Abortion’s War on “the Least of These”

Posted by in Abortion industry, Planned Parenthood

August 30, 2015

“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit.” —Margaret SangerPlanned Parenthood founder and heroine of the American Left


Margaret Sanger’s ghost haunts the news.  Memories of the patron saint of Dilatation and Evacuation, as well as the Left’s depraved obsession with killing, have returned to the public conscience, thanks to the efforts of a courageous pro-life sting effort.  The Center for Medical Progress videos  which document months worth of meetings and hundreds of hours worth of footage in which Sanger’s modern proteges discuss dismembering and selling, piecemeal or whole, human babies, has exposed her agenda in the most concrete terms. The architect of abortion-on-demand said:

While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter. Neither the mating of healthy couples nor the sterilization of certain recognized types of the unfit touches the great problem of unlimited reproduction of those whose housing, clothing, and food are all inadequate to physical and mental health. These measures do not touch those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better.

Margaret Sanger was a tireless advocate for the progressive ideal of “people control.” Sanger’s ardent promotion of quantitative and qualitative population control, provided the basis for the“Eugenics,”movement; the philosophical basis for the NAZI plan to achieve “racial purity.” The mother witch of progressive social experimentation associated openly with the KKK.  Although her activism predates Roe vs. Wade, her dream of legal and state-sanctioned abortion is now status quo. But this woman had contempt for those to whom she referred as “feeble-minded” and “unfit.” Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate people with disabilities from society.  Her ideas about the “unfit” and the expendability of “the least humans” have inveigled themselves into the platform and policies of the Democrat Party.


The IPAB, or Independent Payment Advisory Board portion of the Obamacare law, is not designed specifically to discriminated against the elderly and disabled. But in every model of socialized medicine that has ever existed the rationing of medical care has become an ingrained function of huge government/medical partnerships. In the UK, for example, medical care is regularly withheld from the elderly and people with disabilities.  This policy, whether inferred or written in granite, is an outgrowth of Eugenics and its related philosophies which base the value of a human directly with the usefulness of that human to the greater society.  People with disabilities often do require greater expenditures for educational, medical, and sometimes social services. They are the least efficient of all people and so, in the thinking of Margaret Sanger, the architects of socialized medicine, and population control social engineers, they are also the most expendable.


Cases of medical discrimination against children and adults with various cognitive disabilities such as autism and Down syndrome have been documented for years in the UK. Their National Health System has been beset with a record of discrimination against such individuals. Heart transplants and other critical cardiac measures are among the services commonly withheld from individuals with Down syndrome in the UK. These decisions are not made based on outcome or cost, but appear to be purely discriminatory based on the relative valuation of individuals who require more support and more attention than the “normal” population. A twenty-three year-old Pennsylvania man with autism was recently denied a heart transplant. The young man who has a a chronic and dangerous heart condition must take medications to help him manage the emotional and behavioral symptoms of his autism, and the potential for complications from drug interactions was put forth as one excuse for the decision. This seems like a tenuous rationale for withholding a life-saving operation since most adults in the United States take at least one or two prescription medications on a regular basis. The physicians who made the decision to deny surgery to the young man with autism refused to comment because they thought that public discussion of his case would be “unkind.”


Abortion has become the intervention of choice to deal with children whose lives may be complicated by a congenital or acquired disability. I use the words “may” and “potentially” because prenatal tests designed to detect such disabilities have often read as false positives. The Medicaid systems in some states are willing to pay exorbitant amounts to cover the surgical abortions of late-term babies if they test positive for a condition such as Down syndrome. In fact, it is reportedthat nine out of ten children that are aborted following prenatal genetic testing test positive for Down syndrome. The gradual eradication of  people with Down syndrome is taking place before our eyes. 


by Marjorie Haun  8/30/15


Are You Emotionally Tough Enough to Survive National and Global Commotion?

Posted by in Emotional Intelligence, Social Collapse

August 28, 2015

Excerpted from 15 Critical Habits Of Mentally Strong People

by Travis Bradberry, originally published by Forbes

Surviving the economic, social, and natural upheavals of our day will be accomplished only by those who have developed emotional intelligence, and the ability to forge ahead despite unforeseen and  perhaps unimaginable adversity.


They’re Emotionally Intelligent

Emotional intelligence is the cornerstone of mental toughness. You cannot be mentally tough without the ability to fully understand and tolerate strong negative emotions and do something productive with them. Moments that test your mental toughness are ultimately testing your emotional intelligence (EQ).

Unlike your IQ, which is fixed, your EQ is a flexible skill that you can improve with understanding and effort. It’s no wonder that 90% of top performers have high EQs and people with high EQs earn $28,000 more annually (on average) than their low-EQ counterparts.

Unfortunately EQ skills are in short supply. TalentSmart has tested more than a million people, and we’ve found that just 36% of these are able to accurately identify their emotions as they happen.

