Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Living Freedom by Claire Wolfe. Musings about personal freedom and finding it within ourselves.

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Claire Wolfe

Pity about the Republicans, though

Wednesday, November 7th, 2012

When you look at all the pro-freedom ballot measures that won yesterday — gay marriage in four states, legal recreational cannabis in two — it’s obvious that whatever else happened, this v*ting season is a repudiation of theocratic Republicanism like this guy’s

Increasingly, no matter how we personally feel about people’s drug use or their sexual habits, we realize it’s not our business.

Jennifer Rubin says it very well. It’s a generational thing.

The Republican party of losers McCain and Romney is a party of older, white, rural people. And while I’ve got nothing against older, white, and rural (ahem), that’s the old guard. The kids coming up, conservative or liberal, just take a lot of things for granted.

Now the R-party, reeling in defeat and division, has the opportunity to re-create itself as the party of freedom — the party that offers more by governing less, taxing less, intervening less, and respecting individual rights more (without all that moralistic baggage that doesn’t belong in the administration of a nation). And a new generation would be open to their message.

The pity is … there’s not a chance in the world they’ll seize the opportunity.

36 Responses to “Pity about the Republicans, though”

  1. BeyondThere Says:

    I hate to say it .. but welcome to the Food Stamp Nation.
    Love of reality TV is a requirement.

  2. lelnet Says:

    Hard to see it as pro-freedom, when the major effect of forcibly altering the legal meaning of the word “marriage” is that it gives more people the right to sue anyone who disagrees with them.

  3. Claire Says:

    lelnet — Yeah, you could look at it that way. Neither the gay marriage nor cannabis legalization measures really look all that pro-freedom when you look at the details. I still think the impulse behind the votes on those issues was pro-freedom.

  4. Claire Says:

    I also find it encouraging that, in Washington state, whose v*ters joined in two historic firsts (legalization of recreational cannabis and gay marriage via popular vote), the only organized opposition to the cannabis legalization measure came from … the medical marijuana community!

    Moralistic opposition didn’t even bother to organize, it’s so much a given that it’s time to legalize pot.

    Oregon’s legalization (which was much more freedomista than Washington’s and was focused more on benefitting users and growers) fell through. But apparently that was more because its promoters were … spaced out somewhere, not because the morality police or the police-police organized against it.

  5. David Says:

    I don’t see how that could work. Never mind a “party”…generally a politician wants to be seen as important. Or why be a politician? I think this is true regardless of superficial affiliation.

    So, if I’m right, how can that class of people truly believe they should do less and leave people alone? If they do that, what makes ‘em special? They’d also have to give up on the notion of being “leaders,” wouldn’t they? I can see, I guess, how they could try to get people to believe that’s what they’re after–before they get into office. But afterward? They want us to believe they each have their special snowflake personalities…but I think, like scorpions, they have an immutable nature.

    I guess one or two of ‘em might try it for a little while, just to seem to stand out. But it’d be so much easier for their sort of person to work against individual freedom than for it that I just don’t see it happening very often.

    Sure, there are outliers. But in general, it just seems a poor fit. Though maybe a nice pose.

  6. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit Says:

    Gawsh, Claire, it’s a good thing that “older,” “white,” and “rural” is an *ahem* because that’d sure take ME off the Official Wolfe Christmas Card List*

    Not to stir up controversy in our hostess’s blogroom, but I will be less charitable and completely disagree with lelnet’s observation. As long as “marriage” conveys certain State-enforced rights, duties, and benefits, it is an abomination for the State to say that it’s allowable for some, but not for others. The problem is not gays marrying – the problem is that the State does not grant normal human rights to people who are in a partnership, just because it – or a lot of older, white, rural types (hereinafter OWRTs) do not approve of that partnership.

    Besides … more weddings means more divorces means more business for yours truly. Can’t argue with that, now can I?**

    *she doesn’t actually send any, she just keeps a list. ;)

    **it may have been Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com who first made a longer-but-related observation of that nature.

