Liberty Intel

Former Republican Congressional hopeful, Martha McSally, who had been highly decorated for her audacity and tenacity in aerial combat, was barely defeated on the ground by her Democrat opponent, Ron Barber, back in November of 2012.  That Arizona 2nd Congressional District election was one of the closest contests since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

McSally’s Democrat opponent eked out a narrow win with a miniscule .8%. margin of victory.

The Col. was running against Barber to fill the Arizona 2nd Congressional District (formerly 8th District) seat vacated by Gabrielle Giffords, who had resigned from office after having been shot by an angry voter.  Barber’s campaign carried the day with 50.4% of the vote.  Col. McSally (Ret.) trailed her opponent by .8%, having garnered 49.6% of all votes cast.

Don’t think for a moment that the Colonel just took her defeat lightly, dried her tears, and walked away.


Martha McSally is still inspiring young voters from Arizona to Rhode Island, telling them her story of military daring in the sky and on the ground.  She is also still very active in pushing for Conservative advocacy of women’s rights from Phoenix to Kandahar.

She shared her military memories with guests at a Rhode Island GOP Reagan Dinner recently and the video of a question and answer session was posted to YouTube just three days ago.

In the video, after she responded to some young voters’ questions; McSally announced that she has, by no means, ruled out another run for the House or even Arizona’s governorship.  She says she is even considering running for the U.S. Senate – thinking of replacing John McCain when he decides to retire.  You can get acquainted with her a little more by watching the video.

Just to jog your memory, since you will be hearing from the Colonel again in the very near future, here is a quick biographical sketch of the warrior who will not let one small electoral loss deter her from serving the nation she loves as a civilian that she served as an air force pilot from 1988-2010.

Cadet McSally graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1988.  She went on to earn a M.A. in Government from Harvard.  She became a pilot and flew the A-10 Thunderbolt also known as a warthog.  The A-10 is basically a tank with wings built to kill tanks on the ground and give combat troops air cover in the middle of a firefight.

In 1993, while she was an air force captain, she became one of only a dozen ladies who became the first women to fly their aircraft into combat following a forty-five year ban on females in air-combat.

During 2000-2002, while she was a Major stationed in Saudi Arabia, McSally, represented by The Rutherford Institute, sued the Department of Defense while on active duty.

Her lawsuit demanded that Secretary Rumsfeld lobby Congress to change the regulations which ordered American servicewomen deployed to Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, to abide by Shar’ia law – including wearing the abaya and other Muslim attire.  In 2002, Congress acquiesced to her plea and voted 93-0 to suspend the regulation.  Her military legacy is that female American citizens deployed in Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, no longer have to dress in restrictive Muslim garb.

McSally flew combat missions after her successful lawsuit too.  McSally was promoted to Lt. Col. and flew her A-10 during Operation Enduring Freedom in the skies over Afghanistan.  In 2010, she retired as a Colonel, after sharing her experience, tenacity, and wisdom with fellow officers at the Air War College.

Currently, she is helping Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decide how to expand the role of women in combat.  She has also been telling Congress about her opinion on ethics, human rights, and drone strikes when she testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee just four days ago.

Watch out for Martha McSally in the coming days, weeks, and months ahead.  This retired Warthog pilot is anything but down for the count.




Credit -
Credit –

Montana’s Democratic giant, Senator Max Baucus, has announced that this election will be his last.  He has decided to retire.

So what happened to Max here?  Why would a seasoned senator and powerful committee chairman throw in the towel after thirty-five years of service?  The last time he ran, this thirty-five year U.S. Senate veteran had no primary challenger.  Baucus won his last election with an epic 73% margin of victory in an era where “too close to call” seems to be the favorite media mantra.  This chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is currently sitting on a campaign war chest of $3,594,924 cash-on-hand.

Yet, all the cash-on-hand in the entire state of Montana and all the seniority on Capitol Hill could not obscure the data from the latest February 2013 Public Policy Poll, which showed Baucus trailing his most likely Republican opponent, Congressman Steve Daines, of Montana’s 3rd Congressional District.  The latest poll gives the congressman a five point lead in a head to head race against the incumbent senator.  In short, if the race were today, Baucus would only garner 44% of the electorate’s votes, while Daines would command a very respectable 49%.

Some pundits say Baucus’ retirement announcement is just smart politics.  Max Baucus is a career politician who has been around Washington D.C. long enough to know how to read the writing on the marble.  Max knows when his it’s time to go home…and stay there.

