Monthly Archives: December 2008

Peace Out, '08.

It was a rough year for the GOP and conservatives. I’m not gonna lie, I shed a tear or two on Nov. 4th. I believe I sent out a mass text message welcoming my friends to the United Socialist States of America, calling it a night after I saw Ohio turn blue on my screen. I spent 30 minutes kneeling with one of my dear friends on her living room floor praying for our country and its leaders. I had a hard time making it to work on Nov. 5th.

I empathize with those who worked so hard on the campaigns. I empathize with the emails I got from people in my life who serve this country in the military and are scared about what this administration holds for them. It’s been a hard year.

That said, we’ve had time to lick our wounds and we’re in a position to shape the future of this country. We have new energy. We have young, fresh faces  on our side that we can support locally, statewide, and nationally. Barriers are being broken – it is now becoming okay for young people to be conservatives. That’s something we can not overlook, as in the next 4, 8, 12, 20 years, they will be the leaders of our party. We are seeing conservatives empowered, ready to take back the GOP. I’m stoked.

I hesitate to make predictions at this point. All I know is that we have a lot of work ahead of us. I know that there are candidates that I intend to support. There are some that I think are being thrust into the spotlight as leaders that are more of the same. We do not need another McCain this go around – we need new blood. We need to move past Nov. 4th 2008 and focus on what’s to come. We need to stop dividing ourselves over stupid stuff and work together. Big government is our enemy. That should be our focus – not the smaller issues.

I think we can make changes by 2010. I think we can make even bigger changes by 2012. Let’s do this thing.

Happy 2009, everyone!

On the Air…

I will be on The Armchair Energist today at 11am.

www.blogtalkradio.com/nmbr1son

Call in and talk to me!  (646) 929-0724

Beyond The Pro-Life Candidate…

Social con issues don’t win elections. Even young evangelicals showed a shift toward Obama.  The resounding voice has been that the GOP needs to move beyond pro-life candidates.

1107-nat-webreligion

I could not agree more.

While I feel I have made my stance on abortion clear, I also think tha t it is pretty irrelevant in a national candidate. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned at this point. Our best course of action in the pro-life arena is to focus on that locally – not nationally.

This stands for gay marriage as well – there are bigger things that we  should be concerned with. I’ve also spoken a lot about this, and think it’s an important issue. While I feel like this is one issue that needs to be dealt with nationally, as it affects legal status, there are bigger fish to fry when supporting candidates.

Personally, I would have a hard time supporting candidates that were socially liberal, but if the choice were between a fiscally conservative social liberal, or a socially conservative nanny-stater, the choice would be simple. When it comes down to it, which is more effective? Laws against abortion are not going to change the minds of those who truly believe that it’s okay. Laws against gay marriage are not going to change their relationships. And honestly, their choices affect me a lot less than the government having their hands in my pocket all the time. Ultimately, they are accountable to themselves and God, not the government.

We need to offer more than a George Bush social con lame duck message.

Let's Take A Poll…

… except not really because I think they’re cheesy. How many of you got into it with your liberal kinfolk this week? I’m happy to say that I didn’t – however, I did get unexpected phone calls and text messages – most notably from my father who called boast that he had a family member “on the ropes within two minutes” during a political argument. Here’s my take on the battle between conservatives and liberals… 

Liberals function on emotion. It’s what keeps them going – fuels their fire. Their sense of “fairness” and “equality” and other entirely subjective matters is what drives them. Every major liberal issue has an emotional sentiment at it’s core. Let me illustrate.

  • The hot topic this week is clearly gay marriage – an issue that is all about “equality”. When questioned, liberals – without fail – counter with “How would you FEEL if you couldn’t marry the person you loved?” or some such variation of the question. If you need an example, go read the comments here.

Oh, and as for supporting civil unions but not gay marriage, let me just ask you–would YOU be willing to accept a “civil union” in place of your present or future marriage? Would you be fine saying to your friends and family “I’m so excited, tomorrow I’m getting civilly conjugated to my partner!”?

Comment courtesy of “Anonymous”, naturally. I’m sorry, Anonymous, I was under the impression that we were discussing amendments to the constitution, not feelings.

