, making Keith Olbermann fume and Rachel Maddow pout is one of the innumerable good things about seeing Scott Brown become Massachusetts’ first Republican senator since the Neolithic Age.  By teaching Brown the conservative secret handshake, his Tea-Partying fans tacitly proved that there’s no purging of those who are only in agreement with the base four-fifths of the time.

The Centerfold Senator confused a few pundits.  In the election’s lead-up, some claimed that it’s tougher to define Brown politically than even, for example, a presidential candidate who deliberately obscured his views in favor of promoting Yes We Canism.  A few commenters even maintained he was more liberal than Dede Scozzafava, the most rhinocerosy of RINOS.  If that dubious notion is true, then his anti-“stimulus,” anti-Democraticare, anti-Obama’s-limp-terror-approach campaign shows that he’s fantastic about controlling his image.

Some on the right may feel uneasy about aspects such as his pro-choice tendencies.  While those concerns are valid, most of his checks are in the preferred column even if he occasionally deviates.  Instead of basing his campaign around, say, defending the Defense of Marriage Act, Brown offered a still-generally strong alternative to Washington’s most miserable current tendencies.

It’s not as if Brown is an Arlen Specter clone in waiting.  And he famously doesn’t drive a glorified golf cart of a hybrid with a plug dragging behind as he putters along the highway’s shoulder.  In addition to absolutely opposing the government simultaneously taking control of health care and one-sixth of the economy, he’s also against ruining the other five-sixths via insane taxation and limitless federal meddling.

Most tellingly, Massachusetts residents realized they were voting on semi-nationalizing the health system.  Um, they voted “no.”   Clearly, Brown’s eagerness to provide the single most important vote against Democraticare was the election’s overriding factor.  He stressed that he alone would be able to scuttle anything the president wants just by shaking his head.

Brown seized momentum in part about being what Obama isn’t.  Despite occasionally diverging from conservative doctrine, the newest senator still advocates most of the same principles  that should guide Republican candidates; his improbable triumph wouldn’t be worth celebrating otherwise.  Conservatives should be pleased by how much their respective circle overlaps with his in a hypothetical Venn diagram.

The tolerance for occasional ideological dissent is especially marked compared to lockstep Democrats.  Consider the preliminary health care vote: while Queen Nancy Pelosi allowed just enough vulnerable members to defect, a majority of Democratic House members got into line.  Blue Dogs are like stimulus projects: we keep hearing about them but never see them in action.

Further, every Democratic senator along with their two independent pals complied on health care.  It’s true even though it meant that the Ben Nelsons of the world had to surrender their integrity and dignity.  The current reigning party tolerates every view between liberal and leftist. 

Blame their executive boss for failing to grasp that his personality won him an election, not his policies.  The one person making conservative victories easy is our president.  Republican hopefuls simply must point out that any Democratic counterpart would vote for what Obama wants.

By doing so, it’s possible to win even in the state where Republican wins happen as rarely as drivers use turn signals.  Americans are seeing what happens when the left gets to run things; consequently, they’re demanding reductions in taxes and regulations.  It’s why conservatives are looking forward to November’s election like it’s a Christmas birthday.

As for our beleaguered leader, Obama gave in and stumped for Martha Coakley.  But he didn’t do so because he thought she was a Democratic rising star who could be the next, well, Obama.  Rather, he knew that she would obey Harry Reid until he is mercifully forced to begin a new career in November.  Thankfully, it was a wasted trip.

Democrats cast off Coakley by pointing out that she was a lousy candidate.  They’re partially right: she was lousy, but mostly because she agrees with the president about everything.  A thoroughly sluggish, reporter-shoving, voter-insulting, outrageous-even-by-campaign-standards-ad-publishing campaign couldn’t hide that she would have been a reliable Democrat for Obamacare and everything else.  Coakley was the Air America of challengers: the only thing more unappealing than the messenger was the message.  As a result, they’re both out of business.

Unlike Coakley, her opponent didn’t seem to be repulsed by the public.  But Brown largely won by highlighting that he’d be a Republican who actually might act like a Republican should.   That’s true even if one must qualify the word “conservative” with “basically” when classifying his politics.  If that’s not perfect, it’s acceptable: being semi-inclusive while still only backing candidates who get the big picture is a winning strategy for red state-minded people who happen to reside in Democratic nests.

For those upset that Brown isn’t a 100 percent Reaganite, please remember that he was just elected senator from freaking Massachusetts.  Complaining that he’s not conservative enough is as reckless as hitting after being dealt an 18.  Anyone from the Bay State to the right of Yuri Andropov would be a plus; Brown’s triumph as a right-leaner is like finding a sack full of recession-proof gold doubloons on the sidewalk.  Further, this win proves that the present Democratic reign’s shelf life approximates that of Jay Leno’s primetime run.

Supporting center-right candidates in traditional liberal bastions is fine as long as the emphasis remains on “right.”  Thanks to Brown, we’ve seen that standing against Obamacare, Obamanonics, and general Obamaism can be an effective strategy anywhere.  That’s true even if potential officeholders may stray on a handful of beliefs.  Best of all, such majority-minded conservatives could help conservatives win a majority.  It was a good day when Brown became number 41 by largely tilting rightward.  It will be a great day when he’s one of at least 51.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Of course, he’s faded as dramatically as he has rapidly, but at least the hour, minute, and second hands each continue to move steadily clockwise.  With the first election commemoration in the past and the new year here, the inauguration date of January 21 stands as the next significant landmark of fortitude.  Conservatives are looking forward to this anniversary, and not as a moment to surprise one’s beloved with a Pajamagram or Snuggie.  Instead, we can celebrate being one-quarter of the way through these most trying of times, not to mention that we can look forward to a downhill ride until the 112^th Congress comes to town and blessedly impedes the profligate agenda.

