Author Archives: Katherine Revello

Tea Party Backed Richard Mourdock Beats Incumbent Dick Lugar

Just when the mainstream media was championing the death of Tea Party extremists, proof of the movement’s life and influence arose in Indiana, where the longtime Washington insider lost to the fiscally responsible, small government candidate.

Tuesday night’s GOP Senate primary ended with Tea Party-backed Richard Mourdock beating Dick Lugar, Indiana’s veteran senator of thirty-five years, by more than 20 percentage points.

The race can be boiled down to the electorate’s frustration with career politicians with deep ties to Washington. Lugar is 80, and has held his seat since 1977. For many Indiana voters, the Indiana primary was a referendum on Lugar’s unaccountability to his voters. He came under heavy fire when it became known that he did not own a residence in Indiana. Rather, Lugar was staying in an Indianapolis hotel, and reportedly paying for it with taxpayer funds. Lugar’s cooperation with Senate Democrats also angered his constituents. In 1991, he co-sponsored the Nunn-Lugar Act with Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). The bill worked towards nuclear nonproliferation, which Lugar has been a proponent of.

Richard Mourdock was elected the Indiana State Treasurer in 2006. Since then, he has worked hard towards fiscal responsibility. Mourdock was able to return about 10% of the state budget to the treasury each year. He led a fight to challenge the legality of the Obama administration’s bailout and takeover of Chrysler, taking the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. He also is an outspoken proponent of constitutionally limited government.

Democrats are already attacking Mourdock, saying that the GOP has taken an ‘extremist turn’ by  nominating Mourdock. Democratic National Committee Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said in a statement “It’s official: The Republican Party is now indistinguishable from the Tea Party.” The attention the Democrats are already focusing on the race promises to result in a long and heated Indiana Senate race. Mourdock, who credits the Tea Party with his victory, will face Democrat Representative Joe Donnelly in a November general election. The Indiana election will be a key race in November. Republicans need to take four seats to win the Senate majority.

Political Spin in the Classroom- How it’s Hurting America

Benjamin Franklin once said “The good education of youth has been esteemed by wise men in all ages, as the surest foundation of the happiness both of private families and of common-wealths,”

He and the rest of the Founders recognized that the continuation of liberty is in the hands of an educated electorate. When the people are uninformed, they can be manipulated and enslaved- case in point- the feudalist system in the Middle Ages.

So, if the education of the public, and particularly young people, is crucial in a free society, the role of the teacher is perhaps one of the most important. They influence the individual at a crucial age- when they are discovering the world and learning to think for themselves. By opening the young mind to the wonders of society and humanity, a good professor can inspire passion in a student to succeed and change the world. And that is a truly beautiful thing.

But what happens when the teacher misuses their position? What happens when the teacher uses their position to push a private agenda, poisoning the student’s mind through malicious lies?

Given the trust and importance placed in public educators, is this duplicity not a betrayal of the free society they are supposed to be preserving?

I have spent many lectures fighting back tears of anger as my professors malign everything I believe in, mocking the conservative way of thinking, lying about the goals of an opposing party, snickering at anyone who has the guts to stand up and try to defend what they believe in. Can there be anything more despicable than a professor who uses their position to put down young people who are just learning to stand up for themselves? Yes, freedom of speech is crucial to public dialogue, and teachers have a right to their opinion, but do those opinions have a place in the classroom, especially when they are used it to be divisive and to bully?

And what about the lies? How many students take what their teachers say at face value, as they should be able to, and live in the manufactured reality of political spin? Shouldn’t we be able to place trust in our educators? Is it any wonder then, when the classroom is used as a propaganda platform, that the right wing is so unabashedly maligned in the public dialogue?

And perhaps the most crucial question, what does this mean for the future of our country? When students are lied to, taught not to think for themselves, and believe in the absolute evil of a certain way of thinking, how can a free society survive? This is where education becomes a national security issue. This is what the Founders warned about. The teacher has the power to shape the destiny of the next generation. And when they use their position to indoctrinate rather than promote critical thought, teach them to be guided by the opinions of others- that is when the next generation becomes slaves to the government, rather than the masters of it.