They’re Confident

Whether you think you can, or think you can’t—you’re right. – Henry Ford

Mentally tough people subscribe to Ford’s notion that your mentality has a powerful effect on your ability to succeed. This notion isn’t just a motivational tool—it’s a fact. A recent study at the University of Melbourne showed that confident people went on to earn higher wages and get promoted more quickly than others did.

True confidence—as opposed to the false confidence people project to mask their insecurities—has a look all its own. Mentally tough people have an upper hand over the doubtful and the skittish because their confidence inspires others and helps them to make things happen.

They Neutralize Toxic People

Dealing with difficult people is frustrating and exhausting for most. Mentally tough people control their interactions with toxic people by keeping their feelings in check. When they need to confront a toxic person, they approach the situation rationally. They identify their emotions and don’t allow anger or frustration to fuel the chaos. They also consider the difficult person’s standpoint and are able to find common ground and solutions to problems. Even when things completely derail, mentally tough people are able to take the toxic person with a grain of salt to avoid letting him or her bring them down.

They Embrace Change

Mentally tough people are flexible and are constantly adapting. They know that fear of change is paralyzing and a major threat to their success and happiness. They look for change that is lurking just around the corner, and they form a plan of action should these changes occur.

Only when you embrace change can you find the good in it. You need to have an open mind and open arms if you’re going to recognize, and capitalize on, the opportunities that change creates.

You’re bound to fail when you keep doing the same things you always have in the hope that ignoring change will make it go away. After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

They Say No

Research conducted at the University of California in San Francisco showed that the more difficulty you have saying no, the more likely you are to experience stress, burnout, and even depression. Mentally tough people know that saying no is healthy, and they have the self-esteem and foresight to make their nos clear.

When it’s time to say no, mentally tough people avoid phrases such as “I don’t think I can” or “I’m not certain.” They say no with confidence because they know that saying no to a new commitment honors their existing commitments and gives them the opportunity to successfully fulfill them.

The mentally tough also know how to exert self-control by saying no to themselves. They delay gratification and avoid impulsive action that causes harm.

They Know That Fear Is The No. 1 Source Of Regret

Mentally tough people know that, when all is said and done, they will lament the chances they didn’t take far more than they will their failures. Don’t be afraid to take risks.

I often hear people say, “What’s the worst thing that can happen to you? Will it kill you?” Yet, death isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you. The worst thing that can happen to you is allowing yourself to die inside while you’re still alive.

It takes refined self-awareness to walk this tightrope between dwelling and remembering. Dwelling too long on your mistakes makes you anxious and gun shy, while forgetting about them completely makes you bound to repeat them. The key to balance lies in your ability to transform failures into nuggets of improvement. This creates the tendency to get right back up every time you fall down.

They Embrace Failure . . .

Mentally tough people embrace failure because they know that the road to success is paved with it. No one ever experienced true success without first embracing failure.

By revealing when you’re on the wrong path, your mistakes pave the way for you to succeed. The biggest breakthroughs typically come when you’re feeling the most frustrated and the most stuck. It’s this frustration that forces you to think differently, to look outside the box, and to see the solution that you’ve been missing.

. . . Yet, They Don’t Dwell On Mistakes

Mentally tough people know that where you focus your attention determines your emotional state. When you fixate on the problems that you’re facing, you create and prolong negative emotions and stress, which hinders performance. When you focus on actions to better yourself and your circumstances, you create a sense of personal efficacy, which produces positive emotions and improves performance.

Mentally tough people distance themselves from their mistakes, but they do so without forgetting them. By keeping their mistakes at a safe distance, yet still handy enough to refer to, they are able to adapt and adjust for future success.

They Won’t Let Anyone Limit Their Joy . . .

When your sense of pleasure and satisfaction are derived from comparing yourself to others, you are no longer the master of your own happiness. When mentally tough people feel good about something they do, they won’t let anyone’s opinions or accomplishments take that away from them.

While it’s impossible to turn off your reactions to what others think of you, you don’t have to compare yourself to others, and you can always take people’s opinions with a grain of salt. Mentally tough people know that regardless of what people think of them at any particular moment, one thing is certain—they’re never as good or bad as people say they are.

. . . And They Don’t Limit The Joy Of Others

Mentally tough people don’t pass judgment on others because they know that everyone has something to offer, and they don’t need to take other people down a notch in order to feel good about themselves.

Comparing yourself to other people is limiting. Jealousy and resentment suck the life right out of you; they’re massive energy-stealers. Mentally tough people don’t waste time or energy sizing people up and worrying about whether or not they measure up.

Instead of wasting your energy on jealousy, funnel that energy into appreciation. When you celebrate the success of other people, you both benefit.

They Exercise

A study conducted at the Eastern Ontario Research Institute found that people who exercised twice a week for 10 weeks felt more socially, intellectually, and athletically competent. They also rated their body image and self-esteem higher. Best of all, rather than the physical changes in their bodies being responsible for the uptick in confidence, which is key to mental toughness, it was the immediate, endorphin-fueled positivity from exercise that made all the difference.

