Gun Violence and the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

I think most gun owners and non-gun owners alike will agree that something needs to be done about the seemingly recent rash of gun crimes, especially in schools and other areas typically associated with being safe places to be. The question is, “What?” To jump to one conclusion and focus on only one of the many issues involved in violent behavior, and especially school shootings, is seriously short-sighted. In an effort not to make a knee-jerk reaction to the recent Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, I’ve waited to gather as much of the information as I could before adding my two cents to the plethora of information stemming from the incident in Newtown, Connecticut. It's easy to assume most normal human beings want common sense laws and efforts aimed at keeping children safe. Reducing not just gun violence, but violence in general--especially aimed at defenseless children in our schools--is one of the most important tasks we face. We also should want to do whatever is possible to keep the teachers who work in our schools safe. The school shooting at Sandy Hook brings up a lot of questions, and those using their common sense should be able to agree that there isn’t only one thing that will provide a simple solution. If we are serious about finding new solutions to this never-ending problem it’s time to change our old tired and failed methods of protection for our children and innocent teachers just trying to do their job. So where do we start? My suggestion is to rule out the things that are the least likely culprit for the cause of school shootings and focus our attention on that which will have the most swift reduction in these types of senseless crimes. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type. The FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives. Knowing this, it’s interesting to note that only when a gun is the object used to perpetrate a crime that the person actually responsible for the blame is rarely the focus of the media or the blame. When a man slaughters his family with a knife, no one is clamoring for the ban of steak knives. When a violent gang uses machetes in a murderous spree against rival gang members, no one calls for the confiscation of machetes or hatchets. When chemicals in the home kill children, we don’t call for the closing the chemical factories. Even though automobiles cause far more casualties on a yearly basis (more than 32,000 deaths) than almost anything else in America, no one is calling for a halt to the manufacturing of automobiles. When someone kills another by means of their 2000 lb. automotive projectile we typically believe in punishing the individual for his or her actions. However, the uninvolved drivers are not punished by having thier car taken away, yet isn’t it strange that when someone commits a crime with a firearm there is an outcry for all gun owners to give up their guns instead of holding the individual responsible for his own actions? If our government is so concerned about preventing deaths perhaps the answer is to confiscate our vehicles. Is removing all the vehicles from the road too drastic? Then let’s just eliminate a segment of the automobile deaths by eliminating a few models of vehicles. In fact, if we wanted to eliminate 93 deaths today all we have to do is ban vehicles right now. But we don’t. Why? Because it’s too convenient for us to have our vehicles even though thousands of people die every year in vehicles on the roads of America. Or, more aptly stated, we’re willing to sacrifice 32,000 lives every year simply because it would be inconvenient for the rest of us to give up these murder weapons. Focusing on the gun instead of the criminal seems to suggest we might as well have a trial involving only the gun and let the perpetrator off the hook.Why is it that in these cases so many politicians are so quick to blame an inanimate object instead of the very person who used an object in a manner it was never intended for? Why do these same politicians try so hard to push their agenda on those who never abuse these same items? Is there an underlying reason being kept from the public? In the days to come, we’ll be looking into the truth about why you’re being led to believe guns are the problem for school violence, and specifically how your attention is being diverted by the anti-gun lobby—and why. This article may be re-posted or printed in it’s entirety with the following included: This article previously posted on www.http://positivegsgoldnuggets.blogspot.com/ and is re-printed/re-posted here with the express consent of the author.

The Real Story Behind the Trayvon Martin Shooting - The Truth

I just can’t keep my mouth shut any more about the Trayvon Martin shooting case. I’ve been asked my opinion after what the media did to me, so here are my thoughts on:

President Obama: Saying if he had a son that, ‘…he’d probably look like Trayvon…’ That doesn’t seem to help the ‘all blacks look the same’ stereotype Mr. President, and it’s got nothing to do with the case, or guilt or innocence of the shooter.

The media: Why do you continue to show cute 14 year-old pictures of Trayvon Martin when he is now 17 and not the same kid he was then? If you go back far enough, you can find a cute picture of Hitler too. It’s all a matter of what you are trying to portray and it’s obvious the media in general is taking the side of Trayvon without even getting the facts. You continue to mention he was an A/B student as a sophomore. Well, guess what? He’s now a junior who was serving a two week school suspension, that a family ‘spokesperson’ has confirmed was for having a bag w/marijuana residue and was also suspended two other times for truancy and graffiti. And I can assure you from my personal experience with another juvenile that when a kid finally gets suspended, things have been going on for a very long time. Apparently kids change.