  • Abortion. This one is an issue of women needing to feel in control – which sprung up during the women’s lib movement. This one is closely linked, in my mind anyway, to the death penalty issue. At it’s core, it’s about giving people the power to take a life… they have managed to turn it into a “rights” issue. Liberals rail against the death penalty, calling it inhumane – I fail to see the difference between taking a life in the beginning stages or later on. I suppose it’s okay to take a life early on, as long as it makes women feel better about having the option?
  • Health care. To hell with logic and reason and personal responsibility – liberals think that health care is a RIGHT. Sorry, not true. It isn’t the government’s job to provide you with free health care. Especially when we’re drowning in debt and in the midst of an economic collapse. I don’t care how nice it sounds to have every single person in the country provided with free prescriptions and doctor visits – it doesn’t work in real life.
  • Bailouts. It’s SO UNFAIR to let dying industries destroy themselves… think about all those poor people who will be jobless! We can’t let them fail! Well, hello, you’re only prolonging their death. You’re not helping anyone. The sooner you figure this out, the less damage you’ll do (*cough*harryreid&nancypelosi*cough*)

I could go on and on here, talking about social programs, etc. The point is that as pedantic and proud as the left is, they cannot seem to figure out that leading with your heart isn’t a good idea. Since when was it wise to make choices based on emotion? Wouldn’t rationality be the way to go?

Stop whining about made up “rights” being infringed upon and worry about the bigger issues – like, for instance, how we’re going to EXIST in 4 years with a weakened military and growing debt to the rest of the world. 

This is why it is so easy to win battles with lefties. When you tell them you don’t care about feelings, you care about facts they don’t have a leg to stand on and they get all messed up, and then attempt to recover by calling you heartless and cruel.

Feelings are temporary. Facts are not. I like my government to function based on the latter.

I Can't Believe I'm Doing This…

I’m linking to HuffPo. You don’t have to click on it if you don’t want to.  But I want to talk a little bit about the Melissa Etheridge post. Yes, that was the HuffPo link. Click at your own risk. 

Sure, parts of the article are full of peac-y love-y “keep fightin’ the fight” stuff to the gay community. If you can look past that, here are some of the good points that I saw when I read that article:

I absolutely love how Warren responded to Melissa – he wasn’t judgmental, he wasn’t anything but open and receptive to what she had to say. He accepted her where she was, without buying into her agenda. He could have ignored her call, he could have done any number of things, but he didn’t. Instead, he stayed open to what she has to say. It’s amazing how people react when they’re treated like people instead of judged and condemned (I’m speaking about BOTH sides here). Warren has shown that Christians are not incapable of loving people they disagree with. It’s true, people. We’re not all bigots.

On the flip side, Etheridge has set a standard for the left. 

I received a call the day before to inform me of the keynote speaker that night… Pastor Rick Warren. I was stunned. My fight or flight instinct took over, should I cancel? Then a calm voice inside me said, “Are you really about peace or not?”

She set down her prejudices long enough to realize that if she stood for peace, she should probably be peaceful instead of inciting riots and protests. She reached out to Warren and an effective dialogue took place. Despite what most lefties want the world to believe, Warren didn’t threaten or attempt to belittle the gay community. He responded with kindness. Imagine that. 

Thanks for being a voice of relative reason on the left Melissa.

The Problem Is NOT With Rick Warren…

This Rick Warren debacle is ridiculous. The prayer at the inauguration is a piece of the ceremony that normally gets ignored. So what if an evangelical Christian is going to be the one speaking? Are we forgetting that Billy Graham did every inauguration from Nixon to Clinton?

The difference? Why is Warren being attacked? It’s easy – Obama made promises to the gay community that he cannot keep, and they’re trying to hold him to it.

Rick Warren has never said anything homophobic. He has never said anything derogatory. He has simply stated the Biblical view of homosexuality, and expressed a love for them as people. The issue here is not with Rick Warren at all – the issue is with the Bible’s stance on homosexuality.

From the AP:

“I was trying to point out I’m not opposed to gays having their partnership. I’m opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship.”

This happens to be my stance on the issue. I am not opposed to civil unions. God lets us make our own choices, and if someone makes a choice, they are entitled to the same benefits that I am as an American citizen. I also believe, however, that marriage is a religious ceremony, and as such should stand in accordance with what the Bible tells us marriage should be.

This is a prime example of what we discussed earlier this week. The demonization of Christianity is not a myth. It’s okay to be a “Christian” and celebrate Christmas and Easter, as long as you don’t dare speak out about what the Bible says. If you do, you’re hateful and intolerant. Let’s be honest – God makes it pretty clear what’s okay and what’s not. None of us are ever going to meet those expectations, but as Christians, our standard is set high. I will say this again – Warren has never been hateful at all. He has handled his stance the way a Christian should – he expressed his discomfort with gay unions being labeled “marriage”. He said nothing about stripping their rights. He did not judge them.