What has he accomplished already?  The answer is either “not much” or “lots of goofy stuff” depending upon which day is the focus of one’s reminiscing.  Obama’s reign has played out fairly closely to the predictions broadcast by extreme right-wing zealots who were able to get Wi-Fi in bomb shelters.  When we come upstairs to restock our bourbon and beef jerky reserves, we also check to see if the president has stopped pursuing his distorted strategy.  We’re always disappointed but never stunned.

This administration’s willingness to take, borrow, and print money at will paired with its laissez-faire attitude regarding security hardly feels like news.  In fact, it’s what most conservatives at this time last year predicted would be happening right now.  He’s pleasantly reversed course in spurts: it’s nice that Obama lets Predator drones loose against terrorist cavemen and (sort of) (eventually) (seemingly grudgingly) (with conditions) chose the right path in Afghanistan.  But he’s mostly obeying a script with zero laughs or gratifying adventures.

Most tellingly for someone who reads aloud so well, Obama still won’t utter certain words.  For one, it would be nice if the White House would regularly call the present war a “war.”  Instead, they’re conducting hostilities against language, using weasel words and euphemisms to ensure they never offend our sworn enemies.  Harry Potter dorks would point out that this is akin to a refusal to utter Lord Voldemort’s name.  Of all the exasperating features of this administration, the worst may be that one of their positions compelled me to admit I know the characters and plotline from a children’s book series about a witch and wizard school.

But set aside the personal embarrassment he has inflicted upon me.  An even more annoying facet Obama has demonstrated after a full year is his reluctance to clock in for his shift.  It shouldn’t be an inconvenient hassle for him to cut his vacation when the task waiting for him happens to be running the country.  He doesn’t hold a job that’s conducive to people who value their free time.  An aptitude test and/or some vocational training may have helped him pick a career that would have provided him with a more suitable lifestyle, but it’s too late for everyone.

Liberal partisans shriek about how much time George W. Bush spent ranching.  But at least Bush modified his vacations with the word “working.”  As for the incumbent, “Mayor Visits City” was one of the best Springfield Shopper headlines ever; now, it’s unwittingly become a frequent model for executive governing style on a much bigger scale.

To be fair, the poor president and his spouse have made so many sacrifices for us.  Consider the course of his adult life: after completing his studies at some of the nation’s more exclusive universities, he served as a self-appointed community loudmouth, lectured on law, got books published with ease, became a multimillionaire, and won a handful of easy elections before becoming president at 47.  In between, he probably endured suffering at some point.

But that doesn’t change how he acts or what he’s done; the only problem is that some people are shocked.  Voters either fell for Obama’s bland platitudes in willful ignorance of his record or genuinely believed in the same left-of-liberal ideals he embraced whenever he bothered to take a stand with an utterance or vote.  Which is worse?

Regardless, recalling how much time has passed since the inauguration isn’t just good for his foes who are bored with his transformative desires: it’s a chance for the president himself to grow.  Specifically, enough time has passed that Obama should now stop complaining about the last guy who sat at his desk.  Would it help if we promise to stop blaming him for everything he wrecked one year after he’s out of office?

Of course, he shouldn’t whine about the hand that’s been dealt to begin with, and he’ll likely continue pointing fingers into the past.  But he could use this as his Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah moment and demonstrate his mature willingness to accept responsibility as one of his manly duties.  Sadly, he’ll probably alternately whine and ask for gift receipts.

And the problems he didn’t inherit will remain.  The deficit sounds like a made-up number, we’re stuck with double-digit unemployment, and the nation frighteningly copes with a ramped-up quantity of homeland-aimed terror plots and attacks.  His patriotic opponents aren’t and shouldn’t be celebrating dire situations facing our nation.  Still, we can’t display confidence on any grounds that he’ll alleviate any suffering based on his first-year performance.

But there’s at least the aforementioned first-year performance itself to evaluate, meaning time is moving along.  Many Americans are approaching Obama’s term as a run-out-the-clock scenario.  That stands as his greatest accomplishment 25 percent of his way in: Obama has made countless Americans look forward to the future.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The answer is “yes,” according to both the aforementioned lefty partisans in general and certain White House employees in particular.  But I’ll impetuously disagree.  The problem is not the color of our president’s skin: it’s how thin said skin is.  Obama just can’t accept that some of us don’t want Washington taking care of everything except national defense.

It’s actually a large, widening portion of his fellow Americans who hold this contrarian view, which hurts Obama’s feelings every time he thinks of it.  That’s why he’s more likely to speak at a Tea Party than appear on the one news outlet that acknowledges his opposition.

To recall: Obama staffer, and Mao admirer, Anita Dunn attempted to justify her boss’s infantile refusal to appear on the Fox News Channelby claiming the network is staffed by fascist zombies who take marching orders from either Dick Armey or the ghost of Augusto Pinochet.  Next, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel followed up with a typically inclusive claim, namely that “It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”  And David Axelrod, who is not really compelling, said FNC is “not really a news station.”

Such contentions remain unconvincing despite both the frequency and intensity of the administration’s moaning.  Their puerile boycott serves as the equivalent of refusing to shop at Walmart and yet never managing to ascertain why one’s paycheck only lasts until Wednesday.  While such a posture doesn’t really impact Walmart, it absolutely harms the allegedly principled consumer.

