Fox News Debate: Kids Table Bats Clean-Up

In just a few short hours since its conclusion, the FoxNews Facebook debate has managed to spark some heated debate of its own. First, there were many who were shocked and dismayed to learn that the only way to watch the debates in real time was to have a cable subscription that included FoxNews Channel or C-Span. 

Even listening to the debate was a challenge, as several stations that claimed they would run he full debate only ran the prime time debate. Stations like FoxNews Radio that did air the earlier "Happy Hour" Debate, ran it in brief and select clips couched by commentary. Alan Colmes, for example, gave the candidates the Mystery Science Theater treatment and offered sarcastic commentary, many times speaking over the candidates so that he would be heard.

Jessica Chasmar, of the Washington Times, said what we all were thinking:

They also took some heat for the process by which they selected candidates. Publicly, they stated that they were using an average of five independent polls to make the selections. Those who watched both the Happy Hour and the Primetime debates saw with abundant clarity that some mistakes were made on that score. Carly Fiorina, for example, was declared by most to be the winner of the entire evening. Her answers were so complete and so concise that they were played in part during the Primetime event. And because of the way the events were broadcast, most Americans who were listening for free missed the vast majority of what she said.

The media's treatment of the happy hour debate made it clear that the intention was to marginalize those who hadn't made it into the top ten. Several media outlets referred to them as the "JV team," and even Planned Parenthood (whose recent scandal was the subject of a few questions) took to Twitter to call them "the kids table."

But despite the smaller audience and the clear attempts to make the "bottom 7" appear to be less viable, several of them managed to shine anyway. Carly Fiorina handled questions, attacks, and underhanded moderators with the skill of a seasoned professional. Indeed, after that debate, it was clear that her only weakness is a lack of political experience - and in the current climate, that may actually be more of a strength. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was clear and concise in his answers, if a bit less polished than the others. And former Texas Governor Rick Perry stood out as both knowledgable on the issues and willing to crack a joke at his own expense. The fact that he has a very solid conservative record in the state of Texas - from defunding Planned Parenthood and creating jobs to deploying the National Guard at the border - doesn't hurt either.

As clearly as Barack Obama was mistaken when he called ISIS the "JV squad," the media was mistaken in relegating these three to "the kids table." But if they hadn't, and these three quite capable candidates had instead been the lower tier sharing the stage with Donald Trump, perhaps we wouldn't be talking about them today. The fact is, obvious attempts to marginalize them actually may have given them a better chance to stand out.

The primetime debate was not without its issues, however. Though it was much easier to find free streaming audio coverage at least, the overall assessment of the debate was that it was only slightly less orchestrated than a WWE tag team event. Several questions seemed specifically designed to get a rise out of Donald Trump, and it worked spectacularly. Governor Scott Walker was targeted with an abortion question nearly on par with something one might expect from Nancy Pelosi on the House floor: "You would let women diiiieee?" (To his credit, Governor Walker handled the question admirably.) Only once did the circus manage to break free of the tent, and that was during a heated exchange between New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul regarding the NSA. Even that exchange quickly devolved into a shouting match that left Christie evoking 9/11 and Paul shouting "Bill of Rights," bringing back memories of the Paulbot Mantra of his father's 2012 campaign: "Liberty! Constitution! I win!"

Although there were some standout answers, particularly from Senators Marco Rubio (FL) and Ted Cruz (TX), Governor Scott Walker (WI), and Dr. Ben Carson, the overall feel was that the debate was designed to be a circus that showcased Donald Trump as the blustering, abrasive clown. Unfortunately, setting the stage in that fashion may have damaged the credibility of the other candidates who participated.

It's like the old adage: "Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, and the pig will like it."

Essentially, the moderators high-lighted Donald Trump as the predetermined mud-wrestling pig, and instead of allowing the other candidates to shine light on that by simply offering more competent comparisons, they built the Donald a mud pit and threw the first bucket of water.

SOTU: Shorter, Snarkier, and Infinitely More Accurate

The "new" initiative Obama proposed in his 2015 State of the Union address was touted even before the event as a sort of "Robin Hood" plan. (As per usual, he ignored the fact that an actual Robin Hood plan would involve the raiding of an overinflated government and the return of unjustly taken tax money to the people from whom it been wrongly wrested. But I digress...)

In a move that is totally unprecedented by this president (and by that I mean totally precedented, over and over again), Barack Obama stood before Congress and a few million Americans who suffered from either a death wish or insomnia, and said the same thing he has said every year since 2009:

I heart the middle class because <insert warm fuzzy anecdote completely fabricated by speechwriters>.

"ZOMG, people have to give up vacations and *gasp* pizza to pay bills?" 

Well, yes, Sir, we can't all be the President.

It's not fair that some people have more stuff than others. To fix that, I plan to unfairly take stuff from people who already have it.

If elected - oh, my bad, I totes already won that election - I will take money from people who worked hard because there are a select few people whose money makes money and I have to punish them for investing wisely.

If you are struggling to get by, that's not fair. Because struggle is bad. Also, if you're struggling, it's not because you chose a major like "Womyn's Studies." It's because George W. Bush is stupid and Mitt Romney is mean.

People should get free education. And by free, I mean that one of those rich people should pay for it for you. And by rich, I mean responsible. Pay no attention to the fact that a flooded education market is the reason you already need an advanced degree to stock shelves art Walmart - which is also evil, by the way, because unions.

Veterans.

I don't really give a rat's ass about veterans - or those still serving, for that matter - but I know how much y'all like to hear that word.

So here it is again: veterans.

On a completely unrelated topic, I just fired a whole crapload of Captains, so you should hire them.

Hey, more people have healthcare. Okay, maybe not exactly more people. But different people have healthcare, so that's something, right?

