Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney

Why Mitt Romney is Unlikeable. A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney's not being "likable" or that he doesn't "relate well" to people. Frankly, we struggled to understand why. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this "unlikeablility."     Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney: 1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief. 2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS. 3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?) 4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary. 5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School... and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed. 6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America? 7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS! 8. Has a family of five great sons....and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn. 9. Oh yes.....he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest. 10. And one more point.....pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF.....as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unrelatable to Americans. My goodness, it's a strange world, isn't it? ***************************************************** Personal Information: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney. He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old. His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan. He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children. Education: B.A. from Brigham Young University, J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University Religion: Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints Working Background: After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary. After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney. In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States. In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy. He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit. Some Interesting Facts about Romney: Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people. Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply and many others. He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year. He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years. He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years. He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years. He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years. He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity. Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men. And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income.... Just for comparison purposes,Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%. Mitt Romney is Trustworthy: He will show us his birth certificate He will show us his high school and college transcripts. He will show us his social security card. He will show us his law degree. He will show us his draft notice. He will show us his medical records. He will show us his income tax records. He will show us he has nothing to hide. Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States. You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won't like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney's background can do it. But, on the minus side, he never was a "Community Organizer", never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.

 

Why I will be watching the Democratic Convention this week

Many know of my leanings politically, so it may surprise some of you to know that I will likely be watching most of the Democratic Convention this week from Charlotte with attention and a desire to glean from it what can help me make the best informed choice.

A question I have been asking a lot of people recently is “What are the issues that are important to you this election”.  It is a question I am asking with sincerity because I am convinced that people make choices because it “makes sense to them”, so whenever I encounter a point of view that doesn’t make sense to me, I first ask myself the question, “how does the world occur to this person?”  Often, I find that even when I end up disagreeing with a course of action, I am better informed about the underlying principles and goals of the other person.  This can provide a better space in which to engage in a discussion that can lead to a better decision for all.

So, why am I going to watch the Democratic Convention?

First, I believe it is our civic duty to be an informed electorate.  It is simply not enough to depend on media outlets from MSNBC to FOX News and everything in-between to filter what we should know.  It is important to listen to each party's unvarnished presentations and combine that with additional research to form a more informed decision.

Second, there is a huge difference between skeptical and cynical.  If we take the position that the parties deserve no respect out of a cynical belief that both are corrupt and unworthy of our attention, then we make ourselves victims of the process.  Certainly, it is healthy to be skeptical, to question the authenticity and validity of claims and statements, but when we take the position that everything that is put out by a party is unworthy of consideration because it is inherently false and misleading, we abdicate our rights and powers as citizens to maintain this republic as an institution that is worth preserving and has the possibility of making a difference for our lives and the lives of future generations.

Third, I believe that at the core of each of the parties, when you consider their ideals and aspirations, each has something worthy to offer.  Oversimplifying a bit, to me the Republican party stands for maximizing personal freedom and responsibility, it intends to create an environment of opportunity that allows for individuals to grow as far as their hopes, dreams, ambitions and hard work will take them and strives to keep government out of our lives as much as possible.  For me the Democratic Party stands for justice, caring for those who struggle to care for themselves and fairness for all.  It stands for a shield to those who otherwise would not have a voice in our society.  This is the magic of our two party system.  I believe that given the right questions, respecting these ideals, much good can be accomplished in our society.

Do each of the parties fall short of these ideals?  Of course!  After all they are made up of human beings, and I have no illusion that individuals, unbridled by constraint are capable of selfish, irresponsible and despicable acts.  I see no lack of evidence of examples of foolishness and intentional and unintentional exploitation on both sides of the aisle.

So it is how I listen to the convention presentations that make the difference to me.  Out of a foundation of considering the respective parties at their ideals, I listen for what is the essence of the issue.  I ask myself the following questions:

1)      What is the real problem we are trying to solve here?  For example, is the question “should we preserve Medicare as it is?” or is a better question, “How can we insure that our senior citizens who need it, have access to quality healthcare that is both sustainable and does not demand so much from our citizens that it puts at risk our economic well-being?”  I suggest that the second is the better question.

2)      What are the hard facts regarding the problem?  Are we operating out of assumptions?  Or are we making fact based informed decisions?  In too many situations, our aspirations color our thinking and we come to poor decisions based on misinformation and bias.