  7. Roger Says:

    Hi we are having the same debate about gay marriage here in the UK. However here they are trying to force all churches and mosques, synagogues to carry out gay marriages as well. Despite this being against the religious beliefs of many of the varied sections of these religions. Now I am all for gay marriage within a state setting but to force it upon those whose beliefs it runs contrary too is an extremely oppressive act. Stonewall, the gay rights org in the UK have already stated that they will intentionally try to book marriages in churches who oppose gay marriage. The result being that the vicar or priest could be jailed for an act of conscience. A reasonable balance needs to be struck. Incidentally Stonewall make no mention of challenging mosques. I wonder why?

  8. Matt, another Says:

    Hmmm, I think it took a lot more than the Young’ns to pass those measures. To me the reality seems to be that many of us OWRT see that there are bigger problems in society than what or whom someone may be smoking.

    Neither of those activities bother me to much as long as I am not required to participate or subsidize either one.

    I am not sure the Republican Party is capable of making the internal and external changes to survive. I don’t think that is a bad thing. It is time for a Freedom Party to organize and make itself felt.

  9. Bulucanagria Says:

    Marriage, gay, straight, polyamorous or any other variety, shouldn’t involve government at all. It should be between the parties involved and any authority that they choose to recognize. All of the “social benefits” credited to marriage (security for children, protection of assets, etc.) could be obtained by incorporating.

  10. Roberta X Says:

    Yeah, why’s the .gov defining marriage in any way? –Oh, that’s right, they got into the regulation of wedlock ‘cos they were panty-bunched over _miscegenation._ And then there were those horrrrrible polygamists who had to be stopped before they bred up a majority and undermined our moral fiber, and so on.

    It looks like same-sex marriage has beat the poly folks to the starting blocks; now, if only James Buchanan and William Rufus DeVane King had been Senators from Maine and Maryland, instead of Pennsylvania and Alabama….

    I just wish I had bought more 9mm before the inevitable (and silly) rush.

  11. EN Says:

    “The result being that the vicar or priest could be jailed for an act of conscience. A reasonable balance needs to be struck. Incidentally Stonewall make no mention of challenging mosques. I wonder why?”

    Yep, that’s the going to happen here also. And it is a generational thing cuz every person I talk to under thirty thinks that churches and clergy should be forced to perform marriages against their conscience… which isn’t allowed in their world. it’s almost as if they’re forcing people to choose Islam for their own protection. I wonder how this works out?

  12. WolfSong Says:

    “The result being that the vicar or priest could be jailed for an act of conscience. A reasonable balance needs to be struck. Incidentally Stonewall make no mention of challenging mosques. I wonder why?”

    Living in a place that has gay marriage for years-since 2004-I heard a lot of the same from many people. Guess what…hasn’t happened. Oh, there have been a few cases here and there, where a gay catholic couple (gasp! gays can be Catholic?!?<-sarcasm) wanted to get married in a church, by a priest, but compromise was found. If I remember the one fairly high profile case right, the couple had a friend who offered to become a marriage commissioner and performed the ceremony. What we saw, when the law came about though, was a lot of "what if?!?" franticness-the whole "what's next, marrying their dogs, or children or horses?" garbage-and when things settled down, what we really saw, was a whole bunch of people who just wanted to get married, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

    "As long as “marriage” conveys certain State-enforced rights, duties, and benefits, it is an abomination for the State to say that it’s allowable for some, but not for others. The problem is not gays marrying – the problem is that the State does not grant normal human rights to people who are in a partnership, just because it – or a lot of older, white, rural types (hereinafter OWRTs) do not approve of that partnership."

    ^ This…a thousand times, this!

  13. MamaLiberty Says:

    Hmmm… I’m old, white, and rural… and I don’t give a darn what anyone else does as long as they aren’t attacking folks, and I’m not forced to either participate or pay for it. I know a lot of other OWR people who think the same way.

    Are we weird out here or what?