Climate change is bad, y'all. I mean, I know it's not rampaging through Europe, Australia, the Middle East, and freaking Oklahoma. I know it's not guilty of mass rape and beheadings. But seriously, people, we're talking about completely unsubstantiated blather regarding dead polar bears and cow farts.

We're also totally hunting down terrorists. And by that I mean we're sending them back to the front lines and failing to track their movements accurately. (It feels like we've done this before [cough, cough] Fast and Furious...)

Illegal immigration? What's that?

I have flaws, just like everyone else. LOL no, it's just you guys.

Seriously, though, we're America. We should lead with our values. I mean, I know I voted more than once to let babies who accidentally survive abortions die alone in trash cans, but I'm talking about morality here.

Hey, remember when I won those two elections? And those people I mentioned in the totally fabricated anecdote from the beginning of this speech?

Good times...

G'night, folks, I'll be here for another two years. Except for when I'm on vacation. Or golfing.

Tip your waiters, because you have more than they do and it's not fair!

Depression, Understanding, and Walsh

Matt Walsh wrote something today. 

To many of the people in my news feed, that alone is enough to rev up some animosity. And yes, I'm going to talk a bit about Matt Walsh - but bear with me.

Because today, Matt Walsh wrote something that I myself could have penned just a few short years ago.

He wrote about Robin Williams, who tragically took his own life yesterday. He said that suicide, when you really strip it down, is a choice, not a disease. It is always selfish, it is never freeing, and it damages loved ones as well.

(He said those things in many more words, but that's the gist of it.)

And as I said before, just a few years ago I could easily have written something similar. I have had bad days in my life, as everyone has. I have had bad weeks, bad months. I have gone through seasons during which I may have even said that I was depressed.

But I have never awakened to the feeling that in order to get to the breakfast table I would first have to claw myself out from the depths of an endless abyss. I have never looked at my children and imagined how much better their lives would be if they didn't have a screw-up like me as a parent. I don't know the helplessness of believing that someone's life might be improved if I were dead. I can't fathom the depths to which one must sink to feel these things.

In the past few years, however, I have spent time with and grown to love very deeply several people who have felt those things. I have come to understand that the way one sees reality under the influence of depression is akin to the way one might see when under the influence of alcohol or anything else - the difference being that an alcoholic chooses to drink, and a junkie chooses to score. 

Someone who is truly depressed cannot be expected to accurately remember good times, because even if there were truly good times, everything they now see is colored by the depression. 
Telling them they must choose to wait because good times will come again means nothing. All they see is the torture they are currently enduring and perhaps something slightly less torturous that may (but probably won't) come in some distant eventuality. 
Telling them they must make an effort to be happy is like asking a blind man to drive a car. 
"But I can't drive a car. I can't see the road." 
LOOK HARDER. 
"Are you INSANE?"

To quote a friend (@Lembas_n_coffee):

Suicide is a choice. Of course it is. Everything we do is a choice. The thing about suicide and depression is that it's a choice we make with faulty information. Because depression says there's no help, no one cares, you're just a burden. Depression lies. So choosing suicide with depression is like choosing which groceries to buy when you're starving. You'll make choices, they'll just be bad ones. 

 Say what you want about suicide being selfish and damaging to loved ones. Most people would agree with those things. But to someone who cannot see clearly anything beyond the borders of the abyss in which he resides, those things become secondary to the Herculean effort required simply to continue breathing. 

Although I honestly wish that I did not know people who have lived in that abyss, I am grateful for their patience in helping me to better understand it from the outside. For that reason, although I think at least in this case Matt Walsh has it wrong, I can understand the difficulty he may have in writing about this subject if he himself has never faced it in person.

The Mark of a Conservative: a Sandwich Board, Not a Sandwich

Conservatives. We are not all the same. We do not all look the same. We do not all act the same way. We do not all defend conservatism in the same manner. And thank God that we don't.

Today, "M Catherine Evans" offers what she seems to believe is a scathing criticism of conservatives - namely Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, Rep Louie Gohmert, and Sen Ted Cruz - who had the gall to offer humanitarian aid to illegal children. She criticizes their efforts in helping to feed and clothe the children who are being used as political pawns, and why? Because they weren't standing on overpasses holding anti-immigration signs.

Wait, what? You mean that if every conservative in America did nothing but stand on overpasses with signs we would win? If you believe that, I'd like to offer you a great deal on the overpass upon which you so valiantly protest.

Don't get me wrong: there is a time and a place for protests. I have participated, along with my children. So have *gasp* Dana Loesch, Glenn Beck, and I'd imagine the same goes for Sen Cruz and Rep Gohmert.

But let's think about this in broader terms.

Government in general wants one thing: to grow.  Government can grow larger in two basic ways. First, it can usurp power. We see that in the passage and support of laws like the Affordable Care Act, Executive Orders that are designed to circumvent Congress, and other extra-Constitutional actions taken by the government. And second, we the People can cede power. We can vote for people who we know will take actions that will limit liberty and grow government. We can vote for laws that restrict the freedoms of others because we don't like the way they exercise those liberties (gun control, for example). Or we can criticize those who engage in private charity because we don't like the charity they choose to support.

Conservatives in general want one thing: smaller, more limited government. We can restrict the growth of government in several ways as well. First, we can vote for people and initiatives that either stop the growth or shrink the size of government. And second, we can use private charity to limit the need for government growth. 

You'll notice that I did not at any point mention "standing on overpasses with signs."

When private entities offer humanitarian aid, they eliminate the need for government to drain resources from taxpayers. And make no mistake, the federal government wants nothing more than to drain those resources from taxpayers. 

Tell me, M Catherine Evans, do you really believe that the government would send those children back? Do you believe that the government would hesitate to take your money to feed them? When Dana Loesch went to the border, she went on her own time and her own money. When Glenn Beck went to the border, he went with his own money and the money from his own private charity. When Rep Gohmert and Sen Cruz went to the border, they went because it is their home state which is being overrun invaded. How many of them took your money to support their efforts? Dare I say NONE of them? Why do you believe you have the right to criticize what they choose to do with their own time and money? That's not conservatism that's progressivism.

If you choose to support conservatism by standing on an overpass with a sign, then by all means, do so. But realize that there is a need for conservatives who are willing to fight the battles on the ground, and let them do it. Because if they don't, recognize that your posterboard and sharpie fund will be next on the block when the government takes over the charity for us.

Oh, and I almost forgot: #amnestysandwiches

Dear President Obama: Stop it.

Mr. President,

This past week, in defense of a questionable (ok, mind-bogglingly illegal) prisoner transfer, you mentioned the letters you get from military parents asking you to make sure their children are safe. While I doubt the veracity of that claim - I know quite a few military parents, and they generally have more faith in their soldiers than in their politicians - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I am a former soldier. I am the daughter of a soldier (Operation Enduring Freedom), the niece of a soldier (Vietnam), and the granddaughter of soldiers (World War II). I am also a parent of children who are too young yet to be soldiers. But I do feel that there are a few things I must ask of you, since you are clearly taking requests.

In reality, it all boils down to one simple thing: please stop helping me.

Please stop helping me get "better healthcare." In the four years since I left the military, I have paid out of pocket for all of my family's healthcare needs. Under your new healthcare plan, I will pay more in premiums over the course of one year than I paid in the last four years with no insurance at all - and that's before I even get started chipping away at the deductible.

Please stop helping my kids get a "better education." I don't care if you do think that Che Guevera was a hero, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and that the Warren Court didn't go far enough. I prefer my history straight and unencumbered by the baggage of  a political agenda. While you're at it, please stop helping with higher education as well.

Please stop helping my kids get "better nutrition." I realize this is more your wife's doing than yours, but since I've already started, I might as well keep going. I may not be a nutritionist (but unless I am mistaken, neither is the First Lady) but since the dawn of man, mothers have successfully nourished children without the "benefit" of government mandate. I intend to continue that tradition, thanks.

Please stop trying to keep my children safe. If your method - banning all guns - worked, then a petite woman like myself would not be taking a risk walking through downtown Chicago at night. Since that is not the case, I think I would prefer to retain the right and ability to defend myself - with firearms if necessary.

But most importantly, please stop interfering in the lives and careers of our men and women in uniform. Stop pretending that you care about them beyond their potential to be your political props. Stop meddling in affairs that are better handled by people who have the training and ability to organize something more tactical than political rallies and bake sales. I'm sorry. Healthy snack sales.

Thank you for your consideration. I expect you will give these matters the attention they deserve once you finish covering your ass. Good luck with that, by the way.

What it means to be a veteran.

“I am an American soldier. I am a warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army values. I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade. I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in all my warrior tasks and drills. I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. I am an American soldier.”

When I went through training in 1999, that was a thing. The soldier’s creed. We knew it by heart inside of the first week. And when I say we knew it “by heart,” I don’t mean we had it memorized – although we did. I mean we knew it, we understood what it meant, and our actions backed it up. We lived the Army values. Loyalty. Duty. Respect. Selfless service. Honor. Integrity. Personal courage.

We stayed up past lights out making sure that our boots were shined (this was back in the days of black boots). We helped each other with extra sit-ups and push-ups to boost our platoon PT scores. We policed our own. “Code Reds” were not as drastic or dangerous as they were in “A Few Good Men,” but they happened. When your battle buddy got dropped, you got down next to him and took the same punishment.

Today’s soldiers have been exposed to what the Army calls “low stress training.” And they’re losing their minds in war zones because they have been coddled and cajoled through training.

Every day in training drill sergeants told us about the enemy. “They want you dead,” they told us. “They want your families dead. They want your friends dead. They will march their victory parade through your blood before it is dried from the streets.”

Today’s soldiers get lessons that include the Founding Fathers and participants at the Boston Tea Party as examples of terrorists and extremists.

And when they come home, the landscape has changed as well. When I left the Army for the first time in 2004 (I went back in 2005), I went looking for a job in retail. The interviewing manager found out I was a veteran. He told me that there were two other girls who had applied for the same position, and neither of them had served. He then said that if he knew nothing else about us, that would be enough. He stopped the interview then and offered me the job. Being a veteran used to mean something. It was like being an Eagle Scout. When employers found out that you had spent time in the military, they knew something about you. They knew your work ethic and your willingness to work as part of a team or lead one, whichever the situation called demanded. They knew your values and your convictions, and how you would perform under stress.

But today, as evidenced by National Guard Specialist Kayla Reyes’ experience with an interviewing manager at Macy’s, being a veteran can be a liability. Why is it that the public views soldiers in such a different light? Personally, I blame Jane Fonda. Well, not her alone, but the people like her who bought into the propaganda and misinformation regarding American soldiers at war – particularly in places like Vietnam. I blame the 9/11 truthers who blame terrorist actions on Americans protecting access to resources. I blame the Ron Paul/Henry Wallace isolationists who try to convince people that power-hungry authorities like Stalin and Putin only attempt to grab for power because America involves itself in alliances and treaties. And I blame the American people who know better and fail to say so.

When the manager at Macy’s learned that SPC Reyes had served in Afghanistan, she should have thanked her rather than questioning her ability to fit in. 

The Government Owns Your Kittens. Seriously.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, I am not going to say that the Arizona law that caused all the ruckus should or should not have been vetoed. I will say that John McCain's insistence on a veto makes me think the law at least held a modicum of merit, but that's another rabbit hole to jump down altogether.

But this is not the first time this subject has come to the forefront, and if recent history is any indication, it won't be the last. By "this subject" I mean the notion that business owners can be forced to provide services or goods. The media wants it to be about the First Amendment. The left wants it to be about First Amendment. And we are catering to them at every turn, arguing that the business owner has the right to free expression and exercise of religion. All that is true, but that's not all that is true.

So let me ask you this: Do you own anything? Do you own a house? A car? A piece of furniture? A cat? Imagine for a minute that you do own a cat, and that cat has kittens. You take those kittens in a basket to a local park and post a sign that says, "Free kittens, but only if you aren't a ginger." Yeah, I know, that's stupid. It's bigoted. (It also made me giggle.) But that's not the point.

Should the government be allowed to force you to give your kittens to a ginger? And if the government can force you to give your kittens to a ginger - or anyone else - against your will, were those kittens ever really yours? Or did they belong to the government, with you simply acting as the middleman?

Now imagine you own a business. Everything you produce or sell is your individual property unless and until you choose to sell it. If the government can force you to sell it at a time or to a person that is not of your choosing, how can that property truly be yours? If your right to own and control your personal property IS NOT ABSOLUTE, then you DON'T OWN IT AT ALL. 

But they're not really criticizing you. They're criticizing liberty.

Sneaky, isn't it, the way they tell you it's bigotry if you don't give your liberty away? The way they try to tell you that your religious freedom doesn't trump someone else's civil rights. (By the way, it does - go check out which one is enumerated in the Constitution and get back to me if you don't believe me.) The way they tell you that you're small-minded and hateful if you don't believe in the agenda they happen to be championing.

They don't like liberty because it's dirty. It's offensive. It's crude, loud, obnoxious, and frankly, dangerous. Because when people have liberty, they often use it to do things that you don't like. They say things that offend you. They choose not to cater weddings that you believe should happen. And (merciful heavens, no) they take the Constitution at its literal word when they go about protecting their homes and their families. 

But the tricky thing about liberty is that if you remove the dirt and the danger, it CEASES TO BE. 

For people to be free, they MUST retain the freedom to offend others. For people to have liberty, they MUST have the liberty to defend themselves, violently if necessary. For business owners to have the same freedom as the gay couple who can choose whether or not to patronize their establishment, they must have the freedom to turn down business from ANYONE at ANY TIME.

To Rage or Not to Rage

So. That pesky Coca-Cola ad. Was it beautiful? Was it outrageous? Was it only the racist and bigoted who found it offensive? Was the offense manufactured?

I didn't have much of a reaction to it myself. Granted, I didn't even see it until I googled it after the Super Bowl was over - mostly to see what all the fuss was about. And to tell the truth, after the hype generated and the outrage claimed, I felt that it was a little anti-climactic. Maybe that's just because, having cut our cable in 2009, I just don't have the exposure to commercials that I used to have. But then again...

Maybe it's because I haven't spent 5-10 years and most of my savings in an effort to become an American through proper channels.

Maybe it's because I am so very many generations removed from, "Son, we are Americans. We speak American now," spoken haltingly, but with immeasurable pride.

Maybe it's because I don't live in one of the growing number of American cities that are in real danger of a "press 2 for English" situation.

Maybe it's because I watched it without connecting it to the fact that we are about to be force-fed amnesty, and without thinking about the fact that the war begins in culture. Yeah, that's right: the war begins in...commercials. Was Coca-Cola soft-selling amnesty packaged as patriotism+diversity? Maybe. I didn't make that connection while I was watching it, but I bet someone out there did.

So I personally wasn't outraged. There are so many other things currently happening that are deserving of outrage that frankly, I didn't have time to add Coca-Cola to the list. But I'm not willing to dismiss the validity of the outrage felt by others. Yes, in the end we choose what outrages us. But there are occasions when outrage is a valid choice.

No Favors Here

At first glance, this is amusing. As women, we like to think that we are the absolute end, the bees knees, etc. We revel in the notion that we don't need men to give us worth (which is true), and the idea that we give them worth (not true) is extremely attractive. Statements like this one allow us to feel that we are simply giving our role the importance society denies us, but in reality it opens the door for us to overestimate our own traditional roles at the expense of the equally important roles that the men in our lives play.

So I call BS. The man who asks for a woman's hand in marriage is absolutely, unequivocally, without a shred of doubt doing that woman a favor. Why? Because, in a society where women are almost expected to do most of those things for free, the man who asks is making the following promises:

I will give you my name, because when people see me I want them to see you as well. 

When you get fat, I will still love you. I will not stop loving you if you retain water or develop cankles.

When you bear my children, I will not just give them my name. I will also give them my love, my Saturday mornings, and my help with their homework. And if they are girls, I'll buy a shot gun the day they are born.

When you lay down with me, I will respect you in the morning. And every morning for the rest of my life.

So I ask you ladies out there to please STOP. Stop treating your husbands like you have done them a favor by saying yes. No one did anyone any favors. You made a deal, witnessed by family and friends. You entered into a covenant ordained by God, an equal partnership. Stop treating them like they owe you something more than their love, commitment, and respect - and take the time to remember that you promised them those same things.

 

 

 

 

 

Dana Loesch on The View

When The View was first announced, I thought it was an interesting concept. I have always been a fan of spirited, rational debate. I am also a firm, sometimes forceful, advocate for free speech. I don't mind people who disagree with me - in fact, I believe that I learn the most when challenged. However, once The View rolled out it became clear that the "multiple perspectives" they had advertised were generally varying shades of liberal. So I stopped watching.

Several years passed. Enough years that when The View was mentioned in my Twitter feed this evening, it took me a few minutes to realize that "Babs" was in reference to Barbara Walters and not Barbara Streisand.

But I will be watching this Monday, and so should you. Why? Because after years of monochromatic gossip, The View is finally taking steps in the direction of its original premise: to give a voice to all perspectives. This Monday, my friend Dana Loesch will be sitting at that table. Finally The View has brought in someone who can represent home-schoolers, pro-lifers, and defenders of our Constitution and the God-given rights it protects. 

