Monday, May 29, 2006
I drove to the cemetery on Sunday. I first drove through the veteran's section, past the row of American flags flying in the breeze. It was an honor to think of the men who sacrificed but my heart was most heavy for the family members who were left behind, without fathers, without husbands, without sons. I don't mean, at all, to neglect the women who have worn uniforms either, those losses must in some ways seem even more cruel, if that were possible.
Then I drove to my grandmother, grandfather and step-grandfather's grave sites and decorated them. Then to my step-dad, Cal. Oh, how I loved him! My mother, being ill was not up to going with me and I believe it was the first time I had ever gone alone, without her company. I felt lost without her, like a torch was being passed. I do hope to drive her through next week, maybe when I take her to the lab on Tuesday.
Before I left I passed back by those flags flying on a breezy day, stopped toward the end and wished I had my camera to catch a picture of the last five flags fluttering with the hills and plains behind them, it would have made a lovely picture, but, you know I still have that picture in my mind, as I will have a picture in my mind of what that young man saw the day he watched seven of his brothers die in Iraq. A picture may, indeed, be worth a thousand words but words are powerful tools, I'd have trouble believing that pictures are more powerful.
Say a prayer for those left behind today, for those struggling with the loss of their son or daughter, husband or wife, sister or brother, father or mother.
I was thinking about the story mom used to tell me of my grandmother and great aunts sitting around the table in my grandmother's kitchen a week before Memorial Day. She tells me they made crepe paper flowers and then dipped them in parafin wax to preserve them. I can just imagine them sitting for a week, every day, preparing flowers, dipping them in wax and oh, what stories they must have told! I'll bet they talked about the family members who had passed before them and shared many sweet memories about them. Those old days, balmy, I'm sure, without any air conditioning, grandma probably had to take time out from patching sacks for the feed mill.
I'd like to try making those crepe paper flowers someday.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.
Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.
President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.
The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:
The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments' physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.
Why doesn't President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
The second column, was written by James P. Pinkerton, who writes for Newsday and is titled "Bush cons the American public on immigration," you can find it at the Union Leader. Here are some excerpts from that column:
"...At his White House news conference Tuesday, alongside Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Bush said quite a lot, revealing much about his mind-set. He thinks he can fool his fellow citizens, enough of them at least, by using a few focus-grouped buzzwords. And as for those recalcitrant types who aren't gulled -—well, he figures he can cow them into submission with loaded smear words....
... "Comprehensive" is code for a bill that makes pro-immigration constituencies happy — that is, big business, the Democrats, Hispanic reconquistadors and the Mexican government. The key to making the pro-imms happy, of course, is legislation that negates itself. Build a big wall? Fine, so long as you then shoot it full of holes. Bush will agree to tighten up the border, but only if it's linked to a guest-worker program that loosens things up everywhere else. That's what "comprehensive" means — and the alternative spelling, by the way, is S-H-E-L-L G-A-M-E.
Further demonstrating his hope that the American people are a bunch of dopes who will fall for the cheapest of rhetorical tricks, Bush then set up a straw man: "You know, there are some in our country who say, 'Let's just deport everybody.'" There might be some who say that, but the spearhead of the secure-the-homeland movement, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is long on record as favoring an "attrition" strategy against those who are here illegally, mostly by toughening up on employers.
Yet, the Bush administration has virtually eliminated work-site policing: The Government Accountability Office counted 2,849 immigration arrests in 1999, but just 159 in 2004, a decline of 94 percent. And on Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the number of "absconders" — those who were arrested for immigration violations and released on bail, and then simply disappeared — has risen by nearly half under Bush, to 536,000 in 2005. No wonder a Heritage Foundation study projects that if present trends continue, total immigration into the United States could increase in two decades by 217 million.
Having used a code word and set up a straw man, Bush then tried to sound soothing: "We've got to be rational." The obvious point: Anyone who opposes him is irrational...."
Pay attention, people, the future sovereignty of our Nation depends on it.