    [Big grin]

  14. Matt, another Says:

    Part of the problem is that our society still thinks rights are conveyed by the state. They can be recognized by the state, but human rights are endowed at birth. Seeking permission from the state to marry, whether a monarchy, democracy, communist dictatorship etc has always been a control mechanism used by the state to oppress certain groups.

    Many of my relatives and close freinds (hetero all) have been in close, healthy, long term relationships without benefit of a license saying they are married. They didn’t have problems with health care, death benefits, mortgages etc.

  15. Roger Says:

    Wolfsong I am sorry but you are wrong. Extremists such as Stonewall, and that is what they are, already have been booking gay couples into Christian ran hotels and bed and breakfast houses knowing that the owners do not allow unmarried couple to share a bed(of any sex). Then, when rejected, have sued the owners. Now in the UK we have Gay only clubs Gay only hotels and spas, but apparently this is not good enough. To own a hotel for christians only is illegal, but is tolerated for jews and muslims. The goverment rules that christians have no right to wear a crucifix in work yet sikhs are unmolested, muslims may wear a burkha. Muslim doctors and medics are even excused washing above their forearm on religious ground even in an operating theatre. The state and such extremists are convinced that they have the authority to control your actions and your thoughts. If gay people want to be married why would they wish to be married in a church whose creed rejects their whole way of life, unless it was to impose their ideology on others by force. It is, like much of the legislation these days, thinly veiled tyranny. As the USA will learn shortly you will conform to their mould or be broken. I hope the USA does not break as easily as the UK.

  16. Pat Says:

    When govt passes a law, there’s always unintended consequences that it doesn’t think of or wish to acknowledge. The next round of [gay] laws will deal with gay divorce, gay child support, gay social security benefits (including dependent-spouse benefits if one partner is not working), gay rights in health and legal transactions, and gay property rights. Specific laws dealing with individual complications will mushroom (like abortion laws did after Roe vs Wade) as gay marriage becomes “the norm”. What happens when one partner wishes to have a child, and the other doesn’t? What happens when one partner has sex with the opposite sex? (Would you divorce someone because your partner leaves the gay fold? Heterosexuals do when their spouse comes out of the closet.)

    One interesting consequence of the gay marriage law could lead to a real conundrum for government. Consider a common-law gay marriage (which in actuality exists today, though not recognized as such). If two friends of the same sex wished to live together to share expenses, who can prove it isn’t a common-law marriage? Would govt then have to rule that two people of the same sex living under the same roof *must* marry – in order to prove that they are gay?

    I can’t wait to see where this will go… (But I do wish they wouldn’t use the word “gay”. It used to be such a nice, friendly, happy word.)

  17. WolfSong Says:

    Roger- considering I was speaking about the reactions and happenings after the laws regarding gay marriage passed in my area, I’m not wrong. We saw the same extremists, who pushed all buttons, but we saw, and acknowledged them on *both* sides of the issue. The extremists shows died down rather quickly, and 8 years later, we have gay people who get married and have the same rights as hetero couple.

    Matt, another- while I agree with you about human rights being endowed at birth, it can’t be denied that the state (or, in my case, the province, as a Canadian) tries to regulate what rights folks have. I can tell you from family experience that the hetero couples I know who haven’t married, but live together common-law have had much the same experiences as the people you know. That is, no issues.

    However, I have a cousin who is a lesbian, and after a long term relationship, where her partner of 25 years died of terminal illness, lost everything, because others in the family, who had shunned her partner for years, challenged her (my cousin’s) rights of survivorship. Her partner had a will in place, naming my cousin as her sole beneficiary of all things, they had joint tenancy in their home they had bought together, my cousin was named on all her partner’s investments as beneficiary. One challenge from a family member, and the will went to probate, where it was overturned, and all properties were stripped from my cousin and distributed throughout her partner’s family. Sadly, this was not an uncommon thing, pre-gay marriage.

