Strategically bagging elections is sort of a thing with the left. What we saw in 2008, and again in 2012, is not a new thing. The plan they’re working with now is a plan decades in the making, and the GOP has a long way to go if we expect to even attempt to catch up with the progressive freak parade. This plan–known as The Colorado Model (go read this article RIGHT NOW)–is fairly simple, and being deployed with panache all over the country:

Eric O’Keefe, chairman of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, says there are seven “capacities” that are required to drive a successful political strategy and keep it on offense: [1] the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, [2] to pursue investigations, [3] to mobilize for elections, [4] to fight media bias, [5] to pursue strategic litigation, [6] to train new leaders, and [7] to sustain a presence in the new media. Colorado liberals have now created institutions that possess all seven capacities. By working together, they generate political noise and attract press coverage. Explains Caldara, “Build an echo chamber and the media laps it up.”

Sound familiar? It should. It’s what shellacked you in the face in 2012. It’s also what’s currently threatening the political career of Maricopa County, Arizona’s embattled Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The recall effort against Sheriff Joe Arpaio is rolling along under the banner of “Respect Arizona,” a political recall committee registered with the Maricopa County Elections Office. Their only goal is to successfully recall Joe Arpaio and replace him with someone more attractive to the progressive palate. They’ve been up and running since about three weeks after Sheriff Arpaio was reelected with 53% of the vote. Arpaio was and remains the face of Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 immigration bill, which is obviously convenient for the recall effort, considering significant portions of the bill were struck down by the Supreme Court last summer. At any rate, Respect Arizona is applying the Colorado Model to their recall effort and relying on emotional plays and token endorsements to whip up the base and create a progressive echo chamber that the GOP in Arizona is not prepared or equipped to deal with.

They succeeded in Colorado. They tried and failed in Wisconsin with the Walker recall effort. Now, Arizona is in the crosshairs, and the left is well on their way to ousting a duly elected sheriff with no current basis for the recall. They want one more bite at the apple, and they’re well on their way to getting it: as of Friday, April 5, the recall effort has over 120,000 paid petitioners on the ground, and have less than 100,000 signatures to go before the May 30th recall petition deadline.

The recall effort against Joe Arpaio is just one part of a national strategy to overwhelm the system. The left is building a template to apply on a national level, and we’re not prepared to handle it. LaborUnionReport called it over a year ago:

On the Right, after nearly three years of being engaged in the battle to save America from tax and spend collectivists, there is still a large knowledge vacuum in the nature of the battle, the groups and strategies involved, as well as the tactics used. America is nearing the end of a century-old ideological war waged by Marxists of varying degree—an ideological war that will determine the future of America. Until such time as the Right understands that fact and begins to work together, any “victories” at the ballot box will be fleeting and, in the long run, futile.

This battle isn’t just about Sheriff Joe, or Governor Walker, or whoever the left chooses as its next target. Whether or not you support these politicians, it’s important for you to understand what’s happening: these are a series of ideological attacks waged by progressives who do not like the outcomes of elections. They know they have a better chance of winning in the courts or on the rebound, and given the chance, they’ll give it everything they’ve got.

Originally published at The College Conservative

This whole issue is such a huge deal; I don’t think many people realize how huge of a deal it is. Please, please recognize how huge of a deal this is. The latest victory over unconstitutional regulation of political speech was overshadowed by the SCOTUS immigration decision. This never should have happened. Why? Because the left is controlling the campaign finance narrative 100%; people who are completely apolitical, who know nothing about politics or the law, are taking hook line and sinker the bait that the left is tossing out on campaign finance: Citizens United is evil. Corporations are evil. What trade unions? etc. etc. etc. They’re taking the bait, and they’re also adopting the attitude that comes with it. It’s scary, and it’s got to stop.

Letting the left control this debate is more dangerous than letting them take over health care or immigration. I believe this 100%, because this issue goes all the way back to the fundamental, historical purpose of the 1st Amendment–to protect the right of the people to engage in free political speech without the fear of government retaliation. If we let the left redefine what it means to speak freely, there’s nothing they won’t be able to do.

Part of Shapiro’s written statement to the committee can be read here.

You can tune in to the hearing here, and I highly suggest that you do so.

RT @lizthatch: Why do I have to buy my own tampons?!? #WarOnWomen

— Sister Toldjah (@sistertoldjah) March 5, 2012

I support a woman’s right to sex.
Good sex, bad sex, filthy sex, and all the sex in between.
I support your right to have sex with your husband, your boyfriend, or the rando you brought home from the bar that one weekend you were bored. I support your right to have sex in the bedroom, in the bathroom, or in a swing.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I really don’t care.

That’s not to say I endorse a life of filthy swing sex with randos; I’m just saying I support your right to make a lifestyle choice.

I also support the lifestyle choice to use birth control. (Before I hop on this bullet train to comment section Hell, I want to make one thing clear: I’m not Catholic. I was raised Baptist, and I have never been taught that birth control was morally objectionable. I don’t understand the Catholic viewpoint, couldn’t articulate it if you asked me to, and I won’t comment on it. Please don’t tell me I’m going to some version of slut Hell because I’m okay with the Pill.) I think birth control is a wonderful thing. Everyone should have the right to use it if they want to. It’s one penumbra whose emanations I support with an unholy fury. Don’t try and take away my birth control.

I can’t believe I’m actually writing about this, seeing as how the current debate over contraception was 100% manufactured by the progressive wing of the Democrat party. The debate isn’t even about contraception, really…it’s about using Alinsky tactics to manufacture an issue, create baseless outrage, and lampoon anyone who gets in the way of a radical agenda. Mostly, I’m writing this for my friends and colleagues close to home, who seem to have been sucked in to this ridiculous “Republicans are MURDERING WOMEN” mindset that is consistently parroted by the mostly vapid membership of organizations such as Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

I went on a rant today. Maybe it’s because we lost a colleague and friend this weekend, or maybe it’s because I’ve finally reached my breaking point, but this happened (via my Facebook, click for the whole story):

You guys really don’t get it.

It’s not about contraception, or tornadoes, or gay marriage. It’s about the fact that the progressive left has carte blanche to say whatever it pleases, while conservatives can’t so much as disagree without being accused of “hate” or “homophobia” or “sexism” or “racism,” or whatever else is most likely to make a headline.

In the onslaught of comments that followed, I was posed the following question:

My question is how do we counter this? Should our candidates point this out on shows like Meet the Press? Kind of like how Newt went at John King and asked him why the elite media didn’t ask Obama about supporting infanticide once but is all over the contraception nonsense.

The large-scale stuff is tough, especially right now. There’s no doubt that while the progs control the media, they also control the message–the sexy vocabulary that bunches panties and sends people like Rachel Maddow spinning into a dimension of delusional we don’t normally see outside of a College Democrats meeting. Like I’ve said before, issues like these are easier to tackle if you make them personal. And since the dopes on the left see fit to discuss on a national stage what may or may not happen inside my vagina on a daily basis, I’ve decided to make it personal.

As far as Sandra Fluke is concerned…Sandra, I don’t think you’re a slut, or that anyone should call you a slut–mostly because I don’t know if you’re a slut. If you are, in fact, a slut, you shouldn’t be. It’s dirty, and risky, and apparently expensive (though not nearly as expensive as you’d like us to think it is.) Listen to your fellow sister-barrister on this one.

For the conservatives…Sandra Fluke is nobody. She’s a flash-in-the-pan scam artist who will probably, at some point, be thrown under the bus in favor of a more popular narrative. Stop worrying about Sandra Fluke. As far as the rest of it is concerned, this is where we have to be careful with the axe-swinging. I’m not telling you to not swing your axe; I’m just telling you to make judicious use of the blade. The left is very, very good at crafting a narrative, especially when the narrative is on something as emotional and personal as reproductive autonomy. If we want to fight it, we have to be equally talented craftsmen.

The point? Don’t take the bait that’s dangled in front of your face. This whole narrative the left is working with right now is 100% garbage, and the only thing to do with garbage is to throw it out. Get rid of it. We do this by responding to the meat of the argument, not the inflammatory hyperbole these people sprinkle on top as bait.

They’re going to insult you.
They’re going to harass you.
They’re going to blaspheme the name of Jesus, and denigrate Christianity.
And most importantly…

…they’re going to make things up.

This is what they’re best at…regurgitating crap, throwing it against the wall, and making it stick. Ignore the crap. Shun the crap. Pretend the crap doesn’t exist, because while ranting on it might be cathartic, a rant probably won’t endure. The truth will endure. The truth is what’s important, because the truth contains the heart of the conservative message: that everyone, no matter who you are, has the right to be free.