This brand of obstinate pettiness displays a major theme of Obama’s tenure: he dislikes being disliked.  His vision of unity is having everyone agree with him, and he’s not resting until his unattainable goal is reached.  Man, he must be getting tired.  He’s a zealous believer in ideals that would make Walter Mondale blush.  Yet, Obama doesn’t have much confidence in them unless he’s convinced that the entire public is on board, too.

What’s truly sinister is how much the White House scoffs at our dissent.  We don’t have anything personal against this president.  Wait- we actually do, but only because he started it.  Conservatives feel that the only thing worse than a rapidly expanding corporate and personal welfare state is being lectured about how we’re foolish for not embracing the shift.  Our president is an insecure salesman who takes it personally if we walk from the table.

The last guy with his job had enough confidence to know better.  Obama could learn something from the man whom he blames for everything.  Improbably, the current Oval Officer ought to strive to build up a hide as thick as that of George W. Bush’s.

There are numerous lessons for the incumbent to learn from his chosen archenemy.  Most notably, Bush waged a war he believed would keep us safe at a distressing time in our history; as a reward, liberals accused him of acting like the sort of villain whom a young Sean Connery would have to pursue over several continents.  Simultaneously, conservatives expressed outrage over Bush’s eerie similarities to the last president who managed a two-front campaign while spending boundlessly at home.  In other words, we accused him of trying to out-FDR FDR.  But he didn’t care.

Regardless of how well his policies worked in actuality, Bush the Younger focused on sticking to his guns instead of fretting about his foes.  He pursued what he believed, which is a characteristic that would have been recognized as a sign of leadership in quainter times.

Hopefully, Obama never learns that he can pursue his agenda without impressing every citizen.  Our prom king of a president devotes much of his day to bickering with those who dare to disagree with him.  As a result, he happily has less energy to devote to imposing his hyper-liberal agenda.  We can thank his compulsive need to convert us into believers for his sluggish pace.

Of course, that won’t stop him from continuing to think that we’ll all soon be worshippers.  Obama figures that we just need to hear more of his silky words praising his brilliant ideas.  In fact, I’ve got a feeling his next health care-themed speech is the one that may convince us to let the feds oversee our wellness.

Unfortunately, I’ll be watching FNC’s coverage of his remarks.  I just hope wisdom of his scheme to insure everyone while reducing the deficit though the power of government takes root in my skull before that dastardly Glenn Beck brainwashes me into remaining aligned with the opposition.  I probably shouldn’t reveal the quirky host’s motivational techniques, but he gives me a handful of M&M’s every time I agree with him.

Anthony Bialyis a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Smart Girl Politics accomplished something amazing last Friday. Close to 200 women and men attended Smart Girl Summit in Nashville; a sold-out event where they learned about leadership and advancing the conservative principles of individual liberty, freedom from tyranny, and personal responsibility. Smart Girl Politics strives to educate and empower women and men to engage in the political process. For ordinary citizens to stand up, speak out, and let their voices be heard. I feel so blessed to be part of such an amazing organization, and I’m pretty sure that the speakers and panels yesterday more than doubled my previously limited knowledge of activism and leadership.

As the audience nibbled their breakfasts and drank their coffee or juice (or if they’re like me-diet coke), Jennifer Stinson of United Families International kicked off our day. She talked about the importance of family values and national sovereignty (the right of nations to determine their own laws and customs). She encouraged us to become informed and involved Americans, and to be proud of it.

The next speaker was Robin Smith, a southern firecracker running to represent Tennessee in the House of Representatives in 2010. After listening to her speak, I wanted to run for office! Or at least donate to her campaign. She is running as a republican, but more importantly as a conservative; refusing to compromise her principles and adhering fiercely to the Constitution. She had been advised by others to not alienate people with her conservatism, but she threw that advice out the window. She was and is committed to keeping her principles and would not compromise on what she knew to be right and decent. If only all politicians could be like that.

American Majority then hosted two breakout sessions on the influence of social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and the importance of networking. I’ll admit something kind of embarrassing: Until yesterday, didn’t really understand what “web 2.0″ meant. Why am I sharing this? Because if I didn’t quite get it, I bet a few (or a lot) of my readers don’t get it either. Did you know that you are on a web 2.0 site right now? It’s true. Web 2.0 refers to websites that allow the users to interact with one another. I post an opinion, and you guys can comment, debate, ask, interact. Web 2.0 and social media sites represent a shift in the way of thinking; it is not a passing fad. It’s a new way to network, and we should take advantage of it. How? Leave comments on blogs. Join Twitter, and don’t be afraid to jump into the conversation. Go to Amazon and Netflix and give Michael Moore movies one star. Contribute to Wikipedia. Refuse to be silent.

After the morning’s speakers and panels, Liz Cheney spoke to us about the importance of national security. Before she got into the topic at hand, she told us that she had asked her dad (former Vice President Dick Cheney) for some advice on speaking to us grass root activists. He told her, “They are the future of our country. Don’t screw it up.” What a difference in thinking from some other politicians! This man actually understands the significance of the conservative brush fire sweeping through our country.

