April 24, 2015
Welcome to Radical Colorado, where marijuana is legal and celebrated as a civil right, and homosexuals can “marry” one another, but unborn babies killed in the commission of a crime are not recognized as persons.
Most Coloradans were horrified on March 18 of this year, by the news that a young woman from Longmont, Michelle Wilkins, who was seven months pregnant, became the victim of an attack in which she was stabbed, cut open, her baby then removed and stolen. Dynel Lane, the deranged perp who met Wilkins through a Craig’s List ad for baby clothes, took the pre-term baby girl out of Wilkins, and then transported her to Longmont United Hospital, where she was found to be dead, with no evidence that she was alive following the stabbing. Lane was arrested and after weeks of legal wrangling, the Boulder County District Attorney filed 8 counts against her, none of which were for homicide.
Colorado has no law which protects pregnant mothers from assaults which harm or kill their unborn babies. Frankly, the radicals who wield political clout in the state have prevented any and all efforts to give unborn victims of crime any recognition at all. Following the repugnant attack on Michelle Wilkins and her baby daughter, Aurora, Republicans in the Colorado State Senate undertook to craft a bill that would offer protection to unborn crime victims without threatening so-called “abortion rights.” SB15-268, “Aurora’s Law,” deals specifically with the criminal code and defines an unborn crime victim as a “person” only insofar as it is applicable in criminal charges in the case of a homicide. Thirty-eight other states have laws prosecuting fetal homicide, twenty-nine of which protect the unborn at all stages of gestation.
Aurora’s Law specifically indicates that legal abortions, as constitutionally defined, are not impacted by the bill, and despite the use of the word “person” for prosecutorial purposes, it does not establish blanket “personhood” for unborn babies in Colorado. Nevertheless, Democrats in the State Legislature and their surrogates; ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc., have been hyperventilating in attempts to discredit Aurora’s Law as an assault on women and their “reproductive rights.” They seem to ignore the fact that in abortion, women choose to end the lives of their, and under current law, there is no crime–except, of course, the moral crime of taking an innocent life. But in cases of crimes committed against unborn children, there are ALWAYS two victims, the mother AND the baby.
One witness representing the ACLU testifying in opposition to Aurora’s Law set forth the scenario that, (paraphrased) “If a woman who is beaten by her husband loses the baby due to violent trauma, this bill could prosecute the woman for staying with the husband and not protecting the baby from him.” This witness, and others like her, seem to forget that in such a scenario, THE WOMAN IS ALSO A VICTIM, and existing laws, in concert with Aurora’s Law, would hold the abusive husband accountable for the beating of the wife and the death of the baby.
The Democrats have chosen to couch their arguments against Aurora’s Law in such a way that it seems they’re saying fetal homicide and abortion are the one and the same. They are essentially arguing that there should no law punishing crimes against unborn children because such a law would threaten abortion rights. Do Democrats realize that in doing so, they are also admitting that abortion IS the equivalent of fetal homicide?
There is a breathtaking gap in the logic of those who oppose Aurora’s Law who also say they are for “women’s rights.” The truth is that Aurora’s Law is a protection for women, because no unborn child can be harmed without its mother being harmed first. You cannot separate the life of a pregnant mom from the life of her yet-to-be-born child. Ironically, abortion-rights progressives have always agreed with this premise.
Sadly, this generation of Colorado Democrats has been radicalized, and they always circle the progressive wagons around their most holy icon of abortion, giving nary a thought to how their obstruction of a good law, such as Aurora’s Law, ultimately harms women, and little girls, and little boys.
by Marjorie Haun 4/23/15
April 19, 2015
It is possible, however, that the true driving-force behind bans on Conversion Therapy, is that the “born that way” lie is threatened as individuals abdicate former homosexual lifestyles, and abandon that which radical progressives insist, is a fixed and immutable homosexual identity.
