The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...
CBS has confirmed what many speculated - Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote from a 5-4 majority with the conservative justices plus Kennedy to overrule Obamacare, to a 5-4 majority with the liberal justices to uphold it as a tax.
Although I knew Roberts is too much of a pragmatist, more concerned
about the perception of the Court as an authority and his legacy, this section of CBS' report is still particularly disturbing (emphasis added):
Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas,
deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending
(and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times).
They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside
opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But
Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is
keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is
sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There
were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and
to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate.
Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed
confidence the mandate would be upheld.
The courts are supposed to be independent and above politics. The notion that the President, the head of a competing branch of government, could browbeat the court into a decision is especially galling. Not to mention the blackmail from the mainstream media and liberal elites, threatening the legitimacy of the court based solely on the outcome of the decision. The fact that a chief justice could be influenced by these external forces is shameful and unbecoming of the prestigious position he holds.
I can't help but think such a chief justice is unfit for the role. His duty is to the Constitution, not to his own legacy, not to Congress or the President, and not to the perceptions of the Supreme Court.
The perceived authority of the Supreme Court has ebbed and flowed over the last 200 plus years. It is extremely short-sighted for Roberts to think he has to safe-guard today's perception. The Supreme Court is much bigger than him, it is not going away, no matter how much the liberals pout and cry. It is disgusting to think that their threats of a temper tantrum would make him change his mind. This is similar to when liberals wanted to abolish the Electoral College after Bush v. Gore. They ridiculously want to change the rules when they don't win the game. But our institutions, while not perfect, were expertly designed and are meant to endure temporary partisan heartache.
Justice is supposed to be blind, but Roberts is wide-eyed to the
external pressures he is supposed to ignore. This is precisely why
justices are given lifetime appointments - so that
the politics of the day do not influence them. They are to have no
constituencies of their own, no fickle voters to appease, their only
duty is to their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the
United States."
One must stand with the Constitution, not cave into the threats to destroy it. Unfortunately, Roberts does not have that kind of courage. Yes, Chief Justice Roberts is a wimp. The chief justice of the Supreme Court should not be
susceptible to blackmail and professional threats. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. How can the Constitution be upheld when the leader in charge of safe-guarding it can be manipulated? What other outrageous laws could President Obama enact in - God forbid - a second term that Roberts will feel pressured to uphold?
Ironically, in twisting and contorting himself to supposedly protect the court's and his own legitimacy, he has further damaged the institution. Unlike Roberts, I can see the big picture. I know the court will endure. The question is, will the character of our once great republic under Obamacare?
Yikes! It's been almost a month since I last blogged! But now I have a good reason to - I'm in the New York Times!
It all started when Obama made this ridiculous and nonsensical statement:
"...if you have $3,000 a year extra, that helps you pay down your credit cards, that helps you go out and buy somethings that your family needs which is good for business. Maybe somebody will be replacing a -- some thingamajig for their furnace. They've been putting that off, but if they got that extra money they might just go out there and buy that thing. Right?" Obama said to laughter.
The Twitterverse was all abuzz over Obama's use of the word "thingamajig" in talking about economics. It just shows how hopelessly out of touch and over his head he is on the economy. #Thingamajig was already trending on Twitter from thousands of people mocking Obama. I started thinking about Obama's other gaffes and I came up with this tweet:
I shared the #replacequotewiththingamajig hashtag with friends and it caught fire - it was the number 1 trend worldwide on Twitter this afternoon!
Apparently this was enough to attract the attention of a political reporter from the New York Times who saw that I created the first #replacequotewiththingamajig tweet and contacted me. She wrote:
“Thingamajig” was already trending on Twitter when AlexaShrugged, a conservative blogger, started the meme #replacequotewiththingamajig, which started trending worldwide.
...
(The original quote, by Mr. Obama in January 2008, is, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”)
“Then I thought how ridiculous it would sound in contrast to other presidents & famous quotes,” she said in an exchange of direct messages.
Other conservatives, like Redstate’s Erick Erickson, got in on the action. (His message was re-posted by Ryan Williams, another Romney spokesman.)
So that's the story of how I got my first worldwide trending topic on Twitter! It just shows the amazing power of conservatives on Twitter with the help of sites like Twitchy and how much influence we have in driving the debate so that even the NYT takes notice. Can't wait to continue flexing our muscles the rest of this campaign season!
I am so impressed with how quick and witty the right was in responding to and debunking Obama's latest campaign prop "Julia." Along with getting #Julia trending with mocking tweets, at least two Twitter parody accounts (@WarOnJulia and @LifeOfJuIia) were created, and at least one Tumblr.
Here are some of the best alternative realities for Julia, under Obama, in roughly chronological order:
NakedDC - Who is Julia and why am I paying for all her sh*t? - By Emily Zanotti Best Line:
At age three, Julia enters HeadStart, which was actually launched, not in Barack Obama’s presidency, but in 1964, and is, as you’d expect, basically the DMV of day care. According to a 1998 study, HeadStart seemed to actually disadvantage children, and in 2004, Congress had to expand enrollment in the program because – and this is key – poor people didn’t want it anymore basically because it sucked. Under Barack Obama, spending dramatically increased for HeadStart, but as the New York Times pointed out, he didn’t require any changes to the program, so right now, it costs taxpayers around $22,000 per child that its not really helping. A comparable private day care would only cost the American taxpayer $9,500.
Best Line:
With conservative reforms: Julia will be a happy three year old unburdened by the federal government. She will not be $50,0000 in debt the day she is born, and her parents will have access to private preschool providers of choice.
Breitbart Big Government - Obama Campaign: Romney Would Ruin Life of Composite Woman - By Ben Shapiro Best Line:
Apparently, nothing happens in Julia’s life until she’s 17. There’s a reason for that – America’s public school system is an utter failure, and Obama knows it. But Obama says that Julia at age 17 is flourishing (presumably she isn’t one of the approximately 25 percent of all students who drop out of school, or one of the 40 percent of black or Hispanic students who do so).
Human Events - Julia’s life of dependency and servitude - By John Hayward Best Line:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, when Julia is 18 years old, the weight of Barack Obama’s debt will cause the entire national economy to shut down. When Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, was informed of this by Rep. Paul Ryan, he laughed nervously and said, “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is, we don’t like yours.”
National Review - "Julia" - By Kevin Williamson Best Line:
22 years:After working in the bar for a while, Julia decides she likes it and wants to open her own place. But she’ll need capital to get that done. Under Obama, there is little or no credit available to small entrepreneurs, because we never got around to fixing the problems in the banking system, instead choosing to futz around with things like the disclosures on credit-card offers and micromanaging swipe fees and grandstanding about bonuses. Julia does not open her new business, and she doesn’t hire any other Julias to build, decorate, supply, or staff it.
Yid With Lid - Julia's Son,"Barack Obama Ruined My Mother's Life" - By Jeff Dunetz Best Line:
Julia finally has a job…but has to quit because of the high commuting costs. Under Obama (who has been President for 11 years so far) gas is now 27 dollars a gallon. Because the country is approacing insolvency everyone who makes more than $40,000/year has to pay 80% of their income in taxes (and it’s not helping). On the bright side, she still has health coverage (although thepremiums have skyrocketed)and still gets free condoms.
Townhall - Cradle to Grave: The Obama Campaign's Fantasy for American Life - By Kevin Glass Best Line:
This is Julia at age 37 - which means if Julia is 3 years old today, it's the year 2046. If Barack Obama's budget is followed, the economy will have long ago collapsed under the weight of debt and deficit brought on by out of control entitlement spending. But Obama is going to go on pretending that these programs are just fine, and both the American economy and Julia are doing fine in 2046. ...Julia must be living in a kind of alternate reality where, after President Obama leaves office, a serious budget reformer comes in with significant entitlement reforms that get debt and deficit under control. That would be the only assumption possible considering Julia's relatively normal life at age 37.
Commentary - "The Life Of Julia" - By Alana Goodman Best Line: Age 65 – It’s 2077, and publicly held debt is now 180 percent of the GDP. But Julia will still be covered by Medicare “as we know it,” at least if President Obama was reelected in 2012. That’s right, no Medicare reform for the next half-century, according to Obama.
