Gay Patriot Header Image

Basketball player comes out; “I could care less”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:08 pm - April 30, 2013.
Filed under: Media Bias,Sports

I don’t follow basketball save to root for the Lakers when I catch them on a TV I’m watching at the gym. (One of my best friends is a fan, so I root for the LA team, knowing their victory will help make her day.)

Until this week, I had never heard of Jason Collins, and assume the 34-year-old center must be a good basketball player, given that he been playing professionally for “12 seasons“, including once “in a Final Four for Stanford and” twice in the “NBA Finals.”

As usual when someone in the public eye out, you can expect overblown rhetoric for the various gay advocacy outfits with Aaron McQuade, the head of GLAAD’s sports program, saying that Collins had put “courage” and “inspiration” into “a brand new context.”

Give me a break.  This is not 1973.  Or even 1993.  Ellen’s coming out may have been big in the 1997, but now men and women, in most fields of endeavor, take it for granted that one of their colleagues is (or might be) gay.

Talking about Collins’s call a few days ago “to share the news with” him, Boston Celtics player and (the Collins’s former) coach said:

When he called me to tell me, you could tell he wanted to tell me. I told him before he said it, ‘Jason I could care less about what you’re about to tell me.’ And that’s how I feel. I honestly feel that way.

It’s a non-factor to me, and I know it is a factor to a lot of people. I’ve never understood why anyone cares what someone else does. And I told Jason that it will be a non-issue eventually, but it will not be right now.

Leave it to an athlete to say it better than a professional gay advocate.  It’s not an non-issue now because Collins is the first professional athlete to come up while still playing.  But, it should be one.  The coach is right to note that no one should really care about an athlete’s sexuality.  It’s as irrelevant to his performance as his hair color.

No wonder Bruce Bawer urges Collins to “say no” to the gay outfits who want to make him their “spokesrobot.”*  Don’t let him fall into spouting the same kind of bromides as Mr. McQuade offered. (more…)

Jason Collins Is No Hero; Mark Bingham Was.

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:55 pm - April 30, 2013.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Culture,Gay PC Silliness

My new post at Ricochet has been up for a couple of hours and it is causing an interesting reaction for me on Twitter.

Here’s a sneak peek:

Let’s be honest: Collins is an uber-wealthy and talented super athlete in our celebrity-obsessed society.  I doubt he has much to worry about outside of his bubble.  So I’m sorry if I can’t get worked up about this.

<…>

Today, most young people think Lady Gaga is an important gay icon and political influencer, yet hardly any have ever heard of Mark Bingham.

I don’t begrudge Jason Collins; I loathe our news media for making the important irrelevant and the ridiculous praiseworthy.

Please read it.  If you don’t read the whole column, I will delete your comments.  Because I now have ESP powers.  HA!

UPDATE:  Let me add a thought I had after I wrote it:  Barack Obama can call Jason Collins and Sandra Fluke, but not the family of Brian Terry or those he left to die in Benghazi.  That says all I need to know about Obama.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

State-sponsored terrorism?

By now, most of us have heard the reports that the Tsarnaev family received some $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance.

It touches on a key question that arises when government pays people to basically do nothing: what the heck are they up to, all day?

The classic story that welfare-spending advocates give us is, The Family Who Just Need A Little Help To Get On Their Feet: imperfect but responsible parents who are going to school and looking for jobs (however desperately), while they take care of kids or others who depend on them. I’m sure that some proportion of recipients is like that. I’m also sure that at least some other recipients sit on their rear ends for years at a time. And finally, some others must be up to no good: running meth labs, planning crimes, or studying radical Islam and (perhaps) learning how to commit terror. What are the true proportions of the three groups? That, I do not know.

When people must work for a living, we have a pretty good idea what they’re up to all day: Their jobs. If they’re going to make trouble, they must do it more in their off-hours.

Back in 2001, Mickey Kaus noted some of the links between welfare benefits and terrorism. I also remember Bruce Bawer talking about it in his 2006 book: the idea that the European welfare state paid benefits to its unassimilated Islamist immigrants as a kind of appeasement, oblivious to the fact that it was (in effect) paying them to remain unassimilated and Islamist.

