Why Would an Author Write Kids’ Books about the Vietnam War?

By Marjorie Haun  

“Why on earth would an author write kids’ books about the Vietnam War?” I’ve been confronted with that question countless times as I’ve endeavored to  write a children’s historical non-fiction series titled, “The Heroes of the Vietnam War: Books for Children.” Remarkably, children’s books about the Vietnam Era comprise a literary niche that is very limited. But a lack of kids’ books about the Vietnam War is just one motivation for bringing a dark region of our national memory to light. My experience in tailoring difficult lessons to fit the needs of young learners provides a writer’s challenge that I greatly enjoy. Taking stories of heroism during a difficult and often confusing era in American History, and drawing out those stories that teach principles such as bravery, friendship, compassion, and sacrifice, is rewarding to both me and my audience.

Book one, “Little Bird Dog and the Big Ship” is a true story about events of the last day of the Vietnam War. Code-named Operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of refugees from South Vietnam was one of the largest humanitarian undertakings in history. Book one details a real-life adventure that took place amid enemy gunfire with chaos in the air and death in the water. In formulating my book about the escape of heroic South Vietnamese pilot Bung Ly and his family, I chose to leave in an element danger. The tale of a family escaping certain death and heading out to sea on a little airplane with nowhere to land is unavoidably suspenseful, but I was careful not to overwhelm youngsters with terrifying images. Little Bird Dog and the Big Ship ends happily with the successful escape of the Ly family amid cheers of jubilation from the crew of the U.S.S. Midway.

Book two of my series, “Saving the Vietnamese Orphans,” is about the equally dangerous mission of Operation Babylift. The compassionate directives of President Gerald R. Ford actuated by the Air Force, American Servicemen and women, several private airlines, and countless civilian volunteers, swept over three thousand orphaned Amerasian, Vietnamese, and ethnic Chinese children, out of harm’s way and into the hearts of adoptive families across the globe.  

These stories showcase the goodness of Americans and the heroism of her warriors during the Vietnam Era, a time that must not be forgotten nor mythologized in cultural and historical murk.

I submitted my books to the giant retailer, Walmart. They were skeptical at first, but seeing the potential in “The Heroes of the Vietnam War: Books for Children,” Walmart has given me a remarkable opportunity. By proving that my books are important to American readers and of high interest to Vietnam veterans, and everyone else who wants the truth told about our heroes, Walmart has placed my books in a sort of competition. I NEED YOUR HELP!

PLEASE VOTE AND HELP ME GET “The Heroes of the Vietnam War: Books for Children” INTO WALMART RETAIL CENTERS.

Simply go to getontheshelf.walmart.com and click on the For Kids icon, then search Heroes of the Vietnam War. Finally, click on the accompanying video and place your vote for these patriotic books to be available to kids throughout the country. Please vote once per day through September 2, and help to honor our Heroes who fought in Vietnam.

https://getontheshelf.walmart.com/product/1c3e/Heroes-of-the-Vietnam-Wa

http://vietnambooks4kids.com/

HERE'S HOW YOU CAN HELP FUTURE GENERATIONS UNDERSTAND VIETNAM:

PLEASE VOTE BY CLICKING THE BELOW LINK TO GET MY BOOKS INTO WALMART RETAIL CENTERS.

There are no other patriotic books for young children written about the Vietnam Era. Emerging generations need to know the stories of heroism and honor that came out of the Vietnam War.

VOTE HERE

Thanks for your support!

ReaganGirl

Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln.

Remember always that he was the greatest president of the 19th Century, and literally saved the young Union from being inexorably torn in two.  Abraham was a great politician.  He was a decent, just, humble man, and in the most virtuous sense he was also a great politician.  He used the power of his political skill and rhetoric to appeal to a nation, the Union in its entirety, to address the problem of slavery in a way that best preserved the natural rights of all men.  He was not like the extreme abolitionist, John Brown, who murdered for the cause.  He was not a slave holder who defended the practice as essential.  

He was not a racist who saw Whites as superior to Blacks.  But he was a great politician who had to appeal to the extremes on both sides; the abolitionists on one side, the slave states on the other. And he had to find common ground so that the Union could be preserved. For, without the United States of America, her Declaration of Independence and its statement of Natural Rights, and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, slavery would not be eradicated.  It would continue to exist in some form within and without the Union indefinitely.  

Abraham Lincoln used his expert political skill to maneuver sentiment and popular opinion.  He used his debate skills to trap Stephen Douglas and others dedicated to the protection and perpetuation slavery to expose their hypocrisy, and turn their Constitutional arguments against them.  Lincoln spoke to a deeply divided America. Racism, superstition, fear, and economic necessity impelled the slave states to fight to the death for the practice upon which they based their culture.  Ideology, human freedom, and Christian love impelled those who sought the immediate and unconditional abolition of all slavery.  Only when he was unsuccessful in the political realm to heal the rent Union, did Lincoln resort to military action, and with the force of war, called the secessionist states back home.  He hated the Civil War. Lincoln's skill as Commander in Chief did not match that of his political skill. Yet he persisted, in the name of freedom, and in the name of the indispensable Union, he persisted.  He, at first, refrained from using the full force of the Union against the Southern states.  And it was not until Ulysses S. Grant became the Commanding General of the Union Army, that victory over secession, and victory over the practice of slavery became possible.

Abraham Lincoln was a great politician, and a reluctant Commander in Chief.  His love of all people is unquestionable.  And he knew that for America, and the rest of the world to have a "Last, best hope," that the Union must preserved and its Constitution along with it.  Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln.  Your memory and legacy blesses us still.

January 15, 2012

"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." *Robert E. Lee*

They're dead, kaput, blotto, room temperature, pushing up opium poppies. DEAD!  Hey, maybe good old American brand urine helps to ward off blow flies and dung beetles. Really, how does a young Marine peeing on a guy he has just killed make the dead guy any more dead? Frankly, Marines, having won a victory in combat, marking that victory with a group leak on the bodies of their vanquished enemies is about six degrees more virtuous than anything you would see at at university frat party.

The images of four, young  United States Marines piddling on the carcasses of Taliban soldiers has seemingly ignited a firestorm of indignation across the globe. I assert that the "indignation" is feigned; a pathetic attempt by high-level politicians and media twits to appear politically correct and oh, so apologetic to Afghan sensibilities. Inwardly most Americans are cheering the act of young men who just won a victory in battle behaving like young men who just won a victory in battle.  The "sadness" expressed by John McCain is a load of hooey. Leon Panetta's knee-jerk call for a probe  into the urinating incident is political posturing from an administration sympathetic to our Islamic extremist enemies.  I don't need to go into the depth of depravity and danger presented by Taliban goons. I am simply defending young men being young men.