Hot Air - The cradle-to-grave, government-supported existence of “Julia” - By Ed Morrissey Best Line:
65 years old – My, how time flies! (Do women do nothing of value between 42 and 65?) Julia enrolls in Medicare, which ceased to exist decades earlier, thanks to the fact that Obama and Tim Geithner didn’t have a plan to address the debt crisis — all they knew was they didn’t like anyone else’s plan.
TheLifeOfJulia.com - By @partiallypro & @charlievidal Best Line:
Under Government Care: Social Security isn't nearly enough money for Julia to live off of; in fact, it's bankrupt. Julia starts gardening and painting fences to make ends meet. Her degenerative arthritis makes life very painful, but a government health care panel has ruled that knee replacement surgery is medically unnecessary. Her son Zach is unable to help with medical costs because he has been unable to hold a steady job due to the poor economy his mother's generation left him.
Update:
Sooper Mexican - The Life of Julia Under Obama and Mitt: Best Graphic:
So many emotions: anger at Rosen and all the feminazis she represents, disgust at the personal attack on a mother of 5 who suffers from MS
and survived breast cancer, and yet schadenfreude that the "War On Women"
lie is blowing up in Democrats' faces and turning the tide in our favor for once.
Rosen was attempting to launch a class warfare attack by
acting as if only the super rich can afford to be stay at home moms.
She's so out of touch in her little liberal elite world that she has no
clue what millions of women know: women of all classes sacrifice and
forgo things to be with their children because it's important, not
because they're lazy or rich.
Rosen tries to say "most" women can't afford to stay at home like Ann Romney,
but if that's true, who's fault is it that times are still so tough now?! If moms
are forced to work, it's because the economy is so
bad and we need a businessman like Mitt Romney who HAS run a business,
unlike Obama, to fix what Obama has done to prolong this recession!
Liberals want the government to take over the role of daddy - Rosen bemoans the hypothetical woman "whose daycare funding is being cut off because of the Romney-Ryan budget." How about the fact that that woman's dependence on government-funded daycare is a result of the Obama economy not giving her better opportunities? How about the woman who can't be a stay at home mom anymore because of President Obama's lack of any kind of a budget or economic recovery plan? And let's not forget that of the people who have lost their jobs under Obama, an astounding 92.3% of them are women!
Economics aren't Obama's only women problem. Remember when his own staffers said his White House was a "genuinely hostile workplace to women" and "the president has a real woman problem." Even Christina Romer said she "felt like a piece of meat." Now this week comes the news that women on Obama's staff are paid 18% less than men. I guess Obama talks so much about the female pay gap because he participates in it himself!
I think it's clear who's waging the real "War on Women."
I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an
unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed
by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. ...
As many have pointed out, this is a laughably unprecedented and extraordinary definition of the words "unprecedented" and "extraordinary." It's as if President Obama thinks the Supreme Court has never struck down a law before! Or that Congress has never passed an unconstitutional law in its history!
After his Solicitor General got terrible reviews for his oral arguments, which some think put the case in jeopardy, Obama is trying to reframe the debate in case he loses. If Obamacare goes down, Obama wants you to think it is because of an activist, extreme Supreme Court - not because the law itself is an unconstitutional federal intrusion into your life.
And is Obama really calling a bill that had zero Republican votes and passed 219-212 in the House a "strong" majority? Obama did do better in the Senate, on a 60-39 party-line vote taken on Christmas Eve. But where's that "strong majority" now? Less than a month after the Senate vote, Scott Brown was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in decades, in part because he ran as the 41st vote to stop Obamacare. Today, the Democrats are down to 51 Senators and the House saw a 60 person swing and a switch over to GOP control since the vote, which played a huge part in the 2010 elections.
In his weakened state, Obama is reduced to lecturing conservatives on what he thinks we say:
I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the
biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of
judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow
overturn a duly constituted and passed law. ...
Obama seems to think that simply striking down a law passed by Congress is what makes a ruling judicial activism - as if not acceding to whatever the legislative branch wants is judicial excess. But it's not whether a law is upheld or struck down, it is whether the law was Constitutional and whether an originalist or strict constructionalist theory was applied that matters.