Just take Joe Biden With You, K?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:58 pm - April 30, 2013.
Filed under: National Politics

Screen shot 2013-04-30 at 1.56.01 PM

“Did Ron Paul go too far this time?”

The headline is what I just saw on Yahoo! (hence the quotes). The article is from Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor:

Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has slammed US law enforcement for responding to the Boston Marathon bombing with “police state tactics.”

In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself. The forced lockdown of much of the Boston area, police riding armored vehicles through the streets, and door-to-door searches without warrants were all reminiscent of a military coup or martial law, Paul added.

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” according to Paul.

Furthermore, this response did not result in the capture of suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Paul charged. He was discovered hiding in a boat by a private citizen, who called police…

The article seems to be written by a leftie: it unfortunately goes on to quote the pompous and silly Glenn Greenwald, and uses guilt-by-association to insinuate that Austrian economics (Ludwig von Mises) somehow goes with racism.

But brush that aside: the main topic is still interesting. Your thoughts? Who went too far: Ron Paul, or the Boston police?

Gay athletes – update

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 10:56 am - April 30, 2013.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay PC Silliness,Social Issues,Sports

To follow up on my post of a couple weeks ago on gay athletes in the 21st century, these news items may be of interest.

First, NBA center Jason Collins comes out. Interestingly, he has a twin who is straight. (Studies show that identical twins are somewhat likely, but far from guaranteed, to have the same orientation.) His article has a few odd political shots in it; I wonder if they come from his co-writer?

Next, kicker Alan Gendreau didn’t get drafted. But not many kickers are drafted, so that may be small news. Gendreau was the first openly-gay player to enter the NFL draft. The Newsbusters article (hat tip Peter H) mentions ABC News’ role in having publicized Gendreau for reasons of political advocacy.

UPDATE: Caught a few minutes of Rush, who predicts that the NFL will soon come out with at least two gay players… because they have to trump the NBA.

I hope he’s right. I mean, can we please get the coming-out-in-sports process over with? Like I said in my earlier post, in 1993 or 2003 I cared about celebrities’ “brave personal journeys” in coming out, but it’s 2013 now. The sooner done and forgotten, the better.

Filtered History vs. the Political Wheel of Fortune

Henry David Thoreau once wrote: “There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers.”  I thought of that recently in seeing some of the media pushback against the publicity generated by the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas this week.  Thoreau’s quote is as true as ever about the state of contemporary philosophy, but it is also true about the state of historical inquiry:  these days we have professors of history more than historians.

The professoriate is a class with its own interests and its own agenda, an agenda that largely overlaps with that pursued by the majority of our lamestream media.  That agenda does not include the practice of history in the abstract, insofar as that involves presenting the evidence, weighing the options, employing reason, and drawing conclusions.  To most professors of history and folks in the media these days, history is only useful insofar as it serves their left-wing agenda.  Hence their resistance to the displays in the Bush library.

Consider this article from Yahoo! News:

DALLAS—As former President George W. Bush prepares to officially open his presidential library on Thursday, a question arises as it has for his predecessors: How objective will it be about his time in the White House?
Bush left office five years ago as one of the most unpopular presidents in history, his poll numbers weighed down by public discontent over his handling of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and worries about the economy.
But the former president wanted to take the controversies about his presidency head-on, say several former aides who worked closely with him on the library. One way of addressing the challenge is an interactive exhibit allowing visitors to see what it was like for him to make decisions as leader of the free world. People will hear information Bush was given by aides, then be asked to make their own choices. Afterward, the former president’s image will appear on a screen to explain what decision he ultimately made and why.
“He really wants people to go in there and get a sense of what it was like to be president during that time and to use that to make an informed decision about his presidency,” said Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush adviser.

In some respects,  the article strives to be slightly more balanced than I’m giving it credit for being, since it does point out controversies over the presentation of material in both the Clinton library and the LBJ library, as well, but I think it is materially different, too, in that Bush is trying to present the information that influenced his decisions and both the media and some so-called historians are crying foul over the fact that he is doing so.