Ms. Cheney encouraged us to speak out against an administration that has diminished our ability to obtain information to save lives and prevent attacks. Our unalienable, God given rights depend on our country having a Commander-in-Chief who will keep us safe. Which we are currently lacking. Instead we have a Presidential Administration that would rather make the the brave men and women of the CIA the subject of a ridiculous witch hunt, rather than show them the gratitude and appreciation that they deserve. Those CIA agents should have cookies baked for them, not have their pictures shown to terrorists who, under the Obama Administration, have a good chance of being released and planning more attacks on Americans. They hate us, you know. Really hate us. They believe it’s their mission to wipe us off the planet in the name of their god. I’m sorry, why are we pandering to these slugs again?

There’s nothing wrong with walking softly, but as Teddy Roosevelt said, we need to carry a big stick. Freedom isn’t free, and America must negotiate from a position of strength. I think that Ms. Cheney summed it up perfectly when she said, “America needs a Commander-in-Chief, not a global community organizer.”

Michelle Malkin then took the stage to talk about the significance of being an outspoken conservative woman, some of the challenges we will face, and the importance of not shutting up. She encouraged us moms to help our children embrace our history, not to be ashamed of it. We need to stay on top of what our children are learning in school, and make sure that they are not being educated to ensure a liberal majority in the next generation. It’s not the government’s role to tell us how to sneeze, and it’s certainly not the government’s role to tell us how to raise our kids.

Ms. Malkin explained that the thing that has heartened her the most about the recent and rapid rise of conservatism is that it’s from the ground up. “There’s this ENERGY,” she said. Those in Washington keep moaning about re-branding the party, but all they need to do is come home and listen to their constituents. The conservative movement is about holding our elected officials accountable. The accomplice to the crime of corruption is often our indifference, but one person can make a difference. Don’t be afraid to attend a protest, make a phone call, write a letter, or tell a friend what you think.

The last speaker of the day was Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who represents the 7th district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives. She began by saying that she wanted to teach us to put to work all of the things we’d learned throughout the day about activism and leadership. A conservative woman leader needs to do is get over the myths surrounding it.

Myth #1- “I don’t have the pedigree for that.” Mythbuster- The best pedigree is hard work & self confidence. Every person has life experience, and they can put those skills together and use them as a building block to achieve their goals. Leadership is an action word, and the only pedigree you need to lead is the gumption to start down that path and grab some others as you walk it.

Myth #2- “I don’t have the special knowledge to do that.” Mythbuster- There is no special knowledge that is greater than a determined, resourceful soul. You will gain the knowledge and subsequently the confidence you need to keep moving forward as you go along.

Myth #3- “If I do this, other people will tell my story for me.” Mythbuster- If you don’t define yourself, somebody else will define you. Don’t be silent about your accomplishments, your beliefs, and your goals. Don’t be self-conscious about sharing your successes; take Rep. Blackburn’s grandmother’s advice, “It ain’t braggin’ if you done done it!.”

Myth #4- “I’m too afraid of failing.” Mythbuster- In politics, the worst thing someone can say is that they won’t vote for you. We can get over that! There is a risk that you will fail, but if you never try, you’ll never succeed either. If you fail, dust yourself off and try again. Remember that two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward.

It is scary to go out into the world and practice what we preach. At Smart Girl Summit, we got to bask in the goal of conservative principles and ideals. Now it’s up to us to go out into the world and share that light with others. It won’t be easy. There will be doubt. You may wonder what’s going to happen if we fail to stop liberalism. Well, what’s going to happen if we fail to TRY?

Thank you, Smart Girl Politics, and especial Teri and Stacy for putting together such a wonderful event.

–WASHINGTON, DC– Smart Girl Nation sat and talked with the Executive Director of our parent organization, Mrs. Teri Christoph, to get an update on Smart Girl Summit 2009. Here’s what she said, “Smart Girl Summit ‘09 is Friday, September 18th, 2009, and will be a day to infuse participants with activities that will aid them as they become more and more engaged in their local political communities.”

SGS ‘09, as it is affectionately called, will bring the grassroots leaders of Smart Girl Politics together with several national leaders lending their voices in support of Conservative causes.

Included in the day’s activities will be: (Check here for up to date information)

8:00 AM: Registration

8:30 AM: Opening Remarks & Breakfast

8:45 AM: Special Guest Speaker from UFI

9:30 AM: Breakout Sessions

Session 1 – Candidate Training

Session 2 – Activist Training

10:30 AM Break

10:45 AM Breakout sessions resume

12:00 PM Lunch

1:00 PM General Session Begins – Featured Speaker: Liz Cheney

2:00 PM Featured Speaker: TBD

3:00 PM Break

3:30 PM Keynote Speaker: Rep. Marsha Blackburn

4:30 PM Closing Remarks

Space is limited and those in attendance can expect many, many wonderful surprises!

In case you can’t attend, SGN will cover the event and share information and details about the Summit leading up to the event. Live streaming coverage will also be provided. We’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs. Christoph and the leaders of Smart Girl Politics.

For more information, contact Mrs. Christoph at teri@smartgirlpolitics.org or if you have questions about Smart Girl Politics contact President and Founder Mrs. Stacy Mott: stacy@smartgirlpolitics.org

Related articles by Zemanta

• If Farrakhan Can Pull It Off, Why Can’t The Tea Party Protesters? (themoderatevoice.com)
• Dodd and Obama: Corrupt birds of a feather (michellemalkin.com)

By Nichole Hungerford

I lost my cool in an argument with a friend over Cap-and-Trade.  My points had morphed into angry diatribes.  I hadn’t yet gotten to explicit insults, but my tone was surely at the point of communicating, “What are you, stupid?” to my old, dear friend.