So, how do we counter it? Here’s how I’d do it:

First of all, Griswold v. Connecticut is a thing. Acknowledge that it is a thing, and either move on from it, or address its finer points. Bleating about how you have no idea what a penumbra has to do with the Constitution will not help the cause. It’s been done.

Second, recognize that the left has created this issue to be about sex, which is something that people–whether they be old, young, rich, or poor–are having. All the time. It’s a part of life, and it’s not going away. The people the left is targeting with the sex message are, for the most part, young. They’re young, they’re having the sex, and they’re buying hook, line, and sinker any narrative that has anything to do with old white Christian ministers stealing away their right to have the sex. Sandra Fluke has made this all about a woman’s right to live her life, and that living includes sex. The narrative equates the right to have sex with the right to contraception, and it’s essential to break that connection.

Flog this: having sex is not the same as having protected sex. Having the right to have sex does not lead to a right to free contraception, in the same way that having the right to choose an abortion does not equate to a right to have an abortion. It does not lead to a right to have contraception covered by health insurance, and it certainly doesn’t lead to the need for mandated coverage.

Womanhood is a special state of existence, but these people are turning it into a separate state of existence. They claim to be working under the guise of autonomy and independence and “womynhood,” but what they’re really doing is turning womanhood into something that needs to be validated and subsidized by direct government intervention.

It’s insulting.

I resent having my womanhood–the very core of my existence–co-opted by these Alinskyite bastards. I resent seeing something private and beautiful stripped down and rebuilt with the trappings of leftist feminazi bullshit. You want to have sex? Go have sex. You want to have safe sex? Go pay the $9 Walmart co-pay for the pill. (Yes, some pills, not all.) But don’t you dare sit in front of a Congressional committee and claim that because your university/employer/personal plan doesn’t cover contraception, your rights as a woman are somehow being violated.

It’s time to refuse to let these people have it both ways. Either sex and contraception is something personal and private, or it is synonymous with society and government intervention. Either no one has a right to say what you do with your uterus or your vagina or your whatever, or we choose to allow “national discourse” to dictate our actions. Emphasize this choice. It’s all or nothing. Either we’re allowed to live our lives as we see fit, or we surrender to complete institutional control at the hands of a devolving “national conversation.”

As for me, I’m an honest woman. I don’t need the government or my godforsaken law school to validate my choices.

I don’t want them to; that’s the essence of freedom.

Also at The College Conservative

…and there was much (UNANIMOUS!) rejoicing:

Justices say GPS tracker violated privacy rights:

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that the police violated the Constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System tracking device on a suspect’s car and monitored its movements for 28 days.

But the justices divided 5-to-4 on the rationale for the decision, with the majority saying that the problem was the placement of the device on private property.  That ruling avoided many difficult questions, including how to treat information gathered from devices installed by the manufacturer and how to treat information held by third parties like cellphone companies.

Long story short, the government got a warrant to put a GPS tracker on Antoine Jones’ car, within the District of Columbia, within 10 days of the issuance of the warrant. The government, however, slapped the tracker on the car on day 11 (eyeroll), while the car was in Maryland (DUH); Jones eventually got charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute seriously irresponsible amounts of cocaine, in violation of federal law. Jones ended up getting life in prison, but through the spin and twirl of the appellate process, ended up with his case before the Supreme Court–United States v. Jones.

The result?  Short version: Yes, sticking a tracking device on a piece of private property is a search. /whacks police on nose with newspaper

The majority’s opinion (the court was unanimous as to the result, but split on the reasoning) fell into line with the earlier, “protected places” approach to resolving 4th Amendment controversies, instead of the more modern “reasonable expectation of privacy” doctrine that was introduced in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Huh?

Before Katz, the Supreme Court saw the 4th Amendment as protecting certain places–namely, private property owned by the person being searched. Their decisions didn’t touch on “privacy”; the approach was based on the idea that the right to be “secure in [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects” attaches to a property interest, a violation of which is analogous to common law trespass. In 1967, the Court decided Katz, which gives us this idea that the 4th Amendment applies to any government search or seizure that interferes with a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” even if there was no interference with that person’s property. The Court famously stated, “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”

In the opinion, Justice Scalia brought the Court back to its common law roots:

It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted. Entick v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C. P. 1765), is a “case we have described as a ‘monument of English freedom’ ‘undoubtedly familiar’ to ‘every American statesman’ at the time the Constitution was adopted, and considered to be ‘the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law’” with regard to search and seizure.  Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593, 596 (1989) (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 626 (1886)).  In that case, Lord Camden expressed in plain terms the significance of property rights in search-and-seizure analysis:

“[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred,
that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close
without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though
he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his
neighbour’s ground, he must justify it by law.” Entick,
supra, at 817.

The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to “the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures”; the phrase “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” would have been superfluous.

Bravo, sir.

Notice what Scalia did–he went back to a British case* that was leading precedent at the time of the drafting and adoption of the constitution, and used an original intent argument as a basis for his opinion.

I love this decision. I love that the Court went back to its archaic and unsexy roots.  I appreciate their willingness to not travel down the “reasonable expectation” path when they didn’t need to. Staying true to form, I agree with Justice Scalia completely.  The outrage and the controversy lies in the fact that the Government went outside their warrant, trespassed on this man’s private property, tracked his movements, and then had the audacity to argue that this wasn’t a search.

Trespassed.
On.
Private.
Property.

The majority rightfully accuses the concurrence with attempting to make Katz the exclusive test for situations like these; after all, Katz is important, but do we really need to go down that road? It’s such a simple concept-trespass. A violation of a right I fear the legal system has brushed aside in favor of sexier concepts like privacy. What happened to Jones was classic trespassory search–more than enough to cook the cops in their own stew given the application of a little classical jurisprudence. It doesn’t hold that because physical intrusion isn’t necessary to classify the intrusion as a search, we should abandon those more formal (and dare I say, sacred) protections provided to private property.

For me, at least, the common law protecting private property is the root of all privacy law. Why can’t the government traipse onto my yard and into my house?  Because it’s mine.  It’s my home.  It’s my space.  Not yours, Government.  Why can’t the government intrude upon my privacy?  Same logic, different bubble.  There are definite privacy concerns when it comes to GPS monitoring, but there’s no reason to skip over the fundamental violation–in this case, trespassing on a private car–when that fundamental violation is staring you directly in the face.

You can read the opinion here.

Photo credit to ICanHasCheezburger.com.
Originally posted at Beyond Clause 8.

School defends ‘Occupy’ song for 8-year-olds

A Virginia school district is defending a song allegedly written and performed by a group of third graders about the Occupy Wall Street movement that conservative bloggers are calling a form of indoctrination.
The song, “Part of the 99,” was performed by children at Woodbrook Elementary School in Albemarle County, Virginia.
A spokesman for the school system said as far as they were concerned there isn’t a controversy and called criticism of the program unfortunate.
“We really don’t censor the topics that students come up with,” school spokesman Phil Giaramita told Fox News & Commentary. “This is the first time we’ve had the lyrics of one of these songs criticized.”

In case you just nodded along with the BS that just spewed from Phil Giarmita’s maw, here are the lyrics that sprang from the mouths of babes:

“Part of the 99″

Some people have it all
But they still don’t think they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes — they’re the 1 percent

I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
Lost my pride
Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99

Some people have it all
But they still don’t think they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes — they’re the 1 percent

I used to be sad, now I’m satisfied
’Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
’Cause I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
Don’t need it all
I’m so happy to be part of the 99

That sounds like something I would have written when I was 8. Because every 8-year-old normally writes about their “yachts” and their “rides” and the ravages of unemployment. Normal 8-year-olds also use words like “content” and “satisfied”, instead of simply saying that they’re happy.

I call bullshit. Very, very obvious bullshit.

We have an organization called Kid Pan Alley to thank for this. (Don’t click the link unless you’re prepared to be subjected to Suzy Bogguss.) I went through the site, and encountered a lot of touchy-feelitude about community and diversity and embracing self-awareness. Here’s their mission statement:

Kid Pan Alley uses the group songwriting process to inspire and empower children to become creators of their own music, not just consumers of popular culture. Kid Pan Alley’s songwriting residencies and character development assemblies give children the opportunity to express their creativity and learn how thinking creatively can lead to future success, and:

Promote self-awareness and self-confidence by attaching value to the students’ creative impulses;

Help children experience creative expression as a means of embracing diversity, teamwork, and collaboration by supporting creativity as a prime skill to all critical thinking and problem-solving;

Help children learn and increase their ability to learn. Kid Pan Alley addresses national learning standards in the areas of creativity, music, English, performance, and connects to other areas of learning including History, Civics, Science, and Health. We think this is one of the most important outcomes of our program.

