I mean yeah, police, firemen, soldiers, nurses and the people of Ukraine might have to deal with death, destruction and life and death on a daily basis, but that’s NOTHING compared to the nasty feedback she gets from doing things like Doxing the “libs of tic tock” account person who has the audacity to take videos that people deliberately put on a public worldwide forum and post them on a public worldwide forum.
I mean can you imagine how the children of such a woman would be prepared for life? Can you imagine them being able to cope with anything with such a person as their primary role model?
Granted abortion is murder and Birth Control is a sin and every person is made in the image of God (including Ms Lorenz) and with God all things are possible but if I was the left and wanted to try to persuade people that Abortion should be an option I’d put her on the posters saying: “Do you really want people like this raising children?”
All kidding aside Ms. Lorenz reminds me of something else.
Could you imagine the reaction if a male reporter claimed PTSD over online feedback?
Our “betters” keep telling us that women are men are equal yet we keep hearing stories about how hard women have it or their inability to cope.
So which is it elites? Are woman just as strong, tough and competent as men or are in need of special protection? Choose one.
(In fairness to our elites as they can’t define “woman” or “man” this question might be too much for them.
As the 100th anniversary nears of his ascendency to the presidency, Calvin Coolidge is becoming cool.
Coolidge became the 30th president when Warren Harding died in 1923 and held the post until 1929, when he decided not to run. He promoted a mixture of lowering taxes, cutting the federal budget, removing the federal deficit after World War I, promoting racial harmony, and embracing America’s small-town heritage.
Coolidge is finally getting his due as a good president in a 2013 biography by Amity Shlaes and a more recent series of essays and a book about conservatives from Matthew Continetti, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Shlaes, a former journalist who heads the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation in his hometown of Plymouth, Vermont, carefully dispels many of the myths about Coolidge in her book.
Both Shlaes and Continetti want to give “Cool” Cal his due. “Cool” Cal seems a lot better than the liberals’ description of Coolidge as “Silent” Cal.
Moreover, the misconstrued moniker fails to acknowledge Coolidge’s activities on the radio—long before FDR—and his fascination with modern technology, such as air travel.
Although historians have placed Coolidge in the lower half of presidential accomplishments, Shlaes argues that that’s mainly because he was a conservative.
Her recalibration of Coolidge’s accomplishments argues that he’s worthy of a much higher place in presidential rankings.
Coolidge carefully steered the country through the disastrous aftermath of Woodrow Wilson’s calamitous post-World War I antics and illness and the scandals left by Warren Harding.
Continetti pushes Coolidge’s reputation into the upheavals of the 21st century, comparing Cal and Donald Trump.
“Both Coolidge and Mr. Trump staked their presidencies on voter satisfaction with broadly shared prosperity. Both supported restricting immigration into the United States. Both wanted to protect American industry from foreign competition. Both sought to avoid overseas entanglements,” Continetti wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal. “Trump’s views now dominate the Republican Party. For anyone who grew up with the GOP of Ronald Reagan, the two Bushes, and John McCain, this can be strange and bewildering. But in many respects, it’s a return to the principles of the 1920s of Coolidge.”
Coolidge presided over a prosperous nation at peace. He preached America First—as did Trump.
When I started my deep drive into presidential biographies about three months ago, I didn’t expect to find such an underrated president as Coolidge.
I’d move him into my top tier of George Washington, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Grover Cleveland, and Harry Truman.
The man accused of opening fire during a mass shooting at the Columbiana Centre mall in Columbia has posted bail after a hearing Sunday afternoon, WLTX-TV reported.
A South Carolina judge announced that Jewayne M. Price, 22, would be granted a surety bond of $25,000 and be required to wear an ankle monitor, the television station reported. He must also have no contact with anyone involved in the incident and must stay away from the shopping mall, according to WLTX.
Hey at least law enforcement is taking an interest unlike the Antifa rioters who they have no interest in prosecuting in the Northwest.
I predict that it won’t even take a week for him to be forgotten like Frank James. Doesn’t serve the narrative.
SHREVEPORT – There is a bill in the Louisiana House of Representatives that would “allocate up to 25,000 acres of Louisiana offshore waters to be leased from the State by private, green energy companies to manufacture and build windmill turbines as an alternative to coal and natural gas production.”
