I know money’s what makes the world go around – but is it the key to beating a constitutionally corrupt president?

If so, then this weekend’s three-day retreat in California, attended by some of the richest billionaires (is there really a poor billionaire?) is a step in the right direction.

The Huffington Post reports (read full story here) David and Charles Koch of Koch Industries pledged a combined $60M to defeat Barack Obama in the upcoming election. Some 250-300 other billionaires made the remainder of a pledge drive netting 100 million bucks to the overall effort (and what does it say, really that the majority of the pledges came from two men?).

To this I say, ‘Thank you billionaires for holding yourselves up in a plush hotel all weekend, buying out all the restaurants so you wouldn’t be discovered AND sitting around on overstuffed couches plotting how to take back the country … then deciding all you really had to do was throw a hundred million dollars into the fight and you’ve done your job.’

If it were really that easy (and if we all had that kind of dough to throw around at our problems) … then would we really be in this predicament right now?

(more…)

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) previewed details of his upcoming keynote speech to be delivered Thursday evening at the CPAC conference in the Washington.  Ryan emphasized “Conservatives in 2012 Must Go Bold”, not only to win the general election in November but  to offer the country a path back to prosperity.

As Conservative leaders prepare for the nasty fight ahead to win the White House, Ryan offered an alternative solution other than focusing solely on President Obama’s failed policies.  He mentioned the American people need a “clear choice of two futures” through a very specific vision of restoration.

Ryan warns if Obama is re-elected a severe debt crisis would likely occur within the next two to three years and if Republicans prevail, they will have the chance to preempt that type of economic disaster.  He mentioned the worst case scenario would be our country becoming a complete “welfare state” due to Obama’s agenda and current track record.  The Chairman states, “At CPAC I’ll make the case for clarifying the choice facing the American people: our principled plan to restore the American Idea versus the President’s failed agenda of debt, doubt, and decline.”

(more…)

At the most recent Florida debate, a verbal slug-fest emerged between the outspoken Newt Gingrich and the current leading GOP front-runner, Mitt Romney. They traded rhetorical blows on a variety of issues, but one issue stands out at this moment as a lot of attention has gone to the Latino vote – that is, the issue of immigration.

Mitt lambasted Newt for calling him “anti-immigrant,” and defended himself with the fact that his father was born in Mexico, and that his father-in-law was born in Wales. Romney also reminded Newt that Marco Rubio (whom has stressed a need for a republican immigration plan) recently called for Newt to end his “inflammatory” rhetoric. Newt then pressed Mitt for details as to how he would handle the 11 million immigrants that are already here illegally; “self-deportation” was Mitt’s response.

Now at this point, neither candidate has shown that they can secure the coveted 40% of the Hispanic vote, but the GOP has been given a unique opportunity to connect with the Latino community, which could help them towards that goal.

So, how do we “connect”? It’s easier than it might seem, as a recent conversation on the bus ride to work made clear:

“He promised us, we voted for him and he broke his promise. No more.”

Meet Lupe, once an immigrant from Michoacán (MX) and now an American from Ontario (CA). She is upset with President Obama. He not only failed to deliver on immigration-reform and job growth, but his administration actively pursued a hard-line approach to immigration that has deported hundreds of thousands. She has noticed.

(more…)

Conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-S. Carolina) is not hoping that libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) drops out of the GOP race for the presidential nomination…at least not for the time being. In fact, he’s hoping that the other GOP candidates will learn something from him.

Sen. DeMint told The Daily Caller, “I really don’t want Ron Paul to drop out until whoever our front-runner is is collecting some of the ideas that he’s talking about.”

Though the senator has predicted that Mitt Romney will win the South Carolina primary, he himself has not endorsed any of the “not-Romney” candidates. Yet, Mr. DeMint has a suggestion for his party:

The debate in the Republican Party needs to be between libertarians and conservatives. … There’s no longer room for moderates and liberals because we don’t have any money to spend, so I don’t want to be debating with anyone who wants to grow government.

