I always opt out of the scanners. It’s sort of a form of civil protest for me. It slows the process down. They get cranky. And I always do it publicly because I want everyone to see what the pat down is actually like. I also feel like they’ll be less invasive if people are watching.

I happened to be wearing a sleeveless cotton dress, a lightweight cardigan, and tights. I stepped aside for the invasion and they ask me to spread my legs.

She started by asking me to take my cardigan off. I said I’d rather not. She seemed put out, but didn’t make me remove it and began the pat down from behind. She made me lift up my cardigan to check my back, went into my sleeves, and touched every inch of my hair.

Then she got to my waist band. I had on black tights under my dress, which I’m certain is not uncommon. She asked me to lift my dress so she could check the waistband of my tights.

I felt my stomach drop. I said “I’m not lifting my dress for you. No way.” She was obviously irritated with me now and said that she would take me to the private screening area if I would like.

I said “No, absolutely not. If you can’t do this in front of everyone, you should not be doing this to me.”

She then called a manager over. The manager approached me and explained what they were going to do and that if I failed to comply, they would escort me from the airport. I told her I saw no reason that they should have to lift my dress to clear me to get on a plane. I would have, however, allowed them to escort me out of the airport before they got me to lift my skirt and stick their hands down my tights. I was bracing myself to spend another night in Texas.

She sensed the rebellion in me, and it was almost like they were punishing me for not just lifting my dress and making their lives easier. She checked every inch of my neckline, sticking her fingers between my breasts because she needed to “clear” the (very slight) ruffle.

They cleared the waistband of my tights through my dress, then made me put one leg forward at a time so they could get better “definition of my thigh.” She then proceded to pat down every inch of me, all the way up to my crotch. And yes, she used that word. Twice.

It reminded me of the time in Columbus, Ohio last November that one of the agents told me to think of the pat down as a “free massage from TSA.” I reminded her at the time that you needed to post a license for that.

The pat down in Houston yesterday was so vigorous I had to readjust my clothes when she was finished. Even my bra straps had been pulled down my shoulders in the process. I felt completely violated, immediately called a friend to recap, and took to Twitter to draw as much attention to the incident as I could.

Here’s the thing. If anyone else had done this to me, I would have decked them and likely filed charges. The fact that the person has on a TSA uniform is supposed to make it okay? It isn’t. Why should any person be subjected to this to get on an airplane? We’re supposed to subject ourselves to inappropriate touch for teh sake of “safety”?

I fly for my job. I travel frequently. I take trains when I can, but most of the time it’s just not practical. The fact that I have to endure this type of force just to do my job is horrifying. I don’t really have another option. Most of us who travel for work don’t have a choice.

I have to get on a plane to Denver tomorrow, and am honestly dreading the idea of going through the airport. TSA needs to go. This has gone so far beyond a security precaution, and is a clear violation of the rights of travelers. Showing my business to an airport full of people is not in the interests of safety. It is wrong.

This week, Warren made a statement that is terrifying and, well, just wrong. First, watch the clip.

That’s right. According to Warren, there are no “self made men.” No one has actually earned his fortune on his own because the government made it all possible. In other words, successful entrepreneurs are not justified in claiming credit for their own work, because other people pay taxes. Or something.

This gets to the very core of the leftist belief that people are not capable of succeeding on their own, and therefore must rely on  the government, or society at large, for their success. No man is truly responsible for his own success and is therefore not responsible for his own failure.

With few exceptions, business owners and employees pay their share of taxes. They live in this country and contribute to the economy, and there is a resulting expectation that the government will do its job as well. This country was founded upon the idea that people can acheive through hard work and dedication. If an entrepreneur starts a successful business, he should be free to reap the rewards of his investment and work. The role of our government – a government designed to be for the people, by the people – should be to stay out of the way and empower its citizens to innovate and succeed.

The government doesn’t get to reap the rewards of its citizens’ work because it is doing what citizens pay them to do. The government exists to protect its people and to serve them. It is not the other way around.

The idea that one man’s achievement belongs to everyone should be deeply troubling to Americans. The reason bailouts were so troubling is that most Americans believe that success and failure belong to the individual, the business involved – not the collective. If the community owns the success of every millionaire, it also owns every failure. That is the very antithesis of free-market, and American, principle.

When Governor Scott Walker and the Republican legislature were elected, the state of Wisconsin was over $3.8 billion in debt. The people of Wisconsin elected them to fix the problem. They elected them to create jobs. That is exactly what they did.

Last month, half of the jobs created in the United States were created in the state of Wisconsin. Half. Think about the magnitude of that. While the U.S. has maintained an unemployment of over 9% since the beginning of President Obama’s term, Wisconsin has, in just 6 months, balanced the budget, created tens of thousands of jobs, and made a rapid turnaround that Washington seems to think is impossible.

So why backlash? Why have there been $14 million in attack ads run against the Governor and the Wisconsin Republicans? Put simply, unions and power hungry political types are afraid that others will see how well it works. Now, instead of allowing the state to correct its problem and be a road map for the rest of the country, they are so shaken up that they are trying to recall the legislators for doing exactly what they were elected to do. Heaven forbid other governors make the same reforms and balance the budget like Scott Walker did! The unions can’t handle the thought of losing their ability to buy elections and bully workers.

They’ve poured millions of dollars into these races. They organized protesters. They dominated the Wisconsin airwaves with scare propaganda about Tea Party types who have held the government hostage. They’ve invented sob stories about how teachers are suffering at the hands of the job-killing Republicans.

The truth? Most schools have managed to dodge layoffs and cuts. The Kaukauna Area School District turned a $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. They did it “by implementing the new contributions from employees, but also by modifying other aspects of the teachers’ workload, business manager” Bob Schafer said. “The district required educators to teach six hours a day instead of five, took them from two preparation periods down to one, and eliminated four paid days: one teacher work day and three paid holidays.”

In other words, the government was forced to do what every other business has to do, especially in hard times: They figured out how to operate efficiently.

Today, Wisconsin votes on the first set of recalls. FreedomWorks just spent four days on the Tea Party Express, rallying in 9 different cities. You can see photos and daily updates here, here, here and here.  We were greeted in every location by hundreds of locals who are doing everything they can to support the necessary reforms made by their governor. Just as it is our duty to fight against officials who are trampling all over us, it is our duty to support the ones who are doing the right thing.

Wisconsin’s legislators did the right thing. We need to stand by them today and next Tuesday through these recalls. All eyes are on you, Wisconsin. We are proud to support you.

Speaker Boehner’s question read “After embarking on a record spending binge that’s left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?” Obama kicked off his answer by saying “Well, obviously, John’s the Speaker of the House… he’s a Republican, so this is a slightly skewed question.” Maybe it would be easier for you to answer, Mr. President, if it came from your frends at the AFL-CIO? No? Alright then.

There were other questions… a cherry picked handful of softballs, all of which could have been (and were, indirectly) answered with a link back to the official WhiteHouse.gov site. If you missed it, here it is, broken down question by question.

The event itself was relatively uneventful. President Obama delivered his standard long-winded responses. He tweeted from the stage, taking time to note that it was an unprecedented move for a President to “live-tweet”. Ultimately, it was a way for him to take questions and keep up appearances without dealing with reporters and their messy follow up questions. It was also, however, a novel thing to do, and was able to generate plenty of buzz.

What the White House failed to consider is that the one place conservatives dominate on the “Internets“ is Twitter.

Giving snarky Twitter users an #askobama opportunity is like Christmas in July, and the opportunity was seized. GOP leaders and conservative influencers were all in on the game, drawing more and more people in as the 2pm start time came closer. The Huffington Post chimed in earlier to say Republicans were crashing the town hall. (Is it a problem for Republicans to ask the President questions, too? He is, after all, the President of both Democrats and Republicans.) The Wall Street Journal also jumped in, highlighting tweets from the #askobama stream. The President’s team had thrown him into the proverbial Lion’s Den.