    Pat- in your example of 2 people of the same sex living together…what is the difference between a couple of same sexed friends living together and two different sexed friends living together? Does the gov force the male/female room mate pair to marry in order to prove they are hetereo? As for the rest of your post, the issue is that gay couples don’t want(at least the ones I know) “gay” divorce, “gay” property rights, “gay” child support, etc, they just want the same basic rights that a married couple has. Actually, I wonder if your questions are actually an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

    MamaLiberty- I’ll take your kind of weired any day! :)

  18. Mark Call Says:

    Sorry, Claire – but seeing people duped into Statism is not “pro-freedom”, regardless of what their “impulses” are. A rat’s IMPULSE is to grab for cheese in the trap – and it ends up killing him!

    The article this morning in the LA Times on “gay marriage” is a case-in-point of the Big Lie:
    [Gay marriage Victories May Signal Larger Shift -
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marriage-20121108,0,1260230.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation+%28L.A.+Times+-+National+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

    Here's the clincher:
    "But all that changed Tuesday...
    ...Until then, voters had consistently opposed marriage rights..."

    Getting permission from Big Brother to do ANYTHING is not a "Right". And the olde saying still applies - those who don't know their Rights [much less what a Right even IS] – don’t have any.

    More licensing — and the twisted definitions that accompany it — is simply another step into a really Nasty Trap.

    PS> The cannabis ‘laws’ are only somewhat a ‘different story’, since the legal issue is the “federal nexus” of commerce. (Slaves, who have contracted into private law under the guise of ‘commerce’ don’t HAVE Rights.) The POTENTIAL positive is that prosecutions and arrests MIGHT begin to expose the lie, but I doubt those who end up in jail will understand why, or that the issues will be revealed.

    The common ground here is that the Constitution never gave any central government (Art. I, Sec 7 or 8) ANY power to define marriage, OR ‘food’, or any “crime” of “possession”. Asking for permission, however, cedes that issue.

  19. Mark Call Says:

    and a Post-post-Script…

    Us Bible-believin’ Polygynist types don’t ask for permission (or ‘license’) to “marry” at all. No one in Scripture ever did. But likewise, I don’t demand anyone or anything must “acknowledge” my Covenant, much LESS expect a subsidy as a result.

  20. Stryder Says:

    OMG! I found it, the elusive “Gay Agenda”! I was sitting behind this Gay couple at the library and they forgot their copy. It’s amazing what they have planned for this country. Once they have the Antidiscrimination law passed they plan on pushing a new law that states every business must hire a Gay “Fashion Coordinator” or be fined. Also, it doesn’t matter guys, you were right! No matter what you look like, fat or thin, short or tall, George Cloony good looking or ugly as sin, the Gay Agenda states that you will have to give up your behind at least once a month. All you ladies will have to wear flannel and workboots at least once a month also.,I could not believe how detailed this agenda was as I read it. After the compulsory “Fashion Coordinator” then the Gay marriage bill and this time they don’t just want to be able to marry each other, they want to be able to pick any married couple and replace their same sex partner with themselves. YES, you will HAVE to divorce your spouse and enter into a Gay marriage! Can you believe this? Well I should hope not because I made it all up. No Gay agenda beyond equal rights to live, work and marry who they want, same as you!
    Merry Christmas!

  21. Rivergirl Says:

    So older, white, rural types (particularly those with “traditional” values), whose time has clearly come and gone, are supposed to STFD and STFU. Got it. “Free speech for me, but not for thee.”

  22. Pat Says:

    WolfSong: “…what is the difference between a couple of same sexed friends living together and two different sexed friends living together? Does the gov force the male/female room mate pair to marry in order to prove they are hetereo?”

    No difference. I wasn’t saying they SHOULD prove, or disprove, anything just because they lived together. But I should have added “if they claim some govt benefits” given to hetero couples, which was left out of my comment. That’s when the govt would most likely feel the need to interfere.

