November 14, 2014
As originally published on the Daily Caller Nov. 12, 2014
The Endangered Species Act Set To Harm Another Endangered Species
Today the federal government takes a significant step to reinforce what has become increasingly clear over the Endangered Species Act’s forty-year history: the law’s penalty-based approach causes enormous harm to the very species it is supposed to protect.
The decision today to list the Gunnison sage grouse leaves the bird, its cousin the greater sage grouse, and many other imperiled species facing bleaker futures. Listing deters not only conservation in the Gunnison sage grouse’s Colorado and Utah range, but also conservation in many states, communities and businesses across the country that are working very hard to conserve imperiled species, prevent their listing and avoid the Endangered Species Act’s punitive and expensive regulations.
This is especially true for by far the biggest listing decision in the Act’s history; it seems enormous conservation efforts at a price of more than $1 billion were not able to prevent the greater sage grouse’s listing, which could cost 32,000 jobs and $5.6 billion in annual economic output across eleven western states and 165 million acres.
Greg Walcher, who was heavily involved in sage grouse conservation as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources from 1999-2004, asserts, “Massive investment and local participation was made with the clear understanding that the Gunnison sage grouse would not be added to the federal endangered species list.”
Gunnison County, which contains 93 percent of the grouse’s population, is ground zero for conservation efforts that include hiring the nation’s only full-time municipal endangered species biologist, stringent sage grouse-specific zoning ordinances, forming a working group in 1995 to organize and implement conservation initiatives, and protecting 97 percent of privately owned habitat with various agreements.
This private land is part of the 64,000 acres of sage grouse habitat in Colorado under conservation easements that cost the state $30 million and the 126,500 acres in a federally-approved Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, which was sold to people, especially the forty-seven landowners who enrolled their land, as key to preventing listing.
The result has been a healthy, slowly increasing grouse population, most notably in Gunnison County. Despite all of this, the federal government has reneged and listed the grouse.
Communities and landowners in Colorado and Utah feel deeply betrayed and anxious because of the Endangered Species Act’s much-feared land and resource use regulations. “The community most impacted — ours — overwhelmingly opposes [listing the grouse]” states Chris Dickey, publisher of the Gunnison Country Times, a weekly newspaper and website. “The Gunnison Basin is a model for a community’s conservation-minded response to an imperiled species.”
The sage grouse also loses due to its listing. “A listing will have a lot of people saying, ‘I’m done,’” Jonathan Houck, Gunnison County Commissioner, told the Post. “I don’t mean we’re going to purposely bring harm to the bird and the habitat. But if you voluntarily alter how you work your land and that’s not enough, it sends a clear shot across the bow. It says, ‘Why put in the effort, why put in the money, why tax your resources? Because in the end it will never be enough.’”
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 11/14/11
November 13, 2014
The only one ‘seizing’ federal lands is Uncle Sam
as originally published on Watchdog.org
Paul Gessing and Carl Graham
In a recent New York Times editorial, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., asserted that supporters of a transfer of some federal lands to the states are engaged in a “land grab.”
He’s not just wrong, he’s inverting the truth completely. It is actually the federal government that has “grabbed” New Mexicans’ lands.
In the past two years, Heinrich endorsed the federal government’s placing of more than 783,000 acres of New Mexico land — much of it private or “multiple-use” — in two highly restrictive “monument” designation: The Rio Grande del Norte and Organ Mountain monuments.
Ironically, while any effort to return some federal lands to New Mexico control would require the support and buy-in of large numbers of state and local officials, these two wilderness areas were declared by the Obama administration without so much as a single vote in Congress.
It is no surprise that Heinrich would support such a real land-grab, as he is known for reflexively supporting the radical environmental lobbying groups in Washington, D.C. He has a 93 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters and boasted a 100 percent score in 2013.
Given the environmental group’s penchant for shoving local interests and traditional users aside in order to increase the size of the federal estate (consider it one-stop-shopping for the environmental lobby), Heinrich also vastly prefers federal control of lands to private or state control.
First, it is important to destroy a few myths.
The lands in question are not national parks or native lands. Rather, our efforts are focused on federal lands managed by the National Forest and Bureau of Land Management.
Under plans supported by our organizations, no lands would be privatized. Rather the lands managed by Washington, D.C., would devolve to state control.