Though Congressman Daines is the strongest challenger to Senator Baucus (if he were not retiring), he is by no means the only contender.  Republican Montana State Representative Champ Edmonds and Republican State Senator, Corey Stapleton, both from Montana’s 1st District, have tossed their proverbial hat in the equally proverbial ring.  The state’s Attorney General, Tim Fox, has also declared himself as a reasonable replacement for Baucus as well.

The same February poll which showed Daines leading Baucus 49%-44% if the race were to be held then, also showed that Baucus would defeat Edmunds as a challenger 47%-37%, Baucus defeating Fox 46%-43%, and Baucus defeating Stapleton 45%-38%.

So, what’s next for Montana and the coveted seat of outgoing veteran Max Baucus?  During the 2008 Presidential election, Senator John McCain barely defeated then Senator Obama with less than 3% of the total votes cast – 242,000 to 231,000.  Gov. Romney carried the state in his 2012 contest with President Obama with a much more respectable lead – 55.4% to 41.7%.

The 2012 presidential election results reveal the fact that the majority of voting Montana residents have turned against the liberal agenda of Barrack Hussein Obama by enough of a margin to defeat even a relative centrist like Baucus.  This key co-author of Obamacare knows that the majority of the electorate in his state sees the legislation as a “train-wreck.”  The 2012 election results in Montana also show that the majority of the voting population of that state have a rapidly diminishing respect for the incumbent president and everyone who rides his coattails.

Thus, Max is packing his bags and heading home, this time for good.

What remains to be seen is what democrats will be brave enough to step out on to the primary field to pick up the banner Baucus is cheerfully leaving on the pavement of this new battleground state.

It will be interesting to see if Congressman Daines shapes up to become the Republican nominee to face off against a would-be Democrat opponent despite his only recent election to Congress from his former seat in the Montana state-house.

One thing is for sure; Montana will be one more state to watch in what is sure to be one nail-biting Fall.



gayOn March 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the first of two gay marriage cases, which, once the court rules; will represent a new cultural reality across the nation.

The plaintiffs in this case are homosexual Californians who did not get married in 2008 during the less than two hundred days in which gay marriage was legal there.  They claim that removing that entitlement is unfair and violates both their due process rights and rights to be equally protected under the laws of every state in the union.

The contents of the oral arguments reveal that Justice Kennedy may remain the most powerful member of the court as its longest serving swing vote.

The court’s most liberal justices – Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg could be prominently heard railing against the need for any gender distinction in marriage. Their comments showed the direction they wish to push their fellow justices when they deliberate.

The distinctive voices of Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg could be heard challenging the premise that traditional marriage is a compelling state interest based on petitioners’ rationale that only traditional marriage can literally produce offspring.  They questioned if petitioner’s counsel would argue that marriages between infertile heterosexual couples should be disallowed because such unions could not naturally produce children.  Likewise, they also asked if petitioner’s counsel would recommend disallowing heterosexual marriages for people over the age of fifty-five since the likelihood of producing children is lower.

Conservatives like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito could be heard asking plaintiffs’ counsel when homosexuality became a federally protected class or when marriage became a constitutionally federally protected “right.”  Scalia, in particular, asked what compelling state interest could be found in redefining words like marriage to make them mean what they have never meant.

While Justice Kennedy’s voice is an expected rarity, Justice Roberts’ is not.  The lack of the Chief Justice’s normal voracity in examining those before his bench could be connected to the fact that his lesbian activist cousin, Jean Podrasky, was also present in the courtroom that day.  ABC News reported that she was “a guest of the Chief Justice.”

The day before Hollingsworth v. Perry oral arguments; Ms. Podrasky, a San Francisco resident who hopes to one day marry her girlfriend, had a great deal to tell ABC News concerning her expectations from her cousin, the Chief Justice.  She said:

“I know that my cousin is a good man. I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law.

I believe he understands that ruling in favor of equality will not be out of step with where the majority of Americans now sit. I am hoping that the other justices (at least most of them) will share this view, because I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly affected by their rulings.”

The plaintiffs’ brief  says that the core of their argument against Prop 8 being maintained as law is that defining marriage as heterosexually exclusive violates their “fundamental right” to marry anyone they want to as American citizens.