Promote community awareness of the arts as essential elements of instruction in the lives of children; foster collaboration between students, teachers, administrators, artists, and the community through working together in a creative process.

Teach respect for intellectual property. Children who have written their own songs have a first-hand understanding of the negative effects of “pirating” on creators and their communities;

Raise funds for more arts enrichment programs through sales of professional CDs of Kid Pan Alley songs.

Okay, fine. Go be creative; I’m creative too. I’ve been a musician since I could pick up a trumpet, and it did me good. “The arts” are great, but “the arts” under the influence of a “facilitator” (that’s what the program leaders call themselves) has the potential to go off the rails, as is evidenced by what happened in Albemarle County.

The site itself says that the “facilitators” (HERR FACILITATOR!) give the kids as much creative license as possible when it comes to writing these songs; the kids can write about anything, from school, to family, to “social issues or events in the world around them.” In Todd Starne’s article over at Fox, he mentions that the songs produced through this program aren’t allowed to promote a personal or political agenda. Kid Pan Alley’s reaction to the uproar surrounding the song in question?

“This was written four months ago,” he said. “And I think this particular issue of the Occupy movement was being looked at in a different way than it is today.”

Wrong. If you’re going to put the skids to ideas that involve personal issues or politics, you have to put the skids to all ideas that involve personal issues or politics. The Occupy movement was a political movement long before all the raping, murdering, rampant drug use, public defecation, and shameless violence got bad enough to annoy Tony Villaraigosa. This song should never have happened, and Kid Pan Alley, as well as the Albemarle County schools, should be held responsible.

I’m all for creative expression; a year ago, I participated in a clinic where I instructed young journalists about their free speech rights in school. I am vehemently anti-censorship in schools, but I put that vehemence on the shelf when it comes to school-endorsed activity–especially when the school (or its agent) uses the students as a conduit for a particular sociopolitical message.

This was inappropriate, but what’s even more inappropriate is the complete lack of accountability on the part of either the school or Kid Pan Alley. In today’s education system, it’s unreasonable for parents to expect judgment on the part of teachers and administrators, and it’s even more unreasonable for those same parents to expect their children to exit the public K-12 system unscathed by liberal propaganda. I’d like to see what would happen if a student wanted to write a song about a bootstrappy small businessman whose life goal was to stitch American flags and teach people about liberty; I’ll bet it would be classified as “hate speech,” and the student suspended for marginalizing Mexicans. Or something. Whatever–you get my point.

As far as Albemarle County is concerned, the damage has already been done; but for all you parents out there, consider this yet another example of the corruption, indoctrination, and plain old dishonesty inherent in the government school system.

(h/t Todd Starnes,by way of Weasel Zippers)

To be honest, it’s really not that big of a deal. The view is very nice from where I sit–lots of powerful men in suits.

I went into undergrad thinking that I was going to be an engineer; that dream was squashed by the realization that I have a personality. Maybe it was my personality that got me in trouble with the professors–the world may never know. What I do know is that I was the victim (/clutches pearls) of misogyny and sex discrimination for the first time at the tender age of 18. I’m not saying it wasn’t understandable; it’s got to be weird for these lifetime engineers to all of a sudden be dealing with an increased concentration of female brain power. But what wasn’t understandable was for me to be sent out of a professor’s office not because our conference was over, but because there was a male student waiting. What wasn’t understandable was being blatantly–we’re talking, the “make eyecontact and pointedly look away” type of blatantly–ignored in class while the male students were favored. The assignments turned in by female students were graded more harshly, and the grades of female students trended lower than those of male students.

It sucked. I dealt with it because I thought I wanted to be an engineer. Nobody ever died of chauvenism, right?

In law school, I discovered a different brand of misogyny. It’s quieter. Over the past two and a half years, I’ve come to the conclusion that I have to modify my personality both in the courtroom and the negotiation table; the first advice I was given when I was selected for membership on the moot court board was, “don’t come across as a bitch.” At an interview, I would never be caught dead in pants, much less shoes without at least a two inch heel–and that’s pushing the envelope. Wear a skirt, but not too short. But not too long. Wear heels–height matters. Be assertive, but not too aggressive–you might come across as a rabid feminist. That’s okay behavior for your worthless (yes, worthless) “Gender in the Law” class, but not for a true professional setting.

Also sucky? I guess it depends on how you look at it. I don’t particularly mind playing the part. When it comes to percentage of female partners, comparative income between male and female associates, and other statistics like that, though, things look bleak. Having to stack my resume has been exhausting. And yes, it is annoying to know that I will potentially make 73% (or whatever the latest statistic is) of what my male colleague makes; but all of that pales in comparison to what happens to women in the other three corners of the globe:

For Saudi women, progress comes slowly, and not at all surely

Women in Saudi Arabia won a small but promising victory this year. No, they aren’t being allowed to drive; that’s still forbidden. Most of the time, they still can’t work, travel or even open bank accounts without the approval of a male guardian. But they do have this: Saudi women can now buy lingerie in stores from female salesclerks, instead of the sometimes leering men who used to staff the counters. If this modest wave of liberalization continues, they may even get fitting rooms.

It doesn’t sound like much, but in the glacial process of modernization in the tradition-bound kingdom, it’s an important step. “This is the beginning of a real social change,” Eman Nafjian, one of the new generation of Saudi women’s activists, told me over coffee in Riyadh, the capital, last week. “It will allow more women to work in shopping malls. And that’s a step toward more opportunities for women’s employment in general.”

…and then I thought about how many stupid times a day women in America bitch and moan and complain about “equal rights.”

That’s not to say that income disparity between men and women is right, or that men should be able to discriminate against the women they work with. I’m not saying that at all, so read the rest of this post before you scroll down to the comments and start making asinine accusations. What I’m saying is that America at large should be appalled at the attitude regarding gender disparity in the west, because it is nothing–nothing–compared to what women in Saudi Arabia are put through on a daily basis.

At least in America, women have certain rights. We have the right to choose to use birth control. We have the right to choose an abortion. We are a suspect class. When these rights are unconstitutionally violated, I fully support a woman’s right to protest that violation–even when it comes to contentious issues like abortion. (If you want to get rid of a thing, you have to get rid of it within the confines of the law.) It’s wrong for an employer to pay a woman less than he would pay a man. It’s wrong for someone to treat people differently based on gender. It’s wrong for a man to feel justified in slapping me on the ass when we’re on our way into the courtroom.

But it’s also wrong for women in this country to act like lives are lost on a daily basis due to the sexism of our patriarchal overlords. There is a great difference between legitimate sex discrimination, and legitimate idiocy. There is a difference between sexual harassment, and men behaving like boys. There is a difference between traditional gender roles and gender repression. If you have to look for the injustice, it probably isn’t there–and that’s what I’m seeing in today’s society. Women–and some men, for God only knows what reason–looking for injustice. Looking for unfair treatment. Looking for a reason to point the finger and cry foul.

Looking for a reason to play the victim.

Women in Saudi Arabia don’t have to look for a reason to play the victim; they don’t have to sift through the evidence to find injustice–it’s all around. They wear it over their faces; it comes with them when they want to venture out into public. It is ingrained into their collective psyche. That ingrained, inherent injustice gives me perspective. The next time I cuss (not under my breath) about how uncomfortable my Spanx are, or how annoying it is to have to flirt without flirting just to insert myself into a conversation at a professional event (most of which feel like very a very vanilla version of Henry VIII’s court), I’m going to keep those women in mind. I’ll keep them in mind the next time I’m tempted to not force myself to go to an event on “raising awareness” about “women’s issues”; “raising awareness” is fine, but the women of Saudi Arabia who have decided to fight repression have inspired me to not only attend those events, but to stand up and ask these feminists what “raising awareness” really means. We all know about gender inequality–anyone who denies its existence either lives under a rock, or in a state of complete pigheaded denial–so what good does “raising awareness” do when we already know all about the thing we’re supposedly being made aware of?

It’s pointless, really.

American women–especially highly educated American women–who sit around with the goals of “raising awareness” and “exacting change” should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. How ridiculous we must look to the women of Saudi Arabia, whose only method of “raising awareness” is to do something brave, something that could end in arrest or public humiliation. Our enthusiasm for and embrace of the power of mental masturbation not only wastes time, it cheapens the movement. Protesting a simple request to not whip out a breast in public is not brave. Protesting a minor’s inability to pump unnatural levels of hormones into her system unsupervised is not brave. Staging estrogen-infused freakouts over nonissues is not brave–it is shallow, attention-seeking blog fodder.