Economically-speaking, the impact on New Mexico of state versus federal control over these lands would be stunning: up to 68,000 new jobs and $1 billion in new tax revenue. These astounding results are not the result of “privatizing” the lands, rather they are from simply managing Forest Service and BLM lands as other state lands are managed.
These jobs and economic activity would be a tremendous boon for New Mexico, which Heinrich represents, and remains one of the poorest states in the nation with little economic growth in the recent recovery.
Lest one be led to believe that such policies are advocated only by radical anti-government types and Republicans, New Mexico’s Land Commissioner Ray Powell, a Democrat with strong ties to the environmental community, has advocated for having the feds return 1 million acres of BLM lands in the state in order to bring in an estimated $50 million to fund new early childhood programs.
Democrats, too, understand that bureaucrats in Washington are too isolated and ignorant — no matter how well-intentioned — to understand the unique needs of Western states.
Also, our efforts to restore state control over certain federally managed lands are by no means based entirely on economics. Climate change is often cited in the media as the cause of recent forest fires that have raged in New Mexico and throughout the West. The reality is that poor federal management is a major contributor to rampant fires.
Going back to the Native Americans, lands were intensely managed. That ended when environmental zealots took control of Washington’s land management bureaucracies, eventually putting a stop to timber production and engaging in aggressive fire suppression that has caused a buildup of flammable material on forest floors.
Of course, users of these lands who have traditionally benefited from their “multiple-use” management are losing out as more and more of these lands are locked up as “wilderness” vast tracts of which are off limits to motor vehicles and non-recreational forms of human use.
The reality is that Heinrich and his radical friends in Washington are the ones grabbing lands in New Mexico and elsewhere. Advocates of restoring state control over these lands are attempting to restore some balance and sound management policies when it comes to large tracts of Western land.
Paul Gessing is president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a free market think tank based in New Mexico. Carl Graham is director of the Coalition for Self-Government in the West, a project of the Utah-based Sutherland Institute.
Reposted within the guidelines of Watchdog.org by Reagangirl.com 11/13/14
November 12, 2014
Grand Junction, Colorado
Professionals working with the Mesa County (Colorado) Library District have embarked on a quest to collect and preserve oral-histories provided by local veterans. The initial phase of the “Veterans Remember Project” is a collection of stories and memories from World War II, with those from Korea and Vietnam to follow. The project was introduced to the public on Veterans Day, 2014 at a local Chick-fil-a where veterans and their families commemorated World War II and previewed the first videos.
Included in this post are photographs from that preview event, as well as the first video oral-history in the initial phase of the Veterans Remember Project of Mesa County.
Dean Paul WWII Army
Posted on November 12, 2014 by Reagangirl.com
November 11, 2014
This post was written by Vietnam veteran, author and friend, Forrest L. Gomez, affectionately know as Old Sarge.
REMEMBERING VETERANS DAY:
“The veteran may be the aged fellow who is still trying to shut out the images of the Tet Offensive of 1968, and still remembers how his former best friend in high school called him “baby killer” and “willing tool of the war mongers.”
They are a special brotherhood-sisterhood, they did things most people couldn’t imagine, and they sometimes came home to an indifferent or hostile public. Who and what is a veteran?
The veteran may be the old guy in the pool room who seems rude and defensive, frequently nervous, maybe smoking and drinking too much. How could one know that he lost his squad at the Chosin Reservoir?
The veteran may be the aged fellow who is still trying to shut out the images of the Tet Offensive of 1968, and still remembers how his former best friend in high school called him “baby killer” and “willing tool of the “war mongers.” But that wasn’t as bad as his girl friend leaving him once she got to college and learned a few things there.
The veteran may be the young woman who has to make frequent visits to the VA hospital at American Lake, because she unintentionally walked through an area where Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards, while in retreat, poured chemical agents on the ground. (You know, those WMDs that many on the left and conspiracy buffs say that the Iraqis never had.) She has a degenrative nerve disorder that doctors can’t identify and treat.
The veteran may be the young soldier who sheds tears of frustration, but continues to serve and fight, even though it seems that many of the Afghani people and his own government are ungrateful.
The veteran may be the guy who is somewhat traumatized, because he knew he could have helped at Benghazi.