The Marines in question won a death defying fight against foes who would kill them in an instant, and their mothers, and their children if they had any, and would enslave their wives if they happened to live in Afghanistan. But above and beyond the victory over a depraved group of enemy combatants, this was the act of soldiers making the point that their enemies suffered a final and ignominious defeat.

Some have called this an "act of desecration."  The word "desecration" infers that something sacred has been violated. There is nothing sacred about the Taliban whom were justly taken out by our Marines. These young Marines were desecrating nothing.  They were simply warning others that an ugly fate awaits those who defy American forces.  The apparent ugliness of peeing on the bloody remains of an enemy is actually a pretty good deterrent to future acts of aggression by an adversary. Good old American brand urine may actually, in the long run, save lives.

Robert E. Lee stated that "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." It is a good thing that war is ugly. The sanitized and tentative war fought, not to win a decisive victory, but to minimize civilian casualties, is also the protracted, expensive, bloody, destructive, futile war.

Let victory be what it is, especially victory over a particularly venal enemy. Our military servicemen and women are in what is called "combat" on a regular basis. That means that there are grotesquely bad guys out there who will use any and all means to kill them, including strapping an explosive belt on a child and sending said child out as bait to the good guys who have an instinctive compassion for children. Islamic extremists use American tolerance and compassion against our soldiers, and our system of government.  When those bad guys kill our good guys, they will not only urinate on the bodies of dead Americans, they will drag them through the streets, separate their heads from their torsos, light them on fire, hang them from bridges, and pull them to pieces before a delighted audience of women, children, old men, and video cameras which will then upload the images of dismembered Americans to be broadcast on Al Jazeera and Youtube.

War necessitated by the actions of national enemies from whom the United States must be defended is not immoral. Men and women who fight and kill in the name of their country are not committing wrongful acts. They are conducting themselves morally within the framework of national conflict in a contest between good and evil, freedom and oppression, life and death. It is not wrong to fight to win an authentic war, in all its blood, dirt, pain, and intensity. It is wrong to pretend that war is not war. Brothers and sisters, we are at war. Marines marking a victory by humiliating further their adversaries, dead and living, by urinating on their corpses is no more than an exclamation point to the sentence of death to barbaric and bloodthirsty foes.

By Marjorie Haun 1/15/2012

ReaganGirl

This post consists of a series of responses I posted to Jack Hunter's OPINION piece in the Daily Caller regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy. The piece is full of inaccuracies, fabrications, and paranoia. I countered Mr. Hunter on points of defense spending, and the attempt by the Ron Paul movement to redefine Conservatism into something that resembles anti-war Libertarianism.

ReaganGirl: 

First of all, the concept of limited government does not belong to Ron Paul. Conservative Republicans have always embraced the limitations placed on the government via Constitutional principles. The Ron Paul movement is deceptive and people need to pay attention to what is underneath those superficial layers of constitutionalism and smaller government and federalism. Ron Paul and his followers have a deep contempt for the United States Military. They call us "murderous," "conquerors," "terrorists," and "nation builders." Their defining belief is that it is our foreign "interventionism" in Middle Eastern countries that brought about the attacks of 9/11. Ron Paul himself has intimated that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Bush Administration was "gleeful" that it occurred. Paul has accused Michele Bachmann of "hating Muslims." His refusal to consider the defense of Israel an important foreign policy matter smacks of Antisemitism. His followers accuse the United States of targeting Arabs, of murdering millions of civilians in unjust wars, and of an ineptness that makes the rest of the world hate us. Ron Paul also appeals to young, anti-war, legalize marijuana Occupy Wall Street types. The recent hysteria from his camp about the Defense Authorization Bill had him and his followers teaming up with the ACLU, Democrats in Congress, and citing the Huffington Post as a credible news source. It all looks suspiciously like an infiltration by the Left into the Conservative wing of American politics. Many Ron Paul supporters lack the basic Patriotism and love for country that defines Tea Party Conservatives. I have compiled comments from several Ron Paul supporters regarding our military actions overseas. They are truly shocking and can be read at http://reagangirl.com/?p=23633

Please refer to the following visual from the conservative Heritage Foundation to see that our defense spending in not "unlimited." http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/defense-entitlement-spending. The reality that the total defense budget is only about 1/5 of the entire federal budget. Hardly unlimited. Mr. Hunter is not a reporter, but a hack who incites hysteria through his use of hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric. Call it "isolationism," call it "non-interventionism," a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Ron Paul's foreign policies are naive, ill-informed, and extremely dangerous. You cannot simply ignore an ideology which represents an existential threat to Israel and the United States. Pulling out of foreign wars will not make Islamic Terrorists go away, it will invite more of them here. Mr. Hunter's statistics regarding the opinions of veterans are fallacious. But the Ron Paul movement has adopted strategies that used to be exclusive to the Left. Calling our Military "murderous," and "nation builders," lying about issues, fabricating information, and making the Ron Paul movement look as if it is larger than it is in actuality through a concerted and obsessive strategy of overwhelming polls and concentrating their numbers in places like Iowa. Watch out for this movement. It is deceptive and dangerous.

Ron Paul and his followers are trying to redefine Conservatism into something that resembles the anti-war, pro-marijuana protesters of the 60s and 70s. Ron Paul is a Libertarian who adopted the Republican label simply to gain traction in his campaign, so don't tell me he is a principled man. He holds fast to Libertarianism. Conservatism holds many Libertarian viewpoints such as a constitutionally limited government, Federalism, individual liberty, etc. But Conservatism is strengthened by the component of morality. We do not believe that government should legislate virtue at the national level, but we do believe that government, especially state and local government, has a role in protecting its citizens from the greater evils of the world. Conservatives believe that the government should protect the helpless, such as the unborn and the disabled. Conservatives believe that the law should exemplify virtue through placing limitations on harmful influences such as pornography and drugs. Libertarians tend to eschew the moral boundaries that Conservatives believe are essential to a healthy and free society. Ron Paul appeals to young anti-war, pro marijuana Occupy Wall Street types because they feel comfortable with an ideology which omits moral restraints. They have replaced traditional morality with their "anti-war" morality which defines any act of aggression (or self-defense for that matter) on the part of the United States as "immoral." It is time for thinking Conservatives to step back from the deceptive Ron Paul phenomenon and remember that it is reason, morality, patriotism, and a strong national defense that makes us a great nation.

Core Conservatives need to pay heed to the nature and purpose of the Ron Paul phenomenon. Their positions are often contrary to those principles and qualities we hold dear as Conservatives, especially the portrayal by some Ron Paul supporters of our Military as "murderous," "conquerors," and "terrorists." 

