Reagangirl's Blog

New American Feminism, pro-life, pro-family, pro-manly-men

ReaganGirl Has Moved

Hello friends.  I have moved ReaganGirl’s blog to a self-hosted site so I can enjoy more versatility in my blogs and reach a greater audience.  All new posts will be found at  Please  join me for the exciting countdown to November 2, 2010.


November 1, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hickenlooper Bombshell: ‘Backwards Thinking in Rural, Western Areas’ – By Michael Sandoval – Battle ’10 – National Review Online

Hickenlooper Bombshell: ‘Backwards Thinking in Rural, Western Areas’ – By Michael Sandoval – Battle ’10 – National Review Online.

October 22, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Ascendency of Abnormal

“You took an empty tampon box, cut it in half and made a casket for your dead spider.  Then you put on a black shawl and held a funeral. That was awkward.”

Daughter: Mom, since I am going to miss Homecoming because I have to work, can I spend the night at a friend’s house?

ReaganGirl: Why don’t you have your friend come over here? I don’t mind.

Daughter: This house is… (searches for a word)…not normal.

ReaganGirl: What do you mean sweetie?  How is our house not normal?

Daughter: You.., well, you’re…awkward.

ReaganGirl: Oh, (thoughtful pause)well, can you give me an example of how I’m awkward?

Daughter: Mom, one of the times I had friends over you came down into the basement, took an empty tampon box, cut it in half and made a casket for your dead spider.  Then you put on a black shawl and held a funeral.  That was awkward!

That was a year ago.  It pains me a little to think that my socially sensitive, 16 year old daughter is reluctant to have friends over because her mother is “not normal.”  But my little family is secure, happy, self-sufficient, and our home is a place of love.  The other outwardly “normal” aspects of life no longer seem all that important.

One recent morning, upon waking, I had a thought waft through my mind, “You will not live a normal life.  Your goals and desires will be different now and the hopes of the past are no longer.”  The feeling that accompanied the thought was simply one of acceptance.  I am now okay with not being normal.

I, ReaganGirl, am a wee bit uncomfortable talking about myself, but in order to define what I mean by “normal” I will have to expose myself a little.  Here goes:  My name is Marjorie, and I am an Abnormal Person.  Being abnormal has little or nothing to do with the fact that I have an affinity for tarantulas (I have owned four of them as pets over the years).  And though I sometimes feel a little awkward at social or church events, where 99% of the adults are married, my strangeness is not due to my single status.  Being a Special educator does not make me abnormal.  Nor does being a Tea Party activist, Conservative blogger, gun owner, or Mormon woman.  What makes me unusual is the fact that I am willing to risk all of the above for the idea of liberty.  I am willing to give up my American dream so my kids can have a shot at theirs. That makes me abnormal.  But that makes me a woman for our times, because we do not live in normal times.

I attended a Conservative activist training last June, and Joel Mowbry, a FoxNews political contributor, spoke.  “You are not normal people.” He declared.  “Normal people don’t give up an entire Saturday in June to sit in a windowless room and learn how to be a political activist.  Normal people go to the beach, watch sports, spend time with their friends.  But not you!  No, you’re here, eating cold pizza, and listening to me, so you can become an activist.  You are not normal!”

I had never thought of it that way before.  In my heart of hearts, I believed that everyone was politically passionate.  I thought everyone had adopted an ideology, right, left, or middlin’.  I thought that it was the mainstream American way to be.  It all makes sense now.  The glazed-over eyes, the “excuse me, my dog is on fire,” exit lines, the “oh, I don’t know anything about that…now, about them Denver Broncos,” change-the-subject retorts.  So, no, not everyone wants to talk about the constitutional problems with ObamaCare and the commerce clause.  And, not everyone understands why it is even more important to stock up on ammunition for your firearms than it is to acquire more guns.  I may be the only person on my block who squeals with delight when the latest David Barton tome arrives on my step from

The questions that keep zinging between my temples are these; What exactly is normal? And, how many of you reading this are still living the normal lives you did some 20 months ago, in the pre-Obama, pre-radical-take-over days?  And who among you underwent a visceral recalibration 9 years ago, with 9-10-01 being the last day of your life that you could call yourself a normal American?  Who among you has taken up bizarre behaviors such as attending rallies, raising your hands, asking questions and challenging the status quo?  What about the hoarding of books such as those on American History, the worldwide encroachment of radical Islam, the founding documents, and the Founders themselves?  Weird, really weird.  Who among you is educating yourself outside the purview of the public school system?  Perhaps you are one of those abnormal, dangerous readers.  Has any of you taken to the streets in mobs; retired folk, business owners, families, church-goers and other subversive elements, to protest corruption and soft tyranny, to reaffirm what it means to be an American?  How many of you act out on the phone or at the computer, cranking out emails and phone calls and reminding your representatives on Capitol Hill that they work for you?  Has anyone out there actually (sorry about this extreme example) campaigned for a politician?   Have you all gone mad?  THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

