I’d always loved the musical, 1776, traveling in 1998 (when I lived in DC) to New York to see the Broadway revival with Brent Spiner as John Adams. When Glenn linked one song, I thought that in honor of this great day, let me provide another from the 1972 film version with William Daniels as John Adams, Ken Howard as Thomas Jefferson and Howard Da Silva as Benjamin Franklin.

And that eagle, long since hatched, has been flying high and proud for the better part of 233 years. Let’s just make sure not to keep her majesty tethered. For, in flight, she has not only embodied the principles of liberty our founders fought for over two hundred years ago, but has also inspired people around the world, including those who protest today in Iran.

Happy Independence Day! Do yourself a favor and read the Declaration of Independence out loud to your family and friends.

PatriotPartner and I will be attending the Charlotte Tea Party between 11am and 3pm. I’ll try to blog or live-tweet from the event.

Follow me on Twitter for updates on the Charlotte Tea Party.

UPDATE: We have about 2,500 strong here in Charlotte on a beautiful July 4th in the Queen City.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  While you’re here, you might want to see some of our other posts, including my thoughts on how Sarah Palin’s public image suffers because the MSM gives short shrift to her actual accomplishments, choosing to focus instead on the sensationalist aspects of her story.

In the past month or so, as polls have shown increased public dissatisfaction with President Obama’s policies, revealing that the American people have a predilection for the small government ideas the Republican Party ostensibly champions.  I say “ostensibly” because in the past few years (as many have noted), the GOP has lost sight of its principles and signed on to the ways of Washington.

Yet, at a moment when conservative ideas are in the ascendancy (at least in terms of public opinion), conservative politicians seem not to be.  What has been a good month for conservative ideas has been a bad month for conservative politicians, with a principled small government Governor disgracing himself by acting like a geeky teenager suddenly discovering that girls really like him, a responsible moderate conservative losing a Senate seat to an irresponsible name-calling left-wing former comedian and an (up until yesterday) up-and-coming Governor with a a natural charm and stage presence, stepping down.

While people may be flocking to our banner, there seems to be fewer and fewer people ready, willing and capable of carry that banner into battle.  We may be winning the ideological battle in the public square, only doomed to lose it at the ballot box.  Ideas may rally the troops, but they can’t win election to office.

Tea parties continue to draw large crowds.  They have clearly tapped into something, an idea which resonates across the country.  But, who is going to harness the energy unleashed at these rallies?

As I drove north yesterday across California’s Central Valley, perhaps the most fertile region in the country, I saw these signs sprouting up everywhere.

Wondered if they were referring to something reader to which Peter Hughes alerted me two weeks ago when he e-mailed me a link to Sean Hannity’s interview with comedian Paul Rodriguez.  That funny man, whose mother and family farm in the San Joaquin Valley (the southern part of the Central Valley), has spoken out as federal authorities, under the cloak of the Endangered Species Act, have “shut down vital pumps to farmers to help preserve” the delta smelt, a two-inch minnow.

This government action is costing many farmers their livelihood.  As it prevents them from farming their land, it means the overall harvest decreases which means less food for all of us which means higher prices.

Oh, yeah, and if there’s less food, more people go hungry.  All to save a tiny minnow.  And I bet there are better ways to save this species, less costly to our own.

Guess I shouldn’t have been so surprised to see this sign as I approached the Bay Bridge, given my left-of-center friend who was wearing green for Iran.  Seems even the folks in Oakland support freedom for the Iranian people.

Sorry I couldn’t get a better picture, but snapped this in very slow traffic.

So much did the youngest PatriotNephewWest like the hat his favorite uncle bought him that he tried it on without taking off the price tag:

Then, he and his Mommy took me for a walk through Golden Gate park. And every time I looked at him, he responded with a smile.

And like one of his cousins, he has his own blog.

It’s amazing how much bigger he’s gotten since the last time I saw him (back in February) — when he hadn’t yet learned how to smile.

UPDATE:  As my sister wished me good night, she said that her son’s smile makes “all the sleepless nights worth it.  I’ll just say that the smile more than pays for the cost of the trip and having to wait nearly an hour to make it to the toll booth for the Bay Bridge.  I sure got lucky in the nephew (and niece) department.  (And not just this one–his cousins are all pretty amazing.)

This story must have broke when I was crossing the Bay Bridge (after being stuck in traffic to get through toll plaza for nearly and hour) driving across the Golden State en route to spending the holiday weekend with my youngest nephew. My initial thought is that this all but rules her out as a serious contender for 2012.  She needed to run for reelection and win convincingly, then serve out her second term, so she could compile keep compiling a stronger record of executive accomplishment.

