Chick-Fil-A

Gay marriage is really a non-issue for me, meaning that it injures me not for two people of the same sex to marry one another.  I just don't care that two people I've never met and with whom I've never had a problem decide to marry.  Valuing a free society means that I don't have any desire to stop them from engaging in that lifestyle.

On the other side, the hard Left has really shown their backside.  Living in a society that protects free speech means that you may at some point hear somebody say something you don't like.  The alternative is totalitarianism, which does not respect free speech at all.  Some issues have a grey area.  This isn't one of them.  Chick-Fil-A funds itself privately with its own profits.  It earns them, and those profits belong to them to do with as they please.  If the company wants to donate their money to Save-The-Whales-R-Us, then they have every right to do so.  If the company wants to donate their money to anti-gay groups, they have the right to do so.  It's just that simple.

Every one of us has the right to say they are in the wrong, and I believe they are in fact in the wrong.  However, to deny them the ability to operate as an independent entity by government obstructing their ability to open their doors to clients is indeed an unhealthy reaction simply based on the popularity of an idea.

Respecting free speech means not obstructing ideas on the basis of our disagreement with them.

On top of all of this, the anti-Chick-Fil-A movement has created such a backlash that stores have had lines of people wrapped around the building, and now they have even more money to donate to anti-gay marriage organisations.  Way to go anti-free speechers!

Aurora

July 20th's massacre in Aurora, CO has stunned the nation in horror.  Several days after the incident, the public still has no idea about the motive of killer James Holmes, other than suspicion that his actions stemmed from sheer sociopathic lunacy.  America has the families of those killed and wounded in their hearts and prayers.  But in the wake of this tragedy, I feel called to recognize and revere three heroes who gave their lives to save the lives of loved ones: Joe Blunk, Alex Teves, and Matt McQuinn all gave their young lives to save those of their girlfriends.  The New York Post has a great article giving them tribute.

'Dark Knight Rises' shooting: Three heroes died in Aurora taking bullets for their girlfriends:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395

Before the grieving community could even begin to absorb the reality of what had just happened, some have sacrificed no haste in politicizing the issue.  We have heard new calls for, "reasonable," gun control.  On the Sunday morning news shows, amongst others Dianne Feinstien and Ed Rendell renewed their calls to limit magazine sizes to ten rounds or outright ban semi-automatic weapons asking why would anyone need something more than that?  If such legislation would even just save a few lives, why not make it law?  During those same segments, they rejected the idea of limiting violence depicted in entertainment, despite past repeated outrage over Citizen United's ability to produce political movies.  Paraphrased: It's okay to have movie scenes of 'spray 'n pray' firearms killing masses of people, but it's not okay to make movies about Conservative political ideology within the timeframe of an election.

Note that none of those proposing new gun control recognize that neither Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City) nor Terry Nickels (Unibomber) used firearms in their acts of terror.  Also consider that John Allen Muhammad (Beltway Sniper) killed ten people in single-shot fashion that did not require a semi-automatic weapon or even a magazine of any size.  James Holmes possessed knowledge and ability to kill without the use of firearms.  Demonstrated by how the authorities had to enter his home, he had knowledge of how to create and detonate explosive devices.  Outlawing possession of a high-capacity magazine may well have changed the manner in which he carried out his act of terror, but it would not have impacted his ability or desire to do so as he seems to have been living out a twisted fantasy of being the Joker character of the Batman movie series.

If I asked any of those calling for new gun control measures why not limit or even ban violence in movies and video games, I imagine they would invoke First Amendment protected freedoms, and they would do so correctly.  They would defend those freedoms as attributes of a free society.  Firearm ownership, even of large magazine capacity, is an attribute of a free society as well.  On the other hand, the inability to acquire the tools one deems necessary for self defense is an attribute of totalitarianism.  Some may argue that a high-capacity magazine does not serve the purpose of self defense, but a free society reserves the right to make that determination to the individual, not policymakers.