But if normal means complacency in the face of national decay and destruction, I want no part of normal.  If normal means to give away the farm to special interests and the radicals in power, you can keep your normal.  If normal means to abandon all that is good; traditional families, marriage, self-reliance, faith, creativity, and healthy, entrepreneurial risk-taking, then normal is no longer desirable.  If the normal thing is to concede our freedom of religion to the god/state secular forces of evil ideologies, then normal must be opposed.  If it is normal to blindly trust your political leaders, comply passively with their socialist agenda, and watch the “last, best hope of the world” putter to an ignominious end, then normal will not be tolerated.

I hope that this dialogue will take place on some near-future day.

Child: Mom, you’re not…normal.  But I’m really glad, because it took an unusual person to give me a future.  Those guys who wanted to “transform America” nearly ruined my future.

ReaganGirl: Sweetheart, it is all worth it.  America will never again be normal, the way it once was.  But I’m glad I stuck my neck out for you and your siblings.  I will do it again, as often as necessary.

Child: Thanks, mom.  Can I have some friends over?  They think your book collection is really interesting.

ReaganGirl: Of course.  Then we can bake some banana bread, the way we used to.


October 3, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Satan Loves Alan Grayson Hates YouTube

“Alan Grayson loves Satan!”  Brilliant, just brilliant!  The ersatz ad by TownHall in which Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida tells sick children to STFU, proclaims that President Obama is a Muslim, and vows his loyalty to Mephistopheles is simply the product of Newtonian physics.  It is the equal, and opposite, reaction to his nasty, sniveling attack against his GOP opponent, Daniel Webster.  By the time I sat down and chortled through the “Grayson Loves Satan” ad on YouTube, it had some 36,000 hits.  I imagine the syndicated hits multiply this number greatly.  The possibility is very real that more people have viewed TownHall’s “fake ad” than have sat through the stomach churning “Taliban Daniel Webster” ad.   For those of you, who unlike me, do not perserverate on politics, the “Taliban Dan” ad is a sinister little snippet that Grayson released which slices and dices a clip in which Daniel Webster quotes from the New Testament.  “Taliban Dan” says “submit to your husbands.”  The actual video shows that Daniel Webster was encouraging men not to choose Biblical verses like the one that tells wives to submit to their husbands, but to focus on those which say “love your wives.”  Grayson, obstreperous, arrogant (he would make a good bouncer at a skanky bar), still defends the lie in the “Taliban Dan” ad.  The big problem for Grayson is that his attempt at portraying a nice Conservative guy as a Taliban misogynist has taken a congressional race, once limited to Central Florida, Nation wide.  Now every soul from sea to shining sea can see that Alan Grayson is a loathsome piece of rubbish.

The bigger story embedded in this entertaining election exchange  is that the old media has lost its predominance.  The fake “Grayson Loves Satan” ad has more power than “Taliban Dan” for a couple of reasons.  It is a tongue-in-cheek “fake” answer to an actual vile attack on a nice-guy candidate.  And, it is funny.  With the eerie “Tublar Bells” as a sound track, this ad evokes all the creepiness of “The Exorcist.”  That music still creeps me out.  It is a brilliant ad.  The music is effective, the images powerful and the out-of-context clips hold just as much gravity as “…submit to your husbands”.  People will watch this ad simply because it is funny.  YouTube is not the place where, at the end of the day, most people go to find depressing clips or the most serious news of the moment.  YouTube, is primarily, a place where people enjoy their 15 minutes of fame, and where you can get a good chuckle.  YouTube is the preeminent video link for social networking.  YouTube is the platform on which news services build their video sources.  It is an inescapable internet reality.  If it ends up on YouTube, it grows legs and it runs.  Alan Grayson has been excoriated, exposed and politically wounded not because his opponent, Daniel Webster, paid thousands of dollars to produce a serious retort in the mainstream broadcast  market.  But because TownHall approved a fake ad that hits back with humor and is a better response to icky Alan Grayson than a sober ad could ever hope to be.

This is the new reality of techno-age discourse.  The mainstream media has lost its teeth and claws.  American politics has evolved past the malcontent hacks at the networks and the newspapers.  A fake political ad can effectively get out the truth because we have watched the whole scenario play out before our eyes in a matter of less than 48 hours.  The power really lies in the Conservative wave sweeping across America at this moment.  Not because Conservatives understand or control internet tools better than their lefty counterparts.  Not because we have an exclusive hold on the truth.  There is actually some truth to be found in all ideologies.  But because we are willing to risk humiliation and make fun of ourselves.  Rush Limbaugh has 20+ years as the “Big Dog” in radio because he is entertaining.  He has always laughed at people and risked his own skin in doing so.  Conservatives by and large, are funny because we’re happy.  Happy people laugh.  And humor is attractive.

