Leader? Mheh. Never thought of myself as such. I just do what I do and well, if others follow my lead occasionally, then that’s great. On leadership qualities in general vis-à-vis the political blogosphere, I do believe that it helps, at least as far as a willingness to get out in front of an issue and let yourself be heard. It’s easy to fall in with the side you agree with once a consensus has developed, but a consensus will never develop unless somebody is willing to jump out and make a claim in the first place. And in that respect, other bloggers are far more active and deserving of credit than I. But yes, it’s important that somebody stakes out a claim. You don’t want an issue to become an issue after it’s become a non-issue.

Did you intend to become a leader, or did it come naturally? How much responsibility comes with this role, and how serious do you take the role?

I can certainly say that I never had any intentions in that direction. I didn’t even have an idea that it would grow like it did. Honestly, when I started I was just looking for a place to rant, somewhere to put down my unrestrained opinions, but I didn’t really expect anybody other than maybe a few wandering by to be even remotely interested. If anybody had suggested that the site would end up with a readership in the thousands, I would have laughed at them. So no, there was no ambition whatsoever involved in my creating a site. It was actually only because a few fellow commenters at another site suggested that I do so and I reluctantly had to admit that I liked the idea. And the rest is history. I guess it’s just the way I’m wired.

Responsibility? Well, if you DO acquire a readership that trusts you and your opinions, then you DO have a responsibility, in my opinion. Not just to yourself, after all you don’t want to make an ass of yourself and especially not when it turns out that somebody is “listening” (or reading, more accurately), but more importantly to the readers that have come to trust you and your honesty and integrity. Obviously, everybody should remain critical of anything they read, no matter who writes it, but it’s also a fact of life that, over time, you come to trust some people more than others and, as a result, you’re more likely to take what they say at face value because they’ve always been truthful and on the money in the past. Some might say that that’s not your “fault” if somebody trusts you “too much” and therefore accepts a half-assed statement of yours without doing the fact-checking, but I disagree. *Technically* you’re not responsible for somebody believing you too readily, but morally and ethically you are, if you ask me. I mean, if I were to put up a post leading to a massive protest against somebody innocent based on poorly vetted information on my part, then I sure as Hell would feel partly responsible. And deeply ashamed for having made an ass of myself and, more importantly, made an ass of people who have come to trust my judgment. So yes, that responsibility should lead you to be more careful with what you put up there. Of course, nobody’s perfect, I know I’m not, so every once in a while you’ll post with your foot in your mouth, so to speak, and that’s where it’s important that you come out and own it while accepting the justified criticism.

Bottom line: If you want people to trust you, then you’ve got to earn it and you’ve got to take that trust, when earned, seriously.

Of course, with MY readers, who are a highly skeptical bunch, bless ‘em all, I’m in no big danger of anybody taking anything I write too seriously without checking it first. I like it that way.

How has the blogosphere changed for the better since you first began? Do you consider yourself a pioneer?

The blogosphere was already there when I started. Only barely, which is why I consider myself one of the “Old Guard”, but it was there. I wouldn’t call myself a pioneer, though, even though I got in well before the pool turned into an ocean. Has it changed for the better? Yes and no. Yes because more speech is always a good thing. People need to put their opinions out there instead of keeping them to themselves where they don’t do anybody any good. Not to mention that a lot of people keep their opinions to themselves because they’re not sure that anybody, or enough somebodies, feel the same way. That’s not true, as I learned myself. I honestly never dreamed that there were that many pissed off people who were sick and tired of being “politically correct” out there, people who believe, think, speak and feel like I do. That encouraged me and, from what I hear, encouraged others, a lot of them readers of mine, to go out there and make themselves heard too. I think the expansion of the blogosphere, indeed the whole online networking aspect of it, is very much responsible for the fact that we’re even *having* Tea Parties today. People are tuning in, people are learning that they’re not alone and people are learning that they, too, have a voice that not only needs to be heard, but that there are others more than happy to listen.

How has it changed for the worse?

On the other hand, the massive expansion of the blogosphere has meant that it is much more difficult for a newcomer to make a name for him or herself. If you have a burning desire to make a name for yourself online, it’s a steep hill to climb nowadays. But it’s not impossible. We see new names popping up all the time, it’s just that the bar is higher. So if your primary goal is to establish a huge site and really make waves, then you’ve got your work cut out for you. But if you’re just, like I was, looking for a place to rant that you can call your own, then it’s the same as ever. The upside is: If you truly do stand out, if you’re really bringing something new to the table, then you’ll make it. But it’s much harder to make that splash now than it used to be.

What changes for the better and worse do you see in the near future for blogs?

If you’d asked me that question 7 years ago I’d have been wrong then too, so why not be wrong today? I could never in my wildest dreams have imagined that the blogosphere would become such an engine behind forming popular opinion and movements or, for that matter, being successful in areas where the main stream media have failed. If you’d told me that one day the blogosphere would be instrumental in bringing down administration officials, for instance, I would have told you that you had to have been smoking something illegal in all 50 states. But if you want my two cents, I see it growing stronger. It’s already a well known fact that more and more people are getting their news and opinion from the ‘sphere with every passing year. And I don’t see people getting less informed as a result, as some Eeyores of the past have suggested. Don’t underestimate the intelligence of the average American, is what I always say, and don’t underestimate their ability to adapt to an ever bigger load of information. People haven’t become less critical as a result of the mass of highly opinionated news they can get from the ‘sphere. Quite to the contrary, if you ask me. The problem in the past was that almost everybody only had one source of information, and that was the “accepted wisdom” of the main stream media monopoly. Now they have ready access to numerous different opinions, takes and interpretations of the same news item. And when people hear two diametrically opposed views on an issue, the natural reaction is “both of them can’t be right”, which spurs critical thinking. That’s a good thing, and I only see that getting stronger as the ‘sphere becomes stronger.

The only thing better than free speech is more free speech. It *forces* people to think for themselves because there isn’t any longer a cookie cutter “conventional wisdom” beamed into your skull every night on the news. You have to pick sides now.