The ‘anti-gunners’ and the ‘gun-grabbers’: Nice job finding a high profile case you can exploit to further your anti-gun agenda. You keep mentioning he was ‘unarmed’. Doesn’t matter in a self defense shooting. A rapist, for example, doesn’t need to be ‘armed’ to get justifiably shot by the victim. For your information, ‘armed’ or ‘dangerous’ doesn’t need to be with a gun. And continuing to say he had Skittles in his pocket doesn’t have anything to do with what was going on at the ends of his fists. The question for justifiable self defense is made up of numerous things. One is a ‘disparity of force’ and it doesn’t require the perpetrator to have a gun. It means that you are at a disadvantage and could suffer bodily harm by the assailant. Don’t forget that Trayvon Martin was 6’ 3” and even if his weight of 140 lbs. is being correctly reported (I doubt it – that too is probably from when he was 14 like his picture), someone dressed in clothes that cover a frame of this height can surely appear menacing and threatening.

The Miami Heat basketball team: Are you kidding? You take a photo and write on your shoes to support someone you don’t know and have no idea about what happened? Speaking too loudly without knowing the facts is a good recipe for making yourselves look like idiots.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson: Is there anything these guys can’t turn into a racial issue!? Perhaps they should remember what someone who they may know once said:

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” – Malcom X

The Black Panther Party: Putting a bounty on George Zimmerman – who may be innocent? Who’s racist?

The U.S. Attorney General getting involved: All because the media has slanted the story so far in Trayvon Martin’s favor that he thinks he ‘should’ get involved to appease the masses? This shows the mental firepower of both him and his boss.

Trayvon Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton: Maybe we should listen to her when she says, “It’s not about black and white.” She’s also right when she says no one should be shot just because someone thinks they’re suspicious. That’s true. It’s also true that we don’t know just yet why Trayvon was shot.

Those saying George Zimmerman shouldn’t have followed Trayvon: George was a neighborhood watch captain. Had he not followed, and had a home been broken into, who do you think would be blamed for not doing his job?

Those who say George Zimmerman should not have been armed: Some people who have concealed carry permits like to carry 24/7 – it’s a habit. For those who do this every day, it’s just as comfortable as putting your wallet in your pocket. Why would someone remove their firearm to go outside – an arguably more dangerous place than in your own home? Maybe George Zimmerman would have been dead today had he not had his firearm.

Those who say George Zimmerman is racist: If you are basing it on the 911 phone call tapes, here's the truth: According to a recent investigation about the tapes, NBC severely edited the tapes to intentionally make Zimmerman appear racist. The report goes on to state: NBC's edited version stated: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black. Actual 911 call unedited: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy - is he white, black or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. This is a lot more than a simple "error on the production process." This is a purposed omission to batter ram their agenda on the American people. Also, mentioning someone’s color is one of the first things the police want to know so they can hone in on who to look for. What about when he said, “These **sholes, they always get away.”? He could have very well meant the kids doing the damage in the neighborhood. Making other assumptions or connections without additional facts can be dangerous.

The student walk-out protests: First, I hope the teachers were smart enough not to encourage or condone this activity. Teachers are supposed to teach based on facts and on what is. So hopefully they aren’t encouraging kids to make rash decisions prior to getting the facts. Second, if the kids missed any tests or assignments during the ‘walk-outs’, they should all get an ‘F’ with no opportunity to make it up. That would be teaching responsibility and accountability. You have the choice to do what you want, but once you make your choice, you can’t choose the consequence. They’d learn to be responsible if they show up to class like they’re supposed to.

The media disparaging George Zimmerman: Always using the worst photo possible and talking about things like him being arrested for ‘pushing a cop’ is purposely painting a bad picture and being arrested has no correlation for actually committing a crime. Cops make up charges all the time. Just ask the cops who arrested me.

Spike Lee: Tweeting the wrong address for George Zimmerman’s house!? Are you kidding? Now having the unrelated occupants living in fear of their life? Even if it was the right address, why would you want to have people know where a potentially innocent man is, especially when you know dang well you are putting his life in danger for doing so. If anything happens I would think at least a charge of 2^nd degree homicide should fall squarely on the shoulders of anyone doing such an irresponsible thing.

