On Tuesday, the Washington Post had an article, “Democrats try to woo women as more embrace GOP candidates,” that further confirms that this is the year of the conservative woman and that “Mama Grizzlies,” like those featured in Fire from the Heartland, are leading the way.

One Democrat strategist in the article says, “They do not think the administration’s economic policies are working for their families, and worry about the priorities of this administration, and wonder if they get it.”

That is a sentiment we’ve heard repeatedly from women at Tea Party rallies across the country and is echoed in Fire from the Heartland when cast member Michelle Moore says, “We are going to take a leading role because we are done – our children’s future is at stake.”

It is then expanded upon when Michelle Malkin says, “There is a sisterhood of Tea Party moms and activists who all share a common core steel-spined commitment to looking after their families.”

And further confirmed when Dana Loesch says, “Women realized that their involvement with politics was part of motherhood, their involvement in the national discourse about where our country was heading is about motherhood because we’re raising the next generation.” (more…)

Thursday, in his resounding defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

…[w]hen Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

“Censorship” is a dirty word in America, and that is why the restrictions at issue in our case were cloaked in the guise of “campaign finance reform.”  But the fact remains that any restrictions on political speech, especially those that criminalize such speech, send us down a very slippery and very dangerous slope.

Last March, our government argued in court that it has the Constitutional authority to ban books that mention a candidate for federal office.  The government later retracted that statement, but is there any doubt that such a statement never would have been made if there had not been 100 years of progressively more intrusive restrictions on political speech preceding it?    Had the Court not acted, what was to prevent the government from asserting that authority over the internet, which does not have the benefit of two centuries of tradition and jurisprudence protecting it?

(more…)