Also, we’re seeing media biggies realizing that there’s something to tap into there and giving us a bigger bullhorn as a result. Glenn Beck is a perfect example. The media is realizing that there’s something going on and that works for both us and them. That too is going to grow.

The downside, as some might say, is that with the growth of the number of people having a public opinion, the message is going to get watered down and confused. I’m not too sure about that, however. Again, I think people are too smart for that. They know how to sort the wheat from the chaff. What’s important is that everybody gets a say. If they’re good, if they contribute, they’ll float. If not, they’ll find another outlet and somebody else will take their place.

Right vs. Left, who is faring better in the blogosphere and why?

Currently, the Right is doing better as far as getting things going and making a difference is concerned. Getting people out for the Tea Parties was a huge success for the Right, doing the vetting that the MSM won’t do of Obama’s administration is another huge success. Why? Well, the obviously disastrous policies of Obama’s administration is the most glaringly obvious factor. It’s a lot easier to get people to pay attention to you when they can see that you’re right just by looking around themselves. It’s not hard to get the public ear about idiotic policies when the public is getting laid off to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people a month. It’s not hard to get people to pay attention to the argument that nationalized healthcare is a bad idea when you have hundreds of examples of failures from the rest of the world with not one success story. It’s not hard to gain traction for the opinion that the current administration are screwing up royally on foreign policy when all of our allies AND enemies are laughing at us. In other words: it’s not hard to gain the ear of the public when the evidence supports everything you say.

The other factor, and that helped the Left a lot from 2001 to 2008, is that it’s easier to mobilize people who are the underdogs. When your point of view is not the one being shared in Washington DC, then it’s a lot easier to get yourself out of your chair and doing something. Being ignored makes you angry. The Left got what they wanted, Democrat control of both the White House and Congress. It’s harder for *them* to get their troops mobilized with that as a fact. What would be the rallying cry for them now? We need a Democrat elected G-d as well? Fire all of our elected representatives? Help a Republican win the White House? It’s always easier to get people out of their chairs when they’re in opposition.

It’s been said, conservative blogs seem to fare better when a liberal is in power? Have you seen this since Obama got elected?

See the above.

There seems to be a split in the conservative and moderate side of the Republican party. What are your predictions on the direction this will ultimately go?

I honestly don’t know. There are two possibilities: Either the “moderate side”, actually the “elitist establishment side”, prevails and the GOP sinks and becomes a third party, or they reform and get back to what made them different from the Democrats. The latter will mean that we’ll get back on track quicker since it will take time to build a party that can take over from the GOP, so obviously I prefer that solution. And signs are promising. The NY-23 race is a good sign, for one. It looks like conservatives ARE willing to make the “favored candidate” lose rather than elect a RINO and, no matter what the outcome, the message will be clear. If Hoffman wins, then the RINO wing are soundly defeated. If he doesn’t and the Democrat wins (Scozzofava is a dead horse now), then the message is the same: We want somebody who represents us. We don’t want to have to choose between two liberals and if that means losing an election, then so be it.

That’s the only direction that will bring this country back on track, and I speak from personal experience. Once you allow incrementalism because it’s “not as bad as the other side”, then you’ve basically conceded the fight. You’ll lose just the same, it’ll only take a bit longer.

In the conservative blogosphere, do you see cliques that have developed? If so, can you expound a bit?

Cliques? Well yes, but I don’t take it all that seriously. Birds of a feather flock together and you tend to network more with people that you know. That doesn’t mean that you don’t like the other ones, it just means that you tend to read their sites a lot more frequently and, as a result, link or read them more often. I’m as guilty as anyone. Being of the “Old Guard” I tend to read blogs from that group more often because I always have. They were there when I started, after all. But that doesn’t mean that I ignore new ones or “gang up” with “the boys” just because. I’ll happily pick a fight with one of the Old Guard if I think they’re wrong and I’ll just as happily side with a new guy or gal if they think the same. If I’m made aware of it, that is. So yes, there is sort of a “clique” thing, but it’s not a conscious “us vs. them” issue, it’s just people that have always been on my read list and therefore tend to stay on it.

Are there any new blogs without money backing like breitbart’s that you see potentially becoming a major influence in the future or growing to more success?

Honestly, I can’t come up with an example. But that’s not because they’re not there, it’s because I don’t have as much time as I used to have and because there are so many new blogs now.

Do you see twitter and facebook expanding influence amongst bloggers?

I don’t “get” twitter at all. To me, it’s like blogging without wanting to put any energy into it. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t be important and, as a matter of fact, it might be. I see Facebook as more of a force, really, because of its networking aspect. It’s a way to spread the word to people who just want to hang with their friends and don’t really have an interest in blogging but, then again, Twitter might do the same thing. The bottom line is: the more people talk together, the more they get together with people they don’t necessarily live next door to and who aren’t their immediate family, the greater the likelihood that they’ll get turned on to checking out some sites.

Do you ever see blogs becoming something lucrative or is this only for the very talented and lucky bloggers?

As a business model, no. In a very few cases, maybe, but I wouldn’t quit my day job over it, and I speak as somebody who runs a moderately successful site. It won’t pay the bills. Yes, my readers most certainly *have* helped me (and others) in times of desperate need and I can’t thank them enough for it, but it doesn’t replace a pay check. Granted, I’d *love* to be able to do this for a living, but it’s just not going to happen. The supply of opinion is so huge that the price of it has to approach zero and, in many ways, that’s a *good* thing. It releases you from the obligation to produce output since nobody’s paying for it anyway and it makes it more likely that somebody will actually pay attention because there’s no price of admission. And what you write is not dictated by “what will make a buck” as is the case with old media. “If it bleeds, it leads.”

As a blogger, you have no monetary restraints on what put you there.

If I wanted to be a journalist, I would have taken the hit and slept through three years of journo school.

Do you think influence is one of the main hopes bloggers have in what they are doing? Is it more about venting for some? What percentage of each would you estimate?