Judicial activism is about judges who disregard the Constitution and make up rights out of whole cloth. Like "penumbras, formed by emanations" that magically find rights to abortion or separation of church and state hiding in the text of the Constitution all along. It's about illiterate judges who uphold gun bans despite the clear wording of the 2nd Amendment. It's about courts that think the the Founders' original intent in the 1st Amendment was to ban prayer. Obama has no idea what judicial activism is, for him, words only mean what he wants them to mean, only at that particular point in time.
Finally, let's hear why Obama thinks Obamacare should be upheld:
I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. ...
Ok, nevermind, I take it all back - Obama's astounding powers of persuasion and impeccable reasoning skills have convinced me of the error of my ways! He wins!
.
UPDATE: Looks like the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking Obama's words seriously:
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a
federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff --
ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama
Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a
federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
...
In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting
courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of
people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."
The
bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked
DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific
statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority
of the federal courts to review that legislation."
"I
would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours
from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney
General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent
statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of
the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"
I'm glad there are consequences for Obama's irresponsible words. This is part of why the Founders' system of checks and balances is so brilliant. Instead of each branch colluding with each other, they are pitted in competition with each other, with each not wanting the others to overstep their bounds and encroach into their territory. Here the judiciary branch is pushing back against an executive assault on its Constitutional powers. This system is meant to break allegiances across the branches on partisan lines, but alas that has been happening far too often these days.
.
This video for Planned Parenthood that President Obama has made in his official capacity as President of the United States - the end shows www.whitehouse.gov - saddens, sickens, and angers me. Of course, it's not a surprise that a man who voted for infanticide would so lovingly embrace the biggest abortion provider in the country, but it should still outrage us and renew our commitment to fight.
In the video Obama says:
“So when some professional politicians casually say that they’ll get rid of Planned Parenthood, don’t forget what they’re really talking about: eliminating the funding for preventive care that millions of women rely on and leaving them to fend for themselves."
No, Mr. President, don't YOU forget what we're really talking about: the elimination of millions of unborn babies from our population and abortion as "preventive care."
President Obama says Planned Parenthood fights for "the woman with a new lease on life because a mammogram caught her cancer in time" - except Planned Parenthoods don't do mammograms, they only refer them - and "the woman who was able to choose when to start a family because she could afford contraception." I thought women weren't able to afford contraception and that's why Obamacare made it "free," but now he's saying Planned Parenthood is doing the job? Good! I expect he'll repeal the contraception mandate that violates religious conscience at any moment!
The President finishes with the perfect call to action for conservatives and pro-lifers to defeat him at the polls this November: "I know you’ll never stop fighting to protect the health care and the choices that America’s women deserve and as long as I have the privilege of being your president, neither will I."
President Obama alluded to Mitt Romney saying he'd get rid of Planned Parenthood's funding - which amounts to over $360 million dollars from federal, state, and local taxpayers of PP's Billion dollar yearly budget (check out the page labeled 29 of their 2008-09 annual report). Planned Parenthood takes lives and commits crimes, they do not deserve our hard-earned tax money. Luckily, so far 9 states have defunded Planned Parenthood of over $60 million, but we need more states and the federal government to kick PP of the dole. But as long as Obama is president, Planned Parenthood will remain strong, so we need to kick him out as well.
Apparently Obama's embrace of radical professor Derrick Bell isn't news because it happened in the past. Just like Obama palling around with terrorists Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Khalid Al Masour. And who could forget the 20+ years he spent listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Even though some of these radical associations were discussed during the 2008 campaign, the media did not fully explore them and much of the public didn't believe they were true. But now looking back in 2012 they carry new meaning - perhaps those caught up in the excitement of "hope and change" who've been mugged by reality will finally open their hearts and minds to the truth. Maybe the Obama presidency seen through this context will finally make sense to them and they will realize how Obama's extreme leftist agenda threatens the country. That is why this is news and why it must be kept in the public's consciousness through election day.
Barack Obama asks that you "open your hearts and minds to the words of Derrick Bell" - Breitbart.com has all you need to know about this radical professor:
After going to an Andrew Breitbart memorial event on Saturday, I am more inspired than ever to fight back against the Left. Three things that were said stood out to me in that regard. Number one, Dana Loesch said we need to follow Breitbart and hit Leftists by "calling them out by name." Then Brandon Darby mentioned that the Left was taking advantage of our grief and we were losing on Limbaugh. Finally, I'm struck with the image of Breitbart himself in this tribute video looking straight at the camera and simply saying, "War."