Alan Grayson must hate YouTube.  Just do an AlanGrayson/YouTube search and the “Satan” ad is number 3, preceded by at least one other unflattering video. Does Alan Grayson love Satan?  Ask Alan.  We know, however, that Alan Grayson is a liar and lacks the personal humility to retract his lies even when he is shackled and flogged with the chains his lies have built.  Does Satan side with Alan Grayson?  Probably.

October 2, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Backlash of Manly Men

The 1970s gave us the “anti-hero”, brooding, conflicted, flawed, a little unhinged. Think Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman…Clint Eastwood.

The 1980s were rife with movies heroes who weren’t really heroes.  They sort of needed permission from their leading ladies to be tough and masculine.  The male icons of 1980s pop-culture, such as Tom Cruise (who had to stand on a coffee can to woo either Kelly McGillis or Nicole Kidman), were a little embarrassed to wield their power, to be on top, so to speak.  The 1990s brought us the ultimate sexual icon, Bill Clinton, the narcissistic man/boy, who lacked any sense of moral discipline but who “felt our pain.”  The trouble with Bill is that he would feel everything else if he got close enough.  He was neither “anti-hero,” nor the self-conscious, apologetic male of the 1980s.  But he was sensitive.  He could see into the human soul.  He identified so deeply with minorities, for example, that he was called by some, the “first black president.” (Sorry, Barak, you aren’t the milestone you would like to think.)  Then along care Dr. Phil, a man who would actually listen to us, understand, and be receptive to our innermost vulnerabilities.

But by the end of the 20th century Americans began to grow tired of men pretending to want to play with dolls instead of toys guns and Tonka trucks.  We were weary of depictions of men as sanitized, milquetoast, shadows of their biological realities. Where were the John Waynes, the Humphrey Bogarts, and the Ronald Reagans?  Where were media portrayals of men who worked with their hands, had dirt under their nails and grime in their whiskers?  Where were the men who could kill and field dress a deer without recoiling at the entrails or the calls of “animal cruelty” from the animal-rights Left.  They were there, but laying low, saying little, and it would take a “manly-man” revolution to draw them out from the cultural caves to which they had been banished decades ago.

1998 brought us an introspective Jim Carrey in  “The Truman Show,” as an exploited nice guy, longing for self-actualization.  It also gave us “The Horse Whisper,”  in which Robert Redford didn’t have to dominate or “break” a horse, but whose tender utterances subdued the wild beast.  Pshaw. But 1999 prompted a much overlooked sea change in the mystique of modern men with “Fight Club.” “Fight Club” was a barefaced, brutal, and somewhat bizarre backlash against the decades of emasculation that men had suffered at the hands of the “Woman’s Movement” and political correctness.  Brad Pitt even abandoned his pretty boy persona for a scarred, hardened and enjoyably twisted foil.  The tide had turned and it would not be assuaged.  “Gladiator” in 2000, “Black Hawk Down” in 2001, “Gangs of New York” in 2002, all signaled a trend towards masculine and gutsy pop-culture themes.  Most telling of all may be the Discovery Channel and its programming, a harbinger that the manly-man had been beckoned from obscurity and would not go away again, ever.

I, ReaganGirl, could not give a report on what to watch on network TV.  I haven’t watched it with any kind of fidelity since the final episode of “MASH” eons ago (in TV land).  But then I am a bit of a nerd, a science and nature groupie, and a tomboy.  The Discovery Channel, and its brother channels, TLC, The History Channel, The Science Channel, et al, have given the manly-man firm and fertile dirt in which to dig his steel-toed boots.  And the manly-man is alive and well and drawing huge and devoted audiences.  “MythBusters” had its debut in 2003.  Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage were grown-up men let loose in a wonderland of black powder and cool tools and all kinds of icky stuff.  Complete with their receding hairlines and unchecked facial hair, they blew things up.  They did cool stuff with guns.  They defiled crash dummies in unimaginable ways and once they even stuffed a pig carcass in a 1987 Corvette to measure the effects of rotting flesh in a car’s interior.  Fast on Jamie’s and Adam’s heels came Mike Rowe, mucking his way through “Dirty Jobs”.  Mike, with his sonorous baritone voice, broad shoulders, toned body, and shock of chest hair just peeking out the top of his filthy shirts, has worked in every stinking, vile, dangerous setting you might find a manly-man, or a very robust woman.  Mike Rowe is a man’s man, and a woman’s man.  He was the virile voice behind “Deadliest Catch.”  Crab fishermen on the high seas, performing one of the deadliest tasks on Earth, had become the diversion of millions of suburban families who somehow identify with men who risk their lives, work with little or no sleep and live in conditions that most would find intolerable.  The little secret was that these gutsy guys loved what they did and they really loved the money that came with the risk.

The bulls, by then, were out of the pen, and thundering down the avenues of popular entertainment.  Next came “American Loggers,” “Ice Road Truckers,” “Survivor Man,” “Man vs. Wild,” and spin-offs and knock-offs aplenty to sate the appetites of a testosterone starved populace.  As 2010 winds down, the testosterone spike shows no signs of subsiding, at least not with most Americans.  There is a faction in America, however, that still doesn’t seem to get it when it comes to concepts like “men and women are different“.  There is a cultural subspecies that still clings to the delusion that anything outside of their narrowly androgenic definition of the sexes is offensive and politically incorrect.

This subspecies is found primarily in the power centers of the Democrat party, especially in its more Leftist elements.  The National Organization for Women, more aptly called The Organization to Emasculate Men and Force Male Characteristics into the Psyche of the American Woman, still clings to the defunct notion that the sexes are the same.  Some politicians sort of sense that Americans prefer manly-men but they can’t quite fit their metro-sexual silhouettes into Cabela’s hunting garb.  Think John Kerry hunting deer with his ill-fitting camos and pathetic faux country twang.  I mean really, can you see Barak Obama astride a Harley Davidson, or an Appaloosa?  I still can’t seem to purge the image of him sitting upright on a bicycle, adorned in his polo shirt and safety helmet.  That image haunts me to this day.

Having dismissed the fundamental roles of men and women; to marry and form families, procreate, and nurture and protect their offspring, the Left in America has also, to a large degree, lost track of what it means to be a masculine man or a truly feminine woman.  The good news is that, in the battle between social coercion and biological instinct, biology has won over the contrived sexual prototypes that the Left has foisted upon Americans for nearly fifty years.

As a semantic exercise let’s just do a comparison of the adjectives used to describe  Barak Obama and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, the meteoric Conservative star.  Obama: professorial, suave, cool, intellectual, nuancedChristie: beefy, intimidating, chivalrous, direct, brusque. Which of these guys do you want meeting the barbarians as they approach the gates, eh?  And so the backlash of manly-men is reaching its apogee.  Manly-men need no longer apologize for their genetic inheritance.  Their strapping qualities are necessary for the survival and perpetuation of the species.   To all of those New American Feminists out there, be a womanly-woman for your manly-man.  Give him the appreciation he deserves.  And an occasional back waxing won’t hurt either.

See the link below for the latest manly-man reality show set in the coal mines of West Virginia.



Continue reading

September 26, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Images of a New American Feminist

Tea Party Patriot

Don't Tread on Her: Tea Party Patriot, Defender of the 2nd Amendment

six shooter

Yeah, she likes her six shooter. She knows there are things that must be defended with force, if necessary.


The New American Feminist is a life-long learner and she teaches the truth about the American story through her words and actions.


Treat your New American Feminist like the lady that she is.

Green Jello

Green Jello, Oatmeal Cookies, you name it. The New American Feminist is not afraid to nurture the ones she loves.


The New American Feminish is prepared, temporally and spiritually.

September 19, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Revenge of the Natalists

Natalism or pro-birth is a belief that promotes human reproduction. The term is taken from the Latin adjective form for “birth,” natalis.

Pronatalism or simply natalism is an ideology promoting child-bearing and glorifying parenthood, which may include creating financial and social incentives for the population to reproduce.

If the homosexual social experiment were to reach its theoretical zenith, with 100% participation, the human species would become extinct in a generation.

We could extend this theoretical framework to include those who foster the idea that  human reproduction is bad  and that the most destructive forces threatening the survival of the planet are babies.   Those scientific and political “depopulationists”, if they were intellectually honest and practiced those things which they purport to be beneficial to the planet; low birth rates, universal access to contraception and abortion, governmental population-control policies,  would also self-extinguish in a matter of decades.

I personally don’t believe that gays and lesbians really want or expect everyone in the culture to participate in non-reproductive couplings.  And so long as sperm donors and wombs for rent are available to such couples, children will sometimes find themselves in a two-parent home where they have been deprived of a mother or a father.  In one sense, for the child, it is a different kind of personal extinction; the extinction of the proper and optimum model of the nuclear family.  Every child benefits from a mother and a father who are committed to one another and to the rearing of that child.

Let’s distill this discussion down to the most basic elements of the Darwinian adaptations required for survival of a species.  Humans are so incredibly successful as a species precisely because of the nuclear family adaptation.  It is the bond between mother and father, committed to the protection and rearing of their offspring, that results in the extremely low rate of infant mortality when compared to other species of large mammals.  The cooperation, complimentary roles, and biological advantages inherent to a combination of masculine and feminine traits in the parent partnership, is the ultimate adaptation for a a higher species to ensure its survival and reproductive capacity.  The human paradigm of family transcends all other natural adaptations found among higher organisms, including all other primates.

The threat to the human species lies in the current trend of depopulation.  This is happening in two ways.  One is the planned childlessness and high abortion rates among adults of child-bearing age in industrialized countries.  For example, in the European Union there is not a single country that is maintaining a fertility rate sufficient to replace its aging and dying population.  The EU overall has a fertility rate of about 1.5, with some individual countries much lower.  The other threat to human reproduction is the disintegration of the family unit.  Marriage rates have decreased, especially in socialized countries where religion has taken a back seat to the state.  Fewer adults are getting married and fewer married adults are reproducing.  The downward and precipitous trend in childbearing has reached the shores of America.  In even the most prosperous and free nation in history, the family is floundering.

It is important, however, to dissect the matter even more deeply if we are to be able to discern who among us will become extinct first.  Here is where things get really interesting.  In Joseph Fried’s 2008 book “Democrats and Republicans: Rhetoric and Reality,” he cleverly illustrates fundamental differences between key political voting blocs through the use of simple graphs and charts.  Fried, in his heavily referenced book,  took statistical samplings from the Social Research Foundation and Harris Interactive and graphed the contrast in lifestyles between the American Right and Left.  The samplings reveal, for instance, that Democrats (D) are more promiscuous than Republicans (R).  R are more likely to be monogamous.  Homosexual males are more likely to vote D.  D are more likely to pay for sex.  R males have a marriage rate nearly 10% higher than D.  That widens to 20% with women.  D are more likely to never marry.  D are more accepting of premarital and extra-marital sex.  D are more likely to shack up and have children without the benefit of marriage.  D are more likely to have children before the age of 19.  And D have a higher incidence of mental illness.  So on, and so forth.  These lifestyle leanings have profound implications for families and children.  The ramifications of weakened families, the redefining of marriage, and the contemptuous attitude towards large families in popular culture and in the media are complex and can have unexpected results .  In their 2009 book, “Red Families vs. Blue Families,” Naomi Cahn and June Carbone remark that a “resurgence in illegitimacy happened during the first five years in which gay marriage had become the most prominent marriage issue in America.”  The ripples on the moral pond touch everyone and everything in their wake.

As of late, Americans have been defined by their color.  Not that of their skin, but rather the tone of their voting habits and lifestyle choices that are closely linked with political philosophy.  We are now red states and blue states; red being largely Conservative and blue being mostly Liberal.  There are a number of fascinating findings that have come from this classification.  In the General Social Survey, a tool used widely by social scientists, it was shown in 2004 that blue-stater Liberals had a fertility rate of around 1.47%.  Red-state Conservatives were at 2.08%.  The National Annenburg Election Survey of 2008 supported those findings in their post-Obama survey which showed a nearly 45% gap in the birth rates of very Conservative vs. Liberal women.  The reddest states, such as Utah, have the highest birth rates, while the bluest states, such as Vermont have the lowest.  It is important to note that Vermont was the first state to give legal status to gay marriage.  Birth rate statistics correlate with the highest rates of marriage according to religious denominations. In first place are Mormons whose adult population enjoys a marriage rate of 71%.  Second are Evangelical Protestants at 59%.  Those adults unaffiliated with a religion have a marriage rate of less than 40%.  These figures show a collapse within certain demographic populations of marriage and the nuclear family.  And whether or not you believe in Darwinism, even the evolution guy himself would agree that the dissolution of the most effective survival adaptation devised by any living creature in the entire history of life on Earth is not good for the species.

There would be much cause for rejoicing among Conservatives and Republicans if this were a simple numbers game.  If Liberals continue to embrace practices and policies that are harmful to marriage and which discourage large families, they will naturally become extinct at some future time.  That would ensure indefinite political dominion of the Conservative Right over their nemeses of the Left.  It would be the ultimate revenge of the Natalists against their enemies who have disparaged, dismissed, and accused them of harming the planet simply because they place procreation at the pinnacle of their priorities.  But this is more than a numbers game.  The forces that target human life are many.  Embryonic stem cell research, abortion on demand, the one child policy in China, and the rejection of procreative practices by educated and prosperous adults in industrialized nations, all imply demographic catastrophe for nations and extinction for genetic lineages.

The Natalists will surely not celebrate the decline of their political or religious antipodes whose family names will end in a generation.  But is the Natalists, those who embrace human life and the procreation thereof, who will ensure the survival of future generations.   Families with a mother and a father, who gladly welcome children into their hearts and homes, are the best and surest answer to the threat of human species decline.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Continue reading

September 6, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

It’s Gettin’ Ugly Out There

“Cross your legs!”  “Sit up straight!”  “Don’t do that, it’s unladylike!” I heard these phrases a few times when I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s.  The mothers and fathers of Boomer girls clung to the vestiges of old-fashioned gender stereotypes in an attempt to shield their little girls from the onslaught of cultural debauchery that was sweeping over the American family during that era.  Women of my generation, and those that have followed, have been redefining their societal sex roles for five decades.  But more importantly, many great women have been recapturing the traditional roles and values that our parents attempted to convey to us.  You see, the New American Feminist likes to be a lady.  She eschews the rejection, by old feminists, of traditional roles and values.  She honors her femininity.  And sometimes finding a balance between political prowess and punctilious poise is just plain confusing.

One of my personal goals in developing ReaganGirl’s Blog is to persuade women, especially the gentle and nurturing types, that the time for being demure is over.   The  message I bear to my Conservative sisters is this:  There is nothing unladylike or unbecoming about forcefully voicing your righteous opinion.  Liberty-loving sisters, listen up!  You have great power in your faith.  Yours are the hands which do much of God’s work in your homes.  You are the threads which keep the fabric of America from tearing apart altogether.  It is time for your voices to be heard.

To the husbands, sweethearts, and males friends of the women to whom I bring this message; encourage your ladies to be confident and speak out with their Conservative message.

Do I Really Have to Get into the Cage with Mire-slinging Monkeys?

Have you had a threaded discussion with a hard-left liberal on a social networking site  lately?  Have you seen the disdain the MSM and the Left have for any and all Conservative groups?   It doesn’t matter what the topic is, if you oppose something that the Left embraces, you are the worst manifestation of human effluvium imaginable.  If you oppose the victory mosque at Ground Zero, you are an “islamophobe.”   If you oppose the sweeping redefinition of the thousands-of-years-old tradition of marriage, you are a “homophobe.”  If you oppose the lawlessness, crime, and the abuse of social programs which are designed for needy Americans, that comes with unimpeded illegal immigration into our country you are a “xenophobe.”  If you are a Conservative and you want to preserve the culture, language and traditions of the USA, you are a “racist.”  Yes, the rhetoric from the Left is ugly.  But then, it has always been.

I have many good friends who read this blog who are advocates of liberty and conservative, constitutional values.  Sometimes they feel bad when they see outrageous, insulting, unfounded and hateful remarks from liberals who debate me on social networking sites.  Please don’t feel bad about this dynamic.  This is where those on the left reveal themselves. I have observed over the years that Liberals tend to conceptualize people in the simplest terms.  People must belong to a group.  They must be some kind of “phobe” or “ite” or “ist.”  The complexities of human experience, and cognitive, emotional, and social development escape the Liberal mind.  And as Charles Krauthammer so aptly explained in his recent National Review column, “Last Refuge of the Liberal”, when the enemies of liberty run out of rational arguments (of which they have few) they turn to race baiting, defamatory accusations, insults and name-calling.  To my salt-of-the-earth friends, modern political discourse may seem like a polluted sandbox to play in.  It may feel unseemly to debate people who turn so quickly to cursing, invectives, and the childish, “you are, but what am I?” and “did not/did so!”  feuds.  Unfortunately, many  dear ladies and gentlemen shy away from political debate because of the potential it holds for blasphemy and vilification.  They simply don’t want to be involved in any way with such debasing and inflammatory exchanges.  But there is a method that gentle, faithful, and righteous people can use to engage the Left and other enemies of liberty without becoming sullied by their antagonism.  Just remember a few of these rules when you are engaged in a debate:

  • Always approach the debate with civility and a polite demeanor.
  • Post, produce or quote evidence which supports your argument.
  • Use appropriate language and never use name-calling or insults (even when they are fitting).
  • Keep the opposition on topic (don’t allow them to turn an argument about the Obama recession into a quarrel about George W. Bush’s IQ).
  • Ask questions and keep them on the defensive.  For example; if they accuse you of being an “islamophobe”  simply ask them, “Why would you make such a harsh accusation?”  or, “What have I said or done that proves to you that I hate people?”
  • Always ask  them for evidence which supports their argument.  Always require them to defend their, often indefensible, positions.  (This is where things will start to escalate.)
  • Press them for specifics.  Ask for examples.  Remind them that although you respect their opinion, you also need know where they get their information.
  • You must be prepared to do the same.  Research, corroborate, double-check, confirm the facts that support your side of the debate.
  • Stay calm.  Be polite.  Acknowledge their right to believe what they believe.
  • De-escalate with phrases like “I see your point, however…” and “I understand why you might believe that, but…”
  • If they get mean, nasty, and belligerent simply say, “We can resume this discussion when you are thinking more clearly.” ( That will drive them crazy)
  • Be the ladies and gentlemen you are and never fear, because, as true Conservatives, you have the truth on your side.

It is sometimes uncomfortable and stressful to confront irrational political arguments and ideologies.  But every great leader has had to face down the ugly forces of their time.  If you are a Conservative, you must lead.  Lead your family, your co-workers, neighbors, and communities, back to a civil and rational center of discussion.  We can’t change our enemies but we can change the nature of debate.  It is up to Americans who seek to reclaim liberty and the Constitution, to do a makeover on the whole face of modern debate.  It doesn’t have to be ugly out there.

“In a world wracked by hatred, economic crisis, and political tension, America remains mankind’s best hope.”

Ronald Reagan


August 29, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Cure for the Double Standard

1 Thessalonians  5 (King James Version)

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I’m sick of them!

No, it’s not groups of people that I had had it with, it is phrases such as these: “questionable ethics…”, “charges of misconduct…”, “plagiarism charges…”, “reports of wrongdoing…”, “ethical violations…”, “conflict of interests…”.  I am sick of seeing and hearing these combined words in the media. I don’t have to say a word about which of our Colorado candidates have been reproached by these phrases.  They know who they are.  We know who they are.  And the national scene is downright dismal when we think of the ethical and moral condition of those politicians who wield far too much power over the policies that affect or lives.  Perhaps “dismal” is too gentle a term…how about “atrocious”, yes, atrocious.

The topic here is the personal behavior that impacts the public well-being.  At a time when Americans have handed over to politicians the power to determine the state of their economic and social health, and the direction of the country, in exchange for a pretense of security or “peace”, our success becomes inextricably linked to the quality of the character of those who wield the power.  Are you uncomfortable yet?  Yes, your prosperity and liberty is linked to the likes of Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank (Heaven help us!) and the rest of the motley crew that inhabit the halls of congress.  The epidemic of corruption is not limited to one party or ideology.  It is not the fault of  “failed policies” nor simple missteps in governance.  It is a spiritual sickness that has its roots in arrogance, greed, and the perversion of our founding doctrines.  When America was established as a Representative Republic, the representatives were meant to live in their districts, maintain jobs within their own communities, support themselves and to serve temporarily and briefly.  That has given way to a Washington ruling-class mentality wherein elected, and worse, appointed, office holders serve indefinite terms with little contact or accountability within their districts.

The one thing that gives me hope that our nation has not yet fallen into a reprobate banana-republicship, is the fact that many of these corrupt individuals are being called out and taken to task for their graft, looting, adultery, and general delinquency. I am heartened that is was a reporter in the MSM that labeled Michelle Obama the modern “Marie Antoinette”.  We, as a people, are fully aware of how unseemly it is for the Obamas to lavish themselves with perquisites while the rest of us struggle against a beleaguered economy.  The behavior of the First Family is sort of like Fidel Castro proclaiming  “power to the workers of Cuba”, who drive frankensteined wrecks from the 1950s on the streets of Havana, while he enjoys closets full of designer clothes, jewelry and a garage full of the newest sports cars from Ferrari, Maserati and Lamborghini.   Of course, Castro is not so public about his imperial status as are the Obamas.  But I digress.

“A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state.”
Ronald Reagan

We live with the reality of a double standard.  The MSM and the Left have given themselves a low bar by which to measure their relative virtue.  Hence, they give a pass to their pet politicians who commit moral outrages and scandals.  They preempt the truth from surfacing if you are Bill Clinton,  John Edwards, or Al Gore, all “crazed sex poodles.”  But if a politician, public figure or private citizen who is a self-identified Conservative, Tea Party member, or Republican commits some minor or politically incorrect faux-pas, they will be “accused”, “investigated”, “exposed” and presumed guilty with little hope of redress.  The double standard is insidious, but it is illustrative of the guilt-centered focus of the American Left.  How are we expected to function in the arena of public debate with such unfair rules?

The answer to this is not easy, but it is simple:  Adopt the double standard.  If the Left has given itself a different moral and ethical code, so be it.  We, as Conservatives, will hold ourselves, and each other, to the higher standard.  That will not eliminate the slings and arrows from our low-bar counterparts, but the adherence to consistent moral expectations, at least partially, defangs the enemies of liberty.  We will live a different standard.  We will pledge to become a more virtuous people.  The accusations will surely come, but the electorate is more aware and discerning than ever before.  They will no longer simply accept the words of the accusers as “true, because we saw it on TV.”  They want evidence.  They will want to see the video!

Paul, the Apostle preached to the Thessalonians about the advantages of both appearing virtuous and being virtuous.  If you are a politician or an outspoken Conservative, you are a target.  Follow the words of Paul so that you may remain blameless and unencumbered by the “questionable ethics” that have spoiled far too many of the, once formidable, champions of liberty.

“History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”
Douglas MacArthur

August 22, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The Balrog in the Basement

“A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the Cold War, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people’s minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, “I love my little girls more than anything — — “And I said to myself, “Oh, no, don’t. You can’t — don’t say that.”