Monday, May 22, 2006
"Forgive me, God for being such a miserable human being full of petty thoughts, full of diversion away from You. Where are You? You are in the eyes of my Mother, who needs me, who calls to me. You are in the eyes of the children who look to me for guidance and actually value the example you alone enable me to set. You are in the eyes of my husband just before he kisses my mouth. You, dear God, are in the quiet, in the questions. Only You hold the answers."
And I referenced 1 Kings 19:11-13 (New International Version):
"11 The LORD said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave. Then a voice said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
So, what I'm doing is not blogging on anything unless I feel *inspired* to do so. Unfortunately, I haven't felt very inspired lately. Angry, perhaps, over the border security issue and the prospects of amnesty-like proposals in the Senate. Angry, perhaps, over what I have perceived as little interest on the part of our elected representatives to represent us. Not inspired.
So, I decided to give kudos to Angel at The Rogue Angel for helping to inspire me to get to this point, a point in which I am weaning myself away from arguing with "Progressive" Christians, and fairly successfully, I might add :) . It was a post from Angel that shined the light of truth in my direction and being unable to either argue or disagree with her points made (to argue with her about this issue would be to argue with God Almighty, how could I do that? The answer is, I can't.) Here's the link to the post that shook me up, though somewhat grudgingly: More Than Fitting.
Anyway, I want to give credit where credit is due and so, I wanted to share a reply I wrote to an article posted in that political debate group to which I belong. The article, Religious Liberals Gain New Visibility, from the Washington Post says in part:
"The Rev. Joseph W. Daniels Jr., senior pastor of Emory United Methodist Church in Northwest Washington, said a key question for him is whether the religious left will become "the polar opposite to . . . the religious right" or be "a voice in the middle."
"What this country needs is strong spiritual leadership that is willing to build bridges. We don't need leaders who are lightning bolts for division and dissension," he said.
Nonetheless, some observers doubt that the revitalization of the religious left will lessen the divisions over religion in politics. "I do think," said Hertzke, "that, if in fact this progressive initiative takes off, we will see an even more polarized electoral environment than we did in 2004.""
...and here was my reply:
I just broke down and read the article that went with the headline. Lol. It was very predictable. The thing is, there is no way that "religious" leftists and "religious" righties can come together. They talk about different issues. The leftists want poverty, the environment and peace to be their focus, well, that's all well and good, but they don't want other moral issues to get any focus. On the other hand "Conservative" Christians are concerned about poverty, the environment and peace, as well as OTHER moral issues, they just disagree with the "Progressive" Christians about the best way to address the pet issues of the "Progressives," and they, both factions, come at THOSE issues from a purely partisan political standpoint defined by liberal or conservative politics rather than their particular brands of religion.
In the meantime, I keep hearing the Southern Baptists, a primarily Conservative Christian denomination, receive accolades for their work in helping the victims of Katrina. They are STILL there, still serving food to those who need it. Where are the Unitarians and the Lutherans? I've heard nothing about them in NO. I'm not saying they aren't there, they very well might be, but I keep hearing about the Southern Baptists and what good work they are doing, not the Unitarians, not the Lutherans who are staunch advocates for this new Progressive Christian movement.
The "Progressive" Christians want to throw money, money gained from over-taxing the American people, at all Nations living in poverty, Conservatives disagree with continuing to throw more and MORE money at those Nations, whose actual, poor citizens reap little benefit from that money, the money instead ends up lining the pockets of corrupt government leaders. It serves to make the "Progressive" Christians feel better if they throw some more money that way, all the while complaining about commercialism while driving their foreign made cars and playing with their house full of high tech gadgets. That's my humble opinion after being on the front line trying to communicate with "Progressive" Christians. After making many months attempts at finding some common ground and compromise and finding very little I decided it would never be possible and there IS clear scripture which guides Christians not to argue and be divisive with one another over words:
A Workman Approved by God
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."
In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. - 2 Timothy 2
Thanks to the Rogue Angel.
End of my reply.
So, I repeat, thank you, Angel, for the reminder and the gentle way in which you accomplished it.