One reason they don’t want Bush to tell his version of the story is that as the nightmare that is the Obama administration continues to develop, Bush is regaining popularity.  While I don’t often share Dan’s enthusiasm for Peggy Noonan’s writings, I was intrigued to see her recognizing the depth of the differences between the two men in her column this week where she wrote:

But to the point. Mr. Obama was elected because he wasn’t Bush.

Mr. Bush is popular now because he’s not Obama.

The wheel turns, doesn’t it?

Here’s a hunch: The day of the opening of the Bush library was the day Obama fatigue became apparent as a fact of America’s political life.

And she isn’t the only one.  Writing for Politico this week, Keith Koffler complained  about “Obama’s hubris problem,” prompting Neo-Neocon to ask the question that is on many of our minds: “And he thinks it’s only a second-term phenomenon? Where has he been, on planet Xenon?”

It seems like the media is unhappy this week because Bush is getting a fresh chance to tell his story independent of their filter, whereas the public is increasingly growing tired of the combination of arrogance, divisiveness, imperiousness, incompetence, and the need to politicize everything for which President Obama is increasingly known.

Perhaps, to modify Noonan a bit, the opening of the Bush library was uncomfortable for many of his admirers because, in seeing all five living presidents together again, the public got a chance to see them and to size them up, and as Joseph Curl wrote in the Washington Times W. easily outclassed Obama.

 

 

Obama’s Only “Game Changers” Come During Election Season

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:39 am - April 27, 2013.
Filed under: Obama Incompetence,War On Terror

From Reuters, Obama talks tough, shows no rush to act on Syria chemical arms evidence:

President Barack Obama warned Syria on Friday that its use of chemical weapons would be a “game changer” for the United States but made clear he was in no rush to intervene in the civil war there on the basis of evidence he said was still preliminary.

Speaking a day after the disclosure of U.S. intelligence that Syria had likely used chemical weapons against its own people, Obama talked tough while calling for patience as he sought to fend off pressure for a swift response against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Talked tough while calling for patience? Huh?

Obama’s inaction comes as no surprise to many — and certainly not to the Syrians who have learned that Obama may talk tough, but he carries his “big stick” only reluctantly and wields it rarely.  If ever.

RELATED: White House: We’re Diligently Endeavoring To Defintively Determine if Syria Use Chemical Weapons, Thereby Politically Embarrassing Us*
*
(more…)

“The Internet home for the American gay conservative”

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 5:35 pm - April 26, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse,Gay Leftist Lickspittles

That title, as the eagle-eyed will notice, is the GayPatriot blog’s tagline.

In my years of participating in GP threads, I’ve noticed that some who are opposed to the blog or its usual viewpoint, may be excessively fond of the “consistency game”, demanding that anyone who would criticize them must first meet some standard of consistency that has been issued by themselves.

It’s a cute game. They declare the standards and they appoint themselves the judges – which means they can’t be criticized in the thread, because they will never judge their critic as having been consistent enough, and will always change the subject back to their critic’s alleged inconsistency.

I called it “cute”, because little kids do it to their parents (or try to). But the game’s effects, and likely its intent, are destructive.

What I’m really talking about here is Alinsky Rule 4, as heliotrope and NDT have pointed out to me before. Played skillfully enough, it can strangle a thread, destroying any useful process of conversation. (more…)

So, now juvenile anti-Bush photoshops are funny?!?!

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:47 am - April 26, 2013.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Mean-spirited leftists,New Media

Does the left-wing Facebook group which posted this picture realize how accurately it depicts the juvenile attitude the incumbent President of the United States has adopted to his predecessor:

Screen shot 2013-04-25 at 9.29.36 PM

And how the depiction does their man no credit.  They may find this funny, but the action they depict reflects poorly on their man in Washington as Jennifer Rubin explains:

There is irony overload in President Obama describing President George W. Bush as “gracious” and “patriotic.” Obama has been among the most ungracious of successors, rising to power by vilifying Bush 43 and blaming four years of economic failure on his predecessor. He has assiduously refused to acknowledge Bush’s accomplishments (e.g. the troop surge). Dubbing his predecessor as “patriotic” is only a compliment in a political universe in which “Bush lied, people died” is taken as gospel. (Does he imagine there is some doubt as to Bush’s patriotism that requires Obama’s stamp of approval?)