I remain a fan of the good Governor, but don’t think this is a wise move.  Perhaps, my mind will change as I learn more about her motives, but for now, I will just say I am very disappointed with a woman I admire and respect.

ADDENDUM:  As I read the AP article, I note its anti-Republican slant, talking about this coming “after several recent blows to the Republican party.”  Wonder if AP reports on the latest Democratic scandal to emerge as coming after several recent blows to the Democratic Party–if it even reports such scandals.

UPDATE: Via Michelle, some speculation on the toll the personal attacks have taken:

Chuck Heath, Palin’s brother, on FNC talking about incessant attacks. Very emotional. “It’s weighed on her a long time.” Couldn’t effectively govern when having to defend herself against attacks.

Kind of makes sense, given the nuisance ethics cases childish leftists were filing in an attempt to damage this good woman.

It would be interesting to study the nastiness of the Palin-haters and see if any prior candidate for national office has been subject to as much vitriol as she–after her defeat. The juvenilia of her adversaries is a fascinating cultural phenomenon.

UP-UPDATE: I apologize for the haphazard nature of this post. I had some ideas for posts while driving across the Golden State including one sign which I had to stop to photograph and thanks to traffic outside the toll booth, arrived during my nephew’s nap, so am sort of just posting thoughts as I scan the blogs.

While I wondered above whether any unsuccessful candidate for national office had been subject to as much venom as she, Glenn contends that she has been “been subjected — along with her family — to more abuse than any other non-national-officeholder I can think of.”

UP-UP-UPDATE:  The Anchoress says she predicted this: (more…)

It must be true… a McClatchy newspaper sez so today.  Right there, above the fold in today’s Charlotte Observer:

Dismal Numbers
14.7 million: People unemployed in June, the most ever in records dating to 1948.  (GP Ed. Note – obviously there were more during the Great Depression)

12.1 million:  People unemployed in December 1982, the record before the current downturn.

August 1983:  The last time the unemployment rate hit 9.5%

24.5 weeks: The average length of unemployment, also a record.

What happened to the Obama Stimulus money?  What jobs is it creating?  Where are these “shovel-ready” projects Obama promised?

Say what you want about President George W. Bush — but after he entered office in a recession, then our economy absorbed the 9/11 attacks — he still had a NET INCREASE in jobs in his term.  At this rate, it will be a miracle — sans massive tax cuts — for Obama to say the same thing.

Obama is a failure of epic proportions.  We need to take America back before Obama spends us into oblivion for good.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Yesterday, Glenn linked a comment James Taranto made in his Best of the Web column for the on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal:

Have you noticed a change in the economic news over the past year or so? It’s a deliberately ambiguous question: The actual news has gotten worse, but the coverage of it has changed in tone. Today, reporters are eagerly looking for the light at the end of the tunnel. A year ago, and for a long time before that, they couldn’t wait to get into the tunnel.

The media, as Glenn put it, seem to be desperately seeking silver linings in dismal economic news yet during the eight years preceding January 20, 2009, they seem to have aggressively been seeking dark clouds despite robust economic performance for the better part of that period.

It seems that media coverage of the economy–and economic policies–of the incumbent President may have prolonged his honeymoon and perhaps even inflated his poll numbers.  By contrast, their coverage of his precessor may have helped keep his favorables down while explaining why he regularly got mediocre marks on the economy even as it grew and unemployment remained at–or below–the levels of the 1990s.

I wonder how much worse the incumbent’s numbers on the economy if the MSM did as the conservative media and blogosphere is doing, showing the amount debt which will accrue with Obama’s policies–and contrasting the unemployment figures projected by the Administration when they pushed passage of the “stimulus” and those we see today.

Makes me wonder if media coverage of the economy affects the way we perceive the economy.  That is, if the media is always looking for dark clouds amidst general good numbers, do we perceive the economy to be worse than it is?  Similarly, if they’re always looking for a silver lining, do we become more optimistic about an imminent recovery?

While I certainly castigate the gloom and doom coverage, I don’t fault them for the optimism, indeed, see it as a good thing.  I just wonder that they wouldn’t want to give us hope of continued prosperity when a Republican is in the White House.

We’ll be having another gatheing of GayPatriot readers in the Southland, this coming Tuesday 07/07 @ 7 PM.  And we’ll be honoring 007 by drinking our martinis shaken, not stirred.