Women in America fight over these issues because they are women. Womanhood is a very big deal to these people; you’d think having a vagina and a pair of breasts was something inherently special and rare. We fight because we are women, we argue because we are women, we go to work on “the issues” because we are women. Women women women. WOMEN. Sacred feminine. We are strong, we are equal, and we need special rules!

O.o

I’d like to challenge the women of America to take a look at the women of Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, or Afghanistan, and do something truly brave. If you’re going to fight injustice and expose inequality, don’t do it because you’re a woman. Do it because you’re a person. Do it because the woman behind the veil is a person. Do it because the junior associate working late again is a person. Do it believing that personhood for all is more important than an overarching liberal agenda, or don’t do it at all.

Originally posted at THATAmyMiller.com: crawl inside the mind of the last conservative law student

I am, above most things, an academic. I love almost everything about what I’ve spent every day of the last eight years doing; since entering law school, my appreciation for philosophy and the rule of law has only deepened, in spite of all the late nights, liberal professors, and Red Bull-induced freakouts that occasionally end with me sleeping standing up in an elevator. (Happened. Two nights ago. Wouldn’t lie.)

Along with that appreciation has come a deep respect for, and a tireless defense of, law as a profession. The lawyer jokes are funny until they’re not jokes anymore; it’s incredibly easy to joke about the ethics, business practices, and overall brainpower of lawyers because (get ready for a dramatic declaration) lawyers are just about the easiest targets out there. Why? Because you don’t get it. I should say, you don’t get all of it; what people see when they’re exposed to law and the courts is a tiny, tiny, miniscule–nay, wee–fraction of what actually happens when a controversy becomes a case and is heard before a judge. You’ve not seen the work ad infinitum that goes in to researching and presenting a case.

I believe this is why so many people applauded Newt’s comments on reforming the judiciary during Thursday night’s debate, and why my head is now pounding through a perpetual caffeine overdose.

There I was, fresh out of my income tax final and looking for something to kill. (Only not. But…kind of. It was hard.) I parked myself in the library and settled in for a solid fifteen minutes of procrastination before snuggling up with my crim pro text and a man by the name of Miranda. I started flipping through my timeline and came across a clip of Newt Gingrich pontificating on what he believes is an overstepping in perpetuity of the judiciary. Check out the clip, then read on.

Done?

This is pandering in its worst form, especially his comment at the end about law schools fostering in their students a belief that they can dictate the law and lord it over the rest of the American people. I won’t call him a liar on this one (it depends entirely on the professor and the student), but I will call a spade a spade with regards to his debate strategy.

This segment sent me into a slow burn, and here’s why: if we start holding courts accountable to Congress for decisions in controversial cases, who, then, are we giving final authority over those controversial decisions? Congress? The same Congress who passed eighty five million pages of garbage and called it “recovery”? The same Congress who danced around a budget for hundreds of days? The same Congress who confirmed Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Marshall, Harlan, White, and Souter to the Court? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

We have Congress for a reason. We have courts for a reason. Some courts are more reliable than others; the 9th Circuit, for example, is notorious for being overturned on cert. Even assuming, arguendo, that Congressional oversight would fix all of our problems, would it be worth it? I think that it would not. In his response, Newt makes much of Dred Scott, Elk Grove (via the 9th Circuit) and other cases that, for one reason or another, are not looked upon with particularly high favor. Those are the bad cases, the cases that make you cringe–whether it be from the effect on the people, or from the reasoning that went into the holding. The thing about cases like Dred Scott, though, is that they were overturned. The Court looked at what happened, and went in a different direction. This is how it’s supposed to work.

Imagine for a moment a world in which appointed judges were required to bow and scrape before elected politicians every time a “controversial” (whatever the hell that means) decision came down. Can you imagine having to sit before the next Rick Santorum and explain why you ruled consistently with relevant provisions of Casey v. Planned Parenthood? Or Griswold? I’d rather clean a toilet with my own toothbrush than subject myself to the penumbras that would surely emanate from that “hearing.” Not to mention the effect the prospect of a hearing would have on the deliberation process; especially at the appellate level, judges and clerks should not have to worry any more than they already do about who their decision might send into a pearl-clutching fit of the vapors.

It’s true: the courts do overstep. Judges legislate from the bench, that that makes for results that are beyond frustrating. However, our system of checks and balances makes it possible to fix what even the courts manage to screw up; the legislature has the power to write and rewrite legislation, and the executive has the power to check the overchecking of the legislature via veto. To rip the power of interpretation away from the courts and settle it into the laps of career politicians would be beyond reckless.

I’m almost a lawyer; when I finally get to where I’m going, it will be my job to read the law, interpret it (which includes a historical analysis, so I guess we’re all historians now, aren’t we Mr. Gingrich?), and apply its principles to the hand I’m dealt.

It will not be my job to “read the American people,” and it will most certainly not be my job to pervert the law to fit the standards of a man whose job it is to put votes before principle, and acceptance in the soundbite culture before the rule of law.

Originally published over at The College Conservative

Even so, I’d be willing to say that anyone who has ever come out in defense of true religious freedom in the face of the rampant secularization has experienced at least substantial pushback (if not worse) against their religious beliefs. Don’t believe me? Next time you’re hanging out in a group outnumbered 5:1 by people who identify as L, G, B, T, or Q, try simply explaining why the church takes a strong stance against gay marriage. Or, try simply explaining to anyone under the age of 35 why Christians fight federal funding for abortion.

Try it. Dare ya.

Already, we’re looking at a country that from a cultural standpoint, at its best begrudgingly allows religion to exist under a steeple (but heaven–IF IT EXISTS!!??!!–forbid it show its face outside the doors of a church) and at its worst, would go so far as to fight night and day to destroy the ministerial exception and extend the hand of government into the inner dealings of the church. That’s the reason why I about screamed when a friend shot me this article:

Will the Senate Quietly Kill the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom?

USCIRF was created in 1998 under the International Religious Freedom Act, an initiative of Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.). It was overwhelmingly adopted by both chambers and signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton. Its mandate was born of the concern that, when it comes to religion issues in foreign affairs, the foreign-policy establishment, the media, and secular human-rights groups have been inattentive at best. In contrast to the State Department’s own religious freedom office, USCIRF is an independent agency. It names the world’s worst religious persecutors and makes non-binding foreign-policy recommendations to the government. Its inter-faith group of nine commissioners…are appointed on a bipartisan basis.

The whole production has a budget of $4 million, and it’s done a lot with that money, from raising awareness regarding the conflict in Sudan to maintaining focus on religious persecution in places like China, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. Read the rest of Nina’s post–she gives a really good explanation of why the CIRF is unique amongst its government-sponsored counterparts.

Here’s the thing: I never would have known about this had a friend not brought it to my attention. I’m normally not focused on international social issues; not that I don’t think it’s important, it’s just not really my schtick anymore. But. I think this is important. I posted the article to Facebook earlier, and someone immediately snarked back at me, claiming that this is exactly what the UN does.

Well, no, genius, this is not what the UN does. The CIRF is an independent agency, and as far as I know, doesn’t allow on its board representatives from member-entities that celebrate the degradation of women, or religious persecution, or things like that. Ahem. The CIRF isn’t beholden to the State Department, is not bound by party politics, and does not exist under the thumb of “productive diplomacy.” It doesn’t care if you like it; in fact, other countries around the globe are looking to it as a model for similar organizations.

Someone in the Corner’s comments snarked that This Is Not The Business Of The Government And Also Taxpayer Dollars And Blah Blah Blah Something Something Wah; even though the nature of the comment was trollish and whiny, it got me wondering: from a practical standpoint, is it the business of the government to sponsor a group like this? I immediately answered myself, “yes.” Absolutely. Groups like these are important because they are, by their very nature, independent from the trappings associated with “official business.” CIRF has done amazing things with a budget less than that of many far less-effective domestic activist groups.

The nagging Conservative Academic voice inside of me can’t help but posit that if this were some sort of international women’s rights research group, or a think tank that devoted its time to fighting racial/gender/sexual discrimination abroad, we’d have heard about CIRF’s defunding on the national news. It would be a complete scandal, because the media, as well as liberal activist groups, have always managed to make religious freedom less “human” than other “human” rights focuses.

You know, like the right to rip a living human child out of your body, or the right to have sex with whoever you want. So much more “human” than choosing to worship a loving God.

Religious freedom is the most fundamental human right we’ve ever come close to scrapping in favor of political correctness. But for those of you who still don’t get it, take “religious” out of the equation, and focus on the “freedom” part instead:

CIRF researches and raises red flags, free from government interference, on regimes who murder your fellow human beings simply because they choose to pray. Or not wear a head scarf. Or read a Bible. Or hold a belief in contravention with that of the accepted state doctrine. What could be more anti-human than what the CIRF seeks to expose?