Even though CA domestic partnerships come with all the fundamental legal benefits and obligations as traditional marriages; the petitioners claim that such an accommodation still does not help them overcome feelings of humiliation and second-classness which they believe come with being called anything other than “married.”  The brief calls gay marriage “the civil rights issue of the time.” The petitioners believe that if the word “marriage” is used to describe their relationships then they will gain the “respect, recognition, and public acceptance that goes with that institution.”

The petitioners  hope that the Supreme Court will reverse the 2010 Federal District Court ruling (which was later upheld under appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court in 2012) which decided that making marriage gender-specific was “irrational” and born out of an “animus” against homosexuality.

The petitioners want the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling of the lower courts which said that homosexual and heterosexual marriages both “encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage.”

Finally, the petitioners are seeking a reversal of the lower courts’ decision which stated that they had “failed to build a credible, factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 had served a legitimate government interest.”


stopYesterday, Liberty Intel gave a legal analysis of CA’s latest restrictions on free speech for conservative “mental health providers.”  Every day, hundreds of CA parents, pastors, and counselors have to decide how they will approach helping children who struggle with homosexuality.  Last year; Governor Brown and the state’s legislators decided that they could resolve the personal moral dilemma facing these parents and professionals by simply mandating that no one who holds a state counseling license (and wants to keep it) could tell any child struggling with homosexuality that it was anything other than OK to be gay.

Today’s report tells the story of one legal challenge that, if successful, will stop that law from taking full effect.

On October 4, 2012, less than a week after Governor Brown signed these prohibitions into law, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit in district court seeking an injunction to prevent these prohibitions on free speech from moving forward.  The Obama-appointed District Court Judge, Kimberly Mueller, heard the lawsuit but refused to grant the injunction.

On Dec 21, 2012, three members of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave conservatives an early Christmas present and agreed that there were enough Constitutional questions about the legislation to grant the injunction which put an immediate temporary stop to the consequences of the legislation.

The name of the lawsuit is Pickup v. Brown.  The named plaintiff in the case is David Pickup. Additional plaintiffs include the American Association of Christian Counselors, the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality , as well as several other named clinicians and parents represented by Liberty Counsel who would be unduly injured by the law moving into effective status.  David Pickup is a licensed marriage and family therapist whose practice includes treating children who struggle with homosexuality.

If Liberty Counsel’s appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court fails on April 17, 2013; the government would effectively be telling all 50,000 Christian counselors who are AACC members, including Mr. Pickup, that none of them would be welcome to practice in the state of CA.

In the event that the Ninth Circuit Court rules in favor of Governor Brown, the named defendant in the case, a clear message will have been sent by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the CA government that says the state’s assessment of what constitutes effective medical and spiritual care for children has more value than the judgment of parents, clergy, and doctors.  This kind of sentiment finds its root in the belief that children are a collective good, or as MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry puts it; “children belong to whole communities.”

The core of Liberty Counsel’s argument against SB1172 taking full effect is that this regulation legally codifies homosexuality as a natural state of being and forbids parents, medical practitioners, and clergy who are licensed counselors, from informing children that there is an alternative to the state government’s point of view.

Liberty Counsel’s brief on behalf of the parents affected by the law makes the argument that SB1172 is in clear violation of the first amendment, saying:   “Plaintiffs Jack and Jane Doe 1, and Jack and Jane DOE 2, have the fundamental right, as parents, to direct the upbringing and education of their children… and to do so free from unconstitutional government interference, and have the First Amendment and state constitutional rights as parents to engage in constitutionally protected speech and religious freedom, including the right to receive information and to provide information to their children.”

Liberty Counsel’s brief also argues on behalf of the mental health providers effected by the legislation, saying that they: “Have the First Amendment and state constitutional rights, as counselors, to engage in constitutionally protected speech and religious freedom which includes their clients’ right of self-determination, their right to provide and receive counsel based on their religious and moral values, and their right to counsel their clients without governmentally imposed and unconstitutional viewpoint-based restrictions.”

Mr. Pickup has defended himself and his medical practice in the crosshairs of public media scrutiny making it no secret that in addition to being a medical professional; he is also a sexual abuse survivor who, through reparative therapy, overcame his past same-sex attraction which stemmed from abuse.

Mr. Pickup and Liberty Counsel will bring their case before the Ninth Circuit Court on April 17, 2013.

gayIn case you hadn’t heard; it’s been three months since CA’s legislative and executive branches banned parental, medical, and/or religious discourse that dissuades minors from homosexual activity and inquiry.  SB 1172 was amended six times in a four month period before Governor Brown signed the final draft into law on September 30, 2012.  It was set to become effective on January 1, 2013.