Join me in giving ABC a bump in ratings this Monday - a reward for taking this small step in the right direction.

Yes, it Matters That Chloe Stirling is 11

By now you have probably all heard of Chloe Stirling, the 11 year old girl whose booming home cupcake business was shut down by the state of Illinois. Why? Because they stated that her home failed to meet the sanitation standards required of a "professional kitchen" by Illinois law.

Social media responses were all over the map. Many felt bad for a little girl just trying to make a little of her own money and felt that the government was overstepping. Some (and these are the ones who concern me) felt that the government was well within its purview to step in, stating that "the requirements are the same for anyone who wants to sell food items - why should they bend the law for her just because she happens to be 11 years old instead of, say, 30?" They suggested that she rent space in a professional kitchen, since that can be cheap and easy. Right.

Have you ever tried to enter into a legal contract - rental or otherwise - at age 11? It's surprisingly less easy than you might think. It's no picnic for the business offering the lease either, since most business insurance plans refuse to cover anyone who is not actually employed by the business. Have you ever tried, as a business owner, to hire an 11 year old? Also surprisingly less easy than you might think. Those child labor laws sure are a constant annoyance, aren't they?

So you rent to her parents and have them sign a waiver, right? Wrong. The insurance company still will not cover anything. Because of the way child labor laws are written, even with a full-disclosure waiver of liability signed by her parents in the blood of their firstborn and notarized by the Angel Gabriel, the parents still have full rights to sue the business if anything happens to her while she is on the premises. Not only that, but the business also assumes responsibility for the child's product - meaning that if something were to go wrong with the cupcakes, the customer would be able to take legal action against the business instead of just the girl baking the cupcakes.

And here's the kicker: the "sanitation standard" she likely failed to meet was a three step sink. Most houses don't have them, and they are expensive to install. But I'll do you one better - many counties within the state of Illinois routinely grant temporary food sales permits to groups and businesses for events like an outdoor chili cook-off. They meet the "three step sink" requirement by placing three buckets full of water on the ground in the vicinity of the heat source. Any guesses as to how Chloe Stirling's home kitchen (lack of three water buckets notwithstanding) stacks up next to these guys in terms of sanitation?

The real problem here is not that the government regulates sanitation standards in food service (although it absolutely is a concern). The real problem here hinges on the fact that they go out of their way to halt the business efforts of children. (Lemonade stands are being shut down. Girl Scouts are being told that they can't sell cookies in their own front yards.) And yes, it does make a difference that she is 11 and not 30. Here's why: if you tell a child she can't do something enough times, by the time she is an adult she will STOP TRYING. You'd be surprised at how easy it is to discourage even the brightest of children. My uncle, for example, was five years old when he started learning algebra. Bored in church, he would copy problems from his brother (then in high school) and work them out on his own. But if you asked him if he was smart, he would say no - his siblings had called him "stupid" so many times that he actually believed it was true.

What happens when you beat the entrepreneurial spirit out of your children? You have a populace that accepts victimhood as inevitable and sits docile as the government takes over more and more of their liberties and their lives.

Wendy Davis, Split Personality: Feminist Icon and Victim of Sexism

Politico posted an article naming Wendy Davis the "most judged woman in America." Predictably, Conservatives everywhere nearly imploded. Though I believe that most days Sarah Palin would beg to differ, I believe that Wendy Davis has indeed found herself under increased scrutiny in the past few weeks. I also happen to believe that she deserved it.

Politico "reporter" Liza Mundy speaks of a world that accepts the antics of a narcissistic male divorcee in politics but then nails a woman in the same position because of sexism. That explains the Jon Edwards Presidency, I guess. Wait, what? You mean Edwards basically got laughed out of politics when he cheated on his wife while she suffered from cancer and lied about fathering a child with his mistress? Where were the cries of "sexism?" Why did no one talk about the bias against men who use their wives to get ahead in politics and then leave them when they cease to be of help?

The article then goes into a tailspin attempting to explain why Wendy Davis should not be judged based on her actions because she's a woman, and society still looks down on women because sexism. So, Liza, you want us to "judge" Wendy Davis based on her gender rather than her actions? I'm not sure you and the rest of America are working with the same definition of the term "sexism."

But here is what I find *really* interesting: Wendy Davis is held up by the left as a feminist hero -she's the lady who rocked pink trainers while she spoke for hours on the vital importance of being free to kill our children in clinics that fail to pass basic safety and sanitation inspections. And the instant she comes under fire for lying to her constituents, she claims that it's because of sexism. (Make no mistake - we are not criticizing her for taking money for school from her ex husband. We are not criticizing her for choosing career over family. We are simply asking that she not marginalize working single mothers and fathers by dishonestly coopting their hardships for her political gain.)

On behalf of Liza Mundy, Ms. Davis, I have to ask that you make up your mind. Wendy, are you a strong woman who pulled herself up from the bottom? Or are you being held down by a male-dominated society? You can't be both, and you're confusing people like Ms. Mundy.

This Just In - People Join the Army for the Good Workout Program...

I'll admit, I was quite tempted to simply let this picture speak for itself. It says a lot about the girl who posted it, after all. But I have something to say to her:

First, Alexia, do you plan to go to medical school? If you do, I would suggest that you spend some time learning punctuation. You may think a missed apostrophe or a misplaced comma or period is no big deal, but when doctors do that, people die. You don't need to be trained to shoot a big gun in order to kill someone, after all.

Second, you talk about the "selfish reasons" that people join the military. I personally joined the military so that I could be on call 24/7/365, have no time to take advantage of the free education, and miss out on the first words and first steps of two of my children. I was hoping when I signed up to "work out for a summer" that I might end up with a job that likely contributed to the dissolution of my first marriage. The thought that there was a 3% I might get shot at was just a bonus.

And third, let me go ahead and blow your mind: when I joined the Army, they did train me to shoot several guns, some of them big. (I particularly enjoyed firing the AT-4 grenade launcher, but that's another story altogether.) But after I finished "working out" and "learning to shoot big guns," I went to school. The Army trained me to be a combat medic and an x-ray/CT/MRI technician. So wait, you mean those soldiers you just disrespected for not knowing how to save a life are trained to do just that? Absolutely. And I'll do you one better: even in a time of war, those same soldiers are trained to patch up enemy soldiers who are injured while trying to kill them. And I don't know about you, but where I come from, a man who helps to save the life of his own would-be murderer IS a hero - not a pussy in a superhero costume.

As for the death rate in Chicago - we could fix that simply by teaching more people how to shoot big guns and allowing legal access to them. But I digress.

I Don't Fit in, and I'm Not Sorry

I was  definitely born in the wrong era. I should have been born either forty years earlier or ten years later. Why? I can explain.

Most people born in the late seventies, as I was, were raised in a culture in which going off to college immediately following high school was the norm. So that's what I did. I finished high school, and then I went immediately to college. However, like many 17-18 year olds, I had no clue what I wanted to do with my life. Had I continued to conform at that point, I would have chosen a generic major like "liberal arts" or "women's studies" or "economic equality in third world nations." My degree would have qualified me for exactly two things: flash-frying frozen potatoes, or a life in academia. And given the quality of public secondary education these days, those professions are far more similar than you might think.

But despite being raised with the first generation to truly understand just how much our parents are to blame for our shortcomings, somehow I was brainwashed into the unevolved and unliberated notion that my future was my responsibility. So when others in my class either left school to work retail or struggled through classes they hated for a degree they couldn't use, I signed a contract with the United States Army. And even there I saw the effects of the "blame everyone else" generation. Soldiers, once revered as being made of stronger stuff, were sitting down during ruck marches because "they were tired and their feet hurt." I remember the shocked look on my Drill Sergeant's face when, after a wicked ankle sprain, I got up and finished a run. Kids (and at 20, yes, I was still a kid) were not expected to overcome adversity without blaming someone else, or at least complaining about it. Confession: there was a lot of prayer and a few choice words that went into my getting up and running after that fall.

Flash forward fourteen years, and I am now nearing graduation. After ten years in the Army and the growth of my family, I am finally earning degrees in subjects that interest me and that I can use: political science and history. Both give me an invaluable background upon which to draw in my forays into local grassroots politics.

But I still say that I should have been born forty years earlier or ten years later. Forty years ago, the hard work I was raised to do would have been appreciated or at least accepted as the norm. My choice to raise a family despite having a post-secondary education would not be judged a waste by hipsters with relevancy issues. And my children wouldn't be labeled extremists simply because they were homeschooled and there were more than 1.9 of them.

The ten years later thing was more because it would have been easier on me. I could have simply showed up to class, never taken a test or done a single assignment, and been given a 60% in the class. (Yes, there are schools - public schools - that are now implementing this regulation.) I could have gotten a degree without earning it. I could have popped out a few kids without getting married and had my life financed in full by the suckers who go out and work for a living. I could have let the public school system raise my kids, and even though they would have grown up thinking that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism and Che was a misunderstood hero, I would have had the time to blog every day - but I would have had to write about things I didn't understand.

Excuse me, but I like it better this way. I don't fit in, and I'm not sorry.

Dear Amy Glass, yeah, you in the hipster loft with the ripped denim...

This letter was written in response to an article that attempted to shame homemakers into climbing mountains. Or becoming doctors. Or something.

Dear Amy Glass,
Or perhaps I should say, "Dear emo photo of the view from your hipster loft with an intentionally nonchalant (would that be "chalant"? I'm never sure.) peak at your strategically ripped denim,"

You speak of feminism and empowering women like those are terms you are capable of understanding. You talk down to women who have you beat in terms of life experience, some in terms of education, and most probably in terms of happiness as well. You claim to have the answer that all women are looking for in regards to their ultimate fulfillment and contentment, but if that's the case, let me be the first to inform you that your delivery sucks. Out loud.

First you say that feminism is not about embracing choice for women. Let me ask Elizabeth Cady Stanton, champion of women's suffrage and political empowerment, what she has to say about that. Or I could just Google her life story and learn that, after working tirelessly for women's rights, she CHOSE to marry and have children because that was what fulfilled her.

Second, you talk about "placating the mommy bloggers." Newsflash: the only placating mommy bloggers care about involves that which calms the teething infant. Most of us are too busy being mommies and bloggers to give two rips what you think of our life choices. And most of us have children still in diapers who are more respectful toward other human beings than you have shown yourself to be.

Third, you claim that getting married and having a family is an "average" thing to do. Anyone can do these things. I would first like to ask what your credentials are that you feel qualified to judge the worth of another human being? I'd also like to point out something else that is "average": sitting behind your computer and ridiculing anyone who exemplifies that with which you disagree. What is above average is taking the time and energy to understand those who choose to live differently than you do. Incidentally, these things you claim "anyone" can do - um, men can't. You are taking the one physical act that ONLY a woman can do, and telling her that she betrays the whole of womankind (I'm sorry, should that be "womynkind"?) if she chooses to do it.

What message are you trying to send? Are you trying to convince us that you hate women? Because reading between the lines leads one to believe that what's wrong with women is that we're not enough like men. That sentiment is far from empowering - in fact, it's enslaving us to a standard that leaves no room for growth and no potential to capitalize on our own individuality.

What I find exceptionally amusing is that, based on this article and others you have written (I took that bullet so that the rest of you won't have to - you're welcome.), I would have to guess that you have a problem with "slut-shaming." You know, the idea of telling a woman who is - for lack of a better term - indiscriminate with her liaisons that her morality is questionable at best. Because only a bigot would care what another woman chooses to do with her private life, right? But bigotry is bigotry - and looking down on someone simply for choosing vanilla (marriage and kids) when you like chocolate (the single life) is exactly that.

Sincerely,
An apparently unfulfilled woman who has spent ten years in the military, delivered five babies, been published nationally, and is an absolute fiend in the kitchen, and is four months from two bachelor's degrees.

An Open Letter to Wendy Davis

Dear Wendy,

May I call you Wendy? The familiarity with which you address topics like being a struggling single mother made me feel like I could address you in a familiar fashion as well. Forgive me if that was not your intent.

I have a few concerns about the way you have represented yourself, specifically the way you have reframed and edited your life story for public consumption in your bid for the Governor's office. You spoke of the struggle of a single parent, working hard to feed and clothe children. You spoke of the anguish of divorce and the desire to shield your children from public scrutiny. On the surface, all of those things seem to ring true. But as is often the case with those in public office, once the surface is scratched, the picture begins to change. In regard to that emerging picture, I would like to clarify a few things for you:

First, allowing the other parent custody because "you aren't in a good place to take care of children" (even though you can apparently afford to pay $1200 monthly in child support) is not the same as "struggling as a single parent to make ends meet." Struggling to make ends meet is walking your children to the babysitter and then walking to work because the minute you filed for divorce your ex husband stopped payment on your car and had it repossessed. Struggling is knowing that your 18 month old knows her babysitter better than she knows you because in the Army, you're on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Struggling is knowing that no matter how many hours you work, you will never have one minute of real relaxation because there is no break in transition from work to taking care of children. Struggling is being thankful that childcare is only costing half the money you make each month, so that even if you know there is no car and no savings in your future, you also know that you can feed your kids every day. Struggling is knowing that your ex husband is happy to refuse to see the kids in order to punish you, when in reality they are the ones who cry over every broken promise and every cancelled weekend.

Second, claiming the "anguish of divorce" loses credibility when the divorce comes as a result of your own infidelity and on the heels of your husband paying off your law school debt. If you wanted to shield your children from pain and public scrutiny, you should have protected them by not acting stupidly. It's an interesting parallel, considering your recently acquired nickname "abortion barbie," that you want other people to retroactively shield you and your children from the consequences of your actions - but if the irony is lost on you I wouldn't be terribly shocked. So let me tell you, in regards to divorce and protecting children, what anguish truly is. Anguish is weighing the effects of divorce against the effects of continuing to live with an emotionally abusive alcoholic. Anguish is knowing that no matter how many chances you give him to be a good man and a good father, he will always pay for his own habits before he takes care of his children. Anguish is watching your son coming to the realization that he can never look to his own father to be an example or a source of financial support. Anguish is watching your daughters struggle to find a male role model and knowing that they will have to look somewhere besides "Daddy."

I only spent one year in the Army as a single mom of four, and I know many who have had it far worse than I ever did. I had a very understanding Commander and good friends who were able to help me when I needed it. I had a babysitter who worked for half the going rate because her husband was Army too, and she knew exactly what I was getting paid. Many single women don't have that. And on behalf of those I know who did have it worse, I am outraged that you would claim some sort of solidarity, a part of that sisterhood, or even some moderate comprehension of what they go through every day.

Understand, I am not attempting to downplay the struggles you may have faced yourself. I get that giving up custody of your children is a difficult thing to do. But when you choose to do that and you can afford to then pay child support, do not then claim to understand the struggles of the women who every day wonder if they are going to have to skip a meal in order to make sure their kids have enough. Do not by your own actions and choices inflict damage on your own life and then attempt to draw attention to the fact that you survived it while demanding no one pay any attention to who it was that caused it. In short, tell people the truth. Then if they still don't like you, it will be their fault rather than yours.

You're welcome.

President Closes Normandy, GOP Shames its Memory

The minesweepers at Normandy Beach knew that they were all going to die. As they approached the shore, tearful and terrified, they knew that they would likely never see the men in those boats again, much less their families and friends back home. They didn't even have the luxury of sending a message home through a buddy that lived, because every last one of them expected to die on that beach. And what's more, they didn't have any guarantee that their deaths wouldn't be in vain and that Hitler wouldn't win despite their efforts.

So why did they do it? What inspired men to walk, even run into certain death? They did it because the mission mattered. They did it because country mattered. And they did it because they believed that the message they were sending was more important than their lives.

What message was that, you ask? That message was simple: the world will not sit idly by while a tyrant lives.

I thought about this notion quite a bit during the recent government shutdown. Why? Well, most of us who align with the Right agree that government is too big, too bloated, and needs to be drastically reduced. We agree that further extensions of the debt ceiling, if they are to be allowed at all, should be tempered with reductions in spending and reform of entitlement programs. We agree that the ACA is anything but affordable and should be repealed, dismantled, defunded, or taken out back and shot.

You would think, then, when people within the party stood up against these things they would have been cheered, yes? You would think that men of principle would be lauded for their backbone and courage, right?

No. People ON THEIR OWN SIDE lined up to throw them under the bus. Members of the GOP basically pulled up to Normandy in the rafts and either refused to get out or got halfway up the beach and turned back because "well, we knew it wasn't going to work anyway."

Well, guess what, guys? We'll never know if it would have worked. We'll never know because of you. And there's a pretty good chance that it could have worked, if you had had the stones to put country first. There's a pretty good chance that the President would have made himself look like more of an ass with each day the shutdown dragged on, because that's what narcissists do under pressure. The narrative got better for the proponents of small government every day the shutdown continued, and you guys sold it out for a $2 billion Kentucky kickback and the right to be called "cooperative" by the most dishonest and divisive President in American history.

And you know what's *awesome*? Some of you are the same ones who argued that the President should have sent help to Benghazi even if he didn't know for sure that it would arrive in time to make a difference.

Well, congratulations, guys. You made a difference. You sat down on your butts halfway up Normandy Beach and surrendered when the going got tough. I hope you give up as easily in the coming primaries. Pansies.

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

It appears that you don’t like to be challenged. And I understand that. Really. I am a parent, and I have spent time serving in the military. Having your authority challenged sucks. But good parents, good military leaders, and yes, even good Presidents, all have one thing in common: the ability to recognize failure and then to discontinue the actions that perpetuate it. Since you have surrounded yourself with an echo-chamber of yes-men and a complicit media, I can see how it would be difficult for you to see the failures with which your administration is wrought. And since you seem to have forgotten, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that I am still your boss. And as such, I do not like having my authority challenged.

I do not need you to tell me what kind of healthcare is best for my children. I am an autonomous, thinking human being who is capable of bearing the responsibilities that come with making my own choices. Whether I pay for insurance or pay up front for medical care is neither your choice nor is it your business. It is my responsibility, and I do not give it to you.

I do not need you to tell me how to best defend my home and my family. I assert my God-given and Second Amendment protected right to bear arms and to defend my home as I see fit. I assume the responsibility to train myself and my family to properly use any weapon I choose to keep in my home. I assume the responsibility to never do anything as stupid as firing a shotgun through my front door. That is my right, and I will not give it to you.

I do not need your wife to tell me what foods are best for my family. I do not need her to lecture me about salt content and how allowing restaurants to serve it is increasing obesity nationwide. I don’t need her to count calories for my children, should they ever be unfortunate enough to step foot in a public school in order to use anything other than the playground. You will not usurp my authority in regards to the bodies of my children.

On that note: I do not need you to educate my children. I prefer to teach history as it happened so that we can learn from our mistakes rather than attempting to legislate our mistakes out of existence. I prefer to teach “science” as what it is – a process by which pieces of the ultimate Truth can be discovered – rather than the truth by which one can measure all things. You will not usurp my authority in regards to the minds of my children.

I do not need you to teach my children tolerance. From family and the Bible, they will learn that loving people does not mean accepting all behaviors they exhibit. They will learn that disapproving of an action is not the same as hating a person or group of people. And they will stand for what is right when challenged instead of shouting obscenities at those who disagree. You will not usurp my authority in regards to the souls of my children.

The President of the United States has long been looked at as the most powerful man in the world. And before American Presidents started bowing to foreign dictators, erasing “red lines,” and apologizing us out of our position, perhaps that was true. But even back then, the President had to answer to the power from whence his was derived: the people. I am the people, Mr. President. I will not be silenced. I will not be subdued. And I will not stand for further usurpations of my power.

Who Needs Vocabulary When There are Choom-Gangs?

Dear Mr. President,
After today's press conference, I think I have finally figured out what our problem is. It all goes back to your college years - or possibly earlier. Your incorrect use of several key terms makes it clear that while you were experimenting with drugs and discussing Marxist theory, you missed a few essential vocabulary lessons. But don't worry, I can help you with that.

Today you said that you were "willing to negotiate," but only after Republicans give you everything you want.

You seem to be under the impression that "negotiate" means that you get to dictate and everyone else must capitulate, but that is not the case. "Negotiate" means you all sit together and each side makes concessions until an agreement is met. You don't have to like it. But you do have to do it.

You told the House of Representatives that they couldn't "pick and choose what to fund."

This is a little bit more complicated, so pay attention: the Constitution (I can get you a free copy if you need to brush up) gives the House of Representatives alone the power to appropriate funds. Colloquially, they have "the power of the purse." Which means that they get to decide how much money goes where, and they don't have to consult you or the Senate prior to doing so. Y'all are perfectly within your rights to throw a tantrum if you don't like their choices, but those choices are theirs all the same.

You also seem to have trouble with the word "fair," but I think that one may actually require its own dedicated lesson.

Don't thank me - I'm just glad I could help.

Government Mandated Broccoli

Broccoli is good for you. It provides nutrients, vitamins and fiber. It tastes great with sour cream dip. Without it, beef with broccoli is just beef. (which is also excellent, but not the same.)

People who eat broccoli (along with other vegetables) as part of a healthy diet are less likely to be obese or have weight related illnesses.

In order to promote a healthy society, the federal government should be allowed to mandate the purchase of broccoli (and other vegetables).

Does that sound right to you? If not, you are against the Affordable Care Act - because it is effectively the same thing. In fact, Justice Ginsburg used a similar argument to state her case for upholding the ACA when it was under review.

If that sounds ok, then I have another scenario for you:

Congress passes a law. They use a few parliamentary tricks to force it through, but at the end of the day it does pass.

The Supreme Court upholds the law, but only after they change a fundamental part of it - making it no longer the same law that Congress passed.

After the law leaves the Supreme Court, the President takes his red pen to it. He arbitrarily changes a few provisions, adjusts whom the law will affect, and exempts some of his friends from following the law at all.

Do you have a problem with that? 

If so, you just sided with the House Republicans.* Yeah, I said it. It is both their prerogative and their responsibility to prevent the President from unilaterally changing and unequally applying the law - even if you agree that it is the settled law of the land. Not that this should be a party issue at all at this point - Stopping further implementation of what amounts to a redistributive tax thinly veiled as "health insurance" should simply be about equal treatment and fairness. And this law, as it is currently being perverted and applied is (if possible) more unequal and more unfair than it was when it was written.

*Also, I'd like to clear up a little misconception: the Republicans did not decide to shut down the government. No one decided to shut down the government. There was no vote to shut down the government. What Republicans did was fund the entire government except for the ACA. The Senate voted down said funding - at least four times - and the President promised to veto those funding measures if they made it through the Senate.