No candidate would repeat John King’s remarks after watching the audience’s reaction. He rode the wave for almost the entire debate. Gingrich has repented for his trangressions; as voters we are trying to decide whether he’s genuine. Some will decide that he is; some will decide he’s not.

Santorum bombed on the SOPA question. Internet piracy is a problem but SOPA is akin to shooting goldfish in a bucket with a shotgun. Santorum argues that there should be protections for IP holders on the Internet and says that SOPA goes too far, but I’m not convinced of his resolve. As my friend Derek Hunter notes, tell that to Napster.

He tried and failed to differentiate himself from Romney and Gingrich, with their past health care actions, due to his support of Medicare Part D and the prescription drug benefit. That being said, he railed on Romney for Romneycare and made it impossible for Romney to dig his way out. Santorum cornered him on his checkered abortion past. Romney’s inability to defend his record places him below Santorum in tonight’s finishes.

The cost for renting out Keiner Plaza isn’t cheap, though not as expensive as permits for usage of federal park space. A letter to my STLTP Co-Founder Bill Hennessy detailed a list of actionable and monetary requirements before the city would allow an August 4th, 2011 Tea Party event to take place:

Page two:

These regulations were followed with our last two events at Keiner, April 2009 and November 2009. In a statement released via blog post on Friday, Mayor Slay admitted to having offered occupiers a “free” permit, which they refused:

But, we went a little further than just ignoring the Occupy encampment. The City offered a permit and, even wrote one, but Occupy’s occupiers declined it.

Over the past several days, there has been a rising tide of complaints. I know, and the Occupy participants know, that they cannot stay there forever. Bad weather and other programming for Kiener Plaza are racing each other to mark the end of their tenure.

The City’s Parks Department has prepared a list of ordinances and regulations which it believes Occupy is in current violation. We will present that list to Occupy.

I expect that we will reach an accommodation that allows Occupy to use Kiener Plaza, to exercise its First Amendment rights, but to follow City ordinances and regulations.

The city should have evicted the occupiers when the free permit was refused and city law broken. When the St. Louis Tea Party lost its insurance the night before the November 2009 protest, we had to scramble to replace it, or the city would have disallowed the demonstration. Rainford’s excuse for the city’s allowance for breaking the law was that the occupy group may not have beeen able to afford the permit, but they were able to afford a Cardinals World Series sign.

Since the unions “donated” the port-a-potties and mass-produced pro-union signs, you’d figure that they could also bear the cost of obtaining permits — permits which would offset the cost of the electricity the occupiers use — instead of forcing city residents to pick up the tab. Perhaps the unions could have also bought the group insurance coverage. I’m not a fan of tyranny via regulations and permits, but the Tea Party followed the law — partly by force, partly out of good faith — and many now feel that faith was squandered.

Rainford tried to make this about protecting free speech, so if it is, why then was the city less interested in the Tea Party’s free speech? Why did the city demand that the Tea Party pay for their free speech via permits and insurance while giving the occupiers a pass? Why did the city attempt to withhold the Tea Party’s right to free speech and peaceful assembly by revoking use of Keiner the night before a rally due to insurance? By Rainford’s logic, that would be the promotion of one group over another before the law, which itself is a violation of civil rights.

OWS vs. TP: To the left, Occupy St. Louis rally with a tally of 500 people. To the right, a tea party rally with a crowd estimate at 10k, according to the park rangers.

The St. Louis City Mayor has created a problem now since his administration declined to enforce the law a month later. Due to rising complaints from city dwellers and area businesses, Slay’s office was forced to issue a condemnation, which predictably, the occupy group is contesting:

If this morning’s events are any indicator, it looks increasingly unlikely that Occupy St. Louis protesters will leave their camp at downtown’s Kiener Plaza without a fight.

Friday, Mayor Francis Slay warned the group that it was violating several city laws. He said complaints were building and, with bad weather approaching and other events scheduled in the plaza this month, it was time for an end to the occupiers’ “tenure.”

The city’s parks department had even prepared a list of ordinance violations to present to the group.

[...]

But, this morning, Occupy St. Louis alleged that Slay’s announcement was just another instance where the city bent to corporate leaders. This time, said the unsigned statement on the Occupy St. Louis website, it was the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis who had swayed the mayor’s decisions.

[...]

“There are lots of people complaining. I’m not going to point at one versus the other,” he [Jeff Rainford] said. “I’m not going to get into it. What I would prefer not to happen is to have this personalized.”

The city, he said, would not meet with occupiers today, nor would it discuss the issue in the press.