3)      What options (to solve the problem) should we consider?  Do the options a) solve the problem? b) Does not create new problems that exceed the value of the problem that is being solved?

4)      Finally, what are the costs of implementing the solution?  How well do we understand the total costs?  (Not merely the $ costs)  Do the costs exceed the value of the problem solved?  If they do, it would argue for no action, at this time, until better, more affordable solutions can be implemented.

So, I will be listening to this week’s convention, from a position of each party’s best ideals, working to avoid cynicism, but with a healthy skepticism to what the speakers say.  I will apply my four point process to evaluate proposals and work toward making the best decision I can to elect leaders that will address the issues in a constructive way that will lead to a better tomorrow for ourselves, our families and the next generation.

I hope you will join me in this endeavor.  We may not always agree on priorities and methods to achieve a better future, but if we work together with respect, we will move our country forward in a way that leads to a more prosperous and just society.

Is the Tea Party Selfish and Bigoted?

Recently an acquaintance  wrote a Blog entitled: Who's Sorry Now.  In the Blog the writer begins with some statements that are allegedly attributed to the "Tea Party" and then goes on to state that their views on who makes up the tea party and their motivations.

Below is my point by point response to their allegations.  Tell me what you think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red,

I have a different take on your characterization of the tea party. 

In your post, you begin by stating, “The Tea Partiers have a lot of interests, most of which consist of things they are against.”

This is not how I find people who support the tea party.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I find members of the tea party to be genuinely for principles of liberty and the values embedded in the constitution.  In fact, this is it’s mission statement taken from the teaparty.net website…

The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded, Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:

• Limited federal government • Individual freedoms • Personal responsibility • Free markets • Returning political power to the states and the people

You claim the “They are against government”.  I disagree, as noted above they are for limited government which is something quite different from “against government”.   You state that they “aren’t all that concerned over its regulating Wall Street.”  On this one, you may have a point.  But you see it is not because no one cares about the corruption and self-serving actions taken by individuals during the Wall Street meltdown.  Rather, the tea-party is for “Personal Responsibility” and holding those individuals who contributed to the meltdown accountable for their actions.  The best way to do this is to have a vibrant court system in which injured parties have the right to recourse.  In addition, where federal and state laws have been broken, those responsible should be brought to justice.  Additional regulation makes companies and institutions beholden to bureaucrats rather than clients and customers.  An environment where bureaucrats  hold significant sway on businesses and business decisions often leads to inefficient responses to customer needs and higher costs to meet the regulations which we the consumer then pay for.  Further, and perhaps more dangerous, is the risk that what may start out as a well-intentioned program with well-meaning civil servants evolves into a corrupt system in which government bureaucrats become susceptible to bribes and other forms of corruption so that companies yield to a temptation of focus on achieving influence rather than serving customer needs.  This is the dark side of regulation.

You said, “ They’re against immigration”. First, I go back to the mission statement and ask, in what part do you see anything that has to do with immigration?  What evidence exists that they are against immigrants.  The tea party members that I know don’t hate immigrants, they respect and admire immigrants.  A mantra that is shared with the tea party is one that is on all of our money, “E Pluribus Unum” , “Out of many, One”.  This is a uniquely American principle that says, the rights embedded in our constitution are available for all regardless of blood line or ethnic background.  Yes, we may have come from many different backgrounds but regardless of our ethnic heritage, we are all Americans and have a common creed that binds us such that any individual is free to pursue happiness in their own way.  Finally, I personally have enormous respect for those who came to this country and properly pursued citizenship.  A wonderful couple I know have shared with me their long a arduous journey to citizenship from their native Nairobi.  My respect for them is unbounded.  Regardless of your stance on the issue of immigration, I simply think that is unfair that this wonderful couple invested themselves into the legal immigration process while others simply cross the borders and take up residence.  What is fair about that?  Either we should allow all people from all countries to come to the US without regard to any standards or immigration policy or we respect the need for a rationale policy of how we manage the process of integrating those from other countries into our society.  It is absolutely unfair to single out one group, primarily from one country and provide them with a special standard that is not applied to others from the rest of the world.

