I ran across Dr. Carson’s speech again this morning while perusing Twitter, and I figured I’d give it a passive listen as I cleaned the kitchen. I knew little of him (not quite sure how I’ve missed him all these years) so didn’t know what to expect. He’s black so I assumed he was a Democrat. He was five feet from President Obama so I predicted this would be a tepid, irritatingly balanced address. And he’s a pastor, so I expected predictable references to scriptures that I’ve likely had memorized since I was ten years old.

I kicked it on anyway.

By the end of the speech, I was so completely sucked in that I couldn’t tell you how long I’d left the water running in the sink, and had practically bent in half the dirty fork I was holding. I found myself shouting “Yes!” as I paced the kitchen floor, nodding my head in agreement with every word Dr. Carson spoke.

A dear friend of mine often says, “the American experiment isn’t complicated.” I’ve always rolled my eyes at that notion. I liked to be challenged. I’m a lover of the late William F. Buckley Jr. and present-day conservative thought leaders like Thomas Sowell, Andrew McCarthy, Arthur Brooks – the list is endless. These minds are crucial in influencing the development of public policy. But as conservatives, have we bought into the lie that we need to disguise ourselves in order to compete with self-proclaimed hyper-intellectual progressives who have infiltrated our institutions of education, as well as our channels of political discourse? The American public increasingly believes the problems we face are too vast and too complicated for the layperson to solve or comprehend. Have we, with this in mind, given up on communicating with the average American?

The average American isn’t driving around listening to Senate floor speeches and Weekly Standard podcasts. The average American is busy, distracted, and consumed with self-interest. The average American likely enjoyed this year’s Super Bowl halftime show! The average American needs a message that can be easily digested.

And the average American’s vote counts just as much as that of the most scholarly political mind.

Enter Dr. Ben Carson.

Everyone should watch this speech. Parents should require their children to watch it (and, while they’re at it, write a subsequent report). Folks of every political persuasion and religion should watch it. Every talk show host and every politician should study it, not just for its content, but also to observe the simplicity of the words chosen, the profound and inspiring tone of the message, and the bold, unapologetic approach to issues that polarize our country.

Above all, this speech is positive.

Dr. Carson rejects political correctness, prioritizes the importance of education, boldly advocates all should have access to healthcare, acknowledges that the rich man should pay his fair share, and warns us against going down a path of self-destruction and mediocrity.

Given that description, can you tell if he’s a Democrat or Republican? Likely, you cannot. And that’s the way it should be if we are to effectively reach the masses.

Keep it simple, sweetie.

Enjoy the speech, and then buy Dr. Carson’s book America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made this Nation Great. (I just did.)

Thanks for reading.

Folks love their guns. I understand that. I love my guns, too. And while I’ve expressed concerns about the availability of certain high-powered firearms, I do consider myself to be solid on the Second Amendment.

But, to quote Eddie Izzard (yes, I’m serious), “Guns don’t kill people, people do … but, I think the gun helps.”

Recent US Census data shows us how guns have “helped” in roughly 2/3rds of homicides, with stabbing in a distant second place at 13%. This is something that rational, life-loving people cannot ignore and must address.

At the expense of liberty? Certainly not. But when our Founders cited our unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, life preceded liberty.

Likewise, our priorities should fall in step with this thoughtful order.

Taking on issues in government typically translates to more legislation or regulation, and big government solutions seldom address the root of the problem at hand or result in true progress (which is why I’ve always found the label “progressive” to be disingenuous). But leaders can lead without legislating, and unfortunately, just as liberals are prone to take the easy route by passing more and more ineffective law, conservatives often lazily mention the Constitution and then sweep aside the tough issues.

In a broken world full of fallible people, pointing to the Constitution is no more effective than the parent who consistently tells their child, “Because I said so.” You may temporarily alter behavior, but you haven’t addressed its underlying cause … so don’t be surprised when the issues resurface.

Do I have the answers to our country’s gun problem? Of course, not. But we do, indeed, have a problem. True progress on matters such as these requires great effort — and yes, funding. Just as encouraging exercise and nutritional education has proven to be instrumental in warding off obesity and countless other health problems, more support for strategic efforts to deter gun violence – such as Project Safe Neighborhoods  — as well as coordinated local efforts, are key.

As we prepare to slash budgets — an activity for which I salivate in anticipation – I pray we resist urges to refer to such programs as “wasteful spending.”