What’s In a Picture? Not the Democratic Budget Committee

Senate Democrats are sure committed to resolving the budget crisis. So committed, they’re not even showing up to their own meetings.

The picture below comes from the Twitter account of the GOP Senate Budget Committee. (@BudgetGOP)

 The empty chairs around the table are where the Democratic members of the committee would be sitting if they’d bothered to show up to Wednesday’s meeting of the Senate Budget Committee. Democratic chairman Kent Conrad (ND) apparently scheduled the meeting to discuss the 2013 Democratic budget resolution.

As of April 29th, the Senate will have gone 3 years without passing a budget and Democrats are on television non-stop blaming Republicans for doing nothing and being non-cooperative. The Republicans have come up with multiple budget proposals, including the much-maligned Path to Prosperity budget authored by Congressman Paul Ryan (WI). The budget is touted by Democrats as being ‘too extreme’ for it’s Medicaid/Medicare overhaul program and for making drastic cuts in federal spending. Cuts so drastic that according to the CBO, Ryan’s Budget doesn’t project a federal surplus until the 2040’s. And as far as the bi-partisan effort Democrats are screaming for, the so-called ‘super committee’ failed to even come to an agreement about budget cuts.

So who’s really frustrating attempts to pass a budget? Is it the Republicans, who’ve brought multiple budget proposals to vote? Or is it the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, whose budget proposal failed by a vote of 0-97 in the Democratically controlled Senate (Perfect example of bi-partisan support?), and who can’t even bother to show up to meetings to work on their own budget proposals?

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words…

Why Rick Santorum Mattered

This afternoon, when Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential race, my heart broke. As a young conservative, for as long as I can remember, the political landscape has been dominated by corrupt career politicians who ignore the voice of their constituents and vote as they please to gain power and riches. It seemed political efficacy was dead. The only people whose voice mattered were the rich and powerful who had the connections to run for office and buy votes. I’d given up hope for the 2012 election. And then, along came Rick Santorum and his incredible underdog campaign.

Why did Rick Santorum matter so much to me?

He went from being the longest of long shots, garnering one or two percent in presidential polls, to winning Iowa. In every state, he was outspent two or three times by the most prominent candidates. They ran attack ads that Santorum could not afford to respond to, yet people still voted for Santorum.

Time and again, GOP leaders endorsed Mitt Romney. Even conservative and Tea Party leaders, whose views Rick Santorum embodied, gave their endorsement to Mitt Romney. And still, Rick Santorum pulled off seemingly miraculous primary wins.

Rick Santorum had little money. The majority of his campaign finances came from small donations from private citizens, not rich businessmen or corporations. What he lacked in money, he made up in personal campaign stops to spread his message, perhaps most famously by visiting every county in Iowa.

Time and again, his words were twisted by the media-he was a crazy right wing extremist who wanted to ban birth control and drag women back to the dark ages.

Yet, despite the media spin, despite attack ads and trailing in campaign donations, despite virtually no exposure in early debates and despite the media dismissing him at every turn, Rick Santorum drew votes from the people. Something about his message made sense to voters. And his success in the poll was a result of his message, not support from party politicians, not a result of money spent on ads selling him or attacking his opponents.

And that’s why Rick Santorum mattered- he reminded us that a private citizen, with little political party backing, little money and little organization, could get out on the public stage, speak passionately about the principles that moved and motivated him, and inspire people to vote for him.

And that’s why today, I’m deeply saddened by Rick Santorum’s decision to drop out of the race. In my short life, I’ve become frustrated with an America whose political system is dominated by career politicians who sell their votes for personal gain and don’t care about their constituents. Rick Santorum restored my faith that there are still people of character who care about individual freedom and the rights of man. And from the bottom of my heart, I thank him for that.


Obama Threatens Supreme Court, Shows Incomprehension of Federalism

Perhaps it’s time someone explained the concept of federalism to President Obama. Or even encouraged him to read the Constitution he swore to protect when he entered office. Yesterday, during a press conference, President Obama stated that the Supreme Court overturning his Affordable Care Act would be an ‘unprecedented’ move by the ‘unelected’ members of the Court. His justification for warning the Court from overturning the bill- it was popular in Congress. These comments are just one episode in the ongoing saga of the President’s bizarre logic and incomprehension of the machinations of the American political system.