If you’re okay with federally-funded anti-bullying campaigns, or federally-funded breast cancer research, or federally-funded health care, or federally funded domestic violence prevention, you should be more than okay with federal funds helping to eliminate the systematic murder of innocent people whose only crime was to love a God not manifested in sociopolitical propaganda.

CIVIL LIBERTARIANS, RISE! EXCELSIOR! But seriously:

Several lawmakers and the current Cyber Command chief Gen. Keith Alexander are toying with the notion of creating a “.secure” domain where Fourth Amendment rights to privacy are voluntarily foregone in order to keep that corner of the Internet free of cyber criminals.

I can’t decide whether to flail, or nod and walk away from this one. The basic idea is that we could create a “dot-secure” safe zone, where financial institutions, the military, the government, etc. could operate under heavier security measures than are feasible in today’s online world.

But, Amy…what about My Rights©?! Will they be taken away in this new “secure” online world?

In a word, yes. In today’s intertubes, you enjoy all sorts of Constitutional rights; with this new system (so sayeth the aforementioned linked article), you wouldn’t have those same rights–you’d have to waive them before you were allowed to access anything.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, INTERNETS CHECK YOU!

Calm down. Yes, it seems extreme. It is extreme. Extreme like a security checkpoint at a military base, or a background check before gaining access to the White House.

But..but…hmm.

Hmmm indeed. I took a quick look at a more detailed post on this issue, and what I read there gave me more pause than the short blurb from Fox:

Unlike .com, .xxx and other new domains now proliferating the Internet, .secure would require visitors to use certified credentials for entry and would do away with users’ Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Network operators in the financial sector, for example, would be authorized to scan account holders’ traffic content for signs of trouble. The current Internet setup would remain intact for people who prefer to stay anonymous on the Web. [My emphasis added]

Who exactly will be able to scan my Googlings for “signs of trouble”? Hmm? I did my own quick scan of my searches from the past few days, and found quite a few “signs of trouble”

Hamas
Code Pink
Sarah Palin campaign
“social media + terrorism”
“funding terrorism with twitter”
border violence
Hezbollah in Mexico
union violence
“Dodd Frank makes trading gold illegal

Looks like a conservative political blogger, right? Or, is it a vicious right winger bent on smuggling gold to Hezbollah to fund their support of the unions? HMMMM????

I don’t hate the idea of giving financial institutions and the military a more secure, more widely accessible series of tubes. I really don’t, if it means that the likes of Julian Assange, or the sleazebags over at Anonymous, will have a hell of a time publishing private information for all the world to see. My concern lies in the ability of “network operators” to hop into my traffic logs and see what I’ve been up to.

This is personal for me; I’ve been creeped by government officials. I’ve been hacked. I’ve been threatened, and I’ve been viciously cyberstalked because of what my “internet profile” says about me, my life, and my beliefs. I don’t like the idea of opening this door, whether it be to DHS, or my bank’s resident nerd.

If they have to say yes, that means they can say no.

Maintaining privacy online is essential to maintaining freedom of thought and expression. If we do end up with a “.secure” world, I hope the legislators will be very, very careful how they build it (snort). Scrubbing Constitutional rights in favor of heightened security might be expected and accepted when it comes to military security, but I tend to tread lightly on my right to privacy in the civilian sphere. I’ve already surrendered my existence to Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Google+ (I have invites!), but that was by choice. I would be very, very hesitant to give my moderately respected stamp of approval to a law that would require me to check my privacy rights at the door in order access my financial information.

Why? Because it’s mine. If the only way I can access my own personal information is by allowing some creep with a keyboard to check how many times I’ve visited Michele Bachmann’s campaign website (once, thanks), I say that’s going way, way too far.

Originally posted at Beyond Clause 8

Internet commentary exists on a continuum, ranging anywhere from “Certifiable Insanity” to “Surprising Veracity.” Much of it exists somewhere in the middle; it’s not entirely fact-based, but the opinions are solid enough to keep things on the side of legitimacy.

Thus is the nature of political blogging. It’s a jungle out there–especially now. We’re warming up for primary season, and if you’re not already politically-aware, just let me warn you: it’s going to be one for the books. Will we see 4 more years of Hope and Change ©? Will a former CEO and talk radio host get the GOP nod? Will Chris Matthews confide another leg-tingling moment? Only time will tell. One thing is for sure, however–the bloggers are out in force, and we’re not talking about a slapfight. We’re beyond slapfights. This is…Fight Club. For nerds. Nerds fueled by caffeine and the 24 hour news cycle.

Beware.

At any rate, apparently, the snark and hostility has become a bit much for the Obama administration:

The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.

snip

The post is a new one for this White House. Rapid response has been the purview of the Democratic National Committee (and will continue to be). Lee’s hire, however, suggests that a portion of it will now be handled from within the administration. It also signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive engagement in the online world in the months ahead.

Smart. Beyond smart, actually. Brilliant. If I weren’t a Grand Ol’ Partier, I’d take it out to dinner and kiss it goodnight; but, since I am a Grand Ol’ Partier, I’m going to tell you that the idea of having a new, taxpayer-funded Senior Fellow of Creeping the Internet makes my skin crawl. It makes my skin crawl because the whole point of this guy’s job is to troll the internet and squash the opposition. Officially.

Bleh.

The era of social media is apparently the era of the official propaganda machine. What does this mean? It means it’s time for us to start working harder, working faster, and working stronger. It’s time to keep it tight; keep that good information flowing.

Remember–someone, in his official capacity, is looking for a reason to discredit you and your work. Don’t give him an excuse to do just that.

Navy uses massive multiplayer online game to develop anti-pirate strategy

To fight piracy off the coast of Africa, the U.S. Navy has deployed advanced warships, robotic drones and even elite special forces. The Navy has now added a new weapon to that fight: a “World of Warcraft”-like multiplayer game called MMOWGLI. The game brings experts from around the government into a virtual environment where they can work together in developing strategies to thwart modern-day buccaneers.

MMOWGLI, an acronym contracted from ” Massive Multiplayer Online Wargame Leveraging the Internet,” has undergone years of development within the Office of Naval Research (ONR). ONR scientists hope to expand the program beyond piracy, and use it to solve some of the world’s most intractable military problems.

Sweet. Life. Not only can our military singlehandedly dominate every other fighting force on the face of the planet, now they can kick our butts in World of Warcraft. USA! USA! USA!

But seriously, folks. This really has nothing to do with the law; I just think it’s incredibly cool to see how new and developing tech, created solely for our entertainment, is now being used by the military to keep our troops safe. Just think: WoW (and other games like it) has gone from this:

to this:

It’s not just online gaming that’s getting special treatment, either. Remember when Twitter was something only awkward keyboard monkeys knew about? Now, politicians run national campaigns with the help of social media platforms. Remember when it was so obvious that all bloggers lived in their mother’s basement? Now, there are bloggers reporting and giving commentary on a national level.

For me, at least, this stunning new use of entertainment technology is just further proof that our lives (and livelihoods) are becoming further entwined with the development and use of technology. For some, this means having a Facebook widget on the latest smartphone. For others, this means using what was once an online video game to take out a lethal band of pirates—and come out alive.

Not bad, nerds. Not bad at all.

Originally posted at Beyond Clause 8

You know, the line that ABC has crossed by considering airing the pilot of a show called “Good Christian Bitches”:

The dramedy, based on Kim Gatlin’s novel of the same name, will be brought to life by famed “Sex and the City” and “90210” executive producer Darren Star. The plot centers on the life of reformed “mean girl” Amanda, played by “Talladega Nights” actress Leslie Bibb, who returns to her hometown of Dallas to find herself fodder for malicious gossip from the women in the Christian community.

Okay, okay, unswallow your tongue.

Listen. To be completely honest, I giggled when I first read that news story; not because I find it in any way charming or appropriate, but because I’ve totally been there. I have been the girl all the other “church girls” gossiped about behind beringed fingers after an unavoidable Baptist pot luck. I have been the victim of a collective glare from the deacon’s wives after asking a sex question during a Sunday school lesson, so the idea of the “church ladies” getting their straight-from-the-Walmart-5-pack beflowered granny panties in a wad over some obscure TV show really didn’t phase me at all.

At least not until I actually started thinking about what’s actually going on here. First of all, this is a complete load of crap:

“ABC’s core viewership is Christian, so the goal of the show won’t be to attack Christianity. Just like the book, this is a show by Christians, for (mostly) Christians, to enjoy a little prime-time self-deprecation,” Los Angeles-based entertainment expert, Jenn Hoffman said.

