March 11, 2014
This article was originally published on March 10 by author Zbigniew Mazurak and subsequently posted by Reagangirl.com on March 11, 2014.
Ronald Reagan was such a successful President – especially in the foreign policy realm – that virtually all Republicans today want to project themselves as the next Reagan and claim that their foreign policy is the same as Reagan’s in order to woo national security oriented voters.
One such politician is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Because his principal rival for the 2016 Republican nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), has distinguished himself from Paul by adopting Reagan’s foreign policy principles while exposing Paul as the neo-isolationist that he is, the Kentucky Senator is desperate to defend himself.
But in fact, it is Rand Paul, NOT Ted Cruz or other Republicans, who is warping and distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy. Let me demonstrate how.
Rand Advocates Deep Defense Cuts
Rand advocates deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses, including and beyond sequestration; withdrawing US troops from strategically important bases around the world which are needed for power projection; isolationism masquerading as non-interventionism; and opposes even the most modest sanctions on Iran, claiming they would lead to war (a false claim that the anti-defense Left, including the Ploughshares Fund, also makes). Indeed, Rand has said that “not only should the sequester be maintained”, but that government spending, including defense spending, should be cut even further – as if the sequester’s and pre-sequester Obama defense cuts were not deep enough.
As a reminder, in his first two years, Obama killed over 50 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22 Raptor fighter (the only aircraft capable of defeating the newest Russian and Chinese fighters), the Zumwalt class destroyer, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle for kinetic missile defense interceptors, and much more. In 2011, Obama cut another $178 bn from the defense budget under the guise of efficiency. And in August 2011, Obama demanded and obtained another $1 trillion in defense cuts over the FY2012-FY2012 decade, including a $550 bn sequester that will take defense spending to $493 bn (less than 3% of America’s GDP) next year and keep in there until the mid-2020s!
Yet, Rand Paul thinks these defense cuts are not sufficient and demands even deeper, more crippling, defense cuts. This completely belies his claim that
“I believe, as he did, that our National Defense should be second to none, that defense of the country is the primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government.”
If the cuts required by the sequester (let alone the deeper cuts Rand demands) are implemented, the US military will be gutted. It will be a paper tiger, not a military force “second to none.”
Reagan would NEVER advocate such idiotic policies, and indeed throughout his entire presidency implemented the very OPPOSITE of the policies Rand advocates. OTOH, Ted Cruz – unlike Rand Paul – does support a Reaganite foreign policy: rebuilding America’s defenses, standing up to dictators like Putin where it matters, but avoiding being drawn into irrelevant or murky Jihadist viper pits like Syria.
But it gets even worse. In the Breitbart article cited above, Rand not only distorts the Gipper’s foreign policy, he shows he completely doesn’t understand what that policy was and how it worked, and demonstrates – there, as well as in his recent (Feb. 25th) Washington Post op-ed – that he does NOT support a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy.
He claims that:
“Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.”
Leaving aside the indisputable fact that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent has proven to be a foolish mistake, it was Reagan’s toughness, not diplomacy, that won the Cold War. In fact, it was his toughness that brought the Soviet Union back to the arms reduction bargaining table in the first place.
The Soviets returned to the negotiating table because they knew the US could keep up the arms race for long, while their own economy was flagging (and in 1991, it collapsed, as did the USSR itself) and couldn’t really sustain the arms race any longer, especially with the costs of the Afghan war, the Chernobyl disaster, and the late 1980s’ oil glut added. (Reagan convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase its oil output to cut global oil prices and thus undermine Moscow’s oil-dependent economy).
I’ll repeat it again: it was Reagan’s TOUGHNESS, his harsh policies towards the USSR, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table and eventually won the Cold War. Not diplomacy, not detente, not nice words, not his friendship with Gorbachev.
Reagan never sheathed the sword – the sword was always hanging over the Soviets’ heads. And that’s PRECISELY why Gorbachev agreed to make concessions.
Rand further claims that:
“Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser.”
But, as demonstrated above, it was Reagan’s TOUGH POLICIES, not diplomacy or nicety, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table. And Gorbachev initially wasn’t in a mood to make concessions. It was not until he understood the US was in a far stronger negotiating position, and when Reagan revealed the documents Col. Ryszard Kuklinski (a Warsaw Pact defector) handed over to the CIA, that Gorbachev began to make concessions.
(At the first Reagan-Gorbachev meeting, in 1985, the Soviet leader was initially as stubborn as his predecessors, not willing to make policy concessions. Then, Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Cap Weinberger, took his ace out of his sleeve: he gave the maps [stolen by Colonel Kuklinski] of secret Soviet bunkers, built for nuclear war, to Reagan, who gave them to Gorbachev, who in turn gave them to Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, who accompanied Gorby. Akhromeyev was very scared upon seeing the documents, and explained their importance to the civilian Gorbachev. From then on, the Soviets were more willing to make concessions.)
Rand also believes firmly in a soft, appeasement-like policy towards Russia – ignoring the fact that it was such policy that led to the current Crimean crisis in the first place. He falsely claims in his WaPo op-ed that America’s relationship with Russia should be “respectful” and that:
“There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.”
No. Diplomacy has had its time – and has dismally failed, as usual. Now is the time for FIRMNESS and MANLINESS. Now is the time to impose the harshest sanctions on Russia that are possible and to dramatically increase oil and gas production in the US (ANWR, NPRA, OCS, shale formations, authorizing the Keystone Pipeline) and to export these fuels to Europe to dramatically reduce its dependence on Russia for hydrocarbons. This would strike Russia where it would really hurt Moscow – and accomplish America’s goals without a single soldier and without firing a shot.
As for a “respectful” relationship with Russia – tell that to Vladimir Putin. Lecture him about “respectful” relationships, Mr Paul, not your fellow Republicans. Putin’s Russia has, in recent years:
- Invaded two sovereign countries on false pretexts, and in reality because they started aligning themselves with the West.
- Threatened a nuclear attack on the US or its allies at least 15 times.
- Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into US and allied airspace (and even into the airspace of neutral Sweden) on many occasions, even once on July 4th,
- Provided diplomatic protection to Iran, North Korea, and Syria, nuclear fuel and reactors to Iran, weapons to Iran and Syria, and sold tons of advanced weapons to China – weapons which will be used to kill American troops.
- Murdered journalists and other dissidents (e.g. Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko), and jailed many others, opposing the Putin regime.
- Conducted a huge military buildup that continues to this day and is slated to continue for long but which long ago has exceeded Russia’s legitimate defense needs.
- Repeatedly violated the INF treaty by testing and deploying missiles banned by the treaty.
And the US is supposed to have a “respectful” relationship with such a hostile regime, Senator Paul? Are you on drugs? Who is your foreign policy advisor, Pat Buchanan?