A successful December 21, 2012 Liberty Counsel appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court for an emergency temporary injunction is all that prevents this law from full implementation.   Part Two to this article, titled Light at the End of the Tunnel, will discuss the Conservative battle to prevent this law from taking full effect.

This major restriction of free speech for CA parents, mental health providers – including counselors and clergy, is being buried in a law that the majority of Americans would never think about reading.

—- Story Continues Below —-

—- Advertise Here —-

SB 1172 is now Article 15, Section 865 to Chapter One of Division Two in the state’s Business and Professionals Code Relating to the Healing Arts.  This report will explain the core of the law and its impact on CA’s children, parents, counselors, and conservative clergy.

The new law’s Art. 15: Section 865.1 states: “Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under eighteen years of age.” Section 865 (b) (1) defines sexual change efforts as “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” 

The law includes an exhaustive list of who is considered a mental health provider in 865 (a); however; any licensed (or certified) marriage and family therapist or counselor is included in the list.  Though the law does not explicitly include clergy by title; the legal fact is that any pastor, rabbi, or priest who is also a licensed (or certified) marriage and family therapist would be considered a mental health provider.  According to 865.2, that clergy member would be forbidden from dissuading anyone from practicing homosexual acts that is under eighteen in their congregation, despite parental insistence.  If they do anything but encourage the minor to explore or embrace homosexuality; they could have their counseling license revoked in CA.

Additionally, 865 (a) deems public school counselors to be mental health providers too.  Further, 865 (2) says that acceptable conversations or modes of therapy for homosexual minors are only those which support “safe-sex” practices that “do not seek to change sexual orientation.”

What else could the law have required?  The April 16 amended draft is one of the only versions available online with all the redactions visible.   A look at the redactions is a good way to see the lengths to which CA lawmakers were willing to go to violate doctor-patient confidentiality and parental rights in order to encourage minors to explore homosexuality.


Originally, the state was willing to permit counselors to encourage patients to question homosexuality and undergo behavior modification if the parent consented and the minor was told what the therapy would be like and how long it would last.  The minor and parent would also have to have been given a brochure produced and distributed using taxpayer dollars that would explain why they should not participate in any attempt at altering their homosexual desires or explorative goals.

In exchange for this concession; mental health professionals would’ve had to give the CA Department of Mental Health annual reports on the treatments of their patients, clients, or congregants that included everything about the minor patient, client, or congregant and their situation that included everything about them except their name.  This requirement included everything from the age and sex of the patient to the issues with which they were struggling and the provider’s reason for recommending that the individual not embrace homosexuality.  The state even wanted to know the “method of payment” the family was using to cover the cost of the care.

Eventually, the draft language of 865.2 (a) eventually said explicitly what the language of the final draft which became law said implicitly:  Under no circumstances shall a patient under 18 years of age undergo sexual orientation change efforts, regardless of the willingness of a patient’s parent, guardian, conservator, or other person to authorize such efforts.”

At the end of the day; a law buried in a code few people rarely, if ever consult, if violated, threatens the licenses of any conservative psychologist, psychiatrist, nurse, doctor, counselor, or pastor who encourages a minor to question embracing homosexual exploration or lifestyle because homosexual activists consider such recommendations child abuse.

Supreme Court

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 2 gay marriage appellate cases that were so emotionally and legally charged that the resulting eventual landmark decisions will unquestionably change the way America handles the issues of gay marriage and states’ rights forever.  Last week, on March 26, the Court heard the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry.  The next day, March 27, the justices heard oral arguments for United States v. Windsor.  The transcripts for oral arguments in each case along with briefs and supporting documents submitted to the justices represent more than one thousand pages.

This four part feature will examine the content of the arguments presented by the petitioners and plaintiffs in the gay marriage fight before the highest court in the nation.  The series will also explore the potential implications on states’ rights issues should the majority of justices decide to rule in favor of gay marriage advocates.

The initial installment of this feature will focus on presenting the basic facts of both cases as well as present the core Constitutional questions which these two cases have placed before the Court.  The second and third installments will provide in depth legal analysis of the Constitutional and social issues which these two cases will force the Court to address.  The last installment in the series will look at the social and historical implications for the nation should the majority of the justices decide in favor of Perry and/or Windsor.

Dennis Hollingsworth  is the petitioner in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.  He is the CA State Senator who championed the 2008 Prop 8 ballot referendum, which by a majority vote of CA citizens, amended the state constitution to formally define marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.

—- Story Continues Below —-

—- Advertise Here —-

The plaintiff in the case is Kristin M. Perry who is joined in her complaint before the Court by three other homosexual CA residents who believe that their Fourteenth Amendment rights are being violated by the CA constitution, which after the passing of Prop 8, disallows marriage between homosexual couples.  In short, Ms. Perry wants the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that marriage is gender neutral federal civil right.

Mr. Hollingsworth wants the Court to recognize the voice of millions of CA voters who clearly said that they wanted their state constitution to define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman and reverse the decision of a panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, who, on Feb. 7, 2012, ruled that the people of CA were out of order.

U.S. v. Windsor is arguably the more emotionally charged case of the two.  The petitioner is the federal government.  The plaintiff is an eighty-three year old woman named Edith Windsor.  Ms. Windsor’s partner of forty-four years, Ms. Thea Spyer, passed away in 2009.  They had been married in Canada in 2007 and resided in NY, which had passed gay marriage legislation signed by the governor in 2011, but not at the time of Ms. Spyer’s death in 2009.  Ms. Windsor is the executor of Ms. Spyer’s estate and was forced to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes which her lawyers insist she would have not had to pay if she had been married to a man.

Accordingly, Ms. Windsor brings 1 central issue before the court.  Ms. Windsor believes that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being exclusively between 1 man and 1 woman, represents a violation of her Fifth Amendment right to be equally protected under law regardless of what state she calls home.  While that issue would have been difficult enough for the Court to flush out without interference by the Executive Branch; President Barrack Hussein Obama has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to stop defending DOMA and has supported a 2012 bill calling for DOMA’s repeal.  Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law on September 21, 1996, joined President Obama calling DOMA unconstitutional and urged the Supreme Court to strike it down.


NOTE: This is an introduction to our special series on the Marriage Debate before the Supreme Court. While this introduction is public, the rest of the series is only available to Liberty Intel subscribers. Click here to subscribe to Liberty Intel

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

The following is a “first look” alert for subscribers of Liberty Intel Report via


You may think it’s too early to be discussing this. But mark my words… in 2014 you’re going to hear a lot of talk about two names. Yes, they’ll begin campaigning for 2016, in 2014.

  • Bob McDonnell
  • Jeb Bush

Anyone who watched the 2012 election cycle unfold should cringe at the sound of these two names. While many pundits, analysts and Karl Rove type party hacks will point at 2012 to proclaim the GOP lost due lack of minorities (especially hispanics) voting to the right, they ignore what should be the most obvious fact. Mitt Romney lost 10,000,000 votes that John McCain had. These are party base voters, and they refused to cast a nod in the direction of a big government platform attached to the past of Mitt Romney. Bob McDonnell and Jeb Bush are no better. In Fact, in some ways they’re worse.

You see, Mitt Romney is what he is. A Blue state, northeastern Republican who didn’t spend his entire career making promises and pledges to conservatives. Romney was always a big government moderate. That wasn’t up for dispute. Romney’s campaign was more based on contrast between Capitalism and Socialism. Unfortunately, Romney’s version of Capitalism was soaked in big government involvement. GOP base voters opted out, while Obama’s base turned out in full force. The few left in the middle had to pick between the rich guy from MA and the nice guy with good speeches.

Bob McDonnell, on the other hand, is an entirely different political animal. McDonnell just passed a record $6 BILLION tax hike on Virginians. This after years and years of no tax pledges and promises. Then, after shoving a tax spoke into the eye of every Virginian who helped get him elected, he announced Obamacare exchanges would likely take hold in Virginia. Once again… breaking promises and betraying his base.

Jeb Bush just announced his interest in running in 2016. In the same announcement, he also threw conservatives under the bus, made clear his support for tax hikes and announced a need for amnesty. All of this while suggesting he is getting closer to a run for President.


When I consider all of this I feel as if I’m in the twilight zone. I keep seeing someone on the wing. I keep telling folks there is someone on the wing. But will they listen?

Forward thinking, liberty minded voters need to be very, very cautious and aware. Know these two guys are going to be well funded and will be able to outlast more liberty based candidates in the GOP primary. If these guys are not politically knee-capped early on, you may be looking at yet another four years of liberty crushing big government.

-Eric Odom

P.S. Just for kicks…

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: