By: Amy Lutz

I ate a Chick-Fil-A last night. Now, before you ask, yes I did survive the massive, oppressing atmosphere of homophobia in the restaurant and I’m here to tell my story. Considering the hyperbolic vitriol that leftists have been spewing recently about the chicken restaurant, I feared for my sanity as I opened the double doors to Chick-Fil-A. What would I find inside? I wanted to hug my friend whom I met for dinner, but what if the cashiers got the wrong idea? I didn’t want to be subject to the homophobia that apparently runs rampant Chick-Fil-A’s all around the country. Or so Roseanne Barr tells me.

Because I let myself get sucked in by the fear-tactics of Chick-Fil-A-hating liberals, I had a few, perhaps extreme, expectations when I walked in the restaurant. First, how could anyone want to eat at a restaurant so hateful that the owner has the audacity to claim he supports traditional marriage? I expected Chick-Fil-A to be a ghost town. Rather, the opposite was true. The restaurant was quite crowded even though the dinner rush had not yet started. I even had to wait in line! Oh the humanity. I couldn’t believe that so many people had yet to notice the homophobia that ran rampant throughout the room. I became even more fearful as I got closer and closer to the cashier. Considering that Chick-fil-A is apparently a restaurant run by bible-beating, intolerant extremists, I assumed that I might not fit in that well. What if my dress was too short? Or worse, would they make the wrong assumption about my sexual orientation because I was wearing rainbow nail polish? I quaked with fear as a prepared to put in my order.

Rather, I was pleasantly surprised with the cashiers at Chick-Fil-A. They were pleasant and my food came out in approximately 37 seconds. I took a second to breathe a sigh of relief before spiraling into my liberal rumor-induced panic once again. As I walked to my table, I tried to divert my eyes from the posters on the wall. I feared that the restaurant might be adorned with various protest signs from the Westboro Baptist Church and I didn’t want to risk having the intolerance rub off on me. As I looked up, I once again realized that I was wrong. In fact, there was a poster on the wall titled “Great Opportunities Served Here” which detailed the amount of money Chick-Fil-A has donated for scholarships. I shrugged my shoulders and prepared to dig into my chicken salad, but I paused. What if there was a secret ingredient in my chicken that would cause an epidemic of homophobia?? Perhaps I should have called the hospital beforehand and scheduled a round of chemotherapy, because as Roseanne Barr suggested, I’ll probably get cancer from dining at Chick-Fil-A. I soon realized that perhaps I had listened too much to the liberal media and I dove into my healthy meal (which was delicious by the way).

Alright, hold the phone.

Now, obviously that’s an exaggeration and not an accurate depiction of my thought process. However, I think it’s necessary to match the left’s hyperbolic vitriol for Chick-Fil-A with a few humorous exaggerations of my own. Seriously, with all the hatred the left has developed for the chicken restaurant in the last week, you’d think the Westboro Baptist Church had founded and operated Chick-Fil-A. It’s absurd. Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-Fil-A, merely supports traditional marriage and the left acts like it’s the end of the world. You didn’t see conservatives getting is such a tizzy over Oreo’s rainbow-colored cookie campaign. Sure, a few people lashed out on Facebook, but that’s nothing compared to the hatred Chick-Fil-A is facing. Not only did Roseanne Barr say that I and others deserve to be stricken with a deadly disease for daring to eat chicken, but city-wide boycotts have popped up as well. The mayor of Boston has vowed that he will not allow the company for opening another franchise in his city and Chicago has taken similar steps. Thank goodness I live in St. Louis.

I keep asking myself how this is even a controversy. Since when did an opinion from a private business (based on the BIBLE, mind you) spark such disagreement and controversy? Sure, leftists have every right to boycott any restaurant they want. They have the ability to utilize the free market to the fullest extent; another institution they often vilify. However, the hypocrisy they display is downright sickening. Liberals claim to be the ideology of “tolerance” and “open-mindedness,” but they are often incapable of practicing what they preach. Standing by biblical principles in NOT intolerant. However, vilifying a restaurant because its owner is socially conservative IS intolerant. Get it through your brains: tolerance is not selective. If you’re tolerance of liberalism, you have to be tolerance of conservatism as well. If Chick-Fil-A had refused to serve homosexuals, that would be a different story. My guess is that they would be just as accommodating with gay customers as they are with straight customers.