Have you seen the panic? There have been a lot of erroneous stories of late that exaggerate, not the danger that an over-sized government and its manic bureaucratic wing present to us, but the actual situation we are in as Americans at this very moment. No need to panic! Merry Christmas, we are still a free people. 

Like Ronald Reagan I am an optimist. I believe in Americans, and I believe that there will always be a free people in this country. Those people comprise the thread by which our Constitution now hangs. It is a strong thread, and though it seems tenuous at times, our Constitution gleams with a bright spark of Divine inspiration. Our founding documents, being inspired by the Mind of God, are more clever than the enemies of the republic. Despite the pounding and shredding of many of the basic tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they continue to protect us. We still own our most basic possessions; our lives, our property, our voices, our choices, and the overriding right to defend them all. 

The signers of the Declaration of Independence all pledged their lives to the cause of liberty. When they signed the Declaration they may have thought they were signing their death warrants. They pledged their blood, and likely expected to shed it. But not one of those men lost their lives as a direct result of battle with the British. Some were captured and tortured for their roles as signatories to the Declaration of Independence. Nine of them lost sons to the Revolutionary War. Some had their homes and treasures ransacked. But they were not outright murdered by their adversaries. Their honor has only been magnified through time. And their treasures, if lost, were replaced with that sufficient for their needs. We too are protected as the the necessity for a Revolution of the 21st Century grows ever greater.

Some 20,000 Americans gave their lives to fight the British tyranny. Those lives sacrificed literally changed the world forever. I do not minimize the threats from despots and tyrants who now threaten our country from abroad, and from Communists and Progressives within our own social institutions and government, but we will not give up our freedom. It is impossible to quench the flame of human liberty once it is lit. We will battle with our might to defend it, but it will never be snuffed out.

As Christmas Day nears, I ponder my faith in God, and in His holy Son, Jesus Christ. My heart brims with gratitude to God that He gave me the privilege of being born an American. I am also thankful, though sometimes burdened, by the responsibility He gave me to fight to keep this country free and prosperous. As Christ freed His people from the chains of death and damnation, so too will He give us the strength to defy the chains of slavery to Big Government, and evil ideologies who hate us, and covet, and want to destroy, the blessings we enjoy as Americans. Living in Western Colorado, near the Colorado river, nestled between the mountain's majesty and the splendor of the high desert, I know that this is God's country. I also know that America is God's nation.

Let us reflect upon these things. The moments of panic steal our personal peace, but they also damage our credibility. As the Star of Bethlehem was a guiding light to the wise men who sought the Son of God, so let us be a ray of hope and optimism to those who are looking for a happier future in America. Hope burns bright, man will not easily become enslaved. We are still free to worship. We are still free to love our neighbors. Merry Christmas, we are still a free people.   

Ron Paul has always been a peculiar political creature. He is like a two-headed dragon with one side sporting the features of a constitutional purist, and social conservative. The other side is the face of a leftist, embracing the leftist foreign policy of appeasement, and the devil-may-care attitude of many important social issues such as the legalization of pot, and the "War on Drugs." But a two-headed anything is also two-faced and it is dangerous to trust a two-faced political creature of any party.

Ron claims to be a Republican but his approaches are more Libertarian. He rides on the coattails of the GOP because he otherwise would never have even a ghost of a chance of winning the presidential nomination. There is what I call a "ornery cabal" of disgruntled activists who adore Ron Paul, and who through no measure of reasoning, will closely scrutinize their two-headed dragon. Their strategy is instead to pick apart every little imperfection they see in every other conservative candidate from Herman to Mitt to Michelle. They challenge the good conservatives now in Congress who are up against a bulwark of decades-old big government policies and practices that cannot be hammered away overnight. And yet they cite Constitutional precepts when their goals are not met within a few months after an election. They think that in 2011 we can govern like it was 1787.

This ornery cabal would not be a problem if they were not so dangerous. The danger lies in their knee-jerk tendency to run Independent candidates against any Republican who does not live up to their expectations of Constitutional purity and the superhuman ability to remake a dysfunctional Congress into a well-oiled machine working within an ideally balanced triumvirate government, overnight. Despite the fact that it will take a majority of conservatives in both houses of congress, and a strong conservative president many months, if not years, to redirect the course of America's economy, national defense, and social issues, some Ron Paul supporters rail against the very steps that are being taken by our majority in one house of the congress, which is but one branch of three, as if the current Republicans in government we the scourge of the planet. Their vitriol is so unreasonable that they will embrace Independents who are much more liberal and big-government oriented than the Republicans with whom they are so dissatisfied.

Now to the question of Ron Paul's Antisemitism: He has been accused by at least two iconic Jewish Conservatives of cold indifference for the well-being and fate of Israel, if not outright contempt for the Jewish people.  In one of the following video clips David Horowitz describes Israel as "a tiny Democracy surrounded by Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East." He asks Ron Paul rhetorically, "isn't that in itself worth defending?" Yet Ron Paul adheres stubbornly to his isolationist policies. Policies which, by the way, are disastrous not just for Israel, but for all of our foreign allies and, ultimately, for the security of the United States.

David Horowitz: Ron Paul's Antisemitism

Ben Stein on Ron Paul's Antisemitism

Ron Paul supporters, I ask but two thing of you. First, examine your adored leader with the same eye of scrutiny with which you study every other GOP candidate. Second, remember that if Ron Paul runs a third party campaign it will guarantee another 4 years of Barak Obama, Obamacare, overstretched and undefined military actions, social decline, economic catastrophe, and the death knell to our precious Constitution. If you run Ron Paul you will get exactly the opposite of what you think he stands for.

Herman Cain has a bulls-eye on his back. In the center is a red circle that reads "I am for limited government." The innermost ring says, "I am a black Conservative Republican." And the outermost ring, the biggest, most visible, and most irritating to the Left says, "I am pro-life." Yes, Herman Cain is targeted for destruction because he opposes the wanton killing of unborn babies.

It has been within the last month that Herman Cain made a number of statements clarifying his stance on abortion. He didn't waffle or dance towards the middle. He was clear in his unapologetic pro-life positions. He is a champion for the unborn, a champion for life. The bulls-eye on Cain's back is made even larger by the fact that he is a devout and practicing Christian. It must have irked the Left to the core when he sang "Amazing Grace" at the National Press Club.  

The attack on Cain from his enemies, who are numerous, is to be expected. The GOP establishment dislikes limited-government Tea Party Conservatives. Liberals fear Black Conservatives. But today, when Gloria Allred reared her pro-abortion advocate head, the true mastermind behind the unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment against Cain was betrayed. Gloria Allred has made her career defending Liberal, pro-abortion women. She arrives on the scene predictably when "reproductive rights," aka killing babies, is at issue, or if there is a Conservative, pro-life politically or culturally significant individual that must be destroyed in the name of protecting the Left's Holy Scripture, Roe vs. Wade. Gloria Allred is the point man in the campaign to eliminate the threat of Herman Cain. The pro-abortion Left hates Herman Cain more deeply, more savagely, than any other group in American politics. And they hate him precisely because he opposes their darling cause; abortion on demand. 

Abortion on demand, and a Black, Christian, Pro-life POTUS, are simply incompatible in the pea brains of Liberals. Herman Cain defies all of the stereotypes contained in the Liberal fantasy that says they support the interests of the Black Community. They purport to value Black families and pretend to want the best for the children. The truth is that, while Blacks in America make up less than 13% of the overall population, 30% of all abortions are performed on Black mothers. Thanks to the Left, unborn Black babies are killed at a rate 3 times that of the rest of the population. Herman Cain is not just a threat to their agenda and stereotypes, he is a threat to their most beloved and defended issue; abortion for any reason, at any time a woman may deem appropriate. And as a Black man, he has a personal interest advocating for life.

Herman Cain must be defended against the relentless and brutal attacks on his record, his character, and his basic goodness. What is more effective and irrefutable than to destroy an individual through rumor and hearsay? Even when no evidence exists, an onslaught of defamation, if it goes on and on, will harm the image of an individual in the eyes of the public. This is their plan. It is vicious, it is based on a lie, and it has been devised by those who fear Herman Cain because of he is Black, Christian, Conservative, and opposed to killing babies for any reason at any time Gloria Allred may deem appropriate. 

We need to support Herman Cain. The future of this decent man, and the future of the Republic hangs on our ability to stand against the evil forces that want him out of the picture of American politics.

Occupy Grand Junction started 10 days ago. Initially there was a panic among Tea Party activists who felt they had to counter the occupiers by getting a permit for the Old Courthouse location so they could occupy first. I encouraged the opposite. "Stay away from these guys," I suggested. "We don't want any association at all with them. We don't want to be seen in pictures with them and we don't want to share space with them. That would boost their credibility and harm ours.  The local Tea Party and Liberty groups took some deep breaths, sat back, and watched the circus unfold.  

I went down to the courthouse on the Monday after the sit in began, to drop off my mail-in ballot for our upcoming elections. I was intrigued by the milieu on the grass. There appeared to be a group of "organizers" splayed near the flag pole, planning the days important marches and discussing who should be their medial liaison.  There was another group under the trees and pop-up shades who looked just to be sitting about, eating the generous donations of food that local supporters had lavished on them.  All were dressed in what is best described as "hippie garb," tie dye, revolutionary slogan tee shirts, bedraggled and dreadlocked, and for the most part, filthy. I walked up to one young man who was wearing a tan hoodie and sporting a scraggly red beard and began to speak to him.

"Why are you here?"

"I am frustrated that no one cares." He replied, an edge of anger in his voice.

"Was there something that happened?"

"My boss fired me for screwing up and order..." he continued. And he told me the tale of how his job as a line chef had ended badly and that he had been "totally screwed-over" by the owner of the restaurant.

"I have friends in town who own restaurants. Would you like me to see if there are any openings?"

He paused, not really wanting to follow up with the obvious conclusion to his sob story--to find another job--but he said, "um, sure."

Another fellow came up to me and the young man with the tan hoodie. He was older, slightly inebriated, and more open to my suggestions. 

"Why are you here," I asked the older man.

"Oh, I'm just homeless...laid off my construction job. I come up here because it is safer than where the other homeless guys hang out." 

"Are you looking for work?"

"Yes, I have a lot of skills in construction. I can roof and drywall..." and proceeded to give me his resume of work experience. 

I told him, "You know what, I will see what kind of construction jobs are open locally and I can bring you the listings. Would that be okay?"

"Oh yeah, that would be so nice of you. I hate this homeless s___!"

He asked if he could walk me to my car and I said "of course." I wished him good luck and promised that I would be back the following day with some job listings.

I returned the next day with some print outs of job listings. I approached the young man with the tan hoodie and asked if he would post them at their "organizer" booth for everyone to see. He seemed a little perplexed and reluctant. But he was kind enough to acknowledge my real desire to help.

I returned the next day with a neat binder full of local job listings, some pens and note pads. The original two men were not present but another man wearing "99%" buttons but otherwise kind of normal looking said he would love to make some money. I told him that I had some hedges that needed to be trimmed. He said he could do that so I got his number. I called him 3 times subsequently but have not gotten a response.

I returned 2 days later with another handful of job listings for the binder. I could not find the binder I had left, so I placed the printouts on the table.

This is an ongoing experiment. If the people at Occupy Grand Junction have any sense of self, any human conscience that impels them to be accountable for their own lives, they will cease the demands that the government steal from earners, to give them what they want. I am hoping that there is a kernel of shame within some of the occupiers. They could turn a little shame and introspection into the power to choose and create a life for themselves. But they languish in a stew of contrived victimization and self-imposed helplessness. 

I will return again tomorrow to see if my efforts to point these able bodied fishermen to the waterholes where they can catch their own fish bears any fruit.  I wonder if they realize that if they get their way we will all be camped out in the dirt, filthy, and groveling at the feet of big government.

By Marjorie Haun 10/23/2011

Please visit http://reagangirl.com

There is a lot of chatter about the root cause of the loss of Anthony Weiner's former congressional district to Republican Bob Turner. Some are saying that it is a referendum against the Obama administration and its catastrophic economic policies. Some are saying it is a pro-Israel vote, which is ironic since New York Congressional district 9 is heavily populated with Jewish voters, Orthodox, Reform, and what-you-will. However, Turner came out with a strong "I Stand With Israel" message, which may have appealed to the sentiments of NY9 Jews, as opposed to the traditional Democrat Palestinian sympathizer position. I think these are factors that contributed to the Turner win, but I also believe that voters, when faced with a moral conundrum which pits degenerate behavior against the more virtuous candidate, will gravitate to Republicans and Conservatives. The Right is the only side of the political tug-o-war that believes morals matter, and which is unafraid to tackle social issues which impact families, children, and religion, in policy discussions.  It may well be that Weiner's disgusting behavior; the full frontal nudity tweets and online sex chats with numerous women, even after he was married, is so repugnant that even a distract that has unfailingly gone to Democrats since 1923, cannot stomach the thought, nor take the chance, that another sexual pervert might represent them.

New York Congressman, Republican Chris Lee, resigned almost immediately after he sent a photo of himself, waist up and shirtless, to a woman. He did not lie about his culpability, he took responsibility for his tacky and untoward behavior, and he got out of Dodge. Weiner first denied that the tweets were his, then he blamed them on a hacker, then he tried to minimize the offense, then he fought to hold on to his congressional seat after having been fully exposed as an immoral, narcissistic, troubled liar.  Perhaps the voters in NY9 have had it with the Weiners of the world. Bob Turner at 70 is certainly a safe bet, at least when it comes to decency.

Character does matter. America made the mistake with Bill Clinton of overlooking moral principle in exchange for a bit of economic security and prosperity. But the social decline of moral standards and behavior has never shifted from its downward trend since the Clinton/Lewinsky years. We can't afford sexual reprobates in positions of political leadership. One's sexual behavior and connection to a religious, moral identity in regard to the purpose and potential of sexuality, transfers to the overall character and conduct of an individual. Democrats in NY9, and perhaps elsewhere, are now feeling the sting of rebuke from an American electorate who still, to some degree, values the indispensable role of morality in a free society. 

One of the most challenging duties I have as an American citizen is to sit through a Barak Obama speech. But do my duty, I will, and I did so last Thursday evening.  Sort of.  First of all, the conventional wisdom that Obama is eloquent is false. He is not eloquent, he is not a master of communication, he is not as intelligent as we are told to believe. But he is clever, and he has a snake-pit of clever advisors behind him.  Obama’s September 8 speech is simply a political set up for him to run against a “do-nothing” Congress in 2012. Clever, yes.  More clever than the American people? No.

The content of Thursday’s speech was a rehash of former “stimulus” speeches. His “American Jobs Bill” is just another infusion of tax-payer dollars into the ether of his command economy. If he has his way another $400 billion will waft into the netherworld of socialist failure, just like the previous $3.27 trillion from previous stimulus packages.  There is nothing in his AJB that would create a single lasting job.  It is an attempt to pander to large swaths of his supporters, like teachers unions, government sector unions, the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO, who would all benefit directly or indirectly from his plan. 

Obama pandered to small businesses as well with talk about a “payroll tax cut.” But  it is corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and  personal income taxes on the small business owners who make over $200 K per year and declare their business income on their personal returns, that are killing jobs. Obama did not address those, but instead promised again to raise taxes on “those Americans who can afford to pay more.”  In his mind that includes all of those small businesses and their owners who we know are not “millionaires and billionaires” but are ordinary Americans, struggling, cutting corners, pinching pennies, and fighting the federal government at every turn just to save the jobs they have created for their employees.  As usual, Obama’s plan will kill more private sector jobs in exchange for a small rebate to households that will go to pay down debt and will have no lasting impact on the economy. He will fortify the unions, they will grow in power, and in the end, the government will be bigger, and the individual much smaller. Corporations will continue to outsource to other countries because the costs of production are impossibly large.  And small businesses will continue to shutter their doors as the specter of Obamacare looms ever closer.

One  of the most ironic aspects of Obama’s duplicity is his avoidance of the most obvious and immediate answers to our failing economy.  As a resident of Western Colorado I know that in my region of this vast country, there lies underground enough natural gas and oil resources to fuel our nation and our economy for decades, if not centuries.  Obama’s pet agencies like the EPA and DOE have essentially corked the potential for energy exploration and development in the West.  If he were to ease the regulations, tell Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to take a long vacation to Fiji, and simply open the door for Americans to take advantage of the vast energy resources underneath our feet, the economy would receive the defibrillation it needs to get pumping again.  Thousands of private sector jobs would be created, and dependence on foreign energy would be dramatically decreased.

The American people will not fall for the “run against a do-nothing congress” ploy. The president can’t stay disengaged and ineffective for another 15 months. The economy cannot bear the strain of further taxation, regulation, and statist manipulations of the free market.  If Obama was sincere he would do the following.

• Open energy-rich regions of the United States to exploration and development
• Slash corporate and capital gains taxes and close loop holes for his crony corporate buddies like GE
• Cut taxes on the upper 8% of income earners, most of whom are small business owners
• Ask congress to immediately repeal Obamacare
• Offer  American corporations who are outsourcing or have moved overseas tax incentives to stay in country
• Decrease the collective bargaining power of public sector unions at the federal level
• Revisit the budget deal and adopt the Paul Ryan plan to address entitlement reform

But we know Obama is not serious about saving our economy or our standing of economic and military superiority.  He will continue to point the finger of blame, play the race card, and toy with the free markets of the greatest country the world has ever known, until he begins the longest vacation of his life in 2013.

THIS IS FROM THE INIMITABLE KEVIN CRONIN, GOP BOARD MEMBER FOR RACINE  COUNTY WISCONSIN :

I hear plenty of talk of write-in votes for the 2012 presidential race. Apparently the people that intend to write-in a candidate don't understand the repercussions of their planned actions. A write-in vote is the same as a vote for Obama.
Not all Conservatives will be happy with the GOP nomination, but writing in your favorite candidate is not only unwise but selfish.
A write-in candidate has no chance of winning. No third party candidate has a chance of winning. Hence, a vote for a write-in or third party candidate is a wasted vote. It equates a vote for liberalism. Can you say Ross Perot?
The future of our freedom is at stake. Every vote is needed to defeat the socialist movement.
I understand people's convictions; however, common sense must prevail. The country may not survive another four years of this administration.
In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt ran as a progressive and split the GOP vote with Taft and as a result Woodrow Wilson won the election.
Think! Think of what we are fighting for. Think of what we are fighting against. We are on the same side! There is too much at stake.

No cushion in a cage for me!

I have several friends who grew up in European countries, married American men and now enjoy the blessings of the greatest country on earth. My friend from Denmark loves America, and her feelings toward this country, its history, beauty, and opportunities are tender. But her mindset is still one of a socialist democrat.  When I was fighting against the Obamacare legislation by making a dozen phone calls during my 20 minute lunch breaks, using time that was my own to devote to the labor of activism, my Danish friend was perplexed that I would basically skip the time off our employer "owed to me." She was also at a loss to understand why I wouldn't want a socialized medical system, and a huge nanny state to care for my physical needs, cradle to grave. That's what she knew in Denmark. It just the way it is in Europe. 

One day I summoned my diplomatic self to explain to her why I was so vehemently opposed to Obamacare and big government. I told her, "Americans are different than Europeans. We value freedom over all other things. We don't want the government making our choices for us. We don't want government dictating what we can and cannot do with our money, our property, or our bodies. Americans value liberty more than comfort."  She countered with, "Well, wouldn't you like to have a 3 week vacation twice every year, and as much sick time as you need?" I told her no. I said, "Americans prefer to work for ourselves. We want lower taxes and smaller government so we can work hard, access the opportunities to become wealthy through our own entrepreneurial efforts if we wish, and take as much time off as we choose." She was a little stunned to hear this, her face flushed but she listened. I continued, "You see, Americans want to choose whether they take off one day or 2 months. It depends on how much money we make, and how much we want to work. We will make the choice. Some of us can work hard and retire at 50, some will work until we die, because we choose to do so. It is about the freedom to do with our lives and work as we will. The government has no business telling us how to live our lives."

After my soapbox lecture my friend quickly changed the subject. She never again asserted that the European model was more desirable, at least not to me.  

I am of Celtic extraction. My Danish friend and I may very well have parallel genealogies. We may even share a common Viking ancestor a thousand or so years back. But the blood that runs in the veins of Americans vs Europeans is very different. The American work ethic is just that, a WORK ethic. Europeans are raised with an ENTITLEMENT ethic. The government will take care of their needs. The government will also limit their freedom and potential. I would not trade the risks and uncertainty and liberties of my life for the cushion in a cage to which European socialists look forward.

My employer, the local school district, has taken today off. But I have not. I am busy writing, helping two friends who are running campaigns, and preparing for work tomorrow. I will take my 15 year old on a hike later today. I don't look forward to time off. I like my life to be filled with time on.

My European friends are lovely people. They love all that America has to offer. But to truly understand America and why her citizens so value liberty over comfort, they may require a blood transfusion.

The Fellowship of the Right-Wing

Barak Obama may indeed be the Messiah.  He has certainly worked a political miracle in the last  2 years that has astounded many Americans. He has worked a healing miracle as the myriad bone cells that make the skeletal tissue of America, fractured and splintered, have knit themselves together. The breaks have been replaced by tissue that is not only healed, but stronger than before. The coalescing of The Fellowship of the Right Wing is a miracle because the nature of the conservative individual is stubbornly independent.

The Tea Party, The Conservative Patriot Resistance, The Red Stampede, the Resurgent Right, whatever you want to call it, is the ideological combination of disparate thinking, lifestyles, regionalisms, religions, and talents. Conservatives have never been followers of charismatic individuals. But we are followers of the heady principles of Liberty and of Constitutional government. Most of us will freely follow God, but we bristle when we are asked to follow a man. We question and vet, and we may treat a leader "pretty ugly"  if he is hypocritical or destructive. We reject the self-serving and duplicitous who wear the Conservative label on their sleeves, who follow some lesser star such as power or notoriety.  We trust only leaders who follow the highest, Divine Authority. We are headstrong, self-governing, free-thinking and we have contempt for government interference and the fawning sycophants who worship the god of the state.

The Fellowship of the Right Wing has come together, thanks to the great physician, (oops, I just puked a little in my mouth) Barak Obama. Conservative activist groups, PACs, think-tanks, blogs and news outlets, social networks, community and neighborhood liberty groups, and the new conservative political class has inundated the American scene.  I am chin-deep in the activities of the Right Wing, and I can tell you that my 'friends', 'followers', fellow activists, conservatives, Republicans, bloggers, campaign workers, and ideological soul mates are the cream that has risen to the top of political activity. Secure, educated, actualized and accomplished men and women who have a deep love of America, a love of the truth, and an appetite for freedom are enmeshed, cells in a protective tissue, healing and growing, that will cover the deep wounds of a brutalized nation.

Barak Obama has assaulted the nation with his socialist policies and inept handling of military, social, and economic challenges. But he is just one face on a many-headed dragon. He is a failure, the worst president in American history. But he, like an infection or an injury, has signaled the healing cells within the healthy body of America to rally to attack their invaders; all the social and political diseases that define the Left.

Yeah, this is not just synapse soup, but metaphor soup as well.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 1st Amendment is primarily an enumeration of the "negative rights" imposed upon government by the Constitution. In other words, we have the right to speak, report and comment, assemble, and worship without the interference of the government.  We do not have the "right" to impose speech, opinions, or religion on another, nor they, upon us.  So the right to speak one's mind is not the right to have another listen, if they choose not to.  

I'm not quite sure how I would argue in defense of my 1st Amendment right to "political speech," if I had to sue FaceBook for infringing my constitutional rights.  Facebook is a privately-run, free and public forum for socializing and information-sharing.  But its anonymous administrators have a history of discrimination against those who exercise political speech as a function of their social network.

In Schenck v. United States (1919), Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that freedom of speech could be restricted if the speech represented a "clear and present danger."  He gave the example of one shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, in which the resulting panic could cause a lethal stampede as people ran to the exits. 

It is largely understood that the 1st Amendment protects, primarily, political speech, since it is political speech that is most apt to be shut down by those who disagree.  Facebook and other social networking sites add an interesting dynamic to the free exercise of political speech.  Depending on how you set up your Facebook "wall," and depending on how many "friends" you have, your remarks can potentially be read by many thousands of people. Facebook has features where one can "hide" certain posts or individual, or where you can "block" certain people entirely.  The other feature is a form of quickie police monitoring, of which I don't disapprove, but anyone can report any post as being "spam, harassment, hate speech, offensive content, pornography, or threatening comments."  Apparently the anonymous administrators at Facebook are more interested in the "seriousness of the charges", than they are in any evidence that something untoward has actually occurred.

I was scrubbed from Facebook a couple of days ago apparently for making "threatening comments."  I am known for debating other users on political and social topics, but I don't use profanity, I'm always polite and truthful, and the only thing I might threaten is to "fight" the enemies of freedom in purely rhetorical form.   Someone, somewhere in my vast network of friends, and friends of friends, found my political speech to be a threat and so I was reported and essentially censored.

If I took this to court, one of my arguments would be that Facebook regularly allows profanity, questionable photographs and music, and highly offensive conversations on the site without interference from its faceless administrators.  There is a logical gulf in Facebook's selective use of standards.  The only sensible conclusion that one can use to bridge that gulf is that Facebook finds political speech either pornographic, threatening, harassing, hateful, offensive, or all of the above.

I am not the first Conservative activist to whom this has happened. My friend who is on the GOP board of directors for Racine County, Wisconsin got shut down just this morning. Another friend who is a representative for the conservative "Winning With Women" organization has been shut down on 4 separate occasions.  

The Left is sending out a warning shot.  Social media is a powerful tool for political activism, and the Right is using it in a big way.  My advice: Don't back down! If Facebook shuts you down, flank them through a different account, or create a new page using a different email address. Draw attention to their efforts to shut down political speech and information sharing. Don't shut up, shout it from the roof tops. If this is an effort by Facebook to impede the tsunami of Tea Party Conservatism sweeping America, it will surely backfire. We're pissed off now. You mess with our Constitutional rights we'll be even more pissed off.  Oh, sorry, did that offend you? Well, too Freaking bad!

I just want to take an informal survey of my peers.  Answer the following questions yes or no and we'll go from there.

• Do you believe that you will be a recipient of the Social Security funds that you have paid into the system?
• Do you believe that the government will in any way give you financial support in your old age?
• Do you believe that you will have subsidized medical care in old age in the form of Medicare?
• Do you believe that you will be able to retire at the age of 65?
• Do you believe that the current social models of retirement homes, assisted living facilities and extended-care medical institutions will be available to you in your late years?
• Do you believe that you will have to depend upon your family or faith congregation to meet your old age needs?
• Do you believe you will have the means to live independently in your old age?
• Do you believe that the current debt crisis and addiction to spending on the part of the federal government will turn upside down the entitlement programs that have been available to elderly Americans since FDR? 

This is not a test.  And I don't really care how you answered these questions.  But I hope that I have caused you to reflect upon the future for Americans just now entering their 50s and 60s.

I am a late Boomer, born in 1961.  I have had the gut feeling (knowledge) since about 1989 that I would not be a part of the Social Security generation.  I frankly don't believe the projections that Medicare will become insolvent in 2024 and Social Security in 2036.  I think it is around the corner.  There will be an upheaval in the immediate future, whether gradual or sudden, that will completely alter the lives and expectations of the American aging class.

I put a post on Twitter yesterday that said "Are you ready to be part of the generation who disengages from government dependence?"  The next tweets followed: "Are you ready to become the generation who will be self-reliant in old age? Are you prepared to work as long as you can? Are you prepared to find support in old age the old fashioned way, through family and church?"

This to some is horrifying. No safety net? No government to care for those who have no church or willing family to help them as they age and contend with illness and impending death?

This is the reality check of the century and our thinking and approach to life as elderly people will require a drastic reset if we are to survive past this point.  

The victories of Socialism via Obama, and decades of a burgeoning government and the dependence of individuals thereon, are made downright tragic by the effect of the assault on families and churches that have left so many of the Boomer generation alone, and faithless.  In the 1960s couples started to shrink their families and chose to bear few or no children. Children are traditionally the most reliable form of security to aging parents.  Many have chosen not to marry and as families of origin die out, they are left alone.  Churches and strong congregations remain, but many individuals have abandoned the faiths of their childhood and lack the essential ties to a church family that are often a compassionate and effective source of support for the elderly and lonely.

Our children have a little time to adjust to a life style of total self-reliance.  As far as they're concerned, the sooner the reset occurs, the better. But for the Boomers and those entering their 40s, we are in for some pain.  

My plan is simply to:

• Stay healthy and be in charge of my own wellness
• Keep working indefinitely or until illness or accident takes away my ability to do so
• Always have a little savings in the bank
• Have home storage which includes food and other essentials sufficient for at least 6 months
• Live each day with the understanding that I will have to take care of my own needs now and throughout my old age and when I am unable to care for myself I will have to lean on my children and on my church

What is your plan?

If Conservatives, Red-staters and those who believe in the holy directive to "multiply and replenish the Earth," are patient, they will never again have to campaign against the Left, because  Liberals are sprinting down the road to self-extinction.

Non-procreation has been a fashion trend among Liberals for a lot of years now, especially European Liberals.  Just this week, the face of climate hypocrisy, Al Gore, called on women to save the planet by "stabilizing the population."  That is a euphemism the Chinese one-child bureaucrats would have loved.  But of course it is just another float in the parade of anti-human ideas that ooze from the pens and mouths of the environmentalist Left.

First we had to cease using DDT because it made the eggshells of certain seabirds fragile.  The result has been the needless deaths of millions of people each year, primarily in equatorial Africa, from mosquito-borne malaria.  Then came abortion on demand.  The human cost is staggering; upwards of 55 million dead humans in the United States alone since 1973.  The "women's liberation" movement derided the nuclear family and the children it produces and protects.  Birthrates fell as women bought into that lie.  Next in the parade is gay marriage. What could be more anti-procreation than fashioning a model for sex and marriage that is irrevocably sterile?  The ideologies of the Left are fundamentally anti-human; National socialism, Facism, Marxism, Communism. If you haven't noticed yet, all governments based on those ideologies kill lots and lots of people (Liberals included).  And now we have arrived at the juncture where having babies is not an eco-friendly thing to do.  Children and the human race be damned!  'We don't want to inconvenience the planet with the dreadful dumplings' dastardly landfill-clogging diapers,' goes the reasoning of the enviro-Left.

The modern Left is on the path to extinction.  But this is not the natural selection of weak species dying out while the adaptable and vigorous species thrive and evolve.  This is human-selected extiguishment of a species (although the Left is not, technically, a separate species). Oddly enough, they are selecting themselves to eternal banishment from the planet.  A self-destructive movement using the scalpel of fecundity to kill itself in a single generation.  This is fascinating from a theoretical standpoint.  There are, of course, a lot of variables which go into reproduction and population dynamics.  But generally speaking, the Left is trending itself out of existence.

Red-staters, Christians, and Conservatives are ensuring political domination simply by having more babies that Liberals and Blue-staters.  Abortion rates are lower in Red states.  Conservatives have higher birth rates than Liberals: 2.7 children on average in the Red state of Utah vs. 1.7 in very blue Vermont.  Evangelical Christians and Mormons have nearly twice the birthrates of their secular neighbors. Perhaps it boils down to the fact that most Conservatives believe IN God, believe His word, and believe that He is SERIOUS when He gives commandments.  Liberals answer first to political ideology then self (God is stuck some place where they can pull Him out if it is convenient), so "multiply and replenish" to them are a blasphemy against their overburdened Mother Earth.

I frankly feel bad for the broads and dipsticks that somehow feel their environmental awareness will compensate for the awful void of children that never were.  Mother Earth will not like you any better just because you skip producing  a batch of little eco-destroying nasties.  Nature will eat you up in an eyeblink because  it is dispassionate, and vast and you can do nothing to impact the planet for long term good or ill.  You are a flyspeck on the cosmic timeline.  But your human heart may long for a family, especially when Al Gore and the Environmental movement are remembered only as a hoax. Your heart may break. Your Heavenly Father may be a little miffed.

But, hey.  In just a few years Conservative candidates won't have to do any fundraisers, stump speeches, or social media campaigns.  There won't be any Liberals left to run against.

"Are you a flake?" "Are some of the things you say flaky?" These are actual questions that Chris Wallace of Fox News asked of Michelle Bachmann, a woman with at least twice his IQ and qualifications.  Why Mr. Wallace did this is inexplicable, but he got a big shiner as Mrs. Bachmann and the Fox viewers punched back.  He will probably never recover.

This was an attempt at a clever rhetorical trick by Mr. Wallace which associates a person with a word.  The less cerebral among us, Liberals, children, will turn that word into an image and superimpose it onto the name and persona of the individual that has been thus labeled.  So Chris Wallace (clever trial attorneys, and virtually all of the disingenuous interviewers that prowl the main stream media) attempted to use that psychological ruse to create the impression that Michelle Bachmann is a flake, despite the total absence of evidence that she is anything other than a highly accomplished, educated, intelligent, righteous, devoted mother, wife and American.  He invented it, but when he put her name in a sentence with the word 'flake,' ending with question mark, he created a trick of word association.  The imprint of image to which mobs and Liberals are so susceptible.

So I will do the same for Chris Wallace. "Does Chris Wallace look at porn?" I have no idea. There have been no reports that he looks at porn. It's a stupid question.  But I've associated the name of Chris Wallace with PORN. Chris Wallace, PORN. PORN, Chris Wallace. Have you heard that Chris Wallace looks at porn? Of course not, I haven't. But this if this trick lie, shielded from libel laws by a little curved punctuation mark, is repeated often and broadly it will stick. No matter how innocent Chris Wallace is of viewing porn, if the lie is spread, and the word becomes paired with his name often enough, he will become, in the media consumer psyche, "Chris Wallace, "Pornman."

Social media and passionate Conservatism combined with a fedupness by Americans of a schoolyard  bully approach to news and politics interrupted Mr. Wallace's gotcha moment.  It didn't sneak past like he hoped.  The insult was stinging, and totally undeserved by a dignified an serious presidential contender.  Michelle Bachmann pushed back. We pushed back, and we pushed back hard.  An American activist class has emerged.  They are politically savvy, sophisticated in history, debate, and human nature, and always on high alert for trickery and hypocrisy.

Sorry about your epic fail Mr. Wallace.  Your name will forever now be associated with the word 'flake." Just like Weiner and TWEET, Weiner and WEINER, and Weiner and IGNOMINIOUS RESIGNATION, will always be paired in water-cooler talk forevermore. Chris Wallace, FLAKE? Chris Wallace, PORN? Chris Wallace, UNEMPLOYED? We'll see.

Former Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty gave a great Tea Party conservative speech at Right Online this afternoon.  I am from Colorado so all I know about Pawlenty I have learned within the last 6 months or so.  I applauded loudly and whooped as he SPOKE all the right words.  He is fiery, he is smart, yada yada.  The problem is that his constituents in Minnesota, the real Conservative constituents, don't trust him.  An unnamed source who had worked on campaigns at different levels in Minnesota described him as a compromiser, a RINO, a politician by nature, one who talks the Tea Party talk but does not walk the Tea Party walk. 

I asked the unnamed source about Michelle Bachmann, the US Rep from Minnesota.  This seemingly well versed and credible Minnasotan described Bachmann's rise through the political ranks, first as a business owner, tax litigation attorney, pro-life activist (Phyllis Schafley)and education reform advocate.  Bachmann was asked by many supporters to run for public office, which, initially she did not want to do.  But she ran and beat a RINO in her primary race, and beat an establishment dem to win a seat in the Minnesota State Senatenational race.  She then went on to run for the United States House of Representatives and beat an extreme-left dem. Michelle Bachmann, it is said, is hated by the RINOs and the Dems in Minnesota, which in the mind of most Tea Party members, makes her imminently qualified for high office.  I love a woman who makes enemies of corrupt, dishonest, musty, dusty establishment politicians.  Thank you (name withheld)

Read more about Right Online at

http://reagangirl.com

I've learned to smile.  It is an acquired skill.  It is a gift.  Heavenly Father gave to me and I like to share, so you get some of it too.

I have spent a couple of days at the Right Online conference in beautiful downtown Minneapolis.  I have had a thoroughly happy time.  Why not?  I am an American.  I am still (mostly free).  I am surrounded by other Americans in a great American city.  I have a God who cares about me and my freedom.  I have 4 beautiful and amazing children in Colorado.  What's not to smile about.

Netroots, the liberal version of Right Online, a little older, more extreme Left than we are Right, cranky and negative, has been taking place across the street from our hotel.  Meetings in the streets, on elevators, in lobbies are inevitable between the "Nutroots" crowd and the "Vast Right Wing Conspirators."  I got on the elevator going down this morning and a very hip young lady got on at the same time.  She noticed my Right Online lanyard, I noticed her Netroots lanyard.  She was uncomfortable. I was exhilarated.  I had her trapped for 6 floors.  She began, "It looks like we're...opposites."  I was thoughtful, "Ummm," I said, "yeah, but we're both Americans.  That is the most important thing we share."  "And," she added, relaxing slightly, "we both use the internet!"  A pleasant conversation ensued.  She asked me what I blogged about and I told her my story.  When we got to the lobby I wished her a wonderful day.  She smiled a big smile my direction.  I walked up to the intersection and she promptly jay-walked across the street.

I have seen perhaps a hundred activists from Netroots on the streets around the convention centers here.  I smile and purposely make eye contact.  Some give me a glower, some an "hurrumph," and some, like the young lady in the elevator, have shared my smile.  I have 4 children who have passed through or are now residing in their young adulthood.  I have an instinctive love for young people.  And it occurred to me that I am not fighting against the individuals at Netroots, or on the Left.  I am fighting, as a Conservative, against bad ideas, bad policies, and bad institutions.  This is not a war of Americans against Americans.  It is a war of truth against lies, freedom against tyranny,  and civility against hatred.  I wielded the weapon of a smile, and I won a little piece of a young woman's heart.  And she won a little of mine.  This is where the most crucial battles will be fought.  It is more than a platitude to say "winning the hearts and minds of America."  It is a crucial strategy which should be the foundation of all rhetorical and political battles.

What better way to disarm the ideological foe, who is at their heart a friend waiting to  learn that they too love their liberty, than to give them a smile, a pleasant conversation, and a wish for a wonderful day.  We have nothing to fear in our own kindness.  And that young lady whom I met on the elevator will never honestly be able to say that all conservatives are crazy, or mean, or cranky, or old white men.

read more at http://reagangirl.com/?p=9528