You said, “They don’t like paying taxes, but don’t seem to care much one way or the other about high income tax cuts or other benefits like the multitude of loopholes that benefit the very rich.”  The issue here is one of free markets vs government solutions.  First, it is well documented that the top earners in our country already pay a disproportionate share of taxes.  According to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of all Adjusted gross earners pay 36.73% of the Federal Income Tax.  The top 5% of AGI pays 58.67% of the Federal Income Tax.  Now you apparently feel that is not enough.  My question is what do you think is the right % that the top 5% should pay?  Nearly 60% is not enough????????  From my point of view, this a a grossly unfair burden on a very limited number of individuals and makes us as a nation even more dependent on the success of these individuals for our total tax revenue.  This seems like a risky proposition to me.  Our revenue fortunes rise on these individuals success.   With so much of our present revenues dependent on the success of these individuals, wouldn’t it make sense to encourage even more success for them as this would translate into higher government revenues?

You said. “They dislike people of color on general principle” again, where do you find that in any of the tea party principles?  This is not my experience at all.  Have I ever seen a nut who claims some tea party affiliation ever rant in a thoughtless bigoted manner?  Simple answer yes!  Still that is not an indictment of the entire group.  Evidence of bigotry and stupidity is something that is not limited to a few kooks who claim tea party affiliation.  I see evidence of crazy bigoted behavior on all sides of the spectrum.  (I can send you a you tube link that documents clearly racist behavior against a group of white supporters of a candidate in the Richmond, VA area from the last election cycle, while police simply looked on with little regard)  My point here is that the bigoted and senseless behavior of a few should not indict an entire group.

Finally, you state, “Most of them don’t care about outsourcing jobs because their number is currently top heavy with pensioners”.  I have a different interpretation, going to the principle of free market ideals.  Another way to describe outsourcing is “free market” of capital and labor.  If a shoe manufacturer is forced to maintain a US work force and the labor costs are much more that a competitor, then the finished goods for each will have different prices for similar quality shoes.  The US company must either charge higher prices to maintain margin and therefore lose share or they choose to charge the same price in which case their margins are squeezed.  In either case, this ultimately leads to the shoe manufacturer going out of business and then all of the jobs are lost.  That is not how to create jobs my friend.

Ok, that is enough for today.  Thank you for letting me offer you my point by point response to your provocative post.  I welcome your respectful response back.

LetFreedom_Ring

Some Thoughts on Our First "Gay" President

I know that some time back I stated that I would not engage in the so called "Gay Marriage" debate as I think that this is a discussion that has lost any semblance of rational thought about and that it has instead become an emotional cause celeb within our culture.  However, recently, Newsweek annointed our President as the First Gay President.  I simply had to offer my thoughts one last? time.

A friend of mine provided a link to a site entitled "10 Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage".  This led to a discussion about what it means to be married in America today.  Below are some of my thoughts on the matter.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Open Letter To my Well Meaning Supporters of Gay Marriage,

Thank you for your humorous post that intends to shame us into seeing the bigotry of our position. 

I get it. You want to re-define marriage. Ok. I accept your proposal to redefine marriage. So.... What should the new definition be? Why that definition? What is the intended purpose for codifying that definition into state law? Just asking. 

If you are seeking my support for your new definition I need to understand the purpose and why the state should extend rights and benefits to same sex couples and deny rights to other forms of relationships. Again, what should the new definition be?

Let's Take Out the Religious Argument for A Moment

Let's begin by taking out for a moment the religious aspects to marriage, and simply focus on why the state is involved in marriage at all.  Looking at over nearly a century and a half of marriage and family law, you see a clear pattern that squarely places the foundation of the laws associated with marriage and family on a fundamental principle of protecting women and children.  That is why we had marriage and family law in the first place or at all as a state sponsored/regulated institution.  

Until 1850, there were no State Laws Governing Marriage

There were no state laws covering marriage or children at all in the US until New York enacted legislation, primarily designed to protect women in the 1850s. Over the years the notion of what constitutes marriage and family law has evolved and spread to all other states.

In a watershed moment in the late 60s/early 70s California began the latest round of marriage and family law shifts with its introduction of the no-fault divorce.

The primary purpose of all of the laws that have been enacted up to and including the no-fault divorce laws were primarily designed to protect women and children in those relationships. So we have nearly a century and a half of marriage and family law whose primary purpose was to protect families especially women and children.
Today We Are Being Asked to Consider Something Very Different

Now we are being asked to expand and extend the definition of marriage to include a group of people for whom it was never the intention to cover in the original purpose of the laws governing marriage. I am not arguing that the state should not alter or expand the rights and privileges of citizens, I am simply pointing out that to accomodate this change, we must consider the foundational principles we are using to support the change.