Looks like some of Obama’s appeal to the gay community is wearing off. He’s already retracted his pro-gay marriage stance. Now he’s asked an unapologetic Christian to pray. Oh, the horror! Just wait. My prediction is that Obama will alienate group after group throughout the next 4 years. This is just the beginning, ya’ll – the man hasn’t even been sworn in.

Democrats Need To Hate The South

The south has long been a stronghold for GOP candidates. I understand that there are stereotypes for every region, but none convey such strong images as the south – the racist, gun slinging, pick up truck driving, Bible quotin’, tobacco chewin’, cousin-kissin’bubba is standard fare in Hollywood.

Why does this stereotype carry over in to politics? Why does the left feel the need to perpetuate this idea of the south as racist, backwards rednecks? The answer is relatively simple – they need a counterpoint to their own racist ideologies. If they perpetuate the image of the south as irrelevant and racist, then their own hypocritical ideals are overshadowed. If our left wingers believe that the right is so full of racism, bigotry, and general intolerance, then they can rest a little easier.

Here goes. There has been much discussion of what Obama’s election meant for the US. Are we now a truly post-racial society? No. If we were, his race would not have been such an issue. There is no doubt in my mind that many people overlooked what he said based on their desire for a black president. And the media bought right into what Obama was selling.  Voting for someone BECAUSE they are black is a judgment based on skin color – is this not the very definition of racism?

I would also argue, on a more individual level, that funding and benefits given based on skin color are also racist. Why should someone from the same economic background as me receive more money based on the color of their skin? Yet it happens all the time. Minority education grants are standard fare in colleges. There is no equivalent grant for being white. Affirmative action is just a part of our culture. Companies have to fill their quotas of minority employees – how about letting them hire as they see fit? I don’t want people to hand me jobs because I’m a woman. This does nothing but compromise my credibility, as well as the strength of the company I work for. If I don’t deserve a position, they shouldn’t give it to me. Period. I could go on and on, but I am simply pointing out the inequity.

So what is the reality of the south? It contains half of the top 10 fastest growing cities in the country. Texas consistenty boasts the strongest state economy in the country. Where is all this growth coming from? Michigan. Western New York. Ohio. Pennsylvania. The dying economies of the north have driven people to their thriving southern counterparts for work. The cost of living remains below national average. Take a look at this graph:

col2_map_3q08

Notice something? Yeah, the bluer the state, the higher the cost of living (with exception of Alaska, which has extenuating circumstances, since it’s not attached to the US and all…) Housing is cheaper. Taxes are lower. In fact, Tennessee, Alaska, and Texas are among the only states left without a state income tax.

Yes, the south has it’s problems. There are factions that are backwards, but no more so than anywhere else in the country. The racism and bigotry of the 1800′s is a thing of the past. We’re not all homophobic religious fanatics. I don’t hang out at KKK meetings. On the whole, we are educated, industrialized, thriving cities, full of people who don’t want to leave and relocated northerners who got smart. I would never choose to live anywhere else.

Ya’ll come back now, ya hear? ;-)

Justification For My Social Media Addiction

I will be the first to admit that I’m addicted to social media. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows this to be true. At least I’m honest about it, right? There is a reason for it all, however.  I’m actually convinced that this online conservative movement is going to be the backbone of future campaigns.

So much has been written about Obama’s internet campaign. You couldn’t log into Facebook without seeing his ads on the right side of your screen. (Personally, I labeled them all ‘offensive’, so they stopped popping up after a little while.) Why has social media become so important to campaigns? Why is it so relevant? I have a few ideas.

First, the youth vote was critical in this last election. Youth voted overwhelmingly for Obama. He made himself relevant and trendy by plastering himself all over every social network – in other words, he engaged the youth online. The McCain campaign failed at that miserably. Social media is how young people function – for a lot of 20-somethings like myself, Twitter and especially Facebook are our primary forms of communication, completely integrated with our cell phones.

In addition to engaging our youth vote, social media has been the backbone of many grassroots movements that have formed since November. We are fools to overlook the power of Twitter and Facebook. Twitter has mobilized several grassroots groups, most notably #TCOT and Smart Girl Politics. Ning sites have enabled groups to form targeted social networks, linking conservatives together and providing connections and the legwork necessary to make things happen.