When I realized my inadvertent emotional escalation, I apologized.  “It’s not anger directed toward you,” I explained.  Instead of feeling a certain triumph in beating down my opponent with logic, I felt foolish for beating him down with verbal abuse.  Although I typically have strong conviction in the truth of my claims, and find comfort in the superiority of my arguments, at some point during the dispute, it wasn’t enough.  I was so damned angry.

We’ve emerged from a very hateful time in the political discourse of America.  The urgency of a nation at war provided the Left with an excuse to open the floodgates on vicious, disturbed “expressions of free speech” and elevate it to the level of legitimate dialogue, almost completely drowning the need for propriety.  Who on the Left ever referred to unhinged war protesters as an “Astroturf mob” (when the label was accurate)?  Who on the Left rejected Bill Maher’s statement that someone should shoot Dick Cheney in the face?  Or the DNC Convention cretins who attacked Michelle Malkin, some chanting that she should be killed?  In fact, the Leftist establishment reveled in the public outcry as further evidence of their being on the side of right.

And here we on the Right are; so damned angry.  How can one not be frustrated when the specter of socialism races toward us, faster than anyone would have ever expected, even those, I’m sure, who voted for Obama or other Democrats.  Meanwhile, America as we know her seems to hang in precarious balance in the uncertain hands of a few ambivalent politicians.  What will be the outcome?  Nobody knows.  But by God, we can surely try our hardest to make our voices heard.  “Let it not be said that no one objected!” As Ron Paul has said.  We’re faced with a powerful aristo-political class who daily feed a growing government which makes our voices more and more remote.  Meanwhile, the vitriol leveled against us gets a nod by those same politicians and an agreeable media.  Our own executive power now encourages other Americans to report our free speech activity to them, one of the more convenient side-effects there being to intimidate and ridicule dissenters. The atmosphere, indeed, is urgent.

My friend hadn’t been disrespectful to me.  He hardly ever adopts a confrontational tone.  After we cleared the air between us, he reminded me of something, “Ronald Reagan was a great conservative, but he wasn’t a hater.”  It’s something we all could benefit from reflecting on in these heated political days of summer.  One of Reagan’s most important gifts, why he was truly a uniter who carried 49 states in his re-election, was his civility and kindliness toward both political opponents and dictators alike.  He didn’t act hatefully toward the opposition.  He didn’t demean or dismiss them.  He was the master of respectful, amicable debate concerning the most emotionally laden issues of our time.

Now, I certainly think Town Hall protests are deserved, and I’m invigorated by seeing raw, forceful dissent over the reckless behavior of our politicians and powerful special interest forces.  You have a lot of legitimate grievances and when speaking to a hard of hearing behemoth like the government, obviously one must raise the volume on the message for it to even be heard at all.  I’m concerned, however, at the childish lessons of the Left over the past eight years which are still fresh in our minds.  It seems easy to feel entitled to the same outrageous behavior, or letting emotion get the better of your sense of respect toward those who, at the end of the day, are just other people with a different opinion.  But as you are going to protests or town halls or even in ordinary conversation, remember the Reagan high road.  Remember to be civil and peaceable even if it means turning the other check, a test which will surely be administered as he summer proceeds.

The bottom line is organized protest need not necessarily be a hateful mob, but it can easily become one.  Enthusiasm can easily become rage, and the battle of hearts and minds has many fronts where this is always losing strategy.  The vast majority of protests have held to this standard, so let’s keep up the good work.

Double amputee exercising his right to assemble for our great Nation.

Walking through the masses, we could not help but feel the patriotic energy radiating from crowd. There were some familiar signs such as “Taxed Enough Already,” “I’ll keep my freedom, you can keep the change!” and “Next time, read the Constitution, it’s shorter!” The sign that seemed to move my husband the most was held by a stately looking, elderly man, sweating in the 100 degree weather, right up front and as close to the stage as he could get with a sign that read “I fought for my country once, I’ll fight for it again.” My husband can hardly speak about that sign without getting tears in his eyes. Maybe it is because he can identify with that man, who was obviously a veteran as is my husband. Maybe it’s because that simple statement represents the sacrifice made by those who have shed blood in honor, to protect the rights that we cherish today.

Reuters photo of a patriot, who happens to be an amputee, enjoying the show.

The highlight of my evening was hearing Michelle Malkin speak. She is a prominent supporter of Smart Girl Politics and we can’t thank her enough for all that she does to support conservatism. Michelle spoke of the idea that everyday should be Independence day, that we are born free, and that no government entity can grant us our liberty. Mrs. Malkin said, “The reason for the season is Liberty!” She spoke of being the daughter of legal immigrants who were proud to take the oath of allegiance to this great country.

Me with Michelle Malkin! Thank you for the photo Michelle!

I want to take this opportunity to encourage every American to read The Federalist Papers. Take note during this season of Liberty, that in Federalist 10, Publius warned that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” We the people are charged with seeking out leaders who have no greater goal than to uphold and defend our Constitution, as it was written. In this day and age, the new chic is to “build a new foundation,” but I dare say that I am going to stick with the foundation that our forefathers mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to provide.

Me with Katrina Pierson, Dallas Tea Party organizer and a Great American!

As our great nation stands at this crossroads, our country is facing some of her darkest hours. The shroud of socialism is threatening to be cast upon us. What started with massive government spending, is leading to massive government expansion, and thus, the birth of the TEA Party movement. As the agenda of this administration continues its power grab and control by way of Cap-N-Tax and a disastrous national healthcare plan, the sleeping giant continues to awaken. The great people of this nation, no longer stifled by party affiliation as the opposition would like it to seem, are gaining true power as well. We the people are uniting and our great collective voice will be heard. History will look back upon us and tell of a time that “We the People” stood strong, that “We the People” stood firm, and that “We the People” did not allow our great nation to be changed or transformed. Rather, it will reflect upon the time that “We the People” SAVED OUR GREAT NATION!