This is war. I am going to defend Limbaugh from the radical Leftists who want to take him off the air. And I am going to call out our opponents by name. Starting with Sandra Fluke, David Gregory and David Friend.
Sandra Fluke.
Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old woman who is president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice and went to Georgetown Law despite knowing that their insurance does not cover birth control - because they are a Catholic institution - and made it her mission to force them to change their policy. Remember when I mentioned how feminazis lied and said a Congressional hearing on religious concerns about the Obamacare contraceptive mandate was only men? They had wanted Sandra Fluke to testify - I guess Allison Dabbs Garrett and Dr. Laura Champion, the two women who DID testify at the "all-male" panel, just don't count as women because they don't toe the radical feminist line.
When the 30 year old woman, Sandra Fluke, did finally speak, she claimed that she and her fellow law school attendees were suffering under the strain of paying for their own birth control out of pocket - she said it costs $3,000 over a 3 year law school term!
I have no idea what kind of birth control she was claiming cost $3,000. Out of pocket, condoms are free or about $1, the Pill costs as low as $4 a month/ $10 over three months, an IUD is $500 but lasts 5 years, etc. There really is not a birth control that should cost $3,000 over 3 years (you can't count the first doctor's visit because obviously the yearly OB-GYN exam is covered by her insurance), this woman is vastly overpaying. You'd think by age 30 she'd have shopped around and figured out the most economical solutions to her problem. Why does her Catholic law school - and the rest of us - have to pay for her bad shopping choices?
[UPDATED: On February 7th, before her testimony, Georgetown's law newspaper wrote about some of her background in radically crusading on this issue, including a campaign to lobby GU and the Obama Administration, and even a sex discrimination claim. She explicitly says she wants to make GU's policy illegal:
Former LSRJ Co-President Sandra Fluke, 3L, organized a lobbying
campaign to try to persuade the university to reverse course before the
mandate was announced in August 2011. When the campaign was
unsuccessful, the group turned its efforts to lobbying the Obama
administration to extend the mandate to universities like Georgetown,
and even considered filing a sex discrimination claim against the
school.
“We’re very excited that these regulations may make that unnecessary
and would make it crystal clear to the administration that continuing
this policy would be illegal,” Fluke said.
Another blogger dug into her background and wonders if she's being managed by the Glover Park Group.]
In regards to Rush Limbaugh, he was making the point that she wants others to pay for her to have sex. She wants to be paid for having sex by forcing Catholics and their insurers (i.e. every one of us who will be forced to buy insurance under Obamacare) to pay for her birth control. He literally shouldn't have said "slut" because a slut doesn't get paid and he later retracts, but he did also say "prostitute," which better fit his analogy. Clearly not a well thought out rant as he goes back and forth on several words. Here is the transcript from 2/29/12 for which Rush has since apologized:
"RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back."
Ridiculously, but predictably, Democrats are seizing on Rush Limbaugh's statement to do two things they love to do: change the subject and raise money. Even the President of the United States took time out of his busy day (presumably filled with strategy sessions on how to save our economy, lower the price of gas, and get Americans back to work) to call this 30 year old woman who shamelessly told the world about her overspending problem (hey, they have something in common!).
In response, Laura Ingraham tweeted, "Ed Schultz called me a slut last May...still waiting for Obama's call" (more on Schultz later). Don't forget this is the same president who whined about having to take more pictures with the troops! I hope he called from the DNC and not the White House because this was a purely cynical campaign op and Democrats are raising millions off this and the media are making in-kind contributions with all the attention they've brought to the issue - which brings me to David Gregory.
David Gregory.
David Gregory is the host of NBC's Sunday morning show "Meet the Press" who spent the first 5 minutes of his interview with Newt Gingrich this week trying to push the liberal line on Limbaugh and birth control. God Bless Newt Gingrich for slapping back at Gregory - Newsbusters recorded Newt's great response:
"You know, David, I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the President's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week."
Newt continued:
"There is no debate about access to contraception. There is a debate, which Cardinal George of Chicago has pointed out, is a war against the Catholic Church. You do have this weird situation where President Obama apologizes to Islamic extremists while waging war against the Catholic Church."