There’s a part of me that has great pity for the radicals on the progressive Left. They spend all their time trying to deconstruct the essential institutions of marriage, family, education, religion, etc., with the goal of recreating them in their own nihilistic image. But like Sisyphus, their effort is futile. They make a little headway, causing societal destruction, broken families, confusion and chaos, but in the long-term, Progressivism never works because truth, reason and reality cannot be deconstructed.
Earlier this month, the Colorado Senate Veteran’s and Military Affairs Committee killed a bill that would have made illegal the practice of “Conversion Therapy” by mental health professionals in the State. Similar bans on such therapy have been passed in the progressive states, California and New Jersey. Advocates of such bans, including President Obama, assert that such therapy is harmful and cruel, despite the lack of evidence, other than anecdotal stories, that Conversion Therapy has ever harmed any of its participants.
The Colorado “Ban on Conversion Therapy” bill, introduced by two LGBT Democrats, Representative Paul Rosenthal and Senator Pat Steadman, was sold on the grounds of compassionate acceptance of the “natural” identities of LGBTQ children. There was no consideration given to the facts that sexual identity confusion is not unusual during adolescence, and that there is evidence that many self-identified homosexual children have been victims of early sexual abuse.
“Conversion Therapy” is an inaccurate and somewhat derisive name for the type counseling that individuals beset with homosexual questioning may obtain in a quest to reconcile unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction. Typically there is no “conversion,” coercion, or other heavy-handed methodology, in this form of therapy. It consists mostly of guided conversations that help an afflicted individual explore his or her authentic goals and aspirations, aligning them with the sexual identity that makes those goals and aspirations possible. The bill in question, HB15-1175, would prohibit all counselors, therapists, and mental health professionals from talking to patients under the age of 18 about the possibility that their same-sex attraction might not be a permanent characteristic, and could be changed through behavior modification and exploration of thoughts and self-conceptions.
The errant premise behind the effort to ban therapies which address distressing feelings of same-sex attraction, is that all homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender people are born that way, and comprise a normal subset within a given population. Despite the fact that the “born that way” idea is not biologically provable, folks like the Democrats behind HB15-1175 are attempting to remake our entire culture based upon that lie.
Though the bill is an offensive assault on the First Amendment, that’s not the only reason it’s dangerous. If passed, this type of law could trap young people suffering from identity confusion, or the emotional trauma of sexual assault, from obtaining the help they need to lead happy, productive lives. It is possible, however, that the true driving-force behind bans on Conversion Therapy, is that the “born that way” lie is threatened as individuals abdicate former homosexual lifestyles, and abandon that which radical progressives insist, is a fixed and immutable homosexual identity. On a sinister level, banning Conversion Therapy shores up the homosexual agenda by closing a potential escape hatch for those who want a way out.
Even with politically-correct pseudo science siding with radical homosexuals and progressives, many studies have called into question the “gay gene” theory. Also, one cannot ignore the studies correlating homosexuality with early sexual abuse. Finally, former homosexuals and lesbians are becoming bolder in speaking out against the lie that homosexuality is a fixed human feature, and cannot be addressed through loving counseling and guidance.
Common sense tells me that the desire to “ban” a form of counseling–which is a ban on a certain form of speech–indicates that someone has something to hide. If radical Progressives and LGBT activists are confident that they are correct in all their dogmatic assertions, why are they so uncomfortable with the free speech of doctors who might help people discover that they were not “born that way” after all?
by Marjorie Haun 4/19/15
April 18, 2013
There is nothing elevating about getting high in the state of Colorado.
I overheard this conversation in a downtown Denver restaurant yesterday, the day before the big 420 Marijuana event.
Man 1: (to waiter) Since we’re here for the weekend we need somebody to help us navigate the whole dispensary thing.
Man 2: Yeah, my buddy and I are here from Michigan, and we want to get some pot, but we both realized our driver’s licenses are expired. What can we do?
Waiter: No problem, just hang out around the entrance of the dispensary and, you know, people are always glad to sell you a bud. It happens all the time.
Man 1: Thanks, man.
To put this into context, a young couple three booths down from me were tweaking their brains out, and pot, undoubtedly, was their gateway drug to the harder, brain-eating substances.