The end result was that it fell a little flat. The “curators” couldn’t hand Obama the hard questions, and no one really got any answers. Obama can still say he did something new and groundbreaking. Many will see it as a desperate attempt to revitalize the waning support he had among the youth in 2008, and they’re probably right.

It’s no secret that Newt Gingrich has had his eye on the White House for several Presidential cycles, and has been waiting his turn for the nomination. Thankfully, his recent flameout has pretty much eliminated his chances. However, it has been a long time coming, and it is time to remind America that Newt isn’t so much on our side.

Let’s start things off with his support for Medicare Part D. At the time, it was the biggest expansion of entitlements since the LBJ era (has since eclipsed by ObamaCare), and remains one of the largest Republican travesties in recent memory. Club For Growth has a great white paper that takes an extensive look at Newt’s record. On Medicare Part D:

“Gingrich also has a recurring impulse to insert the government into the private economy.  A particularly bad mark on his record came in 2003, when he urged “every conservative member of Congress” to support the Medicare drug benefit bill.  He called it the “most important reorganization of our nation’s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965.”  The drug benefit now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

In addition, he’s long been a proponent, like Obama, of forcing us to buy health insurance with an unconstitutional individual mandate.

April 4, 2006:

…In his keynote speech during the Greater Detroit Area Health Council’s annual Health Trends Conference on Monday in Dearborn, Gingrich called for:

A free-market system that encourages Americans to take more responsibility for their health care. He would require Americans over a certain income level to buy health insurance or post a bond.

March 24, 2008:

Gingrich called it “fundamentally immoral” for a person who can afford insurance to save money by going without, then show up at an emergency room and demand free care. He said those who can afford insurance and choose not to buy it should be required to post bonds to pay for care they may someday need.

Just last weekend, he restated his love for the individual mandate, and in the process managed to take a shot at one of the most popular Republican Congressmen we have, at the same time giving Romney and RomneyCare a pass. It should be expected, considering his vocal support for the very policies that have been Romney’s albatross.

Policy failure aside, this expresses a new level of political tone-deafness. Health care should be a gimme for Republicans at this point. A piece of advice: When you are among the most unpopular Republicans in the 2012 field, you do not make yourself more popular by A) Taking shots at those that are more popular than you are or B) Aligning yourself with losing issues. For all of the talk of Newt’s brilliance, this was a boneheaded move.

Obviously, he has realized  this and has been furiously backpedaling, even calling Ryan to offer an apology. Too little, too late.

In the midst of his health care policy failures, Newt also found time to fail in regard to climate change legislation as well. All that really needs to be said about Newt and climate change is in this shocking video he filmed with Nancy Pelosi where they agree we “must take action to address climate change” :

And to be clear, this wasn’t just an embarrassing black mark for Gingrich, or a misguided attempt at populism that has now been rectified in light of better science. No, as recently as January he was standing by every word of it:

Yet Gingrich told us Friday: “I meant exactly what I said in that commercial.”

He added that though “nobody knows” every cause of every climate change — past, present and future — for sure, “What I said was, ‘As a matter of prudence, conservatism ought to involve caution.’ “

Watch the video. That’s not what he said.

Next, there was TARP, which motivated many Tea Party activists to take to the streets in the first place. The bailouts were the inspiration for Rick Santelli’s famous rant, and inspired the movement that became the political force it is today.

Enter the 2010 election cycle. At every turn, Newt managed to work against conservatives and undermine the efforts of the Tea Party insurgence. For example, in 2009′s NY-23 special election, he endorsed liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava, who wound up embarrassing her own party and those who endorsed her by pulling out of the race and supporting the Democrat over conservative Doug Hoffman. $900,000 went to Scozzafava from the RNC and NRCC, all for nothing.