David Gregory: useful idiot of the Left. I hear the other Sunday morning shows made the issue a focus as well, but Gregory has the distinction of getting his butt whooped on it so I wanted to rub it in and highlight Newt's great response.
Video of the Newt v. Gregory exchange:
David Friend.
David Friend is an Obama campaign donor and the CEO of Carbonite who decided afterRush Limbaugh apologized to still withdraw ads from his program, despite the fact that Carbonite still advertises for other men who call women sluts, Ed Schultz and Howard Stern. Friend wrote on the Carbonite website explaining the decision to drop advertising:
“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. ..."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he has no idea that Fluke is in her 30's. He probably thinks, like the myth the media has been perpetuating, that she's of undergrad college age. I can't imagine him bringing up his own daughters or calling her a "young lady" (how patronizing, by the way) unless he thought she was in the 18-22 range, but I guess it's possible. And if that's the case, then he should be equally upset that Laura Ingraham, a woman in her 40's (an age his daughters will be someday), was called a slut by Ed Schultz, one of the men his company sponsors. Ben Howe's on the case asking, Carbonite Drops Ads from Rush Limbaugh but Not Ed Schultz?
And how about him calling Fluke "courageous and well-intentioned?" Puh-LEAZE! As if she was an innocent victim who was thrown into this, instead of an adult liberal activist who crusaded on this issue and ran to the press and the world to demand that the government force the religious institution she attends to violate its beliefs and give her contraception for free. Begging for a government handout is not courageous and her years of activism on this very issue shows she was not well-intentioned. Fluke knew full well what she was getting into and as Ed Morrissey said, "If you want your sexual choices to remain private, don’t use the government to force other people to subsidize them."
Before they made the decision to pull their ads, Friend said that "the outcry over Limbaugh is the worst we’ve ever seen." Well, Dittoheads, let's make the outcry over them dropping Limbaugh the worst they've ever seen! Here is Carbonite's contact page, and be sure to Tweet them and Facebook them!
This is war. We lost an amazing leader when Breitbart died, but pieces of him live on in the hearts of millions of us now. He is still here.
UPDATE: People are having fun with making petitions on WhiteHouse.gov:
I stand with Rush Limbaugh and appreciate the massive contribution
that he has made to the conservative movement and our nation over the
last 25 years. Rush has apologized. But the radical left will never
accept it because they despise him and want him off the air. I condemn
attempts by radical left-wing organizations and the media to censor Rush
and his commonsense conservative message.
Like many, when I heard the news of Andrew Breitbart's death, my immediate thought was that it was a stunt by him to see what the reaction would be to his death. Unfortunately, it was no stunt, it was all too real, with a 43 year old husband and father of 4 gone far too soon.
The amazing thing about Breitbart is that so many have stories about him. It is a deep loss to the conservative blogging community because he was a friend to us. In fact, it was practically impossible to have gone to an event he was at like CPAC or RightOnline and NOT have spoken to him at least once. He really cared about the others with him in the trenches fighting the Left, and he would talk to you like he knew you.
The day before CPAC 2012, he was at my office. We talked about the Occupyers' plans to disrupt CPAC and as we were talking he was composing a tweet and asking my advice about it. It was very interesting how he carefully thought about it, going through two or three revisions, changing words, etc. He wanted to toy with the Occupyers and get them to think a lot more was happening to counter them at CPAC. So he came up with this tweet:
Not sure how I feel about this dog feces catapult (40 plus foot reach) & horse urine balloon as #OccupyCPAC counterplot rumor. Kids.
— AndrewBreitbart (@AndrewBreitbart) February 8, 2012
The next day at CPAC he came into the Citizens United Blogger Briefing on "Occupy Unmasked" with a Guy Fawkes mask and cape, an image which some have told me is one of the last memories they have of Breitbart:
As usual, Breitbart was brilliant, taking down the radical left and Occupy anarchists. I only wish that I had gotten a picture with him, but stupidly, I thought I'd have plenty of opportunities to in the future. I will not make that mistake again. Carpe diem. That's how Breitbart lived.
RIP
.
UPDATE: Get a twibbon here for your Twitter avatar that says #IAmAndrewBreitbart.