Obama stated that overturning the legislation would be unprecedented because it was passed by a majority of the democratically elected Congress. The Supreme Court adjudicates on legislation that is going into effect. In order for this to occur, the majority of Congress has to approve legislation. Bills can’t be approved by a minority of Congress. They simply die on the floor of the chamber. They are not brought before the Supreme Court to have their Constitutionality decided. Therefore, every bill that the Supreme Court scrutinizes has been approved by a majority of Congressional members. The Affordable Care Act is not an exception. This is not unprecedented- this is a policy that has been in places since the Constitution was ratified in 1788.


As to the Supreme Court being unelected, this is half –truth. Judges are first nominated by the president, and then vetted and approved or disapproved by the Senate. Last time I checked, the Senate is democratically elected by the people. They are supposed to represent the voices of their constituents. So, while Supreme Court justices may not be directly elected by the people, in theory, the people’s voice is still present in the process. Interestingly, when Newt Gingrich talked about changing Supreme Court rules to make judges directly accountable for their voters, he was crazy and had no respect for the Constitution. Apparently, the same standard doesn’t apply to Obama.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but popular opinion, Congressional or public, has absolutely no influence on how the Supreme Court adjudicates. Rather, they are there to decide if a piece of legislation is Constitutional in application. It doesn’t matter if every citizen in the country wants the individual mandate (over two thirds of citizens don’t), if the power to enforce a policy is not granted to the government through the Constitution, the Supreme Court has a responsibility to overturn it. It’s that simple. So, Obamacare’s popularity in Congress should have no bearing on the Court’s decision.


And that’s how federalism works. The Supreme Court is not directly answerable to the people purposely to isolate them from the turbulent emotions of public opinion. It is Congressional members who are supposed to take the views of their constituents into account and legislate accordingly. The Supreme Court is there to reign in their actions, not to mirror public opinion. That’s what’s outlined in the Constitution, and that’s how the federalist system works. If Obama actually read the Constitution, or the words of the Founders that he so despises, he would know this. But then he wouldn’t have the scapegoat of judicial activism to blame the failure of his key legislation on. Poor Barack.



Evil Bank’s Student Loan Crushing Your Dreams? Not for Long.

These days, all the cool young protestors seem to be talking about one thing. The calls for beheading Wall Street executives have quieted down a little and the new focus is- student debt. Yes, those evil giant banks are at it again- forcing poor innocent students into taking massive loans with crushing interest rates that will haunt them for the rest of their adult lives.

There is a petition circling colleges- the Support the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012. To anyone with a rational mind, and even the slightest comprehension of how the free market works, the petition is laughable. The petition scathingly rips into the notion that higher education is an individual commodity rather than an investment in the ‘collective future’ of the nation.(Silly conservatives and their ideas about individualism.) It also boldly states that student loan forgiveness will stimulate the economy and restore the American dream for millions of middle class Americans struggling under the burden of their debt. Aw. With rhetoric like that, is it any surprise that the website,, is sponsored by the totally agenda-less George Soros funded

Oh to live in the world of liberal logic. Somehow, millions of defaulted loan payments just magically vanish and the economy is fantastic. Those defaulted payments don’t get passed on to investors and customers of the loan holder’s bank through increased fees to make up for the financial loss.

Even Steven Lerner, SEIU and Occupy Wall Street organizer, hinted that part of the next phase for the Occupy movement is student debt strikes. Lerner wrote in a recent article for the left-wing publication, The Nation “There is growing interest in Occupy and student groups in a student debt strike. The banks can’t foreclose on a brain or a degree. If a critical mass of student debtors—a million or more—pledged to refuse to pay, it would create a collection crisis that could force negotiations about reducing student debt.”

Those evil banks, asking poor, starving students to repay the money so generously loaned them. How dare they ask you to be accountable for your actions! How dare they limit your access to college education! A guaranteed human right! (Apologies to Thomas Jefferson, who’s probably rolling over in his grave). Because of course, handling debt responsibly and not taking on more than you can afford, is not an option.