For those of you who read my blog and are looking for that "spunk?" Lol, I've still got spunk and though at times I feel I have retreated from a battle, which really, really irritates me, I also realize that in all my efforts to "communicate" with "Progressive" Christians I didn't change their minds about a thing and other than feeling that I am a little more tolerant and less ready to judge others they have not changed my views on particular political issues, either. So, what's it about, then? Arguing for the sake of arguing? That's what I decided.
I'll continue to blog about issues which I feel inspired to blog about. Maybe I'll even show a little "spunk" from time to time but I'm thinking my days of arguing with fellow Christians for the sake of argument are behind me. :)
Friday, May 19, 2006
Matt had a lot of clean-up to do in the State of Missouri after the term of Democratic Governor Bob Holden.
He is currently being attacked by some staunch conservatives for his stance on stem cell research, but I'll have to say he deserves an abundance of credit for the accomplishments he's made so far in the State.
The facts are that we will never find a candidate, Democrat or Republican, with whom we agree on every point, so we make the best choice we have.
Matt Blunt is the best choice for Missouri.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Here is what I found from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 1 Spring 2005 edition:
This entire research paper, replete with footnotes, spells out the problems created by illegal aliens on our American Health Care System.
To date, due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA) (Read it here: EMTALA Full Text) 84 California hospitals are closing their doors due to hospital bankruptcies. EMTALA, forces our hospitals to treat the conditions of illegal aliens without Federal reimbursement. Though the Federal Government mandates this treatment they do not pay the hospitals for the expenses incurred by treating disease, or for delivering babies or even for treating a cough or sniffly nose. All that is required is for the illegal alien to claim he/she needs "emergency" treatment.
Among the diseases PROVEN re-introduced into America by ILLEGAL ALIENS who have crossed the border without health screening or examination:
Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB)
Chagas disease, also known as American trypanosomiasis or "kissing bug disease"
Dengue fever, which while not fatal, per se, causes dengue hemorrhagic fever which is routinely fatal
Hepatitis A ,B, and C are resurging
The research paper goes on to issue "A Proposal to Prevent Medical Cataclysm." Among its suggestions is the CLOSING OF OUR BORDERS.
Hysterical? I think not. Look at the facts, this research is a must read.
Monday, May 08, 2006
In reply to his column "Immigration debate needs dose of civility" found here: News-Leader.com Tony Messenger, I wrote:
Dear Mr. Messenger,
How ironic that you call for a dose of civility in the immigration debate while based on this simple one sentence note written and left at the Acambaro Restaurant stating...:
"This is a disgrace to the country that is supporting you. ... You have proved nothing by closing."
...you go on to imply that American citizens who disagree with aliens entering our country ILLEGALLY and who would like our borders secured are:
- unable to see "shades of gray"
- suspect every brown skinned person in America of being an illegal alien, "a lawbreaker, a felon."
- do not stand up for families
- do not support their neighbors
- would run like "a raging train of "white flight" once "one of them" moved in"
You write that this debate has nothing to do with the rule of law, but rather "plain, old fashioned bigotry."
When have you addressed the issues I raised at your blog site the other day? When have you replied to these legitimate complaints?:
1). It is ILLEGAL to cross the border without observing legal immigration guidelines
2).They are driving down wages of American citizens, whether those jobs are held by legal immigrants or natural citizens, and the threat is spreading into more and more fields of expertise. Where it was once agriculture, it is now construction and other fields and it is spreading over time.
3). The serious issue of border security at a time when our country is engaged in a war on terrorism. If illegal aliens are allowed to flood across the border unchecked then what is to stop terrorists from crossing that border as well? Will it take another 9/11 before you and our "representatives" represent the best security interests of our OWN country?
4). The issue of disease control. Many illegals who cross the border into our country may not have not been vaccinated for strains of disease that may be effecting our population. Kansas City has recently called on the CDC to help in an investigation into the cause of a recent mumps outbreak
Instead of addressing these issues, Mr. Messenger, and treating them as the legitimate concerns they are, you would prefer to play the role of apologist for illegal immigration. That is certainly your right, however, when you make statements like the one below...:
"...Before we can even consider repairing its fraying edges, however, we have to sit at the table together in an atmosphere of trust, with respect, without name-calling.
We can't even begin to discuss solutions to this complicated problem that was decades in the making until we elevate the discussion beyond white and brown, beyond flag-waving and chest-beating."
...and then imply that anyone who supports HR 4437 is a bigot, or at least the writer of a simple one sentence note left at a restaurant on May Day, which did not name call and did not make ANY of the statements you implied in your column, is a bigot, it is apparent that you only disfavor name calling if coming from those who do not chose to be apologists for ILLEGAL aliens and exempt yourself from that rule.
How ironic that you would call on people to be civil in debating the immigration issue while implying that all those who do not view illegals as "American dreamers," as bigots. The only name calling I saw in your column was coming from you, Mr. Messenger.
Regarding your implications:
- I am able to see "shades of gray"
- I do not suspect every brown skinned person in America of being an illegal alien, "a lawbreaker, a felon."
- I do stand up for the families of the citizens of our country and those of LEGAL immigrants to our country.
- I do support my neighbors
- I would not leave my neighborhood if a Hispanic moved into it, as a matter of fact, I did have a Hispanic neighbor for several years.
I support border security and the ENFORCEMENT of our current immigration laws. I want the border secured and the immigrants who come here to do so legally as law abiding contributors to our society, and I want these issues addressed, rather than certain columnists' attempts at painting all people who support those legitimate concerns as bigots in an effort to ignore the legitimate debate we could be having.
You asked for more than simple "if you don't like our country, leave it," replies. I have given you two, now. Do you really want to have a debate, Mr. Messenger, or do you want to pretend that everyone who might not agree with your apologist position is a bigot? It is entirely up to you.
It appears that shrillness is an option only for apologists for illegal immigration. Those who show passion from the other side of the issue are "accusatory," "screaming, bigots," thank you for your interest in "civil" debate.
face painted like a pink cat with black lips and whiskers, a little black nose, your flip flops tossed aside
your teeth so white
beside your little black cat lips!
your sister so quiet, following you, following you, would do nothing without you, would be pulling at me instead of laughing, her shoes next to yours in the sun
and your brother sits in a strange mood in the bed of the truck eating his second funnel cake, wearing a balloon hat and a balloon sword, eating, eating, his back to the crowd
you are the sunshine of the day, little black haired darling, a pink princess kitten with no shoes
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Our Nation faces a time in which its citizens are, all too often, complacent in the political arena, in which they pay little attention to issues of grave importance to the future of our Nation when each of us should be giving our all in support of values and traditions which have been passed, generation by generation, down to us by ancestors who were active in their political system and who cared enough about the future of their descendents to pay attention to what their representatives were doing in Washington. I have a story to tell about causes and people.
There is a woman in Springfield, a woman who, for years, stood alone to support the mission of her country's military in its fight in the war against terrorism, which includes the war in Iraq. A woman who has fought against the mind set that there is or should be no cost of freedom, that there is nothing worth fighting for, there was and is nothing worth laying our collective all on the line for, there is no country deserving of more respect than any other country, no system of government or values for which to hold higher respect than others, no country to be held to higher standards than its global political opponents who would have us believe that a system of hierarchy and totalitarianism is just as commendable as a system which has held its people should have a voice and should elect and hold responsible its government, elected by and of and for the people. A mind set which holds Hugo Chavez in high esteem as well as other dictators, a mind set which would place on a pedestal entities such as a Cindy Sheehan when she would call our President the biggest terrorist on the face of the Earth, as though his cause was less moral than those who would fly airplanes into buildings, killing approximately three thousand American citizens in the process, citizens guilty of nothing but going to work to earn a living to support their families, citizens with Mothers and Fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, children and friends. Citizens who believed in freedom of expression for all, who were accustomed to living their lives in absolute freedom and in absolute abundance so long as they were willing to work for that abundance and keep themselves free of their own, self accepted chains. But enough, I digress from my point.