And let’s also think beyond what we can do collectively, and consider individual opportunities to affect lives. Mentoring programs, inner-city ministry, keeping a close eye on our friends and neighbors in times of emotional or mental distress – they’re all good places to start.

These may be thankless efforts, void of the accolades and pageantry that surround the signing of a gargantuan crime bill, and the fruits of which may not be immediately recognized, but if we as conservatives are to follow the direction of our Founders – and of our God – they’re paramount.

Thanks for reading.

I’ve been putting this off, but here we are – two days, 16 hours, and 49 minutes before the election – and I simply can’t wait any longer. I have to say the words that I’ve needed to say for months now:

I’m sorry.

The primary in this election cycle was a cruel beast — kind to no one and critical of all. I’d like to say we learned a lesson this time, but I expect the next go-round (I pray, not until 2019ish) will be no less contentious. That’s just how we roll, and honestly, I don’t feel like you were damaged in the process … but that still doesn’t release me from my need — in these final days — to tuck my tail between my legs and reach out to you with a virtual fistful of flowers.

Everyone knows Rick Santorum was my guy. Not just my guy – my political obsession, and in many ways, this remains true. I do think if you don’t place him on your Cabinet as Secretary of sumpin’, you’re crazy, but I’ll stop there, because unlike most everything else I’ve done politically in 2012 – this isn’t about Rick.

This is about you.

In the midst of the primary, I learned more about you than I ever needed to know. But I wasn’t educating myself in an attempt to give thoughtful consideration to your candidacy– I was simply hunting for ammunition. Oh, to think that I could find that one big “gotcha” that could knock you off your perch. From dissecting your Massachusetts fee hikes (no seriously, I made spreadsheets) to failed attempts at digging into your psyche via books such as The Real Romney, I searched far and wide for ways to weaken your position as the frontrunner.

But, remain the frontrunner, you did, and the day Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, I fell in line like most everyone else. I remember the pain associated with tweeting, “I’m Susan Cloud, and I’m endorsing Mitt Romney for President.” (I type around 75 wpm, but it took forever.)

Governor Romney, since that day, you’ve haven’t ceased to impress me — in both word and deed.

You’ve articulated the core principles about which most all conservatives agree.

Your pick of Paul Ryan was like an early Christmas present. In many ways, it was your first true test. (In case you’re wondering: you passed.)

Your convention put a spotlight on your human side – something I desperately needed to see, and when I did see it, had me in tears and inspired me to dig deeper into ways I can serve my fellow man.

You made us proud in the debates with your dignified, yet aggressive approach. To call your performances “presidential” is an understatement.

You’ve kept it clean, and as a result, exposed the filthy tactics of the President’s camp.

I’m not just voting against President Obama anymore. I’m voting  for you, and I have no doubt that you will execute your duties with the precision of an innovative, brilliant CEO who is led — first and foremost — by a deep love for his family, his freedom, and most important, his God. Who would have thought I’d ever utter the words, “Mitt Romney may be one of our greatest presidents,” but lately, I find myself thinking and saying it often.

I look forward to seeing you harness a Reagan-like magic as you reach across the aisle to bring our fractured country together. As you do, I predict that the usual suspects will groan and mumble, but don’t listen to them. Now isn’t the time for partisanship. It’s time for the healing and repair that will deliver growth and unprecedented prosperity to our great nation.

You’re the man for the job. And I can see that now — quite clearly.

So … go win.

Elizabeth Jensen wrote piece in the New York Times today about Sally Kohn … something I’ve actually been intending to do for a while. I took this as a sign that today was the day, so here we go:

I’m not sure how I ended up following Sally on Twitter, but I have for quite a while. Her tweets are always easy to spot. They sing that old familiar song from Sesame Street, “One one these things is not like the other …” That’s Sally in a nutshell. Hard-cutting, unapologetically liberal opinions floating in a conservative sea of red. At least that’s what it looks like on my Twitter feed.

The first time Sally joined our show was in the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. I’d seen her on Fox News from time to time, but I’d never read anything she’d actually written. But this time, she’d constructed a piece regarding “shooter bias” that I couldn’t ignore, and I knew we had to have her on.

Since that day, Sally is — and continues to be  — one of the best guests we have on the show. I wish I could stop writing at this point, letting a compliment just be a compliment and move on, but I can’t. A trend — a disturbing one – occurs after her segments, without fail and regardless of topicality. I’m always inundated with negative feedback via facebook, Twitter, listener phone calls, etc.