They Get Enough Sleep

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of sleep to increasing your mental toughness. When you sleep, your brain removes toxic proteins, which are by-products of neural activity when you’re awake. Unfortunately, your brain can remove them adequately only while you’re asleep, so when you don’t get enough sleep, the toxic proteins remain in your brain cells, wreaking havoc by impairing your ability to think—something no amount of caffeine can fix.

Mentally tough people know that their self-control, focus, and memory are all reduced when they don’t get enough—or the right kind—of sleep, so they make quality sleep a top priority.

They Limit Their Caffeine Intake

Drinking excessive amounts of caffeine triggers the release of adrenaline, the source of the fight-or-flight response. The fight-or-flight mechanism sidesteps rational thinking in favor of a faster response to ensure survival. This is great when a bear is chasing you but not so great when life throws you a curve.

When caffeine puts your brain and body into this hyper-aroused state of stress, your emotions overrun your behavior. Caffeine’s long half-life ensures you stay this way as it takes its sweet time working its way out of your body. Mentally tough people know that too much caffeine is trouble, and they don’t let it get the better of them.

They Don’t Wait For An Apology To Forgive

Mentally tough people know that life goes a lot smoother once you let go of grudges and forgive even those who never said they were sorry. Grudges let negative events from your past ruin today’s happiness. Hate and anger are emotional parasites that destroy your joy in life.

The negative emotions that come with holding on to a grudge create a stress response in your body, and holding on to stress can have devastating consequences (both physically and mentally). When you forgive someone, it doesn’t condone their actions; it simply frees you from being their eternal victim.

They’re Relentlessly Positive

Keep your eyes on the news for any length of time, and you’ll see that it’s just one endless cycle of war, violent attacks, fragile economies, failing companies, and environmental disasters. It’s easy to think the world is headed downhill fast.

And who knows? Maybe it is. But mentally tough people don’t worry about that because they don’t get caught up in things they can’t control. Instead of trying to start a revolution overnight, they focus their energy on directing the two things that are completely within their power—their attention and their effort.

As written by Travis Bradberry in Forbes Magazine, August 25, 2015

Reposted by 8/28/15


Erasing Identity: Why the Left is subverting God, gender, and history

Posted by in History, mental illness

August 25, 2015

Bruce Jenner was a global heart throb in 1972. Lean, fit, boyishly handsome, he symbolized the Olympic-class competitive male. Bruce Jenner, in 2015, is a global twit. Dressed in women’s clothing, affected speech, nose nipped, junk tucked, and skin tugged tight to hide his maleness and his age, Jenner now symbolizes the crowning absurdity of the 21st Century; the notion that a man can be a woman if he feels like a woman inside.


The transgender phenomenon is a lie, a pathetic charade, unfortunately propped-up by a community of agenda-driven psychological clinicians, and mainstream media as adrift from reality as Bruce Jenner himself. The power of progressive social-experimentation constructs, such as “fluid” sexuality; transgender, LGBTQ, trans-racial, and other ludicrous fabrications, lies in their appeal to those seeking purpose and/or attention; the vulnerable, or wounded or lonely who crave an identity that will set them apart and provide meaning, a cause, in the midst of what appears to be an increasingly pointless and purposeless world.

There is no doubt that a small minority of people struggle with emotional and physical impulses which drive them to explore homosexual relationships, or cause them to question their sexual identity. That minority comprises less than 2 percent of the population of the United States.

None of this would have been imaginable 20-30 years ago. But the slippery-slope of social decline has been a slippery-slope away from God and the social institutions He devised to keep us moored to Him. In 1962 teacher-led open prayer was banned from public schools. In 1973 the Supreme Court constructed the ‘right to privacy’ as a basis for legalizing unconstrained abortion. In June of 2015, the Supreme Court–despite determinations to the contrary in 38 states–proclaimed that marriage, as instituted and designed by God, no longer exists. SCOTUS, subverting the will of the people, ripped the moorings of law away from the immutable commandments and eternal realities of God.

The Progressive Left’s war on God and religion is akin to their war on traditional marriage which is akin to their war on biological gender identity permanence which is strangely akin to their war on true and accurate history.

Race-opportunists and history revisionists pounced on the hideous massacre of 9 innocent black worshipers in North Carolina by the murderous punk, Dylan Roof, as fortuity to eliminate the Confederate Flag as a state symbol throughout the South. The Stars and Bars, or more accurately, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, became a symbolic rallying point for the Confederate States of America. Although its history and symbolism are broad and complex, Progressives and race-exploiters used the North Carolina church massacre to mount a campaign to ban the Confederate Flag image from public view.


Deemed “offensive” or “hurtful” by Progressives and myriad useful idiots asserting the tyranny of discomfort, Confederate Flags and images of Confederate Flags are being erased from public view across the nation, despite calls to guard history and its symbols from selective, politically-correct censorship.

