Dana Loesch's blog http://www.blogher.com/blog/374/atom/feed 2009-04-01T20:46:27-05:00 Why I'm Against Cap-and-Trade http://www.blogher.com/why-im-against-cap-and-trade 2009-07-03T13:15:06-05:00 2009-07-03T13:29:07-05:00 Dana Loesch I've followed the Waxman - Markey legislation, infamously known as cap-and-trade, for some time now, being that I've a factory-employed step-father, farmers in my family, a small business-owning husband, and, like all of us, I pay energy bills, the prices of which seem to increase annually.

]]> I've followed the Waxman - Markey legislation, infamously known as cap-and-trade, for some time now, being that I've a factory-employed step-father, farmers in my family, a small business-owning husband, and, like all of us, I pay energy bills, the prices of which seem to increase annually.

The common misconception about conservatives is that we're not "pro-environment," which couldn't be further from the truth. I come from a farming family who steadfastly believe that what you take from the earth you return. I was raised knowing that it's a responsibility of humanity - even laid forth in Genesis - to be a good steward of the environment. This, perhaps is my biggest criticism of cap-and-trade (also Greenpeace's - I cannot believe they and I are agreeing on an issue, even in part), aside from my other concern: massive job loss.

This legislation, as explained by President Obama, proposes to curb carbon emissions and reduce energy usage by increasing the price of energy as the motivation to use less. There are several things wrong with this proposal, things which make it impossible for me to support:

1) The legislation approaches the problem of carbon emissions completely wrong. Back in the 90s, my uncle was one of several lobbyists who worked to push forth legislation that provided tax incentives to farmers who used organic means of cultivation. Instead of penalizing farmers, who were already struggling as it was, they would be rewarded for using less chemicals on the land. The plan worked - and has worked in states where implemented. Positive reinforcement works time and time again.

2) There are currently no incentives for businesses to reduce emissions, just penalties. This in turn positions the legislation and the party supporting it as being hostile to business, even if they really aren't. The bill also has no guarantees that these businesses won't simply relocate or ship jobs overseas as a way to get around purchasing credits or paying penalties; there is no guarantee that they won't emit less if they relocate - but it is certain that they won't curb their emissions if they do.

3) The bill proposes to shift dependence from coal - a resource of which we have an abundance, says the U.S. Department of Energy, which is why the energy bills of the United States are so much lower compared to other parts of the world - to energies which are not yet capable of sustaining the market demand, explained Dan Kish, Senior Vice-President for Policy at the Institute for Energy Research, on my radio show last week. It costs more to produce less energy with regards to win and solar. The mistake made by some against conservatives is that by stating this, we're speaking against wind and solar power which is factually incorrect. I would love to have various forms of energy. I would love to have a decreased dependence on foreign countries for oil, et al., I would love to create more jobs in the green industry- but not at the sake of denying scientific fact where energy is concerned. We are not yet at that point to make a major shift.

4) According to Kish, we have already cut emissions by 70-75% without this exponentially-increased governmental oversight. More can be done, sure, but we're working off the false premise that changes are not already underway. Instead of cracking down on companies and risking job losses with no environmental benefit, why not craft a bill to reward them for reductions? Kish and others have also noted that our newer coal plants burn incredibly cleaner than older plants; why not retrofit older plants and make them more efficent? The cost to do this would seem to be less than the proposed cost incurred by this legislation. Says Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation:

For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.

Of course, by giving incentives to instead of penalizing businesses, the government would greatly reduce the billions its expected to rake in from this legislation to offset stimulus spending.

5) I am open to all theories, so long as they are founded in fact and not politics, i.e. the EPA report that was suppressed. Such controversy should not exist when undertaking the biggest tax in American history based on the findings of such reports. Pat Austin, of So It Goes in Shreveport, discusses the suppressed EPA report:

The fact that the EPA suppressed a 98 page report by EPA senior research analyst Alan Carlin, some assume under pressure by the Obama administration, that draws serious questions about climate change.

6) I do not want elected officials - from EITHER party - who would stand to benefit from the passage of this or any legislation involved with getting it to a vote, i.e. Nancy Pelosi and Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan.

7) The estimated job loss as a result of cap-and-trade is projected at 81,000 machinery jobs alone; by 2035 there will be 263,000 fewer machinery jobs. That's just in that particular industry. The ratio of jobs created with Waxman - Markey is grossly disproportionate to the amount of jobs which will be lost. It's analogous to saying that we need another hurricane to roar through the Florida panhandle in order to create some construction jobs. Well, sure, we'll have some construction jobs, but what of the other sectors? They will be ravaged. For further insight, listen to Warren Buffett give testament to this, or these Missouri small business owners whose jaws hit the floor when they realized what would happen to their energy bills under cap-and-trade. Austin also notes:

The Heritage Foundation predicts that this bill will "destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs."

What happenes when you increase the cost of doing business? The price
of the product increases. Benefits are cut and jobs are lost as companies shift to reign in spiked costs. You discover that your dollar doesn't stretch as far as it once did. The effects are widespread. 

8) There's more in Waxman - Markey than most people realize. Pundit and Pundette examines how this bill attempts to micromanage citizens via a post from Austin:

And how will this bill affect you? It has regulations on every single aspect of your daily life. There are light bulb restrictions (no more than 60 watts in your candelabra); in fact there's a whole section that deals with lamps. If you decide to build a new home, it must meet new and specific energy requirements. If you decide to sell your existing home, a federal inspector must inspect your home, determine it's energy rating, and if your home is found to be unacceptable then you must retrofit and make changes before you will be able to sell.

There's an entire section on planting trees including guidelines on "scientific based measurements outlining the species and minimum distance required between trees planted...in addition to the minimum required distance to be maintained between such trees and building foundations, air conditioning units, driveways and walkways...". Do we really need the federal government telling us where we can plant trees?

There's a section dealing with outdoor lighting in which you are given instructions about landscape lights, lights in your swimming pool, lights on artwork and other architectural lighting. The federal government is going to tell you what wattage that light can be and how many you can have. In some cases the lights must be capable of producing two different light levels (100 and 60 watt).

There are new government regulations for water dispensers, hot tubs and other appliances. They're going to regulate water usage, and regulate wood stoves. Any wood stove that does not meet regulation must be "destroyed and recycled."

9) This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation in recent years because it's the biggest tax hike in the country and congress, breaking all promises, again, didn't even read it. A 300-page addendum was dumped on their desks the night before the vote. Kim Priestap takes issue with how the bill isn't even technically a bill yet:

This is unbelievable. The House voted on a bill that is not even a bill yet. It’s still in the development stages.

This is why I and so many are against the Waxman - Markey cap-and-trade bill. There is a better way to go about it that puts the environment and jobs first, politics second, all without further tanking our economy. The results are too important with which to trifle. Whoever does it? BRAVO.

]]> What Patriotism Means to Me http://www.blogher.com/what-patriotism-means-me 2009-06-29T09:36:10-05:00 2009-06-29T09:40:12-05:00 Dana Loesch I've spent hours watching the headlines pour forth from Iran, video of young, innocent Iranians being slaughtered in the street for challenging the state, photographs of brave Iranian women clutching at rocks, the only weapons they have besides their fists, as they stand toe-to-toe with a hostile militia.

I see this and I am overcome with an immense feeling of patriotism for my own country.

]]> I've spent hours watching the headlines pour forth from Iran, video of young, innocent Iranians being slaughtered in the street for challenging the state, photographs of brave Iranian women clutching at rocks, the only weapons they have besides their fists, as they stand toe-to-toe with a hostile militia.

I see this and I am overcome with an immense feeling of patriotism for my own country.

It may seem like an interesting dichotomy, but it's not. I recognize the liberty of a people before I recognize the sovereignty of their country. It may seem like nationalism but it's not: nationalism only pretends regard for liberty as a way to distract from encroaching control; patriotism is driven by liberty and the desire for the citizenry's self-sufficiency.

I consider myself patriotic and a patriot.

My father, my grandfathers, my indigenous ancestors have fertilized this soil with their blood. My indigenous ancestors nurtured this land before the arrivals at Plymouth; in an example of bad government my great great etc. grandmother and many other ancestors died on the Trail of Tears because for a moment, our leader lost sight of America's purpose. My grandmothers and great-grandmothers took off their aprons, rolled up their shirt sleeves, and sauntered into the factories when our boys - their husbands, my great-grandfathers and grandfathers - went to war. They were the real, the original Rosie the Riveters. We have photographs of one of them, dressed in overalls, her hair in a kerchief, standing in a factory with a smudge of dirt on her chin. She looked so proud. They held down the fort and kept this country working and I'm moved to goosebumps when I think of that female patriotism.