In short, Rand has shown, once again, that he is NO Reaganite, that he is virtually indistinguishable from his father on policy matters, and that he clearly does not believe in a “peace through strength” policy. Furthermore, he’s distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy record. Conservatives must not allow him to fool them; he would continue and even double on Obama’s failed twin policies of unilateral disarmament and appeasement of America’s adversaries. Just like Obama, Paul advocates appeasement towards the world’s most dangerous regimes, from Russia, to Iran, to Syria. No real conservative would ever vote for him.
The opinions expressed in Ziggy’s Defense Blog do not necessarily reflect those of Reagangirl.com.
March 9, 2014
Movement Atheists are not content with simple non-belief, or the supremacy of Science over religious doctrine. Their purpose is to dominate public institutions, from schools to the courts, and revamp Western thought effectively killing God; the history, traditions, and sacred beliefs that resulted in the Secular Law which prohibits the Government from instituting a state religion. In a sense, Atheists would undo the very religious beliefs which allow them their voice and freedom to act as they see fit.
Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly stirred up a hornet’s of false indignation last week, when she questioned claims by an Atheist group, represented by spokesman David Silverman, that the I-beam cross structure at the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York City is giving its members “headaches and dyspepsia.” Kelly was clearly irritated by Silverman’s endless whining about religious symbols having a place on what are considered hallowed sites, such as the former Ground Zero, and matched his sniveling with appropriately vapid questions. As entertaining as it was to see the frustrated Silverman turn bright pink, the interview was a lost opportunity for believer Kelly to ask more pertinent questions about the true complaints and hoped-for outcomes of the Atheist movement.
I would have posed the following questions:
- The increasing antagonism of Atheist groups against religious symbols placed on, or visible from, public property is purportedly based on what they say is “discrimination” against those who don’t believe in God. In the case of the cross-shaped I-beams at the 9/11 Memorial Museum, Silverman asserted that having a symbol of “Christ” was exclusionary and so to appease non-Christians, Jewish and Muslim symbols were also placed on the site. But Silverman, and Atheists in general, fail to submit possible remedies for their woes. If Atheists stand for the non-existence of God–which is theologically an absence of belief–what symbol would they want to represent them in a non-discriminatory balance at the 9/11 Memorial? If this argument is authentic, then an empty space between the Star of David and the Cross of Jesus should be sufficient. But to be represented equally alongside religious organizations is clearly not the desire nor intent of Atheists.
- Atheists may say they place their “trust” (i.e. “faith”) in Science, but if it is discrimination against science that is the central problem Atheists have with the 9/11 Memorial and other hallowed sites, then why is there not also caterwauling from the National Conference of Chemists or The American Association of Astrophysicists?
- Would Silverman and all other Atheist complainants against crosses, creches, Stars of David, et al, be satisfied if a 6 ft golden “A” or mural of the Periodic Table was erected next to those reminders of God which they find so unsettling?
The truth is that Atheists are not concerned about symbols or discrimination, their boundless litigation is about eliminating all evidence that contradicts their narrow worldview. I assert that Atheism IS NOT a passive non-belief in God but an active insurrection against Him and all things which testify of Him, including the exercise of personal faith and public expressions of belief.
Dallin H. Oaks, a former justice on the Utah Supreme Court and an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a recent devotional broadcast, stated unequivocally that Atheists are not simply dis-believers in God–which would constitute theological neutrality–but are vigorously anti-Christ–Antichrist in the most pernicious sense.
To be rationally consistent Atheists, in order to deny the existence of the Creator God, must also deny all things attributable to God which are found in civilized society, namely law which is based on a moral structure of right and wrong. But, as annoying as Atheists can be, most, especially American Atheists, are by and large law-abiding people, tacitly condoning the necessity of moral principles based upon immutable truths and time-tested practices. There is no evidence in their own lives that they are full-blown non-believers, but rather hybrids of personal moral relativism and public civility. The exceptions, of course, are Marxist/Communist regimes that have nearly reached the end of their godless continuum and behave without the strictures of human rights and good and evil found in the West. One consistent theme of American Atheism is, however, the effort within the courts to eliminate any and all expressions of religion, Christianity in particular, from the public square.
Movement Atheists are not content with simple non-belief, or the supremacy of Science over religious doctrine. Their purpose is to dominate public institutions, from schools to the courts, and revamp Western thought effectively killing God; the history, traditions, and sacred beliefs that resulted in the Secular Law which prohibits the government from instituting a state religion. In a sense, Atheists would undo the very religious beliefs which allow them their voice and freedom to act as they see fit.
Atheism, it could be said, has the goal of becoming itself the “ism” of government, where all pronouncements on good and evil, God, the Nature of Man and existence, once left to theologians, are handed down from those who believe that man is the result of a Cosmic mishap. For Atheist thought to dominate, Christian thought, with its devotion and zeal, must be done away, and anyone tempted to practice it, openly punished.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) alone has defended hundreds of religious plaintiffs in lawsuits brought by Atheist groups in matters from “In God We Trust” on coinage to Christmas Nativity scenes, to school prayer, to religious symbols on both public and private property. If American Atheists simply wanted to be equal in their non-belief–which they already are, enjoying the same Constitutional guarantees and God-given rights as the rest of us–the courts would not be brimming with their assaults on the rights of Christians to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences. If Atheists contend that tangible evidence is the only true means to truth, then the truth about their movement is that it is an attack against, not just the symbols of religion, but religion itself, and its most powerful architect, The Savior and Redeemer of the World, Jesus Christ.
Atheists are not the targets of discrimination. But the movement is growing, fast recruiting young people into its ranks. As it gains steam with a secular pop-culture and Marxist-philosophies infiltrating nearly all civil institutions, it is sure that those who believe in the Biblical God of Love will be marked for elimination.
by Marjorie Haun 3/9/14
March 8, 2014
These are the latest musings from Vietnam veteran, author, and my friend, Forrest L. Gomez .
FROM THE DESK OF OLD SARGE:
The left continues to descend into political and cultural insanity. An eleven year old girl uses a gun to save her little brother from an aggressive cougar, and lib commentators are horrified that she has such easy access to a gun. A girl in New Jersey, who moved out of her parents house when she was 18, is suing her parents for the costs she has incurred while attending a private university. Anyone want to bet which party she votes for? While Jesse Jackson Jr is meditating in Club Fed for misuse of campaign funds, we find out that he has recommended three more additions to the Bill of Rights in the House: a right to employment, a right to housing, and a right to medical care. If you don’t have a job, you could sue the government.
The latest excuse from the left as to why Obama is failing is because Republicans want him to fail. Funny that they didn’t also blame the cold weather and global warming. The New York Times reports that 81% of abortions in New York City are black babies (thus fulfilling one of Margaret Sanger’s goals), Rush quotes the figure on the air, and he is called a racist. Christians are being murdered all over the world, and the media is ignoring the massacres in favor of a single brick-throwing Palestinian being shot by an Israeli soldier. Anybody ever been hit by a brick and was able to shrug it off? Condi Rice will be dropped as a guest speaker by the tolerant students at Rutgers, while the wrong Reverend Wright continues his Jew and Israel hating tirades.