Contained within a massive salvo of arrows aimed at the heart of western values and traditions are transgender-ism, homosexual marriage and the equating of holy matrimony to other aberrant sexual arrangements, swelling ranks of Atheists, Pagans and apostates, and efforts to erase symbols, characters,  Christian principles, and true accounts from history. But how is the elimination of America’s symbols connected to the dissolving of lines between male and female, husband and wife, marriage and homosexual encounters? The answer is human identity.

Identity, the self, as well as certain ideas and things one associates with the self, are the foundation of human action. Sound self-identity and the confidence and assurance that come with “knowing oneself” are key to mental health in people of all ages. With a diminished identity or knowledge of self, comes a diminished ability to think and act in healthy ways.

The lack of a sure identity–fluidity–brings confusion, suffering, and an inability to act with determination and direction. If you don’t know who or what you are or where you come from, you will lack the ability to positively and healthfully determine what to do.  It is dehumanizing to base identity upon passing appetites and popular whim.

To use a deceptive premise, such as “if a man feel like he’s a woman, he can BE a woman,” or, “marriage is defined only by love,” can isolate an individual whose identity is unformed or tenuous from the reality of the self, the authentic, biological, physical, and moral identity. Without the context of an identity, or knowledge of the nature of the authentic self, action is easily commanded by external voices that appear confident and sure. Humans seek stability, assurance, a sense of security in feeling that actions are “right.” In the absence of a sure, authentic, moral identity, one will allow the louder voices, even those which come from deceivers and users, to both command, and take responsibility for his or her actions.

Within the progressive, pop-culture sheepfold of people with false or weak identities, is a deceptive sense of belonging and safety.  One who believes he is “transgender” because of emotional turmoil or biological imbalance, may seek a place of belonging and can be easily drawn into a milieu where the expression of his confusion and emptiness is lauded as “brave” and “pioneering,” as in the case of Bruce Jenner.

While the creature as which we are born, and the genetic capacity within, is our human identity; male or female, black or white, bright or average, tall or short, our history defines our national identity; good or ill, moral or immoral, successful or failing. The elimination by Progressives of our historic rites and symbols, from prayer in public schools, to images and monuments of the Ten Commandments, to representations of Confederate Flags, is also a forced estrangement from the collective identity of our country. Without a national history that is sure and accessible to all, there is no nation to which men and women can pledge allegiance. The deceptive, commanding, confident voices may then gain the allegiance of those embarrassed or confused or ignorant about their national identity formed through collective history; the unique heritage borne of lessons learned from the past.

To erase symbols, memorials, words from books, and expressions from spoken language, is to discredit the whole of American history from its very founding. If America can be effectively discredited by the progressive Left, then the founding principles of Life, Liberty, Property, the Pursuit of Happiness–all given by the Hand of our Creator, and the laws which defend our God-endowed rights–are discredited. All wars fought in the name of liberating humanity from tyrannical governments will be discredited. The builders of the nation, and the economic system of free-market Capitalism, which made the nation possible, will be discredited, left to dim from memory as a brief folly during which the experiment of human freedom failed.

History, gender, marriage, God are the most obvious targets in Progressives’ cross hairs. But they are presently visible casualties in a much greater war against justice, freedom, and humanity itself. To cede our personal identity and/or national identity–our individual and collective natures–is to cede Natural Law, and to cede Natural Law relegates free men and women to the roles of serfs in an arbitrary and unforgiving dictatorship.

by Marjorie Haun 8/25/15




Shock! Study Proves Dogs are Socialists and Cats are Conservatives

Posted by in parody, Pets, Politics

Aug 26, 2015

Cute Kittens Against Socialism is broadcasting this Public Service Announcement on “National Dog Day” to warn the millions of Americans currently being infiltrated by dogs, and influenced by their propaganda, that your mental health may be in grave danger.

The following study was formulated by the same researchers who brought you “global warming,” “Mermaid: The Body Found,” and “the ‘G’ spot.”


This research was funded by the “Tapeworm Foundation,” “The Toxoplasmosis Society,” and “Too Cute: Puppies with Diarrhea.” Not one cent of Koch-brothers money went into any phase of this investigation which explores the political leanings of dogs. And, finally, the sponsor of this groundbreaking study, “Cute Kittens Against Socialism,” promise that not one iota, not one itty bit, not one friggin’ flea speck of bias influenced its outcome.

Abstract: This research was conducted in response to the ongoing debate about who really is man’s best friend. Since behavior and political ideology are intimately connected, Cute Kittens Against Socialism commissioned this study with the goal of providing information to Americans about what influences are coming into the homes of unsuspecting dog owners. Evidence that dogs are often found on Democrat voter rolls brought forth the hypothesis that Americans with dogs are more liberal because their pets are Socialists.