Sen. DeMint, who has spent much of his political career fighting against big government, went on to say, ““I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

(more…)

The United States is at a fork in the road regarding which way we will go as a people. The 2012 election could be the most important in our lifetime, and conservative leaders have reached a consensus on how to channel the energy and concerns of the American people to realize historic change this year.

The status quo will not survive the year. Our debt and spending have reached catastrophic proportions in the context of global financial difficulties and political upheaval. Consequently, by the end of 2012, America will either have taken a decisive step toward socialistic collectivism in the name of “equality” and “social justice,” where businesses and owners are punitively taxed to “pay their fair share,” or America will take a major step in the direction of returning to our Founders’ constitutional government, restoring the rule of law, federalism, free enterprise, and individual initiative and responsibility.

The American people will decide which path to take in the 2012 elections, not only in the general election on November 6 but also in the nominating process in primaries over the next several months for all major offices, including the presidency. Conservatives must act in a concerted and informed fashion in all of these contests to shape the public dialogue and thoroughly vet the candidates.

To achieve these ends, top conservative leaders acting under the umbrella of the Conservative Action Project have released “A Conservative Consensus for 2012” announcing agreement on major policies. These issues span all three wings of the conservative movement: economic, social, and national security.

(more…)

Remember this video?

Though this clip was replayed again and again- a sign that Americans were “awakened” as a result of the realization that President Obama and the liberal Democrats were, indeed, on the path to “fundamentally transform” the nation- the sad, but accurate, phrase used by the woman speaking is, “sleeping giant.” Conservative America has been a “sleeping giant.”

Most Americans describe themselves as “conservative.” And conservatives, by nature, tend to mind their own business. Unless, of course, their “own business” is being run over by a controlling, liberal president and his cronies.

American conservatives have indeed had to rouse themselves out of a somewhat complacent sleep and get to work. They have done so formidably, as evidenced by the election, in 2010, of a large number of conservative members of Congress. But, more work awaits, and time is fleeting.

(more…)

Next week, Senate Republicans will vote to elect a new Conference Vice Chairman, a position that is considered to be the Number 5 GOP leadership post. As was the case at the start of the new Congress, when committee chairmanships often pitted establishment Republicans against the more conservative among them, the choice will be between one senator with strong tea party support, and another who has been a Washington “insider” for 15 years.

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) were both elected to the Senate in 2010. Sen. Johnson was elected with the strong backing of the tea party and conservative Senate recruiter, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S. Carolina). Sen. Blunt spent 14 years in the House of Representatives prior to his election to the Senate.

Now, both Senators have dismissed the idea that their contest is about the old guard GOP versus true conservatives. Sen. Johnson, in particular, notes that he believes his years of business experience, prior to his election to the Senate, are what cause him to stand out as a candidate for the vice chairman’s position. “I also bring the perspective of somebody from the outside — somebody totally foreign to Washington, and that’s a very valuable perspective,” he said.

The Heritage Action for America (HAFA) scorecard, which provides a rating that measures legislators on conservative policies and values, gives Sen. Johnson a 91% rating, and Sen. Blunt a 64% score.

Nevertheless, it is the way in which the contest between the two senators came about that has perhaps created a bit more tension. According to RedState, up until this week, Sen. Johnson was the only candidate for the vice chairman’s position, and the election was scheduled for January. However, Sen. Blunt announced his candidacy on Tuesday of this week, an action which was followed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Kentucky) decisions to move up the election to next week, rather than January, and to begin a supportive campaign for Sen. Blunt.

(more…)

Four years ago, Mitt Romney was the last, best hope of the conservative movement as a surging John McCain looked set to clinch the Republican nomination. Romney’s concession speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) (parts a, b, and c) cemented his bond with the delegates, who understood their ideals were about to yield to the compromise politics of the moderate–and ostensibly more electable–McCain.

Today, Romney is considered the compromise candidate, regarded with suspicion by the conservative base as the emissary of the Republican establishment. That is not, as the left (and David Frum) alleges, because the party has become more “extreme.” Rather, it is because Barack Obama’s far-left agenda has produced a strong desire for new leadership that will aggressively oppose the dramatic growth in the size and cost of government.

The Obama agenda was a challenge the Republican Party seemed unprepared, unable, and–at times–unwilling to resist in early 2009. That is why the Tea Party emerged–first in response to the Obama “porkulus,” then ObamaCare. It could not reverse those policies right away, but after the 2010 elections it ensured Republicans would refuse to raise taxes to close the deficit, or to approve bailouts of profligate state governments.

For the Tea Party, the next goal is to repeal ObamaCare and to pass entitlement and spending reforms that ensure the financial stability of the U.S. government, without raising taxes that will constrain economic growth. In so doing, Tea Party conservatives hope to do more than restrain the expansion of government, but to also restore the robust vision of individual freedom that enabled America’s rise as a global industrial power.

That is a different mission than the one many Republicans shared in 2008, when the unifying goal was to protect the military gains of the war on terror from the radical anti-war agenda that had seized the resurgent Democrats. McCain was a better fit for that agenda, and Romney is a weak standard-bearer for the new one, having supported big government interventions–albeit at the state level–in both health care and energy.

(more…)

Mitt Romney is still flip-flopping even as he seems ever more confident of the Republican nomination. Rick Perry is breathing life into his campaign, after his poor debate showings, with his new flat tax plan, which has been fairly well received. Herman Cain, the intelligent, accomplished, and optimistic man he is, nevertheless is encountering flip-flopping problems of his own, particularly around his stance on abortion and the question of the number of “9’s” in his economic plan. Ron Paul, polling the strongest he ever has over the years, still needs to convince more Americans that the elimination of major agencies of the federal government won’t make the country fall apart. Michele Bachmann may be fizzling out, despite her conviction to repeal Obamacare, and Rick Santorum, another individual of strong conservative convictions, still can pull ahead.

And from the shadows of what is called his “personal baggage,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is gradually rising. Turns out Mr. Gingrich had a flat tax plan way before Mr. Perry, one that is favored by many conservatives/libertarians because of its flat 15% tax rate, as opposed to Mr. Perry’s 20%. Speaker Gingrich provides a comparison of both his and Rick Perry’s plans on his website.

An informal poll taken at Hot Air on Tuesday shows that Ron Paul’s economic plan garners 56% of voters’ support, followed by Newt Gingrich’s plan at about 25%. Rick Perry’s plan received about 9% of the vote, and Herman Cain came in with about 7%. Mitt Romney’s more complicated plan received under 2% of the vote.

We are now coming to terms with the fact that none of the Republican candidates for President are perfect. Many of us like different qualities in each of them and would like to “build” our own candidates from various components. We soothe ourselves a bit by considering the matrix of presidential/vice-presidential ticket possibilities. Perhaps if we pair them up, we can get the best qualities of at least two of them? But really, there can only be one President. (more…)

I really hate mice, but even I felt for the freakishly disgusting rodents when I was walking around Target and saw mouse traps with FAKE cheese on ‘em. Are mice so freaking stupid they’d actually fall for something pretending to hold the most coveted of cuisines within a mouse’s palette?

There’s a political parallel there…

Monday, President Obama announced a plan to force banks to refinance home mortgages for those who are upside-down in their property. For those of us who bought high and now couldn’t dream of selling at a profit, this is a wonderful way for us to benefit from a government that seems to spend on programs that’ll impact us, right?

But then we take a few steps closer and realize if we fall for this, we’re being sucked into something we already kinda fell for a few years back.