Communism is being rehabilitated in universities and lib publications. An unknown Republican in Illinois is running for governor, and his ratings are higher than the incumbent or the challenger. I feel we should support this guy, since Illinois prisons have all the former governors that they can hold.
This administration announces draconian cuts to the military (and their benefits), and then pontificates and postures before Putin and the Russians. This is like handcuffing yourself and then spitting in the face of the neighborhood bully. The world is in chaos, and this nation continues to be in decline, depriving the world of the leadership it needs. The Obama cult persists, even though our economy, foreign policy, and culture are in a shambles. If a Republican president had these same economic, political, and cultural parameters, the liberals would be calling for his impeachment, and rightfully so.
Overheard in the locker room at Notre Dame after a football game: “Man! I’m tired of being told what to do, I’m joining the Marines!” Remember, brothers and sisters: real peace comes from a walk with the Prince of Peace, not just the absence of conflict.
- The Sarge
FROM THE DESK OF OLD SARGE:
On “Koch Brothers Derangement Syndrome”
For years now, I have been telling all of you who will listen that Democrats have an evil source for their political methodology. It has been lost to history that Democrats studied Nazi and Soviet propaganda methods at the end of World War II to enhance their own procedures for convincing a following of reliable voters. If you take some of the Nazi or Soviet tirades and replace the word “Jew” or “capitalist” with words like neocon, conservative, Republican, Tea Party, etc, this becomes self-evident. Well, the new “Jew” for the coming elections in 2014 will be the Koch brothers.
This has been confirmed by both conservative publications and the New York Times. The Koch brothers, who support conservative candidates and give millions to the fine arts and charities, will be demonized in Democrat propaganda and in the media, and by definition the GOP will also be demonized. No word out if George Soros is going to help with this smear.
Furthermore, there can be no doubt, according to back channel info, that Congressman Cummings’ tirade at the Lowest Learner/IRS scandal non-hearing was carefully planned and choreographed. He and the Democrats are yelling racism again, in another pathetic attempt to change the subject. I don’t have to tell you we are in for a nasty fight this year, but then what else is new, huh? Remember, my brothers and sisters, liberals are the children of the French revolution. We are children of the very different American Revolution. God bless us everyone, and God bless America.
- The Sarge
Posted with permission on Reagangirl.com 3/8/14
March 7, 2014
This article was originally published by Zbigniew Mazurak on March 6, and subsequently posted by Reagangirl.com on March 7, 2014.
The Russian aggression against Ukraine, initiated by President Vladimir Putin, has surprised many but not me, and should have surprised no one.
It is simply an inevitable consequence of the West, and especially America’s, shameless appeasement policy towards Russia combined with a long-running policy of unilateral disarmament (while Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has been arming to the teeth).
For many years, and especially the last five, Western nations have been dramatically cutting their militaries, defense budgets, weapon programs, and ambitions, while Russia has been dramatically expanding its own.
And for the last five years running, this writer has been sounding the alarm about these suicidal policies, warning that they would only lead to Russian intimidation, coercion, excesses, muscle-flexing, and eventually, aggression.
This writer most notably sounded the alarm in May 2009, writing that:
“Unless European states and America suddenly adopt a hawkish foreign policy and strengthen their militaries, Europe will become a mere province of the Russian empire.”
And as usual, this writer was right all along.
Meanwhile, all those who falsely claimed that “the Cold War was over,” “Russia is our friend/partner, not our enemy,” “you are a Cold War dinosaur,” “you need to shed this Cold War mentality,” and “the 1980s are asking to have their policy back” were dead wrong.
All those who claimed Russia was a partner and not a foe, that it should be appeased and accommodated, that Obama’s “reset” policy was right, that the US could afford to cut its nuclear arsenal further – from Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and the Cato Institute, to the CNAS, Michele Flournoy, Michael McFaul, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, and Pat Buchanan – were DEAD WRONG ALL ALONG.
These people should now publicly admit being wrong and shut their ignorant mouths up. But we should be under no illusions that they will.
Now Ukraine, a strategically important country and a weak neighbor of Russia, has been invaded by that country under the utterly false pretext of protecting Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in the Crimea – who were not threatened by Kiev in any way – just like Hitler annexed the Sudetenland in 1938, ostensibly to protect the Sudetenland Germans from the Czechoslovakian government.
In any case, what can and should Western powers do to stop Putin from going any further?
The first and most important thing is to immediately and permanently STOP listening to the advice from the Powell-Kissinger-Flournoy-Clinton school of foreign policy, which has once again (but not for the first time) been proven DEAD WRONG.
This means no more cuts in the West’s nuclear or conventional arsenals, no more “arms control” treaties, no more accommodating of the Russians’ demands. By committing such a blatant act of aggression, they’ve forfeited the right to be heard on any issue and to make any wishes or demands.
But the West must do much more to convince Vladimir Putin that it’s serious. Mere promises of toughness, verbal condemnations, and “dialogue” won’t stop him from committing further aggression.
Therefore, the US, Canada, and European countries should, until such time as the Putin regime collapses:
1) Immediately institute a TOTAL embargo on ALL Russian products except raw minerals.
2) Hasten the deployment of all stages of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe, and build an East Coast missile defense site.
3) Immediately withdraw from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the New START, and the CFE Treaty.
4) Ban the Russian national air carrier, Aeroflot, from flying into US, Canadian, or EU airspace.
5) Warn Russia that any of its military aircraft that venture into US, Canadian, or EU airspace will be shot down without warning.
6) Expel Russian ambassadors from Western countries.
7) Boycott the upcoming G8 summit and Paralympic Games in Sochi.
8) Reverse all defense (budget, programmatic, force structure) cuts undertaken in the last 12 years and start building Western militaries up. In particular, the US should reverse all the cuts in its nuclear arsenal and fully modernize it; revive the MEADS, Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Multiple Kill Vehicle programs; cancel the F-35 program and resume F-22 Raptor fighter production; develop the Reliable Replacement Warhead and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; increase its inventory of MOP bombs; reintroduce S-3 Vikings into service; improve its Navy’s ASW equipment and skills; build a Conventional Prompt Global Strike system; develop ASAT weapons; order more THAAD brigades; speed up naval railgun and laser development and deployment; and make more Aegis-class warships BMD-capable.
9) Lastly, and most importantly, Western countries should strike Russia where it is weakest: its economy. Specifically, Western countries, led by the US, should:
a) Impose total economic sanctions, including a total embargo and asset freezes, on Russia; and
b) Start freeing itself from Russia’s oil and gas domination by opening the Outer Continental Shelf, the ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, all shale oil and gas deposits throughout the West, and the reserves in the Everglades; liquefying coal; using methane in lieu of natural gas; cancelling the South Stream pipeline; authorizing the Keystone Pipeline; and building the Nabucco Pipeline instead (and as quickly as possible). In addition, the US, which is already a net oil and gas exporter, should immediately start exporting these fuels to Europe to help it wean itself off Russian hydrocarbons.