E-mail me for information.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  While you’re here, you might want to check out my tributes to Karl Malden, my co-blogger’s reflections on the President’s tanking poll numbers, a thought on how some gay marriage activists have made demonizing Mormons their modus operandi and my observation that the MSM see Obama and Palin as blank screens upon which to project their prejudices.

Today, the Labor Department released figures showing unemployment hitting new highs, continuing to exceed even the level the Obama Administration forecast it would have attained without the “stimulus”–and considerably higher (considerably, considerably) than Democrats promised if Congress passed the legislation which may well have ended Arlen Specter’s political career. (Hey, ya’ gotta find a silver lining somewhere.)

(Chart courtesy of Innocent Bystanders.)

No wonder the President’s support is taking a hit, particularly on the economy.

Apparently, Obama is more interested in exploiting the economic crisis to achieve his own political goals* than to first accomplish what he was elected to do.  Recall, how the polls started shifting in the Democat’s direction as the scope of the financial meltdown became clear.  He used the economic downturn to his political advantage.  People trusted him to fix the economy.

But, now instead of focusing on the economy, he continues forward a myriad of initiatives, many of which would place burdens on private industry, you know, companies which tend to create new jobs.  Instead of getting us out of the mess that Obama “inherited,” the “stimulus” has made it worse.

Small businesses aren’t hiring because they are “paralyzed by regulatory uncertainty.” If they had greater confidence in the Administration’s economic plans, were less skeptical about its attitude toward the private sector, these employers might be expanding their businesses, hiring new workers and spurring economic growth.

Given the regulatory schemes proposed by the Obama Administration and the legislation proposed by the Democratic Congress, no wonder the economy continues to stagnate.  Unless the President develops economic plans which work, based on models of successful recoveries, rather than adhere to theories similar to past policies which failed to end economic crises, expect unemployment to continue its upward climb.  But, then again, if the economy fails to recover, expect Obama’s failures should help end the political careers of Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Patty Murray and Hary Reid.

Like I said, ya’ gotta find a silver lining.

* (more…)

For the fourth time since I moved to LA, I trekked up to Hollywood Boulevard to honor a legend who had recently passed by laying flowers on his star on the Walk of Fame.  The large wreath is something the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce places over the star of each individual when he dies.  Mine is the smallest bouquet.

On my way to Malden’s star, just east of Hollywood & Vine, I passed Michael Jackson’s star just in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater. The sound trucks that had been there the last time I drove through the heart of Hollywood were gone, but the barricades — and the crowds–remained, with posters expressing people’s affection for the King of Pop and sadness at his passing. There were also balloons and flowers, a marked contrast to Malden’s star–near an empty Hollywood cafe.

Wow.  As PatriotPartner said to me — “Want to see a lead balloon?  Go to Rasmussen today“. (h/t – HotAir)

Ed Morrissey sums it all up nicely over at HotAir.

Rasmussen’s new poll, taken before the release of June’s unemployment numbers, shows significant slippage for Barack Obama on the economy, his central issue.  Only 42% of American voters give him excellent or good marks on handling the economy, the lowest ratings he has yet received.  His personal approval rate has fallen to 53%.

The demographics of his decline portend more bad news for Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.  Only the youngest voters support him on fiscal policy, and only barely, 52%-46%. Every other age demographic above 30 years of age has majorities now showing disapproval.  Independents have begun to run away in massive numbers; they now oppose him 75%-23%, a huge break away from Obama and a sign that his supposed moderate stances have been exposed as shams. Every income level except the lowest also has majorities disapproving of his handling of the economy.  Voters outside the “political class” oppose Obama 65%-33%.

Obama doesn’t fare well on national security, either.  Rasmussen reports that Obama only has 44% approval on these issues, and 55% opposing him.  Majorities of both women and men view him disfavorably.  Every income level has majorities opposed to Obama, and independents disapprove 68%-31%.  Obama only wins within the $60K-$75K income level; even his base of support among the lowest income earners narrowly reject Obama’s national-security policies, 52%-47%.

Obama isn’t just coming back to Earth in the polling.  He’s losing independents and demonstrating his radical bent on policy, and more and more Americans have begun to see it.

Perhaps the grown-ups in America are waking up before it is too late.  The awakening will only increase over the July 4th weekend as talk of our shared economic disaster will trump Michael Jackson around the patio.

As I said on Twitter earlier today…

Is it 1979 again??? 10% unemployment. Americans being taken hostage by Islamists. President coddles dictators.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This is depressing news. My prayers go out to him and his family.  Please let’s all pay attention to what is going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan!

CAMP LEATHERNECK, July 2 — A U.S. soldier missing from his base in eastern Afghanistan since Tuesday is believed to have been captured by Taliban militants, the military said Thursday.

