Speaking truth to power is a time honored American tradition. It’s what our first amendment is all about. It’s also probably one of the most misunderstood concepts of our time.

Free speech is a right granted to the American public by their constitution not so that Larry Flint can publish pornography, but so that political speech of all types is protected from prosecution by the government. That does not mean that speech is protected from all consequences; indeed, speaking real truth to power often involves consequences of some sort or another.

The Dixie Chicks are the most famous recent example held up by the left as victims of first amendment infringement. When Natalie Maines expressed to a British audience the Chicks’ collective embarrassment over being from the same state as George W. Bush, their largely conservative country music fan base found the expression to be offensive and exercised their freedom in boycotting their recordings. The

Generally, liberal opinion, expressed in such a public manner, doesn’t stem from any kind of political courage, because liberal opinion is the power these days. Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart, Cindy Sheehan, Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, David Letterman–none of these people is actually risking anything of themselves by speaking their liberal beliefs, even though the mainstream media still paints them as brave rebels. Liberal thought dominates our news, our culture, our lives. Political correctness and leftist ideas on issues such as environmentalism, health care, foreign affairs, war, immigration, race, etc., amount to what is presented as “mainstream”: thought. Indeed, in the Chicks’ case, Maines’ decision to regurgitate a popular Hollywood attitude about George Bush was simply a gross miscalculation of their fans reaction and earned her group a whole new base of fans who heretofore would probably have never listened to country music.

So free speech is not being suppressed, but those of us not marching lockstep with the cool kids in the liberal elite take a bit more risk in the form of backlash for speaking our beliefs. Sometime in the last 25 years or so, while no one was looking, the liberal anti-establishment crowd quietly became the Establishment.

So speaking out against the Establishment, much as it did in the Sixties and Seventies, takes a bit of courage. No one has personified that kind of courage better in recent days than Andrew C. McCarthy.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and a contributor to National Review. From 1993 through 1996, as an Assistant United States Attorney, McCarthy led the prosecution against the jihad organization of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, in which a dozen Islamic militants were convicted of conducting a war of urban terrorism against the United States that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Immediately following 9/11, McCarthy supervised the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Command Post in New York City, where he was responsible for coordinating federal and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies in their efforts to investigate and prevent terrorism.

Needless to say, if Attorney General Eric Holder acting in his capacity as head of President’s Task Force on Detention Policy were to convene a roundtable panel to discuss the United States’ detention policies for suspected and potential terrorists, not only would Mr. McCarthy be an invaluable member of such a panel, but he would also lend an air of legitimacy to the witch hunt atmosphere surrounding such policies in the wake of the Administration’s release of the “torture memos.”

Mr. McCarthy, in an open letter to Mr. Holder (published on the internet here) politely and publicly declined to allow his name to be used in legitimizing this exercise.

Why not participate and give AG Holder the benefit of the doubt? As McCarthy explains in his letter:

[I]t is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

McCarthy, and a rather large portion of America, takes offense to this Administration’s opening the door for prosecuting a former Administration’s policies. This is the stuff of banana republics and it is a dangerous road to start down, no matter how great the virulent anti-was left craves prosecutions of the Bush Administration.

It takes great courage to stand up not only to a popular administration, but a rabidly angry left and say, sorry, I’m not going to play along with your charade. I refuse to be a part of a process that will attempt to smear people who not only carried out their duties in good faith, but because they carried out those duties successfully, this country has been kept safe for the last seven and a half years.

It doesn’t take any courage at all to go along with the powerful, to validate their policies even when you know them to be wrong. It doesn’t take any courage to participate in an exercise that will be applauded by the mainstream media and hailed as a meaningful foray into bipartisanship even if you know that your views will not be considered. It’s easier to go along and indeed it is more beneficial.

But to really speak truth to power, to willingly stake your name and reputation on the ideals that you believe in when they are opposed to those in power, that, my friends, takes real courage.

Well done, Mr. McCarthy.

Last week, Miss California, Carrie Prejean dared give voice to her true opinion about gay marriage, and she probably lost the Miss U.S.A. crown because of it. In an interview with Sean Hannity following the incident, Miss Prejean talked about the struggle with her conscience while the clock was ticking on live T.V. She weighed the consequences of airing her true beliefs against compromising her principals and decided to keep her integrity intact.

Perez Hilton immediately engaged in a vile all out smear campaign against Miss Prejean on his popular Hollywood Gossip website. It is important to note here that Hilton did not in turn offer any valid arguments for gay marriage, nor did he counter Miss Prejean’s statement in any meaningful way. Instead his rebuttal consisted entirely of a very public, vicious and immature assassination of her character.

In addition to the abhorrent treatment Miss Prejean was subjected to at the hands of the insufferable Perez Hilton, commentators in both print and broadcast media reacted only marginally better. They soundly ridiculed Prejean for giving an impolitic and ill-advised answer; the kindest amongst them called her unwise, and it went quickly downhill from there.

To sum up the consensus of opinion on the matter: Prejean should have just given the pat, politically correct answer and went on to collect her crown, because she knew that giving the answer in which she really believed would cost her the title, therefore she has no one to blame but herself for her predicament.

