Monday, April 23, 2012

My Problem With Libertarians

I'm a conservative. You can even see that from my blog description. What you don't see in that little blurb is that I am a firm believer in Reagan's three-legged stool: free enterprise, strong national defense, and pro-family social policy. These three "legs" represent three factions of the Republican party: The fiscal conservatives, the war hawks, and the social conservatives. I'm somewhat of a minority in that I belong to all three groups. However, the GOP tent is usually big enough to accommodate all three factions comfortably.

Until recently, when the Libertarians started telling the war hawks and the social conservatives to shut up.

Now, I often mentally make a distinction between the two types of libertarians, so let me clarify. Small-l libertarians are the ones I usually get along with. They tend to believe in libertarian principles, but are content to let people live their own lives and decide things for themselves. I can get along with these libertarians because we can work together on fiscal issues. Big-L Libertarians, however, are the ones I have a problem with. They believe in libertarian principles, except the one about letting people live their own lives. They constantly try to convert people to libertarianism and disparage "so-cons" (social conservatives) as out-of-touch and war hawks as bloodthirsty idiots. I have a hard time working with them on our common ground of fiscal conservatism because they're too busy screaming insults at me.

I have a message for you Libertarians: I am not a libertarian, and never will be! In your quest for "tolerance," telling people to shut up because you don't like their views is not only a step down the wrong path, it also doesn't win you any converts. I am a "so-con," and proud of it. I also believe that our military is here to kill people and break stuff. You are essentially demanding that I give up most of my political identity. This is America, and I am allowed to not only have my own political beliefs, but express them as well.

As for the movement to do away with any stance on morality to get votes, let me tell you a story:

After Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973, much of the GOP establishment had given up. They were convinced that the country was pro-choice (like they were), and that to get votes in the future, the GOP would have to embrace abortion.

My grandfather disagreed.

He fought tooth and nail along with other pro-lifers to get the pro-life plank in the party platform at a time when it seemed impossible. And he kept pushing the pro-life cause to the end of his days, talking about what a wonderful pro-life example people like Sarah Palin were to me as his own health failed.

My grandfather ultimately won. Through the efforts of the reborn GOP, the legal pendulum has started swinging back to restricting abortion. Pro-life identification is high for a number of reasons, but the main reason is the legacy that people like him left behind. A legacy of not giving in to the idea that we should embrace "social progress" for votes. A legacy of fighting for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What is popular is not always right, and I'll take my chances on being unpopular rather than giving up what I believe in: True conservatism.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Fighting Wars Under The Obama Defense Cuts

"We got hosed."

That's what my husband said to me last month as his unit struggled to keep their mission going due to the new Obama Defense cuts. They've made do with less (and sometimes nothing) for the last three years but the new cuts are really impacting his mission.

When you're the wife of a "True Blue" Airman, you know that The Mission comes above everything else. You know that anniversaries and birthdays will be missed because The Mission must be completed. You keep odd hours, constantly monitoring all lines of communication because he's out there somewhere saving the world, doing The Mission he was assigned to do. And you watch in utter horror as The Mission that your husband worked so hard for and is so vital to the country is laid on the altar of political opportunity.

The military's portion of the 2011 budget (4.3% for wars and 14.4% for the DoD) seems small in comparison to the entitlements (60.9%) that dominate the rest of the national budget. Yet it seems that the military's budget is always the first to be criticized, maligned, and put on the chopping block. The comfort of Baby Boomers is put ahead of the needs of the young men and women fighting for our nation. The military is now cutting 67,100 troops at a time when we need their service more than ever.

We don't fight wars like we used to, that's for sure.

With new technology and asymmetrical warfare, it's doubtful we'll ever see something like World War II ever again. But some things just haven't changed in the Air Force (known as the Army Air Corps back then). We still need highly-trained and motivated Airmen to operate equipment and give air support. For every "pointy end" of the spear, there's a "shaft" of support behind it and someone's got to decide where that spear will do the most damage. These Airmen need to constantly keep up on their training and be supported as they serve 6-12 month deployments.

Obama and his liberal minions want to cut that support. Their simultaneous proposals of new unconstitutional wars and special forces deployments while slashing the budget and feeding our troops lettuce is pure cognitive dissonance. The Bush-era mantra of "support the troops, not the war" has completely broken down as the Obama administration goes after not only the monetary support of the troops but also their morale; as certain policies are implemented in an attempt to unravel the moral fabric of the greatest military on the face of this earth.