So, you see, it is a redefinition.  Especially as you consider it from a legal perspective. Also what you are proposing is based upon introducing an altered/expanded purpose for these laws.

If your argument rests upon the idea that you are eliminating discrimination, I suggest that this is not, in fact, the case.  What you are proposing continues discrimination. Why?  It continues discrimination in excluding marriages within families (think brother/sister, father/daughter) and it continues to exclude marriages between other forms of domestic partnerships such as polygamist relationships.

So it is clearly seen that the argument, that we are doing this in order to eliminate discrimination is, in fact, not true. So, my question remains what should be the definition of marriage? Further, and of more relevance, what should be, from a state perspective, the purpose of marriage (or at least the laws that support marriage)?

Now you may conclude from this writing that I am anti-gay. I disagree. My question is more a fundamental policy question. What I am looking to understand is that if we are going to expand the rights of a particular group of people then what is the purpose of that expansion of those rights?  Why should we provide those rights to those people and not others.

A Radical Suggestion

I have a radically different view on the whole situation. I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business completely. That all relationships, from the perspective of the state, should be defined in a form of civil contract. No (state) marriages at all.

Marriage and marriage ceremonies would revert to the auspices of religious institutions. So anyone could be "married" as long as the religious institution would confer that title but it would have no legal standing. The legal standing for the relationship would be defined by civil contract, a "civil union" for all.  Marriage (as commonly understood by religious institutions) and Civil Unions (the underpinning legal set of rights for people, would, in-fact, be two separate things.

This point of view would allow for the preservation of traditional marriage for those Americans that value that while at the same time allowing for the rights and responsibilities to be conferred upon any reasonable relationship. we could look at it not from an emotional perspective but really from a policy perspective.

Final Thoughts, Resigned to the Inevitable

My final thoughts are that for some time I have felt that technology powerfully impacts society and the values we share.  In many respects, the introduction of the birth control pill has led to a fundamental shift of sex from one whose primary purpose is to have children to one whose primary purpose is to have pleasure.  Certainly both have always been present, but there has been a fundamental shift in what is primary.  Add to this an overpopulated world in which technology performs so much of our labor and children become an economic burden instead of a benefit.  The perceived value of families, in general and children in particular goes down.   Finally, through technology and social mores, it is no longer a necessity to have a man and woman "lay together" in order to conceive children and you have a perfect storm in which new "definitions" of family are not just possible, they are almost inevitable. 

So, I return to the stand I took months ago when I stated I would not engage in this debate any more as I think it is not worth fighting and other more fundamental issues are before us.  The "gay" marriage train has left the station and I think that it is invitable.  If given an opportunity to vote against it, I will, because I do not agree that this is the best solution for our society.  We have been well served with marriages in which there is one man and one woman.  I value children and their well being.  The evidence remains overwhelming that children are best served in a loving, stable, comitted relationship in which a father and a mother are married to each other.  I believe that the state should continue to respect and protect families and children.  I will continue to argue for these ideals of family.  I simply think that because of technology, my position is one that is not shared by an ever increasing wave of a generation who operates in a self-focused world of pleasure that no longer sees the value in old fashioned concepts such as husband/wife, father/mother, children of values.

So I am resigned to the inevitable.  Have your new definition.  Just remember, there are long term consequences to these decisions that you may not have completely thought through.

Your thoughts my friend?

A Response to The Secret Republican Guide to Talking About Gay Marriage

Recently Business Week published an article entitled The Secret Republican Guide to Talking About Gay Marriage. 

Several readers posted comments regarding the article that were wide ranging.  Many of them criticized Republicans for things that had nothing to do with the article or the issue.  Following was my response....

I am sorry that all of you are attacking Republicans/Conservatives with your ill-informed opinions when the facts speak otherwise. Free-enterprise has done more to lift up the poor and down-trodden than any government program has. A review of history shows that those countries that embrace economic freedom most have the best conditions on the poor. Those countries that control and limit free enterprise the most have greatest % of the poor. You want evidence consider China and Venezuela. The former has moved more and more to a freer enterprise economic model while Venezuela has done the opposite. China has lifted the greatest number of people out of poverty while as a % of the population, Venzuela has been most destructive to the middle class with enormous shifts of people into poverty.

