GOP: You're Doing it Wrong

On Tuesday the New York Times posted a list of prominent Republicans who had signed a legal brief supporting gay marriage.

Just a quick heads up, GOP: you’re doing it wrong. How you personally feel about gay marriage is irrelevant. Whether you whole-heartedly support it, wish to participate in it yourself, or think it could be the downfall of American society is – believe it or not – completely irrelevant.

Why? Because you claim to be conservative. You say you support smaller government. You claim that the inalienable rights enumerated in the Constitution were given by God, not government, and that the Bill of Rights exists pretty much for the sole purpose of keeping the federal government off your lawn.

How exactly does this apply? Simple.

It’s not in the federal government’s job description to define marriage. The minute we allow them to define it, we give them the power to regulate it. And giving them any increase in power or size flies in the face of conservative principles.

But here’s the real controversy:

There is no such thing as gay rights vs. heterosexual rights. In a constitutional republic there are only citizens’ rights. And the reality is that your rights in the United States as they stand today, whether you are gay or straight, are the same.

As a heterosexual woman, I did not have the unfettered right to marry anyone I wanted. I had to find someone who was not a close blood relative, who was over a certain age, who was not married to someone else, and who was male. Yes, just like every lesbian in America, I was barred from marrying another woman. The fact that I did not WANT to marry another woman is completely irrelevant, as it has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on what my rights are.

So here’s your problem in a nutshell, GOP: if some of you push for legislating gay marriage into being, you’ll lose half of your base. If some of you push for legislating gay marriage out of being, you’ll lose half your base. So maybe you should do the conservative thing and push to get legislation out of marriage entirely. It’s the only position actually supported by the Constitution you claim to be representing.  

SIUE Thwarts Armed Robbers...With Text Warning System

This morning I was awakened by a text message at 2:30am. That isn't necessarily odd, as my husband is a baker and is occasionally (ok, more than occasionally) at work at that hour. But it wasn't my husband. It was the emergency text alert system from my school - Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

SIUE, like much of the state of Illinois, is a gun-free zone. It's not even legal to store a weapon on campus, which essentially means that aside from campus police, no one is armed. Which is awesome, because that means we're all totally safe.

Except the text message I received this morning suggested otherwise in a big way.

A little after 1am today, according to Fox News, two suspects robbed a 20 year old male student in Cougar Village (an SIUE apartment complex) at gunpoint. Only one of the suspects was armed, but surprisingly enough, when none of the victims are armed, one is generally enough to do the trick.

The questions running through my mind were simple enough:

How exactly does an armed robber get into a "gun-free zone"? Doesn't he set off an alarm of some sort? Aren't there automatic sensors for that kind of thing? And if there aren't, how can any politician claim that a "gun-free zone" is anything other than a euphemism for a "conveniently disarmed victim zone"?

Whatever the case, the words "gun free" don't make me feel any safer as I head to class less than 12 hours after receiving that message. A .38 Special tucked discreetly into my bag, however... 

The Demonization of Common Sense, the Criminalization of a Constitutional Right

So Republican Mike Leara had the stones to write a bill that makes it a Class D felony for Missouri State Legislators to propose legislation that outlaws the exercise of a Constitutional right.

So let me get this straight: the Constitution enumerates the natural right for man to defend himself against the ever-expanding oppressive control of government. The Constitution even says, very clearly, that said right “shall not be infringed.”

Now let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of the word “infringe”: to commit a breach or infraction of, to violate, to encroach upon. From the Latin infringere: to break or weaken.

All of that suggests that any alteration to the 2^nd Amendment, any encroachment, any attempt to break or weaken the enumerated right therein, constitutes infringement. Which means that any law written with the express purpose of limiting 2^nd Amendment rights is on its face unconstitutional.

What Missouri Democrats would like you to believe, however, is that their treasonous attempt to undermine your rights as outlined in the 2^nd Amendment is somehow less newsworthy than the efforts of the guy who suggests that it might be criminal for an elected official to pervert and infringe the constitution to further a political narrative.

A quick review:

Republican Mike Leara says it should be a crime for legislators to violate the Constitution.

Missouri Democrats say it should be a crime for citizens to exercise a Constitutional right.

And we're supposed to believe that the Democrats are on the right side of this one?

The GOP That Rove Built

Everyone is talking about Karl Rove today. Which, incidentally, is exactly how Karl Rove likes it. The source of all the current angst is Rove’s new initiative, the Conservative Victory Project. The goal of the project is to weed out candidates from GOP primaries that are seen - by Rove and his group of high stakes donors – as too flawed to be electable in a general election.

It seems like a reasonable goal, right? To help the GOP find candidates who have a hope of winning? The problem is that what Rove advocates flies in the face of Conservative ideals. He’s essentially placing himself and his cohorts in a position to pick winners and losers without the help (or even the input) of the actual voters whose lives will be affected by the outcomes of the elections with which he meddles. But wait, didn’t conservatives HATE it when Obama picked Solyndra and the other green energy companies that went belly up? Didn’t we HATE it when our money was used to bail out GM and others? Why on earth would we allow someone within our own party to engineer elections when we don’t tolerate the engineering of corporate America?

There are those who defend Rove, saying that he is a brilliant analyst. I’m not going to argue with that. They say that over the last decade or so he has built the GOP. I’m not going to argue with that either. He is definitely one of the major architects of the GOP as we know it today. But the GOP that he built is hardly something worth defending. He built the GOP that gave us a Republican congress that outspent prior Democrat congresses. He built the GOP that gave us TARP, No Child Left Behind, and those idiotic light bulbs that we now know might cause cancer if you, you know, turn them on and stuff. He built the GOP that gave us McCain and Romney because they were “electable.” In other words, he built the GOP that laid out the red carpet for the Democrat landslide in 2008. When he was given the chance to make up for it, instead of helping the conservative resurgence in 2010 he fought against it – a move that probably helped Democrats keep the Senate and the White House in 2012.

The reality is that Rove is an elitist. He wants a class of political elites, and he wants desperately to be their puppetmaster. And he has done a very good job of convincing Americans – even some conservatives – that his class of political elites is somehow better than their Democrat alter egos. He has convinced them that the letter “R” next to the name matters more than principles of the candidate and that he is more qualified than any common voter to pass judgment on the electability of any given candidate.

In simpler terms, Rove fancies himself a kingmaker. The problem is that he posits to claim the title of kingmaker in a nation that set itself apart 237 years ago by throwing off the notion of monarchy. That in itself would be bad enough, but when you consider that the only king thus far that has been “made” by a man who claims his goal is to advance conservatism is President Barack Obama, it is clear that we have a problem. And that problem is Karl Rove.

Panetta Hamstrings Armed Forces On His Way Out

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced today that the ban on women in combat jobs was going to be lifted. As a ten year Army veteran, I was left dismayed and a little bit puzzled. What practical purpose does it serve? Do we really think that having women on the front lines will give us an edge that we did not have before? It seems to me that allowing women into combat jobs does not offer any benefit outside of the realm of politics, and the risks and unknowns with which it may hamper mission success far outweigh any political gains.

It is my personal opinion that if Secretary Panetta truly felt that having women in combat would benefit our Armed Forces in any way, he would have lifted he ban near the start of his tenure. Instead, he does it on his way out the door - which suggests rather that it is a political parting gift to a President whose ultimate goal seems to be a weaker military. (A goal that is directly reinforced by the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary Panetta's replacement.)

And let's take just a second to be realistic: men who are captured will be tortured and/or killed. What do you think is likely to happen to women? What about the rescue teams who know they're going in after a woman? What stupid actions might otherwise professional soldiers take if they see a female being captured and know what will likely happen to her? What if that woman is "involved" with one of the men who sees her get taken?

I could go on citing statistics and studies that discuss gender differences - both physical and psychological - in high stress situations, but I don't think they really address the heart of the issue. The fact is that there are women who CAN handle the stress and rigors of combat. And just as true is the opposite: there are men who CANNOT. But the real issue is this: do we want a military that is first and foremost a formidable fighting force or one that is first and foremost dedicated to enforced equality? We can't have both.

The military is strong in part because it is the most discriminatory workplace in the nation. You can be kept out, fired, or barred from promotion simply for being too tall, too short, too thin, too fat, too sick, too injured,too stupid, and the list goes on. Every move it has made in the direction of political correctness has been a move away from strength.


From the very first day that women were allowed to serve in the military, they have been held to a lower standard than the men who held the same positions. Even as far back as WWII, by regulation the bench seats in standard transport trucks were designated to hold eight men. The same regulation stated that only seven women would fit on the same bench seat, in an effort to ensure that female Marines were given enough space to remain comfortable during transport. Today's Army physical training tests require much higher standards of men than of women - men are required to run faster and do more push ups than women who have the same MOS (military operational specialty).

Every time a job is opened to women in the military, instead of demanding that the women meet the same standards set by the men, they create a new (nearly always lower) standard for the women. As more and more women qualify for jobs based on these lowered standards, the efficiency and overall performance of the unit as a whole is decreased. To add close combat jobs to that list is asking for an Army that cannot help but be weakened as the standards for such jobs are lowered in the name of "equality."

That's not to say there is no place for women in the military. I am a woman and I spent ten years in the Army, most of that as an x-ray/CT tech. And most of the best medics and nurses I met and worked with were women.

To most, my position on this issue may seem sexist. And maybe it is. But the necessarily lowered standards that would allow women into combat jobs remind me a bit of General Shinseki's uniform changes back in 2001. He ordered that starting on June 14, 2001, all soldiers would wear the black beret with their duty uniforms instead of the standard PC (patrol cap). Sure the black beret looked a little bit dressier, but served absolutely no practical purpose. Those of us who had to wear it constantly complained that it didn't block sun, rain, or wind from the face. It didn't stay on very well, especially if it was windy. And it was harder to keep in presentable condition once it had been exposed to the elements. But the people who truly deserved to complain were the ones who had been through hell in Army Ranger training to earn that same black beret.

Just as the accomplishments of the Rangers who had sacrificed blood, sweat and tears to earn those black berets were marginalized by an Army of unqualified soldiers being handed them simply for existing, the accomplishments of the men who meet the more strenuous "male" requirements for any job in the military are minimized and mocked by the women who can do in some cases half the work and then demand not only the same job, but equal pay and an equal chance at promotion and recognition.

Roe? Privacy? Not so much.

Today marks the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest travesties of law yet seen by the United States Supreme Court: Roe v. Wade.

I don't call it a travesty because I disagree with the concept of an unwritten but implied right to privacy - in fact, the context and the text of the entire Bill of Rights suggests exactly that. When you combine the 4th Amendment (a right to keep your home and property private in regards to unwarranted search and seizure) and the 5th Amendment (a right to keep information private, especially in regards to confidences that may incriminate you), it's clear that the founders believed that some things were to remain private. Add in the 9th and 10th Amendments that allude to "other rights" that belong to both the sovereign states and the individual citizens that are not specifically enumerated, and the concept of an absolute "right to privacy," especially within one's home or marriage relationship, is hardly a stretch.

But Roe has very little to do with privacy.

First, the entire case was predicated on lies. Both of the women whose cases were conjoined when they were heard by the Supreme Court, claimed falsely that they had been raped. Both of those women now regret that they were ever a part of the court case that made them famous. Both of those women routinely speak at pro-life events to this day.

Second, the case hides behind the "right to privacy" while creating a singular lack of privacy. A woman's "right" to keep her reproductive choices (which is not at all what Roe guarantees, but I'll get to that) is theoretically at issue - but in order for her to enact her choices, she must include at least one doctor, counselor, receptionist, and presumably her partner as well.

But now, let's talk about what Roe really decided. The way the law was written makes it abundantly clear that "a woman's right to choose" was not at all what the Justices had in mind. The law clearly states that, since the mother's health is the only justifiable reason for terminating an otherwise healthy pregnancy, the decision to terminate is one that should be made by a physician - and the law further stipulates that the opinion of two physicians rather than one is preferable.

So according to Roe, a "woman's choice" is always secondary to the official recommendation of a physician.

Next, if you read the language of Roe, it is also clear that the Justices never intended that decision to justify abortions outside of the first trimester. Prior to the twelfth week of pregnancy, the woman is referred to as simply "the woman." In every reference made after the twelfth week, she is instead referred to as "the mother."

A final thought, quoted from my own post in February of last year:

Now consider this: if a baby is born at twenty-eight weeks gestation and the mother asks to have him killed, she will likely be placed in the psych ward. If that same baby is carried to term and the mother opts to abort two weeks prior to the due date, in some states she can even get financial assistance to do so. What is the difference between the two babies? Physical location at the time of the act.

If you read up on current literature and arguments being put forth, very few people actually argue whether or not the unborn is a child. *They don't care.* Many of them argue that whether or not the baby is alive is irrelevant because the Supreme Court gives them the "right" to abort *in spite of* the personhood of their child. In much the same way slave owners felt they could beat or kill their “property,” abortion advocates feel their “privacy" allows them to use the unborn's physical location as a justification for free reign to murder.

Consider the images you see above. An unborn child at 20 weeks has fully formed facial features, genitalia, fingers and toes. She has fully functioning stomach, kidneys and bladder, and has had a beating heart for months. She can suck her thumb, somersault, kick, and grab. The movement of her fingers through her liquid environment is forming the unique ridges on each of her fingertips that will become fingerprints, in the same way that a long bath forms wrinkles in human skin after birth.

And for 40 years now, in the United States of America, it has been legal for the woman carrying her to kill her - sometimes for reasons as trivial as "convenience."

Why We Have to STOP Eating Liberals for Breakfast

Every day when I log in to Facebook or Twitter, I see that someone has posted another hundred or so memes (and there are probably more that I don't see) that make fun of liberal thinking. And why not? It's easy. It's entertaining. Best of all, it's usually fairly accurate. But the main thing is, it's a part of the culture war in which we all absolutely need to be engaged.

But we can't spend our days just making fun of liberals and laughing about it. We can't allow ourselves to believe that in creating yet another condescending Wonka we have done our part. Why not? Because ridicule alone does not work. If it did, America would not have elected a mom-jeans wearing, dope smoking, petulant narcissist who campaigned in 57 states, pitches like a girl, and ate a dog. Seriously.

We need to be paying attention. We need to rip off the band-aids. We need to demand that the curtain be pulled back. We need to be relentless in our quest to expose the man who passes himself off as the wizard at the controls.

And sometimes that means that instead of creating one more comparison that shows the laughably arbitrary differences between the "military style assault rifle" that is now illegal in New York with the perfectly legal rifle that differs only in aesthetics, we should be calling our Senators en masse to demand proper vetting of the most recent Presidential appointments.

Sometimes it means that instead of tweeting "I eat liberals for breakfast," we should be tweeting local newspapers and television personalities to expose the agendas splashed all over their pages and airwaves.

Sometimes it means that instead of allowing yourself to be drawn into yet another pointless battle of wits on the social media site of your choice, you should be teaching your children what liberty means and why it is important enough to inspire men to die to keep it alive.

But mostly it means that you must remember that although humor can be an effective tool, it cannot be effective alone. So keep reminding the public that hiding behind children is a tool used most often by dictators and Al Qaeda operatives. Keep pointing out the fact that Joe Biden can't open his mouth without providing conservatives with a week's worth of jokes. Talk some more about the President's disregard for our economic struggles while he putts through yet another $1 million plus vacation. But make sure you're not doing that at the expense of phone calls, emails, letters, and even personal visits to your state and federal representatives. Make sure that you're not giving the local news a pass while you rush to defend conservatism against some jerk on Facebook. And above all: make sure you educate yourself on every topic you plan to attack - because even humor fails if the underlying facts are weak.