Restrictions have kept lease limits to 5,000 acres which apparently is scaring wind farm investors away. Proponents of HB 165 say that the 25,000-acre limit greatly expands potential for investors to come in and build wind farms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Wind turbines are huge structures. A single wind turbine requires a great deal of real estate, even in the Gulf.
Although most Gulf of Mexico wind energy projects will eventually be built in federal waters, HB 165 co-author Rep. Joseph Orgeron “says the exploratory pilot projects will be built in state waters closer to the coast. Louisiana’s less-populated coastline allows more development within the 3 nautical miles of state waters that extend from shore.”
Chris Alexander, an attorney and conservative activist in Baton Rouge writing for The Hayride calls HB 165 “a monstrosity.” Citing several red flags in the bill, he says:
It would allocate up to 25,000 acres of Louisiana offshore waters to be leased from the State by private, green energy companies to manufacture and build windmill turbines as an alternative to coal and natural gas production. The first red flag in the bill is that it removes all legislative oversight and places plenary authority in the State Mineral and Energy Board to award any lease if it deems, in its sole discretion, that the lease is in Louisiana’s best interest. Why would the bill vest this enormous power in any board while removing traditional legislative oversight and accountability? Any objective observer would necessarily be suspicious of such a provision.
The bill also removes the traditional requirement that a minimum dollar amount and minimum percentage of revenue to be produced be advertised by the board as a minimum requirement for granting the lease. No legislative oversight, and no requirement of minimal revenue creation. What could possibly go wrong here?
My first thought when I read about this development was “what happens in a hurricane?” Apparently there is a plan for that in that the turbines “feather in” their blades and wait for the storm to pass. Uh, sure. There is even discussion of floating turbines that can be hauled in prior to a storm.
My second thought was about migratory birds. It is common knowledge that the Louisiana Gulf Coast is a critical stop for over half a million shorebirds from 28 species migrating back and forth each winter. With our wetlands already in danger and providing less and less territory for the birds to refuel, how many will also be lost to windmills? Collateral damage, says Erik Johnson of the Audubon society:
There are worse threats to birds. House cats, for example, are blamed for killing about 2.4 billion birds each year. Automobiles knock out 200 million more, and pesticides poison at least 2.7 million birds each year in the U.S. “Wind energy will really be a drop in the bucket by comparison,” Johnson said.
My next thought was about the shrimpers and fishermen who have relied on the Gulf waters for generations to make a living. Since the Cajuns began arriving in Louisiana in the late 1700s, they have been shrimping and fishing these waters to make a living. These are people devoted to the land, people who won’t leave it no matter the worst hurricane, people who survive and who have battled the elements and the oil companies and the diminishing coast just to keep their livelihood viable. And now these fishermen have to worry about wind farms:
But the Gulf is also the source of 70% of the country’s shrimp. Of the more than 200 million pounds of shrimp netted in the Gulf each year, much of it was caught in the waters off the Louisiana and Texas coasts. These prime fishing waters happen to overlap with the areas of the Gulf that have the greatest potential for wind energy development.
Between the transmission lines laying on the sea floor, the turbines destroying nets, and the narrow navigational paths between turbines, the fishermen are concerned.
The agency has promoted the idea that wind farms won’t be any worse for fishing than the 3,500 offshore oil and gas structures already in the Gulf, not to mention 27,000 miles of underwater pipelines, most of which are inactive or abandoned.
[Acy Cooper of the Louisiana Shrimp Association] agrees shrimpers are accustomed to the Gulf’s industrial obstacle courses, but it doesn’t mean they like it. The introduction of offshore wind infrastructure increases navigational challenges.
HB 165 was approved without objection in the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment last month and was moved on to the Senate where it will first be considered by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources before moving on to a full Senate vote.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not make known another fact that the proponents of HB 165 would surely rather you not know: Roughly 70% of the rare earth elements that are essential to the construction of wind turbines will be produced and harvested in China. How many Louisiana voters believe that we should become even more dependent on a foreign country for our energy needs, particularly a sworn adversary?
If the environmental concerns don’t bother you, further dependence on China should.