(Read the whole thing.)  How many other presidents whined about the problems they “inherited” from their predecessor?

No, Mr. Obama never performed the juvenile stunt depicted in this photoshop.  But it does say a lot about liberals who think it funny.

Democrat acknowledges W’s followthrough on Katrina

Of all the left-leaning pundits on CNN, Donna Brazile comes across as the most level-headed and the least smug, in part because the charismatic and sage Democratic strategist identifies herself as such and doesn’t pretend something she’s not (i.e., a nonpartisan observer).  A few others may claim to be dispassionate, but they wear their liberal ideology on their sleeve.

And Brazile, despite her partisan leanings, does give Republicans credit where it is due as she did earlier today on CNN”s web-page, departing from the media-crafted narrative of the immediate past president’s incompetence in responding to the Katrina catastrophe:

Despite the many differences I had with former President George W. Bush on a range of public policy issues, or as he called them, “decision points,” I found common ground with him in one area, simply because we decided to put aside partisanship and do something good.

Hurricane Katrina’s devastation and the bungled rescue efforts are seared in the national memory. Bush’s “heckuva job” remark turned into a byword for government incompetence and public distrust. The shallowness of it coming at such a terrible and low point left deep wounds that are still healing. That was what it was.

Tapped in 2005 by the then-governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, “to serve on the state’s commission overseeing the long-term recovery from the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina,” Brazile saw more than just that one inopportune comment:

Bush understood the need for civility. I joined him despite my frustration because the need was too great for finger-pointing and blame-making. (more…)

No, Harry Reid won’t be held to account for misrepresenting Tea party

When a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri makes a crazy, ignorant statement about rape in an unscripted interview, it generates a flurry of news stories for days, if not weeks on end.  But, when the Senate Democratic leader makes a crazy, ignorant statement about the most dynamic grassroots political movement to emerge in the Obama era, it generates a headline on Yahoo! for one evening:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday equated the Tea Party to a non-violent “anarchist” group because, in his mind, Tea Partiers don’t believe in any form of government. He was speaking about the sequester and other financial issues on the Senate floor.

“We have a situation where this country has been driven by the Tea Party for the last number of years,” Reid said. “When I was in school, I studied government and I learned about the anarchists. Now, they were different than the Tea Party because they were violent. But they were anarchists because they did not believe in government in any level and they acknowledged it. The Tea Partykind of hides that.”

Oh, and the Republican later retracted and apologized his statement.  Don’t expect Mr. Reid to acknowledge his own error, be it a deliberate misrepresentation or an ignorant one.

If Mr. Reid had actually taken the time to study the Tea Party movement, he would know that its leaders harken back to the Founders who, far from being anarchists, recognized the need for government.  But, concerned that governments could become destructive to the ends for which they were instituted, the Founders of this nation and the framers of our constitution sought to create a framework limiting its scope and constraining its power.  And many, if not most, Tea Party activists and leaders embrace those ideals and that vision.  You’d expect that our national leaders would at least recognize that.

It’s unfortunate that our new media don’t hold the most powerful Democrat in the Senate to the same standards they hold Republican candidates.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Roberto wonders “what part of the words limited,’ and ‘small.’ the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn´t understand.” And his failure to understand the difference between the meaning of those two words and the meaning of “none.”

Watcher of Weasels Nominations — Late April 2013 Edition

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:20 pm - April 25, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Conservative Ideas

Council Submissions

Will Barney “differentiate” himself from himself?

Remember three years ago when the unhappy Barney Frank, then a Member of Congress said “his GOP colleagues need[ed] to do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed in the healthcare debate’s final hours.

Looks like Barney needs now to differentiate himself from himself.  And, by his own standards, House Democrats should be doing the same.  The mean-spirited Massachusetts Democrat is now comparing Al-Qaeda to the Tea Party:

Former Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., responding to al-Qaeda’s criticism of his sexual orientation in the latest issue of their magazine, compared the terrorist organization to the Tea Party and cracked that the two groups are “aligned” with each other against gay marriage.