With the epic mainstream media failure throughout this last election, many have come to rely on the blogs to hear the other side of the story. Many, many bloggers have stepped up to the plate and provided a necessary alternate viewpoint from the alphabet networks that have managed to discredit themselves further than ever through the likes of Olbermann and Matthews. Ultimately, it is bloggers who are driving this movement. Our voices need to be heard – and this need will only intensify with the passing of the fairness doctrine that we are sure to see under an Obama rule – er, presidency.

I, for one, am proud to be a small part of this movement. Having the opportunity to connect with people and make things happen is invaluable – and this is just the beginning. There is so much to do, and I think social media is an opportunity that would be absolutely fatal for conservatives to overlook. Keep it going guys. Embrace social media. Good things are happening.

And don’t expect me to let up on Twitter, Facebook, or the blogosphere any time soon.

Open Letter To Lefty Haters

Dear Lefty Hater,

I cannot wrap my brain around your definition of tolerance. In real life, tolerance means this:

tol·er·ance

Pronunciation:
?tä-l?-r?n(t)s, ?täl-r?n(t)s
Function:
noun

1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance , fortitude , stamina

2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own b: the act of allowing something :toleration

3: the allowable deviation from a standard ; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece

This means allowing for deviation from YOUR standard, too. Quite honestly, though, I’m not entirely sure what your standards are. According to your non-discriminatory, politically correct rhetoric, anything goes. After all, we wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Feelings are more important than logic and reason, right? We must do everything we can to avoid stepping on toes.

By my interpretation, your definition of “tolerance” extends to anyone who is not rich, white, Christian, or male. And Lord help you if you all in to all of the above. What happens when the oppressors become the oppressed? Who is there to defend those rights?

Rich people are targeted with higher taxes and demonized for their wealth. Do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact that 7/10 of the wealthiest senators are democrats? In the fact that Obama outspent McCain nearly 10-1? In the fact that among your most vocal supporters are Hollywood millionaires and billionaires, a la Oprah, Streisand, etc.?

I discussed yesterday how Christians are consistently demonized. I won’t rehash that, yet that still stands. It seems that your tolerance extends to non-Christians, gay people, minorities, and poor people. You act as a loud, obnoxious advocates, and generally pander to these groups until they completely submit – you own them, and you know it. After all, once a young, struggling, single mom has become dependent on WIC, how could she vote for someone who would take that away and risk her child’s welfare? After someone has been on welfare their whole life, how can we expect them to put someone in office who will remove their security blanket? The answer is simple – they won’t.

Start giving people the respect they deserve. Teach them that they are valuable, and then SHOW them you believe in them by setting the bar high. Stop providing easy ways out, and people will manage. People should be tested sometimes – how else will they know what they’re made of? Stop blaming rich, white men for your problems – many of you fall into the same category.Take responsibility. The world is not out to get you – you can choose not to hate.

Signed,

A broke but self-sufficient Christian white girl.

Jesus for President?

I have wrestled a lot with the role of Christianity in politics. What exactly does “separation of church and state” look like? Because I certainly have a different view than some in that regard. As a Christian, I believe that God has His hand in everything. I don’t believe he threw us down on earth and said “hey, figure it out!”. He said that we were to obey the government that he would set up for us.

So what does that look like in an increasingly secular America? I don’t know that anyone would make the claim that we are a Christian nation anymore. We are most definitely not a theocracy. I do not believe the answer to this is electing officials who will try to serve as spiritual leaders.

The widespread attitude towards Christians in government is that we are all right wing nut jobs. Anyone who is open about their faith in Jesus is a lunatic who wants to force religion down the throats of the entire country. Sarah Palin was a prime example – she was shredded for her faith, even though I feel like she did a good job of separating it from her politics. In this current political climate, it is entirely to our detriment to force a Christian “agenda”. It will do much more harm than good.

That said, I also think that Christians should be active in leading our country. It is critical that we have Godly men and women in office – people praying for our government from the inside and providing guidance. The difference between an official who forces “Christian” laws into action an official who prays and makes decisions in response to God is critical. There is no question that the latter would be more effective, as well as much more credible as a national candidate.

So, those are my thoughts. I will do what I can to support qualified, intelligent, prayerful Christians in government. I do not, however, want my officials to double as my pastor. I’ve said before, the government does NOT need to compete with my God. They will always lose.