Whatever happened to the self-made man? In the 21st century, where even if you don’t have high-speed internet access in your home (yet another basic human right those evil Republicans are trying to deprive the underprivileged of) you can go to any local library and use a computer, shouldn’t self-education be easier than ever? Basically every government organization and college has an online library where you can access important documents and research. Or crazier still, you could pull one of those dusty old books off a shelf. (Except then you’d probably just be accused of hating the environment.) But that would require you acting as an responsible, functioning individual in society rather than a piggy-backing parasite of the collective. After all, every enlightened liberal knows, personal responsibility and integrity are the crazy ideas of those pretentious old wig-wearing men who wrote that ridiculously outdated document all the disillusioned conservatives are still clinging to.

Killing of Bald Eagles- Protected Religious Freedom, Protecting the Unborn- Not So Much

Earlier this afternoon, the US Fish and Wildlife Service approved the killing of two bald eagles by the Northern Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming. While bald eagles are no longer listed as an endangered species, it is still illegal to kill them. They are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act as well as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service website, the Bald and Golden Eagle Act prohibits the taking, transporting, or possessing of bald eagles or any part of their body or nest from any active or inactive nest. It is possible to obtain a permit to transport or kill a bald eagle. If you’re a Native American, you can apply for a permit that allows you to obtain feathers or other parts for religious purposes. The permit granted today is the result of such a request.

Now, if the Native Americans want to kill the bald eagle as part of their religious ceremonies, they have the right to don’t they?. After all, in this country, there is after all a freedom of religion and religious practice. Or is there?

How is it that to the Obama administration, you’re protected by religious freedom if it’s part of your religious practice to kill once endangered birds that also happen to be a national symbol? However, if you’re a religious organization that doesn’t want to provide contraception such as the morning after pill to women because you believe it’s a form of abortion, you’re against women’s health and not entitled to the liberty to practice your religion as you see fit? Rather, you have the president of the United States tell you that you should listen to ‘the voices of reason’ and just do what the government wants because after all, it only has your best interests at heart.

And if the somewhat skewed endorsement towards religious freedom isn’t enough to make you question the current administration, what about the okaying of the killing of an animal that until very recently was on the endangered species list? Isn’t the well being of the environment and ‘sustainable energy policy’ one of the main concerns of the Obama administration? Isn’t that why millions of tax- payer dollars were wasted on green energy pipe dreams like Solyndra? And isn’t that one reason why domestic drilling of oil has come to a virtual halt, because it’s bad for the environment and rare species like the bald eagle?

But, at least the citizens of the United States can sleep easy in knowing President Obama is still relentlessly protecting their right to practice religious liberty- unless of course, you’re a Catholic organization and happen to believe in protecting the rights of the unborn by not using contraception. Then you’re just a bigot. And you hate women. And obviously, in that case, your rights aren’t protected.

RFK Jr. Calls Senator Inhofe a prostitute- Media Outrage?

When Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut on his radio show, he loses advertisers and outraged liberals everywhere demand that the FCC pull his broadcaster’s license.

However, when Robert F Kennedy Jr. calls Senator Inhofe a prostitute on Twitter, not only is there no media firestorm, but Twitter followers retweet his comments.

On Tuesday night, Kennedy tweeted:

Speaking of prostitutes, big oil’s top call girl Sen Inhofe wants to kill fuel economy backed by automakers, small biz, enviros, & consumers [sic]

Isn’t the bestowing of the name ‘prostitute’ on an individual exactly what the liberals are in a huff about? When Rush did it he was berated by the media. His use of the term was absurd and offensive. The same should be true of Kennedy’s use of the word right?

You might think so, however, when Kennedy was criticized over his Tweet, he once again took to Twitter and defended himself:

To my critics: What do you call a politician — democrat or republican — who sells the public interest for money?

Now when outrage erupted following his criticism of Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh issued a very sincere apology, twice, stating that his comments were outrageous and beneath him.

Despite this, a petition calling for the FCC to revoke Limbaugh’s permit to broadcast over public airwaves began on The petition states that Rush’s use of indecent language is grounds for the revoking of his permit.