In a statement issued from U.S. military headquarters in Kabul, officials said “we are exhausting all available resources to ascertain his whereabouts and provide for his safe return.”

The soldier was not part of the large-scale assault launched on Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan early Thursday. That operation, which involves about 4,000 troops from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, was encountering only light resistance, officials said. But the military expects the Taliban to respond more harshly once troops move into towns and begin patrols.

Military officials in Afghanistan, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the situation, said the missing soldier appears to have walked off his base into an unsecured area.

A U.S. official in Afghanistan said the soldier’s absence was discovered when he did not show up for morning formation. It is highly unusual for a U.S. soldier to leave a military base unaccompanied by other American troops.

A member of the Taliban linked to insurgent leader Sirajuddin Haqqani in Pakistan said that the soldier is in the custody of militants from the Haqqani network who are operating on the Afghan side of the border.

10% unemployment, Americans captured by Islamists and the US President coddles dictators.

Is it 1979 all over again?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

One of the greatest character actors of all time has died. Karl Malden, who won an Academy Award for best supporting actor in A Streetcar Named Desire, passed away of natural causes yesterday in Los Angeles. He was 97.

He made up for his ordinary looks by his extraordinary performances, distinguishing himself in three films directed by Streetcar director Elia Kazan, including his (in my view) his greatest performance (and that’s saying a lot) as Father Barry in On the Waterfront. Kazan had first met the actor in New York in the 1930s where he him “in a host of successful Broadway shows.”

He later starred alongside Michael Douglas in the 1970s television show, “The Streets of San Francisco.”  He served as President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences from 1989-1992.  His acting range was incredible, from the pathetic older man trying to control his younger wife in Kazan’s Baby Doll, to the level-headed “G.I.’s general,” Omar Bradley, in Patton, to the persistent police inspector in Hitchcock’s under-appreciated I, Confess.

He was truly protean, able to play almost any character.  In the three films he did with Kazan, he assumed three entirely different guises.  He could be a nebbish, manipulated by those around him–or the moral force of one of the grestest movies of all time.  He could hold his own again more charismatic screen legends like George C. Scott, Montgomery Clift and Brando.

Words cannot capture the true greatness of this man, so let me offer two scenes from Waterfront where he really shows his acting chops. I can’t watch the first without crying. All you need do is look at his face at the end of the second clip to see that a good actor doesn’t need dialogue to express his character’s emotions.

UPDATE:  From the comments:

An actor who could play characters at opposite ends of the moral and emotional scales and all points between — from Dad Longworth in “One Eyed Jacks” to Omar Bradley in “Patton” and Father Barry in “On the Waterfront” — and make them rock solid believable, is an actor that comes along maybe two or three times in a century.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

When talking to (and reading the e-mails of) my gay friends and acquaintances about Mormons, all too many of them insist on insulting that faith and its flock, largely because of the church’s involvement in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 last fall.

Recall the hysteria of the protests last fall against the passage of Prop 8?  The activists directed their ire at the Mormon Church.  And now, as we debate means to repeal the proposition, it seems sometimes that they would rather attack Mormons than make the case for gay marriage.

In that process, they would alienate those Mormons who, while they love their church, do not always agree with its teaching, individuals who might buck church elders and vote for gay marriage.  If the issue is about the qualities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then they lose those votes–as well as those of others truly tolerant of the great variety of religions which flourish in the United States.

Last month, Law Professor William A. Jacobson noted how some bloggers were singling out one of the signatories on the Obama Justice Department brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because that lawyerThey  is Mormon:  “Even though others also signed the brief, and the brief must have gone through a vetting process at DOJ, Aravosis chose to single out the one person who was Mormon for scorn“.

Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith instead of making the case for the social change they advocate? It’s almost as if their real issue is not promoting gay marriage, but demonizing cetain social conservatives.

.  . . . he wouldn’t be facing headlines like this one in the Christian Science Monitor:  Are Specter’s Senate days numbered?

With his polls slipping and Congressman Joe Sestak having all but announced a bid to challenge the Senator in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary, the odds against the Republican-turned-Democrat returning to the 112th Congress are increasing every day.  Had he sacrificed his eagerness to be at the center of attention during the “stimulus” debate and joined his party’s opposition to budgetary profligacy, he might have been able to win renomination as a Republican, simply by sticking with his party on issues which draw media attention.

Simply put, had he voted against the “stimulus,” his opponent wouldn’t have garnered the support he did among rank-and-file Republicans, upset at our party’s past profligacy and eager for a return to fiscal sanity.

Opposition to the “stimulus” may have brought him less time in the limelight, but secured him a longer tenure in the Senate.

Well, there are many.  You know, like her actually having executive experience before she appeared on the national stage–and actually taking on corruption in her party.  Ace identifies another one–perhaps the one which prevented her from looking as good in interviews during the fall campaign as he did:

As I said ten times during the campaign, Barack Obama is just Sarah Palin plus six months of briefing books and town halls.

Given how quickly she had to master the questions facing candidates on the national ticket while campaigning for the Republican ticket, while nursing an infant, while raising children, that she had so many fewer gaffes than her rival for the Vice Presidency, who had far more time to prepare is simply amazing.

During the presidential campaign last fall, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speculated that no “elite television journalist” ever asked Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin about her “actual career in Alaska”:

The media paid as little attention to her record in office as they did to that of their preferred candidate, Barack Obama, choosing instead to craft an image for each of them.  Perhaps Todd Purdum’s recent hit piece on the accomplished Alaska Governor prompted this thought from our reader Leah, expressed in an e-mailed:

Obama and Palin as two sides of the same coin, their records and accomplishments (or lack thereof) are ignored, one is loved for being handsome, young and debonair, the other hated for being young, beautiful and very talented.

Pretty much sums it up.  Like columnists for Hollywood fan magazines, the better part of the reporters covering the 2008 presidential campaign and now currently covering the President and the Governor of Alaska are more interested in image than substance.  Obama is cool and hip, uses a blackberry, Palin is, her looks notwithstanding, old-fashioned and hypocritical, with trailer-trash in-laws.

I really don’t need bother reading Purdum’s piece because he’s not interested in reporting honestly on the Governor of Alaska, but feeding the media narrative about the incompetence and arrogance of this good-looking, happily married conservative woman.  I mean, can you trust a guy who claims that, as Bill Kristol puts it (quoting Purdum)

. . . “several” Alaskans independently told Purdum that they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? I don’t believe it for a moment. I’ve (for better or worse) moved in pretty well-educated circles in my life, and I’ve gone decades without “several” people telling me they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Noting how different reporters how come to different conclusions about Palin’s mood, Jim Geraghty, paraphrasing the President’s words about himself*, wonders if “Sarah Palin is now a blank slate, upon which national magazine writers project whatever negative narrative they prefer“.   Just as much “news” reporting about Obama says more about those doing the reporting than does it does about the President, so does much journalism about Palin say more about the journalist than it does about the Governor of Alaska.

In his Palinpalooza, Robert Stacy McCain finds finds this all relates to the media’s double (or triple, as it were in 2008) standard: (more…)

GayPatriot reader Jeff Fenner sent me this “letter to the editor” for publication.  I have reprinted in its entirety.

All I can say is…. AMEN, brother!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

==========

Call me crazy, but I don’t see anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives anyone the right to marry, least of all, heterosexuals. What I do see is that each man was created equal and is to be treated equal and be allowed the pursuit of happiness.

Why don’t gay marriage advocates chase the simple idea that only married heterosexuals get tax breaks, next of kin benefits, and partner benefits? It’s wholly unconstitutional that only hetero’s get these benefits. No where in the Constitution is it written ‘only heterosexuals’.

There isn’t even a definition of marriage IN the Constitution, at least, not yet. I truly believe that gay marriage advocates would get FAR more traction, politically, attacking the tax breaks and other benefits that ONLY heterosexually married couples get. Why should they pay fewer taxes than single people? Why not pull in the single voting public. Surely the voice would be louder and tougher to ignore?

This is a prime example of Religion getting too close to government and getting a government sanction for their dogma. Most religions recognize marriages between a man and a woman. This is an example of religion reaching too far into our government. Why don’t we look at that, and even the reasons for the tax breaks given?

It is my belief that these tax breaks were born out of the idea that the federal government needed and continues a need to encourage marriage between a man and a woman so that it can ‘grow’ a future tax base. A married couple can use the ‘tax break’ to grow their family with more affordability. If this same tax break is given to a straight single person, or couple that aren’t living together romantically where’s the incentive to ‘grow a family’…a family of individuals that would eventually be taxpayers.

In short, it’s far more unconstitutional to give a tax break to married couples than to bar gay people from being married. Single people should join the fight and demand the same tax breaks given to married people, or that the IRS disallow a tax break for heterosexually married people. Imagine the increase in the tax base if this benefit was removed!

As you might imagine, I don’t believe it’s the government’s place to determine what marriage is. I don’t believe it’s my government’s place to give one group of benefits that it freely and loosely gives another group of people.