Next, we come to the issue ordering ammunition in bulk.  This is simply a non-issue gun control advocates are trying to make into an issue.  People who own firearms should have familiarity with them.  Familiarity with firearms means frequently using them, and that of course requires ammunition.  Bulk orders of ammunition is cost effective, expedient, and efficient.  Outlawing them or putting high prices on them effectively becomes restriction to the access of firearms.

I write this post to make the overall point that Aurora is a tragedy of epic proportions.  Asking if we could have prevented it entails a more complex discussion than just gun control.  But at a high level, that discussion really involves the debate of living within a free society versus living under one that creeps towards totalitarianism under the banner of good intentions.  Looking back upon history of past centuries, I ask the question does humankind live safer within a free society or a totalitarian one?

The Obama Wedding Registry - Taking Arrogance to a New Level

The latest fundraising stunt takes the arrogance of the Obama re-election campaign to a new level.  This week, the campaign launched a new fundraising strategy: the use of wedding registries.  Basically, the Obama campaign website provides a way for couples about to wed to use their wedding registries as donation vehicles to the Obama campaign.  When Jane and Joe create their wedding registry, they can include Obama campaign donations amongst their gifts, so their closest friends and family may donate to Obama instead of giving the newlywed couple a gift.

If there is one day that is entirely about two people's joining together forming a lifetime covenant between one another, their wedding day is it.  It's all about them, and that's the entire point of the event.  The idea that the Obama campaign would propose this means that it sees its role not as to insert itself into a couple's most special day.  While the fundraising stunt itself on its own merit holds only a trivial significance, the plausible thought process behind its creation raises a deeper concern.  It begs the question of how far the Obama administration will go to involve itself in US citizens' private lives.  If they have your wedding day on their mind for money, then what will they consider next?  Should we as citizens take this as a cue as to what will come, or should we just wait until an Obama administration has become so invasive in our private lives that we no longer have the ability to resist it?

Sander Daniels, a co-founder at Thumbtack.com, recently sent me some information about a survey of small business owners.

Daniels notes the following as the most interesting findings.

• Small businesses care almost twice as much about licensing regulations as they do about tax rates when rating the business-friendliness of their state or local government.
• An important predictor of small business friendliness was whether small business owners are aware of their state or local government offering training programs for small businesses.
• Small business owners ranked Idaho and Texas as the most business-friendly states, with Oklahoma City and Dallas-Ft. Worth taking top honors among cities across the nation. Vermont and Rhode Island found themselves on the opposite end of the spectrum, joined in the bottom-five by New York and California.

Living in the Washington, DC metro area, I decided to focus on the three local governments of VA, MD, and DC.  I took away the following observations.

• DC actually did better than I would have expected in a number of areas.  Knowing two small business owners here in the District, I know the aches and pains they have.  However, DC comes up short in what the business owners value most: ease of getting their business' started and costs of hiring.  DC scored an F in both of those, earning them an overall grade of D+.  The business owners I know tell of regulators who give conflicting information for regulatory compliance in the process of trying to get the businesses up and running; however, they have to satisfy all of them.  DC also likes to set tight parameters on who business can hire.  They like to mandate a certain percentage of DC residents as employees.  I've heard leaders call for mandating that business hire inmates coming out of prison.  While that sounds like a great thing in general, it may not sit well with a business owner.
• Every week in the newspaper, I read at least one story that illustrates how Maryland's state government seems to want to abuse their taxpayers and businesses with poorly vetted regulatory ideas and taxes.  Maryland has mediocre grades across all categories and doesn't really look attractive even in any one single way.  Speaking to topics outside of the survey, Maryland does offer lower costing real estate with proximity to federal agencies and organizations, such as those in DC itself and Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab.  However, those usually don't weigh into the interests of small businesses of this survey, and they tend to be very industry specific.
• Virginia really knocks it out of the park.  They score A- or better in all categories except for two, and in those they score a B and B+.  Maryland can only really claim lower cost real estate as an advantage, and that's probably a side affect of the supply and demand trends of more businesses wanting to locate in Virginia as opposed to Maryland or DC.  Also, in regards to real estate, I'm primarily considering the Northern Virginia area as opposed to the state as a whole.