“We’re gonna cool off,” Rainford said this morning. “It’s probably going to get inflamed anyway.”

“All I’m trying to do is to keep this from becoming Oakland,” he said. “I’m trying to get this solved with no violence.”

So the city is refusing to enforce the law because the self-described “peaceful” occupy group may act like domestic terrorists and riot and damage property? Isn’t that more reason to stop this now? The city makes itself a larger accessory the more this continues.

*At the time of this writing, St. Louis local news reported that occupiers were considering moving their encampment to the Arch grounds, possibly even directly under the Arch. That’s federal territory where the permits are incredibly more expensive (the Tea Party has three times paid for use of the space) and fall under federal jurisdiction as it is a federal park.

The dichotomy of such innocence in my living room and the terror and evil unfolding on my television broke me in ways that I will never be able to explain. I wept for every single person as though they were cherished members of my own family. I wanted to reach through the television to make it stop, to catch the people jumping and falling with my hands.

As the second tower fell, the realization of what our country faced and what we would have to do as a nation hit me.

I had identified myself as a liberal my entire life, until this day. I had an early midlife crisis when I was around 19 years-old, when I began to think that I didn’t actually believe in the principles with which I was raised. I was raised by a very big southern Democrat union family. I was indoctrinated by years of pop-culture, educational bias, and family mantra. It was the only way. I did not vote for George W. Bush. I supported Gore. Even as I began to shed the beliefs of a Democrat, one thing remained: I still felt that America had a problem with the “military complex.” The only reason people were hostile to us, I surmised, was because they were intimidated by our military. I thought Bush was representative of this and it was the reason I didn’t support him.

That belief was blown to hell on 9/11.

“Thank God George Bush is president,” I blurted out in the middle of a furious sob. My husband, who was born wearing a Reagan shirt, looked at me with wide-eyed wonderment.

How foolish I had been.

How naive and hubristic I was to think that we would never have to fight on our shores. To secure peace is to prepare for war. Don’t give me any of that “neo-con” garbage. Everything I thought about the world was destroyed along with those towers.

Later that afternoon I took my infant son, numb, into the local craft store and somehow made my way to the section where they kept the Fourth of July supplies. It was a beacon of hope at the end of the aisle and there were but three left. The lines in the store wrapped around the interior perimeter of the building. Every single person had a flag. Some were like me, it was the only thing they came in to get.

The television was on all day. My husband was at work, equally numb. He called four times an hour to make sure we were OK.

As dusk settled, the smoke still poured from the rubble and took the space in the sky where twin buildings once stood. I watched it through my living room window as I hung my flag and fixed my new ground light to properly light it.

My mother called; my uncle who was on a flight headed for DC and in the air at the time of the attacks was safe.

I sat with my son in a sling on the porch that night. I stuck a tapered candle in a jar of rice and sat on my front steps until my husband pulled into the driveway. I thought about what this day meant for America. I thought about my grandfather who, as a young man, was drawn into war after Pearl Harbor and served in the Pacific theater. After everything he had sacrificed during WWII, he still saw a second attack on our country’s shores. It was a brave new world. Freedom wasn’t a one time payment. It was a lifetime of privileged vigilance. I understood this now.

From those ashes came a hardened American resolve. Then, sometime a few years later, we slipped into politically correct apathy. Some of us began to believe that lying prostrate before our enemies would pacify their desire to kill us for being simply who we are. In the years since we still haven’t replaced the buildings; Mark Steyn has a brilliant chapter on this in America Alone.

In the years since, I abdicated my side of the aisle for the other side. Many things contributed to my political awakening but 9/11 tempered my newfound conservatism.

Ten years later that baby is a young boy.

Ten years later I still have that same flag, in addition to many more.

Ten years later and the pain and fury is still as raw as day it happened.

Ten years later and I have not forgotten. I will not allow you to forget, or them to forget, or anyone to forget.

Ten years later and we have not yet begun to fight.

Norman Rockwell-"Two O'Clock Feeding'

Norman Rockwell-"Freedom from Fear"

Norman Rockwell-"You Can Trust Me, Dad"

You’re lampooned in entertainment as being real life Homer Simpsons, your influence is often written off as unimportant, you’re emasculated in pop-culture and yet your role in our society is second to none and equal only to that of your children’s mother.

Blessed is the father unafraid to raise up the next generation’s ladies and gentlemen. Thank God for you.

I reached out to the Mourdock camp and spoke with his communications director, Chris Conner. I asked whether or not Mourdock felt Holden’s response was an appropriate action.