The bottom line is that we know nothing at this point and can’t make any assumptions unless we want to look like idiots. Maybe the police didn’t arrest George Zimmerman because he appeared to be acting in self-defense. True, it doesn’t matter what one is wearing for clothing – the actions of both people are what matters. And until we know what happened, we should all be very careful of convicting someone without the facts.

I'm not saying one side or the other is right. I'm just pointing out some obvious overlooked information. At this point things have gotten so out of hand that I can't imagine George Zimmerman getting a fair trial anywhere in the U.S. thanks to the knee-jerk reactions of the media and the general population falling into the trap of believing everything they read and forming opinions based on half-truths. (see again, the quote above by Malcom X) Continuing to allow these actions and sentiments to become the accepted norm is walking a very slippery slope that will backfire on all of us – only after it’s too late to turn around.

How to choose your charity

With the Holiday season fast approaching, I thought the following is a fitting topic for this post.

The man in this picture (who must be the worlds richest homeless man) was resting near a vacant Burger King on Rice Street in St. Paul, MN. I stopped by to ask if he had a few minutes to chat. He got out from under his blankets and we had a decent conversation.

I see this guy pretty much every day when I drive up and down Rice Street. You'll notice he has brooms laying across the top of the wheelbarrow, and any time he is on the sidewalks he's putting them to use. He spends every day sweeping the public street from one end to the other - a couple of miles in distance.

I asked what he does in the winter, as I pointed to his blankets. He told me he shovels, because his job is 24/7, 365 days per year. I actually meant I wanted to know where he stays, but the answer was still sufficient for the moment.

I told him I appreciated the job he was doing - keeping the streets looking so nice - and I handed him a $10 bill as we parted. He thanked me profusely as I walked across the parking lot to my car, and I think he was still thanking me as I drove off. I didn't know what to expect before I started talking to him, but I didn't expect the overwhelming gratitude. Had I known this was coming, he may have gotten a $20 instead.

There are two points I'm trying to make. The first is, as the title implies, is how to pick where you donate your money this Holiday Season. The answer lies in that exact statement - you pick where to donate your money. I chose this guy because I wanted to. He didn't pick me. And, I do think it's pretty cool that a guy who could do nothing all day chooses to work instead, even though he doesn't have to. It's ironic that so many people who have work, choose to not work all day. By choosing my own charity and directly donating the money, I know 100% of it is going to the charity. It's very common for charities that are contacting you are allocating only 10% to the charity. The other 90%? It goes to 'administrative fees' and 'advertising'.

When  you pick the charity yourself, two things happen - you feel good about it because you took the initiative to help someone, and the charity is probably going to be more appreciative because they are not expecting it. IT'S O.K. TO SAY 'NO' to charities that come knocking on your door. You can't possibly donate meaningful amounts to every charity that confronts you. Trying to please everyone is the surest way to please no one. Do you think ten gifts of ten dollars are going to be remembered by the ten charities you give them to? Or, will one charity remember the $100 you gave them when they really needed it most? Don't feel guilty about not giving to everyone.

The second point is about who get's my money again - and again....

The homeless man was more grateful than those who have asked me for my money in the past.  Most of the time the 'baristas' at the coffee shops never even say 'thanks' as you dump your tip into their jar. It's as if they feel they are automatically entitled to it. Why do you think I don't put my tip in those stupid jars. And if you do, why do you?

Who do you think should get my money? The homeless guy who can't stop saying 'thank you', or someone who shows no appreciation?

I've got a $100 tip waiting for someone for right around Christmas. My money is currently on the homeless guy.

Change for the better?

Why is it that the invention of plastic bags has seemingly changed the way we great each other? Now, almost single-handedly, there seems to be no equal in terms of how one particular product has  replaced our standard way of greeting people. Instead of the ‘old’ way of saying “Hi, how are you today?” It now seems to simply be, “Paper or plastic?”

I’m not sure why it couldn’t be, ‘Hi, how are you today? Would you like paper or plastic?’ Why must we completely eliminate our old system of pleasantly greeting each other first, and then follow that with the cold questions of grocery functionality? Why can’t today’s workers integrate a normal greeting, followed by that moronic phrase?

Perhaps it won’t be long before we are walking down the street and the greeting there, as we pass each other, will also be, “Paper or plastic?”. Surely I jest, yet this may actually be preferable to the way most people pass each other today with a blank stare. Similarly, being lost in a cell phone conversation, or listening to your new favorite songs on an i-pod while blocking out the rest of the apparently unimportant world isn’t a whole lot better. At least if we said “Paper or plastic?” to everyone we encountered, it would be a start back to that age-old thing we used to call ‘communication’.

Maybe the best thing that could happen would be to simply eliminate the ‘paper’ option at the grocery store all together. At least then they would have to say something a little more intelligent. But then again, it might turn into, “Bag, or no bag?”

Yeah, I’ll just carry it all by hand. Forget I even brought this up….

Got a problem sitting next to a guy in a bra and panties?

Apparently US Airways doesn't mind seating him next to you.

This one can be another topic chalked up to the slow destruction of the United States, due to the widely accepted, and devastating results, of our new 'politically correct' society.

Everyone's fear of offending someone else, even though it's occasionally the right thing to do, has created a society of wimps afraid to do what's right.

The article I just read talks about a man dressed in women's panties, a bra, and thigh-high stockings, who boarded a US Airways flight from Ft. Lauderdale, to Phoenix. No one working for US Airways asked him to cover himself, or get off the plane. According to a US Airways spokesperson, their policy is that anyone can fly as long as their genitals are covered. She said, 'We don't have a dress code...if they're not exposing their private parts, they're allowed to fly.'

I, for one, do not want to be seated next to this guy exercising what is no less than moronic judgement. I don't want my leg to touch this guy, and I wouldn't have any interest in seeing anything like that - especially trapped only inches away, on a four-hour flight.

The American civilization is declining at a dramatic rate due to the current generation's seemingly only motto - not to make anyone feel uncomfortable, welcome diversity, and let anyone do anything they want without judging.

There's no question when we use our god-given brains and common sense, that this case severely crosses the line of public decency. Other business have dress codes indicating things like, 'No shirt, No shoes, No service'.  Surely US Airways could implement a policy similar to these if they desired. I don't think too many people would argue with, 'Cover your *ss, or you don't get a seat'.

While some people will publicly argue that this is o.k., I don't think most of the population actually thinks that way. And I don't think most people would actually want to sit next to this guy. I think the biggest problem is that people are too fearful of hurting someone else's feelings by speaking up when they should.

If someone dressed this way wants to sit next to me on a flight, you better believe I'll be asking the flight attendant to seat him next to someone else. Hopefully my move will make everyone else bold enough to do the right thing, and presumably if no one wants to sit next to this guy, it will send a strong message to US Airways, or any other airline moronic enough to have a similar policy.

For those of you who are a bit squeamish about doing the right thing for fear of offending, here's the line I use to decide where I feel it's o.k. to voice my opinion - if it is something physical about a person that they have no control over, it's off-limits for comment. That's it. If it's something the individual chooses to do, causing others to be uncomfortable or inconvenienced, it's fair game. I don't cut on people, but the moronic actions people take are fair game for my big yap all day long.

Why I Don’t Care About What You Don’t Agree With

I was in the airport traveling from Philadelphia, on my way to Minneapolis. I was hungry for breakfast. I was at gate D9. There is a buffet-style restaurant right near this gate. I’ve been here before and I knew they had what I wanted for breakfast. Most airport and ‘travel’ food is mediocre, but as most goes, this was my first choice that day.

As I entered the line the girl employee looked at me. Apparently she didn’t know our language, or simply thought she didn’t need to talk. Either way, this must have been her way of saying, “Good morning. What can I get for you?”

I thought when I ordered, I’d try the same method communication that she was using – none. I found that to not work very well. We both just looked at each other for what seemed to be an eternity. Since I knew by now that she had either no communication skills, or a huge case of attitude-itis,  I decided to brake the silence by verbalizing my order in the form of, “I’d like the bagel with egg and bacon please.”

She responded by handing me a pre-made biscuit with egg and sausage. I told her that wasn’t quite right and repeated my order. Her response was, “These are faster.” I told her I appreciated her concern, but speed wasn’t really an issue for me since I was on time that day and my flight wasn’t leaving for another two hours. She told me the bagel I ordered would have to actually have the ingredients put on it by her, and then cut in half, by her, making it take her more time.

Now that I realized this was another typical slacker, (who would have found herself out on the street had I owned the joint) only concerned about her time. So I politely informed her that what I ordered was right there on the menu, and that is what I would like. She responded by telling me, “Well I didn’t make the menu and I don’t agree with it.” I told her it doesn’t matter if she agrees with it or not, that’s what I want.

There was another time I made an order elsewhere and was asked if I had the exact change because, “That would make it easier.” We don’t have to even guess for whom, but I can assure it didn’t have anything to do with making my (the customer’s) life any easier.

Welcome to the world of the entitlement generation where employees now think they run the business and can do whatever they want, and feel it is the customer’s responsibility to make their job easier – and still think they should get paid.

My prediction is that one of two things will eventually happen: 1.) Since this is the generation who will be owning the businesses in the future, we won’t have many places to patronize. Why? Because they obviously have no clue how to treat people. And 2.) This is going to result in no one patronizing them. And here’s the funny part. The people of that same generation who don’t want to do what’s required for success, still want (and expect) things to be done correctly for them.

This is good news for the majority of people who want to run a business in the future. Since the entitlement generation will do such a crappy job of operating businesses, this will make almost everyone else look better. And, the ones who simply do what it takes, will look like superstars compared to these bozos.

My particular choice is that whenever possible, confronted with such poor entitlement attitude and lack of effort, I will patronize another business that really cares enough to hire employees who really care. If all of us did the same, the owners would soon get the message, and the employees who aren’t willing to do what it takes will be right where they belong – walking the street, or in the unemployment line. It’s time to stop sanctioning this incompetence and start sending a message by patronizing the business owners who care enough to hire the right kind of people, invest in the proper training of new employees, and as a result, provide services and products worth purchasing, over and over again.

Thank a vet or current member of our military

Thanks to all current and past members of the U.S. Military!

We live in the greatest country on earth because of the sacrifices of our men and women in the U.S. armed forces.

Thank one of them today!

Common sense gun control

With all the rhetoric about gun control, deaths, and violence, I have yet to see a simple, logical, question about what any further tightening of gun control will do.

While all the numbers I have seen indicate less gun control laws actually make people safer, there are those who choose to see it differently.

So, for the sake of argument, lets say that the actual statistics can be used by either 'side' in this argument, and used to either side's advantage, or proof of a point. Let's take the numbers out of the equation and simply concentrate on logical, real-world scenarios, which is where all of this plays out anyway.

Let's say there are three people in a room: one who believes in concealed carry and has a gun, another who exercises the right to not carry, and a criminal with a gun.

If the person with no gun is in danger due to the criminal being present and having a gun, is that person in any more in danger because there is another person, a law-abiding citizen, who also has a gun.

If the person with no gun is being attacked by the criminal, is that same person with no gun in more danger with the concealed carry holder there to protect them? Most would argue that there is no more danger to unarmed person, and perhaps even less danger, since there is a chance someone can now defend the unarmed person.

Let's take it a step further and assume for a minute the world looks as it would with laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens. We could take it even further, such as the way things were in Chicago not long ago with the gun ban, where no one is allowed to have a gun.

This way, in a world banning guns, and in the previous scenario of the three people, the card-carrying permit holder now does not have a gun. The person exercising the right not to carry does not have a gun. And the criminal who previously had a gun now - has a gun. Yes, still has a gun.

Remember, gun laws, like other laws, only pertain to law-abiding citizens. Laws don't affect criminals.

So now, are we any safer in this hypothetical situation, in a world as it would look with strict gun control. Only the criminals have guns, and there is no one to defend anyone else, nor themselves, in any meaningfully comparable way.

All statistics and rhetoric aside, it's hard to argue with the common sense that will tell us that strict gun control can only make us worse off, by allowing only criminals to have guns. The allowance of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can not make us worse off, might be completely neutral, but may have the benefit of making us much safer in a situation calling for such.

Think about it.

Priorities

As I write this, the case involving Barry Bonds' accused use of steroids is underway, and in the hands of the jury. This case started in 2003, and as of this minute it is still unresolved.


That isn't what bothers me. It's the fact that this is being handled by the U.S. Court System. The United States has Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya, and a national budget issue that currently threatens to shut down the federal government, among other problems to contend with. And they are wasting their time on the game of baseball.

Let me fill the court in on something: almost ALL the winners are on steroids! You won't hear many other people say that, but it's time to face the truth. I'm not condoning the practice, but I certainly understand why. All it takes is for one person to take them, then if the others want to compete, they too must take them. That's all it takes - one person starting it.


It's like women and makeup. Once one girl makes herself prettier, now all the other girls have to keep up. My preference would be that no women wore makeup because I'd rather know what I'm getting, and eventually I've gotta see what you really look like. This is just as much of a crime as taking steroids. The prettiest girls will still be the prettiest without their makeup. The best athletes will still be the best without steroids - but once one person starts, the race is on.

So let's just all understand that it's about as controllable as stopping women from using their makeup. There are are ways to beat the tests including new drugs that don't show up. Then when they are able to be tested for, another new drug shows up. Let's just accept that it's not controllable.


Let's put our efforts where they belong and stop wasting our time on someone who plays a game, who may or may not have taken an illegal drug, based on some shaky evidence, of a questionable attorney. Sheeesh! Let's get our country in order first!

Politically Correct

In this country we all have the right to our opinion. That, however, does not make all our opinions right.


While I have no problem with people being sensitive to each other's situations, we may want to examine the extent to which so many seem to go just to make sure we don't offend.


It seems as if so many people are letting others get away with doing the wrong thing, simply because they are afraid to stand up for what is right and wrong.


We all see things on a daily basis that we know are wrong, yet we fail to speak out simply so we don't offend the other person.


Well the truth is, we can't be all things to all people. I don't advocate going out of our way to be sure we offend, but if we don't offend someone, we really aren't doing much with our lives.


If we take a look back in history, even the greatest people we can think of had someone opposed to them. It is the people who live a life of quiet, that also lead a life of quiet desperation.


Stand up for what you believe. You will offend somebody, but it's better than being a nobody.


Stand for something. Be passionate about what you do. These two things often lead to great success!

President Bush's Oprah Appearance

Again, not to get political, but this just happens to be a good example.


I just saw former President Bush's appearance on Oprah yesterday. While I'm not a big daytime (nor night time) tv watcher, I couldn't help but pay attention as I was eating dinner.

One of the things that struck me was how good of a person he really seems to be, largely because of what I often refer to as someone's 'character'. Character as I describe it is when someone has conviction in what they are doing, and does what they believe in, and does what they say they will, never allowing popular opinion to blow you off course, no matter what others may think.


It was obvious during the interview, and by looking at his presidency, that he is a man of character. He could have done a lot of things differently and been more popular, yet he stuck to what he believed in the face of adversity, and public criticism.

As a result his popularity diminished, but you can tell he feels good about holding his ground about his core values and what he believes.


I'd much rather follow a man who tells you what he believes and lets you know where he is going, and does what he says, even if it is opposite of what I believe, than a man who is only in it for popularity. Popularity holds no substance, is fleeting, and eventually means nothing.


By contrast, if you look at the current administration, who campaigned on getting the troops out of Iraq, closing Guantanamo Bay, and has done neither. Sure it was popular and useful to get elected, but how does it look now, knowing the person making those promises didn't keep them? 


I'm not making a political example here, it's just a good, current example of the difference in character. I know we can find other poor examples of both political parties and I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm just getting to the important point that it is much better to be unpopular and have great character, than it is to be popular and have a poor character.


In the long run, you will eventually be judged, based on your character. 

Fourth of July

The celebration of the day that our country decided to become great. O.K. maybe if you are a history buff, this isn't the exact day we decided to do so. The Continental Congress may have been the beginning, but in any case this is of course the day we remember as being the start of this great nation. Just as our forefathers took the big step, and huge risk, to move boldly forward as a great nation, always remember that any feat of greatness requires that first bold move forward. As individuals we too must not just decide, but actually take that first step to get things moving. Take this opportunity to make your first move toward that life you want - the one you know you are capable of. Then at this time next year, you can not just celebrate the birth of a great nation, but the birth of the new, great, you!

Memeorial Day coming soon

Just bought two Buddy Poppies, on two different days, from vets at my local Post Office. As is my typical routine, they were $20.00 each - by choice. I say this not to sound like I'm special, but so maybe more people will do the same. We need to show our appreciation for the great country we have, and it's ALL due to the men and women in uniform. I stayed and talked to them both on each day. One just turned 90, and was a blast to talk to. I learned a bit of new war info from each. With Memorial Day tomorrow, stop and think about what it means, and be sure to thank every man and woman in uniform that you possibly can! God Bless America!