“I wonder how the right wing in America feels about being aligned with al-Qaeda?” Frank said to Buzzfeed, adding that “there is an irony that the most active anti-gay [groups] are al-Qaeda and the American right-wing.”

The Democrat contended that Al Qaeda “sounded like what the Tea party said when I got married”.  Do wonder if Mr. Frank can source his slur — and if the Democrat is aware that the Tea Party as a whole is uninterested in gay marriage.

But, when slurring the Tea Party, Democrats don’t really see the need to check their facts.

Don’t be expecting Mr. Frank to apologize or even to acknowledge his error.

Topless protestors to hound Islamists

This article from Femen, the feminist protest group, just came across HotAir’s Headlines section:

For the past five years now, we here at the international women’s movement Femen have been waging an active campaign of resistance to the patriarchy in various corners of the world…

The most obvious illustration of the patriarchy is Islamic theocracy, a symbiosis of political and religious dictatorship…

At the heart of Islamism lies the enslavement of women based on control over their sexuality…

I hereby both promise and threaten to deploy an entire network of Femen activists in Arab countries. We will hound Islamic leaders across the globe, subjecting them to desolating criticism. We intend to hound spiritual leaders who are personally responsible for mistreating women…

Femen stands for “democracy, atheism, and sexuality” (per the article), and famously protested Vladimir Putin a couple of weeks ago (video here).

I do NOT endorse everything they believe or do[1], but what’s interesting here is the phenomenon of a left-wing protest group realizing that Islamism is a major threat to the freedom that they seek to live out, and declaring their intention to confront Islamism. We see that occasionally, but not often enough. Some other leftists go for safer targets (such as Christians who, in reality, pose no great threat to them).

These women may be in for some rough times, if they carry out their declaration. While not necessarily endorsing all that they do, let’s give them some credit for their new-found insight, and wish them health and safety! (more…)

Was George W. Bush the postpartisan leader Obama claimed to be?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - April 23, 2013.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Divider-in-Chief,Random Thoughts

In many ways, George W. Bush was the kind of president Barack Obama, in his 2008 campaign (at least rhetorically), aspired to be, an individual who would transcend partisan acrimony and speak in unifying terms to the nation.  And while that Democrat may have promised a new kind of politics, he delivered the same old/same old with the addition of a full measure of the tricks he learned working his way up in the Chicago machine.

Last week, with his temper tantrum after the defeat of gun control legislation in the Senate, the Democrat demonstrated (once again) that he would rather demonize his political (and partisan) adversaries than engage them in debate and discussion.  Instead of acknowledging the arguments (of those opposing gun control), Obama claimed they had none (“no coherent arguments” were his exact words) and accused them of lying (without providing any specific examples of their dishonesty).

Can George W. Bush’s critics (or anyone for that matter) provide one single example of that good man accusing his domestic political opponents of lacking arguments or engaging in deceitful practices?  Did he lash out at Democrats when they obstructed his attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or at liberal special interest groups who helped scuttle his efforts to reform Social Security?

Did that Republican accuse good-faith Democratic efforts to control federal spending as “thinly veiled social Darwinism“?  (Did Democrats, in the Bush Era, even make any good faith efforts to balance the budget even as they faulted the Republican for his deficit spending?)

Maybe had the 2000 election not been so close and, thanks, in large part, to Al Gore’s decision to delay his concession, controversial, would people have appreciated George W. Bush for what he was, a good man who respected his ideological adversaries and political opponents, and was acting in what, he believed to be, the national interest.

SORT OF RELATED: Bush is back

DEFINITELY RELATED:  “Bush’s policies aside,” writes Guy Benson, “those who know him best have always been struck by his kindness, integrity and humanity.  Who among us wouldn’t be proud of such a legacy?”

Millennials & the Real Republican Problem

In a piece on the immigration bill, Stanley Kurtz offers a nutshell version of the real problem facing Republicans today:

Republicans have been in a funk ever since Obama’s re-election. I’m the first to agree that there’s a deeper problem, but it’s got more to do with under-thirties and what education and the culture are doing to them than with anything a path to citizenship will fix.