I think that the majority of bloggers, like I, are in it to vent. Yes, we’d love for somebody to read it and agree with us, who wouldn’t?, but the main issue is that we want to say it out loud and in public. There might be some who are in it to become movers and shakers but they, if you ask me, ought to get their hands dirty and get in the game instead. And they’d have my support too. Opinion is all very good to get people moving, but you need people in positions where the actual decisions are made to get anything out of the movement.

What advice do you have for other bloggers to become more influential and successful?

Keep doing what you do. If you really want to create a stir, get to work and dig up something that nobody else is talking about. Then do the research to make sure your opinion is solid and spread the word. Be you. Don’t be afraid to stand up in a crowd and don’t be afraid to get booed out. Get your facts and arguments in order before you start shooting your mouth off. And be different. Don’t do something that 600 other bloggers are already doing.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

You are considered a leader in the conservative blogosphere. How do you feel leadership qualities are essential in making a difference in the political blogosphere?

Does anyone set out with such a goal? I did not. But I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be heard and I thought my clarity would help me be heard, and I thought that the nature of my thinking was seldom being articulated and not in a forceful, passionate way. I speak for the smallest minority in the world: the individual. My political party is capitalism. I think the Constitution is as close to a religious document as you can get. America is the most noble experiment in human history: noble, moral, benevolent and successful. My goal at the outset was preserving the America I grew up in – fighting for the free, protecting and defending the individual’s rights against majority tyranny and minority plotting. And that is still my goal.

I don’t know if leadership qualities are essential in making a difference in the political blogosphere, but integrity is. And so is an uncompromising work ethic. You have to say what you mean and mean what you say. Walking the walk, talking the talk — at least that’s the requisite on the right blogs. The left has no morals, no ethics, no values. What is required on the left is viciousness. The more vicious, the more successful the blog. The left and right blogs are as different as night and day.

Did you intend to become a leader, or did it come naturally? How much responsibility comes with this role, and how serious do you take the role?

I did not intend to become a leader. I don’t know that I am. I certainly don’t see myself that way. The responsibility is to the work. Always. And despite what difficulties you might encounter, you stay true to yourself and what you believe, no matter what the cost.

I take the role of online journalist and alternative media outlet very seriously.

How has the blogosphere changed for the better since you first began? Do you consider yourself a pioneer?

I think I was late to the party with Atlas Shrugs. I started in February 2005. The blogs on the right were well established – Malkin, Powerline, Little Green Footballs before he turned traitor and defected. But I thought I had something more to say and so I jumped in.

I wanted and still want to help build this medium. If I help to pioneer that effort, I will die a happy blogger.

How has it changed for the worse?

Little Green balls is the easy and obvious answer. That blog was a touchstone for so many of us. When he tried to destroy my reputation in November 2007 for not bending to his will and denouncing members of the trans-atlantic counter jihad movement, I knew it might be blog suicide. He was wrong, but he was king. My daily visitors went from 10,000 a day to 2,000. I was never linked by any of the big blogs ever again – Malkin, Instapundit, et al. Even when I broke big stories, like Obama’s campaign contributions from a Hamas refugee camp in Gaza.

But it was a valuable lesson. I came back without being part of the link chain or the blog clique. I built it back one reader by one reader. It’s better, of course. That way you are not slave to the link master.

Turning to the overall picture of the right blogosphere…. what has changed for the worse is the abandonment of the issue of Islamic supremacism by the big blogs — the most dangerous threat facing the West, more dangerous than Nazism, more insidious than communism and they won’t touch it. Of course Jihad Watch covers it comprehensively, but that’s what Spencer does. Islamic jihad is not a tangential issue. It is the defining conflict of our time.

What changes for the better and worse do you see in the near future for blogs?

Nothing will change for the left, they are smear machines. It’s what they do. It’s the currency they traffic in.

For the right blogs, the future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades. More and more people are flocking to the net in pursuit of the real news. They see that the mainstream media has become a corrupt activist media for the left. Americans feel betrayed by a media that did not vet Obama. They saw grammy and pop labeled racists and nazis because they didn’t want socialized medicine. People are waking up. It’s a very good time for us.

Right vs. Left, who is faring better in the blogosphere and why?

Moneywise, the left. They are well funded by Soros, moveon, media matters. But they are void of credibility, short on accuracy, big on invective. They traffic in smear. Very boring.

The objective of left wing blogs is to smear and destroy. Those blogs have become very sophisticated search and destroy machines. Alinsky ridicule is the MBO.

The right has created a new news media outlet. Alternative media is becoming as influential as talk radio. The objective of right wing blogs is to investigate and report the news the media won’t touch. And the right has done such a good job because it’s all low hanging fruit; no one else is doing it. ACORN, Rifqa Bary, Obamacare, the stimulus, the socialists and radicals in the White House ………. exposed by the blood, sweat and tears of right blogs.

It’s been said conservative blogs seem to fare better when a liberal is in power? Have you seen this since Obama got elected?

Of course! Obama is destroying the country. And the media is in the tank for him.

The county forgets how destructive leftist policies are. Clinton, Carter, Obama ….disasters all.

Americans have short memories, and they get seduced by a media that functions as the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. They go to bed with hope and change, they wake up to Obama.

If the media operated as an honest agent, the Democrats would have gone the way of the KKK decades ago.

There seems to be a split in the conservative and moderate side of the Republican party. What are your predictions on the direction this will ultimately go?

“Moderate” is a euphemism for directionless, void of principles. You can’t sit on the fence in matters of life and death and political philosophy. You must be vigorous, fierce in the protection of individual rights, limited government, Constitutionalism, low taxes. Rugged individualism.

In any compromise between good and evil, evil profits. Enough with the RINOs. They had their shot. They routed the party – they are done, finished, cooked. McCain was the final nail in the coffin. The DIABLOs ought to switch parties. Olympia Snowe is our worst nightmare.

In the conservative blogosphere, do you see cliques that have developed? If so, can you expound a bit?

Of course, it is very cliquey and it has swept some blogs with inferior content to undeserved rank/position because of regular big blog linkage. But so what? If you work hard, stay focused, love what you do, you can be successful. Atlas is not part of any clique. Check my referrals. No big linkage, but my numbers are big.

I think the blog cliques are tired and their content is tired too. They all sound alike. They don’t have to work as hard and it shows — their ranking reflects yesterday. Tomorrow will look awfully different in the blogosphere.

Are there any new blogs without money backing like Breitbart’s that you see potentially becoming a major influence in the future or growing to more success?

Tip of the old hat to Breitbart, alternative media’s William Randolph Hearst

There is a lot of new, smart, ass kicking blogs in America and Europe too. The most interesting blogs are the international blogs like New Zeal and anti-jihad blogs like the Finnish Tundra Tabloids that are doing incredible work exposing the scoundrels on the Hill. New blogs like Brave New Commie, Vigilant Squirrel Brigade, and summer patriot, winter soldier offer a refreshing new perspective. But guys like Vanderleun, who have been around awhile, are still fresh, original and delish. And Oleg at The People’s Cube, outstanding.

Do you see twitter and facebook expanding influence amongst bloggers?

Twitter had little effect, for me, until the Iraninan bloodbath. Then it was essential. I saw it make a huge crack in a walled off dictatorship erected in a oppressive, brutal, censored society. It was a Gutenberg moment. I worry still about Persian Kiwi. When he/she went dark on twitter, he/she was never heard from again. Marching for freedom and dying for tweeting. Devastating. And Obama’s callous dismissal of those marching and dying for freedom is a stain on American international policy that we will not long live down.

The only benefit for bloggers from facebook and twitter is to hook your blog feeds to these social networks. When you post to your blog, it updates your status and goes out to all of your friends and followers who repost it. It builds readership. I never actually tweet or post FB status updates, but my blog does. And Facebook made a difference – I am maxing out on friends now, which is wild. 5,000 FB friends and I have like two friends in real life.

Do you ever see blogs becoming something lucrative or is this only for the very talented and lucky bloggers?

It’s tricky. My blog is not a money maker. I don’t do advertorial stuff ever. I have some small maverick advertisers, but Atlas is mostly reader supported. Yet if not for the blog, I would never have gotten a big book deal from Simon and Schuster or a regular gig at Newsmax or a radio segment on Jaz Mckay or opportunities to speak. So Atlas is the heart of everything I do. Atlas Shrugs comes first.

Newspapers are history. The future belongs to the blogs. I don’t know what the business model will look like, I don’t know how the blog business will monetize, but it is the future. It will happen.

Do you think influence is one of the main hopes bloggers have in what they are doing? Is it more about venting for some? What percentage of each would you estimate?

Are influence and venting mutually exclusive? I don’t think so. Venting is the mother of great blogging. But it’s not enough to vent, you have to have answers, solve problems. Take them on. I do. I vent but at the same time, in the same post, and I state what should be done, what policy would work, what action Atlas readers should take if they agree.

Just venting is not interesting. It’s like having a spouse that’s always bitching, STFU already.

What advice do you have for other bloggers to become more influential and successful?
Advice?

Find your own voice (no matter how long it takes). Be prepared for a long slog. Blogging is a long term career choice, IMAO. No one gets famous overnight and has real staying power. You have to build an audience and they have to find you and make you a habit. That takes time. It’s a process.

Don’t be an echo chamber. Find what you love or care about passionately and give it everything you’ve got. Go out and cover the news. Always take your camera. Original reportage gets linked. Do you admire someone of note? Get an interview with him/her. Just call and keep calling. Thomas Edison said, genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. Well, so is blogging

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

You are considered a leader in the conservative blogosphere. Do you feel leadership qualities are essential in making a difference in the political blogosphere?

Thanks. I appreciate that. As far as leadership – as conservatives we have to be confident in our positions. As leaders we have to understand that we are not in the minority because our positions are unpopular. We are in the minority because we have not been able to communicate our positions effectively.

Did you intend to become a leader, or did it come naturally? How much responsibility comes with this role, and how serious do you take the role?

I try to be consistent with my conservative positions. I don’t know if it came naturally. It came with a whole lot of work as you know.

How has the blogosphere changed for the better since you first began? Do you consider yourself a pioneer?

The biggest change since I started blogging in late 2004 early 2005 is the introduction of YouTube and videoblogging. When I started blogging videos were too expensive to post on a website. Today it is changing the blogosphere.

How has it changed for the worse?
Hmm.

What changes, for the better and worse, do you see in the near future for blogs?

Let’s pray government does not become involved. We all know that would be disastrous.

Right vs. Left, who is faring better in the blogosphere and why?

Conservatives. Definitely. This year we have ACORN, Van Jones, etc. under our belt. These were huge stories and wins for conservatives and the country.

It’s been said conservative blogs seem to fare better when a liberal is in power? Have you seen this since Obama got elected?

Traffic is up. Conservatives are scared… And the only place to get the truth today is on the blogs, talk radio, conservative websites and FOX News. The MSM is very corrupt.

There seems to be a split in the conservative and moderate side of the Republican Party. What are your predictions on the direction this will ultimately go?

Let’s hope the party can move to the right. The Maine senators are popular with the state-run media but have been disastrous for the country.

In the conservative blogosphere, do you see cliques that have developed? If so, can you expound a bit?

We all have our favorite blogs and websites. I try to stay out of petty bickering.

Are there any new blogs without money backing like Breitbart’s that you see potentially becoming a major influence in the future or growing to more success?

Tucker Carlson is behind a project. We’ll see how that takes off.

Do you see twitter and facebook expanding influence amongst bloggers?

Twitter and facebook are nice complements to blogging. The Twitter community is huge.

Do you ever see blogs becoming something lucrative or is this only for the very talented and lucky bloggers?

Let’s hope so. Let’s hope that conservatives start to recognize the value of the blogs. The left funds and treats their bloggers well. We need to continue to communicate our value to the conservative movement. There are many conservatives out there who are not familiar with the blogs. I see them as uninformed.

Do you think influence is one of the main hopes bloggers have in what they are doing? Is it more about venting for some? What percentage of each would you estimate?

We all like to be heard. We all want to feel valued.

What advice do you have for other bloggers to become more influential and successful?

Work hard. Promote your work. Be consistent.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For the Project Valour-IT competition, the Marine Corps team is doing all kind of fun stuff. We’re going to have trivia and games, and we’ll also be spotlighting Marine heroes throughout the competition. To get the ball rolling, Cassandra asked me to kick things off by interviewing my Marine, my boyfriend Matt. I’m ridiculously proud of him, of course, and brag about him whenever I can as it is. And as if I don’t yak about him enough on here already, I get to feature even more fun stuff about him now, too.

In all seriousness, Matt truly is a hero to me, just like the thousands of other Marines out there. I can say without any bias that he loves what he does, he loves the Corps, and he loves his country. He’s willing to fight and die for America and for all of us. I may be his girlfriend and I’m certainly biased, but it’s still a pretty incredible thing.

So, with all that said, check out Matt’s and my “interview” after the jump, and there are a few pictures of him at the end as well. (Sorry they’re all with me, too, but I don’t have many pictures of Matt in uniform that doesn’t have me in them also.)

What is your rank and MOS in the Marine Corps?

- Corporal, 0311 (Infantry Rifleman).

How long have you been serving?

- Five years, and I just reenlisted in September of 2008.

Why did you join the Marine Corps?

- Because it was the hardest branch, and I wanted to challenge myself. From what I saw during my time in the Army, the Marine Corps was stricter and had more rules. That was what I wanted. I also wanted to go to Iraq and fight for my country, I wanted to get deployed. I felt like everyone else was doing their part; why shouldn’t I?

What was serving in Iraq like?

- In the beginning, when I first got to Iraq, it was worrisome because I thought I could just be attacked at any moment and was scared of dying. But after taking mortar fire for a couple of weeks, I got used to it and wasn’t scared anymore. I knew if it was my time it was my time. All I cared about was getting home to my family, and I was more concerned about how they’d feel if I was gone. I got to see Saddam Hussein during his trial, because I was guarding the embassy in Baghdad. I got to sit in during his trial. When I came back the first time, we landed in Maine, and everyone was real friendly and really happy about us coming back. Retired Marines were coming up to us, shaking our hands, and it was great.

The second time I went, I was more familiar with the country and I wasn’t worried at all. We would do convoy missions, and we were in some very well protected vehicles called MRAPs (Mine Resistant Ambush Protectant), and they can take small arms fire without doing any damage. It can take a 7.62 round without penetrating the armor, and that’s the primary round of our enemy, with the AK-47s. We were worried more about IEDs, so it was like fighting a silent enemy. You can’t find them, you just hope you don’t get blown up. Most of the other Marine units on patrol got hit my IEDs, but we didn’t. We were very fortunate. But every day, when you got into your truck and started riding out, you never knew what would happen. You would get these guys coming up to you with their arms in the air yelling “ALLAH AKBAR!”, which is what they yell when they’re about to blow themselves up. So you would grab your M-16 and just get ready to shoot them if they were going to try anything. For the most part we just tried to have fun. We would pass a lot of the times doing stupid sh*t and making up dumb jokes. A bunch of us, for example, got one Marine to drink a ChemLight to see if his pee would glow. He threw up, and his pee definitely did not glow. When we got back, it was in Massachusetts. It wasn’t as great of a homecoming, because we had just returned to our own country for the first time, and no one greeted us. We were in uniform, and everyone just stared. No one smiled or said thank you or anything. You wanna talk about not feeling welcome in your own country? We didn’t feel welcome. We felt like no one cared. We got treated better in Ireland drinking beer in the airport. It was a real sh*tty homecoming, until we got back to Camp Lejeune and got to see our families and everything.

What was the homecoming like?

- Homecomings are always great when you have a woman there that cares about you. When I got home, my girlfriend was there waiting for me. She could’ve been standing out there for hours for all I know, but she was there when I got off the bus. The feeling of knowing that someone is going to be there waiting for you, someone who cares so much about you, made the homecoming worth something, worth more than it did the first time. That’s what every Marine wants to come home from deployment to, a good woman who’s faithful to you and who cares about you. Also you realize you were taking for granted everything the United States has to offer before you left, especially coming back from a place like Iraq. You walk into a store and they have fresh food, fresh fruit, fresh water. In Iraq sometimes water is even hard to get.

Do you think Americans appreciate your service?

- I think most of them do. I always appreciate it when someone comes up to me and says thank you, but I feel more inclined to say thank you for them being supportive. There’s a lot of people who want to serve but can’t, for whatever reason. As long as they’re supportive, I’m more thankful for them than they should be for me, personally.

There are some people, especially on the Left, who don’t support the military. How do you feel about that?

-They have the right to say what they want. They’re Americans, and that’s their right. Of course, the only reason they have that right is because the military [is] willing to fight for it. They can put it down all day long and sit around at home being a coward, but at the end of the day, it’s thanks to the military that they can put us down. It’s thanks to the military that they aren’t speaking Japanese or German or Russian.

What does being a Marine mean to you?

- Being a cut above the rest. It’s not always about physical ability, sometimes it’s more mental. It sounds cliched, but it’s the whole “the few… the proud” thing. We’re very proud of who we are because of our training. I feel like we get better training than any other branch.

What about America is worth fighting for to you? The Marines have been known as the best fighting force the world has ever seen, but what is it that you are actually fighting for?

- Opportunity. People have more of an opportunity here than in other countries. It is a country that’s been through some hard times, but so have a lot of countries. What makes this country so great is… you can call it freedom, but it’s not what people usually think. It’s not the freedom to do whatever you want. The freedom to have a job, to raise a family, to not have a communist dictator running your life. The freedom to speak up and not have repercussions from your government, with them dragging you outside your house and shooting you, or raping your wife right in front of you. People like to put down this country, but it’s a lot better than most other countries. It’s a melting pot. If it’s so bad here, then why do so many other people leave their countries to come live in the United States? I fight for the Constitution. The Constitution was made for the United States, for the people, by the people. A document was signed that freed Americans from tyranny, and I’m not fighting for the president or my mom or my girlfriend. I fight for the Constitution, I fight for everybody.

Some people wonder all their lives wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don’t have that problem.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/10/25/spotlight-on-a-marine-corps-hero/feed/ 0 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/13/white-house-email-list-white-house-privacy-policy-aclu-ruffled/ http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/13/white-house-email-list-white-house-privacy-policy-aclu-ruffled/#comments Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:30:41 +0000 Maggie Thornton http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=26094 Major Garrett grilled Robert Gibbs today in a White House Press Conference. He wanted to know where the White House got the list of email names that went out in a mass mailing sent by David Axelrod? Gibbs didn’t want to talk about it. Garrett said I have emails sent to me from people saying they never signed up, at any time, to receive anything, from this White House or Obama as a Senator. Gibbs still didn’t want to talk about it, but he asked Major for his list of emails. Garrett was incredulous.

At 9:25 pm CDT, Major Garrett is on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. He is talking about today’s White House Press conference where Garrett asks Gibbs about a mass emailing of a message from David Axelrod to voters. See the video below. See Update below.

Major Garrett

Tonight on Greta, Major Garrett has said he now has permission and is waiting to hear back from Gibbs. (I heard a few words about “Freedom of Information Act).

On Greta, Garrett says the communication from Axelrod was 8 White House priorities for health care, clearing up myths, defining principle goals for health care, etc.

This is a very interesting exchange. I haven’t given it all away in the above dialog.

Major Garrett – Robert Gibbs White House Email List (video)

Update 8-13-09 10:15 pm CDT:
The ACLU has their feathers in a ruffle. What you say? The ACLU would not like something this President is doing? You must read this at Ace of Spades: Tracking Terrorists on the Internet: Bad, Tracking American Citizens on the Internet: Good

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/13/white-house-email-list-white-house-privacy-policy-aclu-ruffled/feed/ 8 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/30/not-even-energy-czarina-has-read-cap-and-tax-bill/ http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/30/not-even-energy-czarina-has-read-cap-and-tax-bill/#comments Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:58:59 +0000 Van Helsing http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=24295 Don’t blame the Despicable Eight, aka the Cap’n Traitors, for voting in favor of crippling our economy with a multi-$trillion energy tax in the name of the polar bears without even having read the 1,000+ page energy bill that would not only tip our economy into a depression, but allow the federal government to regulate the most picayune aspects of our lives. Not even the Energy Czarina Carol Browner has read it.

She’ll know better than to appear again on FNC:

Via Hot Air:

STEVE DOOCY: “[I] know the bill is over 1,000 pages long. Have you have read it?”

CAROL BROWNER: “Oh, I’m very familiar with this bill.”

DOOCY: “Have you have read it?”

BROWNER: “We have obviously been watching this for a very long time. I am very…”

DOOCY: “I’m sure you’ve got an idea of it, but you have read it?”

BROWNER: “I’ve read major portions of it, absolutely.”

DOOCY: “So the answer no you haven’t read it. But you’ve read a big chunk of it.”

BROWNER: “No, no, no that’s not fair. That’s absolutely not fair.”

DOOCY: “No, I’m just asking you if you read the thousand pages.”

BROWNER: “I’ve read vast portions of it.”

DOOCY: “Ok.”

Vast portions. For all Carol knows, the bill bans the internal combustion engine. Al Gore would be delighted.

On a tip from Mandible Claw. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/30/not-even-energy-czarina-has-read-cap-and-tax-bill/feed/ 0 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/22/fiscal-realism-adam-andrzejewski-wants-to-be-illinois-governor/ http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/22/fiscal-realism-adam-andrzejewski-wants-to-be-illinois-governor/#comments Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:04:24 +0000 Warner Todd Huston http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=23929 -By Warner Todd Huston

First of all, I know it looks impossible to even say, so let’s clear up that last name. It’s pronounced An-gee-ef-ski. I know, I know, that means here in Illinois we could possibly go from a Governor Blagojevich to an Andrzejewski. But the difficult last name should stand as the only similarity between the two men, for Adam seems to have some ideas on how Illinois might get out of its fiscal nightmare. I interviewed him not long ago and he had some very interesting thoughts on how to fix Illinois. (adamforillinois.com/)

In fact, Andrzejewski has already made some headway in shining the sunlight of accountability on various state and local agencies through his self-funded program — self-funded to stay independent, he said — dubbed “For the Good of Illinois.” Andrzejewski has been at the vanguard of encouraging school boards and county governments in Illinois to put their check registries and finances on the Internet for all citizens to see. In fact, his catch phrase is “every dime online in real time.”

He started with local schools and was successful at getting $1 million in vender spending posted on the Internet and from there the momentum spread to other government entities.

We picked up municipalities. We picked up townships, Park Districts, community colleges, like the College of DuPage, and then eventually counties, with the resource obviously in DuPage County, and in Cook County. So all across the Land of Lincoln I’m proud to say my efforts have led to nearly 50 percent of the people here in Illinois living with a better quality of government because of my efforts now than before I got started.

For instance, for the College of DuPage, the community college of DuPage County, Andrzejewski was successful not only in having its check registry posted, but also its salaries. And the success of this effort was key in getting the check registry for the entire county government posted.

The effort might also be underway in Cook County, home of the City of Chicago, as well. According to Andrzejewski, County Board member Tony Peraica contacted Andrzejewski about replicating the DuPage effort for Cook. After they spoke, Peraica was able to get a currently non-binding resolution to follow the example of DuPage County. Let’s hope they follow through with action, now.

Building on his success for fiscal sunlight, Andrzejewski wants to take this program of reform all the way to the State House in Springfield.

But that brought me to the sticky question of government spending and taxes. I asked Andrzejewski if he could promise not to raise taxes and how he might reign in spending? He began talking of property taxes saying that, “our citizens, we can’t afford our government any longer.” Andrzejewski suggested a true property tax cap as one solution to a rising tax burden.

So, of course, they think it’s impossible to put a true cap on property taxes. But we studied that property tax limitation law, and the actual statute runs 49 words, and the [A through O] exceptions run 490 words, and it’s why people are being forced out of their houses in a down economy, why older people can’t afford their property taxes and have to move, is because the exceptions are more the rule than the rule.

So my proposal is very reasonable: last year’s budget plus or minus inflation, with an option, if you can’t live with your budget, you’ve got a compelling reason you need more money, you can go to the voters every two years on referendum and ask for more. This puts people in control of their bill. They’ll have visibility that their property tax bill will go up plus or minus by inflation or deflation, and anything more than that they’ll have a stake in the outcome of a greater increase. It’ll force their local units of government to properly plan, properly involve the citizenry, and force them to live within a budget that everybody else in this world lives within. So I think it’s very reasonable, and anybody that doesn’t think it’s reasonable I think has a hard case to make to the citizens of Illinois.

I asked Andrzejewski about his proposal on the mounting pension mess for state employees and he said that he was soon to announce his pension proposal but was not yet ready to do so.

Talk of pensions naturally led to the question of a balanced budget. Supposedly, Illinois has a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, but not a single citizen believes a word of it.

On all of these things, that’s the reoccurring theme, only in Illinois. Whether it’s corruption, a horrible state budget, whether there’s 10,000 kids on a waiting list for a charter school in Chicago, whether it’s property taxes with all those exceptions or a horrible record of job growth, it’s just — the recurring theme comes back to only in Illinois. It has to end.

On a variety of other issues, Andrzejewski seems to be pretty solidly conservative. He’s for the right of the individual to bear arms and affirmed that he’d sign a concealed carry law as governor. He is anti-abortion and also says he supports the death penalty. On that last, he had a caveat, because in Illinois he’d have a lot of input on that issue as governor.

The death penalty is an issue that I’m formulating my position on. I’ve always understood and leaned toward the egregious cases of the death penalty to have that retribution. Now, the interesting thing here in Illinois, as governor I would be able to study each case that comes before me, because the last thing that you want to do, especially in this state, is put to death an innocent man. So I would probably leave the death penalty intact and then studiously review each case for fairness that came before me as governor.

From there I moved on to a national debate currently raging: healthcare. Andrzejewski told me he favors more competition in healthcare and felt he could accomplish that by fostering more openness on what hospitals and doctors charge for their services. He also asserted that he’d “bring transparency to insurance commissions, as well.”

On education the candidate had quite a lot to say.

I’m for school choice. Here in the General Assembly in Illinois, school choice doesn’t have a chance. What I’ve done, in terms of policy on education, I would move the ball along the continuum toward school choice, because right now it’s not anywhere on the political spectrum of being able to be enacted into law. So the first thing that I would do is support our private schools, especially in this economy. There was just a note in the newspaper the other day that a private school that’s been around for a couple of generations in Addison, Illinois is shutting its doors. I would triple the income tax credit for families that send their kids to private school, from $500 to $1,500 a year.

The next thing that I would do is I would completely abolish the cap on charter schools. In Illinois, if we do something well, we cap it, which is crazy. So, in Chicago, the charter schools spend about a third less money with about a third better education outcome for children, but they’re capped. There’s 10,000 kids on wait lists for these schools. I think that’s not common sense. So I would eliminate the cap statewide. And obviously the charter school’s a special type of public school. It’s not beholden to the state mandates on education or — that go with the normal public schools, and I think that’s also common sense policy.

The other thing that I would do is very innovative. Power should follow students not bureaucracy, so specific to the Chicago public schools, in failing schools I would deliver the state portion, which is significant, thirty-five cents [this was hard to hear in the transcript, so this percentage may not have been what Adam said] to every dollar of funding, I would deliver that directly to the neighborhood school and divert the payment away from the administration center of Chicago public schools itself.

I also asked Andrzejewski just why he was running, why did he want to be governor? His answer was pretty well formulated.

I see an absence of leadership. It’s a very fair question, because I wish I didn’t have to run. It’d be much easier to do something else. But I see an absence of leadership on principle, on values that regular people share, a common sense that regular people share. And we’ve just experienced a terrible 10 years here in Illinois. It’s certainly a lost decade here in Illinois. And even with the indictments last week of Blagojevich and the whole insider crew, these seven people, the indictment of them, did not change anything here in Illinois. The system of corruption, of bloated government, wasteful spending, nothing systemically changed in Illinois government. It would change if I was governor, and that’s why I’m running.

I wrapped up our interview with a few questions about the Republican establishment in the state. Andrzejewski is running as an outsider to politics as usual and that fact is cemented because the state GOP is beginning to line up behind State Senator Bill Brady’s gubernatorial bid. Consequently, he does not enjoy the backing of the party establishment. I wondered how Andrzejewski might win over or over come the party establishment?

Well, the party establishment has to make their own case. I feel that it’s a very difficult case to make to the voters in 2010. I like my case, I like my position much better. They’ve got to justify their time over at least the last 10 years. Illinois was a fairly decent state under Jim Edgar. It has declined precipitously into one of the worst states. So if you’re a part of the establishment, like Senator Bill Brady, if you’ve been in the General Assembly for the last 16 years, he’s got to make a case, in my opinion, of where he’s shown leadership, how he’s moved Illinois forward. Where — what was the pushback that anybody from the establishment in the Republican Party put forward to help move Illinois forward?

That’s a case the voters are going to want to hear. With me in the race, that’s a case that must be made. And that would be a case that would have to be made if anybody is going to get past a Democrat in November of 2010. I could make the case, what I have done. I’ve spearheaded one of the most successful grassroots to government movements in state of Illinois history. I think, like I said, I like my case and they have to make their case.