The original mortgage plan, put into effect in 2009, was designed to allow those who are current with their payments but have little or no equity in their home to secure lower mortgage rates. The President’s Home Affordable Refinance Program has helped only 894,000 borrowers since the spring of 2009. The administration had originally hoped up to 5 million homeowners would benefit. I guess this didn’t work as planned. This revised plan is supposedly going to help up to 1.6M homeowners and will force banks, on paper, to take a loss on the mortgages of people who over-extended themselves.

What the President is really feeding us is nothing more than a petrified piece of cheese that’s sat out in the sun way too long and has now been spray-painted and re-molded so as to broaden its appeal (so he hopes) in order to garner votes from an electorate who would otherwise NOT vote for him. (more…)

Who doesn’t love soap? Well, the obvious answer is the #OccupyWallStreet crowd, but put them aside for the moment. Everyone else loves soap. Or should. But not everyone does. It turns out that environmentalists don’t care much for soap either. Certain kinds of soap, anyway.

Learning that the “occupiers” and environmentalists have a mutual dislike of certain kinds of soap comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever sat next to them on a subway, but the why is different for each group. Where the protesters, presumably, haven’t used soap in a month out of the necessity of circumstance, the environmentalists shower but want to take your choice of soap away from you.

I’ve written about this before, twice in fact, and while it’s not the most exciting topic on the planet (that honor goes to a tie between the start of NHL season and release of the new iPhone), it’s every bit an affront to liberty as banning incandescent light bulb was. Only with soap, there’s still time to act to stop it.

The offending ingredient in soap is called Triclosan, it’s what makes anti-bacterial soap anti-bacterial and stops you from getting sick an untold number of times every year. But to environmentalists, benefits to humans is of little concern, nor are facts, it’s the agenda of control über alles.

Zealots like Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) are pushing Congress to ban antibacterial soap under the time-tested Washington favorite motivation “just in case.” Just in case it’s dangerous, just in case it causes problems, just in case…

Under the “just in case” model there is much that wouldn’t be banned, or never have come into being in the first place. That’s why we have science and why science studies things such as this. And science has weighed in.

(more…)

Does it matter if a so-called “conservative” presidential candidate believes, and practices, “big government” liberalism on a state level? Do we believe that a governor, who may have worked to implement “big government” mandates and policies in his state, and excused them as “states’ rights,” will later be able to rein himself in and become a small government proponent and leader in Washington?

Frankly, I don’t see a heck of a lot of difference between the approaches taken by both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry when it comes to their respective “hot seat” issues, namely, mandated health insurance, for Romney, and immigration and mandated vaccines, for Perry.

In Tuesday night’s debate, when Perry challenged Romney on the Romneycare issue, Romney responded rather defensively- moreso than at any other time- that he wanted to insure all the children in his state because he cares. He attempted to contrast his caring with, in his view, Perry’s “lack of caring,” with figures reflecting the many children in Texas who are uninsured.

Romney also asserted, as he now often does in his defense of his signature healthcare legislation, that Romneycare was the right decision for his state, a decision to which his state was entitled to make, while Obamacare was a bad decision for the country. Surprisingly, there was no mention, during the debate, of the news that President Obama apparently consulted with Gov. Romney’s staff to obtain ideas for the implementation of Obamacare. Nevertheless, it sounds like Romney wants us to believe that caring is a good reason to support a “big government” mandate, albeit on a state level.

(more…)

I have a deathly fear of water.

I’ve always been kinda shy around it – even as a kid. But this turned into a full-blown fright fest when I was working at my first newspaper as an obituary clerk.

In my first few weeks at The Farmington Daily Times (Farmington, NM), I wrote the obituary of my high school friend, Chelly, who drowned in Navajo Lake near my hometown, while trying to save a little girl’s life. So, that, coupled with an already slightly ridiculous inability to back float, spiraled into me spending more time tanning on the side of the pool while my friends played Marco Polo and water volleyball. Such is the life of a land-bound girl with tan lines …

I talk about fears today because I am seeing fear throughout our Conservative ranks right now. We are a group who is more prepared for the upcoming Barackolypse (“If Obama is elected again inflation will make food and energy prices so high we won’t be able to buy bread!”) than we are in actually trying to mount an offensive and defeat him.