A few examples:

“Why are you wasting your time with that liberal nut???”

<insert random juvenile insult about sexual orientation>

“I literally have to turn off the radio when you have her on.”

Seriously, people?

Aside from the personal insults and low blows, the shallow nature of this just screams of ignorance.

I guess different producers have different goals for their shows. Obviously the element of entertainment is crucial, but when it comes to the shows’ missions, they vary. I think the vast majority of conservative programming is designed to energize the base, and I appreciate that, but my approach to our show is not unlike my view on what church should be.

I will always want to go deeper.

I don’t go to church to hear about how God loves me unconditionally, and how perfect I am in His eyes. I go to church to be challenged, convicted, and compelled to act. It shouldn’t ever feel like Six Flags Over Jesus.

Feel me?

When Sally joins us, I walk away with these same sentiments. She displays consistent resolve on the issues, which challenges me to give thoughtful consideration to my own. As I examine the logic behind my own positions, I find that, typically, I’m taken to a deeper place of conviction. When the contrast is laid before me, and I see — what I believe to be — fundamental error in the agenda of the other side, I’m energized, that much more, to be proactive in defending my own mission of limiting the size of government and promoting personal liberty.

And to Sally’s credit, on occasion, <gasp!> I have slightly amended my position – not because she’s a master of deception, no, but because sometimes we are just so scared of that evil ”other side” that we fail to see the flaws that lurk beneath the surface in our own thinking.

Were it not for the inclusion of strong liberal commentary like that which is offered by Sally, I would likely keep the channel on CNN (save my sacred 5pmCT hour with Bret Baier and Fox News Sunday). I already watch CNN the vast majority of the time because I don’t need to hear my beliefs regurgitated by one conservative pundit after another. I need thoughtful exchanges and challenging commentary that force me to appraise my own political heart and moral compass.

That’s what Sally brings, and for this I am grateful. So from one cold-hearted snarky conservative to one equally snarky, but consistently bleeding-heart liberal, I say, “Keep riding, Sally.”

I consider you a sister, and I appreciate you.

Between 90-92% of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome terminate their pregnancies. Of course, it’s a painstaking decision, and I don’t believe that the majority of parents are cavalier about it, but ultimately, this is the choice they make.

… and then they kill the “retard.”

If my callous tone disturbs you — good,  because if we as a country can allow this (GRAPHIC: Do NOT click in the presence of children) … then we really have no business being offended by the insensitive words of a political pundit.

When I witness the left’s exasperation over a tweet, yet they refuse to advocate for the “least of these” — and furthermore, support the extinction of those whom they deem imperfect (remind you of something?)–  I’m sorry, but that’s just lopsided, screwball morality.

Maybe I wouldn’t feel so strongly about this were it not for the fact that my church has one of the most dynamic special needs ministries in the state of Texas. Leadership decided a long time ago that it was our job, as the body of Christ, to minister to the marginalized in society. Is there any greater example of a marginalized group of people than those who face mental challenges?

Can they often be loud, obnoxious, and sometimes difficult to understand? You bet!

(Did I not also just describe myself? Absolutely.)

We love these folks. We don’t isolate them into a particular section of the sanctuary on Sunday mornings . They integrate into everything we do. They worship with us. We bless them, and more important, they bless us.

We all have special needs.

We’re all imperfect.

We all deserve a chance to be brought into this world — wanted or not — and to glorify our Creator in the unique way He intended.

So, get over the tweet. Get over the word. And if you really care about the sanctity of life … ACT with your vote and your treasure.

I said “both parties.”

• Yes, Brian Ross jumped the gun.
• Yes, Mayor Bloomberg makes my teeth itch.
• Yes, the immediate calls to reopen the debate on gun control seemed premature.

But what about Conservatives. What was our reaction?

Friday morning as the details emerged, we were in the middle of our show. Mark had been on air since 5am hosting Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” and I was glued to CNN, Fox News, and various websites as I watched the news unfold.

Horrific stories of both victims and survivors were captivating. It was almost more than I could handle, but handle it, I did, because our listeners rely on us to keep them informed.

Prior to the Brian Ross gaffe in which he recklessly identified a man named James Holmes as being part of an Aurora Tea Party group, conservatives were already blathering on Twitter about how the media would blame a Tea Party member. Angry post after angry post forecasted the ways in which liberals would seize this opportunity to blame guns and gun owners.