Findings: Vast differences between Canis Domesticus and Felis Domesticus exist in the following behavioral domains:

Dependency vs. Self-reliance

Utopian Delusions vs. Reality


Pack vs. Feral Colony

Eating Poop vs. Burying Your Poop

Conclusions: Dogs are drooling, pea-brained Socialists which have undue influence over their masters, often causing them to adopt their dependent and slovenly ways. The commissioners of this study, Cute Kittens Against Socialism, strongly cautions its readers against falling for the whole “cute, fuzzy, cuddly puppy” scam. It is a contrivance by Leftists in media and culture who simply want four-legged, pathetic Socialists infiltrating every home in the nation. Don’t buy it. Cats are man’s best friend. Cats are freedom’s best friend.

by Marjorie Haun 8/26/15


Earth to Feds: Want more federal coal revenues? Then stop the war on resource production!

Posted by in Fossil Fuels, Regulations

August 24, 2015

Want more federal coal revenues? Then stop the war on our natural resources

As published in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
By Senator Ray Scott, Colorado D-7
Sunday, August 23, 2015

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced that the Bureau of Land Management would conduct a series of “listening sessions” throughout the country, including one in Denver this past Tuesday.

Jewell says that she wants an “open and honest conversation about modernizing the federal government’s coal (leasing) program…and about whether the taxpayers are getting a fair return from public resources.” I don’t believe a word she says. I think these listening sessions have less to do with “honesty” and much more to do with separating coal miners in Colorado and throughout the West from their jobs.

At the outset, the notice provides no real information about why these sessions came about, other than buzz words and unspecified concerns “about how the federal government leases coal and the amount of royalty charged.”

It mentions nothing about the Obama administration’s regulations on emissions from power plants, which have caused hundreds of coal plants to shut down, or the effect that these and other administration rules are having or will have on future production from federal leases.

It also says nothing about the impact of litigation by anti-coal extremists that is threatening to shut down at least two of the state’s mines. Rest assured that the continued operation of these mines is essential to maintaining an adequate royalty revenue stream to government coffers.

Colorado once ranked second among all states in federal royalty payments from federal coal leases. It now ranks fourth and royalty payments have fallen by more than 33 percent in the last several years alone. Coal production has declined by nearly half from levels set more than 10 years ago. State laws mandating the shutdown of Front Range power plants or their conversion to natural gas have or will cost Colorado coal producers up to 4 million tons annually; much of that would have been produced from federal coal leases. But the listening session notice mentions nothing about those factors or how the federal government could help stimulate production and yes, increase royalty payments from coal.


Coal producers already pay royalties on surface-mined coal of 12.5 percent and 8 percent on gross proceeds from coal sales. This is in addition to sales taxes, severance taxes, and excise taxes. The total tax burden exceeds $100 million annually in Colorado alone. And that is on just eight operating mines. When bonus bids are added into the mix, the royalty rate rises even higher.

The “sessions” appear designed to give anti-coal groups, which call for leaving coal in the ground, a forum to air their extremist policies before the BLM, all at taxpayer expense. If that is the case, then the BLM is very close to violating its trust responsibilities to administer the land to ensure the maximum economic recovery of the coal, as federal laws require. Freezing the coal in place deprives America of its most abundant energy fuel.

Secretary Jewell, mining is important, especially to rural Colorado. The coal industry pays average wages and benefits in excess of $120,000 annually. Rural communities like Paonia, Craig, Meeker, Rangely, and even larger cities like Steamboat Springs depend on coal and the revenues it provides. And Colorado benefits overall from affordable and reliable energy from coal. Increasing the tax burden will only serve to drive coal further to the edge, deprive public schools of an important source of revenue from federal leases, and increase electricity rates for those who can least afford it.

One thing is certain: Lower production means lower royalties. Zero production means zero royalties. Any honest conversation about the level of royalty payments hinges on the government disclosing its intentions and analyzing the devastating impacts that its policies and rules are having on an industry that has been a part of Colorado’s economy for more than 150 years.

Republican Ray Scott represents Mesa County in the Colorado Senate. He is chairman of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee and vice-chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

Reposted by  8/24/15

Why did the Cherokee fight with the Confederacy in the Civil War?

Posted by in Civil War History, Native American Interests

August 22, 2015

Why the Cherokee Nation Allied Themselves With the Confederate States of America in 1861

Many have no doubt heard of the valor of the Cherokee warriors under the command of Brigadier General Stand Watie in the West and of Thomas’ famous North Carolina Legion in the East during the War for Southern Independence from 1861 to 1865. But why did the Cherokees and their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws determine to make common cause with the Confederate South against the Northern Union? To know their reasons is very instructive as to the issues underlying that tragic war. Most Americans have been propagandized rather than educated in the causes of the war, all this to justify the perpetrators and victors. Considering the Cherokee view uncovers much truth buried by decades of politically correct propaganda and allows a broader and truer perspective.

On August 21, 1861, the Cherokee Nation by a General Convention at Tahlequah (in Oklahoma) declared its common cause with the Confederate States against the Northern Union. A treaty was concluded on October 7th between the Confederate States and the Cherokee Nation, and on October 9th, John Ross, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation called into session the Cherokee National Committee and National Council to approve and implement that treaty and a future course of action.

