Much hay has been made by the liberal media, particularly by Idaho Statesman reporter/columnist Dan Popkey, over Nampa Rep. Brent Crane's reference to Rosa Parks in his debate on the health insurance exchange. In case you missed it, Crane said Parks was "one little lady (who) got tired of the federal government telling her what to do."

Parks, of course, wasn't the victim of federal policies, but rather the city of Montgomery, Ala., which had an ordinance requiring her to give up her seat on the bus to white riders. Popkey has written about the issue no fewer than three times in the last week. It's that exciting, apparently.

Crane's assessment, however, is an accurate portrayal of what the freedom movement is all about, even if he used one (and only one) word incorrectly: Almost every time individuals have fought for freedom, they've had to combat the government or powers that be. That means it is a national government, or a local or state government, a king or a city council.

So if Crane had said Parks was "one little lady who got tired of the government telling her what to do," wouldn't the statement have been 100 percent accurate? Indeed, yes. And that's the point. Parks' defiance of the law in defense of liberty is what Crane was trying to convey.

Yes, segregation was the "law of the land." But Rosa Parks decided right was right and wrong was wrong. Would we remember Parks today if she had simply given up her seat, because that's what the law told her to do? Obviously not, because many before her did, and we don't remember their names.

These points, which are obviously what Crane was trying to say in the thick of a floor debate, are being
minimized because the liberal media prefers to castigate Crane for getting the singular detail wrong rather than focus on the context of what he was trying to get across.