In three years our military has taken a lot of friendly fire, drawing many comparisons to the home front of the Vietnam War. But there is hope. Missions have been completed and wrapped up (bin Laden, Iraq, and countless others that won't be publicly known for decades) and the military hangs on, pushing forward for the nation's survival. And the American people keep supporting our military with care packages, town-organized parades, and genuine thanks when they see our troops in uniform.

Don't let the military take this flak on their own. The fiscal wreck that this country is in does not need to be fixed by sacrificing our Constitutional mandate to defend it. We need to support plans like Representative Ryan's that fix the entitlements that are drowning us in deficits and the loopholes that make our tax code incomprehensible. Cutting readiness now means we'll pay for it later, as the Global War on Terror proved.

Hold politicians accountable when they promise to support the military! And when you get overwhelmed, remember the immortal words of someone in my husband's unit: "This is America, damn-it!"

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Do Your Job, Congress!


I stopped blogging because I needed to channel my rage and frustration into more productive outlets (plus I'm terrible at posting on a regular basis :-P). But I need to get this off my chest because some things MUST be corrected.

I'm a conservative, both socially and fiscally. I'm also an Air Force wife, so I'm a huge supporter of our military's Constitutional role of killing people and breaking stuff in a semi-civilized manner. So, my position on getting our national finances in order is that we don't need to gut our military to pay for entitlements. There is a Constitutional mandate for protecting our nation, but there isn't one for our, ahem, "social safety net."

The last few years have been an irresponsible, immature adventure in national budgeting. Congress hasn't passed a real budget in over 900 days, and in the meantime, they've accumulated mountains of debt and expanded entitlements like there's no tomorrow. And, for them, there doesn't seem to be a tomorrow, when the bill will come due. Entrenched Congress members get to spend taxpayer dollars to enrich themselves and their campaign chests, and when the public finally gets fed up with them, they get a cushier retirement than a union boss.

But enough about the need for term limits. Here's what we have now: No actual budget, debt growing exponentially, no real discussion about entitlement reform, and all this as the Baby Boomer Bomb is about to go off and blow us sky-high into fiscal insanity. And what's Washington's solution to all of this?

Why, cut the military's budget, of course! We don't need the latest gadgets for our military or overpriced equipment! Besides, isn't it time we stopped being the world's police force?

And here is where I part ways with the weenie liberals and the Paulbots. Yes, they have the same goal, even though they have different reasons for achieving that goal. But you know what? Both groups are delusional. Liberals believe that if we stop using our military to kill people that try to harm us and break their stuff to smithereens, then the world will love us and everyone will ride a unicorn that solely subsists on Skittles. (Who will make the Skittles, I have no idea.) Paulbots are just as insane with their belief that we don't need to protect ourselves abroad at all, and that should we face an enemy marching into our territory, they'll go home as soon as we start air-dropping Reason magazines on their heads. After all, the world will listen to a good, civil discourse, will it not?

It's ridiculous what passes for "serious thought" these days. Facts are facts, and human nature is predictable. There's a reason Sun Tzu's Art of War is still applicable in today's world. To defend himself against enemies who would take his life, the ancient warrior got a sword and a stone to keep it sharp. To defend himself and his country against those who would take not only his life but countless innocents, the American warrior gets a gun that can take down enemies quickly and efficiently. And when his country takes away that efficient equipment for all the wrong reasons, the American warrior fights on but knows he can't do the job as well as he could.

The "military industrial complex," as it is derisively known to liberals and Paulbots, is one of the reasons we have the most advanced military in the world. The innovations that come from it not only impact our safety and security, but also our quality of life. (You're reading this on the internet, which originated in the U.S. military.) The last thing America needs is something like The Siege of Vienna, where the local populace has to rise up to repel the barbarians at the gates because there isn't enough of a military. The Viennese repulsion of the Ottomans is often described as "miraculous." Do the liberals and Paulbots really want to depend on divine intervention?

Also, I find it infuriating that Congress is putting entitlements above protecting the lives of the men and women fighting for our country. There is a direct correlation between the money we spend on our troops' safety and how many of them survive. Meanwhile, it's not as clear what LBJ's "Great Society" or "The War on Poverty" is getting us besides that mountain of debt.

Our Constitution mandates that we have a military. That same document and the American spirit have turned it into the most professional, most advanced, and the BEST fighting force the world has ever seen.

Do your job, Congress, and fund them.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

New Shop And Blog!

Recently, I opened up an Etsy shop to sell my handmade books. The Etsy shop is here, and the blog describing the stories behind the books is here. Hope you enjoy!