But I had underestimated him. He went on: “I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.”

There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the physical and the soul and what was truly important.

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness — pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable “Screwtape Letters,” wrote: “The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

Ronald Reagan  3/8/1983

Thank you Ronald Reagan for daring to use the word “evil” in a time when the press, and society at large, equivocated all things and simply lacked the guts to properly characterize Godless Communism in such strong, but accurate, terms.

It is a summertime tradition for my kids and I to enjoy a LOTR marathon.  For those of you less acquainted with “furry footed burrowers” and stately wizards, that means Lord of The Rings.  Peter Jackson’s movie trilogy became an instant classic for us the first time we saw the movies.  We are a “big concept” kind of  family and we often discuss the topics of good and evil, wars and conflicts, and the effects of them on individuals and upon nations.  So the LOTR movies are an entertaining reminder of the allegorical clash of transcendent good, and formidable and unrelenting evil, that has been a common theme through all ages.

I love best, of all of the LOTR characters, Gandalf, who, while bellowing “You shall not pass!”,  bars the evil Balrog from its deadly course in the corridors of Moria.  His penetrating soliloquies contain truths that stretch across the ages, flirt with verses of scripture, and, finally, resonate within the hearts of contemporary people.  I am especially moved by his narrative to Pippin about how the men of Gondor fell because they spent more time lauding their dead fathers than they did loving their little children.  Tolkien drew upon ancient symbols in his writing to parallel the malevolent forces that threatened to extinguish Britain during World War II.  And this is one example of what makes LOTR such an irresistible visual and cerebral feast; the battles fought in Middle Earth are of the same anatomy as modern wars, including the battle of ideas and foundational principles that Americans are locked in right now.  They are the battles waged by freemen against those powers that would cage and bind them.

I won’t further analyze Tolkien’s writings, suffice it to say that his tales are timeless.  The concepts of evil seeking to overthrow good, and the triumph of good over the oppressors, are an extrapolation of the eternal battle that was first waged during the War in Heaven.  The plan of Lucifer was to ensure that all of the Children of God would be exalted because none would, or could, sin.  How would Lucifer do this?  He would abolish moral agency which impels man’s ability to choose for himself and, as a result, grow, prosper, and learn.  But the adversary could not rework the eternal, cosmic principles that govern the Children of God and so his plan of “collective salvation” would not only fail but, if implemented, would end in everlasting bondage and misery.  It is not difficult to draw parallels between the ideological conflicts that define modern American politics and the eternal struggle between those who are endowed by their Father in Heaven with liberty, and those who employ ingenious tactics to enslave, and limit people, suffocating their incentive to choose for themselves.  The adversary does not relent.  Things like addiction, unrighteous dominion, and immorality abridge one’s liberty on a personal level.  But in the grand scheme it is governments,principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places that seek the ultimate power and control over their populations.

“One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to find them. One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.”

Socialism is the “gateway” drug to all totalitarian regimes.  Socialism, as it creeps along the path toward Communism, encompasses the ever increasing power of the state to make decisions for its population.  And even the most private and Creator-endowed liberties may be eclipsed.  The choice to have children (China), the choice to worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience (Communism), the choice to own property and to do with one’s own what one will, are all crushed.  The adversary has implemented his plan upon the Earth which had been rejected out of Heaven for its sheer madness and cruelty.

As Americans gather to the fronts of their ideological lines, most on the side of the blessings of liberty, and many on the side of the oppressors who would diminish their own agency to obtain a monthly check, or some other counterfeit of security, we are replicating that elemental struggle between darkness and light that first occurred before the world began.

Can’t you just see Gandalf  leading a phalanx of freemen, yelling “You shall not pass!”  as he did to the fiery Balrog.   The creeping power over our lives by a burgeoning, centralized government, and its political minions, is like a Balrog in our suburban basement.  Things may look nice on the ground level, but underneath there is a foul and dangerous evil. In a very real way we are the characters in an epic story.  It is a story of good and evil, light and dark, truth and lies,  freedom and bondage.  The weapons are more refined and subtle than ever, but the cage of oppression is the same as always.

So we are each like Gandalf, guarding the gates of  life and liberty so that our citizen children may pursue their happiness.  We cannot let the evil pass.  We must stop it through the peaceful actions of an enlightened electorate.  We must dare to call evil by its name, as did President Reagan when he confronted one of the most cruel and destructive regimes the world has seen in the Soviet Union.  We must enlist our friends in a fellowship quest to banish corruption from our government.  And if you become overwhelmed and you don’t know what to do next, just ask yourself; “What would Gandalf do?”  Or, as I like to ask myself, “What would Ronald Reagan Do?”  WWRRD

August 15, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 4 Comments

%d bloggers like this: