The following are all true events. Makes you wonder how America survives...
1) A man, wanting to rob a downtown Bank of America, walked into the Branch and wrote this, "Put all your muny in this bag." While standing in line, waiting to give his note to the teller, he began to worry that someone had seen him write the note and might call the police before he reached the teller's window. So he left the Bank of America and crossed the street to the Wells Fargo Bank. After waiting a few minutes in line, he handed his note to the Wells Fargo teller. She read it and, surmising from his spelling errors that he wasn't the brightest light in the harbor, told him that she could not accept his stickup note because it was written on a Bank of America deposit slip and that he would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo deposit slip or go back to Bank of America. Looking somewhat defeated, the man said, "OK" and left. He was arrested a few minutes later, as he was waiting in line back at Bank of America.
2) Early this year, some Boeing employees on the airfield decided to steal a life raft from one of the 747s. They were successful in getting it out of the plane and home. Shortly after they took it for a float on the river, they noticed a Coast Guard helicopter coming towards them. It turned out that the chopper was homing in on the emergency locator beacon that activated when the raft was inflated. They are no longer employed at Boeing.
3) A guy walked into a little corner store with a shotgun and demanded all of the cash from the cash drawer. After the cashier put the cash in a bag, the robber saw a bottle of Scotch that he wanted behind the counter on the shelf. He told the cashier to put it in the bag as well, but the cashier refused and said, "Because I don't believe you are over 21." The robber said he was, but the clerk still refused to give it to him because she didn't believe him.At this point, the robber took his driver's license out of his wallet and gave it to the clerk. The clerk looked it over and agreed that the man was in fact over 21 and she put the Scotch in the bag. The robber then ran from the store with his loot.The cashier promptly called the police and gave the name and address of the robber that he got off the license. They arrested the robber two hours later.
4) A pair of Michigan robbers entered a record shop nervously waving revolvers. The first one shouted, "Nobody move!" When his partner moved, the startled first bandit shot him.I live in a semi-rural area. (probably Weyauwega , Wisconsin ) We recently had a new neighbor call the local township administrative office to request the removal of the Deer Crossing sign on our road. The reason: "Too many deer are being hit by cars out here! - I don't think this is a good place for them to be crossing anymore." From Kingman , KS .
5) I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself and for the sake of her own life, couldn't understand why her system would not turn on. A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriffs office no less.
6) When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up our car, we were told the keys had been locked in it. We went to the service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock the drivers side door. As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. "Hey," I announced to the technician, "its open!" His reply, "I know - I already got that side." This was at the CHEVY dealership in Canton , Mississippi
The scary part - all these people are allowed to vote - and reproduce!
/
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sedition
The definition of "sedition" is the act of attempting to overthrow, or incite to overthrow the government. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, which is the ultimate law of the land reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Therefore, any person who acts to overthrow the Republican form of government is guilty of sedition, a crime against the United States.
What this means is that any person who acts to change our Republic into a socialist, Marxist, Communist or other form of government is guilty of sedition, as they are acting to overthrow the Republican government guaranteed under the Constitution. Almost all of President Obama's advisors are self-proclaimed Marxists or socialists - one was even a communist (his own words). All are actively inciting or acting to overthrow the Republican government and instituting a socialist government. And many of the liberal Democrats in the House and Senate are guilty of sedition, as they are actively working to turn America into a socialist state by passing unconstitutional bills designed to move us into socialism.
And other so-called Americans who stand on the far left, are also guilty of sedition, including Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, George Soros and many, many others. You know who they are - the ones who praise Chavez and Castro. The ones who always find it necessary to insult, then apologize for America.
Do not misunderstand - dissent is a good thing. But what the far left liberals are doing goes well beyond dissent. It is sedition, plain and simple. If you actively work to change our form of government, you are guilty of sedition.
One of the earliest and most successful seditionists was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was he who removed the word "Republic" from the description of America, and replaced it with "Democracy." No one noticed. To this day, almost no one has noticed that in one simple stroke, he caused the entire nation to forget we are a Republic, and are, instead, a Democracy, which is entirely different. He even had it changed in the textbooks. Roosevelt changed the Republic to a Democracy in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. The people were so preoccupied with the depression that they took no notice - and really did not care. By the time things got back to normal, Democracy had already entrenched itself for 15 years, so it still went unnoticed. Even back then the socialists lived by the decree not to let a good crisis go to waste. (Hillary Clinton still uses that phrase). And they are doing it again, with TARP, Stimulus Bills, bank and automaker takeovers, cap & trade, and now health care. Next it will be amnesty for illegal immigrants.
AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS SO DECREED IN THE CONSTITUTION. ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO PROMOTES ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REPUBLIC IS GUILTY OF SEDITION.
The Founding Fathers had considered a Democracy, and rejected that in favor of a Republic. They did so because they (like Roosevelt) knew that a Democracy always leads to socialism - and Roosevelt was an admitted socialist, whose chief advisor (and even his wife) was a card-carrying communist. Here is the major difference: in a Republic, every person, and his/her rights, are equal, and cannot be over-ridden by anyone else. In a Democracy, it is "majority rules", which means if the majority want to deprive you of a right, they may do so. (This is how the Supreme Court was able to change eminent domain in the constitution from "public use" to "public benefit". Now, your land can be taken even if the public cannot get use of it, but if a private party can make better use of it and pay higher taxes, which is a public benefit). The Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act - only the legislative body, with three-fourths of states ratifying it, can change a single word of the Constitution. So, their ruling is unconstitutional, and any Justice who voted for the change should be recalled and replaced as incompetent and grossly negligent.
When the majority rules, they soon learn that they can vote themselves in certain perks and entitlements. And they do - the temptation is too strong. And that is the road to socialism, as those entitlements must come from the government. This gives the government more power over our lives, and power corrupts. More entitlements equals more government, until the people become completely subservient to the government.
What patriotic Americans must do is first reinstate the Republican form of government the Constitution guarantees - throw out any official who resists, or who pursues a more "democratic, socialist" view. Take the word DEMOCRACY out of the description of America and replace it with REPUBLIC. And learn the differences. Then insist that ALL elected AND non-elected officials follow the Constitution, as written. It does not require "interpretation". Interpretation is whatever a reader wants.
The Constitution is clear and simple - do not interpret it - just follow it or get out. Do not vote for anyone who will not pledge to do the above, and if they reneg, throw them out of office. It matters not what party they belong to - either they are FOR America, a Republic, or they are not.
/
Monday, September 28, 2009
Health Care Jail
Did you know that the Health Care plan proposed by Sen. Baucus has a section that states if you do not buy health insurance you will be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished with either a $25,000 fine OR A YEAR IN JAIL?
Can you believe these people? Not only do they want to violate your Constitutional Rights by FORCING you to spend your money on something you may not want or need, but they want to put you in prison if you do not comply with their Gestapo tactics.
Think about this - if for some reason you lose your insurance, you would be forced to spend $3800 to enter the "government" option, or go to jail. Hell, for most folks, if they do not have insurance it is because they cannot afford it. So the Democrats want to put you behind bars for being broke.
Don't think so? Think again. Baucus has already admitted that it exists in the bill. Now think about this - let's say the government says if you earn more than $48,000 a year, you can "afford" the $3800/year for their insurance. Yet, for all they know, your bills and expenses come to $48,000 a year. So how will you pay $3800 for insurance without going bankrupt and losing everything? In other words, it will not matter how much debt you already have - if you EARN a certain amount, the government says you can afford it - even if you cannot. So, you go to JAIL!
In America! With each passing day, the Obama Administration is changing America from the land of the free to the land of the enslaved.
Of course, the liberal media refuses to tell folks about this part of the Baucus bill, because they know the folks would revolt, big time. As far as I can tell, the only news source to show this is Fox News. No wonder it beats ALL other news stations combined.
Folks - if you have an ounce of common sense and a modicum of interest in what kind of future our children will have, get on the horn and call your senators and congressmen TODAY. Tell them if they vote for the health care bill, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. This is far too important for anyone to sit on their hands and hope someone else will fight the fight for them.
/
Can you believe these people? Not only do they want to violate your Constitutional Rights by FORCING you to spend your money on something you may not want or need, but they want to put you in prison if you do not comply with their Gestapo tactics.
Think about this - if for some reason you lose your insurance, you would be forced to spend $3800 to enter the "government" option, or go to jail. Hell, for most folks, if they do not have insurance it is because they cannot afford it. So the Democrats want to put you behind bars for being broke.
Don't think so? Think again. Baucus has already admitted that it exists in the bill. Now think about this - let's say the government says if you earn more than $48,000 a year, you can "afford" the $3800/year for their insurance. Yet, for all they know, your bills and expenses come to $48,000 a year. So how will you pay $3800 for insurance without going bankrupt and losing everything? In other words, it will not matter how much debt you already have - if you EARN a certain amount, the government says you can afford it - even if you cannot. So, you go to JAIL!
In America! With each passing day, the Obama Administration is changing America from the land of the free to the land of the enslaved.
Of course, the liberal media refuses to tell folks about this part of the Baucus bill, because they know the folks would revolt, big time. As far as I can tell, the only news source to show this is Fox News. No wonder it beats ALL other news stations combined.
Folks - if you have an ounce of common sense and a modicum of interest in what kind of future our children will have, get on the horn and call your senators and congressmen TODAY. Tell them if they vote for the health care bill, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. This is far too important for anyone to sit on their hands and hope someone else will fight the fight for them.
/
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Divine Intelligence?
In looking for a sound means of expressing why an educated, intelligent person would believe in a greater intelligence often referred to as "God", I have come up with many. But none are so powerfully convincing as this one. Make no mistake - I accept that evolution is real. I also accept there must also be Divine Intelligence, because evolution has some holes in it.
To begin, it is important to understand that evolution, or accidental existence, by its definition and nature, cannot include concepts such as planning, thought, or even the ability to determine a need for something. All of those things require intelligence.
Therefore, without accepting the existence of a God, it is impossible to explain why - and how - the act of sex creates a physical sensation of ecstasy.
Certainly, any "designer" would understand that in order to survive, creatures must procreate. And to insure they do so, it would be necessary to instill such a sense of pleasure derived from the act of sex. But my point is this - it takes rational thought, planning, and determining a need for the sense of pleasure. Without intelligence, "nature" and accidental existence would not beget such pleasure. Not being able to think, plan or determine, nature could not possibly, and by sheer accident, instill in us the sense of sexual pleasure.
Some might say that the ecstasy evolved because of the need for it. But that raises two questions:
1) how does nature, unable to think or plan, determine such a need, and "evolve" it, and
2) if it evolved over time, how did life survive long enough to develop that sense of ecstasy? Without it from the start, it is unlikely that creatures would procreate.
Certainly, evolution can explain many things. But what each of us should think about are those things that evolution cannot explain.
Take, for example, the intricacies of coexistence. Needs between two or more living things cannot be explained through evolution, as one species has no way of "knowing" what another needs. Here is an example:
Birds eat raspberries. But they cannot digest the seeds. Instead, those are excreted while the birds sit on tree branches. This allows the raspberry seeds to produce new plants because a) the seeds were not digested, b) the seeds were deposited beneath branches where they receive the required shade for the young roots, and c) the seeds are deposited with a glob of bird manure, to fertilize the seeds. An intricate series of instances that produces an end result. And because of it, the birds are helping to produce their own food supply.
This raises questions, for those who do not believe in a Divine Intelligence. One such question: why is it that the seeds are not digested? Surely evolution, without intelligence, would insure that the digestive system of birds would digest everything they eat. Considering all of the separate things that must occur, in concert, in order to continue the cycle, and each must occur without the knowledge of any of the "players", it is difficult for any thinking person to reject out-of-hand the concept of a Divine Intelligence.
Of course, as a believer I always like to ask non-believers the following two questions:
1) Since only living things can evolve, how do you explain the existence of all the non-living things, like rocks? Since they could not evolve, the only other explanation is that they were somehow created. By what? Why? How?
2) Assuming evolution explains how humans got here, how do you explain the very first living thing? Being the first, it could not have evolved from anything, because it was the first. So, where did that first living thing come from? How did it become alive?
In any case, I always come back to the wonder that is the ecstasy we feel when we complete the sex act. Such a thing is something that has a defined purpose, but not a true need except in the context of propagation of the species. And nature, or accidental existence, being unable to think and therefore unable to care, would not provide such a solution. The fact that 96% of all species that ever lived have already become extinct proves that nature does not care if we survive or not. Providing a solution for a purpose is something that requires intelligence, thought and planning.
To begin, it is important to understand that evolution, or accidental existence, by its definition and nature, cannot include concepts such as planning, thought, or even the ability to determine a need for something. All of those things require intelligence.
Therefore, without accepting the existence of a God, it is impossible to explain why - and how - the act of sex creates a physical sensation of ecstasy.
Certainly, any "designer" would understand that in order to survive, creatures must procreate. And to insure they do so, it would be necessary to instill such a sense of pleasure derived from the act of sex. But my point is this - it takes rational thought, planning, and determining a need for the sense of pleasure. Without intelligence, "nature" and accidental existence would not beget such pleasure. Not being able to think, plan or determine, nature could not possibly, and by sheer accident, instill in us the sense of sexual pleasure.
Some might say that the ecstasy evolved because of the need for it. But that raises two questions:
1) how does nature, unable to think or plan, determine such a need, and "evolve" it, and
2) if it evolved over time, how did life survive long enough to develop that sense of ecstasy? Without it from the start, it is unlikely that creatures would procreate.
Certainly, evolution can explain many things. But what each of us should think about are those things that evolution cannot explain.
Take, for example, the intricacies of coexistence. Needs between two or more living things cannot be explained through evolution, as one species has no way of "knowing" what another needs. Here is an example:
Birds eat raspberries. But they cannot digest the seeds. Instead, those are excreted while the birds sit on tree branches. This allows the raspberry seeds to produce new plants because a) the seeds were not digested, b) the seeds were deposited beneath branches where they receive the required shade for the young roots, and c) the seeds are deposited with a glob of bird manure, to fertilize the seeds. An intricate series of instances that produces an end result. And because of it, the birds are helping to produce their own food supply.
This raises questions, for those who do not believe in a Divine Intelligence. One such question: why is it that the seeds are not digested? Surely evolution, without intelligence, would insure that the digestive system of birds would digest everything they eat. Considering all of the separate things that must occur, in concert, in order to continue the cycle, and each must occur without the knowledge of any of the "players", it is difficult for any thinking person to reject out-of-hand the concept of a Divine Intelligence.
Of course, as a believer I always like to ask non-believers the following two questions:
1) Since only living things can evolve, how do you explain the existence of all the non-living things, like rocks? Since they could not evolve, the only other explanation is that they were somehow created. By what? Why? How?
2) Assuming evolution explains how humans got here, how do you explain the very first living thing? Being the first, it could not have evolved from anything, because it was the first. So, where did that first living thing come from? How did it become alive?
In any case, I always come back to the wonder that is the ecstasy we feel when we complete the sex act. Such a thing is something that has a defined purpose, but not a true need except in the context of propagation of the species. And nature, or accidental existence, being unable to think and therefore unable to care, would not provide such a solution. The fact that 96% of all species that ever lived have already become extinct proves that nature does not care if we survive or not. Providing a solution for a purpose is something that requires intelligence, thought and planning.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
No Guts!
That is what I saw as I watched the presidential debate. Both candidates addressed the financial crisis, but neither one showed an ounce of passion. No anger. Neither one related to we, the People.
As I listened to these two losers, all I heard was, "Gee whiz, I know you are hurting. And I will fix it." Not exactly what I would call commanding.
Tell ya what - regardless of party affiliation, I will vote for the first one to stand up, get angry, and say, "When I am president, I will find out the people responsible for this. I will identify those who robbed us of our pensions. And I will punish them to the maximum extent that the law allows. Jail time, not bail time! I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to. I'm going to nail them. And then I will make sure that this will never, ever happen again."
But I am betting that neither will do that, and do it with conviction. Because I do not see any passion or guts in either of them. Yes, McCain is a war hero. But in matters such as this, where the people expect him to take on the crooks, he and Obama are both gutless.
If you feel as I do, feel free to do as I did - write to the clowns that manage these losers and tell them how you feel. I wrote to both the chairman and the campaign manager, at chairman@gop.com and political@gop.com, because personally, I do not believe Obama would ever turn on those that supported him. But if you are an Obama fan, then contact his handlers. But for crying out loud, ONE of these idiots needs to show some passion, conviction and guts.
As I listened to these two losers, all I heard was, "Gee whiz, I know you are hurting. And I will fix it." Not exactly what I would call commanding.
Tell ya what - regardless of party affiliation, I will vote for the first one to stand up, get angry, and say, "When I am president, I will find out the people responsible for this. I will identify those who robbed us of our pensions. And I will punish them to the maximum extent that the law allows. Jail time, not bail time! I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to. I'm going to nail them. And then I will make sure that this will never, ever happen again."
But I am betting that neither will do that, and do it with conviction. Because I do not see any passion or guts in either of them. Yes, McCain is a war hero. But in matters such as this, where the people expect him to take on the crooks, he and Obama are both gutless.
If you feel as I do, feel free to do as I did - write to the clowns that manage these losers and tell them how you feel. I wrote to both the chairman and the campaign manager, at chairman@gop.com and political@gop.com, because personally, I do not believe Obama would ever turn on those that supported him. But if you are an Obama fan, then contact his handlers. But for crying out loud, ONE of these idiots needs to show some passion, conviction and guts.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Why Don't They Get It?
Still hearing from "green" people about increasing sources of ethanol - corn, switchgrass, stinkweed - the list goes on. And these people actually believe this is a sound, "green" alternative. Why have they not thought it through? Why do they ignore the facts?
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Majority Rule?
Before the Supreme Court had a conservative majority and the liberals were in charge, they made yet another, of many, poor rulings, in violation of the Constitution. They ruled that "eminent domain" could be used to take private lands for public BENEFIT, rather than the public USE required under the Constitution.
Their wrong-headed thinking violates not only the Constitution, but also the very tenets of our Republic. This is because liberals want America to be a Democracy, but it is not. Under the law, and by decree in the Constitution, America is a REPUBLIC, which is quite different from a Democracy.
In a Democracy, majority rules. Democrats like that, because it empowers them to levy more taxes and rob us of more rights. All they need is to convince a majority that something is best, and that's it! The government gains power, and the people lose it.
But in a Republic, the majority does not rule. Each of us has the sole power. As Henry David Thoreau so aptly put it, "When the rights of the majority take away the rights of the one, we all suffer." In other words, we should never forget that EACH of us is the ONE. Sometimes we are in the majority; sometimes not. Do we give up our God-given rights just because we are not in the majority?
The Founding fathers thought about a Democracy as a form of governance, and flatly rejected it, and chose a Republic, instead. The primary reason lies in the fact that, by nature, Man will always favor having others take responsibility for them. And that invariably results in bigger government, until government finally is the sole power. No longer would it be "of the people, by the people, for the people." We are very close to that now, thanks to liberals.
If we, as Americans, are ever to set things right, and prevent losing our rights, we have but one choice. We must once again declare our independence as a Republic, and toss out the notion that we are a Democracy.
It was FDR that changed the landscape, and began brainwashing Americans into thinking we are a Democracy. Until then, everyone knew we were a Republic. Now, we must set the record straight. We must teach our children the difference, and teach them the importance of being a Republic.
And teach them that if we allow the majority to rule, we all lose, because we are all just ONE.
Their wrong-headed thinking violates not only the Constitution, but also the very tenets of our Republic. This is because liberals want America to be a Democracy, but it is not. Under the law, and by decree in the Constitution, America is a REPUBLIC, which is quite different from a Democracy.
In a Democracy, majority rules. Democrats like that, because it empowers them to levy more taxes and rob us of more rights. All they need is to convince a majority that something is best, and that's it! The government gains power, and the people lose it.
But in a Republic, the majority does not rule. Each of us has the sole power. As Henry David Thoreau so aptly put it, "When the rights of the majority take away the rights of the one, we all suffer." In other words, we should never forget that EACH of us is the ONE. Sometimes we are in the majority; sometimes not. Do we give up our God-given rights just because we are not in the majority?
The Founding fathers thought about a Democracy as a form of governance, and flatly rejected it, and chose a Republic, instead. The primary reason lies in the fact that, by nature, Man will always favor having others take responsibility for them. And that invariably results in bigger government, until government finally is the sole power. No longer would it be "of the people, by the people, for the people." We are very close to that now, thanks to liberals.
If we, as Americans, are ever to set things right, and prevent losing our rights, we have but one choice. We must once again declare our independence as a Republic, and toss out the notion that we are a Democracy.
It was FDR that changed the landscape, and began brainwashing Americans into thinking we are a Democracy. Until then, everyone knew we were a Republic. Now, we must set the record straight. We must teach our children the difference, and teach them the importance of being a Republic.
And teach them that if we allow the majority to rule, we all lose, because we are all just ONE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)