Monday, December 13, 2010

Night Of The Not-So-Long Knives

As Cubachi has pointed out, moderation has gotten the GOP nowhere. The media loves to make saints out of moderate Republicans, but it also loves to turn them into martyrs the minute they have to go against a Democrat. So, when I read this over-the-top article from Politco, I thought it'd be a good object lesson in why conservatism and Republican party discipline are going to be key in winning future elections. There will be a test on this! (In 2012, that is.)

First, some background: Republican Tom Emmer just conceded the Minnesota governor's race to Democrat Brave Sir Mark Dayton (who likes to run away). The Minnesota GOP decided to do something about the fact that a former member of their party, Tom Horner, siphoned off 12% of the vote that could have gone to Emmer. So they voted to punish 18 moderates that had supported this third-party candidate. Politico is shocked that the GOP would try to reform its own party to gear up for the next election. Cue the horror-stricken writing!

The stunning purge, narrowly passed by the state Republican central committee last weekend, suggests more than just a fit of pique: by banning some of the state’s leading moderates, the Minnesota GOP moved toward extinguishing a dying species of Republican in one of its last habitats.

Species usually die out because they cannot find a place in the ecosystem or adapt to it. What we seem to have here is both, and Politico cannot resist writing a swan song for its precious, precious moderates. When a state party realizes that its state has only voted for the party's presidential nominee once in the last half-century, that party must adapt if it wants to survive. The Minnesota GOP chairman, Tony Sutton, seems to have realized that, as well as the central committee. As a former Iowan, I'm obliged to shake my head at the Minne-soh-tans with their heads in the snow, but I'm also cheered by the fact that change seems to be in the wind. That wind may have a blizzard or three in it, but it's definitely got some change.

This piece also has plenty of blustering, as the moderates attempt to defend their position in unintentionally hilarious ways. (Moderates trying to be firm is always a good source for humor.) For example, Al Quie starts out big

“The Republican party is trying to become … you would call it introverted totalitarianism.”

and then goes small.

“It’s just plain dumb on their part."

Unfortunately, the facts do not bear out Quie's observations.

Sutton’s candidates seized control of the state House, which the party lost in 2006, and the state Senate, which the GOP has not controlled since it became a partisan chamber. A conservative insurgent also toppled 17-term Democratic Rep. Jim Oberstar

Yes, it is sheer stupidity, in the view of a moderate, to lead a party to historic gains. Moderates need to be able to eschew party principles and undermine the party without having to pay the consequences. They're sainted moderates, after all! The media says they're the future of the GOP! And their candidate worked so well for the GOP in 2008!

Kudos to the Minnesota GOP chairman for ignoring the philosophy espoused in the previous paragraph. The movers and shakers in the national party ought to be taking notes from his performance here. No more Mr. Minnesota Nice Guy!

“I think a lot of these people are not relevant politically,” Sutton said. “They represent a bygone era, sort of the era of the Country Club Republican – when we weren’t opposed to big government; we just said we could manage it better. This is [now] sort of the Reagan Era of the Republican Party.”

“It’s funny we’ve had more success since we moved away from a lot of these folks,” he added. “You can argue we’ve become more successful as we’ve become truer to our principles.”

The moderates seem to argue that losing the four statewide races (governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and attorney general) does not mean success overall, but what part of historic don't they understand? All of it, I suppose.

“Maybe it would be more beneficial if Tony Sutton left the Republican Party and took his philosophy elsewhere, and we could get a chairman who knows how to grow a party,” [Arne] Carlson said.

Carlson seems to know a lot about leaving the Republican Party behind. Not only did he endorse Horner and a Democrat this year, but in 2008, he didn't even back the moderate GOP candidate, John McCain. He voted for Barack Obama. Maybe, just maybe, he should have seen this coming?

Over to you, Chairman Sutton!

Sutton, who technically didn't take a position on the resolution because he chaired the meeting, made his feelings clear by expressing befuddlement at what he calls the “faux outrage” over the temporary bans.

“I don’t understand people who are upset by it. You claim to be a member of a political party, of a team, and you’re supporting someone on the other team,” he said. “This isn’t a tickle contest. This isn’t ninth grade civics, where you’re running for class president. This is pretty serious business.”

Yes, it is pretty serious business. But what is the horrendous punishment for those being shoved aside? What awful, Soviet-style consequences await those who have fallen afoul of The Party? With the tone of this piece, one might suspect gulags and waterboarding are in the future of these 18 moderates. However, that is not the case. It is not a light punishment that was handed out, but surely these moderates can overcome being banned from party activities for two years and the 2012 Republican National Convention. Oh, the humanity!

Even after the 2010 elections, Politico can't write a story about the machinations of a state GOP without wringing their hands that the party's not going the "correct" way. We've got a long way to go.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Hypocrisy: It Ain't Just For Hippos

I hate feminists.