“The individual didn’t ID himself and there were other people there doing the same thing,” Conner replied. “We felt like he was being overly aggressive and when it was clear that Richard was going to talk to other supporters, the individual wouldn’t stop.”

Except Segel does identify himself and it’s heard on video at 1:36 in. I’m told he was also wearing a Gadsen Flag hat. I’m not exactly sure how a few calm and polite questions wound up being mischaracterized by Mourdock’s camp as “aggressive,” but judging by the video, the only aggression viewers can see is that from Mourdock’s campaign manager – who as General Counsel, should know the law better than he demonstrated.

I know both Segel and Mourdock, having met the latter briefly when I visited my affiliate WIBC in Indianapolis where I also spoke at the Indianapolis Tea Party’s April 15th rally. Mourdock was mild mannered and soft-spoken when not making speeches which is why I was genuinely shocked to see that his campaign manager responded in this way.

While I oppose candidates referring to themselves as “tea party candidates,” I don’t see why Mourdock can’t say that he loves the tea party ideology.

“If the tea party is such a political organization, they would have positions on the ballot and maybe somebody could run as a tea party candidate. But I don’t have that option even if I wanted to, and I wouldn’t because I’m a Republican. I don’t think that upsets. … Ultimately, all elections are about alternatives and you go with your best alternative.”

This response seems to imply that Mourdock doesn’t actually understand what the tea party is: a movement, not a party, that is the unattached conscious of political parties and drives forth to the ballot the most conservative ideals and representations from each.

Mourdock doesn’t identify himself as a “tea party candidate” but the link www.itsrealteatimeindiana.com redirects to a page all about his campaign. An individual named Derrick Manor with Webcore Interactive registered the domain name. Hmmm.

I’m still waiting for an official response on Holden’s actions from Mourdock’s camp; I’ve also reached out to Jim Holden for comment. Watch this space for updates. I will speak with Jeremy Segel this afternoon on my radio show, 2pm cdt, 3pm eastern.

*UPDATE: Mourdock called me and spoke at length about the altercation: “Did he overreact, yes. Did Mr. Segel overreact? I think both of them did. Was Jim wrong, absolutely. Do I take him to the woodshed quite regularly, yes. Will it happen again? Absolutely not.”

I asked Mourdock how he thought Segel overreacted given that the interview seemed like a normal tea partier-questions-GOP candidate interview. “He didn’t seem aggressive on camera,” I replied.

“I agree with that,” Mourdock responded. “It was a calm interview, everything seemed fine. It was a misunderstanding with the campaign, I will apologize. Case of mistaken of identity. [Mourdock claims that there have been progressive bloggers trying "gotcha" moments at previous events.] Jim just overreacted.”

Mourdock joined me on air at 3pm central, 4pm eastern.

Why have so many mothers become so active?

Because motherhood is political.

I have two sons. One day they may hear the call of duty and enlist to fight for our liberty. One day they may be called upon to defend America’s shores. They may decide to enter business or take up a trade. They may decide to have families of their own someday. I want them to have every opportunity available to them and I will stand against that which impedes on their rights. It’s instinctual: my job as a mother is to raise up, nurture, and protect my children, to protect their interests, to protect the interests of my family. In a society where my first line of defense, my husband, has been compromised by the self-victimization of the female sex, I’ve volunteered to go to the front lines of this ideological battle and I do it for my children. I’m not the only one.

It’s unconscionable to me that I would protect my children from running out into a busy street but not protect their right to be free. A month after my oldest was born my husband and I spent an entire morning baby-proofing our house: placing plastic covers on all empty wall sockets, installing cabinet latches, covering all the sharp edges of the tables with adhesive cushions. Why wouldn’t I also rise to install barriers against that which harms my children’s future? We armed our children with the knowledge against “stranger danger,” we taught them how to dial 911 in emergencies, we’ve taught them how to properly handle and not handle firearms. Why wouldn’t I teach my children about their fundamental rights as an American? Their right to free speech, to assemble, the freedom of the press, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the freedom of religion? Their right to pursue happiness but not the expectation that they are owed happiness from their fellow man?

We take them to the pediatrician to have them immunized, to inoculate them against disease. Why wouldn’t I also build up their knowledge of the Constitution, their confidence, and their courage so as to inoculate them against the ongoing campaign to break them down and render them dependent upon a swelling government?

Every Sunday morning we’re in the church pew and our children learn about the grace and love of their Creator. They’ve also been taught that their rights are inalienable, that these rights come from God, and though man tries he cannot co-opt those rights.They are taught that while our country was built on the Christian principles of freedom, one isn’t forced to subscribe to the faith to enjoy the rights born of it.