The Cherokees had at first considerable consternation over the growing conflict and desired to remain neutral. They had much common economy and contact with their Confederate neighbors, but their treaties were with the government of the United States.

The Northern conduct of the war against their neighbors, strong repression of Northern political dissent, and the roughshod trampling of the U. S Constitution under the new regimeand political powers in Washington soon changed their thinking.

The Cherokee were perhaps the best educated and literate of the American Indian Tribes. They were also among the most Christian. Learning and wisdom were highly esteemed. They revered the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as particularly importantguarantors of their rights and freedoms. It is not surprising then that on October 28, 1861, the National Council issued a Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America.

The introductory words of this declaration strongly resembled the 1776 Declaration of Independence:

“When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified.”

In the next paragraphs of their declaration the Cherokee Council noted their faithful adherence to their treaties with the United States in the past and how they had faithfully attempted neutrality until the present. But the seventh paragraph begins to delineate theiralarm with Northern aggression and sympathy with the South:

“But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions.”

Comparing the relatively limited objectives and defensive nature of the Southern cause in contrast to the aggressive actions of the North they remarked of the Confederate States:

“Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel the invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted in the Declaration of American Independence, and on which theright of Northern States themselves to self-government is formed, and altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.”

The next paragraph noted the orderly and democratic process by which each of the Confederate States seceded. This was without violence or coercion and nowhere were liberties abridged or civilian courts and authorities made subordinate to the military. Also noted wasthe growing unity and success of the South against Northern aggression. The following or ninth paragraph contrasts this with ruthless and totalitarian trends in the North:

“But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In the states which still adhered to the Union a military despotism had displaced civilian power and the laws became silent with arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at naught by the military power and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men.”

The tenth paragraph continues the indictment of the Northern political party in power and the conduct of the Union Armies:

“The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of the cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on the women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion without process of law, in jails, forts, and prison ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet Ministers; while the press ceased to be free, andthe publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in the battles were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of the Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat, to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by southern hands.”

The eleventh paragraph of the Cherokee declaration is a fairly concise summary of their grievances against the political powers now presiding over a new U. S. Government:

“Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past to complain of some of the southern states, they cannot but feel that their interests and destiny are inseparably connected to those of the south. The war now waging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the south, and against the political freedom of the states, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those states and utterly change the nature of the general government.”

The Cherokees felt they had been faithful and loyal to their treaties with the United States, but now perceived that the relationship was not reciprocal and that their very existence as a people was threatened. They had also witnessed the recent exploitation of the properties and rights of Indian tribes in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon, and feared that they, too, might soon become victims of Northern rapacity. Therefore, they were compelled to abrogate thosetreaties in defense of their people, lands, and rights. They felt the Union had already made war on them by their actions.

Finally, appealing to their inalienable right to self-defense and self-determination as a free people, they concluded their declaration with the following words:

“Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to their obligations to duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence of the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.

The Cherokees were true to their words. The last shot fired in the war east of the Mississippi was May 6, 1865. This was in an engagement at White Sulphur Springs, near Waynesville, North Carolina, of part of Thomas’ Legion against Kirk’s infamous Union raiders that hadwreaked a murderous terrorism and destruction on the civilian population of Western North Carolina. Col. William H. Thomas’ Legion was originally predominantly Cherokee, but had also accrued a large number of North Carolina mountain men. On June 23, 1865, in what was the last land battle of the war, Confederate Brigadier General and Cherokee Chief, Stand Watie, finally surrendered his predominantly Cherokee, Oklahoma Indian force to the Union.


The issues as the Cherokees saw them were 1) self-defense against Northern aggression, both for themselves and their fellow Confederates, 2) the right of self-determination by a free people, 3) protection of their heritage, 4) preservation of their political rights under a constitutional government of law 5) a strong desire to retain the principles of limited government and decentralized power guaranteed by the Constitution, 6) protection of their economic rights and welfare, 7) dismay at the despotism of the party and leaders now in command of the U. S. Government, 8) dismay at the ruthless disregard of commonly accepted rules of warfare by the Union, especially their treatment of civilians and non-combatants, 9) a fear of economic exploitation by corrupt politicians and their supporters based on observed past experience, and 10) alarm at the self-righteous and extreme, punitive, and vengeful pronouncements on the slavery issue voiced by the radical abolitionists and supported by many Northern politicians, journalists, social, and religious (mostly Unitarian)leaders. It should be noted here that some of the Cherokees owned slaves, but the practice was not extensive.

The Cherokee Declaration of October 1861 uncovers a far more complex set of “Civil War” issues than most Americans have been taught. Rediscovered truth is not always welcome. Indeed some of the issues here are so distressing that the general academic, media, and public reaction is to rebury them or shout them down as politically incorrect.