Then came the Utah Senate primary. Big government Republican incumbent Bob Bennett was among the top Senate targets in the 2010 cycle for the Tea Party movement, and he was being primaried by both conservative and local tea party favorite Mike Lee and establishment Republican Tim Bridgewater. In the time leading up to the primary, Newt threw his support behind Bennett, undermining the efforts of Utahans and the sentiment of conservatives nationwide.

With all the statist policy proposals and boneheaded political moves under his belt, it isn’t even necessary to dig into his personal transgressions to make him irrelevant. He’s everything that Americans have been working against – a DC insider who is out of touch with what’s important, and who is more concerned with populist garbage than being, well, right.

It’s time for Newt to disappear into the background. His moment has passed, and this tailspin has been decades in the making.

Make room for the new guys, Newt.

Here’s a quick run down on  the bill:

• It institutes a voucher program that phases in over 3 years. By the 3rd year, the bill will offer vouchers to all low income children whose family income is at or below 130% of the poverty level. As of last year, it’s around 32% of PA public school students.

• PA is currently spending over $14k per pupil. The vouchers would provide low-income students with an $8,498 voucher, which covers tuition at most private schools. It’s a savings for the taxpayers.

• It doesn’t provide contingencies for private schools. They’re not forced to accept a certain number of recipients or adopt curriculum requirements.

This bill could be a reality in Pennsylvania. As the United States falls further behind globally in education rankings, school choice is becoming a larger issue across the country. Really, it’s surprising it has taken this long. The idea that parents should be able to give their children an opportunity to leave a failing school should be a no brainer.

There are a few Republicans that are still working on the side of the teachers unions to push back on SB1. They’re feeling the pressure, and are starting to panic. Today, FreedomWorks received a call from Senator Kim Ward, who heard a podcast I did with my colleague yesterday and was upset that she had been called out by name. “How dare you!” she said. “I’m not a liberal Republican!” she repeated 5 times. “I worked with George Bush!” As if that’s a qualifier.

In typical politician fashion, she tried to turn the conversation on my colleague, accusing him of “bullying women.”

This has nothing to do with bullying women, Senator Ward. This has to do with doing the right thing and giving families a choice in their education. You can either be on the side of kids or the side of the teachers unions.

Senator Kim Ward is one of two critical holdouts on the passage of this bill, the other being House Majority Leader Mike Turzai. This is a chance to move the ball forward for education in our country. If you’d like to help keep the pressure on, you can reach their offices at the numbers below.

Senator Kim L. Ward (R-39) (717) 787-6063

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai: (412) 369-2230

* For those who don’t know, I’m the New Media Director at FreedomWorks, and have been a part of this fight.

The number of Republicans who said that a third political party was necessary was at an all-time high since Gallup first began tracking opinion on the issue in 2003. And while support for a third party has crept steadily upward in the GOP, for the first time, it represents a majority opinion.

People aren’t happy with our government as a whole, not just the Democrats. This is not a new development, but it’s a reality that Republicans need to grasp going into 2012. We won in 2010 because Democrats were power drunk and tone deaf, and Republicans were supposed to be different. Having a Democrat in the White House doesn’t mean they get a pass to be a little less disastrous than Obama.

Republicans had an easy fight in 2009 and 2010. It was easy to be unified against Obamacare and Cap and Trade, but now it’s a little harder than that. The fights are local and less sexy. That’s good. That’s healthy. What some of the governors are doing is inspiring. There’s a lot more work to do, and it should be done within the party. It’s been said that this is a takeover; it is not yet complete. Unfortunately, people are losing patience.

What this should be is a red flag to Republicans. They should embrace Tea Party nominees, and be ready to nominate someone who can win a primary among a majority who don’t really care that they’re Republicans. This doesn’t have to be someone unelectable if the party does their job as well. It was a synergy between outside forces and the party that propelled Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul and others to victory. It can be done.