According to the stunning logic of signers of this petition:

“The lies and hate of a hypocritical drug addict are NOT in the public interest and are counter to the United States Constitution”

“People can be arrested for running thier [sic] mouth in a public place as he does on the radio.”

Others call his rant racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic- which leads one to wonder- how many of these people actually listen to Rush on a daily basis and/or actually heard his comments about Sandra Fluke?

The public condemnation for Kennedy? Non-existent. When Kennedy uses the same word, where’s the media’s outrage? Not only wasn’t there any- but some of Kennedy’s Twitter followers re-Tweeted his comment calling Senator Inhofe a prostitute.

Apparently, it’s not okay to call someone a prostitute if you’re a conservative. But if you’re a liberal, it is. Thus proving the media’s double standard for the left.

Or is there no outrage because Kennedy, a man, called another man a prostitute, while Limbaugh, a man, called a woman a prostitute? Well, that’s sexism. Aren’t the liberals always calling the evil conservatives racist?

Either way, to react so strongly to one instance, and not at all to the other is outrageous. So much for freedom of speech.

According to Romney- Santorum Responsible for ObamaCare

According to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum is to blame for ObamaCare. In tonight’s CNN debate, Mitt stated that ObamaCare was passed solely because of Arlen Specter’s support.

Rick Santorum supported Arlen Specter, the notorious Benedict Arnold of the Republican party, over Pat Toomey in the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate race. At the time of the race, Specter was still a Republican, although only in the loosest interpretation of the party’s ideology. And Pat Toomey is, and was, vastly more conservative. The Republicans were in danger of losing their Senate majority in the 2004 election. Santorum’s reasoning for supporting Specter over Toomey was Specter’s position as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter guaranteed to support any candidate for the Supreme Court that Republicans put forward. Keeping a conservative majority on the Supreme Court was crucial in the eyes of the Republicans at the time. Santorum has said that he does not believe staunch conservative Justice Samuel Alito would have been confirmed without the aid of Specter.

Whether you agree with Santorum’s reasoning or not, the accusation that ObamaCare was passed solely because of Arlen Specter’s vote, at the hands of Rick Santorum, is absurd. First of all, Congress is made up of 535 individuals. Arlen Specter is one person. The Senate passed the bill 60 votes to 39. Notice that’s more than a one vote majority. Arlen Specter did vote for the bill, as a member of the Democratic party. However, had he voted no, the vote would have been 59 to 40. The Yea vote count of 59 in this hypothetical situation is still 9 more votes than the 50 needed for a simple majority for the passage of the bill. In other words, the passing of ObamaCare in the Senate did not hinge on Arlen Specter’s Yea vote. Romney also seems to conveniently forget that there is another body of Congress that passed the bill 219 to 212. President Obama also had to sign the bill into law.

The point- the passing of ObamaCare did not hinge on the vote of one person. This is a gross oversimplification of the American political system. ObamaCare was the product of a massive collaboration of the Democratic machine. It was plugged by Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and President Obama, just to name a few. Romney’s accusation that ObamaCare was passed solely because of Arlen Specter’s vote, and by extension, the endorsement of Rick Santorum is divisive party politics at his worst. The people of Pennsylvania voted for Arlen Specter. Specter is accountable to them. Not Rick Santorum. Specter does not vote based on the directions of Rick Santorum. Mitt Romney knows better than this. This kind of rhetoric is the calling card of the left, and if Romney expects to beat Obama in the election, he needs to present a clear distinction between the tactics of the left and the right. The American people deserve better than this.

The Truth Behind Obama’s Truth Team

The political world is abuzz this week with the Obama administration’s unveiling of their ironically named “Truth Team”. In conjunction with, the Truth Team consists of three websites- AttackWatch, KeepingHisWord and KeepingGOPHonest. The goal of the Truth Team is to dispel the myths of Republican smears and tell the public the truth about Obama’s record. The Truth Team plans to gather volunteers and focus on swing states in an attempt to gather votes for Obama in the 2012 election.