And the veteran may be the old guy bagging groceries at the market, the guy who was a tail gunner in a B-17 over Europe in 1944. And oh…how he wishes his wife was still alive so she could hold him when the nightmares come.
All we really want is for the country to love us as much as we love it. The vast majority of us have picked up our lives and made ourselves useful and normal seeming. We simply ask our fellow Americans that our sacrifices not be forgotten, and we really appreciate it when someone says, “Thanks for your service.”
A happy and glorious Veterans Day to you all, and please remember that the only true path to peace is to know the peace of the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Conspiracy buffs and lefties, please keep your comments to yourselves, thank you.
– The Sarge
Reposted with permission of the author by Reagangirl.com 11/11/14
November 9, 2014
As originally published by Zbigniew Mazurak on November 8, 2014
The REAL causes of the fall of the Berlin Wall
These days, the media around the world propagate the claim that it was the citizens of East and West Germany, as well as Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms and the West German government’s policy, that brought the Berlin Wall down, while Ronald Reagan had little or nothing to do with it. When the world media covers the anniversary and its celebrations this week, you will hardly find or hear any mention of Ronald Reagan in the media or in the city of Berlin itself.
But the truth is that it was Ronald Reagan and his tough policy of exerting maximum pressure on the Soviet Union, especially on European, economic and human rights issues, that brought the Berlin Wall down. Throughout the entire 1980s, the US exerted enormous economic, military, and moral pressure on the Soviet Union and its satellite regimes, and THAT is what brought the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet empire down.Furthermore, the West German government (and other Western European governments) NEVER had ANY intention whatsoever of dismantling the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire – and had these European governments had their way, the Soviet empire would’ve still existed to this very day. This article will prove this with facts.
West German Subsidies For the Evil Empire
Throughout the Cold War, and especially since the early 1970s, Western European countries and companies were doing lucrative business with the Soviet Union… lucrative at least for Moscow and for European companies – similarly to how they do today. Western European governments were also loaning lots of money to the Soviet regime, as well as paying the East German government for releasing dissidents from jail.
And just like today, Western European countries were steadily increasing their oil and gas imports from the Soviet Union – and in 1980, they consented to the construction of a new gas pipeline that would increase Soviet gas exports to Europe (and Europe’s dependence on that supply source) still further.
Had that pipeline been built on time and on the proposed scale, the Soviet empire and the Berlin Wall would likely have not collapsed at all.
The story begins in late 1979, when the Kremlin informed the West German government and business leaders that it wished to build a new gas pipeline from the Yamal Peninsula to West Germany, with the goal of significantly increasing Soviet gas exports to Europe. The Ruhrgas AG was to be the direct recipient of the gas, Mannesman AG was to deliver the equipment to build and operate the pipeline, while the Deutsche Bank was destined to finance the construction. After the West German government’s initial okay, secret talks began at Deutsche Bank’s HQ in Dusseldorf. These were so secret that no interpreters were hired – one of Deutsche Bank’s high-ranking employees speaking Russian served as the translator.
The initial talks were successful and were continued in December 1979 by Deutsche Bank personnel in Moscow; with the support from the Soviet and West German governments, the talks were speedily advanced, with the West German business leaders knowing they’d be spending 10 billion West German marks – a huge sum of money – on building a pipeline that would immensely profit the Soviet Union.
With the Soviet and West German government’s support, an initial agreement was soon reached, and a Deutsche Bank branch was soon opened in Moscow to coordinate the project. When then West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt personally discussed the project with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on the phone, the talks were greatly sped up.
On June 30th, 1980, Schmidt arrived in Moscow and, despite the Soviet regime’s aggressive designs and its aggression against Afghanistan (which he didn’t care about), he signed a long-term economic cooperation agreement with Moscow that paved the way for the pipeline’s construction. Two weeks later – on the day the Moscow Olympic Games began – Deutsche Bank and the Soviet government began official negotiations on its pipeline, and a final was struck in Leningrad in 1983. This was AFTER Helmut Kohl and his CDU party came to power in 1982 – because the Kohl government, like the Schmidt cabinet, ALSO supported the pipeline’s construction and continued subsidies to the Soviet regime.