I'm starting out with that as a disclaimer because I just want everyone to know where I stand with this group. Yes, I'm a traitor to my gender, I have no empathy, I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for them, blah blah blah. Except those things are all lies. I have never believed that women were the exact same as men, so how is it traitorous to embrace the difference and live my life as a woman created differently than a man? I have plenty of empathy for the women who were sold on the false hope that they could be just like men. And as a happy housewife, how am I beholden to feminists for my position when women have been doing this for thousands of years?

Feminists have ruined the lives of men and women alike. (See? Equality at last!) Women and men find themselves alienated from each other. Men are painted with a broad, villainous brush while women find that being empowered to do anything they want isn't all that empowering. The family structure of this country is crumbling, and feminism is rooting for failure.

Feminists certainly have done a lot of damage. But they're never called to account for it. Any time their lies and hypocrisy are exposed, they scream about oppression and their supporters flock to them. Everyone else just shakes their head and gives in to the screaming, thereby ensuring the cycle will repeat itself.

Well, I've had it. It's time for women to stand up for being who we want to be and not who the feminists have forced us to be. When a woman does not worship at the shrine of feminism and embraces the role God gave her (whatever that may be), she is called a traitor and either ignored or screeched at.

Take Laura Bush, for example. She wanted to help the women of Afghanistan get back to the lives they had before the Taliban took over. So she pushed for literacy in a country that both the women and the men would benefit from the effort. But the feminists couldn't stand that she wasn't pushing for abortion as well, so they buried her efforts and continued to demonize her. Her husband helped curb AIDS in Africa, saving millions of women's lives, yet he did it in a non-feminist fashion so it, too, was ignored.

History will most likely view the Bushes more kindly than the feminists, so all their ear-covering will have been in vain. But the reason I'm writing this post cannot be ignored. It has worldwide implications and is another nail in the feminists' coffin. I want to ask you a question, feminists.

What about the woman who accused Julian Assange of rape?

For years, feminists have told us that no woman ever lies about rape and that every accusation should be taken seriously. Men are predators at heart, we're told, and their victims need to be protected by secrecy laws. And men who rape women (or are accused of it) deserve the harshest treatment possible.

Yet feminists have been silent about the trampling of their closest-held beliefs because of Assange's beliefs. There has been no outcry from them as his victim has been named, her past writings dragged out into the open (apparently she's a die-hard feminist!), and liberals have dismissed the charge as false. Feminists are perfectly willing to sacrifice their own on the altar of liberalism.

As for me, I think Assange aided and abetted a traitor to America. However, I don't care what his beliefs are when a district attorney in Sweden charges him with rape. He should stand trial and is innocent until proven guilty. That is an American belief, to be sure, but I'm ashamed that feminists don't seem to hold it. In fact, feminism is in a sorry state in general, and women need to take it out to the trash. I'm sure men will be all too happy to drag that trash can to the curb!

Friday, November 5, 2010

We Maaaay Look Like Paaaaansies....

With the exception of our excellent military, Americans are a pretty soft bunch. This isn't an all bad thing, however. Whenever a disaster in the world happens, we get busy sending money. We have a network for taking care of disabled people that unrivaled throughout the world. Charities know that all they have to do is show an American an emaciated child, and the American will open their wallet.
But when it comes to politics, it is not a good thing for Americans to be soft. We are buying into the message that "civility" must trump the truth because we've lost the toughness that made this country great. We are horrified by "negative" or "attack" ads that candidates put out that in fact do nothing more than tell the truth about their opponent. Television personalities that make millions from pontificating about politics decry the channels that make their profession possible because these channels supposedly foster incivility. Our own President does everything he can to be seen and heard every day by every American, and then bemoans the "24/7 news cycle" that puts him on their airwaves.

Americans should not put up with this. The issues we need to talk about are being obscured by politicians trying to get the most positive media coverage by looking like the "civil" candidate. And look where that got us: John McCain, the media darling for years, ran a campaign that avoided asking the hard questions about Barack Obama and his policies, and Obama cruised to victory. We don't want to talk about Social Security's insolvency because the Democrats have made sure that any discussion of the subject is automatically characterized as frightening to older people. Americans, especially the Republicans, are being cowed by the very idea that they might be seen as uncouth when tackling the hard issues that we face.

This is unacceptable. Our Founding Fathers engaged in duels over political ideas. They put their lives on the line for the principles of this country. And they absolutely savaged each other when running for office. Don't believe me? You want proof? Here you go!

Keep this in mind the next time you hear that this election cycle was the most negative ever (which seems to be the meme every election year). We're pansies compared to our Founding Fathers.