View a slideshow of photos of the event at the link below.
America’s Tea Party

Previously posted by Natalie on her blog.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Outpouring of support for Dallas vet whose flags were torched (michellemalkin.com)
• NEW JERSEY: Thousands take part in ‘tea party’ protest against high taxes in Morristown. TEXAS: … (pajamasmedia.com)

By Nichole Hungerford

I think Michelle Malkin put it best:  The story of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now is tremendously convoluted because “of course, ACORN runs a vast network of affiliates across the country that facilitate its money-shuffling racket.”  My guess is that this is also how it maintain its superficial “grassroots” street cred despite its access to resources from on high.

The chapter of the recent ACORN International name change is similarly confusing.  To be clear, ACORN proper has not changed their title, only ACORN International, now, Community Organizations International.  ACORN International was founded by disgraced ACORN founder, Wade Rathke who was ousted from the main organization after it was revealed that his brother, Dale Rathke , embezzled a small fortune and Wade conspired to conceal the transgression for nearly a decade.  Since then, however, it has been an uphill battle for ACORN to sever affiliation with the Rathkes and it looks as though the recent name change of ACORN International is an outgrowth of that effort.

An internal memo from last year reveals that ACORN requested that Wade Rathke leave ACORN and its affiliates, but because of the technical ambiguities of what constitutes affiliate status and the persistence of Rathke, this has proven to be no straightforward task.  Seeking resolution to this controversy, the memo clearly shows that ACORN’s position is that if the parties settle to permit Rathke’s control or presence in any of these “corporations” (their term for affiliates) then the ACORN affiliation should be terminated and all association with the organization’s brand be dropped.  Hence, the memo states, “[With respect to ACORN International, Wade Rathke] should probably start his own darn international org. If he wants this one, he has to use it without the ACORN name…ACORN ought to be able to force him to stop, and to change the corporate name.”

This appears to be the motivation behind the name change of ACORN International to Community Organizations International where Rathke remains Chief Organizer, and not, as was initially speculated, as a first effort to rebrand the stigmatized organization.  ACORN alone has legal rights to the organization’s name and wants to prohibit Rathke from using it.  They have used this same reasoning to threaten the whistleblower coterie of former insiders known as the “ACORN 8 ” with legal action for using the name in their title, an act they view as a retributive move to silence them.

ACORN is actively trying to extricate itself from the Rathke debacle, but the question remains whether they will successfully free themselves from their own, which has arisen quite independently of the Rathkes.  Indeed, ACORN has arguably generated more controversy than it has ever enjoyed praise, historically speaking.  ACORN’s website blames its corrupt reputation on the conservative “noise machine ” when in reality, it would seem they have no one to blame but themselves. Currently, ACORN is under indictment for voter registration fraud in 14 states, furthering concerns over orchestrated illegality, in the very least, widespread negligence.  They stand accused of a host of crimes—39 felonies in Navada alone—including forgery, illegal compensation for collected voter registrations (illegal because they incentivize registration fraud such as paying per each registration obtained instead of per hour), and registering convicts.

But ACORN’s problems go much, much further.  In fact, records of voter registration fraud by ACORN or it’s subsidiary Project Vote, are somewhat of an organizational tradition, with incidents spanning at least a decade.  It’s difficult to see how they can still be explaining this as the unauthorized activity of rogue registerers, and if it is, then it’s about time they started actively doing something about it as it only seems to be getting worse—even, systemic.  The Employment Policies Institute , a non-profit research organization which studies public policy and job growth, has catalogued ACORN’s bad behavior for years:

“In the late 1990s, ACORN’s Project Vote was involved in an $850,000 embezzling scheme, where union funds and kickbacks were used to illegally aid the 1996 re-election bid of then-Teamsters President Ron Carey. A New York federal jury found the Teamsters political director guilty of the conspiracy.”

“In 1996, the Inspector General of the AmeriCorps program stripped a $1 million grant from the ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC). When applying, AHC had denied any connections to ACORN, since the grant was not intended for political advocacy organizations. Evidence later uncovered by the Inspector General found that not only was AHC created by ACORN, engaged in numerous transactions with one another, and sharing staff and office space — but it utilized the AmeriCorps grant to increase ACORN membership, a violation of federal guidelines.”

They also don’t seem to like abiding by their own principles very much as EPI reports also that they sued the state of California to exempt themselves from the state’s minimum wage requirement:

“ACORN argued that being forced to pay higher wages would mean that they would hire fewer employees –the very dilemma faced by businesses.  Incredibly, ACORN stated that paying its employees a lower wage would allow them to be more sympathetic to the low-and moderate-income families they were attempting to help.  ACORN argued that abiding by the state minimum wage would limit their ability to promote their agenda and would therefore be a violation of their First Amendment rights.”

The suit was dismissed on its sheer absurdity.  The comical irony is that ACORN aggressively campaigns for an increasingly higher “living wage,” as they call it. Jaw-dropping, isn’t it?