Jenn, we need to talk about women for a second. Let’s start with the fact that every woman currently existing on this planet has snarked about another woman, whether it be at church, in the sorority bum room, or while lunching over a pot of ridiculously overpriced fondue. We like shows like “Sex and the City,” and “Gossip Girl” and other innocent exercises in feminine self-deprecation, but only because those shows use TV fantasy world magic to make it okay to talk trash about other women. In Carrie Bradshaw’s world, a woman doesn’t care at the end of the day what some awful old Oscar de la Renta’d-up hag said about her shoes, because the whole point of that show is that the heroine is strong and beautiful and perfectly capable of giving the whole world the finger if that’s what it takes to feel good about herself.

That’s not the point of “Good Christian Bitches.” The Good Christian Bitches (I’m thinking of making a t-shirt for this) are not the lovable, snarky women we can identify with and empathize with–no, that’s the place of “reformed ‘mean girl’” Amanda. She’s the character who people will want to laugh along with and get behind; her enemies are just…bitches. And nobody likes an everyday, vanilla beyotch. They’re boring. They’re ugly. They spend their time baking pineapple upside-down cakes and having uninspiring sex with equally boring and ugly men.

The point? A show that on its face calls a woman a bitch, without giving her any redeeming qualities, isn’t something anyone is going to want to get behind–much less a Christian woman and her family. Furthermore, Christianity is under full-blown attack; any show that comes out and calls Christian women bitches is not going to gain the favor of Christians. This show isn’t about self-deprecation, or poking gentle fun at intra-church dynamics, or anything else entertainment experts will come up with to justify this garbage. The point of this show is to make Christian women look like judgmental jerks, and “reformed ‘mean girls’” (who are oh-so sexy and oh-so fun and oh-so alluring) look like kicked (sex) kittens.

Rawr.

The pilot for “Good Christian Bitches” hasn’t yet earned a spot in the new ABC lineup. If it does, I’ll watch it, and if I’m wrong about it I’ll take back every word I just said; but considering this is coming from a culture that has vetted shows like “S#*t My Dad Says” and “Don’t Trust the Bitch in Apartment 23,” (again with the bitches…oy) I don’t think I will be.

But then again, maybe I’m just one of those humorless Christian bitches who can’t take a joke.

I have such an attitude problem today.

Sitting in an airport at 6:13 in the morning with no wi-fi (it’s not working for some reason…default to MS Word) and a lingering hangover is just not my idea of a good time. Ever. I actually considered laying on the floor in a corner by the gate, until I saw what was laying on the floor in other corners by other gates, and decided I didn’t want to be a part of it; hence the bloody mary and overpriced pancakes.

I’ve upgraded from “living hell” to “numbness and purgatory”…but there’s bacon, so for the moment I can’t complain.

(Update: the hipster in the next booth just ordered a bloody. The waitress is judging us.)

Anyway, my attitude problem started well before my realization that napping on the floor in the airport could result in AIDS and/or some sort of flesh-eating skin rot (which I would Google and find the proper name for IF THE INTERNET WAS WORKING.) My attitude problem started when I got off the stupid airport shuttle at 5:35 in the morning after no sleep, dealt with the ticketing agent’s crap, finally made it up to the security checkpoint, only to hear this…this woman…approach a TSA agent and ask if “the brown gentlemen” back a ways in line would be subjected to additional scrutiny.

(Update: brown people in the restaurant. My God, you’d think they’d screen these people.)

First of all, whitebread old ladies waddling around with Vera Bradley luggage do not get to call anyone a “brown gentleman.” Second, who says something like that out loud to a stranger? (Who, may I add, was also a “brown person,” and who looked like she was about three seconds away from locking this witch in the glass terrorist box and throwing away the key.) Third…

HOW ARE YOU THAT RACIST? These guys weren’t doing anything remotely suspicious. One of them was pounding his cup of coffee, and the other was questioning the existence of God over an advanced level of Angry Birds.

(Update: the brown people ordered coffee. Brown coffee. I’m not trying to say anything, but……conspiracy. A brown one.)

It was 5:45 in the morning. We all hated each other. I personally wanted to stab every TSA agent in the face with a hand-whittled shiv (Detroit has their own brand of agent…I swear they train them to be ten times more obnoxious than necessary.) But there in that line, in that moment, we banded together—Democrat and Republican. American and foreigner. Farmer’s daughter and hipster youth—under a common message:

“A…a what? She did not just say ‘brown gentlemen.’ No. My…my head is numb. Did she just ask if the brown people would get checked more thoroughly because obviously brown people are more susceptible to the allures of lipstick daggers and experimental incendiary devices? MY HEAD IS ACTUALLY NUMB FROM YOUR IGNORANCE. If I were not afraid of being tasered by a TSA flunkie, I would put my shoes, coat, laptop (separate from its bag, dammit,) bag, and ridiculous baggie of soaps and things into their respective plastic bins and beat you into a pulp right here in the line; and I don’t think that backscatter technology works on bloody pulp, so you’ll be missing your flight, you horrible old hag.”

More than one person said something, both to her, and passive aggressively into the atmosphere. I just hope the brown gentlemen in the back of the line missed what had happened.

(Update: the hipster is playing Angry Birds. We are soulmates, still being judged by everyone.)
(Updated update: the hipster left, and was replaced by a woman who has been reading over my shoulder for the past 5 minutes, and who I am fairly sure thinks that I should have been selected for additional screening. HELLO WOMAN READING OVER MY SHOULDER!!!)

Today, we were all brown people, chugging coffee and cursing the angry birds. The whole experience reminded me of something that I’ve been harping on for almost a year, and that I had apparently forgotten: at the end of the day, we’re all humans together. Jerks are jerks, racist idiots are racist idiots, and in situations like these, it doesn’t matter who’s conservative or who’s liberal, or who voted for whom; the only difference I could see was the difference between the idiot, and those of us who were willing to stand up to the idiot, just to protect two complete strangers from a level of censure they had done nothing to deserve.

And that, I think, is a big, big difference.

We should be more inclined to remember it.

Originally Posted at Pundit League

Confession time: I’m still looking for that special someone. That’s right, gentlemen…Amy Miller is officially on the market.

Politically, that is.

There’s been a lot of chatter recently about who we’d all like to take to the big dance in 2012, and honestly, I can’t bring myself to participate. I’ve got my crushes, and I don’t see those going away any time soon, but I’m still waiting for the real thing. I’m in “like” with a few prospects (PenceRubioMyManMitch blah blah blah…), but I’m still waiting for that moment where time stops, the music fades, and goosebumps run up and down my arms in a Sally-just-saw-Harry-across-the-New-Years-Eve-party sort of way.

Watching Nigel Farage publicly eviscerate a bunch of Socialist Eurotrash, though, has brought that much closer to knowing exactly what I want in a candidate. Farage is the leader of the UK Independence Party, and he’s a badass. Watch that video again.

Can I have him? I want him!

Yes, I know I can’t have him, but I can’t help myself–that’s what I want. I want someone who can stand up and castrate the opposition while maintaining his dignity. I want someone who is able to connect with America without completely playing into the hands of his opponents. I want someone who can make friend and foe alike step back and say damn.

I’m being constantly reminded that I’m young, inexperienced, and as such should keep my opinions to myself, but I’m telling you–we need a Nigel Farage in our lives, because a Nigel Farage won’t just turn conservatives on. A Nigel Farage turns everyone on–this type of candidate will make conservatives smile, liberals scream, and (most importantly) will send the Establishment GOP running for cover.

I’m not saying we don’t have great potential waiting in the ranks, and I’m not saying that I don’t have faith in any of the up-and-coming conservative hopefuls. All I’m saying is that the best way to find the next conservative hero may not be by leaping into the ring and sinking our fangs into anyone who speaks a word against Sarah Palin. Maybe the key to maintaining our momentum and winning in 2012 is to let the hero come to us. Stop trying to convince the country that, with 2 years to go, so-and-so is the only logical choice for president. Instead, step back, and let some of these hopefuls take a crack at it.

It might be hard, but I think it will be worth the wait. I don’t want to throw myself on every grenade chucked in front of my favorite candidate–that’s a losing battle. I’m holding out for something better. I’m willing to pass up the cute guy at the bar, and wait for Richard Gere to show up on the fire escape.

But maybe that’s just me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That would be the First Amendment. Remember it? That little thing the Founders gave us to ensure that our speech could not be stifled by the iron hamfist of overwhelming bureaucratic powergrabbage?

If you’re a bureaucrat in Florida, the answer is probably no. Behold:

Protecting Citizen Speech in Florida

Sarasota-area residents Nathan Worley, Pat Wayman, John Scolaro and Robin Stublen talk politics once a week as part of an informal political group. But in 2010, a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution prompted them to stop talking and take political action.  They want to run a simple radio ad, urging the public to vote “no” on Amendment 4.

This sort of spontaneous political speech should be easy.  As IJ Staff Attorney Paul Sherman said, “In America, the only thing you should need to talk about politics is an opinion.”

Unfortunately, Florida’s campaign finance laws make speaking out far more difficult than it should be.  Under Florida law, anytime two or more people join together to spend more than $500 to advocate the passage or defeat of a ballot issue, they become a fully regulated political committee.

/gak

Keep going:

As a result, before they can even publish an ad, the group would have to register with the state and comply with a host of regulations the Florida Secretary of State admits are “complex,” and the U.S. Supreme Court recently called “burdensome” and “expensive” even for corporations and unions.  This includes appointing a treasurer, opening up a separate bank account, and tracking and reporting every single penny that goes through the organization.

The bureaucracy admits the regulations are complex (which is code for, “we gave up after the first page of definitions.”)

The SCOTUS bench, which is comprised of some of the smartest people on the planet, admits that even large corporations would have trouble complying with these laws.

And yet here we are, looking Nathan Worley straight in the eye and telling him he can’t purchase an ad on public radio because he hasn’t the resources to hire a battalion of lawyers to defend himself against the legislators who were hired to work on his behalf.

We all know what’s going on here. We’re not stupid, and neither are the politicians who drafted this garbage. They know that they’ve put the muzzle on political “outsiders,” all in the name of “reform” and “transparency” and “unicorns” and “the warm fuzzies I feel when I realize I’m going to be in office for the rest of my corrupt, morally bankrupt life.” They know that the sick, twisted laws they helped write will not only quash the free speech of grassroots activists, but will also make it nearly impossible for those activists to reach out to fellow voters in an attempt to have the laws repealed.

Lucky for us, there are those who are willing to fight this on behalf of people like Nathan Worley, Pat Wayman, John Scolaro and Robin Stublen. The Institute for Justice has launched the Citizen Speech Campaign in an effort to resuscitate the free speech rights of citizen activists in Florida; a lawsuit on behalf of Worley and his friends is only the first step.

22 states currently impose “contribution limits” on donations to independent political groups. This means that it is illegal for anyone to exceed the government-mandated donation cap when giving money to a private organization. This should scare the crap out of you. This should send you running to the internet to make sure your representatives aren’t doing to you what Nathan Worley’s representatives are trying to do to him. Whatever you do, don’t allow yourself to be silenced by bureaucrats so terrified of an “astroturf” movement that they would rather trample the Constitution—a document and an idea they once swore (with their fingers crossed) to protect—than actually attempt to defend their policies.

Remember—if you remain silent, they win.

via Robert Stacy McCain, who has the exclusive.

California Reporter to Republican Candidate: “We’re not interested.”

A reporter for the Torrance (Calif.) Daily Breeze sent an e-mail to a political consultant saying the newspaper is “not interested” in covering Republican candidate Mattie Fein, who is challenging Democratic Rep. Jane Harman in California’s 36th District.

In the e-mail sent Wednesday (see text below), Daily Breeze reporter Nick Green told consultant John S. Thomas of Thomas Partners Strategies, “Don’t call or e-mail us – we’ll call you if we’re interested. And if you haven’t got it yet, we’re not interested.”

…at least they were honest.

We already know that California is so far down the rabbit hole that at any minute, a young blond girl is going to emerge on the other side of CA/NV border claiming to have just had tea with a white rabbit, a burly Austrian gentleman, and Jessica Alba. It should come as no surprise that a newspaper would be less-than-enthusiastic about a Republican candiate; after all, racism, tea parties, and but BUSH, right? What’s scandalous about all of this is that Fein’s people were just trying to put out a response to a recently-passed jobs bill that the offending rag claimed would save over 200 jobs–in Fein’s own district. The paper did, of course, feature a statement by Fein’s Democrat competitor, Jane Harman.

If this surprises you, you are not paying attention.

It’s been obvious for a long time that the mainstream media outlets not only prefer, but cater to, the agenda of the progressive machine. What we’re seeing here, though, is a blatant, public admission by the Daily Breeze that “fair and balanced” is out, and shilling for liberals is the new black. They put it in writing; this was on purpose.

You have to wonder about the state of the country, when a mainstream media outlet feels comfortable enough to admit that it’s doing its best to brainwash its readership all the way to the polling place.

Busy, busy, busy:

Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case TOTALLY justify his sleazy, treasonous behavior

(Okay, so that’s not the exact headline the New York Times slapped on their slobbering love letter to Bradley Manning, but it seemed close enough.)

I don’t know where to begin. The only redeeming quality of this piece is that they didn’t somehow invoke the race card. (Poor, beleaguered British immigrants…won’t someone please think of them?) Instead, less than three sentences into the thing, they invoke what may grow to be come the progressive machine’s new best friend…the gay card:

He spent part of his childhood with his father in the arid plains of central Oklahoma, where classmates made fun of him for being a geek. He spent another part with his mother in a small, remote corner of southwest Wales, where classmates made fun of him for being gay.

Nerdy and homosexual? Oh, the humanity.

Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee for officers.

Can we somehow blame Bush for this complete and utter lack of fabulousness? Because blaming his soldier father, struggling mother, former classmates, Bible-belt upbringing, and the entirety of the population of the UK doesn’t seem to be enough:

Sometimes, former classmates said, he reacted to the teasing by idly boasting about stealing other students’ girlfriends. At other times, he openly flirted with boys. Often, with only the slightest provocation, he would launch into fits of rage.

“It was probably the worst experience anybody could go through,” said Rowan John, a former classmate who was openly gay in high school. “Being different like me, or Bradley, in the middle of nowhere is like going back in time to the Dark Ages.”

So, that happened. Later in the article, we come to find out Manning was a completely intolerable jackass who joined the Army in an attempt to get his life together. (I feel safe.) Apparently, the utter meanness of his superiors and colleagues caused Manning to “cling to” his “hacker friends,” and in what was probably a cry for help/attention/more pity/a hug, release classified information to WikiLeaks.

In a computer chat with Mr. Lamo, Private Manning said he gave the video to WikiLeaks in February. Then, after WikiLeaks released it in April, Private Manning hounded Mr. Watkins about whether there had been any public reaction. “That was one of his major concerns once he’d done this,” Mr. Watkins told Wired. “Was it really going to make a difference?”

In his computer chats with Mr. Lamo, Private Manning described how he downloaded the video and lip-synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.

“Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack,” he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called himself “emotionally fractured” and a “wreck” and said he was “self-medicating like crazy.”

And as he faces the possibility of a lifetime in prison, some of Private Manning’s remarks now seem somewhat prophetic.

“I wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much,” he wrote, “if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me plastered all over the world press.”

Ask and you shall receive, Mr. Manning. You wanted your picture plastered all over the world press? Wish granted. Truth be told, you’re lucky the contents of your skull aren’t plastered all over a far-flung rock face. That’s all I have to say to you.

This is serious. We’re devolving. We’ve used the race card to justify murder, and now we’re oh-so-stealthily using the gay card to justify this whiny, self-absorbed, soulless traitor’s betrayal of American soldiers, and the civilians who help them fight. Blame his past, blame his colleagues, blame whoever you want, as long as you don’t blame this man’s own selfish disdain for the value of another human life.

Manning sought infamy, but I say we should allow him one more moment in the limelight. Let’s send him over to Afghanistan, and let the Taliban thank him in person for a job well done.

He deserves it.

Gunman targeted hateful, racist, managers

Regard me (emphasis mine):

Relatives say Thornton, 34, finally cracked after suffering racial harassment in a company where he said he was singled out for being black in a predominantly white work force.

“Everybody’s got a breaking point,” said Joanne Hannah, the mother of Thornton’s longtime girlfriend.

After shooting his co-workers, Thornton hid as police moved in. He called his mother, who tried for 10 minutes to talk him out of killing himself, his uncle Will Holliday told reporters.

“He said, ‘I killed the five racists that was there that was bothering me,’” Holliday said. “He said, ‘The cops are going to come in so I am going to take care of myself.’”

What was this egregious racial violation of which he speaks?

Thornton had said he found a picture of a noose and a racial epithet written on a bathroom wall, said Hannah, of Enfield, whose daughter Kristi had dated Thornton for the past eight years.

…and? The article doesn’t mention anything else.