Are we people of causes or people of loyalty to those who would promote the causes in which we believe? Are we people who will fight for freedom, or people who will blindly follow others? Are we people who no longer question the motives of others and, most of all, are we people who feel that if others do not toe our own individual ideological lines that we would cut them out of our lives entirely, never to look back, as though everyone in the world somehow owes us deep respect and we are above questioning? Do we, any of us, find ourselves holding others to higher standards than we hold ourselves? Do any of us question others motives and yet leave no room for questions about our own loyalty and if we do, while championing our cause, is it our cause we are championing or ourselves?
There is a story, of which I have become privy to the inside discussion. A story in which I have read private email exchanges and heard public admonitions. A story in which one who immigrated, legally, here to America and stands against anti war protesters and illegal aliens thumbing of their noses at our laws but in the process...
...in the process, does not allow for questioning of what he does, at least in this instance, by doing so he would take questions to a wide public audience, and though not naming you by name, this person will question your patriotism because you dared to question his motives. Is it about people, or is it about the cause? Is it about "getting off the couch," or is it about following the leader?
My friend has a daughter in the Navy. I have her permission to post an email she sent to a particular radio talk show host and I have the reply of that radio talk show host to her email. I do not have this radio talk show host's permission to post his email and therefore I will not. That radio talk show host read my friends email on the air, without identifying her. I could certainly post his here without identifying him but I would not without his express permission, that does not prohibit me from commenting on it's content, however, and I intend to do so. He has a platform which he may use to speak to the entire region, my friend has only her consistent and historic support for an ongoing cause to represent her. I have no *blind loyalty* to offer her but she has earned my respect. Here is my friend's email, which I must type for you as I didn't save it in my mail but I do have a paper copy of it and of the reply of said talk show host.
The email of my friend, just as it was read on the air in Springfield and the regions surrounding it. I made no corrections but did emphasize a point glossed over by the host and I removed names:
"Just want to let you know how disappointed I am in your choice of program guest. As you know I strongly believe in the ability to exercise our freedom of speech and since it is your program you certainly have the right to have whoever you wish on. I guess I'm trying to figure out why you would give your air time to help support the peace networks most highly publiced figure. I have received many emails and phone calls this morning from different people trying to figure out exactly what you're doing. The person who has tried to build a solid reputation here in springfield for supporting our Military and upholding high family values and openly showing their strong Christian Beliefs has really got a lot of our Springfieldians shaking their heads. That's not to mention the reaction and the fuel you have given certain big church leaders who have tried to discredit you and your program. Wow ____ I dont think that I've been more disappointed since I found out there wasn't a Santa Claus. I feel that this has greatly discredited us and besides it really warps me the wrong way its crap like this that gives fred Phelps group a chance to speak out...Think you missed the boat on this one _____ ____ ___"
This email was replied to venomously, in my opinion, by the talk show host. My friend's "loyalty" was questioned. My friend's trustworthiness was questioned. His guest was touted as being good at furthering his point of view and those who questioned what he was doing were excoriated for not calling into the show to counter that point of view, though my friend had called in that day. My friend's intelligence was questioned as though she weren't "cerebral" enough to understand what he was doing and the person, my friend, who stood on city streets in counter protest to anti war activists all alone for years before this talk show host ever hit town was told not to ever email him again. Now, reader, go back and read my friend's email again, did it warrant such a diatribe? I ask you again, are you supporting your cause or are you blindly following your leader? Is this about questioning our leaders?
I must say I am somewhat amused. The great champion of all our causes, the one who excoriates certain other city leaders for being unwilling to go on the air with him to answer his questions is above questioning in a private email by one who considered him friend. Don't ever email me again!? Puhlease.
Today there was a Pro-America rally, I was unable to attend because I had some things to do for my Mother, sometimes our little lives get in the way of our activism, don't they? :) but my friend was there. Let's not ever forget the "cause" is sometimes bigger than the "personalities" who promote them. Let's be sure and take advantage of every opportunity for activism in support or opposition of important issues but let's do it for the cause, not for the people who may or may not support it.
It is not my intention to take sides with one or the other personalities involved in this story. I merely wish to be active in supporting my own causes and in the truth. I welcome the promotion of important causes by radio talk show hosts and private citizens, alike, that said, respect is something earned, not something to which any of us, including myself, should feel entitled.
End of sermon. ;)