In other words, she should have lied about her principals to advance her career. She should have told the world what the left wants to hear and wants us all to believe.

That way, the left can continue to advance their agenda of stamping out any dissenting opinion.

What’s amazing is that it didn’t work. Perhaps it was to the “over-the-topness” of Hilton’s reaction, or perhaps the American public is finally waking up, but for whatever reason, the verdict on Miss Prejean is effectively a hung jury. And that’s not how it was supposed to turn out.

Miss Prejean was supposed to end up completely marginalized, existing only as an object of ridicule and an example of the ugly narrow-mindedness and intolerance of the American right.

Hilton had no reason to believe that his antics in response to Miss Prejean’s voicing the opinion of the American majority would result in anything other than applause and converts to his cause. Because that’s how it’s been working very effectively for the left in the last few years.

Because up until now, the internalized message of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” have been very effective for the left indeed.

When you disagree with the radical liberal agenda being advanced these days, the left will use Alinsky’s tactics to either silence, marginalize or intimidate you into submission.

Consider the left’s rather hysterical reaction to Sarah Palin. She was at turns painted as a Christian fundamentalist kook, a right wing extremist, a hypocrite, and a dumb broad. It was like a million Perez Hiltons attacking Miss Alaska. This attractive, capable woman who has many impressive accomplishments and talents to her credit was so reviled by the left that she has effectively been reduced to a caricature of herself. Most average folks don’t know the difference between what Sarah Palin has actually said and what Tina Fey impersonating Sarah Palin has said. And they don’t care, because for all intents and purposes, the caricature is the woman; to say otherwise is to risk bringing that ridicule on oneself.

Another attractive capable woman in politics, Michelle Bachman, has come under similar fire on the left for espousing conservative principal in public. Notre Dame Alumni and supporters who are upset about a Catholic institution awarding an honorary degree on the most pro-abortion president in history have been classified as haters. Miley Cyrus has been declared a crazy Christian for proclaiming that her new boyfriend brings her closer to God. She’d be a lot more normal if she’d just shoot some heroin, already.

The recent Tea Party attendees are labeled as right wing extremists, racists and stupid to boot. The reason CNN and MSNBC anchors ridiculed the Tea Parties during a supposedly otherwise straight newscast (I know; when was the last time any of us saw one of those?) was to make people think twice about participating. The reason Janeane Garofalo called those protestors “racists” whose only beef was that a “black man was in the White House” was to prevent people from joining in. Who consciously wants to be associated with racist activity? To liberals like Garofalo, the only thing missing from the Tea Party demonstrations were the white hoods.

For those that aren’t buying the “racist” characterization there’s the story that the Tea Parties are yet another vast right wing conspiracy brought to you by the very people who caused the economic collapse and promoted by none other than the right wing extremist network, Fox News. I guess the liberals pushing that one forgot that it was CNBC’s Rick Santelli, in an impromptu revolt on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange who birthed the idea of the tea parties. Yhey hope that everyone else forgot, too.

The list goes on and on: publicly espouse a conservative point of view, prepare to be marginalized with a characterization as either a.) Crazy, b.) Racist, c.) Hater, d.) Extremist or e.) Any combination of a, b, c, and /or d.

And here’s the best part of it all: Remember how just a short time ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism one could aspire to? Remember the left’s martyrs to free speech? People like Natalie Maines and Cindy Sheehan who got hours of broadcast and miles of print discussing how their first amendment rights had been violated?

The left’s intolerance of a dissenting opinion in the Age of Obama is not even called intolerance, nor is it recognized as an infringement on the first amendment. No, the left’s intolerance of freedom of speech is in fact classified as being “open minded.” When you proclaim yourself open minded and tolerant, it’s not only ok, but encouraged to be intolerant of anyone you label as closed minded.

Most folks just want to live their lives. They don’t want to think about politics lest it interrupt American Idol or Gossip Girl. They don’t want to be called upon to make a stand, the ramifications of which could result in the assassination of their character. If marginalization doesn’t do the job, those who still have the guts to effectively speak up after this can conveniently be silenced by Janet Napolitano’s new guidelines for identifying right wing extremist terrorist threats.

You must conform to the left. Conform or be ridiculed. Conform or be smeared. Conform or be shunned.

If dissent is marginalized enough, soon that is the only place where dissent will live.

A free press may in fact be dead, but for now, the first amendment still lives and breathes out here on the internet.

I’m pleased to announce that, for those who like their conservatism in bold colors, not pale pastels, I will be continuing to write a weekly column, which I will begin posting on Bluftooni, PAWatercooler and Facebook. These columns will be archived and accessible on my new site, The Monday Morning Alternative.

Soggy milquetoast is no way to start your day Right. The Monday Morning Alternative is a well-balanced, conservative breakfast including eight essential vitamins and minerals and the minimum daily requirement of Obama Administration critique.

In these tough and trying times, conservatives need to start their week with a hearty meal high in conservative protein and energy building insights.

So join us for breakfast every Monday morning and start your week with a bang instead of a whimper.