Don’t forget that Chick-Fil-A has donated millions in scholarships. THAT is who is really losing if a massive boycott is successful (which it won’t be). All liberals seem to care about is the difference of opinion and their backbones apparently seem to be too weak to allow this difference to exist. Grow up. Unfortunately, no matter how much they preach it, “tolerance” is not something liberals understand. Liberals didn’t invent intolerance, they just perfected it.

By: Amy Lutz

I think I just passed out from shock. The President of Chick-fil-A actually came out in FAVOR of traditional marriage and AGAINST gay marriage. Time to break out the rainbow flags and claim that civil rights are being infringed upon somehow somewhere. Or something. But no, really, does this move actually surprise anyone? Chik-fil-A is closed on Sunday for crying out loud. In the past, President Dan Cathy has urged his staff to treat customers with honor and respect while applying Biblical principles. Chick-fil-A is about as Christian an organization as they come, and you know what? I think that's great. There's no problem with a private business making the decision to proclaim their religious views openly.

Too bad Hollywood disagrees. Again. In response to Chick-fil-A's announcement, Actor Ed Helms (who I love, by the way) and gay rights organization NOH8 has suggested that a boycott is in order for the "intolerance" of Dan Cathy and his restaurant. Give me a break. Sure, the Hollywood crazies have every right to boycott and protest so long as they don't descend into Occupy territory. However, I find myself asking, "What's the point?" I doubt that their efforts will produce any sort of financial strain on the restaurant. Hollywood-driven liberal boycotts are rarely successful. What's more, conservatives will probably flock (no pun intended) to gobble up chicken in "solidarity" with Cathy's freedom of religion. Dan Cathy's statements have brought his restaurant into the spotlight and in this case any publicity is good publicity.

Perhaps those behind this boycott believe that they are making some massively brave statement by selecting from one of the other 10 billion fast food restaurants in the US instead of Chick-fil-A, but I tend to believe otherwise. It's not brave to cling to an ideology (i.e. pro-gay marriage) supported by almost all of the media, academic elite and Hollywood. Rather, it's cowardly. Hey Ed Helms, don't be a chicken. What is really brave is making a statement you KNOW could possibly hurt your business. If you want a look at fearlessness, divert your eyes toward Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. He had to know that his platform would illicit such a response. However, he stuck by his guns and proclaimed his Christian beliefs. For that, I commend him.

Christians are not "intolerant" for hating the sin, but not the person. Just last week, my church pastor made the following statement: "You can be outside God's will but not outside God's grace" in regards to homosexuality. Liberals like to claim that hating gays and opposing gay marriage go hand in hand. Not so. We are all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Christians, like Dan Cathy or me, tend to believe that all people are covered by God's grace; even when their actions go against His will. Intolerant? I think not.

Just like I'm not surprised that the Sabbath-honoring owners of Chick-fil-A support the Biblical principle of traditional marriage, I'm not surprised that liberals went insane in response. It's just another case of intolerant "tolerance" from the left. They scream and cry that that social conservatives are "intolerant" for not backing their pet issue of gay marriage, but act differently when their backs are against the wall. You want to know what intolerance looks like? This is what intolerance looks like: boycotting a restaurant because the President dares admit that he is a Christian. Liberals preach tolerance but are often incapable of espousing it themselves. Opposing gay marriage does not make you intolerant. Now if Dan Cathy refused to serve homosexuals, that would be an entirely different story. However, that's not the case. Chick-fil-A is a private business based upon Biblical principles. Dan Cathy is not exactly the poster child for intolerance. However, panicking because someone disagrees with you and refusing to buy their products because of it is intolerant. So, can we all just take a chill pill and disagree without being disagreeable? I'm all for talking about our political disagreements over a nice chicken sandwich and waffle fries. 

By: Amy Lutz

You know, sometimes I am just completely baffled by liberal logic. And by sometimes I mean all the time. Case in point: the contradictory “hands off” and “hands on” policies regarding abortion/contraception and diet nannyism, respectively. Leftists are often big supporters of bloated government programs and federal intervention. However, on the abortion issue many claim to be downright libertarian. “Out of my uterus” has long been a rallying cry for liberal women. When it comes to abortion and contraceptive services, these women try to keep government at an arm’s length. However, when this “hands off” policy is juxtaposed with other liberal policies, the logic is contradictory.

Here’s where the contradiction occurs. While pro-choice advocates criticize Republicans for “interfering with the reproductive rights,” they are more than happy to allow the government to regulate everything they eat and put in their bodies. Take New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s recent ban on fountain sodas exceeding 16 ounces. In regards to the ban, Bloomberg said that he is simply “forcing” people to understand what’s good for them. This comes from a pro-choice guy who has had a positive relationship with pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood. Bloomberg is fully in support of women having the right to choose to end the life of their child, but when it comes to soda consumption, he is far from “pro-choice.” This is an ideology that is not limited to just Michael Bloomberg. Just take a look at Michelle Obama’s “War on Obesity.” She is fully in support of the government regulating what we eat, but taking a life should be your “choice.”

Please Read More at The College Conservative

Barney Frank's Greatest Hits
By: Amy Lutz

Dr. Seuss once said, "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." In regards to Barney Frank's soon-to-be-over career, I wish I could reverse that statement. I'd certainly be more apt to celebrating his departure and mourning the existence of his congressional tenure. However, every cloud has a silver lining, right? Even the dark cumulonimbus that is Mr. Frank's career can't cover up a few rays of light. He certainly gave us a few things to laugh about along the way. In memorial of Barney Frank's dissapating political career, let us look fondly upon his greatest hits. Or we can at least breathe a sigh of relief that Frank's opportunites to be in the media spotlight are increasingly growing scarce.

1.) "It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party, People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."

What effects might those be, Mr. Frank? Are you perhaps claiming that President Bush was impervious to the liberal indoctrination inherent in higher education? If so, score 1 for our 43rd president. 

2.) "The left and the right live in parallel universes. The right listens to talk radio, the left's on the Internet and they just reinforce one another. They have no sense of reality. I have now one ambition: to retire before it becomes essential to tweet."

Problem Solved. Enough said. 

3.) "They appear to have become so attached to their outrage that they are even more outraged that they won't be able to be outraged anymore."

He's talking about Occupy Wall Street, right? Oh wait, he was referring to Republicans. Darn, I thought Barney and I actually agreed on something. 

4.) "This bill is the legislative equivalent of crack. It yields a short-term high but does long-term damage to the system and it's expensive to boot." (in reference to a 1986 anti-drug legislation vote)

Again, had Barney Frank made this statement about...oh I don't know...TARP, the Stimulus Package, Obama's Jobs Bill, I'd probably have a Frank bumper sticker on my car (ok, maybe I woudn't go that far). Alas, he did not make that statement as such. Oh well, a girl can dream.

5.) "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" (to a critic at a town hall event)

Since when does political disagreement imply alien origin? Thomas Jefferson claimed that we should "question with boldness;" thus, I cannot agree that criticizing a politician is somehow inhumane. I don't know what planet Barney Frank is from, but it sure isn't Earth. 

6.) "I don't begrudge Ronald Reagan an occasional nap. We must understand it's not the dozing off of Ronald Reagan that causes us problems. It's what he does on those moments when he's awake."

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about Barney Frank. 

7.) "Asking the White House to support more government intervention was "like asking me to judge the Miss America contest -- if your heart's not in it, you don't do a very good job."

Wait...the Obama Administration and excessive government intervention are not compatible? Now I'm really sure Barney Frank's from another planet. 

8.) You wanna talk about character?

Not many people can boast having a brothel in their basement. 

9.) Frank claimed that Republicans should be embarassed for their record on Fannie and Freddie.

This coming from a guy who received $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie Mae, the 5th largest recipient in the house. I've finally located Barney Frank's planetary origin: Planet HYPOCRISY. 

10.) Finally, how could we forget this "wind-breaking" moment from the soon-to-be-retired Congressmen? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73CzXJsIatk

And with that, I bid thee farewell Congressmen Frank. 

Restoring Our Sacred Honor
By: Amy Lutz

In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson stated: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act (The First Amendment) of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” With this simple statement, Jefferson coined the phrase “separation of church and state” and started the ball rolling on what has been a tumultuous track of political debate over the church’s role in American life. Jefferson originally intended to imply that the First Amendment was created to protect personal religion from government influence by reining in the powers of the latter. On the flip side, he also was strongly opposed to a theocracy. These sentiments were echoed by Jefferson’s fellow founder James Madison who stated that he believed the First Amendment to mean: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.” According to the Constitution, and in the words of Jefferson, Madison, and their contemporaries, the government is prohibited from creating a national religion and suppressing alternative religious views, including view of those who ascribe to no religion. That’s it. Unfortunately, Jefferson’s now famous phrase has been so twisted the original meaning has been all but lost. Due to an illogical court holding in Everson v. Board of Education and frequent complaints of “intolerance” from petty liberals, “separation of church and state” has drifted away from its intended connotation and instead become drastically more insidious.

In the last century, “separation of church and state” has come to mean banning any mention of prayer in schools and altering anything that could even have a hint of religious influence. For example, “Christmas Break” is now “Winter Break” in many public schools and “Easter Break” is simply “Spring Break” if it’s acknowledged at all. Liberals love to use “separation of church and state” as their weapon of justification as they remove nativity scenes from school campuses and crucifixes from classrooms, all while preaching under the banner of “tolerance.” Let me translate. For those on the left, “tolerance” often means “tolerant of those I agree with.” However, this issue is not just present in our schools. The media and government have done their best to remove not just religion, but God himself from our lives. Recently, during a telecast of the U.S. Open, NBC (no surprise here) omitted “Under God” and “Indivisible” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Then, in Texas, Federal Judge Fred Biery ruled that prayer could not be included in the graduation ceremony for Medina Valley High School in Castroville. I’m not sure of the origins of the town’s name, but “Castro”-ville, really? It seems ironically appropriate for the situation. Biery also banned the words “benediction,” “invocation,” “bow your heads,” “join in prayer,” and “amen” from the ceremony. The 5th circuit court thankfully overturned the decision, but it did not stop Texas Governor and potential GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry from calling the original ruling “reprehensible.” In another odd story from the usually conservative state of Texas, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been accused of censoring prayers during funeral services at the Houston National Cemetery. Words like “God” and “Jesus” are also banned from the usually hallowed ground. What many on the left are doing to the free practice of religion in this country is nothing short of sickening.

What is perhaps more disgusting is the left’s tactic of using religion as a tool to support their own agendas when it is convenient. At the same time liberals are fighting to keep God out of the public sphere, some of them are also using religion to attack their opponents or manipulatively sway voters. It’s hypocritical, I know, but that’s how the left operates. During an interview on MSNBC  (again, no surprise here), Representative James Clyburn stated while speaking of people who support Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan: “I always find it very interesting that people talk all about their Christianity and all these other religions that teach love. All that teach taking care of the poor. All of which talk about doing for the least of these. Yet, they continue to heap burden upon burden upon people who can stand it the least.” Poor sentence structure aside, Clyburn gave a perfect example of the left’s perversion of Christianity. In this case, the representative used Christianity to fit his political views instead of the other way around. Clyburn used Christianity as a weapon of attack instead of a shield of justice. He demonized Republicans under the guise of religion, painting them as many liberals do, as spiteful politicians who injure the poor and needy every chance they get. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that’s for another time. 

Representative Clyburn’s comment was certainly offensive, but it could not even compare to the campaign the ever-classy Huffington Post has recently launched inviting readers to submit their own new “religions.” Apparently to the Huffington Post and its readers who are taking part in this initiative, religion itself is a joke. One suggested faith is called the “9th Order of the Eternal Pringles” in which followers are instructed to worship barbeque flavored Pringles. Really? The prank (as Anthony Weiner might say) seems harmless, but the vindictiveness is not completely disguised. Instead of having respect for the deep-seated beliefs of all those who follow a religious doctrine, the Huffington Post portrayed religion as something frivolous and changeable.

Perhaps my favorite example of liberal hypocrisy in regards to religion revolves around our former speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi. The Congresswoman has often spoke in support of keeping religion and the state completely separate and was even given a 100% rating for her support of the separation of church and state by the appropriately named Americans United for Separation of Church and State. In a 2008 interview on Meet the Press with Tom Brokow, Pelosi emphasized her support for the separation between the entities in regards to abortion. Brokow commented: “The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that life begins at the point of conception.” The “Catholic” Nancy Pelosi responded: “It shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” Here, the former speaker masked her pro-choice beliefs behind the shield of separation of church and state. This shield gives her a perfect excuse not to answer to the contradictions in her own beliefs (being a Catholic and pro-choice) Pelosi seems to believe that the distinction between religion and the government is far more important than her own religious views. Or perhaps not…Although Pelosi has spoken very highly of keeping religion and politics separate, she has hypocritically shoved her Christian beliefs into the public discourse anyway. While speaking at the Catholic Community Conference (why she was even invited, I’m not sure), Pelosi asked a group of Catholic bishops and cardinals that she hoped they would speak about immigration reform (aka amnesty) “from the pulpit” because reform “is a manifestation of our living the gospels.” This is exactly what the founders feared when they drafted the First Amendment. The Congresswoman’s statement is a perfect example of the government’s meddling in the affairs of religious communities immorally and perhaps illegally. Catholic officials and leaders from all religious communities should speak from the heart and speak for God, not the government.

            It is astonishing that something, namely religion, which is by definition good, can be perverted into such a great tool of evil. This is exactly what the founders feared when they put together the Constitution. I doubt that Thomas Jefferson could have foreseen how his concept of separation of church and state, designed to preserve the freedom of religion, has been twisted to create an increasingly secularized and intolerant society. In fact Jefferson and his other founders’ ideas and statements about religion would perhaps not be “tolerated” based upon the laws of today. Jefferson, although he was often conflicted when it came to religion stated: “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.” George Washington stated in kind: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports." Congress even recommended in 1782 that the Bible be used in all schools. Early Americans, although diverse in their beliefs, agreed that religion was a key piece in the structure of our nation and should be preserved. In the modern day, religion is mocked, degraded, and eradicated every time you turn around. It’s no coincidence that this country started descending downhill once God was taken out of our schools and continues to slide as religion is removed from the public sphere. We must bring true religious tolerance back into this country if we are ever to get back on our feet again. A belief in God used to be something that united us instead of tearing us apart. In a few days, we will be celebrating the 4th of July and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. If we want to once again be a united country under the principles that we were found upon, we must remember the words of our forbearers in that great document: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”


By: Amy Lutz

Though it should not be a surprise, once again, our leftist media has targeted Sarah Palin with a barrage of vindictive commentary (just to clarify to the overly-sensitive liberals reading this, by using the word “target,” I don’t mean to be violent). This time, commentators on poorly rated networks such as CNN and MSNBC have taken issue with Palin’s account of Paul Revere’s ride in 1775. It appears that this is the first occasion leftist commentators such as Chris Matthews have cared about historical accuracy, but I digress. During a recent trip to Boston, Sarah Palin said the following of that night in 1775: “He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms,” said Palin, “by ringing those bells, and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.” The left went crazy, attacking Palin’s intelligence, integrity, character, and just about everything they could think of. They attacked here assertion that Revere had “warned the British,” stating that this was simply not true. As usual, the assaults were vicious and unfair. The always eloquent and accurate Chris Matthews said of Palin’s statement: “Oh, God. That speaks for her credentials more than anything else. I remember Steve Schmidt said after meeting her and listening to her saying she doesn't know anything.” After the firestorm erupted, Palin clarified her statement to Chris Wallace on Fox: “Part of Paul Revere’s ride — and it wasn’t just one ride — he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed.” Despite this addition, the left has yet to let up their attacks. Many commentators are still vindictively commenting on Palin’s statement and its accuracy even though it is not fully inaccurate. And since when do we trust liberals when it comes to history? One of their best weapons is the perversion of historical fact to fit their own agendas.

Well, let’s set the record straight. Although, I will admit, Sarah Palin has made her fair share of gaffes in the past, I would not classify her Paul Revere comment as one of them. Let me explain. Before Revere’s famous ride, he organized the “powder alarms” which were designed to warn communities that the British were planning on stealing gunpowder in order to disarm the Americans. This alarm system included the “bells and warning shots” Palin referenced. In order to eliminate the alarms, the British attempted to quarantine Boston. As an alteration to the system in the face of the quarantine, the lanterns hung in the Old North Church on the night of Revere’s ride were meant to activate the powder alarms and warn Americans that “The British were coming.” That same night, Revere set out to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock of the advancing British troops, but was captured on the way there. In a letter written by Revere himself, he recounted being questioned by a British officer: "He asked me if I was an express. I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up." That sure sounds like a warning to the British to me, and written in Revere’s own words nonetheless. Just like Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” hey liberal media, “It’s the truth, stupid.” This story might be obscure and unknown to most (including MSNBC anchors), but Sarah Palin appeared to have been fully aware of its truth. Unfortunately, even in the face of Palin’s apparent vindication, the left continues to mercilessly attack her credibility, and the credibility of most right-leaning politicians for that matter. This harsh treatment has revolved around the former vice presidential candidate ever since her emergence onto the political scene. Just think back to January on the day of the horrific shooting in Tucson. Many left-leaning commentators and politicians were quick to blame Palin (and other conservatives) for the attack because she had “targeted” Kathy Lee Gifford’s district as one that could be taken by Republicans in the midterm elections. Well, just so the left knows, the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner was declared schizophrenic (not surprisingly), meaning that his actions were the result of an insane mind, not a political map. I’m still waiting for the apologies to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and all blamed conservatives.

Now, compare Palin’s media treatment to that of the Unquestioned Messiah, Barack Obama. The President has had his fair share of gaffes, perhaps even more than Palin, but they are rarely even mentioned by our leftist media. One of the most offensive comments he has made occurred when he was speaking on the Tonight Show about his “bowling prowess:” “No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something.” Excuse me? The President made a blatant joke about the Special Olympics, which showcases the handicapped, and the media ignored it. Granted the President did apologize for the comment, but the leftist media did not barrage him with criticisms like they are currently directing at Sarah Palin. Another favorite Obama gaffe of mine occurred when he was speaking of a natural disaster in my home state: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed.”  For the President’s information, that tornado only had 12 casualties. I’m pretty sure I would have heard if ten thousand of my fellow Kansans died. On another occasion, the President tried to make a point about health care using a mail analogy, but in the end just created a self-defeating argument: “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems.” If I’m reading that correctly, Obama stated the two private businesses, UPS and FedEx, are more successful than a government-run program: the Post Office. And he calls himself a big-government liberal! Yet again, what did the media have to say about the comment? Nothing. Perhaps the most famous, and most comical, Obamaism occurred when the President overestimated exactly how many states made up our Union: “I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go.” Now, we conservatives have all had a good laugh over the comment, and rightfully so, but few of us actually think that the President believes that there are 57 states. I’m the first to admit that it was a simple mistake and does not at all reflect on Obama’s intelligence. In fact, although I disagree with just about every decision the President has made, I acknowledge that he is a very well educated man. Chris Matthews gave a great display of liberal hypocrisy this past April when having a discussion with Michael Steele. When Steele brought up the “57 state” comment, Matthews called it a “misstatement” and brushed it off. Comparing Matthews’ comments on Palin’s Paul Revere statement and Obama’s gaffe shows exactly how biased our media is. In fact, for conservatives, it’s a double standard.

Every time a conservative opens their mouth anymore, they are annihilated by the media. Yet, when liberal politicians make a mistake, it’s silent. Most of the media is so in the bag for the Obama administration and the liberal establishment that they cannot present an accurate account of the news. This is why liberals like to attack FoxNews for being “too conservatively biased.” Yes, Fox has conservative commentators like Bill O’Reilly hired to give his opinion on the news, but the network really appears to be to the right because it’s surrounded by the liberal media. It’s only conservative by comparison. The liberal media, unlike Fox, often spends most of its time tearing down conservatives, especially Sarah Palin. Liberal “journalists” spend so much time trying to discredit Palin, frankly, because she’s a threat. She does not fit into the “rich white male” stereotype that they have imposed on the conservative movement. She’s a conservative woman who is truly unpredictable (seriously, Sarah, are you running or not?). Liberals can’t seem to force her into a box and that frustrates them. So they attack her with every weapon in their arsenal. The same goes for “untraditional” politicians such as Allen West and Michelle Bachmann. The media’s treatment of the President; however, is definitely a horse of a different color. For most of them, Barack Obama is untouchable, so much so that he’s reached “Messiah” and “Savior” status to many liberals. He can do no wrong. In fact, he even gives Chris Matthews a “thrill up his leg.” Well, liberal media, if you need a savior, take him and see how far that gets you. Conservatives, on the other hand, will rely on the American ideal. We don’t need a savior to make progress. We believe in the American dream that liberals have tried to convince us is dead. To move forward, we do not need an Unquestionable Messiah to lead us or a biased media to tell us what to think. Conservatives will “question with boldness” in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson. All we need to succeed is the self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and innovation that made the United States of America the exceptional nation it is today.