Republicans should be aware that they no longer have the shelter of having no majority. We have the House, and by next year we’ll likely have the Senate. Ignoring the voters is what got the GOP in trouble in the first place. If they continue to believe they’ve got a majority safety net because they are Republicans they are mistaken. Most probably don’t really want to form a third party, but they want the GOP to pick fights on Obamacare and spending; in other words, they want them to do what they said they would do. It’s critical that Republicans recognize that it isn’t hard to win Americans over – lead, cut spending, and make tough choices and they’ll start to come back.

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

It’s called the Transportation Opportunities Act, which is very ironic because I’m not sure of one opportunity that this would provide for the middle class Obama seems to keen on assisting. If you think for half a second you’ll quickly realize that we pay gas taxes every time we fill up our cars. For example, this chart.

Yes, Connecticut, you’re already spending over $.70/gallon on taxes. In a 16 gallon tank, that’s $11.20 going to the government every time you fill up. This already serves the purpose of taxing people on how much they drive. No, it’s not as accurate as, say, monitoring the mileage of every vehicle and taxing them based on how much they actually drive. The logistics of implementing a system that tracks the mileage of every car owner to monitor road use are mind boggling, not to mention a direct infringement on the rights of drivers. They seem to know that Americans will not accept this sort of violation, which is why they’re ready to wage the PR campaign:

The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should “increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches.”

The administration is denying that it’s an official proposal, claiming that it isn’t so much a proposal as an early draft, and that it was never approved. What it feels like is a way for them to get people used to the idea and start warming us up to their intent.

It’s unwise to put anything past this administration in regards to raising taxes. It may seem far fetched, but it’s not necessarily a new tax idea, and has been floated at the state level in several states, including Illinois and North Carolina. They will likely cloak it in green and sell it as the responsibilty of the motorist to pay their “fair share”.

The question is, does the White House believe that everyone who owns a car is “rich”? It seems a little more than probable that the majority of motor vehicle owners fall well below President Obama’s $250k threshhold.

At this point, it appears our President is actively working to destroy the middle class he’s been preaching about rescuing.

Mitch Daniels has been ahead of the curve since he kicked off his term by signing an exective order banning collective bargaining… six years ago.

He has since drawn the ire of many pro-life advocates with “truce” talk… a political misstep that has overshadowed his perfect pro-life record. Today, Mitch is again leading the pack by making Indiana the first state to defund Planned Parenthood.

Via USA Today:

“I supported this bill from the outset, and the recent addition of language guarding against the spending of tax dollars to support abortions creates no reason to alter my position,” said Daniels, a Republican.

He is supposed to sign the bill into law next week.

Just to recap, the bill would cut $3 million in federal money to Planned Parenthood, in addition to banning abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy unless the life of the woman is threatened. A fiscal victory, to be sure, but more importantly this sets a precedent nationally. Here’s hoping other states will quickly follow suit.

Obama jumped into the conversation earlier this week saying “public employees should not be blamed for a financial crisis they had nothing to do with and sacrifices should be shared in tough economic times.”

Shared by who, President Obama? Because in Ohio, the average government worker makes 24.6 percent more than their private-sector counterparts. In addition, Ohio has lost more than 600,000 private sector jobs in the last 10 years, while public sector employees are still getting pay increases.

What SB5 does is remove automatic pay increases and introduce a merit-based system. At a time when Ohioans are struggling to find a job, those that are being paid with taxpayer money should at least be paid based on how well they’re doing their jobs. This is not a unique or unfair concept, and is in fact much more indicative of “shared sacrifice” than putting public sector employees into overpaid positions with bankrupt pensions while their private sector counterparts struggle.

When Kasich was asked about his thoughts on the President weighing in on what’s happening in Ohio, he didn’t mince words.

“We have balanced our budget, under this budget that we’ve presented, along with preserving the tax cut. The President of the United States has, I think a $3 trillion debt. Why doesn’t he do his job? When he does his job and gets our budget balanced and starts to prepare a future budget for our children, then maybe he can have an opinion on what’s going on in Ohio.”

Thanks, Governor Kasich.