Does the fact that these predictions were later proved accurate relinquish folks of their responsibility to not immediately make this about them and their perceived political victimization? There were real victims here. A young reporter that will never see her dreams unfold; young children have lost their fathers; a six year old will never experience the thrill of her first kiss.

Real people. Horrifying experiences. And we’re complaining?

Move to later that day when President Obama spoke to the nation. It was perfectly presidential. It was warm and even fatherly. It was moving. But it wasn’t enough, as I watched people in the world of social media criticize him and dissect his every statement, accusing him of political opportunism.

Laura Ingraham, a pundit I typically admire tweeted, “Obama will no doubt fly to Aurora & make “healing speech” as he did after Tuscon shooting.” Sixty people retweeted it.

My response (after correcting her spelling of “Tucson”) was simply … “shouldn’t he?”

During the President’s speech from Aurora Sunday night, I tweeted some of his remarks, including his opening comment which included beautiful and healing scripture. Within minutes, the cynical responses flowed in like a river of dung, polluting, what I felt to be, a beautiful moment for our nation. Our leader, speaking from the Word of God to offer hope to our nation in mourning, and I’m having to hear about how calculated and manipulative he’s being?

Disgusting.

What is wrong with us? I know it’s an election year, but can’t we be human enough to turn off our inner political machines for a few days and just grieve that our countrymen have died?

There’s a time for everything. And this time … we got it wrong.

Myself included, and for that, I’m ashamed.

Thanks for reading.

As I’ve tried to digest the ruling, beginning with our own show yesterday morning and then sifting through column after blog after talk show after tweet for the remainder of the day, I have finally come to a conclusion that I’m at peace with:

We deserved this.

For appointing a moderate nominee in 2008 in an attempt to “win the independent vote,” we deserved this.

For our increasing abandonment of social conservatives who were among the most passionate of our base, we deserved this.

For compromising time after time after time legislatively, we deserved this.

I know it. You know it. Chief Justice Roberts knows it, too.

Aren’t we the party that vehemently speaks out against judicial activism? The Affordable Care Act was passed because people put Democrats in office to pass it, and more important, didn’t support putting enough competent conservatives in office to stop it.

The result? Obamacare. (It really is that simple.)

I’m not interested in any more bailouts. Not on Wall Street. Not on Main Street. And not from Chief Justice Roberts.

If you want to rid our nation of this job-killing, freedom-thwarting legislation, do it at the ballot box. Do it with your dollars, your tweets, and your phone calls. Channel the passion and energy that has delivered stunning conservative victories in Republican primaries this election cycle. Pull up video of Governor Scott Walker and his supporters — daily  … and take notes until the pen runs dry.

The President won’t be able to sell this legislation to the American people in its new form. Prior to today, I was quite certain that his reelection was inevitable. This is truly the first time I’ve felt hopeful about Mitt Romney’s chances.

So, thank Justice Roberts for ruling that the mandate, relative to the Commerce Clause, was unconstitutional. This was the clearest and most dramatic rejection of Congress’ use of the Commerce Clause for economic regulation in forty years. In this day-and-age of progressivism, there is no telling what liberty-crushing hazards down the road we have avoided. As Jonah Goldberg writes, Justice Roberts has forever “poisoned the well of the Commerce Clause for liberals.”

Thank Justice Roberts for recognizing the sovereignty of the states by not allowing the federal government to tamper with Medicaid funding. Conservatives have seemed to skip right over the monumental significance of this. (Let’s just see how many states participate in Obamacare now that there’s no fear of Federal penalty for opting out.)

Thank Justice Roberts for essentially stripping the President, for the remainder of this election cycle, of his ability to use Supreme Court nominations as a political issue.

And most important, thank Justice Roberts for forcing the President to come clean to the American people, and to call this legislation what it really is – an enormous tax on the middle class.  Do not ignore the enormity of this gift. Also, consider this: voting against a massive tax on the young and middle America will be much more politically potent than voting to defend the Constitution. (Many Americans have no idea what the latter means.)

But, whatever you do … don’t blame Justice Roberts that the President’s signature legislation still exists.

We deserved this.

But, take heart … it’s always darkest before the dawn.

____

Thanks for reading.

We’ve had all the candidates on the show, and I’ll tell you … there are things I like (and dislike) about all of them.

Pre-debate thoughts in blue. Post-debate reaction in red.

TED CRUZ

He has undoubtedly been my favorite, but I must disclose that he’s the only candidate I’ve seen outside of the radio station. Cruz spoke in Burleson (my hometown) several months ago, and his command of the issues — as well as his consistency on conservative philosophy — was astounding. Young, poised, energetic, and focused, Cruz admitted that it would be an uphill battle to defeat Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, but he was clearly driven by deep faith and love for country.

Cruz’s endorsements are nothing short of impressive. From the National Review, to George Will, to Senator Jim DeMint, to Dr. James Dobson, the list is diverse, but it is, above all, conservative.

My only issues with Cruz have been stylistic ones. He needs to learn to attack Dewhurst without appearing desperate and petty. He does much better when he stays on issues, as he did at least year’s Values Voters Summit.

POST DEBATE ANALYSIS:

This was just disappointing. From the beginning, Cruz did nothing but launch hyper-aggressive attacks at the Lieutenant Governor. Enough already. Cruz does himself no favors when he attacks … and that appears to be all he was interested in doing tonight. (He also appeared to really irritate the moderators.)

Having said that, Cruz shows a fierce love for our Constitution, and of all the candidates, I would expect him to make the most immediate stir in the Senate … but would his aggressive style be effective, or would he turn off his colleagues?

Concerning.

Grade: B-

TOM LEPPERT

Of all the candidates, I think I like former Mayor Leppert on a personal level the most … no, I know that I do.

He is the ultimate gentlemen with not a hint of pretentiousness. Also (and I have told him this) he is the candidate that comes across as the most “senatorial,” which might not matter to some folks, but it still does to me. He has the countenance, the composure, and the class of a Senator.

An outsider would assume that Leppert’s candidacy is all about jobs, after all, that seems the be the focus of most of his commercials, however what I find most impressive is his approach to repealing Obamacare. Everyone says they’ll repeal the bill, but Leppert has a real plan for what to do after the repeal. You can find his comprehensive solutions on his website.

Dang, that city-funded hotel.

POST DEBATE ANALYSIS:

I can’t formally endorse, but Leppert just became my new favorite. It seems that he received less talk time than the other candidates tonight, but even with that working against him … he said more than the rest of them, possibly combined.

He is as solid on the economy as they come, and he focused on optimistic solutions rather than complaining about Obama or the other candidates. He articulated his positions flawlessly and treated his colleagues with respect.

As I said before the debate … this man is Senate-ready.

Grade: A

DAVID DEWHURST

No one can deny that he has a commanding presence, and as Lieutenant Governor of the Lone Star State, there’s something to be said for the man who’s worked along side Governor Rick Perry — the ultimate state’s rights governor. My hope is that he’s learned from example.

His campaign purse is hefty, and his ads are constant, leaving you with no choice but to pay attention, but I think it’s fair to say that he’s much more moderate than Cruz — the candidate that, from the looks of Dewhurst’s ads, he clearly fears the most.

There’s a list of impressive endorsements for Dewhurst, as well, including Huckabee and Michael Reagan.

POST DEBATE REACTION:

Either Dewhurst just isn’t cut out for debating, or he thinks this is wrapped up and didn’t bother preparing, because from what I could see, he was extremely shaky on the issues and didn’t defend himself well against Ted Cruz’s relentless attacks.

I honestly don’t know what else to say. Good thing, for him, he’s got deep pockets.

Grade: C

CRAIG JAMES

What to say? What a bizarre entry into an already crowded, competitive race. The former ESPN analyst and SMU football star must know what he’s doing, but I still don’t quite understand it.

What I do understand is that he’s done an outstanding job of simplifying the issues for average folks. He speaks a positive, pro-American message and does it with an all-American charm that, I admit, is refreshing. The only “non-politician” in the race, he just speaks his mind and seems to do so with the skill you’d expect from a long-time broadcaster.

My biggest concern about James? 2012 isn’t the time for on-the-job training.

POST DEBATE REACTION:

Well, well, well … the pleasant surprise of the night. James is clearly milking the “values voters” for their support, and I think it’s a message that will resonate across Texas … (well, maybe not in Lubbock.)

Very impressive on border security and military funding, and passionate about faith. He was well-spoken, but did come across as a bit hyper — to the point that he looked like he was about to cry at one point.