Every city and state has its own data with visualization of full results.  The rankings come from information collected from small business owners, such as wedding photographers, auto mechanics, and yoga instructors.

You can read the full survey here: http://www.thumbtack.com/survey.

A reader wrote into the Washington Examiner's letters to the editor making claims that Ronald Reagan's tax policies hurt low income people during his president.  However, his attacking Reagan dismisses important data.

His figure of youths in poverty growing by 0.9 million between 1980 and 1988 is only a snapshot of a bigger picture.  Child poverty rate (18 under) stood at 12,068 in 1981 when Reagan took office and stood at 11,935 when he left.  That figure rose and subsequently fell during Reagan's two terms, likely attributable to the tax reform he enacted during his presidency.

Also, growth in top 5% income earners doesn't damage the other 95%. On the contrary, the top 5% earners' tax contributions increased, which contributed to a 28% increase in income tax revenue, adjusted for inflation.  Furthermore, total privately held wealth is not a fixed aggregate value, meaning one person getting richer does not necessarily require somebody else getting poorer.  More often, it means every other person economically separated by N-degrees can benefit as well.

Lastly, stating that the two lowest quintiles fell from 4.2% to 3.8% and 10.2% to 9.6% respectively between 1980 and 1988 dismisses the fact that total income for each rose at a rate that out-paced
inflation.  Each respectively increased by 39% and by 44%.

At first glance one could interpret Cargill's stats as evidence of Reagan tax policy hurting low income earners, but a complete picture reveals the opposite.

You can read the original letter to the editor here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/letters-editor/2012/05/letters-editor-may-2-2012/559376.

Free Birth Control vs. Nuclear Iran

Limbaugh's poor judgment in name calling doesn't change that Sandra Fluke is attacking Catholics.  Her position, one of anti-choice, denies an individual the opportunity to seek insurance that conforms to his or her beliefs. It is the deepest form selfishness to compel someone to live by another's beliefs.  As a Catholic myself, I have a few disagreements over related matters with church; I'm not a social conservative.  However, the First Amendment exits as a principal not subject to compromise.  Rush's conduct changes none of this.

My main point comes from Benjamin Netanyahu's AIPAC speech. In 1944, the World Jewish Congress wrote the US War Department, imploring the US to bomb Auschwitz.  The response: "Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans."  Given the free world's sacrifices during WWII, is free birth control more attention worthy than Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Shouldn't news outlets cover that instead on the eve of Super Tuesday?  Two words: MEDIA FAIL.

I am Andrew Breitbart Now

A friend of mine, who is also a friend of Andrew Breitbart's wrote this message earlier today.

As I write this, I find that I bounce between every stage of Kubler Ross’ stages of giref in 15 second increments. Bear with me.

Years ago, a friend of mine was listening to me noodle on a problem. She said, “You should call my friend Andrew and talk to him. He loves to talk about this stuff.” And so I did. At the time, he was still behind the curtain of the burgeoning new media space and none of us knew how exactly it would unfold and what his role would be. But everyone who spent even two minutes talking to Andrew knew he would be a game-changer.

We talked for hours on that first call (there was no such thing as short phone call with Andrew) juggling our households of kids in the background. We laughed, railed, solved as many problems in the world as we could before one child or another knocked something over. He charmed me from the first hello.

During that first call with Andrew, I was a stay at home mom who was trying to find my voice. I had feelings and opinions but I was struggling to find the confidence to express myself. Talking to Andrew with his “I know!” and “Exactly!” punctuating the conversation was magical for me at the time. He gave me confidence and encouragement to find my voice, and use it. USE IT. Get out there and fight.

Fast forward a few years and I took a shot in the dark and sent a snarky email to Human Events Editor Jed Babbin. The email was not in a format covered in “How to land a writing gig” but more “jotting down the wacky way I talk to Andrew and other friends.” And Jed, God Bless that wonderful, amazing man, let me further develop my voice under his tutelage.