    “As for the rest of your post, the issue is that gay couples don’t want(at least the ones I know) “gay” divorce, “gay” property rights, “gay” child support, etc, they just want the same basic rights that a married couple has. Actually, I wonder if your questions are actually an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.”

    Thank you; I don’t agree the issues were absurd. The nature of unintended consequences brings up many issues (which ARE absurd) because the govt doesn’t, or doesn’t choose to, take them into account before it passes a law. These issues may very well arise in the future. I hope they don’t, but if so, it will complicate the legal system, and no doubt bring about even more specific social regulations.

    The only fault I find with the gay marriage law is that it shouldn’t be on the books at all – any more than any marriage law should be on the books!

  23. Claire Says:

    Rivergirl — Hey, you’re the only person here saying that. As an older, rural white type myself, I certainly have nothing against the breed. And you can’t point to anything I’ve ever written that says or even implies that I think any group should STFU. On the contrary.

    I merely point out that what you call “traditional” values are rapidly fading and do not serve the future of the Republican party.

  24. EN Says:

    Cutting edge??? Last night I started thinking about this post in earnest and had to laugh. I’m sixty, white, (presently) rural and going to enjoy the coming of our black, Hispanic, and old white female, overlords. ;) Having access to a lot of older single women and Hispanics I can say without a doubt that this election was all about government goodies and thoughts of bringing all 200 of your relatives up from Mexico and get them on welfare (and I’m not even exaggerating one bit about Hispanic intentions. If you live in the West just ask one. They’re pretty out front about it). The Bill of Rights and such are the stuff of old white men, and the kids, blacks, hispanics, gay men and old white women just aren’t troubled by such things as gay marriage, weed… or individual rights. But lord, start talking about group rights and they all get erections. I hear it daily and it will be a popcorn event to watch the so-called libertarians giving me the upside. Too often its as if Libertarians have been struggling so hard for a bit of silver lining that they can’t see the cloud any longer (“Always Look On the Bright Side of Life”). Gay Marriage and smoking weed (which Holder will put an end to) somehow don’t qualify as a tidal wave of freedom in my mind, particularly after this election. Hell, perhaps I’m indulging right now. I don’t need no stinking permissions. I happened to be standing around when gay marriage got to be a hot topic (early to mid 80s) and am all too aware it had everything to do with forcing insurance companies to pay for AIDS patients (most of it fraudulently as it was a game of finding someone with insurance and getting on their policy). And yes, in the UK they have laws which allows the government to force clerics into performing gay marriages. They haven’t done it, you say? The “What ifs” are not a pleasant thought in the hands of government and is never a sign of freedom. My attitude on gay marriage is a big, rude belly laugh. Just a few years down the road and I have a friend who’s being taken to the cleaners by some kid he met working a Glory Hole in San Diego… OK, maybe I made the glory hole business up… but it’s close enough and it amuses. You can’t make this shit up. Most of you probably don’t know this, but in the late 1970s the Libertarian Party was filled with Gay men fighting for individual freedom. By all means, let’s “normalize” gay marriage into a Statist controlled event. IDIOTIC!!! But you can’t deny its cutting edge and the kids don’t think anything of it… in fact they don’t think much at all. ;)

  25. Roger Says:

    Rivergirl you are correct, though I would add not about this blog. Freedom of speech, action and thought. Provided of course it is approved. Gramsci himself acknowledged that the fall of the west would come not from revolution but from a thousand small cuts. Those cuts are eroding the foundations of our civilisation that owes the most to it’s judeo- Christian background. Your stored food, arms and ammunition will mean nothing as they will shred your freedoms one slice at a time. Already Obama has enable the dentition without trial of US citizens, something which not even the labour party here could manage.
    Wolfsong the problem has gone away because everyone else has had to shut up or else. But you cannot stop peoples thoughts.

  26. Matt, another Says:

    “Wolfsong the problem has gone away because everyone else has had to shut up or else. But you cannot stop peoples thoughts.”

    I think with the proper application of aluminum, flouride, artificial sweetners and reality TV you can stop most peoples thoughts.

  27. Roger Says:

    Wolfsong, I have also add that I was not talking about the state allowing gay civil ceremonies. I, like most, am all for that and with all the accompanying legal rights that go with it. Rather we are talking about the imposition of gay marriage within a church, or any religion for that matter, where doctrine of the religion forbids it. Are you saying that these religions should be crushed or forced by threat of imprisonment? That is an absolute totalitarian attitude don’t you think?

  28. Mark Call Says:

    Here’s the sorry, sad, unspoken truth, Roger – when it comes to State Licensing:

    Did that “church” take a license? Ask permission? Get “incorporated” by the Almighty State, and then given an Official 501c(3) EXEMPTION from Big Brother? Tax deductions, a tax-free manse, or whatever?

    Then (to quote Scripture even — sense it might apply in this case ;) – “they [already] have their reward.”

    “Ya take the king’s money – ya gotta play the king’s tune!”

    Who is the ‘creator’ of the corporate ‘church’? Just ask to see their papers — and it’ll say right there. (State of Delaware – or whatever.)

    They’re not being “forced” — they’re “paying the piper”. And their creator is making sure they follow HIS rules (and not that God the Bible, as it turns out). After all, He says they can’t “serve two Masters.”

    There’s no mystery here. But licenses ALWAYS have “strings attached”!!

  29. Mark Call Says:

    Ouch! “SINCE” it might apply. Sorry…

  30. Roger Says:

    In the UK churches do not require licenses or receive state funding. I’m fact a recent scandal involves the state paying for the building of mosque something that the c of e and the catholic church cannot get. Presumably since you think the piper call the tune , that for example , the US government approves of GM food then all licensed food outlets should not have choice on whether to serve gm food?

  31. Mark Call Says:

    There is NO requirement for licensing of churches here, either, Roger (whether they know it, or admit it, or not). The First Amendment is clear. Even the IRS admits the fact – if you look. (But – once incorporated, they’re not ABOUT to let a church “out”. Just ask the Indianapolis Baptist Temple!)

    And I have ‘pastored’ – although I don’t use that term – such a fellowship for years.

  32. Roberta X Says:

    Wow, these deck chairs are SO out of order! Funny old name for a ship, though– “T-I-T-A-N-I-C.” I man? Is the even a word? And they can’t even keep the deck level!

  33. Roberta X Says:

    (Aw, rats. Dyslexia attack, sorry).

  34. WolfSong Says:

    Pat- Gotcha. I understand your post now. ;) I don’t agree though, that it will complicate the legal system, since it would all be covered under spousal rights. No need for separate anything. And yeah, I’d like the gov to pull it’s nose out of people’s relationships. It would be nice if marriage laws of all sorts weren’t on the books, but unfortunately, they are, and perfectly nice people are being kept from having the same set of freedoms, rights, what ever you want to call them, based on the gender of who they love. That just ain’t right.

    Roger- “Are you saying that these religions should be crushed or forced by threat of imprisonment? That is an absolute totalitarian attitude don’t you think?”
    Nope, not what I’m saying at all, but your free to interpret it that way if it floats your boat. You’d be wrong, but *shrugs*…
    Again, I can only speak to the experiences of my community…No one has forced anyone to shut up ’round here. See, we’ve learned, feed the trolls, they stick around, but once we learned to ignore the shouting and screaming of the extremists-again on both sides of the issue-the community just went back to living. Only difference is there are a few more married folks.

  35. Roger Says:

    Actually wolfsong it’s called suppression of dissent by omission. Omitting it from government and the press deliberately. It is common practice in a lot of western countries notably yours and of course mine. If you stifle the debate enough you will make those of a different opinion or belief feel isolated. Mind you another tactic used on public forums is to label people who don’t agree with you as trolls. Freedom requires us to put up with others whom which we disagree.

  36. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit Says:

    Interesting take on the subject:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/richard-kline-thoughts-on-the-2012-vote.html

 
 


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.