One could write a book making the case against ACORN, but in my opinion they are essentially a network of ready-made mobs which harass business, especially banks, at the behest of organizers.  In its higher echelons sit radical left-wing sympathizers with unseemly histories.  They possess heavy political clout and have received millions of tax-payer dollars in one form or another.  One of their most prominent issues, which they unleash their angry throng upon, is housing—thus, the pursuit of banks.  It’s a huge deal for them, requiring three separate campaigns listed on their website:  “Affordable Housing,” and “Fair Housing,” or, what I would call “Setting Poor People Up for Financial Obligations They Cannot Pay.”  Not coincidentally, the third campaign is fighting “Foreclosures,” or “Stopping Banks from Foreclosing on the Poor People Whom We Set Up in Houses They Could Not Pay For.”  Housing bubble much?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Document drop: The story behind the “ACORN changed its name” story (michellemalkin.com)
• The immortal words of NYTimes chief Bill Keller (michellemalkin.com)
• Michelle Malkin ” Sign the ACORN petition (dequalss.com)
• Project Vote sues whistleblower: ObamACORN bully tactics exposed (michellemalkin.com)
• Who’s funding the Obamacare Astroturf campaign? (michellemalkin.com)
• Obama’s housing entitlement campaign & ACORN’s civil disobedience mob (michellemalkin.com)
• Census + left-wing partners = More OBAMACORN! (michellemalkin.com)
• DUCK AND COVER: ACORN drops tarnished name and moves to silence critics. Association of Communit… (pajamasmedia.com)
• Mind-numbing (washingtonmonthly.com)

I’ve recently spent a lot of time angry at the treatment of women – particularly those on the Right side of the aisle. I’ve spoken about it a lot as of late, because there has been so much fodder for dialog – and I’m grateful for the light that is being shed on this issue. The conversation is escalating, and even Lefty organizations like NOW that ignored the treatment of Palin for the past year are stepping up. This is a culture issue, not a political one. In the past couple months, we have had the Playboy hate-sex article, Letterman’s comments regarding the Palins, and the media attacks on Carrie Prejean. This type of sexually charged hate speech is mind-rape: an attempt to silence women who don’t fit the traditional “progressive” image. The language used against these women is vile, demeaning, and hate-filled – and their profession is being used to excuse it. Read: She asked for it.

This is a really dangerous idea to be throwing around. This article has taken me a week to write, because it took me that long to properly organize my thoughts about rape and it’s effects – it’s personal, and the mainstreaming of this “she deserved it” meme turns my stomach. I’ve always rejected the term “rape victim”, because I firmly believe that being a victim is a choice. However, I’ve been the “victim”. I’ve had people close to me second guess what happened and try to redistribute blame. I spent a lot of time believing that I “deserved it”, because the technicalities were called into question. I can’t say this strongly enough: technicalities do not remove the accountability of the offending party. Ever. Regardless of the situation, the offending party is still responsible for their actions.

The response to these recent stories has blown my mind. What is happening is justification of the offense, not support for those who are being attacked. When David Letterman made rape jokes about a teenager, people laughed. At large, the media attributed it to him being a washed up old comedian who made a bad joke. Others said her daughters were “fair game” because Palin kept them in the public eye. “Well, if Palin didn’t parade her daughters around they wouldn’t be talked about.” “If Malkin wasn’t so venemous, she wouldn’t be talked about like that.” “Prejean should have thought her answer through a little better.” The implication is that they deserve to be attacked – and it’s not just coming from men. One would think that a woman would understand. I was discussing this with a friend earlier today, and her thought was that these women had never been in that situation, or they would know better. One would hope. Either that, or it’s a projection of their own self loathing. Maybe they also believe they deserve abusive treatment for one reason or another. I’ll never know.

Regardless of who is saying it, these are things women who are raped hear. I can say from experience that blaming the rape on the victim is a natural response for a lot of people – the victim first and foremost.”If I hadn’t had that last drink.” “If I hadn’t worn that dress.” “If I had made someone walk me to my car.” What happens when you believe you bring it on yourself? You stop doing those things that inflict harm. It’s called conditioning. If you say something and are assaulted, even verbally, you are generally going to refrain from saying those things. The result is silencing – and that is their goal.

The women above refuse to be silenced – for that I am grateful.

David Letterman feels entitled.

He’s entitled to spew crude, sexually degrading invective to portray a teenage girl as a sexual object.

Maybe you saw it on one of the highlight reels, one awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game. During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.

The hardest part of her visit [to New York] was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter

He’s entitled to use a class and gender based slur to demean the most popular sitting governor in the United States.

[Sarah Palin] bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look

And he’s entitled to smugly repeat his rank insults while delivering a non-apology to Sarah Palin in painstakingly choreographed deadpan, milking each sexist remark one more time to the delight of a fawning audience.

What gives Dave Letterman license to repeatedly troll the gutter without ever dirtying his Worldwide Pants?

Liberalism.

Didn’t you realize? He can’t be sexist, he’s a liberal. He’s no misogynist – he votes Democrat. Like all liberals, Dave will tell you he loves women. He respects them. Isn’t he pro-choice? Isn’t he sufficiently appalled by breast cancer? Doesn’t he joke all the time about those brutish southerners who beat their wives with Confederate flags? Haven’t you heard? He’s a card carrying liberal. Liberal, I tell you. Liberal!

Among his liberal buddies, Letterman can get away with pretending that he intended to insult Sarah Palin’s 18-year-old daughter Bristol, not her younger child Willow. But Willow was at the ballgame, Bristol was thousands of miles away, and Letterman is the skeevy guy in dress shoes and a tan trench coat who bares it all to a 14-year-old girl on the subway, then swears to the cops, “But I thought she was 18,” as he’s being hauled off to jail.