A bit awkward. A bit endearing.

Grade: B

~~~~~~~~

Thanks for reading!

He said that he could “learn to love her,” but sadly, this proved not to be the case, and the marriage dissolved.

When I hear Mitt Romney essentially suggest that conservatives will learn to like him once he’s the nominee, it sets off all kinds of alarms in my head.

Learn to?

How far we’ve come since 2010 when we were willing to nominate even dismal candidates such as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, if for no other reason than that their ideology matched up with ours. I’m not suggesting we dumb ourselves down like that again. We definitely learned our lesson. Ideology must be balanced with intellect and political savvy, but even as those races were lost, enormous gains were acquired. We gained ourselves the Marco Rubios and the Rand Pauls that infiltrated Washington and sent a message: Conservatives mean business.

Two years later, when the stakes have never been higher, we stand poised to put a Massachusetts moderate up against the most liberal president this nation has ever known. Why? Because it’s the safe choice.

Thanks. I feel so inspired.

It’s time for Mitt Romney to give us substantive reasons why he should be the nominee. I don’t want to hear “1144″ anymore. At this point, it’s meaningless to me. It’s just a number.

I need Governor Romney to agree that Romneycare is bad policy. I need him to admit that flirting with environmentalist extremism was a bad idea. I need him acknowledge that he nickel-and-dimed Massachusetts taxpayers with exorbitant fee hikes. He needs to apologize for not speaking out on the death tax fight in Massachusetts — what kind of “conservative” takes “no position” on such a fundamental issue? Oh, and stop bragging about balancing the budget in Massachusetts, as if it was a choice. It’s the law. Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years … does that make him a conservative?

It’s no wonder voter turnout was low in Mississippi and Alabama. The media and the Republican establishment are force-feeding us a candidate who energizes no one, who — via his dollars — bombards us with negative ads that tear down the more conservative candidates, and who is too arrogant to concede that some of his past (and current) positions are a slap in the face of most people’s conservative beliefs.

I can’t learn to love someone like that.

Can I vote for him in the general election? Of course. But will I fight for him? If I do, it will be halfheartedly, with the same brand of contrived passion that I find evidenced in the candidate, himself.

It’s as if I can hear Bonnie Raitt singing every time Governor Romney opens his mouth:

Thanks for reading.

This epic battle has little to do with Goliath and even less to do with the Philistine army. It’s really a story about character — the character of a man on a mission of obedience. The resolve of a man who refused to morph into something that he wasn’t, simply to receive the victor’s crown.

When the opposition donned the finest armor and wielded formidable weaponry, David relied on faith to be his shield. Where others were unwilling to go, David went. In the shadow of a giant who hurled insult after insult, David stood firm. When everyone else ran away from the fight, David ran headlong into battle with supreme confidence. When even his supporters doubted a favorable outcome, David remained steadfast.

Rather than be intimidated by appearances, David was guided by a reality that mattered.

Sound familiar?

As I considered this story, the word “courage” kept coming to mind. I assumed it was due to the nature of Goliath’s size in comparison to David’s humble frame. Then, it dawned on me — Rick Santorum’s answer to the Arizona debate’s “describe yourself in one word” question was, indeed, “courage.”

This election cycle is about courage. Not just the courage to take the fight to one of the wealthiest and most relentless campaigners in the history of presidential politics, but the resolve to take it a step further and deliver blow after blow to the unconstitutional actions of the current administration.

And Rick Santorum has proven himself to be the candidate with the courage to get in the trenches and fight.

Now about those five smooth stones …

This is where I come into the story. Where you come into the story. Where we step out and take our place in history. David used items that most would consider to be insignificant — stones — and in using them, won a battle of historic proportion.

We are the stones. With our words, with our dollars, with our stickers, and with our signs. In February, we were 130,000 strong in political contributors, overshadowing the elite, far-fewer-in0num Romney backers.

What an honor to be a part of such a large army of conservative fighters, doing all we can to encourage our champion. I take pride in being a simple smooth stone rather than some bejeweled sword.

After all, it was a stone that delivered the final blow.

______________

*** I realize that Mitt Romney could be our next president, and if that is the case, I will give him all the respect I can muster. However, he isn’t the president and I won’t apologize for the “hairy Philistine” reference. Besides, we all know that Mitt isn’t some big unkempt ogre. I wrote it for dramatic effect, so anyone who is upset can just simmer down.