The Russian economy is terribly dependent on raw minerals exports; 66% of the Kremlin’s revenue comes from these exports, while manufactured goods exports account for only about 10%. Moreover, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has already caused significant unrest at the Moscow stock exchange, whose main index has seen a 10% fall (and a 20% decline in the Russian currency’s value to the dollar) just today (as of 8:24AM ET, 18:24 Moscow time).
Moreover, Putin’s totally incompetent interference in the affairs of Gazprom, the Russian gas producing and exporting company, has driven it into a debt of $50 billion – equaling its turnover of one year.
This invasion, and Vladimir Putin’s entire buildup of the Russian military, would NOT have been possible absent the boon provided by high oil and gas prices (oil now stands at $105/barrel) and Russia’s stranglehold on their supplies to Europe. If that stranglehold is broken, and if these prices decline dramatically and soon, Putin will have no choice but to withdraw his troops, and his wannabe Evil Empire Redux will fall like a deck of cards.
Those who advocated the ridiculous policy of appeasement and unilateral disarmament that brought us into this mess in the first place now falsely claim that the only alternative to dialogue with Russia is war with that country. That is completely false.
No one wants war with Moscow. And since the Russian military is already more than strong enough to defeat the US military easily, it would be ill-advised.
But as stated above, Russia has one great glaring weakness – its economy – and as Sun Tzu wisely counseled, the right way to defeat your opponent is to strike his weaknesses, not his strengths.
Just as Ronald Reagan (who was vilified as a warmonger who would cause nuclear war) won the Cold War without firing a shot, the West, if it applies the right policies, can defeat Russia today, also without firing a shot, by pulling the economic lever. It absolutely can do so. The question is whether Western leaders will now have the intellectual courage to acknowledge the utter failure of their appeasement policy.
The opinions expressed on Ziggy’s Defense Blog do not necessarily reflect those of Reagangirl.com.
Posted by Reagangirl.com with permission 3/7/14
March 6, 2014
It’s not necessary for a person to know everything about the people around him. It’s not necessary to have luck on your side. It’s not necessary to be able to read the intentions of people. For, when a person employs a set of good principles, such as personal chastity and the pursuit of wholesome recreation, he is protected from the unknown and the unintended.
Once Upon a Time in the Pacific Theater there were four sailors. These young men had been out to sea for months and were relieved and excited to find that they would be docking at a beautiful and exotic, though somewhat infamous, port the next day. They would have 24 hours of shore leave to relax and become acquainted with the residents of this alluring locale. The four sailor were:
Brains Bailey, who prided himself on worldly knowledge,
Lucky Lewis, who always seemed to have good luck on his side,
Slick Sullivan, who had a way of getting information–and other things he wanted–from anyone,
Goody Gibson, so named because the other sailors mocked him for his kind demeanor and moral character.
When the vessel docked, the captain of the ship gave his men the perfunctory, “Shore Leave Lecture,” warning the men not to play certain games with the natives on shore. “Men,” said the captain, “those tempting women in this port city will rob you of your wealth and your health. Don’t risk either on a brief evening of fun.”
The seasoned captain knew that his words would go unheeded by many, however, the men had their rights, and now had their 24 hour liberty to do as they pleased while the ship was in port.
The four friends, Brains, Lucky, Slick and Goody, gathered a few items, some cash, and prepared to disembark.
Brains, the most assertive of the group said to his friends, “Well boys, what did you think of the Cap’s little talk? He thinks he knows everything! Well, I’ve studied about this place. I read in a book that the women are beautiful, and very virtuous. I betcha they’ve been saving themselves for a guy just like me!”
Lucky replied, “I’m not worried, not worried at all! Even if there are one or two women who have a gift I’d rather not open, I am certain I won’t meet em. My luck has always protected me. I’m gonna find a gal who has never played before, and I’m gonna teach her all about what it means to get Lucky!”
Slick interjected, “Big deal! Brains reads books, Lucky thinks he can always escape the bad stuff because he’s a fortunate guy, but I got somethin’ better. I can read people. I can look a girl in the eyes and see her soul. Once I read a woman, all I have to do is ask a couple questions, butter ‘er up real sweet like. If she’s damaged goods, I’m outta there. If she tells me what I wanna hear, I’m all in.”
Goody listened skeptically and in his quiet manner, turned up the corner of his mouth in a subtle smirk. Though he loved his buddies, he had little faith in their ingenious plans to get away with defying the captain’s warning.
“Yo Goody,” called out Brains, “whatcha gonna do for the next 24 hours, find an orphanage and help the nuns change diapers?” The three men howled with laughter, but Goody just smiled politely and nodded his head as if to say, “maybe.”
Once ashore, the men found a restaurant and ate a delicious and exotic meal, then they dispersed. Brains, Lucky and Slick headed to the bustling, mysterious avenues of ill-repute. Goody, on the other hand, found a theater and laughed through a movie whose subtitles made no sense. He found strange and fascinating artifacts in a museum. And along his way he passed an orphanage with children playing in the courtyard where he handed out some sticks of gum until his gum was all gone. At the end of the liberty, the exhausted men returned to the ship.
Two weeks later Goody was called into meet with the captain. He wondered timidly if he had done something wrong during his liberty in the exotic port city. “Petty Officer Gibson, please have a seat,” directed the captain. “I’m concerned that you may need medical attention and you’re too embarrassed to visit the infirmary.”
“No Sir,” said Goody, “I feel fine. Why would you think I need to see the doc?”
“Well,” said the captain, shifting in his chair, “your friends, the three other sailors, Bailey, Lewis and Sullivan, have been getting treatments from the doc for some, uh, problems they picked up on shore.”
“Oh.” said Goody.
“It’s quite serious, Gibson. Bailey and Lewis picked up a disease that could affect their future families, if you know what I mean. Sullivan is getting some shots as well, but even more seriously, he was mugged and hit on the head by the girl…well…the prostitute he visited on shore.”
“Captain, I didn’t know. Brains, Lucky and Slick were mum.” said Goody, concerned.
“Are you all right son?” said the captain.
“Oh yes, Sir, I’m fine. I went to a movie and a museum and visited some kids at an orphanage while ashore. But thanks for thinking about me.” said Goody.
“I can understand why your buddies would be mum, seeing that you had a good time without bringing any extra baggage back to the ship with you, if you know what I mean.”
“Yes, Sir, I know what you mean.” said Goody.
“Thank you , son. I appreciate that at least one young man took my “Shore Leave Lecture” to heart. It will save you a world of hurt in the long run.”
And thus goes the parable of the Four Sailors at Liberty.
It’s not necessary for a person to know everything about the people around them. It’s not necessary to have luck on your side. It’s not necessary to be able to read the intentions of people. For, when a person employs a set of good principles, such as personal chastity and the pursuit of wholesome recreation, he is protected from the unknown and the unintended. High standards of personal conduct, and living by moral principles every day, is the best protection from the woes of a diseased and deceptive world.
by Marjorie Haun 3/6/14
March 5, 2014
Think of the ability to survive a national economic or societal collapse in the context of a series of concentric rings of vulnerability. They might look like this:
- The largest and most fragile outer ring would be the nation itself. Operations of federal government, supply chains, national banks, military chains of command, etc. are highly vulnerable to attack because they are exposed to dangers at every level and every type imaginable. You, as an individual citizen, have little or no control over what happens on the national level. Citizens are doubly imperiled when the government itself becomes a direct domestic threat, while also failing to defend against foreign enemies.
- The next would be the ring of state powers and governance. A regional disruption or shakeup at a state level could occur in the case, for instance, of a financial collapse. The citizen wields slightly more influence on state dynamics, but depending on the state and its population, that influence may be limited to pressures applied to state legislators and activities that directly impact state agencies, such as the state board of education and department of transportation. The state of your state is much more important to your personal well-being than is the state of the union.
- The next inner ring would be your community, city, or rural town. The potential for disruption to your locale is dependent upon how well its resources are managed and whether or not officials have drafted and implemented emergency plans. You have a great deal of control over where you choose to live and how you use your immediate resources. You have a lot of influence over the functions and composition of city government, if you so choose. But in the event of community failure or collapse-which would be much more dangerous and disruptive in urban areas than in rural areas-you have the advantages of familiarity with the geography and economic profile of your area. In an emergency it will be much easier for you to navigate and access the things you need to survive in your town. Your town can be resilient and prepared if you are involved in the processes which address planning for emergencies.
- The innermost ring of vulnerability is the individual/family and home. This is the smallest ring, exposed to the least dangers, and it is under your direction. This is the strongest and most resilient unit of government. Individuals and families survive when governments fail because the individual directs the functions, for good or ill, of that family. This is where you have the most control, and therefore, the greatest safety, IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
Once you understand the power you have to withstand fiscal crisis and potential national implosion, you can begin to prepare in a reasoned and effective process that will ensure that you and your loved ones will have access to the essentials until the national calamities pass.
Hierarchy of necessities:
Water: Store at least 3 days worth of drinkable water in a cool dark location in your home. A minimum of 1 gallon per day per person. A family of 4 would need a minimum of 12 gallons of emergency water storage. But store an entire week’s worth if possible. Obtain water purification tablets, and water filtration devices as well.
Food: Begin with a 3-month supply of food storage. Some rules of thumb are:
- Store what you eat and eat what you store.
- Store foods you know you and your family will like.
- Store foods that are familiar.
- Comfort foods are a must in times of psychological stress.
- Remember to provide for your pets.
All of the following items have a shelf life of much longer than 90 days. Be sure to store them in a cool place with a stable temperature (garages are not good) away from light.
- Canned meats; tuna, chicken, Spam, salmon, etc. (only what your family will eat)
- Dried meats such as jerky, chipped beef, summer sausage, salami, pepperoni
- Velveeta or a similar processed cheese product
- Powdered cheese
- Wet canned vegetables, tomatoes, beans, condiments, and fruit
- Easy to prepare dry boxed meals and side dishes ( Macaroni and Cheese is great because it is comfort food.)
- Canned soups and stews
- Dried pasta and a variety of bottled or canned pasta sauces
- Instant potatoes
- Dried beans
- Dried fruit, raisins
- Boxed Jello and pudding desserts
- Boxed cake, muffin, dessert, and cookie mixes (treats and comfort foods have a lot of psychological value during times of stress)
- Boxed cereal, oatmeal, cream-of-wheat, cracked wheat, etc.
- Complete pancake mix, biscuit mix
- Flour, cornmeal, cornstarch, arrowroot
- Sugars, honey, molasses, corn syrup
- Powdered drinks, hot cocoa, fruit drinks, powdered milk, other preferences such as coffee or tea
- Evaporated milk and sweetened condensed milk
- Baby food and formula
- Peanut butter, Nutella, salted nuts
- Condiments, salt, pepper, herbs, spices, vegetable oil, olive oil, shortening, peanut butter, jams, jellies, syrups, ketchup, mustard, soy sauce, pickles, olives, capers, picante sauce, hot sauces, and other condiments that you use on a regular basis
- Packaged gravy mixes and bouillons
For your freezer: Properly wrapped meats and other foods will last in a freezer well over 90 days. If there is empty space in your freezer, fill the spaces with 3/4 full water bottles. Your freezer will be more efficient when it is filled with frozen items and, if your lose power for a time, the food will stay frozen longer, up to 72 hours if you leave the freezer door closed.
- Cured meats such as ham, sausages, bacon, etc.
- Frozen fruits and vegetables
- Prepared foods such as pizzas
- Butter, margarine, cream cheese, block cheese, shredded cheese
- Sealed packages of pork, beef or poultry
- Breads, bagels
- Candy bars
- Ice cream (don’t underestimate the value of comforting treats, especially if you have children)
- Bags of flour, biscuit or pancake mix (placing these items in the freezer greatly extends their shelf life and will fill up the empty space that may make your freezer less efficient)
- A basic first aid kit
- Several flashlights with batteries, emergency candles or lamps, fuel, matches or lighter’
- If you have an outdoor grill, keep it well maintained and the fuel tank full
- Sternos, a hibachi or other simple cooking devices
- A battery powered or crank up radio
Medicine and Personal Hygiene: Obtain a 90-day supply of the following and store it securely away from moisture and heat.
- OTC Pain killers and anti-inflammatory meds (Tylenol, Advil, Aspirin)
- 90 days worth of prescription medications (many pharmacies offer discounts on a 90-day supply)
- Dietary supplements, especially essentials like calcium, vitamin C, etc.
- Feminine supplies, diapers, wipes, toilet paper, paper towels, tissues
- OTC Allergy medications, topical anti-allergy cremes, Epi-pen (with a prescription) if needed
- OTC Cold and flu medications
- Topical antibiotic ointment
- Epsom salts, burbling alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, witch hazel, mineral oil, aloe vera gel
- Tooth paste, dental floss, soap, deodorant, razors, shampoo, lotion, etc.
- Laundry and dish detergent, cleaning supplies, rags
- Garbage bags
- Other dry goods or pharmacy items that you expect to use a few times per year
- Prepare to grow your own food (and livestock) to the greatest extent possible using farming operations, home gardens, aquaponic or hydroponic gardens, patio gardens, potted gardens, etc. National Geographic Doomsday Preppers “Secret Garden”
- Pay off debt to the greatest degree possible: Dave Ramsey system/Financial Peace University
- Be prepared to defend your family and your resources: Q & A about personal protection using firearms
- Build a network of Faith, Friends, Family, and Freedom Organizations: You are responsible to provide for the spiritual and temporal well-being of yourself and your family. Take advantage of your church and other faith organizations in a mutual-support, communication, and compassionate service network
- Build a relationship with Heavenly Father, enlarge your personal faith, and become a source of confidence and assurance to your friends and loved ones. GO TO CHURCH and take advantage of your precious religious liberty.
- Nurture your relationships with extended family and friends. Share information about preparing. Address anxieties about what is happening to the United States of America through positive action. Prepare a little each day.
- Join pro-Constitution, Conservatively oriented organizations which encourage self-reliance, and involvement in government at the grassroots level. Participate in opportunities to learn about government, The Constitution, American History, and get busy with taking care of your present and future needs.
The innermost ring of vulnerability becomes the inner circle of strength when you choose to be prepared. The window of opportunity is still open, but it is quickly closing upon this nation and its citizens. Do not wait to become prepared. But you can survive. If the nation fails, you don’t have to. You are in control of the basic aspects of your life and liberty.
by Marjorie Haun 3/5/14
March 4, 2014
Customers tell horror stories of solar company that gets $422M in tax dollars
This article was written by Tori Richards and reposted with permission by Reagangirl.com 3/4/14
February 26, 2014 By Tori Richards Watchdog.org
We all get them — telemarketing callers pushing home solar-energy systems that will save us from rising electric bills.
Most of us generally hang up. But in 2012, Jeff Leeds, who lives in theNorthern California town of Half Moon Bay, listened. His 3,100-square-foot home features 91 incandescent bucket lights, a 180-gallon fish tank, three large refrigerator-freezers and a huge entertainment system. His electric bill was averaging $350 per month.
The sales pitch Leeds was hearing on the phone sounded ideal: Lease a system from SolarCity, the nation’s second-largest solar electrical contractor, for a low monthly fee and reap the rewards of cheap electricity.
“For a $600 fee up front, I would pay $182 a month for the next 20 years,” Leeds said. “They have a performance guarantee. If I don’t make enough electricity, they said, ‘No problem, don’t worry, we will write you a check.’ I thought, ‘I’m covered.’”
A SIGHT FOR SORE EYES: Jeffrey Leeds is reminded of SolarCity every time he looks at his house.
Tacked on to that would be what the company called a small bill from the local utility company allowing the customer to use the grid and to cover the use of any electricity Leeds drew from the utility rather than from his SolarCity solar panels.
Now, 15 months later, the local utility company has raised its rates and instead of a lower bill, Leeds is pushing $500 a month with no way out for the next two decades. And he has the eyesore of solar panels that cover most of his roof.
“As a customer, you have no say,” Leeds said. “With a solar lease, you are putting the stuff on your roof. You have a signed contract with the devil and you are stuck with the stuff.”
SolarCity looked into Leeds’ case after receiving a call from Watchdog.org and offered this comment: “Mr. Leeds’ system did produce less than we guaranteed last year so he will be compensated for that under his performance guarantee.”
Was Leeds’ case an aberration?
SolarCity has generated a high number of cases of shoddy installation, said Gerald Chapman, building inspector manager for San Mateo County, which includes Half Moon Bay.
“SolarCity seems to be the biggest offender,” Chapman told Watchdog.org.
By contrast, he said, SolarCity’s small business competitors — he called them “the little guy” — “wants to do it right.”
“We pride ourselves on installation quality, but if we do make a mistake, we make it right,” countered Jonathan Bass, SolarCity’s vice president of communications. “We are rated A-plus by the Better Business Bureau, the highest rating they provide. Our work has been inspected and approved by more U.S. building departments than any other solar provider.”
Who is SolarCity?
The Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package created an open trough of cash subsidies, leading to an explosion of solar-energy companies. Some of those — Solyndra is the most prominent example — went bust spectacularly. But such high-profile failures and reports of widespread abuse have done little to dampen entrepreneurial enthusiasm.
With rebates, tax breaks and the steady climb of electric rates, more and more Americans have been signing on for solar. But retail solar technology remains expensive — upward of $20,000 per home.
That’s where SolarCity comes in.
Founded in California in 2006 by Elon Musk — PayPal and SpaceX founder and CEO of Tesla Motors, creators of the luxury electric car — SolarCity leverages a unique business model to make solar more affordable. It leases systems to homeowners, typically for a 20-year period.
SolarCity has accepted more than $11 million in federal stimulus funds to make its business run. But the real public support appears elsewhere. Because SolarCity technically owns the energy systems it installs, SolarCity — not the homeowner — earns the federal tax break intended as an incentive to go solar. So far the company has earned $411 million in such tax breaks. The company also may earn additional income on state subsidies.
If that lease is a financial boon to SolarCity, it may prove problematic for SolarCity consumers. No matter how rapidly solar technology evolves, the SolarCity lease ties each homeowner to technology that is cutting edge only at the signing of the 20-year contract.
“Our approach is to install systems to the highest engineering standards,” SolarCity says on its web site. “SolarCity has assembled one of the most experienced clean-energy project design and installation teams in the world.”
The marketing has paid off. SolarCity claims some 90,000 customers in 14 states, and says it signs a new customer every five minutes. The company says its customers include Home Depot, Walmart and the U.S. government.
SolarCity vs. inspectors
Yet consumer-oriented sites like Yelp and the Better Business Bureau , the organization that rates SolarCity an A+, feature criticism from unhappy customers whose complaints follow a similar theme — shoddy installation, poor customer service and hidden fees. Many of the postings have an almost panic-stricken tone as the consumers plead for some sort of resolution to their nightmarish scenario.
More often than not, the negative comments attract the attention of SolarCity officials, who post resolutions to the various problems. Many of the consumers complain that they have spent months trying to remedy faulty installation, only to receive either continuous boilerplate responses from customer service or no response at all.
One California man got a front-row seat at the conflict between SolarCity installers and municipal building inspectors who are sent to sign off on the system before it is allowed to operate.
“The city came out during installation and an inspector gave them the codes and requirements,” said the consumer, who asked not to be identified. “The city guy told them exactly what he wanted and what was necessary, and they still put in the wrong breakers and the wrong wiring. The inspector came back out and looked at it and said, ‘You guys put the wrong breakers on — I told you guys what I needed for the code.’”
The consumer said nearly three weeks went by with no word from SolarCity. He finally called and talked to a manager who said the system had a design problem.
“I said, ‘What do the designs have to do with the breakers? Why not have the right design from the get-go?’” he said.
In all, he claimed, it took four months to finish.
Four months was blazing fast compared to the experience of San Diego lawyer Andrew Athanassious. He first talked to SolarCity in June 2013, eager to get a system installed on his massive home before a large September 2013 utility rate hike. Despite a contract, Athanassious said SolarCity later told him his roof was “not the right material” and he’d have to pay an additional $7,500.
Athanassious is no building contractor, but he said SolarCity’s installers should have known what they were getting into.
“It’s obvious what kind of roof I have. It’s clay tile. It’s not like you could think it’s anything else,” he said.
That was on Aug. 1. Athanssious said SolarCity virtually ignored him for the next two months. He finally agreed to split the cost of the system with SolarCity because they were still the lowest-priced contractor and because finding another solar company would take too much time. SolarCity finally installed the system in October. Unlike Leeds, subsequent electricity costs haven’t been a problem. Athanassious’ utility bill was $410 per month and now it’s zero. He pays SolarCity $357 per month for a lease, saving about $50 a month.
SolarCity responded: “Mr. Athanassious’ system did require a roof upgrade, and we sourced it for him at the lowest cost.”
But Athanssious has problems that remain. During installation, contractors rewired his swimming pool heater incorrectly when they were working on the home’s electric panel. They still haven’t fixed that, he said. And SolarCity has started tacking on $15 per month to Athanassious’ bill because he refuses to pay via direct deposit, a surcharge hidden in the contract.
Other consumers have been hit with the $15 fee as well, and they’ve complained onYelp and to the Better Business Bureau.
“When I signed up, I was led to believe that they had online bill paying,” Athanassious said. “When I called them, they said they don’t have online payment capability.”
Stefano Chioetto of Denver has his system installed last February. A building inspector discovered that the installed inverter was incompatible with the utility grid and the system would not operate. For the next 50 days, Chioetto checked with SolarCity on the progress of a replacement part. He said he was given only vague answers like,
SOMEONE IN DENVER GETS STELLAR TREATMENT: U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., helps SolarCity installers with a rooftop system on Jan. 15, 2014.
“We are doing our best and are committed to fixing your system ASAP,” according to his Better Business Bureau complaint.
“They found out that the inverter they actually needed was very expensive and they had to shop around and had no idea where to find it to fit in their budget,” Chioetto told Watchdog.org, saying he discovered this from an outside solar energy expert that he contacted.
Meanwhile, the summer months had arrived and Chioetto was annoyed that he couldn’t use his panels. After he complained to the BBB, the problem was fixed almost immediately — two months after the building inspector’s discovery.
But now he has a new problem. Chioetto lives in a townhome and shares a roof with his neighbor, who has decided to get solar panels of his own. He discovered that SolarCity installed the panels about 18 inches onto the neighbor’s side of the roof even though the dividing wall is clearly visible even from the ground, both men said.
“It’s very obvious that it’s going over a foot and a half,” said the neighbor, who did not want to be named. “You can absolutely see the property line without going on the roof.”
SolarCity admitted that was a problem.
“Mr. Chioetto had a grid parameter that is unusual in a residential site, and we ultimately found a compatible inverter that could support it, and we are redesigning his system to appease his neighbor and still offer him the same performance,” SolarCity said in its emailed statement.
The neighbor decided against using SolarCity because it kept changing terms of the contract by continuing to reduce the amount of electricity that would be produced. Meanwhile, he says, SolarCity hasn’t fixed the encroachment.
“They said they are researching modules that are smaller, and it’s back-ordered until May,” the neighbor said. “I don’t know if I believe that.”
Contact Tori Richards at firstname.lastname@example.org and on twitter @newswriter2.
This article was written by Tori Richards and reposted with permission by Reagangirl.com 3/4/14
March 3, 2014
“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruits of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property…no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or by his own consent.” ~ from Cato’s Letters
There is no right to marriage. Rights are those broad, enforceable concepts which can defended in word and in fact, by law; life, liberty, property. Heterosexual men and women have no right to be married. If a single man in a country demographically short on eligible women because of decades of sex-selection abortions, such as India, asserts the right to be married, and yet lacks a consenting partner who agrees to enter into the covenant of marriage with him, who will enforce his right? Is it the role of government to initiate force upon an unwilling woman, removing ALL of her rights to self-determination, in order to enforce his right to marriage? No. It’s absurd.
Marriage between one man and one woman as designed by God and exemplified by Adam and Eve, is the crowning privilege of humanity. One must qualify for this privilege by entering into a covenant with a willing and suitable member of the opposite sex, and by making promises enforceable by law (that is until “no-fault” divorce became the norm). One must obtain a license to marry, often presenting evidence they are free of certain communicable diseases. Marriage is an institution designed to perpetuate the human family. The sexual aspect is important in marriage, but sexual attraction by itself is insufficient to qualify as marriage. Like the chemical composition of water, marriage is fixed. You cannot change its composition and still call it marriage. There is no right to marriage, and gay and lesbian sexual arrangements do not constitute marriage.
The failure of the Arizona Religious Freedom Protection bill last week illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of rights vs. privileges in our time. It is also an example of how the homosexual lobby, which has failed to make its own case to Christians and other religious traditionalists, uses the perversion of law and the force of government to further its ends.
I don’t judge an individual by whose genitalia they prefer. I judge people by their efficacy in the workplace, their decency— the content of their character. I don’t care about what people do in their sex lives. I makes no difference in how I regard a personal acquaintance or colleague. It’s not my business to know and it’s not my job to advocate for a certain sexual proclivity. Nor is it the role of government to carve out favors and exceptions, and create special status to normalize homosexuality, or to attempt to make it equivalent to marriage as designed and sanctioned by God.
“In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” ~Madison, Federalist Papers Chapter 16
In order for government to impose the normalization of homosexuality on those who believe in the supremacy of God’s Word, it must do so with force, infringing upon individual’s rights to the property of their faith and actions; turning those who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds into servants of the very thing they find morally repugnant. By employing the force of government in the courts, administrative agencies, and legislation, to crush the freedom of Christians, Orthodox Jews, and other scriptural traditionalists who wish to think, worship, and act according to the dictates of their own consciences, the homosexual movement has created for itself a human shield of individuals, battered by Political Correctness and false shame, who must comply with its wishes, or risk losing everything.
It is not an attack on anyone when those of use who believe in the unchanging Word of God witness that He ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman as the proper structure for rearing children, and the optimum institution for human progress and increase. The Christian/Traditionalist defense of the Word of God, nuclear Family, God-sanctioned Marriage, and all timeless moral principles, is an attack on no one. But in twisting civil law and perverting the definition of rights, the homosexual lobby and its Leftist masters will punish dissenters as a thought criminals, robbing them of their rights, and making them examples of the fearsome power of the government to destroy those who disagree.
By the same token, it is not discrimination for a business to turn away a customer on the grounds they don’t want to provide a product or service they find morally disagreeable. There is no right to a service or a product from a specified business. In the free market we should be free to choose with whom we do business. Customers cannot lay claim upon the skills and property of an unwilling business without fundamentally offending the rights of the business owner. The Arizona Religious Freedom Protection bill did not pave the way for open discrimination against homosexuals, but sought to discourage discrimination against those business owners who, as a matter of conscience, wish not to participate in a transaction that furthers something they find immoral.
I challenge the LGBTQ community to make its own case outside of the courts, without the force of government, through persuasion, by presenting evidence that homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender-ism, “questioning or queer,” are in and of themselves virtues that deserve a place in civil society aside the timeless institution of marriage. I challenge those who want to equate homosexual pairings with marriage to bring forth a reality-based, logical argument that will withstand all rhetorical questioning, to show religious Americans why these things are good for the rearing of children and how they will perpetuate happiness.
MAKE YOUR CASE! Make your case the same way Believers do, by persuasion and love unfeigned, one person at a time. God Himself was so offended by theocracy that He inspired a nation to be brought forth where no single religion ruled, but rather a secular law. The First Amendment bars the establishment of a state religion. Has homosexuality effectively become a state religion, where non-believers are punished and coerced by threats, fines, and imprisonment, to convert?
The case for civil rights was made, and eventually a vast and irresistible majority of Americans were persuaded, that all men and women are created equal regardless of skin color, nationality, dialect, faith, or station. Here is a truth that is self-evident; that each life has intrinsic value, and sovereignty–the right to be free and to access all blessings offered by the condition of being free. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable, and based upon Natural Law.
No matter how much public shaming or name calling, fines or imprisonment is brought to bear on those who live their lives and run their businesses according to the dictates of conscience, no one can conquer the Christian world, and no one one can alter the composition of marriage to suit individual tastes. I urge the LGBTQ community to turn away from group identity and mob think. Be individuals, bring your own cases before the public. IF YOUR LIFESTYLES ARE VIRTUOUS, LET THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AS DO THE REST OF US, Christian and non-Christian alike. If the LGBTQ community cannot make its own case, and must force others to conform against their will, the result with be an increasingly militarized government which targets its own citizens as enemies of the state.
by Marjorie Haun 3/3/14
March 2, 2014
Children who are coming to school with severe, sometimes unmanageable, behaviors, who have no underlying cause such as a mental illness or a personality disorder are often victims of their own home environments. Poor parenting, or no parenting, is destroying a generation of kids; their ability to learn, get along with others, problem-solve, and regulate their own emotions.
Long before Common Core there was a menace stalking our schools. It’s still here and has had a crippling effect on student behavior and achievement–especially our Special Education programs. It is not a new problem, but it has metastasized and grown just under the surface for decades. My guess is that almost every classroom teacher in the country has been effected directly, or indirectly, by this problem. It blows apart classrooms, but because of its nature and a discipline philosophy built on political correctness, no one dares address it honestly. It is students who have an “environmentally induced behavior disorder.” Translated into less politically-correct terms, it means “kids who are rotten and out-of-control because they have been screwed up by their parents.”
Children who are coming to school with severe, sometimes unmanageable, behaviors, who have no underlying cause such as a mental illness or a personality disorder are often victims of their own home environments. Poor parenting, or no parenting, is destroying a generation of kids; their ability to learn, get along with others, problem-solve, and regulate their own emotions.
A lot of extreme behaviors are observed in kiddos who have no organic or genetic disorder. They are usually physically normal. But they one common denominator are homes that volatile and stress-filled, and parents fail to care for them, keep them safe, or provide even minimum structure for their lives. Other commonalities are single moms who have serial boyfriends, generational poverty, location instability, drugs and alcohol. Many of the otherwise normal students who display severe antisocial behavior at school are victims of physical, sexual, emotional abuse and/or neglect. Their parents are often poorly educated and lack the skills or the will to find stable work, or become self-reliant. These troubled students may have little or no time with one or both biological parents. They may be fostered, placed in the homes of relatives or grandparents, or all of the above. In many cases they are so stressed, fearful and unsure that they completely lack the security and structure needed to develop emotional self-regulation.
Students who manifest the symptoms of an “environmentally induced behavior disorder” are not segregated by race, region, socio-economic class, or learning styles. Almost every school, in every part of the United States has a population of kids who fit this profile. And the numbers are growing.
The dirty big secret is that these children are ending up in the Special Education “Severe Needs Behavior” programs, either by default or by process, because they are so disruptive and dysfunctional in the general education classroom. Their academics are so impacted by their social/emotional issues that they appear to have learning disabilities, or mental illness, or both. Special education professionals end up tracking and servicing these students at a very high cost per child to the tax-payer. Children in SpEd may have up to 7 or 8 service providers working on their case. The onus almost always falls on the school and educational professionals to provide structure, safety, and social modeling where parents fail. The children of whom I speak are the monster children of monster parents.
The public school system has few effective means to hold parents accountable. Political correctness and the expanding role of schools in feeding, entertaining, and sheltering kids lends to a sense of entitlement among parents. Schools are perceived to be feeding sites, medical clinics, counseling centers, and dawn to dusk day care facilities. Private and charter schools may opt to have parent-school contractual relationships. Since education in America is regarded as a right, schools deal with such children and parents until behavior becomes so severe as to warrant expulsion. And too many times, such children are simply expelled into the street. Their extended families exist in group homes, jails, and rehab.
The answer to this educational problem is easy. Bring back Ward and June Cleaver, and old-fashioned personal morality and responsibility.
- Form families with a man and woman who are married at the head
- Live values of decency, maturity, physical and mental cleanliness, and hard work
- Remove any stigma or pressure placed upon women to continue to work while they raise little ones
- Make parenting skills as preeminent as professional skills, for they are both required. “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” LDS President David O. McKay
- Love and nurture your children ahead of friends, relatives, lifestyle or possessions
Education will not recover until the American family is restored. Broken students are a parenting problem, a spiritual problem, not an educational problem. Until marriage is restored to its proper place, parents put the well being of children first, and God becomes central to personal and public life, there will be no improvement in our public schools.
by Marjorie Haun 3/2/14
March 1, 2014
This is another penetrating observation by Vietnam veteran, author, and friend, Forrest L. Gomez, affectionately known as Old Sarge.
FROM THE DESK OF OLD SARGE:
I heard a good call to Rush Limbaugh today on his EIB radio show. The subject was a public school employee who raises cows and was apparently caught on camera having sex with a cow. He’s been suspended pending an investigation, of course. An obviously astute caller asked Rush if he thought PETA would get there first to ascertain if it was consensual sex on the part of the cow, or if the Left would defend it as just another alternative lifestyle choice. What would you like to bet that the public school employee’s union tries to get him fully reinstated in his job?
Government workers are definitely declining in character. We already know about the scandals in the Justice Department, the IRS, the State Department, and nearly every other department of government that the Obama Administration has used to harass its opponents.
It’s now been reported that workers at the Veteran’s Administration destroyed medical records to ease the backlog in the caseload. When did our “civil servants” become uncivilized tyrants?
The religious freedom protection bill in Arizona, designed to guarantee that private business owners wouldn’t have to go against deeply held religious beliefs in providing services to people whose conduct they believe is in opposition to God’s law, was systematically misrepresented in the media and by the Democrats. To make matters as bad as they can possibly get, the Republican leadership, including the religious Mitt Romney, caved almost completely.
The Left smells blood now, and you can bet that the day is coming when we will be told that we can only practice our faith within the walls of our churches and homes. At one time the term “liberal” referred to generosity of heart and openness of mind–very Christian characteristics. These days, “Liberal” and “Christian” are oxymorons, and I would beg every authentically religious person in the country to lay down the differences among ourselves and vote these evil people out of office.
I will vote for any reasonably conservative Republican over any Democrat. I urge you to do the same. Time is short and we are definitely at a tipping point in our culture and civilization. God bless you all, and God bless America!
- The Sarge
Posted by Reagangirl.com 3/1/14