Republicans/Conservatives tend to be the most generous donors to private charity. According to an article published in the New York Times, "Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."
So while liberalism in general and Democrats in particular talk a good game, the facts support that Republicans/Conservatives values actually do the most to lift the poor and less fortunate out of their circumstances.

Finally, according to a recent article in the Washington Post, Conservatives, in general, seem to be at least as committed as liberals to tolerance. They simply are seeking ways of achieving a positive impact on society through most private means (as opposed to government solutions and mandates).

To be clear, I believe that society functions best in a world where traditional views of marriage are uplifted and protected. However, I recognize that the people have the right to define marriage in other ways, even if I may not agree. If the people create new statutes, I will respect the will of the people. To me, focusing on same-sex marriage and birth control pills is a side-show and that the greatest threat to our country and our way of life is the shift in our society from one of individual responsibilty to one of entitlement. Providing an ever increasing segment of our society with benefits with no or little demand for earning that, eats at our core values and leads to a selfish and dark society in which the only way to get ahead is through luck and government connections. If you are like me, you believe that there is dignity in earning what you have and that any indvidual who earns what they posess is worthy of respect. For me, Republicans and Conservatives seem to embrace these values better than Democrats and liberals.

California Dreaming?

When Jerry Brown was re-elected, I shook my head and thought of Eintein's Maxim, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". Why the voters of California would re-elect the orginal Governor 'Moonbeam" and expect something different is beyond me.

I love California. It is my home state and appreciate the wonderful weather, landscape, and beaches, etc, etc. Often, I hear from my children and others who are young, how much they long to go 'California Dreaming' and live in the warmth of the "Beach Boys' Sun". Unfortunately, what they are longing for is a dream that no longer exists. The idea of California does not match up to the reality of California. It is now a land of failed vision that can only be enjoyed by the wealthiest or the poorest. If you are part of the middle class, you struggle to find work, when you do, you are paid less than workers in other states and then your cost of living (food, housing, transportation, taxes) is higher than almost anywhere else.

As I sit hear in my Virginia home and look out on a street that is cold with ice around, I am reminded of Randy Newman's song "I Love LA" and long for the sunny days of my youthful boyhood home in Whittier. However, I then wake up and realize that it is just a dream and the reality of what has taken it's place, in California, is a nightmare.

So, until the 'climate' changes there, I will simply put on my sweater, and patiently wait for Spring to arrive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204542404577156871353490202.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle%26commentId%3D3632399

A Decade Later - What Have We Truly Lost?

It was a bright sunny day. I was traveling from Pennsylvania to NJ on my way to work when I got a phone call from my wife Cheryl . She said, "turn on your radio, I think a plane just hit the WTC". I turned on the radio fully expecting it to be some errant piper cub to discover the surreal horror that it was in fact a jet airliner. I listened with a mixture of confusion and shock. Then the truly unbelivable happened, as I was listening the announcer shouted "the second tower has been hit" My mind went numb.
Today I pray for all victims of that tragic set of acts on that dark day.

American Sunrise 9/11/11

As a nation we seem to have lost something It seems as bad or worse as the darkest times of the 70s when we were plagued as a nation that was in a "malaise" as President Carter infamoulsy said.

Today our nation has a hole bigger than New York in its soul. We are not a bad people, we simply have lost our way and forgotten who we are.

So I include in my prayers that we as a nation have our spirit renewed. That spirit that says 'together we make a difference'. That our people, born out of the crucible of coming here from many lands to taste the precious waters of freedom all for a chance to realize a dream.

All of us who are here are decendants of those sturdy survivor/dreamers.
God has blessed us in many ways. With providence, it is now up to us once again. The spirit of us, as Americans, is noble. Time to reawaken and set free the greatness of the spirit of our people.

While we have made mistakes along the way, there is nothing that we can't accomplish simply by calling forth that uniquely American passion that we will bring to ourselves and our children a better world. And then, each of us in our own way, going out daily to do our part to realize that dream.
Some might look at the photo of the flag that I posted and see it as an American Sunset. I prefer to see it as an American Sunrise. It is at half mast as a fitting requiem to those who have sacrificed before us. There are still clouds that fill the horizon, but the sun is coming up and bringing with it renewal.

Let Freedom Ring!