With that the interview ended but I got a pretty good feeling of the seriousness of this effort. Unlike past outsider candidates, Andrzejewski seems to have actually thought out some solutions to Illinois’ woes. I hope that he is able to make some headway in this coming election season if for no other reason than to put some of his ideas on the table to influence the debate and for the Republicrats party of Illinois to answer for themselves.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/22/fiscal-realism-adam-andrzejewski-wants-to-be-illinois-governor/feed/ 0 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/12/stop-the-aclu-interview/ http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/12/stop-the-aclu-interview/#comments Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:41:12 +0000 Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=23659 Mitchell Blatt interviews me here.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/12/stop-the-aclu-interview/feed/ 0 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/02/02/nbc-obama-calls-singer-jessica-simpson-fat/ http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/02/02/nbc-obama-calls-singer-jessica-simpson-fat/#comments Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:44:58 +0000 Warner Todd Huston http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=19679 -By Warner Todd Huston

**Video Below the Fold**

Apparently, President Barack Obama thought that Jessica Simpson’s weight was something he needed to make fun of during his pre-Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer on NBC Sunday. Seriously. Obama called Jessica Simpson a fatty on national TV.

Lauer displayed for the audience the cover of a recent issue of the tabloid entertainment magazine US Weekly that featured the President’s wife and daughters and also had an insert photo pushing a story about singer Simpson.

As he viewed the cover, Obama decided to smack the singer down for being “in a weight battle.”

MSNBC Transcript

Lauer: Yeah, well — let — let me show you. This is the — the current issue of — of Us Weekly.

Obama: Right.

Lauer: And here’s a great picture

Obama: Oh, it’s beautiful.

Lauer: — of — of you and — and Michelle and — and your daughters. Now, the — the reason I bring this up I think is funny. It’s a great picture.

Obama: Yeah.

Lauer: But I wanna show you the cover. Look what they did. They — they took you off the cover.

Obama: Yeah.

Lauer: They took you out of it.

Obama: It — it’s — it’s a little hurtful.

Lauer: You got replaced by Jessica Simpson.

Obama: Yeah, who’s in a weight battle apparently. (LAUGHTER) Yeah. Oh, well.

Now, let’s think about this incident a bit, shall we?

It seems a bit low of the President of the United States to so offhandedly slam a mere entertainer, doesn’t it? Is this something that a good politician would do? To possibly upset millions of Simpson’s fans so like that? And why be so mean spirited? What did Simpson ever do to Obama?

Unless, of course, Obama felt he could slam her without having any of his pals on the extreme cultural left getting mad at him. After all, Simpson has taken up a new career as a Country singer and it is certain that Obama doesn’t know any Country music fans.

I also can’t let Obama’s casual dress sip bye uncommented upon. He appears in this national TV interview in a simple button up shirt with open collar. No suit jacket, not even a tie. Is this the sort of appearance that a man in the highest office of the land should show the nation? Is he so casual about his job that he won’t even wear a tie on national TV?

Lastly, let us imagine the hue and cry that would have been raised if George W. Bush had on national TV slammed a singer for being fat? Would the moonbats of the left have ignored that? Wouldn’t the rest of the media have gone nuts reporting the story if it should have been Bush instead of Obama that called someone like Jessica Simpson fat?

This is not very becoming conduct of a president of the United States, in my opinion.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Worse, than even Obama’s casual treatment of his office, can you imagine the softball interview that he was handed with Matt Lauer’s golly-gee interview? Not a single hard question posed.

(H/T Gatewaypundit)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/02/02/nbc-obama-calls-singer-jessica-simpson-fat/feed/ 9 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/11/03/cnn-spins-obama-wanting-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-as-old-news/ http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/11/03/cnn-spins-obama-wanting-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-as-old-news/#comments Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:11:11 +0000 Warner Todd Huston http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=16026 -By Warner Todd Huston

In reporting the speech by Gov. Sarah Palin in Ohio today, CNN’s Political Ticker tried to spin her question about Obama’s coal comment as old news when it clearly isn’t. Palin asked why we are just now finding out about the interview where Barack Obama said he had hoped to bankrupt the coal industry but CNN termed this interview and Obama’s startling admission as “months-old coal comments” in an attempt to soften the blow to Ohio and Pennsylvania voters. The Political Ticker said that since the San Francisco Chronicle had these comments on its website for nine months, the news of Obama’s quote was no big deal. But this is a misleading claim.

As we know from P.J. Gladnick’s NewsBusters report, Obama admitted that his intention for new coal plants was to slap so many fees, regulations and taxes on any new venture that it would “bankrupt” the company that tries it.

Palin, stumping Sunday in Ohio’s coal country, brought this interview up at a campaign appearance in Marietta, Ohio. “Why is the audio tape just now surfacing?,” she asked the shocked crowd.

CNN scoffed at Palin’s question and tried to spin the story away as “old news.”

Contrary to her attempts to portray a media cover-up, audio and video recordings of Obama’s January 17 sit-down with the Chronicle editorial board have been freely available online for more than nine months.

However, we know this to be misleading based on the fact that, while the audio was available, the paper did not report these quotes from Obama in its January story. NewsBuster Tom Blumer did a search and quickly discovered that Obama’s anti-coal comments were not reported by the paper that conducted the interview.

The problem with CNN’s spin here is that these are really not “months-old comments” in the strictest sense that we were all made familiar with Obama’s anti-coal comments back in January. Since January, the San Francisco Chronicle has steadfastly left these incendiary comments entirely out of its coverage.

CNN’s cynical spin is simply misleading and seems meant to give cover to the Obama campaign on this embarrassing revelation. After all, even if they are “months-old comments,” does that make the fact that Obama wants to bankrupt electric producing coal plants any less outrageous or important? Or, for that matter, any less relevant to this election? Whether Obama said it just yesterday or said it 9 months ago is immaterial to the debate here.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/11/03/cnn-spins-obama-wanting-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-as-old-news/feed/ 0