When I listen to my non-Republican twentysomething friends talking about the GOP, I hear an image of a party drawn from Democratic talking points and college professors’ prejudices. Few are aware of the ideals of liberty and civil society that have stood as the guideposts for the conservative and libertarian thinkers who have defined the basic philosophy of the Republican Party since Reagan.

Many, as Arthur Brooks sagely observed last month in the Wall Street Journal believe Republicans are indifferent to the poor.  Republicans need to change that faulty perception.  They have to show the “under-thirties”, as Kurtz described this demographic suffering the most under Obama’s policies, that conservatives are aware of — and sympathetic to — their plight and will, if elected, put into place policies which will make it easier for them to find jobs commensurate with their talents and their training, allowing them to prosper as did young people in the Reagan Era.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Cactus Bill gets it:

There has been a bastardization of the language for some now. When compassion is defined by how much government can provide instead of what you can provide for yourself the notion of pursuing your own happiness is turned on it’s head. Real compassion is allowing an environment where a business of any type can actually HIRE someone. A real job is more compassionate and rewarding to the soul than all the government provided resources have ever been able to give. (more…)

Gun control doesn’t stop criminals

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 2:39 am - April 23, 2013.
Filed under: Gun Control,Second Amendment

The incomparable Ed Morrissey:

Criminals rarely go to the trouble of applying for gun permits…

…Dzhokhar [Tsarnaev] was already ineligible for a handgun license, being under 21, and Tamerlan probably would have been ineligible because of his conviction for domestic assault. Did those laws prevent the Tsarnaevs from getting handguns and explosives? That’s a rhetorical question, unless you’ve been asleep for a week.

RTWT.

Economic odds & ends

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 2:16 am - April 23, 2013.
Filed under: Conservative Ideas,Debt Crisis,Economy,Free Enterprise

Here’s a fun chart. (Source: Gluskin-Sheff. Hat tip, Zero Hedge.)

What does it mean? It means that, starting around 2008 or so, the stock market has been strongly linked to the Federal Reserve Bank’s “Quantitative Easing” (QE) policy.

We’ve seen that point before; this chart shows it another way. Since the second half of 2008, the market moves up if the Fed is growing its balance sheet; the market stops (or declines) if the Fed stops; which means that the ratio of them (shown above) has kept fairly level.

In other news (and also hat tipping Zero Hedge), a Chinese woman wants to sue the Fed over its QE policy:

A woman in Kunming, Yunnan province, is trying to sue the United States central bank after discovering that the real value of the US$250 she put in an account in 2006 had shrunk by 30 per cent.

She claims it was a result of the Federal Reserve issuing too much money.

Her attorney, her son Li Zhen , called the lawsuit “litigation for the public good” which aimed to stop the Fed from continuing its quantitive easing policy…

He filed the lawsuit alleging “the abuse of monopoly in issuing currency” last month at the Kunming Intermediate People’s Court…but the court has yet to decide whether to officially place the case on file.

Why didn’t I think of that? The woman gets the issue: that the Fed has been debauching the dollar. Whether her suit succeeds is another question, but God bless her!

Finally, I want to mention the recent controversy over Reinhart-Rogoff’s work. It might be boring, so further discussion is beneath the following ‘fold’.

(now with updates) (more…)

Match Game Monday Is Back… On a Monday!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:58 pm - April 22, 2013.
Filed under: Match Game Monday Night

Get Ready to Match the Stars!

20130304-185857.jpg 

  • She’s the managing editor at RARE… blogger & conservative activist – Tabitha Hale
  • Columnist for  Townhall.com and Contributor to Breitbart’s The Conversation — it’s Lisa DePasquale
  • The Host of The Tony Katz Show and founder of the Freedom Cigar Club – Tony Katz
  • She’s the right hook from the Left Coast, contributing editor at Pocketful of Liberty – Amy Otto
  • He’s the owner of the Hideous Terrier…Townhall columnist & Breitbart writer – Kurt Schlichter
  • And from Ace of Spades H-Q, blogger Gabriel Malor

And as always, I’ll be your host for Match Game Monday Night.

20130304-185714.jpg

Join us LIVE at The 405 Radio Network at 9PM Eastern Time.  And play along at home on Twitter with #MGMN.