Our republic, the United States of America, stands at a definitive crossroads in its future. We, the People have the power to determine which direction our republic takes. How we determine our republic’s future depends on how well we understand the history of the USA and the world.
Our republic was developed by a group of patriots who had undergone one of the greatest struggles for freedom. They had the choice of creating a country modeled after empires of the past which depended on the decisions of the elite or establishing a republican form of government where the citizens of the country had a voice in making decisions for the good of the people. Their choice was the latter and they were guided by the principles defined in Natural Law (God’s Law).
Now we, the people have the decision before us as to whether our country is to continue upon the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as ascribed to us in the Declaration of Independence) or to relinquish those principles to the whims and decisions of the elite. Faith in the teachings of God’s Law and our love for the longest living republic in the history of the world have been the major ideals that have driven we, the people to stand up for our God-given rights.
The rights of life (being free to make our own choices), liberty (being free from misled elitists who believe that they know what is best for each individual and our country as a whole) and pursuit of happiness (being free to strive and work for our paths in life autonomously) are granted to We, the People by the ideals of the Constitution of the United States. Now the decisions as to whether or not we continue to survive as a republic, with these rights intact, have been laid before us.
Many great republics in our world’s history found themselves at this crossroad. Examples include the republican governments in Athens and Sparta, the initial founding of the Roman Republic and the First French Republic. In each case, these republics destroyed themselves by demanding more centralized control, over-extending their causes over the known world, and/or relinquishing their republic to a monarchial style of leadership.
For decades, our republic has been relinquishing various principles over to a centrist style of governing. Now is the time for We, the People to decide if our republic will continue down this direction or if we pull back our republic within the original principles of the Constitution. The choice is ours. The future of following generations of Americans rest upon our shoulders.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
TEA PARTY CAUCUS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES??
On July 16, 2010, the House Administration Committee granted a request by Representative Michele Bachmann for the formation of a Tea Party Caucus, just one day after the request was submitted. As a side note, approval of caucus requests normally take days before the Committee even considers such request. I find it interesting that a House Committee dominated by members of the Democratic Party would be so “eager” to grant approval for this caucus. I’ll try to tie this opinion into this editorial in the wrap-up comments. In order to deliberate on establishing a Tea Party caucus, we must remember the original premise behind the We, the People movement (commonly referred to by the media as the Tea Party movement) and some changes that we have endured.
Almost two years ago, the movement by We, the People began which was centered on the frustrations of Patriots across the country on how our government structure, from the local level thru the state and into the federal bureaucracy, was operating the legislative business of our townships, states and our country. This frustration stretches before the Obama (to be referred as BHO) administration to previous administrations. Actions by our elected officials have been committed in contrast to what We, the People expected. The movement recognized that ignorant decisions by our elected officials were being “allowed” by the American citizens because we inherently trusted the promises of our elected officials during their campaigns. Yet We, the People failed in the duty and trust dedicated to us by our Founding Fathers and “sat on our hands” in trust as our country was being led away from the Republic that our Constitutions (federal and state) designed and is slowly and effectively digressing into a Socialist-type “state”. In response, once We, the People decided that we had endured enough, we began a movement that was (and is) designed to reeducate ourselves, our family, friends and fellow citizens on the principles of our Constitution and the philosophies that influenced the decisions of our Founding Fathers in their formation of the Constitution of the United States. We began to study how the Constitution was the Law of the Land and how it influenced the formation of each individual state’s Constitution. With this education under our belt, we accepted the responsibility of spreading this knowledge across our land so that We, the People (as individual American citizens) could look for viable citizens who were Constitutionally-principled, fiscally conservative and morally ethical so that we could convince these like-minded citizens to run for office (again, from local up to the federal levels) as true representatives of We, the People. With our support, We, the People could present these candidates to our fellow citizens and support them in their campaign efforts. This movement was not based on political party ideology; rather it is designed to be party neutral. The goal was (and is) to induct citizens into the political processes who would truly represent the American citizens (not organized lobbyists and overbearing union desires) without party affiliations as a requirement for our support. We were warned from the beginning that this movement would be a hard and arduous endeavor which ran the risk of being influenced by organized political causes/parties in their effort to take over OUR movement as We, the People.
Already we have seen evidence of this warning; from some National Tea party organizations publicly endorsing candidates (ex., Tea Party Express and Tea Party Federation endorsements), some 9/12 organizations openly endorsing only candidates from one particular party, and other National organizations openly endorsing causes and candidates. The purpose of OUR movement was for individual decisions to be made based on justified and vetted decisions about the candidates that we, as individual American citizens, had chosen. Invariably, many national organizations grew out of this movement, some constructive and others not so constructive. As long as the national organizations served as a focal point for helping to start local and state groups, the purpose of OUR movement was being fulfilled. But when some National organizations took it upon themselves to endorse candidates “in the name of it’s members”, they violated the very essence of this movement. The vast majority of local groups have continued to work under the original premise of We, the People and should be highly respected for holding true to their original convictions. Some National organizations, such as Tea Party Patriots, have openly isolated themselves from this idea of endorsements because, as they have openly stated, the decisions of each individual for a choice/support of candidate was left up to the individual. They recognized that the purpose of the National and affiliated state organizations is to provide a pathway towards the “education process” that We, the People must take in order to be able to make sound and justifiable decisions.
Now back to the issue of the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives. The various definitions of a caucus are closely related to one goal: REACHING AGREEMENT. Some definitions for caucus, as vetted from various sources, are as follows:
A. Meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members’ actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.
B. Closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy.
C. A group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause
A list of the current caucuses in the House, as found on http://cha.house.gov/member_orgs111th.aspx , shows upon review that the caucuses represent political agendas designed to influence (or act like a lobby) the legislative process. On first glance, this may sound like a good agenda for the Tea Party caucus, which will be chaired by Michele Bachman. But deeper insight indicates that this process of how caucuses are used is part of the ongoing problems that have plagued our legislative branch for decades and decades. Do We, the People need a “caucus” in the House of Representatives to reach agreements on policies? Are We, the People capable or incapable of reaching our own consensus as American citizens on what policies need to be pursued, how they should be written and constructed and then passing on our convictions to our elected representatives? Though I admire Michele Bachmann (currently, my personal presidential ticket in 2012 is DeMintt/Bachmann or Bachmann/DeMintt; it works either way), are her intentions truly honorable in this endeavor to help out the movement of We, the People? I hope so. Or does she truly comprehend the problems that could affect this particular caucus, as similar problems have plagued other current caucuses? Has anyone truly questioned the intentions of the House Administration Committee as to why this committee was apparently over-eager in approving this caucus? To paraphrase a great philosopher, these are the questions that try men’s souls.
The opinions of this caucus and the intentions of some National organizations (Tea Party, 912, etc.) in their current endeavors and the conflicts these endeavors present towards the original premise of the We, the People movement are for each individual citizen to make, preferably after some thorough deliberations. Your decisions may affect the effectiveness of the movement by WE, the PEOPLE in our efforts to RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC.
Almost two years ago, the movement by We, the People began which was centered on the frustrations of Patriots across the country on how our government structure, from the local level thru the state and into the federal bureaucracy, was operating the legislative business of our townships, states and our country. This frustration stretches before the Obama (to be referred as BHO) administration to previous administrations. Actions by our elected officials have been committed in contrast to what We, the People expected. The movement recognized that ignorant decisions by our elected officials were being “allowed” by the American citizens because we inherently trusted the promises of our elected officials during their campaigns. Yet We, the People failed in the duty and trust dedicated to us by our Founding Fathers and “sat on our hands” in trust as our country was being led away from the Republic that our Constitutions (federal and state) designed and is slowly and effectively digressing into a Socialist-type “state”. In response, once We, the People decided that we had endured enough, we began a movement that was (and is) designed to reeducate ourselves, our family, friends and fellow citizens on the principles of our Constitution and the philosophies that influenced the decisions of our Founding Fathers in their formation of the Constitution of the United States. We began to study how the Constitution was the Law of the Land and how it influenced the formation of each individual state’s Constitution. With this education under our belt, we accepted the responsibility of spreading this knowledge across our land so that We, the People (as individual American citizens) could look for viable citizens who were Constitutionally-principled, fiscally conservative and morally ethical so that we could convince these like-minded citizens to run for office (again, from local up to the federal levels) as true representatives of We, the People. With our support, We, the People could present these candidates to our fellow citizens and support them in their campaign efforts. This movement was not based on political party ideology; rather it is designed to be party neutral. The goal was (and is) to induct citizens into the political processes who would truly represent the American citizens (not organized lobbyists and overbearing union desires) without party affiliations as a requirement for our support. We were warned from the beginning that this movement would be a hard and arduous endeavor which ran the risk of being influenced by organized political causes/parties in their effort to take over OUR movement as We, the People.
Already we have seen evidence of this warning; from some National Tea party organizations publicly endorsing candidates (ex., Tea Party Express and Tea Party Federation endorsements), some 9/12 organizations openly endorsing only candidates from one particular party, and other National organizations openly endorsing causes and candidates. The purpose of OUR movement was for individual decisions to be made based on justified and vetted decisions about the candidates that we, as individual American citizens, had chosen. Invariably, many national organizations grew out of this movement, some constructive and others not so constructive. As long as the national organizations served as a focal point for helping to start local and state groups, the purpose of OUR movement was being fulfilled. But when some National organizations took it upon themselves to endorse candidates “in the name of it’s members”, they violated the very essence of this movement. The vast majority of local groups have continued to work under the original premise of We, the People and should be highly respected for holding true to their original convictions. Some National organizations, such as Tea Party Patriots, have openly isolated themselves from this idea of endorsements because, as they have openly stated, the decisions of each individual for a choice/support of candidate was left up to the individual. They recognized that the purpose of the National and affiliated state organizations is to provide a pathway towards the “education process” that We, the People must take in order to be able to make sound and justifiable decisions.
Now back to the issue of the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives. The various definitions of a caucus are closely related to one goal: REACHING AGREEMENT. Some definitions for caucus, as vetted from various sources, are as follows:
A. Meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members’ actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.
B. Closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy.
C. A group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause
A list of the current caucuses in the House, as found on http://cha.house.gov/member_orgs111th.aspx , shows upon review that the caucuses represent political agendas designed to influence (or act like a lobby) the legislative process. On first glance, this may sound like a good agenda for the Tea Party caucus, which will be chaired by Michele Bachman. But deeper insight indicates that this process of how caucuses are used is part of the ongoing problems that have plagued our legislative branch for decades and decades. Do We, the People need a “caucus” in the House of Representatives to reach agreements on policies? Are We, the People capable or incapable of reaching our own consensus as American citizens on what policies need to be pursued, how they should be written and constructed and then passing on our convictions to our elected representatives? Though I admire Michele Bachmann (currently, my personal presidential ticket in 2012 is DeMintt/Bachmann or Bachmann/DeMintt; it works either way), are her intentions truly honorable in this endeavor to help out the movement of We, the People? I hope so. Or does she truly comprehend the problems that could affect this particular caucus, as similar problems have plagued other current caucuses? Has anyone truly questioned the intentions of the House Administration Committee as to why this committee was apparently over-eager in approving this caucus? To paraphrase a great philosopher, these are the questions that try men’s souls.
The opinions of this caucus and the intentions of some National organizations (Tea Party, 912, etc.) in their current endeavors and the conflicts these endeavors present towards the original premise of the We, the People movement are for each individual citizen to make, preferably after some thorough deliberations. Your decisions may affect the effectiveness of the movement by WE, the PEOPLE in our efforts to RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC.
Friday, July 16, 2010
DESPERATION AND WHO WE, THE PEOPLE ARE
For months, there has been a concerted and desperate effort by Socialist left-wingers in our different levels of government, along with certain organizations like the NAACP, to have someone stand out as the leader of the Tea Party movements, including other “RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC” minded movements. Allow me to address this effort with some education and clarification.
The Tea Party Movement was and is still designed to be a civil disobedience style of protest against our governments' (local, state and federal) bureaucratic policies which are not supported by We, the People, are not Constitutionally-principled and defy being fiscally conservative (to name just a few principles).
The whole essence of this movement, from its beginning, has been to educate ourselves, our family and friends and our local constituency on the principles of our Constitution and the influential philosophies that guided our Founding Fathers during their efforts while writing the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. With that education, we were to find and recruit like-minded citizens to encourage and support them in their bids to run for various offices (again, from local up to federal offices). Upon supporting and electing these citizens into office, our work is still not complete. Along with replacing the remaining "professional politicians" who have been part of the Socialist agenda that has been infiltrating our society and our government for many decades, we still have the duty to monitor the activities of those whom are elected into office and ensure that they are "practicing what they preached". If we find those who get indoctrinated into the "bureaucratic fiascos" found in our governments, then we find a better replacement and vote them out of office in the next election. With this ongoing process, which requires hard work and dedication, We the People will reform our government on all levels back to the principles of a true Republic.
Now, as related to the latest baiting by far-left Socialist Democrats, RINOs and organizations like the NAACP, they still don't understand that the Tea Party movement is NOT A PARTY-ORGANIZED effort, but a citizen-initiated movement that has millions of like minded citizens who are willing to get more involved in our governments' actions and demand the changes that will RESTORE THE REPUBLIC for We, the People. This ignorance has fostered their efforts to try and bait "someone" to stand up and act as our leader of the movements. Let me make this perfectly clear: WE THE PEOPLE OF THE TEA PARTY AND OTHER "RESTORE THE REPUBLIC" MINDED GROUPS DO NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDIVIDUAL LEADER. WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALL LEADERS WORKING TOGETHER TO BRING OUR GOVERNMENTS BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, BEING MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND ELIMINATING THE BIG LOBBYISTS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES!! DOWN WITH SOCIALISM; UP WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The Tea Party Movement was and is still designed to be a civil disobedience style of protest against our governments' (local, state and federal) bureaucratic policies which are not supported by We, the People, are not Constitutionally-principled and defy being fiscally conservative (to name just a few principles).
The whole essence of this movement, from its beginning, has been to educate ourselves, our family and friends and our local constituency on the principles of our Constitution and the influential philosophies that guided our Founding Fathers during their efforts while writing the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. With that education, we were to find and recruit like-minded citizens to encourage and support them in their bids to run for various offices (again, from local up to federal offices). Upon supporting and electing these citizens into office, our work is still not complete. Along with replacing the remaining "professional politicians" who have been part of the Socialist agenda that has been infiltrating our society and our government for many decades, we still have the duty to monitor the activities of those whom are elected into office and ensure that they are "practicing what they preached". If we find those who get indoctrinated into the "bureaucratic fiascos" found in our governments, then we find a better replacement and vote them out of office in the next election. With this ongoing process, which requires hard work and dedication, We the People will reform our government on all levels back to the principles of a true Republic.
Now, as related to the latest baiting by far-left Socialist Democrats, RINOs and organizations like the NAACP, they still don't understand that the Tea Party movement is NOT A PARTY-ORGANIZED effort, but a citizen-initiated movement that has millions of like minded citizens who are willing to get more involved in our governments' actions and demand the changes that will RESTORE THE REPUBLIC for We, the People. This ignorance has fostered their efforts to try and bait "someone" to stand up and act as our leader of the movements. Let me make this perfectly clear: WE THE PEOPLE OF THE TEA PARTY AND OTHER "RESTORE THE REPUBLIC" MINDED GROUPS DO NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDIVIDUAL LEADER. WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALL LEADERS WORKING TOGETHER TO BRING OUR GOVERNMENTS BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, BEING MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND ELIMINATING THE BIG LOBBYISTS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES!! DOWN WITH SOCIALISM; UP WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Monday, July 12, 2010
POLITICS AND ELECTIONS: THE SAME OLD POLITICAL GAME FOR GEORGIA
POLITICS AND ELECTIONS: THE SAME OLD POLITICAL GAME
Already, two groups have come out (in the second week of July) against Karen Handel in her bid to become the next Governor of Georgia. Call it “the good ol’boy game” against women candidates, or the usual backstabbing methods of a woman candidate’s opponents, it is still just the same old political game as played in Georgia every election year. So, first let’s look deep into the two groups who are already attacking Karen Handel, as of July 8, 2010:
A. Defenders of Democracy: Founded around 2004, this “influential” group’s only outrage against Karen Handel (which actually goes back to Cathryn Cox) has been related to the electronic voting equipment used in Georgia. Their claim is that the use of electronic equipment delegitimizes the right that elections be transparent and accountable to the people. But their reasoning is faulty. The ability to oversee the vote tallies at the end of the voting day, including absentee electronic ballots, are just as open to the public as written ballots were beforehand. Having been a vote proctor using the paper method and now having seen how the electronic method is utilized, there is only one way to make the “Defenders of Democracy” satisfied that votes are tallied correctly: That is by having someone look over each citizen’s shoulder as they cast a vote and then immediately ensuring that the electronic counter has tallied the vote correctly by printing out an immediate vote tally after each vote is cast. As usual, those who think they live in a democracy (our form of government is a Republic, so that we can avoid anarchy as is eventually found in a democracy) believe they always have the best answer for the American citizen. Instead, they appear to want absolute control over a citizen’s right to vote in privacy. I propose that any “grievance” that they have against any candidate, including Karen Handel, is for their own purposes and not necessarily for the republican form of government which we have in Georgia.
Now, I am neither for or against electronic voting equipment. I see benefits in using the current system and I see benefits in using the older paper ballots. But, based on what I read on the website for Defenders of Democracy (http://207.210.65.64/drupal/node/18), their emphasis is not necessarily on what is best for Georgia but what is best on maintaining control and power in Georgia.
B. VoterGA: Founded by Garland Favorito, this group and Mr. Favorito have the same basic problems with the electronic voting process and the same basic solutions as the socialist-style manifesto of Defenders of Democracy, as referred to previously. Mr. Favorito’s arguments against Ms. Handel’s performance regarding her efforts to ensure a fair and verifiable electronic voting system are based on statements from such groups as the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.politicalamazon.com/fcf.html#pasztor) a far-right organization (beginning to see a trend here?), misquoting the reports of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Testing) as related to their role in evaluating the electronic ballot method (http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/) , along with two other incidents in Lowndes and Douglas County which involved operator error and were reconciled, even though Mr. Favorito would have one believe that conspiracies abound in these cases. Mr. Favorito filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State’s office regarding the eligibility of the electronic voting process as a method that could be declared unconstitutional, per Mr. Favorito.
The Georgia State Supreme Court determined in September, 2009 that all allegations of potential fraud, claims of violations of the state and federal Constitutions, and violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States were without grounds and were dismissed as unfounded, with arguments of support from the Supreme Court of Georgia (http://www.voterga.org/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_15725 and click on Georgia Supreme Court ruling under the Lawsuit tab). The next step, if Mr. Favorito truly believes in what he is adamantly arguing against, is to file this case with SCOTUS. However, this has not happened since last September. The reason can be found when one investigates who Garland Favorito has donated campaign contributions to since 1998, as regards to candidates for Georgia offices. One example to start from would be http://www.city-data.com/elec2/98/elec-NORCROSS-GA-98.html . Further investigations will show that Mr. Favorito has donated funds to the “Good OL’ Boy” network of Georgia politicians. You know; the same group of elected professional politicians who have failed Georgian citizens in helping the state develop mechanisms that would lower our taxes, trim down on our state government’s overbudget spending habits, and reduce our property taxes, just for starters.
Already, two groups have come out (in the second week of July) against Karen Handel in her bid to become the next Governor of Georgia. Call it “the good ol’boy game” against women candidates, or the usual backstabbing methods of a woman candidate’s opponents, it is still just the same old political game as played in Georgia every election year. So, first let’s look deep into the two groups who are already attacking Karen Handel, as of July 8, 2010:
A. Defenders of Democracy: Founded around 2004, this “influential” group’s only outrage against Karen Handel (which actually goes back to Cathryn Cox) has been related to the electronic voting equipment used in Georgia. Their claim is that the use of electronic equipment delegitimizes the right that elections be transparent and accountable to the people. But their reasoning is faulty. The ability to oversee the vote tallies at the end of the voting day, including absentee electronic ballots, are just as open to the public as written ballots were beforehand. Having been a vote proctor using the paper method and now having seen how the electronic method is utilized, there is only one way to make the “Defenders of Democracy” satisfied that votes are tallied correctly: That is by having someone look over each citizen’s shoulder as they cast a vote and then immediately ensuring that the electronic counter has tallied the vote correctly by printing out an immediate vote tally after each vote is cast. As usual, those who think they live in a democracy (our form of government is a Republic, so that we can avoid anarchy as is eventually found in a democracy) believe they always have the best answer for the American citizen. Instead, they appear to want absolute control over a citizen’s right to vote in privacy. I propose that any “grievance” that they have against any candidate, including Karen Handel, is for their own purposes and not necessarily for the republican form of government which we have in Georgia.
Now, I am neither for or against electronic voting equipment. I see benefits in using the current system and I see benefits in using the older paper ballots. But, based on what I read on the website for Defenders of Democracy (http://207.210.65.64/drupal/node/18), their emphasis is not necessarily on what is best for Georgia but what is best on maintaining control and power in Georgia.
B. VoterGA: Founded by Garland Favorito, this group and Mr. Favorito have the same basic problems with the electronic voting process and the same basic solutions as the socialist-style manifesto of Defenders of Democracy, as referred to previously. Mr. Favorito’s arguments against Ms. Handel’s performance regarding her efforts to ensure a fair and verifiable electronic voting system are based on statements from such groups as the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.politicalamazon.com/fcf.html#pasztor) a far-right organization (beginning to see a trend here?), misquoting the reports of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Testing) as related to their role in evaluating the electronic ballot method (http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/) , along with two other incidents in Lowndes and Douglas County which involved operator error and were reconciled, even though Mr. Favorito would have one believe that conspiracies abound in these cases. Mr. Favorito filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State’s office regarding the eligibility of the electronic voting process as a method that could be declared unconstitutional, per Mr. Favorito.
The Georgia State Supreme Court determined in September, 2009 that all allegations of potential fraud, claims of violations of the state and federal Constitutions, and violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States were without grounds and were dismissed as unfounded, with arguments of support from the Supreme Court of Georgia (http://www.voterga.org/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_15725 and click on Georgia Supreme Court ruling under the Lawsuit tab). The next step, if Mr. Favorito truly believes in what he is adamantly arguing against, is to file this case with SCOTUS. However, this has not happened since last September. The reason can be found when one investigates who Garland Favorito has donated campaign contributions to since 1998, as regards to candidates for Georgia offices. One example to start from would be http://www.city-data.com/elec2/98/elec-NORCROSS-GA-98.html . Further investigations will show that Mr. Favorito has donated funds to the “Good OL’ Boy” network of Georgia politicians. You know; the same group of elected professional politicians who have failed Georgian citizens in helping the state develop mechanisms that would lower our taxes, trim down on our state government’s overbudget spending habits, and reduce our property taxes, just for starters.
25 YEARS AGO
(DEDICATED TO MY SON)
Twenty-five years ago, I held my son in my arms.
I promised him my love and my protection.
He was our baby then.
He passed the baby stage a long time ago.
When he was five, we sent him to Pre-K,
Followed by elementary school.
He struggled and he triumphed thru school,
As so many children did and have always done.
But he learned and absorbed knowledge.
He was no longer a child.
We watched him grow from a child into a man.
I coached him on the philosophies of baseball and the choices you make,
Mainly that if you don’t enjoy what you are doing,
Then stop doing it and pursue that which makes you happy.
In what was to be his final year in Little League, I became
So physically sick and unable to continue coaching that I was unable
To help him thru the trials and tribulations of the game.
I believe he gave baseball up, for that period of time, to help
His father thru some very physical and emotional neurological pain.
Yet my son, with his mother, stood by my side and was there till
My body and My God decided I and my family had gone thru enough.
My son endured a lot for the sake of his father.
Though he was still young, He was no longer a child.
I have watched my son grow thru the influential years
As a teenager.
I have seen him struggle with life’s challenges
During that period.
And I tried to be there for him.
Like I did with his older sister,
I told him of the mistakes I had made
As a young man, what they cost me in years of life
And how I wanted him to learn from my mistakes.
He made choices regarding lifestyles and friendships
That were, I feel, tough for him to make.
Apparently, my lessons I shared with him paid off.
My son grew from a non-typical teenager to a Man.
I damaged my family’s relationship many years ago
When I found myself taking my wife’s place in my heart
For granted; a mistake that had been ongoing for years.
Yet I never accepted it as the truth; I was in denial.
This led to events which led to our mutual divorce.
My son endured the pain of my mistakes
Which increased the pain within my heart.
Yet my son was a Man through it all.
It is said that Time heals all wounds.
For my wife and best friend, that has become true.
We have been back together for a long time now by working together
And trusting one another again, with a better relationship
Than before.
I pray to God every night that the pain and wounds
My son endured have truly healed between he and I.
My son was a baby, soon to be a young man.
Now my son is a Man, facing life’s challenges
And meeting those challenges head-on.
Let it be known that I, My Son’s father, will always
Be there to give him my love, my support and my soul
No matter what trials and tribulations he faces.
For I am his father and I will always Love my Son Unconditionally
For Time Eternal.
Twenty-five years ago, I held my son in my arms.
I promised him my love and my protection.
He was our baby then.
He passed the baby stage a long time ago.
When he was five, we sent him to Pre-K,
Followed by elementary school.
He struggled and he triumphed thru school,
As so many children did and have always done.
But he learned and absorbed knowledge.
He was no longer a child.
We watched him grow from a child into a man.
I coached him on the philosophies of baseball and the choices you make,
Mainly that if you don’t enjoy what you are doing,
Then stop doing it and pursue that which makes you happy.
In what was to be his final year in Little League, I became
So physically sick and unable to continue coaching that I was unable
To help him thru the trials and tribulations of the game.
I believe he gave baseball up, for that period of time, to help
His father thru some very physical and emotional neurological pain.
Yet my son, with his mother, stood by my side and was there till
My body and My God decided I and my family had gone thru enough.
My son endured a lot for the sake of his father.
Though he was still young, He was no longer a child.
I have watched my son grow thru the influential years
As a teenager.
I have seen him struggle with life’s challenges
During that period.
And I tried to be there for him.
Like I did with his older sister,
I told him of the mistakes I had made
As a young man, what they cost me in years of life
And how I wanted him to learn from my mistakes.
He made choices regarding lifestyles and friendships
That were, I feel, tough for him to make.
Apparently, my lessons I shared with him paid off.
My son grew from a non-typical teenager to a Man.
I damaged my family’s relationship many years ago
When I found myself taking my wife’s place in my heart
For granted; a mistake that had been ongoing for years.
Yet I never accepted it as the truth; I was in denial.
This led to events which led to our mutual divorce.
My son endured the pain of my mistakes
Which increased the pain within my heart.
Yet my son was a Man through it all.
It is said that Time heals all wounds.
For my wife and best friend, that has become true.
We have been back together for a long time now by working together
And trusting one another again, with a better relationship
Than before.
I pray to God every night that the pain and wounds
My son endured have truly healed between he and I.
My son was a baby, soon to be a young man.
Now my son is a Man, facing life’s challenges
And meeting those challenges head-on.
Let it be known that I, My Son’s father, will always
Be there to give him my love, my support and my soul
No matter what trials and tribulations he faces.
For I am his father and I will always Love my Son Unconditionally
For Time Eternal.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
BHO'S FINAL WAR DECLARATION AGAINST THE SOUTH
So, the BHO administrations and the Justice Department made it official today in suing Arizona over SB 1070, on Constitutional justifications. Now there is irony at its extreme: BHO and the Justice Department trying to use the Constitution to their favor (what a farce). One main argument is based on the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) where all federal laws are the supreme Law of the Land, and all state laws are binding to such federal laws. Well, BHO, you just opened your mouth and stuck your foot into it. Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1819, with the Marbury vs. Madison case, interpreted the clause to mean that the states may not interfere with the functioning of the federal government and that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law. In the case of Arizona and SB 1070, this state law does not interfere with the functioning of the federal government (which includes protecting our borders), but instead assists the federal statute by implementing the same rules as the federal statute with punishment clauses that are less stringent than the federal statute. Hence, Arizona’s SB 1070 is not interfering with the functions of the federal government (which is required by the Constitution to adhere to any federal statute); it is consistent with the federal statute. As for trying to use Marshall’s statement that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law, there is not justification from BHO’s Justice Department that SB 1070 is an inconsistent state law when it mirrors the federal statute.
Once again, BHO is proving his arrogance towards the true Law of the Land and will pervert it to meet his ultimate agenda: the End of the Republic and the implementation of all of his Socialist programs. On top of this, by following thru on this federal lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070, he is outwardly declaring War on the South. With his “restriction of access” to over a thousand acres of federal land in the Sonoran desert and Buenos Aires National Forest (which has allowed the Mexican drug and illegal immigrant cartels to set up “shop” in these areas), with his completely inadequate response to the greatest environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (and the federal administration’s proven collusion with BP in controlling/limiting the type of efforts taken to clean up and stop the oil spill), and now his official lawsuit against a Southwestern state law that mirrors the federal statute, President Obama has openly declared his disdain for the Southern portion of the USA. If you don’t agree, prove me wrong. I’m all ears and open for any other interpretation.
Once again, BHO is proving his arrogance towards the true Law of the Land and will pervert it to meet his ultimate agenda: the End of the Republic and the implementation of all of his Socialist programs. On top of this, by following thru on this federal lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070, he is outwardly declaring War on the South. With his “restriction of access” to over a thousand acres of federal land in the Sonoran desert and Buenos Aires National Forest (which has allowed the Mexican drug and illegal immigrant cartels to set up “shop” in these areas), with his completely inadequate response to the greatest environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (and the federal administration’s proven collusion with BP in controlling/limiting the type of efforts taken to clean up and stop the oil spill), and now his official lawsuit against a Southwestern state law that mirrors the federal statute, President Obama has openly declared his disdain for the Southern portion of the USA. If you don’t agree, prove me wrong. I’m all ears and open for any other interpretation.
Monday, July 5, 2010
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION UNPAID FOR
HR 5618, Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, was passed by the House on 07/01/10. A previous vote was taken on 6/29/10 but did not achieve the required 2/3 majority vote to pass onto the Senate. However, the House vote on July 01 only required a simple majority. Interesting how the same bill, with no amendments can be passed in Congress under a different set of majority rules, than when it was voted on the first time under more stringent majority rules.
The major contention as to why fiscal conservatives from both parties were voting against HR 5618 was due to how this bill was going to be paid for. Under this resolution, the federal government will cover each states' cost by 100%. The question for fiscal conservatives was where were the funds to cover this cost coming from. This bill, which extends unemployment compensation till April, 2011 for those whose compensation ended several months ago, is to be funded by the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 which, according to the latest CBO analysis report, is no longer fully funded. This bill states that it is subject to the "pay as you go" principle, but the questions still remains unanswered: Where are the funds to pay for this bill? Fiscal conservatives from both parties were lobbying for delegating funds from the unspent portion of last year's budget stimulus to pay for the compensation claims to come. However, the liberal "spend as you go" Socialists in Congress would not consider this option and passed this bill which is forecast to cost over $24 Billion by 2011, per the CBO estimate on 6/28/10.
Now this editorial is not intended to not extend a helping hand to the unemployed who are still looking for work since being layed off or released from work a minimum of three months ago. This editorial is directed at the typical approach by the House to spend tax revenues and supplement with newly printed money, as opposed to using over $200 billion in unused stimulus funds to pay for the unemployment compensation extension.
In addition, in both votes, 29 RINOs (who have voted irresponsibly on fiscal legislation, as researched in the past 24 months) voted for this bill. One RINO (Anh Caro, LA-2) recorded a "NO VOTE" on June 29th, then voted for the bill on 07/01/10. For sake of space, the reader can research HR 5618 on govtrack.us/congress to see the vote tally and the names of the RINOs who voted for this legislation on both occassions. You will see the typical RINOs from Florida [GUS BILIRAKIS (9),LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (21),MARIO DIAZ-BALART (25),
BILL POSEY(15),ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (18)and BILL YOUNG (10)] and those from Pennsylvania [CHARLES DENT (15),JIM GERLACH (6),TIM MURPHY (18), and
TODD PLATTS (19)]. You will find some interesting names with the remainder of RINOs who voted Aye for HR 5618.
The major contention as to why fiscal conservatives from both parties were voting against HR 5618 was due to how this bill was going to be paid for. Under this resolution, the federal government will cover each states' cost by 100%. The question for fiscal conservatives was where were the funds to cover this cost coming from. This bill, which extends unemployment compensation till April, 2011 for those whose compensation ended several months ago, is to be funded by the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 which, according to the latest CBO analysis report, is no longer fully funded. This bill states that it is subject to the "pay as you go" principle, but the questions still remains unanswered: Where are the funds to pay for this bill? Fiscal conservatives from both parties were lobbying for delegating funds from the unspent portion of last year's budget stimulus to pay for the compensation claims to come. However, the liberal "spend as you go" Socialists in Congress would not consider this option and passed this bill which is forecast to cost over $24 Billion by 2011, per the CBO estimate on 6/28/10.
Now this editorial is not intended to not extend a helping hand to the unemployed who are still looking for work since being layed off or released from work a minimum of three months ago. This editorial is directed at the typical approach by the House to spend tax revenues and supplement with newly printed money, as opposed to using over $200 billion in unused stimulus funds to pay for the unemployment compensation extension.
In addition, in both votes, 29 RINOs (who have voted irresponsibly on fiscal legislation, as researched in the past 24 months) voted for this bill. One RINO (Anh Caro, LA-2) recorded a "NO VOTE" on June 29th, then voted for the bill on 07/01/10. For sake of space, the reader can research HR 5618 on govtrack.us/congress to see the vote tally and the names of the RINOs who voted for this legislation on both occassions. You will see the typical RINOs from Florida [GUS BILIRAKIS (9),LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (21),MARIO DIAZ-BALART (25),
BILL POSEY(15),ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (18)and BILL YOUNG (10)] and those from Pennsylvania [CHARLES DENT (15),JIM GERLACH (6),TIM MURPHY (18), and
TODD PLATTS (19)]. You will find some interesting names with the remainder of RINOs who voted Aye for HR 5618.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