But folks, this is the shameful position that amending our state constitution to make recreational marijuana a “right” has put Coloradans in. Recreational marijuana is a social evil. There is nothing good that comes from it. Getting stoned does nothing to enhance human functioning, but is proven to do great damage to the human body, adolescent brains, family ties, memory and motivation.
There is nothing virtuous or good about legalized recreational pot. It is both a cause and symptom of progressive moral and social decay. Do those who tout tax dollars from pot realize that the cost to this and future generations will far outweigh any perceived fiscal benefits? Do they realize that the children caught up in the pot culture today will be the broken souls of tomorrow? Is it worth it folks, to welcome and embrace a known evil into Colorado, opening the door to addiction, crime, and broken relationships with a wink and a nod and a bill from the state Department of Revenue?
I’m sure those guys from Michigan found a dispensary with folks willing to sell them a bud. Our tourists now come here to break the law, lie, and get stoned. There is nothing elevating about getting high in the state of Colorado.
by Marjorie Haun 4/18/15
April 14, 2015
U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Makes America and Allies Safer
“Unilaterally reducing or eliminating America’s nuclear arsenal will not make the world a safer place,” writes Keith Payne, director of the Graduate School of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University and former deputy assistant secretary of defense, in The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. experience since the end of the Cold War proves the statement true. America has already cut its nuclear weapons arsenal by over 80 percent, but other nuclear powers have not followed its lead.
While nuclear utopians believe that if the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal other countries will follow suit, the reality is that not only have other states not done so, other nuclear powers have emerged, including India, Pakistan, and North Korea. China is modernizing its nuclear weapon arsenal as is Russia. Moscow has increased its reliance on nuclear weapons and has undermined nonproliferation by threatening non-nuclear states with a nuclear attack. Russia’s threats are particularly concerning in the context of U.S. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commitments since some of the threatened states, including Poland, are members of the Alliance.
All the countries with nuclear weapons programs have been investing significant resources into modernizing their warheads and delivery platforms and maintaining infrastructure supporting the nuclear weapon complex. The United States has lagged behind. The government decided to maintain Cold War–era nuclear weapons rather than conducting low-scale yield-producing experiments that would increase the probability, already very high, that U.S. warheads will perform as intended. Both China and Russia have been conducting such experiments.
U.S. nuclear warheads are not the only hostage of the government’s inability to create and implement a sustainable, long-term, adequately funded plan for nuclear warhead modernization. U.S. nuclear delivery platforms, intercontinental-range ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, and bombers are decades old (half a century old in the case of B-52 bombers). Funding for modernization has been repeatedly cut and delayed. The Department of Defense’s $15.9 billion budget request for nuclear modernization is the first essential step on the long road to the revitalization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The U.S. nuclear mission will remain critical and must be sustained.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 4/14/15
April 11, 2015
By Marjorie Haun | Watchdog Arena
Questions about pesticide application to marijuana plants in Colorado and potential pest contamination to other crops have revealed gaps in the agricultural knowledge surrounding the state’s burgeoning industry.
Prior to the 2012 passage of Colorado’s Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana, its cultivation was allowed only in licensed medical marijuana operations. The marijuana plant, Cannabis Sativa, is currently classified as a noxious weed in many states.
A recent Denver Post article about the quarantining of hundreds of marijuana plants at a commercial facility due to the improper use and application of pesticides and fungicides, brought to light an issue that has received little or no attention from the general public.
According to the March 23 story:
The state of Colorado has long had “best practices” type of guidance for pesticide use by pot growers, but the state has yet to conclude work on implementing rules for pesticide use in the industry.
Agriculture regulators generally require pesticides to be used as labeled. But because there aren’t any pesticides labeled for use on marijuana, growers are asked to use pesticides labeled for “unspecified crops and/or plants.
Technically, marijuana is governed by Colorado Pesticide rules, as are other agricultural crops, but commercial producers of pesticides have not included marijuana (Cannabis Sativa) on the labels which list appropriate crops for application. In a statement to Watchdog Arena, Duane Sinning of the Colorado Department of Agriculture Plants Division explained:
Pesticides labels are registered for specific crops in specific states. Those labels are held by the private pesticide industry so state laws cannot change them. Products not specifically labeled for use on marijuana plants cannot legally be used on those plants. Out of some 13,000 chemical pesticides on the market, only about 200 of them contain labeling language broad enough to allow them to be used on marijuana plants.
It appears that many of the implications and potential hazards of marijuana pests and pesticides are unknown. Although industrial hemp crops have been studied and there is a body of knowledge regarding industrial hemp pests and pest control, it’s difficult to find credible sources for similar information addressing commercial marijuana crops.
The Colorado State University Extension Office is considered the go-to resource for agricultural information; however, when asked about existing research on marijuana pests and pesticides, Colorado State University’s Assistant Vice President for Research & Industry Partnerships Mark Wdowik told Watchdog Arena:
CSU may be able to provide information related to industrial hemp, but not marijuana. Researchers from our agricultural college may be able to assist you with information about hemp cultivation. If your questions are specific to marijuana, you will need to turn to individuals and entities external, and not related to, CSU.
The dearth of marijuana research in the area of crop pest-control, and federal prohibitions against its commercial growth and sale may account for the absence of marijuana-specific labeling in the agricultural pesticide industry.
The pests and various diseases which attack hemp plants—a plant almost identical to marijuana without the high levels of THC—are fairly well known. One of the most insidious is the Aspergillum mold, which, if inhaled, can cause severe pulmonary disease. Hemp flea beetles, spider mites, hemp borers, weevils, and whiteflies are just a few of many arthropods that attack industrial hemp plants.
What is less-known is how the pests and diseases which attack hemp’s close relative, marijuana, will affect other agricultural crops such as fruit orchards, corn, wheat, etc. Marijuana is relatively new to Colorado as an outdoor crop, and little information is available about how it will grow and possibly spread in various regions such as the high desert, plains and mountainous areas, or how it might be a vector for the spread of agricultural pests and disease.
The unknowns surrounding marijuana pests and pesticides are one facet of the controversy over a potential outdoor medical marijuana operation in the middle of Western Colorado’s prime peach orchards and vineyards. Kendra Williams, a peach grower from Palisade, Colo., summed up the issue for Watchdog Arena:
We, the peach growers, have to obtain spray licenses for applying pesticide to our crops. We have no idea whether or not the pot growers will have the same regulations. Entire crops have been pulled out of this valley because they spread diseases and bugs to other crops. Nobody knows what will happen with marijuana growing right next to our peaches. The people voting to legalize marijuana put the cart before the horse and there are agricultural questions that haven’t been answered, and I’m afraid the farmers out here will have to pay the price.
This article was written by a contributor of Watchdog Arena, Franklin Center’s network of writers, bloggers, and citizen journalists.
Reposted on Reagangirl.com 4/11/15
April 7, 2015
Blame it on Lola
A pack of Colorado Democrat Legislators has introduced a bill that says that if a person decides that they are not who they are, that they can be what they think they are despite the fact that what they are is different than who they say they are. Yep, this is the Colorado Transgender Birth Certificate Bill, House Bill 15-1265. Its preamble states:
CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH A GENDER DESIGNATION THAT DIFFERS FROM THE GENDER DESIGNATED ON THE PERSON’S ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Back in the good old days when boys were boys and boys could only be girls if they went under the knife, a transsexual person could present evidence that they had been surgically altered to appear as their preferred gender, and then go through the process to change the designated sex on their birth certificate with the order of a judge. In other words, Dick could be Jane on his/her birth certificate so long as Jane had no dick. But the Colorado Transgender Birth Certificate bill removes the burden from an individual of having to prove that they have taken steps to physically transition into the opposite sex. (I think there are still two sexes, but please correct me if I’m wrong.) All that gender-confused little Dickie needs to present to the court to become Jane is a written request–or a permission slip from his parents if Dickie is a minor–and an statement from a “licensed health care provider” stating that:
“the person has undergone surgical, hormonal, or other treatment appropriate for that person for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or stating that the person has an intersex condition, and that in the provider’s professional opinion the person’s gender designation should be changed accordingly.”
The language in this bill is so broad (no sexism intended) as to stagger the mind of a person who thinks in concrete terms. It says that surgical alternation is not at all necessary for Dick to claim he is really Jane. “Intersex” individuals are extremely rare. The word means “
Folks, wake up. Democrats Moreno, Esgar, Garnett, Ginal, Rosenthal, Ulibarri, Guzman and Steadman want to encode this bill into statute for the rest of eternity! Think about the public safety implications. Right now in Colorado there is controversy over “transgender” or unisex bathrooms–especially those where little girls and boys go to the restroom–because, for example, a man claiming to be a woman, but who has all the working parts of a man, can enter a restroom where little girls go pee pee, and there is nothing anyone can do about it without being charged with discrimination. Hang on to your butts, because the Colorado Transgender Birth Certificate bill takes this danger up a notch. Currently, if Dick enters a restroom where little girls go pee pee, and Dick says he’s Jane, the law can argue that because Dick has a dick, that he is not Jane and should not be in a restroom with Mary, Claudia and Prudence. However, HB15-1265 would give Dick a lot of ammunition for his defense because in court, Dick could pull out his birth certificate that says he IS Jane. “Ha!” Dick would exclaim, “you thought I was a boy in a girls restroom, but you’re wrong! I’m really a girl trapped in a boy’s body, going to a girl’s restroom, because my birth certificate says I’m a girl, and it would be wrong for me to go to a boy’s restroom.”
Societal chaos, altered realities, unicorn farts, and all manner of dissonant cognition seem to emanate from the Left side of the Colorado State Capitol. There is lots of blame to go around for this phenomenon, but I really think it all started with the Kinks stupid song, Lola. Apparently the Democrats adopted this vapid song, and made it the political platform of their party.
Well I’m not the world’s most masculine guy
But I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man
And so is Lola
La-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola
Lola la-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola
by Marjorie Haun 4/7/15
Contradictions sink Colorado ‘indefinite detention’ bill
By Marjorie Haun | Watchdog Arena
The Colorado Legislature recently attempted to duplicate the efforts of other states, in what many believe to be the protection of civil liberties of American citizens.
The Colorado House passed HB15-1114, a bill very similar to the 2012 Virginia law responding to the National Defense Authorization Act, prohibiting state employees from investigating, prosecuting, or detaining individuals under the NDAA. However, with a preamble and concluding sections containing contradictory language, the bill faced problems early on. The preamble states unequivocally:
The bill prohibits a state agency, a political subdivision of the state, an employee of a state agency or political subdivision of the state acting in his or her official capacity, or a member of the Colorado National Guard serving in his or her official capacity from aiding an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 or 1022 of the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Section (2) of the Colorado NDAA bill, however, seems to negate its stated purpose. It reads:
The prohibition described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section does not apply to participation by an entity in a joint task force, partnership, or other similar cooperative agreement with Federal Law Enforcement if the joint task force, partnership, or other similar cooperative agreement is not for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, or detaining any person pursuant to section 1021 or 1022 of the federal “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”
Even more problematic for the sponsors of HB15-1114, Sens. Laura Woods (R) and Jessie Ulibarri (D), is the provision in the bill which would criminalize individual state employees who, even in their official capacity, participated in the investigation, prosecution, or detention of an American citizen with possible terrorist links. It states:
An individual who violates subsection (1) of this section shall be prosecuted under any applicable provisions of the “Colorado Criminal Code”, Title 18, C.R.S., including, but not limited to, provisions that prohibit assault, battery, kidnapping and homicide, as defined by law.
The Colorado Division of Public Safety and numerous military organizations opposed the bill because of this provision.