We have respected leaders in our own movement, telling us to head for the hills and store up food in order to take care of you and your own should the worst happen and Obama become reelected as president. I am reminded of the mania surrounding New Years Eve 2000 when everyone thought the new millennium might bring earthquake, death, destruction and a need to retreat to the caves and caverns of the Midwest. Have we already succumbed to the fear of fears here? Are we not even willing to see what we can do as a group large enough in number to actually make a difference?

As a group, it seems we have let our fears consume us. We have decided we don’t have a voice big enough to beat the bias of the media, take down the liberal mob or counter-act the power of the current government.

In watching the Republican debate earlier this week, I was yearning for a message of hope – a message OBAMA seemed to give so many people in 2008 – that actually made them vote for him. But I was left with nothing. All I heard were the problems this country had – not the potential. ‘ObamaCare will ruin the economy,’ ‘Withdrawl of troops jeopardizes our safety,’ ‘Our borders aren’t safe despite what Obama says ..’

Let’s face it. There’s not a person reading this who is involved in our Conservative circles who thinks President Obama has done a good job. We all know he’s sucked horrendously as Commander in Chief and we would like nothing better than to run him out of Washington on a rail … But I don’t need our Republican candidates to remind me of this time and time again. Tell me the problem. Tell me your solution. And lastly, tell me what we have to look forward to.

(more…)

We broke it here, first. If you’ll remember, I wrote an early piece on the unique challenges Governor Perry must overcome in order to be President in this country. Over the following days just about everything mentioned came to pass. Believe it or not, a major Canadian news outlet – yes all the way up in Canada – contacted me over its content. I shared with them the ugliness and overt disdain Conservatives and Southern Conservatives must contend and overcome, especially in the arena of politics. It was so interesting to them they want to do a follow-up. I am more than happy to enlighten them. I could have continuously written on that subject but there is always more than one egg to fry in Obamaland. Secondly, the opportunities will present themselves. It’s almost predictable as to how the liberal media will behave.

However, the fact such open hostility by liberals towards Perry is so obvious; and, two, it’s totally acceptable as to be actually news worthy should be self evident of their bigotry. The Bush era gave the cultural elites considerable heartburn and there is no way possible for them to stomach Perry – considered Bush-lite. So how are they voicing their opposition to Governor Perry? It certainly isn’t his policies or record as governor of Texas. Of course those who are bold enough to go after Perry’s actual record, their complaint is he wasn’t imaginative enough from a legislative and government perspective. You know, because evidently government creates jobs.

No, Perry’s biggest sin is that he drops his “g’s.” He speaks with that nails-on-a-chalkboard Southern-Texan accent. I bet the big rube replaces his “s’s” with “z’s.” “Boy howdy, I declare this here chicken sure his greazy!”

(more…)

It’s already happening – the liberal dream of a perpetual social welfare state where deadbeat liberal constituencies feed off of the work of productive conservative citizens in perpetuity is dying.  There’s no doubt about that; the only question left is how long and hard the process will be as the hideous leviathan the utopian liberal establishment has created convulses and dies.

It’s going to die hard.  And ugly.

The collapse is well-underway in Europe – Greece has gone from the cradle of democracy to a cesspool of union-fueled mobs – but America faces the same trauma.  As the contradictions inherent in the vision of a societal plan based on the notion that an ever-expanding pool of Democratic-voting serfs sucking the wealth away from the mostly Republican-oriented producers who labored to create it become more apparent, the reactions and rear-guard efforts of the terminal liberal elite will grow more extreme.

We are already seeing the liberal elite lash out in anger and frustration at what is a perfect storm of failure.  Glenn Reynolds, the legendary Instapundit, chronicles the daily disintegration, while the brilliant Mark Steyn’s cheery new book, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, drops on August 8, 2011 – I’ll race you to Amazon to get a copy.

As the three components of the liberal establishment – the media, the unions and politicians – rage at the dying of the liberal light, the insanity meter will swing far into the red.  It’s already begun.  The Tea Party has dared to speak the truth, and the uncomfortable realities it has pointed out have destroyed the bogus consensus that has allowed the debt Titanic to sail giddily on toward the iceberg.  That’s why the establishment response is to demonize the popular movement.  We’re “terrorists” or “lunatics” or, bizarrely, “hobbits.”  Our crime is telling the truth.

(more…)

If we are going to win this thing, this battle to retake our culture and our country, you are going to have to learn to love to fight.

This battle can’t be left to a few champions who do battle on the airwaves or on cable or on the Internet, or who just do their part tweeting and Facebooking.  While we Constitutional conservatives, Tea Partiers, or whatever we call ourselves have been punching above our weight – the merely crappy debt ceiling deal would have been an unholy abomination of a deal if not for the intransigence of our Congressional allies supported by our voices from outside the Beltway – the fact is that we need more warriors.  That’s you.

And to be a warrior you need to want to fight.  You need to need to fight.  I’m not talking about punching and kicking – though if someone wants to go there, hey, let’s rock.  This is spoken or written combat, whether the battlefield is a cocktail party or a Facebook page.  And it’s vital.  These are serious issues that are worth fighting over.   Our Founders didn’t think they were making a country for a bunch of simpering, goody-goody wimps who go all wobbly at a harsh word or a raised voice.  Democracy requires guts.  Nut up.

People whine about fighting, cry over “bickering,” stammer out clichés about “bipartisanship,” “compromise” and being “reasonable.”  Well, I reject bipartisanship, compromise and reasonability, and so must you.  I want to fight and to win; death or glory.  Compromise is for losers – half a turd is still 100% turd.  But enough about the debt ceiling bill.

(more…)

Look leftists, you’ve taken every good word that use to mean something and run it into the ground. Because of your overuse brought on by your hysteria and uncontrollable tantrums, the once strong words that specifically defined someone has been rendered impotent – much like your brains.

Here are a few examples of watered-down words in modern American lexicon.

Fascist. That was a good one. But no, you went and watered it down. It was once a serious word that described a real threat and a growing ideology. Now it’s used to describe those who believe that “In God We Trust” on our currency is OK. Or simply just happen to disagree with you over the right to prayer at a high school graduation.

Nazi. A little more nuanced than fascism but doubly meaningful when directed at someone. Nazism was the closest thing to the Devil’s army that man has ever produced. Writers have been trying for over 60 years to understand its origins and existence. It’s so deep and dark and evil that it was really a rare phenomenon in human history. So inhuman were their actions, we still can’t grasp it all. Now ironically, if you are pro-life, you are a Nazi.

Racist. Ah, now there’s a word you never get tired of hearing. Racism is a clinical condition. I personally think you have to be somewhat insane to fully subscribe to it. That’s not to say there aren’t real differences between cultures and values. And certainly some are indeed better than others. See, I’m a racist. I just held and expressed a less than flattering idea. Ergo, racist! That’s not its only use, though. If you are pounding a liberal opponent in debate, you can expect to be called racist. For instance, if you hold the view that lower taxes are better than higher taxes, you run the danger of being a racist. It is like the nuclear bomb in the liberal arsenal.

Which now leads us here.

(more…)

Publisher’s Note: The article below is one person’s subjective opinion and not endorsed by this site. During one of my first and most memorable speaking events at the Reagan Ranch Center on behalf of Young America’s Foundation I spoke after my friend and outspoken lesbian Conservative activist, Tammy Bruce. I wholeheartedly endorse Young America’s Foundation. I am proud to speak at its events and to the young leaders who go through their programs. I would not associate myself with a group that had bigotry of any form on its agenda or in its leadership. Upon further investigation, there is no evidence to suggest that Young America’s Foundation removed from their lists or silenced anyone, or that the ACU vote is reflective of Young America’s Foundation policies.

Andrew Breitbart

***

I recently heard about CPAC’s refusal to allow GOProud, an organization of gay conservatives, to participate in the conference. I couldn’t help but remember the days when I eagerly volunteered and promoted organizations such as the American Conservative Union, Young America’s Foundation, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, among others.

I started my young activism back in 2007. I first attended the Conservative High School Leadership Conference with the Young America’s Foundation (YAF) that summer in Washington D.C. Everyone at YAF was excited to promote their ideas in hopes that a seed would be planted, or in my case, nurtured. Speakers discussed the values of Ronald Reagan, limited government, the importance of church and state and the nuclear family.

As a young conservative, these unabashed speakers ignited a fire in me. I was not used to hearing discourse I agreed with. I grew up in a very liberal household where abortion was encouraged and redistribution of the wealth sacrosanct. Thus, I was enthralled with the opportunity to spread conservative values and I aligned myself closely with the principles that YAF was promoting. Well, most of them! I disagreed with their obsession with the “radical homosexual agenda” and the assumption that all homosexuals were sadistic perverts. My dissent was largely in part because I knew I would never fit their mold of a conservative leader. I am a lesbian.

Learning that the leaders of Young America’s Foundation and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (CBLPI) were actively involved in getting GOProud removed from CPAC did not surprise me. What they might be surprised to learn is that I am no more or no less a conservative activist because I am a lesbian. I was obviously not too perverted to enthusiastically be used a poster child for their programs prior to my coming out.

Despite knowing that I wasn’t the conservative ideal described by CBLPI and YAF, I still passionately supported the organizations that gave me a platform to express my political views. After my first summer YAF conference, I immersed myself in as many activism opportunities as possible. I wrote op-eds to local newspapers expressing my views, founded a 9-11 “Never Forget” committee at my high school, commemorated the anniversary of 9-11 with a memorial of 3,000 American flags, started the first Young Conservatives Club at my school, established an Adopt-a-Soldier Fund, honored veterans by organizing community outreach programs, protested local campus showings of the ridiculous Vagina Monologues, and attended as many conservative conferences as possible. I volunteered for local campaigns and even worked on several national GOP 2008 election campaigns. I spoke to audiences in my community, radio stations, newspapers, and numerous times on television about the importance of political activism at any age.

(more…)

“Wait a second, you’re a singer. You’re a journalist AND you’re a conservative,” he said, rather surprised.

“Yeah … is that wrong?” I said.

“No, it’s just unexpected … and rare,” he responded.

I’ve been meeting a lot of new people lately. This is a blessing and a curse in Washington DC, as sooner or later politics WILL come up. It’s just how things are around here. And as a singer in a band, I encounter a ton of people who gravitate towards the band’s sound, my voice or something I’ve said on stage and conversations start.

Sometimes, these conversations are uncomfortable and the person I am talking to kinda backs away slowly when I mention conservatism or anything seen as ‘right-wing’ .. And other times, intense conversation takes place.

What I find though, is we as conservatives are bound to stereotypes so entrenched in the mind of the general population it’s hard for anyone to see us as who we really are. It’s like the minute I voice my political views and they’re of differing opinion, I am no longer the cool person who just caught their attention singing ‘Kiss Me’ or some other fun-loving song on stage. I’m now…just a conservative. Not a person. Not a pretty voice. Just a conservative, as defined by the media.

I know it all goes back to getting rid of labels and we can preach until we turn blue about how we want the left to see us for who we are and not the fanatics within our faction or the way the media paints us. But that’s a passive way of getting other people to take responsibility for the change we need to insight. Our preaching at, or to each other doesn’t get the job done. It just passes the buck, so to speak. We need to live the change we want to see and work towards it.

(more…)