I’m not going to sit here and pretend I know the intimate details of this man’s employment situation, or try and justify the sick mindset that resulted in someone scrawling ignorant garbage all over the inside of a bathroom stall. I’m sure we’ll find out that Thornton had altercations with several of his coworkers, who had conveniently attended a tea party at some point. No, what I’m worried about is this:

“Everybody’s got a breaking point,” said Joanne Hannah, the mother of Thornton’s longtime girlfriend.

Please, somebody scream and flail if I’m wrong, but that smacks of good ol’ justification. It sounds like something you’d say, shaking your head with your eyebrows raised, before going back to tweeting about #JustinBieber’s haircut like it’s no big deal.

No big deal? Can we just step back and consider this for a second? This man, with what I will just go ahead and assume was “malice aforethought” and all that, murdered eight of his coworkers.

He didn’t fire off a nasty e-mail, or get into a slapfight in the coffee room, or cut the heads off of the secretary’s flower bouquet (I’ve seen it happen); he packed heat in his lunchbox and SHOT PEOPLE IN THE HEAD.

By now, we should be used to people playing the race card whenever possible–it’s reared its head in the healthcare debate, the immigration debate, and in the debate over whether or not Tyra picks too many white girls to be America’s Next Top Model. What gives me the willies is that his friends and relatives chose to play the race card instead of offering their condolences to the families of the people that GOT SHOT IN THE HEAD.

The news reports so far have not given any sort of indication that the shooter was seriously harassed by, or had any reason to feel threatened by, his coworkers. He said it himself–they were “bothering” him. Okay, I’ll bite–here’s a list of people that have bothered me the past few days:

1. Jason Allen
2. Justin Bieber
3. The guy who almost totaled my car for me in the parking garage this morning
4. Juan Williams, Shepard Smith, and Keith Olbermann
5. Every man who has ever addressed my chest instead of my face
6. Mormons who won’t go away
7. People who bring strollers to sales at Victoria’s Secret
8. Whoever invented pantyhose
9. Men who find it appropriate to bar-stalk me when I’m just trying to have a quiet drink with the girls
10. People who dress their pets like tiny versions of themselves

Yes, they bothered me, but I didn’t deem it appropriate to SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD.

Have I made my point?

Call me naive, but ten years ago, I don’t think anyone would have dared suggest that workplace harassment was just cause to bring a gun to work and cap your coworkers; now, it’s easier, more commonplace, and dare I say more acceptable (in MSM circles) to whip out the race card when someone screws up. The race card has been used to justify preferential treatment, entitlement programs, and now–however offhandedly and unofficially–it has been used to justify murder.

How’s that hopey change working out for you, Connecticut?

The race for Nevada’s senate seat is probably my favorite Congressional race of all–mostly because the whole thing is irritating the crap out of the progressive establishment, from the basement bloggers right on up to our friends on Capitol Hill. What once was a dead bang winner for the GOP is now anyone’s game, so say the increasingly nervous soothsayers on the left.

Personally, I blame Sharron Angle for all the drama; after all, she’s just so easy to hate! She’s smart, pretty, articulate, friendly (thank you, RightOnline,) and rose from the obscure foam of the tea party (#outrage! #racism!) to become Harry Reid’s (D-elusional) worst nightmare. Shuuuuuuun!

Hard to believe a few short months ago, the liberal camp was convinced that Harry Reid was doomed to fail at the hands of an energized, enraged conservative base. Way back in 2009, before the advent of the Angle campaign, Nevada locals were convinced that Reid was in for popcorn-and-a-coke-worthy battle of the ages. So much doom, so little time to blog about it.

All that changed, of course, with the rise of Sharron Angle–her status as “that tea party candidate” allowed the beleaguered Reid camp to rise from the ashes and sling brand new mud all over the GOP’s Last Great Hope© to defeat Reid in 2010. It was obvious from the beginning that the MSM would be chomping at the bit to cast clouds of doubt over Angle and her campaign:

Angle, who sat at a measly 5 percent in the polls in April before the national umbrella group Tea Party Express endorsed her and funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into her campaign, garnered 40 percent of the GOP vote to crush one-time front-runner Sue Lowden by 14 points.

snip

…there can be no doubt the race in this decidedly purple state where Democrats have a large registration edge and which President Obama won in 2008 is now the No. 1 test of whether the tea party movement has mainstream appeal. Even tea party leaders acknowledge that if Angle does not defeat Reid, the damage to their cause will be catastrophic.

So…beautifully…passive aggressive. If I were a liberal wingnut columnist, this is exactly how I would start my attack: damn the tea party, damn their candidate, and damn their money-bombing socially-engineered anti-Obama serf-led rebellion! Wingnuts! RAAAAAARGH!

RAAAAAARGH, indeed.

Not to be thwarted by polls suggesting that Angle was fairly evenly matched with our stalwart Senator, the media started playing a new game, called “It doesn’t matter because BOTH of these candidates suck and we hate them so SHUT UP. HMMPH.” Case in point:

As a result of the early barrage of attacks, Angle is now nearly as unpopular as Reid.

In the latest poll, both Reid and Angle won “favorable” ratings from 38 percent of voters. Reid was viewed unfavorably by 51 percent — about where he has been for most of this year — and Angle is now seen unfavorably by 47 percent. That’s 4 percentage points higher than two weeks ago and nearly double what it was in June, just before she won the primary and ran into the Reid buzz saw.

The Reid buzz saw? Really? In the space of a few short months, Harry Reid has graduated from moldering wet blanket to indomitable power tool; I wonder if the MSM would flip over and sing the same song if the Tea Party decided to shake things up and endorse Barack Obama? Just a thought.

As of July 28, Rasmussen had Angle trailing Reid 43% to 45%. 58% of voters think Angle holds “extreme” views–no doubt due to our helpful friends in the MSM. Nevada “leans democrat,” Reid’s manufactured optimism is catching on, and Angle has been nearly-successfully painted as a nut. It’s not like nobody saw this coming, but it’s still unbelievable when you consider that Angle’s opponent is a perfect example of the cronyism and rabid progressivism that is currently running this great country into the ground.

Behold, the power of the liberal machine. With a wave of its swizzle stick, it was able to flip not only the media, but public opinion, in favor of a candidate who just a few short months before was seen as the lamest of all lame ducks, already stuffed and taking a turn on the Republican spit.

Lucky for us, Republicans and conservatives at large are still fighting for Sharron Angle. Those of us who pay enough attention to see what has happened remain confident that public opinion can flip right back around, especially because of the growing conservative presence in the new media. It’s time to do everything we can to amp up the fight, because you can be sure Harry Reid isn’t going to back down. Like it or not, the lefties are very good at what they do–old media, new media, fun with soundbites, everything–and they’re going to throw everything they’ve got behind the tried and true media woodchipper.

When it comes down to it, though, the woodchipper is all they have left to bank on, and that is why we keep fighting. Anyone with a single firing synapse knows that Harry Reid is a dead stick; the only thing keeping him going is the constant barrage of anti-tea party, “Angle is a loony” propaganda.

It’s dishonest and unethical, but dishonest and unethical is what the left does best.

Wiki-Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants

Hundreds of Afghan lives have been put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents to WikiLeaks because the files identify informants working with NATO forces.

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times of London found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to U.S. forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their fathers’ names.

Oh, well done, sir.

So, here’s a question: when is the world finally going to see this sanctimonious bastard for what he is? Remember when he “leaked” his #outrageous and #totallyundoctoredandcompletelylegitimate video of
US soldiers glorying in the violent destruction of poor innocent civilians who may or may not have been less innocent than the MSM would have liked to believe? That “leak” wasn’t at all irresponsible or anything. That, on top of this newest travesty, should solidify any and all theories that Assagne is among the worst of men.

Julian Assange is not a “whistleblower;” Julian Assange is an irresponsible, traitorous twit, and his life’s work is to put people in danger for the sole purpose of damaging the mission and credibility of the US military.

Consider what he has done: Assange claims his joke of an organization “checked” everything for names of informants, and was even gracious enough to withhold around 15,000 documents from publication. Yet, in a serendipitous (at least for Assange) twist of fate, dozens of names managed to find their way into the public eye, putting informants in danger of discovery and execution by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

I don’t believe this was an oversight; in fact, I believe that this was done on purpose. People like Julian Assange do not make mistakes like this. No, people like Julian Assange weigh the costs of releasing information like this with the potential benefits of the same…then set their whole analysis on fire and do whatever will most fully serve their purpose.

In this case, Assange’s purpose was to do whatever it takes to further impugn our mission in Afghanistan–at the expense of the very people progressive “activists” purport to protect and defend.