The Colorado Senate State Military and Veteran’s Affairs Committee held a hearing on HB15-1114 on March 23, during which an expert on military law and the NDAA from the Heritage Foundation, Charles (Cully) Stimson, testified in opposition to the bill. In an attempt to assuage the fears surrounding NDAA investigations, he stated:
A grand total of two terrorists (Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi) with ties to either al-Qaeda or the Taliban—who have been American citizens—have been subject to military detention in the United States. Each challenged his military detention in Federal court prior to Congress passing Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA of 2012.
Of the Colorado bill, Stimson went on to say:
This law sends confusing messages to state employees, especially law enforcement officials. Imagine a state trooper pulling over a speeder and finding out through an ID check that the FBI has an alert for the driver as a suspected al-Qaeda operative. What should the trooper do if he knows or suspects the driver is a U.S. citizen? Should he do his duty and detain the suspect, which could be interpreted as a violation of Colorado law? Or should he simply write the speeding ticket and send the terrorist on his way, not telling the FBI or the military, and the consequences be damned?
Following Stimson’s testimony, the Colorado Senate State Military and Veteran’s Affairs Committee killed the bill in a 3-2 vote.
This is not the first time NDAA investigations and “indefinite detentions” have been addressed in the Colorado Legislature and other legislatures. HB15-1114 is the third bill in three years to be introduced which would prohibit state participation in federal investigations of American citizens with suspected terrorist ties.
When the NDAA passed in 2012, certain provisions sparked a heated conversation about civil liberties. Section 1021 of the NDAA addresses the power of the United States Armed Forces to detain persons involved with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as well as “a person who was part of, or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces (ISIS), that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces” (sub-section 1021 (a) of NDAA 2012).
Though the language seems to be clear about who is covered by the NDAA, disputes continue over the provision of the act allowing for the detention of American citizens with suspected terrorist links. It states:
(c)DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle have feared the potential “indefinite detention” of American citizens under this act, possibly due to the arbitrary definition of “end of hostilities.” As a result, several states have sought to pass legislation prohibiting the use of state resources, funding, and state employees—such as state patrol officers and National Guardsmen—from assisting in NDAA investigations of American citizens.
The state of Virginia responded in 2012 by passing a bill forbidding state employees, such as law-enforcement officers and National Guardsmen, from participating in the investigation, surveillance, detention or arrest of any U.S. citizen who may be a suspected member of a terrorist organization.
Virginia’s law has been challenged for a number of reasons, including the fact that, according to the Washington Post, the state has received billions of dollars of federal funding for the support of NDAA surveillance of suspected terrorists. This has also been an issue in other states with similar bills.
Several other states, including Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri and Utah, have passed similar laws banning state assistance in NDAA investigations or detentions of American citizens.
This article was written by a contributor of Watchdog Arena, Franklin Center’s network of writers, bloggers, and citizen journalists.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 4/2/2015
March 25, 2015
Are you keeping abreast of Colorado’s legislative antics?
Two Democrats have passed a bill through the Colorado State Legislature aptly nicknamed the “Breastfeeding Bill.” HB15-1164 concerns “The postponement of jury service for a person who is breastfeeding a child.” First of all, I find the term “person” suspect. Why isn’t it “mother,” or “maternal progenitor,” or “mumsy?” The term person is too broad to be legally applicable. In fact, it would be better to replace the term ,”person” with “broad,” because “broad” is not at broad as “person,” since not all “persons” are properly equipped to breastfeed a baby, or a kitten, or a wombat, in broad terms.
The other thing that bugs me about this bill, which by the way, has weirdly passed both chambers of the Colorado Legislature and is on its way to the Governor’s desk, is, why the heck do we need a law for this? I was a breastfeeding mom (sorry kids), and I never needed a special law to tell the court to let me off easy because I was lactating. I was once excused for breastfeeding. “I might leak breast milk during the trial,” I told the lawyers, and they let me go without discussion. I was once excused for having morning sickness. “I feel like I’m going to puke…now!” I told the lawyers, and they let me go. In fact, they chased me out of the jury room. No problemo. I’ve seen people excused from jury duty for hemorrhoids, and ingrown toenails, and dyspepsia. Trust me, lactating broads have never been forced into indentured jury duty. Nobody, especially not judges and lawyers, want bodily fluids oozing during the court proceedings.
Third, it seems like mammary legislation is the third rail of politics. When a breast-related bill comes up for debate, nobody dares touch it. Republicans may think the bill is stupid, but they’re terrified to broach what Democrats tell them is a sensitive subject. If you oppose any bill with the word “breast” in the language, you will be accused of hating women, and babies, and wombats. It’s almost like the Colorado Breastfeeding Bill is a sacred cow, exempt from scrutiny. And, trust me, Democrats are milking the issue for all it’s worth.
Since it passed through a split Legislature with flying colors, Governor Hickenlooper probably cannot wait to get his hands on it. With the success of the Breastfeeding Bill, you can be sure that future legislation, pumping up special rights for boobs, will have the proverbial political cup running over.
Posted by Reagangirl.com, your website for equal opportunity snark.
March 24, 2015
The Sneaky Way the Obama Administration Is Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Join the Military
Despite the challenges of a growing terrorist threat, the Obama administration has decided now is the right time to allow illegal immigrants to join the military.
While the administration is juggling the assembly of an international coalition to degrade and destroy ISIS and its affiliates and identifying the 100-plus American passport holders and the 3000-plus European passport holders who have joined ISIS, the administration—for the first time ever–will allow illegal aliens to join the U.S. military through a pilot program named the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI).
The MAVNI program authorizes the secretary of defense to “recruit certain legal aliens whose skills are considered to be vital to the national interest.” It is mainly directed at those holding critical skills, such as “physicians, nurses, and certain experts in language with associated cultural backgrounds.” According to the Defense Department website, the “limited pilot program will recruit up to 1,500 people per year, and will continue through September 30, 2014.”
Those former illegal aliens became “eligible” to join the military because of the Obama administration executive amnesty program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The DACA program is, as Heritage scholars have written here, unjust, costly and acts as an incentive for more illegal immigration.
DACA purports to set prosecutorial priorities and grant relief to each individual who (1) came to the United States under the age of 16; (2) continuously resided in the U.S. for at least five years before June 15, 2012; (3) is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has a GED, or is an honorably discharged veteran; (4) has not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors or otherwise poses a threat; and (5) is not above the age of 30.
Recall that the patriotic-sounding ENLIST Act (Encourage New Legalized Immigrants to Start Training Act), proposed earlier this year, failed to become law. That act would have given lawful permanent residence status to illegal aliens in exchange for honorable military service. Since that form of back door citizenship did not become law, the administration has simply created an ENLIST Act workaround–a two-step executive amnesty process: (1) get into DACA, and (2) then get into the U.S. military via MAVNI.
And just who has been granted DACA status?
As of June 2014, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1,423 citizens from Pakistan have been granted executive amnesty through DACA. Furthermore, the administration has approved 449,921 Mexican citizens and tens of thousands of others from at least 18 different countries.
This news comes the same week the Justice Department convicted Sohiel Kabir of terrorism. An Afghan-born, naturalized U.S. citizen who served in the U.S. Air Force, Kabir was charged with providing material support to terrorists by making arrangements to join al-Qaeda and other related charges. He faces life in prison when sentenced.
All of this is happening at a time when the threat of international terrorism is on the rise, and the military is downsizing. In fact, according to American Enterprise Institute defense expert Mackenzie Eaglen, the active-duty Army has declined 21 percent from a post-9/11 wartime high of 570,000 down to 450,000 soldiers, and could go as low as 420,000 if current funding levels continue.
Our country has benefited from the honorable military service of millions of men and women, including some who were allowed to serve even though they were not citizens. To them, we owe a debt of gratitude. But this scheme is different, and given the times and means, difficult to justify.
This article has been modified to correct the name for this program, Military Accessions Vital to National Interest.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 3/24/15