“Look at my record,” Dave told his audience as he clarified his remarks about Willow. What he means is he’s on record as being liberal. He knows the secret handshake and everything! And as we all know, liberal men are inherently sensitive to sexism in our society.

You see, liberal identity is a bubble that protects those inside from accusations of sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. It’s considered a nearly unassailable defense against the indefensible. It’s a free pass, a blind eye, and a Get Out of Jail Free card all rolled into one.

Racially and sexually charged jabs are still acceptable in liberal circles because it’s mutually acknowledged that they know better. It’s not like they’re conservatives – you know, the real sexists – so they can say and do as they please without inviting the same consequences a conservative would incur.

And if the target is a conservative woman, well, even better because there’s no chance those pesky feminists will get their panties in a collective bunch. Melissa Clouthier explains why:

Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.

David Letterman is also no stranger to bigoted, elitist one-liners about the Palin family’s middle class roots, and by extension, all people of average means. In addition to the “slutty flight attendant” slur, Michelle Malkin dug up the following examples of Letterman’s oh so enlightened commentary about Sarah Palin:

“You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won’t give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you’ve had enough. We’re landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day.”

“She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, ‘I’m sorry, your table isn’t ready yet.” She looks like infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos.”

“[S]he looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out ‘44! 45!’ She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That’s who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores…”

But don’t forget, liberalism absolves Dave from responsibility for the classism he perpetuates when he derides Sarah Palin by comparing her to working class people. Everyone knows liberals are sensitive and open-minded, and that entitles him to say what he wants without ever expecting to be raked over the coals.

As many writers have observed, the feminist silence on Letterman’s sexually inappropriate remarks about Sarah and Willow Palin is predictably deafening. The unwritten rule is that feminism stands for liberal women – authentic women – not conservative women who are, by virtue of their conservatism, anti-woman.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) and Ms. Magazine both declined to send representatives to be interviewed for an On The Record segment about Letterman’s sexually derogatory treatment of the governor and her daughter. Instead, NOW opted to release a statement as critical of conservatives as it was of Dave Letterman.

NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren’t professed conservatives.”

NOW also managed to miss the real thrust of Letterman’s remarks about Sarah Palin:

Letterman also joked about what he called Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” — yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician’s appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men.

Yes, the media focus on Sarah Palin’s appearance often delves into sexist territory. But what about the use of the word “slutty,” NOW? Slutty doesn’t speak to “her sexual appeal to men.” It reinforces the belief that by being attractive and fertile, Sarah Palin invites attacks on her virtue as a woman. It says, you can’t be a beautiful woman, a good wife, a loving mother, and a career politician. Pick one.

The response that NOW should have given was instead delivered by a fledgling feminist organization called The New Agenda.

“Letterman’s apology talk last night was cheap,” said The New Agenda co-founder and President Amy Siskind. “True contrition would not invite the Palin’s on his show after publicly humiliating them and their 14-year old daughter. If Letterman’s apology is authentic, he should show it by devoting part of his show to address the national crisis of the sexualization of our teenage daughters.”

The New Agenda was also happy to publish my recent piece on Playboy’s conservative rape fantasy article.

Feminists, that is how it’s done.

Amy Siskind, founder of The New Agenda, took her message to The Huffington Post in a piece called, “Sexism Against Conservative Women Is Still Sexism.” Think it would be hard to argue with that simple concept? You’d be wrong. Here’s a tiny selection of what the HuffPo commenters had to say about Sarah Palin and sexism:

propitiousmoment: ” She wants to use her sexuality to advance her agenda … might I say, the classic definition of a bimbo.”

andyboy: “To defend a woman from a sexist attack simply because she is a woman is actually the essence of sexism.”

voltaireinexile: “She played the pretty-sexy-mama card all along, undermining what many women have fought so hard against –the objectification of women”

arnray: “Palin and the rest use their sexuality to numb the senses of the dullards and then cry foul when someone throws it back at them.”

Gainsbourg69: “When a woman wants to be considered more than just a sex object she should take steps necessary to avoid being labeled a sex object. Simple.”

Wilson201: “Palin marginalizes her own opinions by dressing the way she does just as Prejeans opinion is by posing barely clothed. If they wish to be taken seriously, then they should dress and behave properly.

Amy’s piece also attracted a host of comments insisting there’s nothing sexist about calling Palin a “slutty flight attendant” if the shoe fits. Right. Palin was practically begging for Dave’s insults just like Michelle Malkin invited the Playboy rape fantasy. Is it any wonder where conservative writers like Kathleen Parker, trying to curry favor with the media elite, pick up ideas like this:

I also think it’s out of line for a woman to sexualize her candidacy, which Palin did. Just ask Rich Lowry, who wrote that he had to sit up a little straighter when she winked during the vp debate. So, maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline.

It’s clear that sexually demeaning the women with whom we disagree is more mainstream than ever. It’s a cancer that’s metastasized throughout media, politics, and entertainment, rubber stamped by the liberal sentiment that calling oneself a feminist makes it so. And conservative women aren’t the only targets. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who discovered liberal-approved sexism firsthand during her campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Sexism, racism, and all the other -isms aren’t any more acceptable if you happen to dislike or disagree with the target. This shouldn’t need to be said. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a comedian or a liberal. Sexism always matters. And no political affiliation gives you license to hurl sexually inappropriate insults at women and girls without fear of consequences.

This article originally appeared on JennQPublic.com.