And now, I feel the loss of Andrew in so many ways. I lost a friend. I think of his wife Susie, one of the most generous, amazing, kind souls I have ever met, and my heart breaks. At a time in my life I was struggling with a very real family issue, she gave me insight that changed my perspective and did so with such generous honesty and vulnerability it endeared her to me forever. His children were the lights of his life and as a mother, their pain makes me nauseous and almost paralyzed with grief for them.

As a warrior in General Breitbart’s army, I feel leaderless. In a movement that is punctuated with example after example of cowardly and self-destructive behavior, I fear for the movement and fear for my country.

Bev Perlson of Band of Mothers, always referred to Andrew as the “General Washington of our time” and she is right. Andrew did not lead from an ivory tower, a comfortable consulting office in DC or from the cesspool of Beltway politics. He led from the streets, from stages in the middle of deserts, corn-fields and town squares. He is one of the few people I can think of who never asked those around him to fight a fight or take a risk he was not already up to his eyeballs in.

One time I had to get him to a designated spot by a certain time for an important interview. I was on much feared “Andrew Wrangler Duty”. No one ever volunteered for that role, but many around him had to wrangle at some point. The challenge that drove us crazy? Knowing he had to be at a set spot, at a set time, and we would have to nudge him through all the people who just wanted a quick moment.

It didn’t matter how important the meeting, or how famous or powerful the person he was meeting was, it was never as important to him as the little old lady who tugged on his sleeve as he raced through a hallway who just wanted to say hi and get a picture. And you just couldn’t get frustrated with him when he came to a screeching halt…every 3 feet…for as long as the stretch was from where he was to where he needed to be, because it was so endearing and twas the very essence of who he was. He loved being with the warrior in the street more than any big shot that may have been on his meeting schedule. He loved what he did. He loved who if did it for. He loved who he did it with.

He was frenetic, exhausting, exhilarating and one of the funniest people I have ever known. He could make you cry with laugher as he barked out a self-deprecating story at the pace of machine gun fire. He could make you grab your camera and run to the streets to heed his call for citizen journalists.

After the Tea Party event in Nashville a few years ago, I noticed that my face hurt and I tried to figure out why. I realized it had been ages since I had smiled that much or laughed that hard. He was utterly and completely charming.

Despite the level of vitriol from the left, my frustration with my own movement, Andrew’s powerful, consistent, smart and saucy voice made me feel less despondent. He was the warrior in the foxhole who put his head up, took enemy fire, and let the rest of us see what we are up against.

All morning I have wondered, how do you fill the hole he has left? What leader can step up to take his place? And I know. No one can. He is irreplaceable. One person alone can never fill the gaping hole he leaves behind. We don’t need one Andrew Breitbart to carry on. We need thousands of Andrew Breitbarts. We need you to be Andrew Breitbart.

My heart is broken. But today, and going forward until my last breath, I am Andrew Breitbart.

Katie O'Malley


After reading that moving message, I replied with the following.


I've been thinking over and over why would God take him from us at this crucial time. It occurred to me that maybe He sees the need for the passing of the torch he holds, but that just didn't seem quite right. Then, came your email.

Over the past two+ years, I have felt bold enough to attend political rallies, volunteer for campaigns, make political donations,
counter-post hard left ranting on Facebook, challenge the assumptions of my peers in person, publish Casualties of Progress, and doing all thereof knowing the scorn that comes as baggage with it.

That process started for me a couple of years ago in part because I saw Andrew on my television going into "hostile territory" to confront things that needed confronting. Righteous Indignation stands out from so many other pieces of literature because Andrew essentially said to the reader, "if you're going to work hard to save your country, you've got a partner in me, Andrew Breitbart. I'm going to shield you from arrows that the hard Left shoots by taking them straight in my chest, breaking them off, and screaming as I throw them back."

The role Andrew played as a media personality was the same for many others, and as a result we've adopted some of his attributes. Your email eloquently calls us to simply embrace it. So why did God take Andrew last night? I still don't know, and I'm still not happy about it; however, I can say that 10,000 Andrew Breitbarts could be a very powerful thing for 2012 and beyond.

I am Andrew Breitbart.