Make a difference

the starfish Story:

I awoke early, as I often did, just before sunrise to walk by the ocean's edge and greet the new day. As I moved through the misty dawn, I focused on a faint, far away motion. I saw a youth, bending and reaching and flailing arms, dancing on the beach, no doubt in celebration of the perfect day soon to begin.

As I approached, I sadly realized that the youth was not dancing to the bay, but rather bending to sift through the debris left by the night's tide, stopping now and then to pick up a starfish and then standing, to heave it back into the sea. I asked the youth the purpose of the effort. "The tide has washed the starfish onto the beach and they cannot return to the sea by themselves," the youth replied. "When the sun rises, they will die, unless I throw them back to the sea."

As the youth explained, I surveyed the vast expanse of beach, strectching in both directions beyond my sight. Starfish littered the shore in numbers beyond calculation. The hopelessness of the youth's plan became clear to me and I countered, "But there are more starfish on this beach than you can ever save before the sun is up. Surely you cannot expect to make a difference."

The youth paused briefly to consider my words, bent to pick up a starfish and threw it as far as possible. Turning to me he simply said, "I made a difference to that one."

I left the boy and went home, deep in thought of what the boy had said. I returned to the beach and spent the rest of the day helping the boy throw starfish in to the sea."

Should the Words "Under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?

I disagree. It is not for the Court to decide whether or not to take God out of our Pledge of Allegiance. For one thing, if they rule that is a violation to those children in public school right's and take "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, then they will be violating the rights of Christians all over America. To us, our nation is Under God, and always will be. It doesn't violate the Separation of Church and State, simply because it isn't commanding that every citizen of America worship God as their Father. The Pledge of Allegiance is a way to show that Americans stand together, through the good and the bad. It states that we are indivisible as a people. Mr. Docherty once said,"there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." He was referring to the words that were later added on June 14, 1954. Eisenhower said
"These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded."
I think that is true. This was how our nation was founded, this was the religion the United States was founded on. Anyone can live in the United States but just as we respect their religion, they should respect the religion that the U.S. was founded on. If these words were ommited, then it would no longer be a pledge to our nation. It would be a phrase of empty words that had no meaning, and no usefulness. Students should not be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance with out the words Under God in them because you would be taking away the only reason to state such a pledge. If those words are removed, then the pledge is rendered meaningless and there is no point to say it anyway. In answer to a question I was asked, I believe that my grandparents would agree with me. There is no sense in removing the phrase "under God" and in their day even suggesting that would have been tantamount to treason. Frankly, I believe it still should be.

what it means to be a republican...

I give props to the man that wrote this story.... it is unbelievably true! I had to copy it and let my readers see this!

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, which she expressed openly. One day, she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He stopped her and asked her point blank how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your good friend Mary doing?”

She replied, “Mary is barely getting by.” She continued, “She barely has a 2.0 GPA,” adding “and all she takes are easy classes, and she never studies. But Mary is so very popular on campus. College for her is a blast. She goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her father then asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0?” He continued, “That way, you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I worked really hard for mine. I did without and Mary has done little or nothing. She played while I worked real hard!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Gun Violence: Do they have the right to take away our Second Amendment Rights?

Absolutely in no possible way. The founding fathers wanted the government to be kept out of the people’s personal affairs. Keeping a gun in your home to protect your family is your business. If they take away the right then there will be even more violence, because you can kill someone without a gun and it is often more brutal and vicious than a gun. Guns are our right. We need them for protection, and we use them for hunting. They have been part of our lives since they were created. No one likes aggression, but people have a violent nature. Everything can be used for the wrong reason. In addition, I think even thieves would tell you that they would rather be shot by a little old grandma trying to protect her grandkids than have dull kitchen knives thrown at them. The choice to own a gun is our right. If the government has a problem with it then they can request that the person who tries for the license to own a gun go through a course of how to use the gun safely. You cannot focus on the awful things that happen because of guns. Many people die each year, and more die from car crashes than by someone shooting them. The government should learn that they cannot control the people, and the people should raise their voices in protest against this extreme crossing of our rights. You cannot sign our rights that we fought for as a country away on a little sheet of paper and expect people not to rebel. All it will cause is more people to go underground to get them. I would think they would have more things to do than worrying about who owns a gun in their home. I have two words for the morons who are against guns: Black Market. Stopping the legal ownership of guns will not stop the ownership at all. And if you think the people who are using the guns for ill will turn them in willingly, then you have lost your marbles. And by taking away the people who only own a gun for protection, then you are stopping them from protecting their families. Their blood will be on your hands. You have as good as murdered them.

A.R.K.

A.R.K.

When most people hear the word ark, they think, Noah. But if God ever asks me to build an ark, I look at it this way. Since he said he would never cause another flood like that, there has to be another meaning. A.R.K. Acts of Random Kindness. There are a lot of people in the world, and if you think about it, that's not such a bad idea. If I could make somebody's day better by just giving them a hand with the stuff they are carrying or smiling at them in the hallway, then that would be an act of kindness. Have you ever helped someone, and then got a smile so big, that you feel like you just handed them the world? I have, and let me tell ya, it feels great. I didn't do it to show I could be nice to someone, in fact, I didn't think about it at all. But that thoughtless act proved to make that woman's day. I just helped her carry her stuff, but maybe I did more than that, I don't know. Maybe she had had one of those days where the boss was yelling and you can't please anyone and you can't do anything right. I don't know. What I do know, is that she couldn't stop thanking me. It made me feel as if I had done something great, and it was so small a thing, and didn't take any up any of my time. (Thats the excuse isn't it?? That we're to busy?) Like the Free Hugs movement that is sweeping over the world, the littlest things make a difference, now no, I don't really want to go up and hug a random stranger, I would rather help the random stranger to the car, or hold their place in line if they are chasing after their toddler. But, to each their own. My act of random kindness today might just be telling you about this bigger picture. Life is to short not to treat it as if it were a huge adventure. And so, I start building my ark.