The nurture and protection of your children isn’t limited to monitoring their dietary needs, their educational needs, their emotional and spiritual well-being. I speak out because I don’t want my children saddled with debt. I don’t want my children’s generation to be the first generation that comes out of the gate with a lower standard of living because of our recklessness. I don’t want my children’s future squandered on entitlement and things non-essential to the operation of our basic Article 1 Section 8 government. I don’t want my children robbed of their ability to have effect in their communities because the power was sucked up and centralized at the federal level. I don’t want them to be demonized because they reject the socialist and humanist ideology which preaches against self-sufficiency and criminalizes faith and ambition in popular culture.

This is why mothers have been politically active these past few years and why more and more they are strapping the baby in the carrier before grabbing a diaper bag and a bullhorn on their way out the door. If you saw danger coming headfirst at your children you would intervene. Danger assumes many forms.

We’ve taken position against the reckless spending of our children’s future, against the many attempts by the establishment government to assume more parental rights and position our children as wards of the state in education, medicine, faith, diet, and wage. We reject the ideal that the government can be all and provide all because no government can be all, provide all and still reflect a free people. We reject the cultural vehicles through which this ideology is distributed: through the attack on men via feminism, through the cultural criminalization of our boys, and through the false empowerment via promiscuity and self-victimization of our daughters.

This is why motherhood is political. This is why mothers are turning out in force to protest, to petition, to run for office. Our instincts detected a threat to the well-being of their children and we are working to right it.

Old sayings never fail. The most dangerous place in the world is between a mother and her children. It remains true today.

It was reported that Alternet, Soros’ Media Matters, and other progressives staged a conference call this afternoon where they mapped strategy to defend Planned Parenthood from the choices Planned Parenthood staffers made on tape.

Because apparently there still exist people who will fall for the “pimps’n’hookers” investigative strategy post-James O’Keefe.

Instead of focusing on the fact that there is an organization who turned a blind eye to child sex-trafficking, an organization that receives forced federal funding, the group of senior fellows ostensibly chose the route which affords zero defense of women, born or unborn, thereby saving them from compromising their female-hostile ideologies: attack Lila Rose. These outlets don’t see the insanity in feigning disgust that the racket was exposed, not that it occurred at all.

The majority of the call was spent discussing ways to discredit Rose because of her funding. They surmise that some group which donates to her pro-life magazine is a group donated to by a group given money by the Koch Brothers. So says people who just cashed a $1 million-dollar check from George Soros.

For the sake of argument, assuming that the Koch Brothers (I had to Google them to see exactly what it is they do and how their name isn’t pronounced like the sobriquet for phallus but rather, the soda) were as ubiquitous in activism as George Soros is publicly, the greatest irony has befallen our senior fellows who hate big business and personal wealth so much: they are willing pawns in a battle between frillionaires. This alone virtually precludes any other potential criticism of their actions. George Soros is the only billionaire allowed. See, they hate personal wealth when it isn’t made out in $1 million dollar increments to their organizations.

This isn’t for the sake of an argument, however, a fallacy which rules the lives and actions of our progressive brethren. This particular incident is for the sake of young girls’ lives. Apparently some in this country think that sex trafficking is a sin inherent to all other countries but the United States, as evidenced by their refusal to condemn what actually occurred on the Planned Parenthood videos. It’s a snotty, elitist view by people who make careers of condemning snooty, elitist views. Another contradiction which, alone, would preclude further criticism.

Progressives have declined to see past the PP logo for the tragedy which occurred on these cameras. They look at what occurred as an attack on “choice.” If choice is being forced to give money to an organization whose bread and butter is the infringement upon civil rights as a form of birth control, that’s not choice. It’s force. And in an era where marketers exploit the “independent women” shtick, it’s not exactly “independent” to expect Uncle Sam to provide you with birth control and free abortions, things that have to do with your choice, not the choices of others. Again, that contradiction alone precludes further criticism.

Amy Woodruff fell on the proverbial sword for Planned Parenthood’s selective attitude of women’s rights, as evidenced by how their President and Vice President, Cecile Richards and Stewart Schear respectively, sounded the alarm for the Journolist 2.0 conference call. Perhaps the mainstream media wasn’t doing enough to reconcile what Planned Parenthood says about women’s rights to what their workers are seen on tape doing: talking to a pimp about underage girls as though the girls’s bodies were commodities. A cattle auction, but in an office.

But then again, isn’t that their business model?

What cut will Journolisters 2.0 receive for all their hard work?