My grandfather served as a gunner on the USS Alabama and the sound from the massive guns he shot, sometimes 24-7 in battle, shredded his ear drums. The radiation to which he was exposed when he witnessed the blast of one of the atomic bombs later contributed greatly to the cancer which slowly consumed his life in his elderly years.

My great-grandfather was one of the original dogfaces on the beach at Normandy. The lowest of the low in rank, they saw some of the most brutal action and took the heaviest hit. He fought his way into France and was there when the American tanks rolled in and the people cried with relief because they knew that their hell was over.

My family members fought to protect their family, their countrymen, not the state. I've picked up their mantle with my activism, a match to the roaring bonfire of their contributions. They have given me an example of what patriotism is and what it isn't.

Patriotism, to me, is the love of one's people and one's country. It's the vigilant maintenance of liberty, it's about speaking up against any move by government to pollute that for which our country stands or infringe upon the liberty we enjoy. It's about being prepared to serve your country in some capacity, if needed. To go further: for me, patriotism is about defending your country for its people, not its government.

My children were taught the Pledge of Allegiance and recognize that it's about standing together as one, "one nation, under God, indivisible," one nation - a nation is its people - indivisible.

This Fourth of July I will fly my American flag in honor of every man and woman in my family and amongst my acquaintance (I am so privileged to know so many who have served or are serving).When we say grace 'round the grill we'll extend the part in our prayer for all those leading our country and for our fellow Americans.

Visit some military family blogs and show your support and respect.

  • Military Moms
  • The Navy Wife Life
  • Army Wife Toddler Mom
  • Trying Our Best
  • Dragonfly
    • ]]>         The Iran Dilemma http://www.blogher.com/iran-dilemma 2009-06-20T01:28:26-05:00 2009-06-20T01:28:26-05:00 Dana Loesch There's been a lot of back and forth this past week over the best way to recognize the protests in Iran without giving the mullocracy the incentive to use. Many have criticized the way in which President Obama responded to the election fallout in Iran and the uprising of the Iranian people.

    Says Kim Priestap:

    ]]>     There's been a lot of back and forth this past week over the best way to recognize the protests in Iran without giving the mullocracy the incentive to use. Many have criticized the way in which President Obama responded to the election fallout in Iran and the uprising of the Iranian people.

    Says Kim Priestap:

    ... he’s missing an incredible opportunity to dramatically alter the face of the Middle East by making dictators the exception and democracies the rule

    Sister Toldjah explains the difference in asking the president to speak up in support of protesters and declaring war:

    I’m fascinated by the liberal belief that Obama’s approach to this is the right one. It’s one thing for him to refrain from commenting on the election results themselves, or demanding a recount or whatever, but it’s another thing all together to sit back and keep quiet when people are being beaten and murdered over political dissent. The violence against protesters has increased, dorms have been burned down, scores are being arrested and will probably never be heard from again – this is what we know from leaked reports because the Iranian government has cracked down on all forms of communication. The leaked reports, videos and photos say it all about what’s happening there.

    [...]

    I repeat again: There is a distinct difference in President Obama condemning violence against the political opposition in Iran versus demanding a recount and calling the elections there a sham.

    Just yesterday the president sat down with CBS News and batted away, much like that infamous fly, the clichéd scapegoat that the West has lead the protesters like sheep into the streets:

    ... let's understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States. that's an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically.

    Whether or not Obama's words will prove effective in deflecting that rumor remains to be seen; I think it's weak at best for the Ayatollah to assert such a thing, the protesters know it, we know it; I think the Iranian people have had too much a taste of bravery to suddenly buy into "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach that the Iranian regime is attempting to take in order to divide and conquer.

    And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. And, you know, already we've seen violence out there. I think I've said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.

    I love those who seek peace, I do. Despite the stereotypes, conservatives love peace and they love peaceable solutions. Unfortunately, there are times when such diplomacy fails and in order to create the mood for peace, a stronger stance is required. (Recognition of such does not a war-mongerer make.) The president is trying to walk a very careful line here and I don't envy the job. However, I disagree with him and here is why: a regime like this won't be overthrown with peace. Instances like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi are exceptions to the rule rather than the rule itself - and one big reason Dr. King's movement was successful is because it took place in a country where the government didn't murder its citizens for protesting. Statistically (considering every conflict in the history of the world) change is brought about by something more vigorous. Regimes such as this - as we've seen in the Balkins, in Georgia, Russia, China, et al. change by force, change when the people have had enough, change when the people rise up against tyranny. The closest example we have of this is the creation of our own country, the independence of which we will celebrate next month.

    I'm not advocating conflict; rather I'm advocating the best course of action that will win a permanent state of liberty for the Iranian people. If that course of action is a lack of force, so much the better, it is cause célèbre. That is the preferred, Utopian path. However, if the Iranian people are forced to stand up for themselves with force and ask for our help we should offer assistance because the allegiance of anyone, any government should be to the people and not to the state.

    The president continued:

    the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we've already seen. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

    How lucky were we back in revolutionary times, a young nation, that we had the assistance of the French, without whom our country may never have seen sovereignty from the crown?

    I can appreciate this argument, I really can. However, without assigning blame or suggesting maliciousness on anyone's part, I can't help but feel slightly offended for my Iranian friends as the argument presupposes two things:

    1) that this movement is shallow enough that Iranian citizens are so easily distracted by a predisposition towards the left

    2) that they hate the West more than they love their own individual freedom and right to a vote

    I don't believe that either of these are true which is why I feel that the "meddling" argument is unintentionally disingenuous.

    It's also been asked who are we, the United States, to meddle or impose our will on anyone? This is the point at which I say what I've been saying for years: the West doesn't have a patent on liberty. I view liberty as such a wonderful thing; I would never seek to discriminate against another people simply because I view freedom as something belonging solely to the West. I strongly feel that people can still keep their religion while also exercising their liberty. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    There is something more troubling to me in this argument, though. I feel it dangerous to place a greater importance on the sovereignty of a nation over the freedom and treatment of its people. A nation IS its people. The thinking that somehow the state must be respected before the innocents is the sort of thinking which isolated us from engaging in WWI and WWII until war was literally on our doorstep. This is the sort of thinking that enable countrymen to helplessly (self-perceived) watch their minority brethren carted off to camps. Please note: this is not to say that all people with such an argument buy into this thinking with a full awareness of the reasoning's implications; I don't believe that at all, but I do think that some feel the reasoning valid simply because they may not realize the implications.

    I agree with Sister Toldjah: there is a massive difference in strongly condemning, as Germany, France, and even Canada have done, the actions of a government who have and will always abhor us and standing up for a people. I personally feel that we have a greater chance at peace and diplomacy from new leadership (the dissolution of the regime, honestly) than with the old guard based upon their record.

    Whatever the route history goes, the plight of the Iranian people is a strong reminder; we are spoiled in our liberty, we know nothing of indentured servitude, nothing of oppression here in America. Let us remember the history of our own country's beginnings and through that, empathize as best we can with the Iranian people and stand in solidarity for them. Freedom for everyone.

    ]]>         White Supremacist Kills Holocaust Museum Guard; Conservatives Get the Blame? http://www.blogher.com/white-supremacist-kills-holocaust-museum-guard-conservatives-get-blame 2009-06-11T00:03:44-05:00 2009-06-11T00:08:17-05:00 Dana Loesch The hero of the story that unfolded today at the Holocaust Museum, Stephen Tyrone Johns, died from gunshot wounds sustained as he protected the lives of hundreds. My prayers are with his family. I've been trying to wrap my head around this for a good part of the day.

    From The Anchoress:

    ]]>     The hero of the story that unfolded today at the Holocaust Museum, Stephen Tyrone Johns, died from gunshot wounds sustained as he protected the lives of hundreds. My prayers are with his family. I've been trying to wrap my head around this for a good part of the day.

    From The Anchoress:

    I know nothing about Officer Steven Tyrone Johns, but today he laid
    down his life for the sake of strangers, and in doing so he echoed all
    that is heroic and fine in humanity and in heaven; his huge sacrifice
    contradicted and defeated the million small, thoughtless acts of spite,
    malice and hate that contribute everyday to people treating each other like “things,” and which thus open ever-wider the door through which evil eventually walks. God bless him and his family.

    My prayers are with Johns' family; my anger is with the apparent neo-national socialist, a black/Jew/Christian-hating bigot, James Von Brunn, who opened fire at the museum. Amazing, perhaps it was his hate that kept him alive for these 88 years? Nordette has a good post about both the hero and the murderer.

    I'm also upset by the way some have chosen to ignore all facts of the matter and dishonestly use this tragedy as an opening for inciting prejudice against conservatives. Exhibit A, Daily Kos. Seriously? I guess that trumped offering up sentiments for a fallen hero in terms of focus. Sad indeed.

    Five Feet of Frury's Kathy Shaidle notes that Brunn was a 9/11 truther and hated everyone from the Bushes to the founders of Google:

    ... he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other "neo-conservatives" in online essays. As even some "progressives" such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, "neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews". As well, even a cursory glance at "white supremacist" writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.

    He hated conservatives, big corporations ... begs the question as to whether Markos has the wrong end of the political spectrum, a question I'm not going to officially introduce because of the ridiculous inanity.

    Relatedly, Shepard Smith used it to bash conservatives and freaked out on air over his troll mail (he really should comb through my overburdened inbox sometime, the lunacy is on both sides, Shep) and Atlas Shrugs takes him to task:

    Was the condescending Shepard Smith scolding the leftist/Islamic alliance last week when Abdulhakim Muhammad gunned down US soldiers at the military recruiting center, justifying it by saying it was jihad? Did he talk all afternoon discussing the violent ideology of the Koran?

    How relieved everyone in the media was (particularly Shep) that the shooter was not a Muslim -- now they can talk about it, now they can spend all day on it and analyze every irrelevant factoid.

    Shepard Smith is scolding us for the 89 year old Nazi Von Brunn -- a nut case who served six years in federal prison in the 1980s. Von Brunn had walked into the headquarters of the Federal Reserve System with two guns, a package he said contained dynamite, and a desire to improve the nation's economy, D.C. police said. A certifiable sicko.

    How amusing that Shepard feels the need to take this opportunity to scold us for doing the job the media and schmucks like him won't do. He also took the opportunity to vouch for the DHS report on right wing extremism. You know, the one that targeted vets, tea party attendees, Jewish extremists -- as the real threats to the country.

    She adds:

    Shep, don't preach to us about anger. This from a guy who hit a reporter with his car as she saved a parking space. He was arrested for it too.

    (Atlas Shrugs also has an excellent post with in-depth information about the situation along with some of Brunn's bizarre writings. Truly frightening.)

    (Here he goes off on Bush and Jews. Were it not for the events of today I'd swear it was an Onion piece. h/t.)

    Sister Toldjah passionately disagrees with the folks at TPM and other sites (Ed Morrissey lists some) who have tried to analogize Brunn to everything from the tea party movement to Christianity.

    ... once the AP gleefully reported that the shooter was a “white supremacist,” that’s all lefties like Josh Marshall needed. Let’s forget for a second that, in addition to being a “Birther” von Brunn is also a … drumroll … Truther (via Capt. Ed), a conspiracy group right wingers strongly condemn. He hated “neo-cons,” too (via MM), another group that left wingers despise. Not only that, but, yes, Von Brunn is also a Holocaust denier, and last I checked, the left has more of a problem with Jew haters than the right does. He also wasn’t particularly fond of Christians, another issue that lends itself to being more “left wing” than “right wing.”

    But - please - let’s not let the facts get in the way of a full-scale red meat rant againt the “Reich wing,” ok? Let’s just ignore the fact that this guy was an anti-Semite of the worst kind - those who use violence to “get their point across.”

    David Codera examines the failure of gun control laws (remember, only law-abiding folks obey laws, hence the "criminal" title) and how the museum was a gun-free zone.

    Considering the anti-semitic hate from Ahmadinajhad, the recent remarks from Jeremiah Wright (wherein he slams the president in saying "them Jews" won't let Obama talk to him) can we use this as the lesson it is: that bigotry is sick, antisemitism is sick, and that criminals will behave in a criminal fashion regardless the laws? It hurts more then helps to turn this into a partisan mud-match. There are better uses for our energy.

    ]]>         Conservative Bloggers React to President Obama's Cairo Speech http://www.blogher.com/conservative-bloggers-react-president-obamas-cairo-speech 2009-06-05T00:13:33-05:00 2009-06-05T00:13:33-05:00 Dana Loesch President Obama's speech in Cairo today was met with mixed reviews stateside and civil applause in Egypt.

    There were a few things over which I nodded my head in agreement, for instance this:

    ]]>     President Obama's speech in Cairo today was met with mixed reviews stateside and civil applause in Egypt.

    There were a few things over which I nodded my head in agreement, for instance this:

    Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

    and this:

    Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

    I would have been happier with that last bit had he forgone the political correctness and just called the "violent extremism" for what it is: terrorism.

    Conservatives across the blogosphere reacted. Hot Air gave a surprising lukewarm review whereas others strongly disagreed with author Ed Morrisey:

    Peter Daou:

    Is that a joke?

    With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

    Pundette of Pundit and Pundette writes:

    Obama can't make a speech that isn't teeming with straw men. Count them if you can.

    She goes further to echo Daou's point:

    He slides right past the brutal reality of the repression of Muslim women, ludicrously equating their status as chattel with the American woman's "struggle for equality." Muslim girls and women lack more than education; they lack basic rights and freedoms.

    Says Fausta:


    Most troubling of all, the speech lacked
    4. An unequivocal, firm stance on democracy: A “commitment to governments that reflect the will of the people” is not enough. Tyrants since the dawn of history have been summoning the masses to demonstrate their regimes “reflect the will of the people.”


    Additionally, the statement, “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone” is equivocating on a moral point. America, from its birth, has been a champion of democracy, and should remain stalwart in its position.

     

    Sweetness and Light takes issue with this excerpt of the president's speech:

    As a student of history, I also know civilisation’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

    here:

    The origins of Algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians, who were not Muslims. It was primarily developed by the ancient Greeks.

    Recent research suggests that the compass may have been discovered by Central Americans. But if not, the Chinese are then its discovers. In either case, both did so centuries before the advent of Islam.

    Of course arches and spires also pre-date the arrival of Islam by centuries.

    As for their gift to music, music and especially instruments are forbidden in most Islamic traditions.

    It should be unnecessary to have to note that Islam’s ‘religious tolerance’ has been demonstrated for centuries. Indeed, its history is that of destroying any other religion it confronts.

    Similarly, the Mohammedans’ long history of enslaving African blacks has shown their regard for ‘racial equality.’

    But what are a few lies among friends?

    I'm glad that Obama acknowledged, and took care to reference twice, that Arab nations should stop using Palestine as a way to incite antisemitism in which to ferry a self-serving agenda. However, for many of the conservative Jewish bloggers I read, it fell short of their expectations.

    Was it a strong enough speech? Too strong for certain Arab leaders? Time will tell.

    ]]>         Sotomayor Isn't the Worst He Could Do http://www.blogher.com/sotomayor-isnt-worst-he-could-do 2009-05-28T22:44:35-05:00 2009-05-29T17:17:16-05:00 Dana Loesch The uproar came promptly after President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his choice for Justice Souter's Supreme Court seat.

    There was the question of her devotion to equality before law.

    ]]>     The uproar came promptly after President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his choice for Justice Souter's Supreme Court seat.

    There was the question of her devotion to equality before law.

    There's also speculation as to how she would rule in any re-ignition of Roe v. Wade. I myself am not too trusting, however, she has no past abortion decisions, merely opinions, relatable cases, and associations. Obama played it safe by selecting her: it doesn't give pro-lifers much concrete ammo and the fact that she also happens to be Hispanic plays well into the Democrats' formula of identity politics - despite the fact that Democrats treated Bush nominee Miguel Estrada exceptionally worse than any vetting Sotomayor has received thus far, and will receive, I'll venture so far to say.

    Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor announced in Washington
    Ann Althouse has an good post on the matter of Sotomayor and abortion:

    Some people assume Obama wouldn't have picked her if she doesn't support abortion rights, but is that really the case? White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, has said that Obama “did not ask... specifically” about her position. It may be politically useful that her opinion isn't known, and yet that may mean that she'll turn out to be a surprise (as Souter, the man she's replacing was in his time).

    Though I partially disagree with her here:

    When a white man gets onto the Supreme Court, it's because of his legal credentials, because he got no points for diversity, but when a woman or a member of a minority group makes it onto the Court, she (or he) will be forever marginalized as an embodiment of the quality or qualities that clinched the appointment, even though excellent legal credentials were required for her to make it into the pool of finalists. Don't you see how unfair this marginalization is?

    Yes and no. Althouse omits both Ricci and the reversal percentage of Sotomayor's decisions, including four reversals from the Supreme Court. Says Ed Morrisey:

    A reversal on Ricci will raise the issue of the several reversals Sotomayor has received over her 11 years on the 2nd Circuit (the Washington Times says she bats .400 at the Supreme Court — not a confidence builder). The Supreme Court has reversed her at least four times already, at least one of those a unanimous 8-0 reversal, which makes her look either more liberal than anyone currently on the court or less competent. One of the times the court upheld Sotomayor, the majority scolded her for misrepresenting the statute in her opinion.

    Whether or not the number of her reversals are significant or average is unclear, though I'd like to see them compared to the reversal percentages of the sitting Justices. Until the issue is resolved it must fairly remain a concern.

    Morrisey says the nomination should pass, but for a reason, and assigns some caustic blame to Obama:

    They have an opportunity to use the hearings to show Sotomayor as a routine appellate jurist with a spotty record who got elevated to this position as an act of political hackery by a President who couldn’t care less about his responsibilities to find the best and brightest for the job.

    She's not Harriet Meiers. She's not unqualified. Were there more qualified prospects on Obama's short list? Yes. However, he either knew better than to choose the least-radical judge in contention or he selected her for her ethnicity which thwarted Democrats' plans to have a judge likely more prone to bench activism. Either way of reasoning amuses me, the latter for obvious reasons.

    Then there is the brouhaha over her comments published in the New York Times:

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor."

    Well good grief. Just when conservatives ease back a bit with the relief that Obama selected a more judicial ... well, judge, she has to go and say something like this. Had John Roberts said:

    I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life ...

    Fit would hit the SHAN. You know it would, too, don't you dare fib. Either way you dice it this statement is controversial: it either implies a form of racism (as many, including Cassy Fiano believe) or - and I'm trying to give Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt here - she intended it to imply her ability to empathize. If it was the latter, which I believe, then it suggests a level of incompetency because all are equal before the law, law is logic, not heartstrings and emotional appeals.

    Sotomayor has, so far as I've seen, upheld the law and hasn't acted too injudiciously, save for when she stated that "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." She goes on to say "I know, I know, we don't make law." I went back and forth with others about this on air the other day. I would feel more at ease if she had condemned activism from the bench instead of brushing it off with an "I shouldn't say this because it's on tape." No one who is being honest with themselves at this point can deny that this was unsettling to both see and hear this statement being made, be it from a liberal or conservative nominee. Whether or not she'll attempt to make law from the bench will remain a surprise until after she's confirmed.

    Karen at Pondering Penguin makes an incredible point (even though I amicably disagree with her on a few later points):

    President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Deal with it. This is one liberal replacing an outgoing liberal. The balance on the Court remains the same.

    This is not the time to talk of nonsense like filibusters or trashing the nominee as a person. That is what the Democrats do when they are not in power. Disagree on her decisions? Sure. Disagree on her view on judicial activism? Definitely. Point out her honest record and her reversals by the Supreme Court? Fair game.

    Do not, I repeat, do not even think about demanding a filibuster or insisting her nomination be held up due to procedural maneuvers. That is what Democrats do when they are not in power.

    Agreed.

    ]]>         On Notre Dame and Life http://www.blogher.com/notre-dame-and-life 2009-05-21T22:34:23-05:00 2009-05-21T22:34:42-05:00 Dana Loesch I watched coverage of the Notre Dame debacle on Sunday and was struck by two things:

    1) the erosion of both religious integrity and personal conviction.

    2) the illogical framing of the abortion debate.

    ]]>     I watched coverage of the Notre Dame debacle on Sunday and was struck by two things:

    1) the erosion of both religious integrity and personal conviction.

    2) the illogical framing of the abortion debate.

    As someone who has studied the Bible extensively and owns every published version in circulation (and has studied various verses comparatively) I'm not going to engage in a Scripture battle of what God says about life in the womb, or when molecular biology says that life begins, or how the argument isn't, as my friend Katie has said, not "over when life begins; the debate is over when life is worthy of protection." I will simply say this: the biggest perceived threat to Christianity doesn't come from The Gays, or from Hollywood, or from booze, or from the "Rock of Love Bus"; it comes from within Christianity itself. The problem manifests itself in the people who warm the pews and praise God on Sundays but betray Him with their mouths and actions on Monday. The problem continues from this when our kids see hypocritical behavior from authority within the church. They see it in the egregious transgressions of those who eagerly clamor to lead the flock. They see it from a university that claims Catholicism yet honors a president who has made it a point to favor abortion groups with regards to policy, groups that go against a tenant of the Catholic faith.

    The erosion of the religious integrity comes when you have people who cherry pick which of God's laws they want to follow and try to validate it with moral relativism.

    This is why there is a decline in pastoral enrollment, why "for every American who joins the Catholic Church, four others leave."

    To pass off responsibility for these misdeeds ignores the problem with those who claim the faith and perpetuates the hypocrisy. In my opinion, such Christians are no better than people like Pat Robertson or Benny Hinn, people who claim to talk for God and embarrass themselves whenever given the chance.

    I'm also tired of the way in which people attempt to frame this issue. I'll come right out and say it, at the expense of losing popularity with those who can't tolerate diversity in opinion: I am also all for choice.

    Completely and totally.

    I am all for the woman's right to choose which form of birth control she wants to use, be it the birth control pill, the condom, or straight up pulling out; I am all for her deciding whether or not she wants to have sex on days when she is most fertile; I am all for her choice in eschewing sex completely, if that's what she wants to do. Supporting a woman's choice as to what happens with her body and supporting a kid's choice as to what happens with hers or his are not mutually exclusive things. The problem isn't with sex education, it's with apathy. Case in point: we've exponentially increased the amount spent on sex ed programs yet the teen birthrate has risen. People know how babies are made.

    When President Obama said that we must find common ground I cringed a bit. This isn't Cap and Trade, it isn't an economic principle, it's not an opinion that either side holds; to find common ground one must back off a fundamental principle of what they believe.“The problem here is that we’re trivializing abortion,” said Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. It doesn't just trivialize abortion, it also trivializes the beliefs of either side to assume that they can just lay down fundamental beliefs for the sake of false political harmony.

    Says Kim from the Mother of All Conservatives:

    Yesterday, President Obama said in his commencement speech at Notre Dame that abortion is an issue over which we should just agree to disagree. This is a view that I and many others like me who see abortion as an abomination and a moral outrage can not accept. I can not just agree to disagree on the termination of a million innocent and defenseless human beings a year.

    Additionally, the president's pledge to work to decrease the amount of abortions sent a very convoluted message. An interesting point from the American Daily Review:

    If abortion is good, if the child inside of the mother is nothing more than a lifeless blob that won’t be missed, and is dispensable, then why seek to reduce the number of abortions? Obama, in an attempt to appeal to both sides of the debate, crossed himself.

    I believe that abortion is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. We don't tolerate prejudice against those of different ethnicities, of different religions, of sexual preference, of sex, so why is it that we engage in ageism? Such an action states that we don't value humanity because it exists, but rather we value it for what it can contribute. The president said that we're going to have to find common ground and basically agree to disagree. A friend of mine, a black Catholic conservative who has joked repeatedly that she wants to petition the government to put herself on the endangered species list, also views the topic as a civil rights issue. She remarked to me via chat that to presuppose that we can "agree to disagree" on abortion is "like saying that we agree to disagree on slavery. I can't 'agree to disagree' on that."

    For people like my friend and others, how we begin life doesn't diminish the validity of that life or the scope of said life's rights.

    Both these complex issues have made it very difficult for me and other conservatives to approve of Notre Dame's action to not just allow the president to speak - that would not have been too bad alone - but to honor him with a doctorate. I realize that the president was trying to appeal to the Catholics who voted for him but at the same time he further alienated Christians who, for them, abortion is not so simple an issue to just agree to disagree.

    It doesn't help that Pope Benedict has been nearly silent on the issue; after discussing the issue on air many Catholics wrote to me expressing resentment and anger at how they essentially feel forsaken by their religious leader. Karen at Pondering Penguin, a self-described a pro-choice Republican woman," aptly notes:

    The problem arises here due to the fact this is a private university with a very rich religious history and remains to present day as such. In 2004, as more and more discontent among the voters in our country rose and protested politicians who proclaim to be good, practicing Catholics yet run on the platform of the Democratic party which is pro-choice. The U.S. Catholic bishops issued a statement that "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles and that such persons should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That from the Kass article. So, the honorary degree is not within the tenet put forth in the official statement.

    (Karen's post on the subject is a must-read; she also mentions Mary Anne Glendon, a Harvard-graduated lawyer to whom Notre Dame was to award the Laetare Medal, what is apparently one of the highest awards for American Catholics. Glendon declined because of the university's decision to honor a president with an abortion background such as Obama's; the university apparently failed to find a taker.)

    (La Shawn Barber has an interesting note about the baby crying in the background during the president's speech.)

    The issue of abortion is a sensitive one and it doesn't help when anyone says that they "hate" another for their views or make assumptions that pro-lifers think all your bodies are belong to them; rather, I'd venture so far to say that pro-lifers want to free from control the bodies of society's youngest members.

    The best summation I've found of this story was situated in the comments over at Texas Darlin, from tz, who wrote:

    Notre Dame has sold out for a symbolic thirty pieces of silver.

    I dare say that I know many who would not limit that to just Notre Dame.

    ]]>         Conservative Reaction to Wanda Sykes's "Roast" http://www.blogher.com/conservative-reaction-wanda-sykess-roast 2009-05-13T22:22:32-05:00 2009-05-14T18:39:12-05:00 Dana Loesch Wanda Sykes needs to either give up comedy or else study up on the fine form that was Nipsey Russell's before she attempts to confuse malicious attacks with comedic jabs. Wishing death upon someone simply because they disagree with the current administration isn't funny; it's despicable. Instead of condemnation we get laughter from champagne swillers and a former cocaine user.

    ]]>     Wanda Sykes needs to either give up comedy or else study up on the fine form that was Nipsey Russell's before she attempts to confuse malicious attacks with comedic jabs. Wishing death upon someone simply because they disagree with the current administration isn't funny; it's despicable. Instead of condemnation we get laughter from champagne swillers and a former cocaine user. (Aw, another thing this president has in common with the last, besides his stance on gay marriage, troops in Afghanistan, and wiretapping!) It was so bad even Robert Gibbs was hesitant to respond when asked about it at a Monday morning presser.

    Celebrities Arrive At The White House Correspondents Association Dinner In Washington DC. 1 of 6
    Before a roundup of some female conservative reactions to this, let me flog a dead horse for a moment and ask if anyone hoped that the Bush administration would fail? Fail in regards to executing policies with which liberals disagreed (the entire meat of the original Rush Limbaugh remark)? If so, why has a change in administrations diminished the acceptability of such a sentiment?

    The Hyacinth Girl does not mince words (neither did Pundit and Pundette) when studying the President's reaction:

    As a senator, there is little to be lost carrying a petty grudge against a talk radio host. As the leader of the free world, however, it’s small and unbecoming of the office. Someone should let the president know this. Perhaps program this message into his prompter.

    People behave pathetically for money or fame as society rewards such actions with both, says Amy Ridenour:

    The behavior of Wanda Sykes, Perez Hilton, Donald Trump and others who intentionally behave less than graciously for money and profit is not admirable. If we wish to see less of it, we should turn our eyes away.

    And call it out when it happens. Ignoring it won't make it go away. People shouldn't decide whether or not something is offensive based on whether or not it meets their litmus test of politics; likewise, we shouldn't reward people who seek power from being the squeaky wheel with outrage over petty issues - but I think we can all agree that wishing someone to die and very clearly not joking about it is reprehensible regardless if the target of such an attack is liberal or conservative. It's not an issue of right and left, it's an issue of right and wrong.

    Now everyone hug it out.

    ]]>         How Can You Claim Conservatism Yet Accept Stimulus Money? http://www.blogher.com/how-can-you-claim-conservatism-yet-accept-stimulus-money 2009-05-08T16:16:38-05:00 2009-05-08T16:26:32-05:00 Dana Loesch There's a storm a'brewin' in Missouri's capitol. The other day I was sent this headline:

    Americans United for Life Applauds Missouri's Move to Use Stimulus Funds to Help Pregnancy Care Centers

    ]]>     There's a storm a'brewin' in Missouri's capitol. The other day I was sent this headline:

    Americans United for Life Applauds Missouri's Move to Use Stimulus Funds to Help Pregnancy Care Centers

    The Missouri House today amended HB21 to allocate at least $2 million of federal stimulus funds to go to grants for maternity homes and pregnancy resource centers in the state. The bill is now being considered by the Missouri Senate.

    Americans United for Life State Director Kerry Messer stated, "Maternity homes and pregnancy resource centers are essential to helping pregnant women in need. During these tough economic times, the Missouri House has proved their commitment to funding life-affirming organizations helping these women. We expect the Senate to follow suit and quickly approve this bill."

     

    Since this time I've been fielding emails from dozens of individuals who are upset that such a strong proponent of conservatism would accept stimulus funding, regardless the purpose for which its pledged.

    Granted, I get a sadistic bit of joy from knowing that after years of having our taxpayer dollars sent to groups like Planned Parenthood, that money now goes towards the alternative. However, when it comes to the stimulus, I feel it important to remain a purist in that no conservative business, organization, or person accepts stimulus funds. 

    Messer and others argue that the funds won't be integrated into the state budget but rather set aside for one-time-use projects that won't foster a sense of entitlement from bureaucrats who'd like to establish a precedence. This would be done by using the monies for grants or investments for organizations that already meet state requirements for existing tax credit programs - which is where pregnancy resource centers come in, as they would use the funding to make facility improvements, purchase new facilities, or buy new equipment.

     
    While Messer and other lobbyists wouldn't be paid for their actions to bring this funding to such groups, they would benefit at some point down the road by retaining this business or perhaps earning more in the future. I'm not against capitalism, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and all, but holding such a position while accepting funds that are antithetical to capitalism is not they way to go. 

    Furthermore, while I understand the perspective of those who wish to see this money go towards resources such as the aforementioned (as opposed to going to other states who may not have practiced fiscal responsibility), I still cannot agree on a matter of principle.

    First, as a conservative, I'm against taking taxpayer money in this manner. It's an anchoring principle of conservatism and I do not think that there are exceptions, no matter how noble those exceptions may be. A conservative can't very well rail against the government for giving taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood while defending the acceptance of federal funds for projects that meet their litmus test of morality. By playing this game conservatives engage in the exact same behavior for which they criticize liberals. 

    Secondly, it essentially makes such organizations indebted to the government. Nothing comes without strings attached and those strings may not be pulled now, but possibly later. I firmly believe that organization such as maternity homes, pregnancy resource centers, abortion clinics, et al. should depend upon the patronage of the public. If maternity homes need funding then the conservative community should step up. To argue against the stimulus and yet not do what you can to help or dissuade hurting organizations from accepting stimulus money is a failure as a conservative.

    Missouri isn't the only state grappling with this decision. While it's my biggest hope that states outright refuse any stimulus funds, most will not. Most cannot, depending upon their state legislators and how much political capitol they are willing to forfeit. In Missouri alone a handful of Republican legislators voted to pass the appropriations bill in the House, with very few of the GOP standing against it. 

    And people ask me why I'm not a Republican.

    Cassy Fiano noted in February that the House GOP was ready to be the stimulus watchdog. If only the same could be said of GOP at the state level. 

    Watch your state legislatures in the coming days and while no one in congress took the effort to read the 800+ page clustermuck that is the stimulus bill, as a citizen, take the time to learn where your local legislators are sending YOUR money - that's a hallmark of fiscal responsibility as well. 
    As Katie says:

     

    "It is time to say ‘wait, hold up, stop the train!’ The last couple generations of Americans, including my own, have a lot to answer for. We have done this to ourselves either directly through our actions or indirectly through our complacency. This is OUR fault, all of us. The good news is…we’re also the ones that can change it."

    ]]>         How to Devalue a Movement, or, the TCOT/Tea Party Infighting http://www.blogher.com/how-devalue-movement-or-tcot-tea-party-infighting 2009-04-30T19:44:58-05:00 2009-04-30T20:49:33-05:00 Dana Loesch That fact that I'm even writing about this is killing my brain cells. Adding insult to injury, I don't even have the benefit of doing it in cold, brewed, can form.

    ]]>     That fact that I'm even writing about this is killing my brain cells. Adding insult to injury, I don't even have the benefit of doing it in cold, brewed, can form.

    After becoming wildly furious over the way the GOP behaved during the last election - their selection of John McCain, the incessant condescension to the "religious right" about how they need to get out of the way and let the moderates run things - I was overjoyed with the creation of TCOT, or, Top Conservatives on Twitter. It was a great idea and drew together many conservatives. People like myself, who has been blogging since 2001, found strength in this conservative wave whereas before, we were practically stoned for expressing a conservative thought. Many new pundits and political websites were born, Team Sarah among those, which spawned similarly themed organizations dedicated to activism.

    Then came the Rick Santelli rant and the Tea Party v2.0 was born.

    Conservatives who were fed up with the self-serving GOP leadership embraced the Tea Party movement. The net/grassroots nature of the movement attracted more conservatives, and even moderates. It was a vote of no confidence.

    The tea parties were going great. Hundreds of thousands were turning out to protest; the national count at the last one was near 1 million, maybe more.

    Despite this, if I may borrow from Ross Perot, there was a "giant sucking sound," the monstrous power vacuum within the conservative movement. Lack of leadership creates chaos and struggle.

    Sadly, this struggle temporarily took down the TCOT site.

    I am upset because not only was I let down by the GOP, but now I feel as though certain members involved in the Tea Party movement let me and thousands of others down as well.

    I will say this, I know some of the parties involved and some I know only by their actions. Faith without action is empty, so say the Gospels, thus we're told that you can tell many a thing by the actions of a person.

    I know that the TCOT site is down, a site cofounded by Rob Neppell and Michael Leahy. Allegedly, Neppell shut it down when the pair couldn't agree on things.

    Further complicating matters, a group splintered off of the National Tea Party Coalition and I later saw numerous Tweets from those involved with the group who publicly berated Leahy for his behavior. It was said that he was difficult with which to work. In fact, a mass email (which has been forwarded all around the Web apparently, sigh) sent out by Amy Kremer stated this:

    "Unfortunately, early this week, the national coordinating team for the Tea Party Patriots were forced to end our relationship with Michael Leahy. Though we tried our best to resolve the differences between us, they had become so fundamental that we had no choice. Specifically, Michael had great difficulty in working as an equal member of a grassroots team, and despite repeated requests that he
    alter his behavior, he insisted on acting as the self appointed "Leader.    "

    Forgive me, but it seems a bit ironic for one to attack another over the very behavior one seems to demonstrate. Kremer also stated this after several lengthy paragraphs about how the movement belongs to everyone:

    "There are several other sites popping up around the web for Tea Party information. Many of them do not list who the people are behind the sites. Please use caution as you fill out information with these sites. We do not know to whom some of the sites belong and they may or may not truly be associated with our cause for reducing out of control taxing and spending. You can trust that the Tea Party Patriots are, and will always remain, true to the cause."

    This comes off as very, very bad for a multitude of reasons. This cause belongs to ALL OF US. Not to any one particular group of people.

    What surprised me further was a quote from Eric Odom, of Don't Go, as saying:

    "While others, including Michael Leahy, may claim to speak for the movement, we know the truth."

    I don't recall anyone ever attempting to speak for the movement, with the sole exception of what I quoted above.

    This was posted to the Tea Party Patriots site:

    As a side note, yesterday Michael Leahy, who was removed from the
    leadership of the Tea Party Patriots due to his inability to work in a
    cooperative group setting, and his position that the grass roots needed
    to be "led" instead of being honored with the leadership they
    themselves have earned, issued a press release. In that press release,
    Mr. Leahy had the audacity to purport to speak on behalf of the
    national tea party movement in offering to personally meet with
    President Obama.

    If they're unaffiliated, then why do they care? I and the hundreds of others who protested outside of that very townhall meeting would like to tell the president firsthand what we think could be done better. If the point isn't to deliver a message to Washington then ...? Leahy had emailed those involved with the St. Louis protest, and many others, to ask our thoughts on the matter. Unfortunately, the tea party protest organized by the common citzenery at the town hall meeting in St. Louis was not mentioned anywhere on the group's site despite being all over the news.

    Granted, you are always going to have instances where people are not going to get along, where people will quibble over direction, et al. I guess I thought that this movement would be excluded from those problems because I felt as though everyone really had the best interest of the movement at heart; plus, everyone was doing a good job of delivering the message on their own websites.

    I wasn't shocked that there was turbulence; rather I was floored, beyond floored, actually, when I saw that some had chosen to take this fight public because doing so cost us credibility. It's a horrible strategy for the meager goal of winning an argument. Taking it public was petty and in my opinion, showed a disrespect for the hard work of so many.

    I'm not excluding anyone from blame however, this reaction is a disproportionate response to the behavior they allege caused the rift in the first place because it compromised an entire movement. It's embarrassing and causes me and so many other people to question the dedication of anyone would would react so adversely as to jeopardize what hundreds of thousands of people have worked to accomplish. It hurts me even more because I really respected what each of these people did and to see this sort of thing going on ... I just know that we're better than this.

    So now we have two tea party sites, the one mentioned above which also sent out the email and whose members have made public remarks, and the one created by Leahy and a group of others, called the national Tea Party Coalition.

    Because I want to help, I feel compelled to pitch my hat in the ring of one of these national groups. Judging by what I've seen these past several days, I choose the latter, as it seems friendlier and most importantly, active; though it is my sincerest hope that conservatives can, as one of my all-time favorite hymns states, "get right and let's go home" and unify.

    Please.

    Let's focus on what's next for TCOT the movement and work to unify the Tea Party message.

    ]]>         Arlen Specter Formally Becomes a Democrat http://www.blogher.com/arlen-specter-formally-becomes-democrat 2009-04-28T20:37:51-05:00 2009-04-28T20:41:57-05:00 Dana Loesch Arlen Specter announced today that he's formally leaving the Republican Party for greener pastures in the 2010 primaries. I say "formally" because Specter left the GOP a long time ago and solidified his break by breaking rank and voting with the Democrats to pass the stimulus bill.

    This after he adamantly said that he would not switch parties. With audio!

    ]]>     Arlen Specter announced today that he's formally leaving the Republican Party for greener pastures in the 2010 primaries. I say "formally" because Specter left the GOP a long time ago and solidified his break by breaking rank and voting with the Democrats to pass the stimulus bill.

    This after he adamantly said that he would not switch parties. With audio!

    The reaction from both sides has given me whiplash. The moderates are sad to see him go, liberals are ecstatic that Specter's AWOL has gifted them a filibuster-proof majority; and conservatives like myself are glad for the spontaneous delousing.

    The response from conservatives around the Web is amusing. From @ksimm81:

    Arlen Specter defects to the Democrat Party. And in other news, water is wet.

    I echo Dena's sentiments, of Black'n'Right:

    Woo hoo! It is high time that traitor switched parties! I have been wanting him to switch since I first registered as a Republican in 2004! Praise God! Hallelujah! If I was Irish and knew how I would do a jig! Now if we can just get Zell Miller to come to our side we would be so much the better! For right now we have one less RINO to worry about. [Editor's note: I am 1/8 Irish and will totally dance a jig with her.]

    Specter, citing the standby "big tent" philosophy, fails to realize that conservatives' dissatisfaction with him exploded over his vote on the stimulus. Republicans don't have a patent on common sense fiscal practices, neither do Democrats, liberals, or conservatives. Fiscal acuity just is. When Specter asserts that those who refused to support him drew in the hem of the big tent, he purposefully misrepresents his opponents which in turn, moves the argument from fact to feeling and shifts the focus from his actions. It's not a very nice tactic if you're trying to win over hearts and minds.

    Specter says that his district saw a lot of new Democratic voters, courtesy Operation Chaos and those who just wanted to teach the GOP a lesson - you'd be shocked at the number and I hope conservatives learn a lesson from this. (I'm quite interested in comparing registrants from 2010's elections to the numbers of the 2008 election within PA.)

    Despite this, I suspect Specter's real reason for switching parties is because he knows that Pat Toomey would figuratively whoop him into a hole in the ground during the primaries, as linked earlier by Blogher Contributing Editor Erin Kotecki Vest. It's always unappealing whenever a politician postures to keep his political career alive. While I and others appreciate his votes on things like confirming Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, his position on school vouchers, and religious practices; there were other issues - his stances on illegal immigration, the Patriot Act, his support of McCain-Feingold, et al. - that eroded his support at the base. (Specter on the issues.)

    Do I think Specter's departure is a big deal? No. Like I said, he's just formalizing what happened a long time ago. Am I worried about the filibuster-proof majority? No. Speaking frankly and with good humor, I'm well aware that we've been screwed for some time. Besides, conservatives deserve the lumps.

    During the past eight years conservatives did ... what? Seriously, I have no idea what some of my political brethren did. Watch a lot of "24?" Many chances were wasted as a result of apathy. Chances to oust legislators who did nothing or little to make action out of conservative principles were frittered away. Many people falsely believed that the (R) was a conservative stamp of approval, analogous to "doctor approved."

    Even the devil can quote Scripture.

    It's taken a major shake-up to wake up conservatives across America and this recent game of Red Rover fired up the base even more. Arlen Specter voluntarily aborted himself from the Republican party and I throw the goat to that. If only it would be that easy with the rest of the RINO ilk.

    ]]>         David Axelrod, Father of Astroturfing, Sells His Famous Firm http://www.blogher.com/david-axelrod-father-astroturfing-sells-his-famous-firm 2009-04-22T22:27:52-05:00 2009-04-22T22:34:37-05:00 Dana Loesch David Axelrod, the father of astroturfing, condemned the nationwide Tea Party protests as "dangers" and called them "astroturfing."

    You'd think it take one to know one. Ruh-roh Elroy!

    ]]>     David Axelrod, the father of astroturfing, condemned the nationwide Tea Party protests as "dangers" and called them "astroturfing."

    You'd think it take one to know one. Ruh-roh Elroy!

    Axelrod will make a nice $3 million dollar wad over the next five years for the sale of his Chicago firm ASK Public Strategies. ASK is famous for many things, most notably for helping Illinois utility company Commonwealth Edison by way of a television spot advocating for rate hikes on behalf of an astroturfed group called CORE. A complaint was filed and the utility was forced to pay up and admit the scheme.

    ASK also worked with Cablevision, the company which owns Madison Square Garden, to fake a grassroots group to oppose the NY Jets' plan to build a new stadium in New York City.

    Hypocrisy much?

    One of the most frustrating things to me about the Tea Party movement is that groups like American Solutions, Freedom Works, et al. didn't join the fray until after the movement was already established as a viable conservative effort. In some cases, certain groups allowed their ambition to interfere with the goal of getting the message out, and it ended up hindering, rather than helping the efforts.

    In addition, huge names began to hitch their wagons to the movement and in my opinion, convoluted the movement's origins - this was compounded by the fact that there exist some groups so eager for a toehold in this power vacuum within the right that they all to eagerly sold out their grassroots status to share some starpower with people who gobbled up credit, yet only recently decided to show interest in what was and is a common citizen's movement. I find this incredibly disappointing as it doesn't do anything to shirk these "GOP hack" aspersions cast upon the characters and motivations of those organizing.

    So to answer David Axelrod's (and Nancy Pelosi's) ridiculous charge? No. These protests, this nation-wide movement was pieced together by average folks. We shook change out of the sofa cushions to cover permit and insurance costs here in St. Louis and were helped by a few small businesses when we mentioned our need.

    I realize that to someone like Axelrod, who's spent years scheming up ways to fake out the American people into believing that certain corporate-funded uprisings are grassroot, the virtue of genuineness would seem quite foreign. (Cassy Fiano has chronicled some more Axelrod-perpetuated astroturfing.) However, just because Axelrod chose to manufacture public outrage doesn't mean that people need a Wizard of Oz to make magic.

    Via; last week's post

    ]]>         Thousands Gather Across the Country for the Tax Day Tea Party Protest http://www.blogher.com/thousands-gather-across-country-tax-day-tea-party-protest 2009-04-15T12:36:46-05:00 2009-04-15T12:36:46-05:00 Dana Loesch Tomorrow I will join thousands of Americans in protesting continued fiscal irresponsibility by our government. The desire for fiscal responsibility is neither conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat; it is what it is and to view it otherwise is to make it a partisan issue. It's not a partisan issue, it's an American issue.

    ]]>     Tomorrow I will join thousands of Americans in protesting continued fiscal irresponsibility by our government. The desire for fiscal responsibility is neither conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat; it is what it is and to view it otherwise is to make it a partisan issue. It's not a partisan issue, it's an American issue.

    There is a lot of misinformation out there about why we are taking to the streets; as one of the national sponsors and as an organizer who's been involved since its inception, I wanted to address some of that.

    I am not a billionaire, nor am I funded by billionaires. Were this accusation true I would be wearing a rhinestone-encrusted beltbuckle with the words THA BOSS plated across the center. Clearly this charge is false because a) I do not have said belt buckle b) we paid for our permits by scraping change out of the couch cushions and with donations made by everyday citizens.

    I am not a GOP hack. I'm not going to bash the GOP; I realize that they are our biggest champions of conservative principles in Washington. However, take this as caring criticism when I say that their recent jump onto our coattails was not exactly welcome. The Tea Party protest is a movement started by nets/grassroots activists. By the people and for the people. It makes no sense to involve the GOP because it was on their watch that the Wall Street bailout passed. I only like irony in the comedic sense.

    Myself and my fellow organizers are not members of groups like Freedom Works or Newt Gingrich's American Solutions Project. These groups (except perhaps for a protest in Florida organized by Freedom Works, I believe) tacked themselves on to the movement after it had momentum. Gingrich may be a mastermind strategist, but if he thinks he's opaque enough to hide his posturing for a possible 2012 bid he's missed his mark.

    I fully realize that me saying this or even attempting to be honest about any political party will cost me valuable points and prizes from those who accept only salacious butt-kissing and those people can, quite bluntly, bite me. I refuse to be manipulated. Period. /digression

    These protests are also not "hate Obama" rallies. Please. If you truly believe that we would not be in the streets if this were President McCain making these decisions and not President Obama, then I have a bridge to sell you. Seriously. You will never find another deal on a bridge like this.

    We are not "extremists." Just yesterday evening a network affiliate mischaracterized me and my co-organizer by analogizing us to the worst kind of kooky extremists and didn't bother to contact us to ask us anything about a story he was doing. On us. This isn't the first hit job I've taken by shoddy journalists and it won't be the last, but it does aggravate me that someone would attempt to suppress turnout by likening those who show up to protest fiscal waste to extremists or neo-Nazis. It's irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

    Since when did political dissent become unpatriotic? (The Anchoress has a brilliant piece on this, by the way.)

    So why exactly are we protesting? We're protesting the tripling of the deficit and the forthcoming taxes to offset that. Kiss that $13 dollars-a-week "cut" goodbye - especially when programs like cap-and-trade go into effect and the price of energy skyrockets and gobbles up your little bit of pocket money. We're protesting the massive increase in government's size; the incessant federal meddling in the private sector. Mostly we're protesting fiscal irresponsibility and all that which it brings, as detailed.

    That's why we're protesting. We're not expecting to enact change overnight, but we want Democrats to know that we do not like the current course; we want Republicans to know that we will hold their feet to the fire if they don't block increased spending; we want all legislators to know that they have until 2010 to get it together. As for the every citizen, we hope that they realize that it is NOT unpatriotic to ask that government spend responsibly, that it's NOT hateful to criticize the president (I can guarantee you that you won't see the sort of offensive effigies and signs at these protests that we've seen at some anti-Bush rallies ). We want them to realize that our government is overreaching and exceeding its purpose.

    As the Constitutional Convention drew to a close in 1787, a Mrs. Powel approached Benjamin Franklin as he left Independence Hall after the final day of deliberation.

    "Well, Doctor - what have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?"

    "A Republic," Franklin replied. "If you can keep it."

    That's the intent.

    ]]>         Expanded Relations with Cuba? No Cigar is Worth This http://www.blogher.com/expanded-relations-cuba-no-cigar-worth 2009-04-08T21:09:42-05:00 2009-04-08T21:16:57-05:00 Dana Loesch It was a meeting to discuss expanded relations with Cuba (despite Vice President Biden's position against it) yet the accounts sound as though those who attended had met Joe Jonas and not one of the most brutal dictators in world history.

    ]]>     It was a meeting to discuss expanded relations with Cuba (despite Vice President Biden's position against it) yet the accounts sound as though those who attended had met Joe Jonas and not one of the most brutal dictators in world history.

    "It was almost like listening to an old friend,” Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush (D) said of Fidel Castro after he and several other members of the Congressional Black Caucus traveled to Havana to meet the dictator. The legislators were wowed by Castro's famous parlor trick of knowing all about them, like their names and districts, knowledge he obtained after being prepped.

    “In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor," Rush continued, without any trace of irony.

    Er, what about Castro's actual survivors? Myriam Marquez notes:

    "If only the group had met with even one prisoner of conscience or one of the wives, mothers, daughters or sisters of the 75 independent journalists, librarians and human-rights advocates imprisoned in Cuba's ''Black Spring'' of 2003. They would have easily spotted the Ladies in White in Havana on Palm Sunday, walking in protest to raise awareness about their men's harsh sentences for daring to think outside the communist box of limitations.

    [...]

    The black U.S. lawmakers' concerns weren't for the 300-plus Cuban prisoners of conscience listed by Amnesty International or the hundreds of dissidents working from their homes under the watch of a totalitarian regime. Or the lack of civil rights in a country with a majority black and mixed-race population ruled by an overwhelmingly white gerontocracy."

    Karen at Pondering Penguin notes the irony of a group that champions civil rights lavishing praise onto a leader who ignores rights for his own people:

    I thought a main concern of the Caucus was human rights. There are none in Cuba. Fidel is fond of imprisoning critics and killing them at whim. There is no religious freedom - Cubans are not allowed to even have a religious book, whether a Bible or other, to even be out in the open in their own private home. It is an imprisonable offense.

    The group sang the praises of Fidel and Raul because they "let" them worship on Palm Sunday. Interesting. Too bad the ordinary Cuban has no such freedom.

    If the goal is to gain support for repealing the embargo on Cuba, speaking of racist murderer in glowing terms isn't the best bet. Ignoring the mound of dead bodies that Castro climbed to ascend to his catbird seat insults the victims, their families, and those who still struggle within the country.

    "How can we help President Obama,?" Castro asked the CBC.

    Says Jules Crittenden:

    Here’s an idea. The old buzzard could dismantle the real concentration camp on Cuba … that part of the island that is not Guantanamo … and die.

    Marquez says in a separate piece:

    Let’s not forget why Bush imposed a tougher U.S. policy: Cuba’s Black Spring, when the regime arrested 75 independent librarians, journalists and human-rights activists and handed most of them 20-year sentences. The regime’s response to three black Cubans trying to take a ferry out of Havana Harbor was to kill them by firing squad. Case closed.

    It seems many think that freedom and personal liberty are exclusively western ideals.

    The embargo hasn't worked and Castro proved that his style of government has failed miserably regardless of it. However, Castro has been successful in one thing: his public relations campaign to portray Cuba as the victim of the big bad United States. It's pretty simple, really: stop killing your people and we'll ease up. People have demanded that our government make concessions for Cuba but yet have required that the Cuban government make little, if any, concessions of their own.

    I see the argument for lifting the restrictions - but not because I want to play nice with the Cuban government. Once people get a taste of liberty they hunger for more. Plant the seeds now and a revolution blooms later. Freedom begets power.

    However, I could care less about improving our image to the world with a <fingers> goodwill gesture</fingers> of easing restrictions. Why should the Cubans not ease their restrictions? Oh, let's throw confetti: their people can posses cellphones now. Rush said that he found Castro to be warm and inviting and Mrs. Castro to be hospitable. To American legislators whom they're playing like fiddles, yes. Towards the people that protest against them, like Eugenio de Sosa Chabau, well, define "hospitable." Castro's security services tortured de Sosa Chabau by hooking him up to an electrical shock machine and zapping his testicles. Maybe you get that sort of hospitality during the second or third visit.

    Because of this I'm not very receptive to the idea of opening up relations with Cuba. Why would I give my dollars via a vacation or trade to such a brutal, oppressive government? If the world or anyone else chooses to assign greater condemnation to that over the rights abuses against innocent people in Cuba, the problem is perspective and suffering will continue.

    ]]>         Did Populism and the UAW Take Down the GM CEO? http://www.blogher.com/did-populism-and-uaw-take-down-gm-ceo 2009-04-01T20:42:28-05:00 2009-04-01T20:46:27-05:00 Dana Loesch Earlier this week our president did the unthinkable: he waded into the private sector and "fired" the CEO of General Motors as a condition for federal aid. This is a dangerous course of action. So dangerous, in fact, that frenemy Vladimir Putin warned against such an economic recourse back at Davos.

    ]]>     Earlier this week our president did the unthinkable: he waded into the private sector and "fired" the CEO of General Motors as a condition for federal aid. This is a dangerous course of action. So dangerous, in fact, that frenemy Vladimir Putin warned against such an economic recourse back at Davos. So dangerous that even China warned the United States that government control of shaky non-financial institutions was not the panacea - because if it were it would have worked all the previous times, in all the other countries in which such an economic plan was tried.

    Some have remarked that there is a bias against Detroit. You're damn right there is - but not in the populist way that you may think. Sure, it's been fun to rail away at the banks, at Wall Street, at these white-collared executives. It's so easy to resent someone who makes more than you, who has more authority than you; and what better way than to manipulate these feelings of unrest, what better way to bottle up these emotions for use as a political ploy than to appeal to these very resentments? Populism is a tool by which many have controlled the proletariat - yet few amongst the proletariat have ever truly benefited from these actions.

    When I say there is a bias in Detroit, I'm talking about the bias against the auto executives. I don't want to invoke party lines here, but the majority of Democratic lawmakers were against forcing the UAW to meet any concessions. Automakers wanted the unions to restructure so as to try to reduce costs.

    The two factors that brought down Detroit? Government's excessive regulation and excessive union costs. I say this as a daughter of a union, auto-making family and the progeny and wife of a gearhead(s).

    We have people in government who can't even change their oil meddling in the private sector, telling employers how to manufacture their products; we have congressional leaders demanding that automobiles use less natural resources by doing things like increasing the production of electric cars - except from where do they think electric power originates? Hogwarts? No. Electric power comes from COAL PLANTS. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy says:

    The low cost and abundance of coal is one of the primary reasons why consumers in the United States benefit from some of the lowest electricity rates of any free-market economy.

    I wonder what will happen to the cost of electricity and hybrid vehicles once President Obama has his cap-and-trade program passed. That's rhetorical. I digress. But it does make for an interesting scenario because demand for these and other automobiles will exponentially decrease as the cost of powering them skyrockets. This will further cripple Detroit.

    The other factor is the soaring costs of the unions. On average, UAW workers earn $44.60 more in wages and benefits than other families. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger refused to compromise on the pay structure and essentially demanded that taxpayers accept it as it is: double that that of Honda or Toyota. This is an outrage. My family and I have supported the auto industry our entire lives purchasing only American-made automobiles only to have it brought down by the heads of an organization whose very members we have always supported? Our economy has to tank further so these employees can enjoy disproportionate wages? I KNOW what these workers earn. As I said, these people are my family, my community. I will not be lectured to by people like Nancy Pelosi over the viability of restructuring the union pay scale.

    Our president chose to not address the problem; the mob wanted a sacrifice. There existed leftover outrage aimed at white-collared bankers; it's easy to transpose that onto the white-collared Rick Waggoner. This allowed the administration to avoid censuring their voting block in the UAW while satisfying the cries for change. Nothing has changed. The problem hasn't been addressed. The same regulations that suppressed free market growth are still in place. The UAW was excused from having to meet any concessions. Now we have a Car Czar. Expect the situation to worsen.

    To compound the matter further, Obama announced that the United States government was insuring GM warranties. Says Kim Priestap:

    In other words, you the American taxpayer will be paying for your own GM warranties. Your taxes will just be recycled through the government first before they're sent to the dealerships to pay for warranty work. So, taxpayers would be smart to avoid purchasing GM vehicles all together in order to save themselves some money.

    Sure, there were some poor business decisions made by the execs, but none so bad as to merit a punishment greater than those who created the meat of the problem. But what does Waggoner expect: he was one of those who crawled on his hands and knees to Washington to ask for taxpayer dollars. Bad move number one. (Kudos to Ford who refused.)

    We cannot let them fail, however, and we also cannot allow the UAW to pull off a coup - that is the first thing that needs to happen. The second thing is for us to tell congress to BACK OFF dictating how private (though not so private anymore), non-financial entities manufacture their products; or, before they start jacking up the cost of energy they need to actually have viable, proven alternative forms of energy in place, not speculation, no guesstimations. Yes, I'm all for being a good steward of my environment, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the fact that our current forms of energy are more plentiful and their output is far greater and more effective than the proposed alternative energies. This isn't denying the potential of those energies, but it is being honest about their current state and whether or not they are applicable to our market.

    Do you realize that if we lose this industry, the industry which has cemented our status as the world's economic superpower, that this is one more area in which we will fall behind other countries? I don't want to end up importing more products, in this instance, cars, from other countries when we have the ability to produce them here. This is an erosion on our ability to SELF-SUSTAIN.

    Tim Geithner met with congress last week to ask for an increase in presidential authority to "seize" non-financial institutions who are on the verge of collapse (which was left undefined) and could affect the economy. I don't want our industries to fail but the fate of what's happening to them right now could possibly be even worse than an economic death.

    ]]>