Ronald Reagan Strikes Back
But even before the deal was finally signed, Ronald Reagan counterattacked. Knowing the Soviet Union’s deep economic problems and the fact that destroying the Soviet economy was key to bringing the Soviet empire down, he imposed a slew of sanctions against the USSR in December 1981 after Moscow’s puppet regime in Poland implemented martial law to preserve communism there and crack down on Lech Walesa’s Solidarity.
Among the sanctions imposed on the USSR was a ban on exporting any pipeline machinery as well as machines used to extract oil and gas. This was intended to strike at the USSR’s Achilles heel – its dependence on oil and gas revenue. Western European companies were building such machinery based on American export licenses, but President Reagan revoked these. His sanctions were toughened still in September 1983 after the Russians shot down a civilian Korean airliner (KAL Flight 007).
Furthermore, President Reagan pressured the West German government and business leaders to cancel the pipeline’s construction. He did not succeed completely in that regard, but under his pressure, the pipeline’s scope was reduced from two lines to just one, and the whole project was delayed by many years – so much so that it wasn’t completed until 1999, eight years after the Soviet Union’s collapse.
This huge delay and reduction in scope of the project proved fatal to the Soviet Union. Making matters even worse for them, President Reagan deregulated the oil industry in the US and convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase oil production. This brought about the oil glut of the late 1980s: in November 1985, a barrel of oil cost $30 (in 1985 dollars); by April 1986, it cost only $12. Moscow lost $10 bn (again, in 1985’s terms) in just five months as a result.
It was all downhill for the USSR from then on. That very month, in April 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear powerplant exploded, causing damage costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The war in Afghanistan dragged on – partially because of the Reagan Administration’s covert support for the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviets.
And the Reagan Administration also dramatically toughened the arms race with the USSR by greatly increasing US defense spending and investing it in new, cutting-edge weapon platforms such as the B-2 stealth bomber (first flown in 1989, introduced in 1993), the MX Peacekeeper rail-mobile ICBM that could carry 10 nuclear warheads, nuclear-armed cruise missiles launched from air, naval, and ground platforms (including the BGM-109A Tomahawk A, scrapped unilaterally by Barack Obama), the Pershing intermediate range missiles that countered Soviet SS-20 missiles in Europe, the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines (carrying 24 missiles each, more than any Soviet submarine could), the Trident missiles deployed on these submarines, the tank-killing Apache helicopter capable of obliterating the massed Soviet tank armies in Europe; the Aegis class of surface combatants; and many more.
Most importantly, the Reagan Administration initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, dubbed the Star Wars, against which the Soviet Union wasn’t capable of mounting any effective response due to its technological backwardness. In the 1980s, the US, and especially its military, was quickly being computerized – computers became an integral part of everything and made life and military operations easier. The Soviet Union, by contrast, was as short on computers as on human rights. Even the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, admitted that the USSR was being overtaken by the US because of the revolution ushered in by computers.
Gorbachev tried his best to negotiate the SDI away, but Ronald Reagan held firm.
Moral Pressure Added to Economic and Military Pressure
Fully confident of its massive economic and military strength rebuilt by President Reagan, the US exerted increasing moral pressure on the USSR. That pressure culminated in the late 1980s.
President Reagan’s goal was nothing short of dismantling the Iron Curtain and the Soviet empire. As he said himself, his goal in the Cold War was to ensure that “we win, they lose.” His Administration’s goal was to change the Soviet regime, and that goal was enshrined in Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 75, signed by him in 1983. More importantly, that goal was actively sought (and ultimately achieved).
Like nobody else in the world, President Reagan exerted enormous pressure on the Soviet Union throughout his presidency. Only he had the courage to utter these memorable words in Berlin on June 12th, 1987:
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.
Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.
Mr. Gorbachev — Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Not only that, but he confidently predicted, “Yes, this wall will fall.” He didn’t just say he demanded that it be dismantled – he predicted that it WOULD BE. And it was. For, as President Reagan said:
As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.
This rhetoric was opposed by many in his administration (including Howard Baker and Colin Powell) and by all Western European governments except Margaret Thatcher’s. President Reagan’s advisors repeatedly attempted to delete those words from the speech, but Reagan personally overruled them.
Yes, to deliver these remarks, President Reagan had to face down many people even in his own administration.
Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev: False Heroes Who Tried To Preserve the Soviet Empire
And of course, Western European governments, especially that of West Germany led by Helmut Kohl, still tried to save the Soviet Union with subsidies, low-interest loans, and debt write-offs. In 1988 alone, West Germany lent the USSR 3 billion Deutschmarks. All told, from 1985 to 1991, Western European governments lent the USSR the equivalent of 15 billion dollars.
Fortunately, that proved to be woefully inadequate for the USSR to survive, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s skillful use of the economic lever. The ongoing war in Afghanistan and the costs of maintaining a global Communist empire and a huge state bureaucracy added to the USSR’s economic woes.
Nor did Gorbachev try, or even intend, to dismantle the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire. On the contrary, he wanted to preserve and strengthen that empire. That was the goal of his reforms – perestroika and glasnost. His reforms were intended to STRENGTHEN the Soviet Union and the Communist system without touching their very nature. He believed that through half-measures such as less interference in state-owned enterprises’ affairs, he could revive and strengthen the Soviet economy.
This was no different from Tsar Alexander II’s and Tsar Nikolai II’s half-hearted “reforms” in the 1860s and 1900s, respectively: to change something so that nothing would really change.
Gorbachev’s reforms failed to strengthen the USSR – just like those Tsars’ pseudo-reforms failed completely – because you can’t save a rotten, totally failing, broken system by reforming it timidly and too late. If a system is completely broke and failing, the only right thing to do is to scrap it completely and start anew – which Gorbachev was completely unwilling to do.
Nor did Gorbachev want to dismantle the Soviet empire and free captive nations, despite his promise to give Eastern European nations the right of self-determination. He did not use force to stave off the Soviet empire’s demise – because he wasn’t able to. By 1989, the Soviet Union’s economic problems were so deep, the USSR – freshly booted out of Afghanistan by sandal-shod mujahedeen – was in no position to intervene militarily in East Germany, Poland, or Hungary. The fiscal costs alone would’ve been prohibitive, and those countries’ populations would’ve certainly resisted.
Gorbachev is not a hero; he’s just a flake who couldn’t keep the Soviet empire from collapsing. And today, he supports the murderous, criminal, illegal neo-Soviet dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who is trying to restore the Soviet empire. This proves what an immoral person Gorbachev is.
Ronald Reagan Is The Real Hero
The real architect of the Berlin Wall’s and the USSR’s collapse was Ronald Reagan. As Professor Robert Kaufman rightly observed in 2011:
It is hard to see (…) how Gorbachev and a policy of conciliation deserve more credit for ending the Cold War in America’s favor than Reagan and his policy of vigilance. The restoration of American power under Ronald Reagan gave the Soviet Union little choice but to take the risk of choosing a reformer such as Gorbachev, who recognized that the Soviet Union could no longer compete against a rejuvenated, self-confident United States unless it liberalized at home and pursued a more conciliatory policy abroad.
Nor was Gorbachev a genuine democrat. He aimed only to reform Communism, not to abolish it. His regime began to implode under the cumulative effect of decades of U.S. containment, Reagan’s confrontational policies intensifying American pressure at a critical moment, and the mortal contradictions inherent in the Soviet system. Whereas Gorbachev did not intend the breathtaking collapse of Communism that his domestic reforms unwittingly unleashed, Ronald Reagan expected and dedicated his political life to achieving this outcome.
When the free world celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Berlin Wall today, don’t forget to honor the real architect of that event – President Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan’s historic speech at the Brandenberg Gate
Remembering the end of the Cold War
Reposted with permission of the author by Reagangirl.com 11/9/14
November 7, 2014
As originally published on American Preppers Network
As much as you might have looked forward to leaving the service, making that transition is always difficult. Life in the service is so regimented and so controlled that when you leave, all of that (for lack of a better word) freedom can make you feel like you are literally at loose ends. Even the most well adjusted have a hard time making the transition.
One sentiment that many people express after they leave the service is that building their home helped. This doesn’t have to mean literally building a house, though if you want to spend some time volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, that’s great! In this case, what they mean is finding a permanent home, moving in and making it their own.
Note: It is true that many service people get sent out to active duty and their families stay behind and take care of the home finding/nesting things while they are away. For active duty service people whose families traveled with them and who primarily used base housing, finding a new house and “nesting it up” can be very soothing.
Of course, it’s also worth noting that the buying process can be very stressful, especially if you and your spouse are now trying to find civilian employment. Remember: there are some housing benefits that are only offered after you leave the service. For example, service members are entitled to lower mortgage rates than civilians. Of course, not all lenders know how to track down service details and apply these benefits, so it may be helpful to reference online resources like Low VA Rates, which specializes in helping veterans find mortgages.
Once you have the house, you can start nesting and prepping. A lot of veterans find that creating a schedule for these things and sticking to it is very helpful. In a way, they take the rigid time management of their service and apply it here: they spend X time working on unpacking, helping the family decorate, etc. Then they spend X time finding employment, meeting with transition counselors, getting set up with their health and other VA benefits, etc.
Another great place to apply this rigidity is with your budget. It’s great that you want to jump right in to prepping but don’t spend all of your money on supply stocks. Instead, create space in your household budget to build up your supplies. Then, portion that line item out into things like food, canning, non perishables and other supplies, etc. There are all sorts of items that you’ll want to store.
In the beginning, though, you’ll want to stock up primarily on food stores and basic supplies like toilet paper. A lot of ex service people think the best way to do this is by buying up caseloads of MREs but believe us when we tell you: there are lots of other types of food that you can store and store well. Yes, having the MREs on hand will give you peace of mind, but do you really want those things to be your first option instead of your last? Even when, if you learn how to can and store better tasting stuff, you can have lots of great stuff on hand?
You can also apply this structure to learning new skills. Make time to learn things like canning, building, etc. You learned a lot of survival skills while you were in the service. There are, of course, other skills that can be helpful to someone who wants to really embrace the prepping lifestyle.
A lot of people believe that our lifestyle is extreme and, no matter how many episodes of the Walking Dead they watch that they don’t need these skills. Even if you’re pretty sure you’ll never really need your stores and prepping skills, the prepper lifestyle is a great way to help ease the stress of transitioning from active duty to civilian life.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 11/7/14
November 6, 2014
This is an excellent analysis of where we are as a nation on the brink of ruin, or triumph, written by Vietnam veteran, author, historian and friend, Forrest L. Gomez, affectionately known as Old Sarge.
FROM THE DESK OF OLD SARGE:
Charlie Crist of Florida now holds a peculiar place in history. He is the only candidate in America to lose various elections as a Republican, a Democrat, and an independent. Joni Ernst, the new senator from Iowa, is not going to have to wait until she gets to DC to hear the squeals of tax-and-spend progressives. Liberal callers to radio talk shows are squealing everything from “fraud” to shades of Armageddon. Many are seminar callers, asking what the Republicans are going to do first: outlaw abortion, outlaw gay marriage, or pass more tax breaks for the rich. Some are sure that the GOP will have boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria by the end of next year. The Libertarian Party was well funded by the Democrat Party, and managed to prevent success for Republicans in several key areas. Democrats spent more than twice as much on the aforementioned election, proving once again that a great deal of money spent on candidates does not necessarily guarantee success. That’s why Ross Perot, Steve Forbs, and Donald Trump were not our last three presidents.
Once again, pity the poor Democrats. So many have called Suicide Prevention, that hold times average 2.5 hours. Many Dems did not get out of the needle exchanges in time to vote. The Seattle Police say that 25% of Seattle’s population is high at any one time. Perhaps that and apathy explains much. They should all take their illegal immigrant house servants to lunch and chill.
Once again, Democrats and their associates in the media are formulating the usual excuses: 1) It was not a wave, just a protest against incumbents, 2) We didn’t shout our message loud enough, 3) The GOP cheated and/or stole elections, and 4) The people are stupid. The conspiracy buffs are out in force as well, and as usual. For myself, I am glad that the arrogant, snarky libs who said we were going to have our a**** handed to us are looking for reasons why they failed, other than the fact that they support a system that always fails.
Perhaps some people saw the irony of Democrats accusing my side of a “war on women,” then appointing chronic woman-abuser Bill Clinton as a spokesman for the cause. Perhaps some people are disturbed by the President trading five top terrorists for a probable deserter, but not lifting a finger to help a Marine held unjustly in a Mexican jail. Perhaps some people are disturbed that Democrats don’t care for Americans owning guns, but don’t care that our government has given weapons to drug cartels and Muslim extremists. Perhaps some people were disturbed that our government wants to fund contraception for college girls, but not fund the Military. Perhaps many were disturbed by the incessant scandals and wasting of money, projects like the CDC studying how chimpanzees throw dung at each other to communicate.
Politically, we are at the stage George Washington and the patriots were following the Battles of Trenton and Saratoga. There is much to do and a long way to go to take the country back, and we could still lose if we show weakness and any hesitation. We are going to have to think generationally in terms of repairing the damage done to our country by liberalism and political correctness. God has smiled on us this day for our efforts. He will not do so again if we procrastinate.
Remember, my brothers and sisters, we are the children of the American Revolution. The misguided types on the left are children of the French Revolution. Look it up if you don’t know what that means.
May God hold you in his mighty embrace always, friends, and be with you this day.
- The Sarge
Reposted with permission of the author by Reagangirl.com 11/6/14
November 6, 2014
In typical classy Democrat fashion, John Hickenlooper’s chief of staff, Roxane White flips the bird at those asking for her to serve four more years.
I hope all you squishy Coloradans who voted for this smug, gun-grabbing Obama suck up realize that you made a massive mistake.
Posted by Reagangirl.com 11/6/14
November 4, 2014
“I didn’t send those tweets. My Twitter account was hacked!” ~ Congressman Anthony Weiner (former, NY)
For those unacquainted with the subtleties of the tweet, let me offer you a short Twitter primer.
- Tweets must convey information, a thought, a picture, a URL, or a combination of these in 140 characters or less.
- Handles must always have the @ preceding them. It’s kind of like owning a planet when you can put @ before your name.
- Hashtags–these things #####–are used to create searchable content, such as a group interest item (#TeaParty) a trending item (#Election2016) something completely irrelevant (#ObamasSuccesses) or something designed to be controversial (#ThingsIProbablyShouldntTweet)
Back in 2012, that year of innocence when hope was high and life worth living, I actually got away with these tweets!
Enjoy this post while you can. It will self-destruct in 10…9…8…7…6…5…4
I have no idea who tweeted this stuff. I swear on my polygamist Great-granddaddy’s grave that it wasn’t me.
November 3, 2014
In a sexually confused world where women who stay home with their children are mocked by pop culture, and men who protect and provide for their families are a dying species, it’s to be expected that the inventors of policies destructive to marital love and the nuclear family would live outside those traditional norms.
Powerful liberal men, no matter how libertine and abusive they are, always seem to have women who stand by them through storms of scandal and public humiliation. The National Organization for Women (NOW), like a battered wife watching her sisters sustain beatings by a troglodyte husband, stands silent in the wake of the most recent attack on a woman by ultra-lib sniveler, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir. Bashir’s scatological attack on Sarah Palin is too vile to be recounted here, but it’s hard to imagine anything more hateful and misogynistic than his unhinged rantings against the beautiful, accomplished, tough, and principled Palin.
The silence of the National Organization for Women and other so-called women’s groups in the face of venal assaults on women who just happen to believe in conservative principles, and live those principles, leads one to believe that liberal women encourage cultural rape when committed by liberal pig men. Even when liberal women are victims, if the men are politicians or pundits who toe the liberal line, the leftist agenda always supersedes any consideration of their personal dignity or respect for their womanhood.
Hillary Clinton and Huma Abadin are just two examples of smart, educated, accomplished liberal women who stay with their wiener-wielding, whoremongering husbands, despite the fact they have their own successful careers and cash aplenty. Normal people like you and I are left breathless at the lengths to which these lib gals will go to defend their husbands and protect their marriages. Behind the veneer of veneration for their families, however, is something fundamentally flawed about the liberal female mindset that naturally draws them into relationships with the very men who once justified the existence of the modern Feminist Movement; male chauvinist pigs.
Liberalism, and its mutant daughter, militant Feminism, defy human nature. Feminist theory deconstructs human nature by denying or attacking the natural biological roles that men and women fill as functions of human procreation and survival. Progressive Feminists–lib gals–adhere to the notion that women who strive to compete with men for jobs, political office, etc., are actually like men in their emotional makeup and social roles. In order to be true to Feminist theory, women like Hillary and Huma cannot expect their husbands, with whom–according to Feminist theory–they have few differences, to treat them with the dignity afforded by traditional male/female, husband/wife, father/mother roles. In other words; for a liberal woman to decry the wolfish, unfaithful behavior of her male chauvinist pig husband would constitute a fundamental hypocrisy. Feminist theory holds that since women and men are only superficially different, that for a woman to want a husband to be a faithful, respectful, protective partner in marriage would require acknowledgement that male and female roles are deeply different, and that the traditional model of marriage is biologically driven as well as being a construct of social evolution.
The following values are rejected in Feminist theory, and are therefore unimportant to the powerful liberal men with whom lib gals like Huma and Hillary hook up.
Chastity: Remember the unattractive, amorphous Sandra Fluke? This “iconic” lib gal who spawned the Democrat social platform in 2012, espoused one value, and one value alone; promiscuity. Fluke personified the modern Feminist approach to sex. It is not about love, relationships, children or the formation of families. Sex is about doing it as much as one wants, with no limitations, and no consequences. Fluke, the Feminist Betty Boop, is really just a liberal male politician in a frumpy suit. Liberal men, when groping unwilling victims, tweeting pictures of their private parts, or cheating with multiple partners, are only displaying behaviors that Sandra Fluke and her militant feminist sisters advocate.
The Sexual Revolution assassinated the rules of chastity upon which all social interactions between men and women were once based. The Feminist Movement asserted that if men can’t get pregnant through sex, that women–who are just like men–shouldn’t have to get pregnant either! Declining moral values, the loss of norms like courtship and abstinence before marriage, preceded institutionalized abortion. These concepts all came from Liberal thought and Feminist theory.
I actually feel a little sorry for guys like Wiener, Clinton, Spitzer, Filner, etc….ad nauseum, who, when acting within the philosophical boundaries of the chosen ideology of their girlfriends and wives, are publicly renounced and prosecuted. Hell’s bells! It must be confusing to be a male politician simply living the Liberal American Dream.
Ideology: Liberal women are inculcated via Feminist theory to love power more than relationships. Feminism teaches that relationships, especially those with men, are oppressive, and that marriage constitutes a form of socially sanctioned rape. Many liberal women simply expect their liberal husbands to be womanizers–or manizers–because to them, marriage is an unpleasant pretense necessary to broaden their appeal to a center-right electorate. Although liberal power marriages may produce children, the innocents are not always sacred charges to their political parents, but rather resume’ enhancers; proof positive that every mandate put forth is indeed “for the children.” “Look at me, I have a child! How could I possibly not care about the children?”
In simple terms, feminist thought regards norms associated with traditional marriage and marital roles as hypocritical. To be true to their favored ideology, lib gals have no choice but to overlook the salacious actions of their partners.
Dignity in traditional sexual roles: Traditional marriage and the nuclear family were casualties of the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s and 70’s. Again, liberal–progressive–feminist thought decried the sovereign family, consisting of a husband and wife at the head, and children who were supported, taught, and protected within the home, as an outdated, unnecessary encumbrance on individuals who wanted to “find themselves” without old-fashioned social constraints.
The nuclear family, however, is the most successful model ever tested for the perpetuation and progress of mankind. One man/one woman marriage is founded in biological and social-emotional reality. The normal developmental paths that lead children to want to marry a member of the opposite sex have been derailed in recent decades by the LGBT lobby, as well as political and fiscal policies that reward unwed mothers and cohabitating couples while punishing married couples. But without those phony impositions pushed by social evolutionists–and crappy legislation–men and women prefer to marry and bring children into the world to be raised and taught within their own homes.
In a sexually confused world where women who stay home with their children are mocked by pop culture, and men who protect and provide for their families are a dying species, it is natural that the inventors of policies destructive to marital love and the nuclear family would live outside those traditional expectations. Liberal male politicians and their feminist wives don’t even believe in the traditional roles of the sexes, so why the hell would they worry about living them?
Women in the news and politics may caterwaul about those “awful cheating men,” and ask the question, “How can strong, ambitious, progressive women such as Hillary and Huma endlessly tolerate such unfaithful pigs?” The answer lies within their own belief system. Anthony Wiener, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and every womanizing liberal Democrat male to bedevil the political waters with his lasciviousness is simply a product of liberal women.
by Marjorie Haun 11/3/14