The notion that slavery was the only real or even principal cause of the war is very politically correct and widely held, but historically ignorant. It has served, however, as a convenient ex post facto justification for the war and its conduct. Slavery was an issue, and it was related to many other issues, but it was by no means the only issue, or even the most important underlying issue. It was not even an issue in the way most people think of it. Only about 25% of Southern households owned slaves. For most people, North and South, the slavery issue was not so much whether to keep it or not, but how to phase it out without causing economic and social disruption and disaster. Unfortunately the Southern and Cherokee fear of the radical abolitionists turned out to be well founded.

After the Reconstruction Act was passed in 1867 the radical abolitionists and radical Republicans were able to issue in a shameful era of politically punitive and economically exploitive oppression in the South, the results of which lasted many years, and even today arenot yet completely erased.

The Cherokee were and are a remarkable people who have impacted the American heritage far beyond their numbers. We can be especially grateful that they made a well thought out and articulate declaration for supporting and joining the Confederate cause in 1861.






January 7, 2004

Leonard M. Scruggs [send him mail] is a former Republican county chairman.

Reposted by 8/22/2015

EPA: All Power and no Responsibility

Posted by in Environmentalism, Government Agencies, Government Waste

August 21, 2015

Buss: The EPA, unmasked

With great power comes great responsibility.

But the Environmental Protection Agency appears to want all the power and none of the responsibility — not a good harbinger for a future that promises ever-greater EPA control of Americans’ lives and the economy.

On Aug. 5, workers contracted with the EPA punctured a wall at Gold King Mine, releasing 3 million gallons of century-old toxic sludge into the fast-moving waters of Colorado’s Animas River. Lead, arsenic, mercury and other chemicals were unleashed into the crystal green waters, turning the river bright orange.

The ramifications are unknown. The polluted water has flowed from Colorado into Utah and New Mexico, affecting the water supply of the Navajo Indian tribe and many nearby residents, poisoning river banks and soil, and flowing out into the ocean.

Accidents happen, and even the EPA is subject to human error. But if a private company had caused such an environmental catastrophe, the government would be hammering it.

It took EPA administrator Gina McCarthy almost a week to apologize for the mine spill, and the agency has consistently downplayed the environmental damage it caused.

“I suspect the EPA might have a better understanding — particularly after they get the price tag on the remediation of this area — of how they treat the private sector in these moments,” said Colorado State Sen. Ellen Roberts, who represents Silverton, Col., where the mine spill occurred. “It might be a teachable moment for them.”

More broadly, the spill illustrates how the EPA does business.

It holds a holier than thou standard, castigating companies whose actions might harm the environment, but takes little accountability for its own actions that hurt businesses and communities, or that do explicit damage to the environment.


Read the full article HERE!

Posted by  8/21/15



Save the American War Mural at this Colorado VA Medical Center from PC Insanity

Posted by in American History, Veterans

August 18, 2015

To protest the actions of regional and national directors of the Veterans Administration described below, DO NOT call the facility in Grand Junction, Colorado. Please call the VISN Regional Director in Denver, Ralph Gigliotti at 303-756-9279 AND the national VA office at 1-800-827-1000.

The director and staff at the GJ VAMC–except the one unidentified complainant–support and love the American War mural in its current state. If you call that office, please do so in support of the mural. 970-242-0731

Please LIKE Save the VA Mural on Facebook

And use the hashtag #savetheVAmural on Twitter

As originally published on Freedom Force

VA Facility Forces 72-Year-Old Artist To Remove Confederate Flag From His Civil War Mural

Officials at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Colorado want the Confederate battle flag completely removed from a mural.

The Grand Junction medical facility features a mural of the Civil War painted by 72-year-old artist Lee Bowerman and shows a Confederate and Union soldier staring each other down. Bowerman thinks the decision to remove the flag is unfortunate, but has agreed to do as officials ask. In the meantime, officials have placed a banner to cover part of the display until Bowerman has time to finish the job and remove the offensive elements.


“I’m going to paint what they want painted because we’re living in a political environment,” said Bowerman told The Daily Sentinel.

Bowerman, however, still thinks that the mural was already inclusive.

“I got black, brown, white, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, POWs and MIAs,” Bowerman said. “I got a mule in there with a gas mask on.” Apparently, that wasn’t enough to satisfy officials.

 The VA reportedly heard complaints about the mural following the June 17 shooting in Charleston, but at the Grand Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center, it has taken almost two months to reach a decision and implement the change.

Just a week after the shooting, the U.S. Army issued a public response, saying that it would not rename bases to remove the association with Confederate generals. The idea behind the Army’s refusal is that the generals are honored for their individual character, not for their involvement in the Confederates States of America. (RELATED: The US Army’s Response To Confederate Base Names Is Perfect)

According to Air Force veteran Gary Parrott, the VA is “altering history” through its decision to erase the battle flag.

Reposted on 8/18/15 by

Radical resume of EPA director connected to Animas River disaster

Posted by in Environmental extremism, Government Agencies

August 13, 2015

Exposing the environmental extremist bureaucrat with a slight-British accent

Jared Blumenfeld is the EPA Pacific Southwest Region 9 director heading up response efforts in New Mexico following the disastrous Gold King Mine blowout. This immense environmental catastrophe on southwestern Colorado’s Animas River, was caused last week by an EPA mine safety crew, and has impacted 3 states, thousands of people, and countless numbers of wildlife and livestock, and plants along the river and its watersheds. Blumenfeld is an Obama appointee with a resume full of radicalism.