Anyone familiar with the union thug tactics of SEIU and the oh-so-unbiased reporting of ‘news’ organizations like George Soros funded Media Matters employed in the 2008 election, is probably skeptical of the credibility of the Truth Teams. And rightly so.

Example- the Truth Team’s “Debunking of the so-called “War on Religion”

AttackWatch primarily refutes Mitt Romney’s statement that Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate for religious organizations is forcing religions to violate their conscious.

The Truth Team’s refutement of this rests on six points that Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter presents.

Her first point- contraception is important to women’s health. Her evidence? Scientists and medical experts agree with her! These scientists aren’t named in the Truth Teams explanation. But if you click on the text, you’re taken to the website of the Guttmacher Institute, whose website states that its goal is to advance reproductive health and rights. Their mission also states “The Institute’s overarching goal is to ensure the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health for all people worldwide.”

Cutter states that “The fundamental belief behind this decision is that women should have access to this care, without having to worry about cost.”

Here, the Obama administration’s assumption is that this is a women’s rights issue, which is not true. Where in the Constitution is there a clause mandating the government provide low cost contraception to women? From the start, the Obama administration obscures the issue- the principle at stake is women’s rights not religious freedom. Just a thought- it’s a lot easier to make people sound evil if they’re arguing against women’s rights.

Next, Cutter writes that churches are exempt from the rule, which is about the only true statement on the website. She also states that religious organizations (charities and hospitals) will be exempt for another year. Again true, although delaying government mandates against religion isn’t exactly a point on the side of the Obama administration.

Third, Cutter writes that individual religious beliefs will be protected. No woman will be forced to take contraceptives and no doctor will be forced to proscribe them. According to Cutter, this means that no one’s religious conscience is violated. Unless you’re the head of a Catholic hospital and you’re forced to pay the insurance policy for an employee receiving contraceptives as part of your medical care. Or do church officials not count as individuals with a right to conscience?

Fourth, Cutter has the audacity to claim that 75% of women are actually behind the Obamacare mandate stating that churches should be forced to provide contraception.
Their facts to back this up? They claim 71% of Americans and 77% of Catholic women support it (the mandate). They also state that 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives.

Now, there’s no data on AttackWatch, however there is a link embedded in the text which brings you to the source of the information- Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country.

Here is Planned Parenthood’s breakdown of their survey:

• 71 percent of all voters, including men and women, say prescription birth control should be included as preventive health care services, covered without any out-of-pocket costs.
• Seven in 10 Republican women (72 percent) said that birth control should be included as preventive health care, covered without any out-of-pocket costs.

• 77 percent of Catholic women voters said that birth control should be covered as preventive health care without any out-of-pocket costs. 

Notice the question not asked- whether women, especially Catholic women, even though they use birth control, believe their Church should be forced to provide contraceptives. So the 75% of women who supposedly think the Church should be forced to violate its conscience live only in the progressive minds of the Obama administration. Also, if 98% of women already use birth control, is there really an availability problem. And if Planned Parenthood, the darling of the left, is doing such a good job providing reproductive services to women, why does the Obama administration need to force the Church to cover contraception?

Fifth, Cutter states that the mandate will reduce employer health care payouts by 15 to 17 percent. This might sound great until you realize that this is projected savings is a result of health care services for babies that will not be born. Not only that, but these savings are purely hypothetical. The savings comes from money that is projected to be spent on the medical services a baby requires. If a baby is never born, and those services are never billed, then no money was spent, hence there is no real savings.

Cutter’s sixth point and conclusion is- President Obama loves the religious community! Apparently, the health care mandate, which forces religious employers to violate their belief that abortion is wrong, is a shining example of his commitment to religious liberty. Which actually sums up the president’s views on religion pretty well- he thinks they’re wonderful as long as they do what he wants.

So there you have it, as AttackWatch says. Indeed- there you have it. Here you have a crystal clear example of Obama’s contempt for the Constitution, and his clear contempt for the thinking brains of the American people. His endorsement of such blatant lies shows his character clearly.

So please, as AttackWatch concludes- “Now we need your help to spread the word about the administration’s stance.” Stand for truth and religious freedom and spread the words about AttackWatch’s lies.

For more information see:

Recent Entries »