Posted by Marjorie Haun  8/13/15

EPA poised to deal death-blow to Colorado coal industry

Posted by in Government Agencies, Radical Environmentalism

August 12, 2015

Will EPA’s Clean Power Plan doom Colorado’s coal industries?

As originally published on Watchdog Arena

By   /   July 30, 2015       

Shutterstock image

AT WHAT COST? The EPA’s Clean Power Plan is set to ravage the Colorado coal industry, putting 74,000 jobs at risk.

Gov. John Hickenlooper has pledged that Colorado will comply with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, but this effort to cut so-called “CO2 pollution” could come at a dear price to the state’s coal industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave states some latitude in creating their own rules to meet the goal of decreasing carbon dioxide production by 30 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. Despite the timeline, such severe rules threaten the ongoing operation of Colorado’s coal-powered electricity plants.

According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) website, Colorado is among the top states in coal production and consumption. In the year 2013, 64 percent of energy produced in Colorado came from coal, 20 percent from natural gas, and around 15 percent from various renewables including hydroelectric, biomass, solar and wind.

The history of Colorado’s coal mining industry stretches over the past two centuries. Not to mention, coal jobs have a multiplier effect of about 1:4–for every coal job created, four other jobs are created to support it. In a 2012 report by the National Mining Association, it was indicated that over 17,000 actual coal jobs in Colorado have resulted in an overall contribution of around 74,000 total jobs.

Colorado, like other states complying with the EPA clean power plan, has formulated government mandates for renewable power, which is a less direct but equally deadly assault on coal.

In 2004 Colorado became the first state to create its own “Renewable Portfolio,” with the goal of 10 percent of all electricity sales being produced from renewable resources by the year 2020. In 2013 Governor Hickenlooper signed a bill doubling that mandate to 20 percent. To date Colorado’s renewable mandates have withstood both legal andlegislative challenges.

A report produced by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) indicates that coal-fired power plants are casualties in the EPA’s war on CO2. Coal-generated electricity is relatively cheap—much less expensive than that produced by renewable resources— nevertheless, the IER report states:

“To put 72 GW [gigawatt] in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes—or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas. In other words, EPA is shutting down enough generating capacity to power every home in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana…

While some of the effected units will be converted to use new fuels, American families and businesses will pay the price with higher utility bills and less reliability for their electricity.”

In 2010 the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) vowed that by 2017 there would be no coal-generated power plans in the Denver area, and as of 2015, 6 plants have been closed across the state.

The Denver Post reported, in February, of this year that Colorado coal production had slipped to a “20 year low.”

Without an expansion of coal exports to other nations, Colorado’s long-standing mines also face a bleak future. A 2014 USA Today article reported that U.S. exports of coal are plunging while imports from countries, such as Indonesia and Columbia, are rising dramatically. This trend seems to go against the grain of EPA clean power goals since the domestic coal industry has invested billions of dollars into the production and marketing of clean coal and clean coal technologies.

The Colowyo mine saga in Northwestern Colorado may be the best example of the government’s two-pronged assault on both coal production and coal-generated electricity. In May adistrict judge sided with the environmentalist organization, WildEarth Guardians, saying that the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) had erred in its review process for the Colowyo coal mine near Craig in Moffat County.

The judgement gave the mine, in conjunction with agencies such as OSM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, a very small 120-day deadline to complete a new review process. This precedent-setting ruling will not be appealed by Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, and so the Colowyo mine, and nearby Trapper mine, may face imminent closure. Closing those mines could result in the loss of thousands of jobs.COAL

But the mines are not the only potential victims of the actions of the EPA and the Governor. The Colowyo and Trapper mines provide coal for the Tri-state generating plant near Craig. The cost of coal imported from other states could result in a significant increase in electricity prices for Tri-state’s customers.

Colorado’s attempt to comply with the EPA’s clean power plan has already resulted insteep increases in electricity costs to consumers. According to a report by the Heartland Institute, consumer electricity prices will continue to rise as the percentage of renewable-generated electricity increases to meet government mandates.

Although other states’ coal industries are in decline due to the EPA clean power efforts, Colorado’s rugged Western Slope faces particularly difficult challenges if the trend continues. With entire local economies based on coal production and coal-powered plant operations, the EPA’s clean power plan may result in the loss of thousands of jobs, and put an end to Colorado’s legacy as a coal-producing state.

This article was written by a contributor of Watchdog Arena, Franklin Center’s network of writers, bloggers, and citizen journalists.

Reposted with permission of the author–Marjorie Haun | Watchdog Arena  8/12/15

‹ previous posts
Search ReaganGirl
Newest Posts
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Truth About Islam
Networked Blogs

Hi, guest!


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera