Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Church of Obama???

Even the biggest Clinton or Bush koolaid drinkers weren't like this, folks! This is terrifying! However, Since they seem to be praying to Obama, wouldn't that be like a church? And if it is, wouldn't President Obama, as the spiritual leader of this church be in conflict with that so-called separation of church and state? Hmm....

Friday, September 25, 2009

The United States of America Is NOT a Democracy

The United States of America is NOT a democracy.

The republican form of government is a characteristic of a Christian nation. Now please understand that this has NOTHING TO DO with the REPUBLICAN PARTY. This is talking about a fundamental form of government.

“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.” - Exodus 18:21

That verse shows how the one or the few were just as important as the many – A REPRESENTATIVE OR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

A little history…

During the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s-1600s, The Catholic Church had gained a great deal of political power and was promoting and allowing things countrary to biblical teaching. One of those was the concept of “Divine Right” which is the foundation of Monarchism. Monarchism allowed kings in Europe to maintain bloodline and totalitarian power as given by God. Yes, in Romans 13, the bible addresses the responsibility of Christians to governing authorities. They are to “be subject to” – which generally means to obey – the government because it has been ordained by God. Paul is speaking here of the general principle of submission to government. There are several other passages that show that God approves of Christians DISOBEYING government, but ONLY WHEN OBEDIENCE TO GOVERNMENT WOULD MEAN DISOBEYING GOD (Exodus 1:17- 21; 1 Kings 18:4–16; Ester 4:16; Daniel 3:12–18 & 6:10; Matthew 2:12; Acts 5:29; Hebrews 11:23). There were even times when God raised up leaders to REBEL against the government and deliver his people from evil rulers (Exodus 1–14; Judges 2:16; Hebrews 11:32–34). However, once biblical understanding became prominent over obedience to church, it was the Reformation movement that came up with the concept of an authentic separation of church and state that still honored God. This is not the modern anti-religious argument being debated today, but a fundamental understanding of how God expects us to govern ourselves.

It was also the Reformation the promulgated the concept of Freedom of Conscience. In general, this is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints. This was very revolutionary to the church because subjects were supposed to hold the same viewpoint as the church and in most cases, the king. To have your own ideas or thoughts, no matter how benign they were, was actually illegal and even seen as heretical in some cases.

And now to the new world…

The concepts of a separation of church & state and freedom of conscience were integral to the pilgrims that first settled in the new world. Biblical understanding and obedience to God above obedience to the church was their motivation for setting out on their own to truly experience religious freedom.

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.” – Matthew 5:14.

The pilgrims saw themselves as disciples and Matthew 5:14 is speaking to Jesus' disciples who have the kingdom life within them as a living testimony to those in the world who do not yet have the light of Christ in their lives. The civilization they wanted to build in the new world was going to be a shining “city set on a hill.” They wanted their new lives to glorify God first and foremost.

This perpetuated through the generations until the Monarchy in England usurped the role of God in determining the rights of man. That is why Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote about man being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.” The Reformation had not been forgotten. God was the Creator and Divine Providence of the new nation, NOT the king.

Now that the foundations of the ideology of the US government were established, a type of government was needed to govern over the nation. The Founding Fathers had an opportunity to establish a democracy and chose not to. We were not and never to become a democracy. A democracy is majority rule, or as a friend coins it – two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.


“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way” - Fisher Ames

“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government” - Benjamin Rush

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams

The first government set up, under the Articles of Confederation, was actually as close to right-wing anarchy as it could be and still be an effective national government. It didn’t work.

The framers met to create a document that allows for the best form of government consistent with the attributes exemplified in the one true authoritative document in existence – the bible. And in the Constitution, a REPUBLICAN form of government was guaranteed. To see just how Godly our Constitution is, CLICK HERE.

Article IV, Section 4 of Constitution prevents a democracy. “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.” Again, don’t think of the political party, but representative government.

Once ratified, the Constitution, and the government, was challenged again and again. The Constitution won.

So, why do we even have democratic politics these days?

It was during the Election of 1828 that the Republicans split to form the National Republicans and the DEMOCRATIC Republicans. This is the birth of the Democratic Party. For years before, a democracy was feared, but at the time this election, the word didn’t seem to bother people, whose generation had been displaced from that of the time of the Constitution, as much. Andrew Jackson campaigned as a champion of the common man and then, once elected, used his high-handed military command style to transform the Executive Branch to have as much power as the Legislative Branch. He usurped powers that weren’t necessarily his to take. In essence he really was the FIRST DEMOCRAT.

What is the true difference between a democracy and a republic?

“[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles in the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.” - Noah Webster

The difference between a democracy and a republic is the source of its authority.

In a democracy, whatever the people desire is what becomes policy. If the people decide that murder is no longer illegal, then that will be the law.

In a true republic, the authority rests on the authority of God and the Christian principles promulgated in the bible. Because God proclaims murder to be a crime, it will always be a crime in our republic. The rights and wrongs revealed in the Bible have been the guidelines for the laws of our nation.

The reason America has a constitution is because God does not direct us to have a theocracy, because those are too corruptible by man. The reason to avoid the theocracy was because it is different to obey God’s commands voluntarily, giving glory to God, than to force people to obey them because they are the federal laws. The obedience would go to the government rather than to God. And therefore the state gets the worship rather than God.

As far as the concept of separation of church and state, America has a “free market” approach to religions. It welcomes pretty much any kind of worship by anyone who wants to worship. It also allows those who wish not to practice religion or worship anything to do just that. This is consistent with the concept of freedom of conscience as well. The point of this is not to deny or remove the Christian God from government, but to show that only a real and almighty God could allow a voluntary freedom of religion by His people.

Democracy allows for progressivism and eventual socialism where THE STATE is worshiped. That would also change the source of the government.

It seems that over the last 20 years, Our Constitution has been mangled, omitted, and bifurcated to meet the agenda of a certain entity. If the Constitution is, life the liberals and progressives say, a living document, it’s on its last breath. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we have a republic, if we can keep it.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

McDonald's Obviously Needs a Bailout

This was taken of Harbison Blvd. In COlumbia, SC by a friend of mine.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Another Elected Offcial...... MORON!

SC Mayor Stops Police Chases

Wellford, SC (WSPA) -The Mayor of Wellford is defending her policy which bans police officers in that city from chasing suspects. Sallie Peake says the policy also includes vehicle chases along with pursuits on foot.

A memo issued on September 2nd from Peake to all Wellford officers reads:

"As of this date, there are to be no more foot chases when a suspect runs. I do not want anyone chasing after any suspects whatsoever."

WSPA first reported the mandate on Wednesday after an anonymous citizen faxed a copy of the memo to our newsroom. Peake was out of town and unavailable for comment. On Friday, reporter Chris Cato caught up with her in her office and questioned her about the origin of the policy. Peake says she issued the mandate because several officers have been injured during chases, driving up insurance costs for the town.

"The officers are costing us more money on insurance than most citizens here in the city of Wellford are even earning," says Peake.

She says the city is paying out $20,000 annually in workers' compensation claims, much of it due to the police force. In July, two officers wrecked their cruisers while chasing suspects and had to go to the hospital for minor treatment. The police chief says three officers have been injured during foot chases in the last two years.

Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the policy prevents police from upholding the law-a direct violation of their constitutional oath.

"If a bank robber or a drunk driver or a shoplifter or somebody with a warrant runs on foot, it's our obligation to do what we can do to bring them to justice," says Wright.

But when we asked Peake about her order impeding an officer from stopping a crime in progress, she became defensive and irate. The conversation went as follows:

Reporter: "Are you telling your officers if they witness a crime - they witness someone commit a crime on someone else and they're ten yards away - they can't go stop that person?"
Peake: "Is that in there?" (referring to policy)
Reporter: "It says no chases whatsoever."
Peake: "Well, that's what I said, no chases, didn't I? I didn't say nothing about a crime. If you see a crime, this that and the other -"
Reporter: "Well, that's what a chase is - "
Peake: "Well, I told them no chase on foot, and (the police chief) know exactly what I mean, so you're trying to twist what I -"
Reporter: "No, I'm not. You said no chases. No chases means no chases."
Peake: (claps hands) "You got you a story, thank God! You are so sweet! You got you a story on a woman in Wellford! Hallelujah! I'm so proud of you, Mr. Cato!"

Click here to see the entire interview.

Wellford Police Chief Chris Guy has told his officers to abide by the policy. He says they can still protect the public.

"Just because a suspect may run does not mean we can't identify them, sign warrants, and catch them later," says Guy.

But Sheriff Wright says when a suspect gets away, there is always the chance he could hurt someone before officers catch up with him.

Peake says that won't happen in Wellford.

Here's hoping the arm of the law really is long.

Click here for the VIDEO.

Kanye in North Georgia

Scientists try to map AMERICAN VICE

“Righteousness Exalts a Nation, but Sin Is a Reproach to any People” – Proverbs 14:34

I quote the above verse because I really do think these scientists truly understand what sin is. And y the maps below, Alaska and Hawai’I must be A-Okay!.

Greed is not based on what one makes compared to another.
Envy is not based on what you take.
Wrath is not a violent act.
Sloth is not leisure.
Gluttony is not eating fast-food.
Lust is not determined by what happens because of sex.
Pride is not all encompassing.

I suggest these scientists get to know Jesus… AND FAST!

American Vice: Mapping the 7 Deadly Sins
By Kristina Shevory of WIRED - 08.24.09

We're gluttons for infographics, and a team at Kansas State just served up a feast: maps of sin created by plotting per-capita stats on things like theft (envy) and STDs (lust). Christian clergy, likely noting the Bible Belt's status as Wrath Central, question the "science." Valid point—or maybe it's just the pride talking.

Greed - Average income compared with number of people living below the poverty line

Envy - Total thefts (robbery, burglary, larceny, and grand theft auto) per capita.

Wrath - Number of violent crimes (murder, assault, and rape) per capita.

Sloth - Expenditures on art, entertainment, and recreation compared with employment.

Gluttony - Number of fast-food restaurants per capita.

Lust - Number of STD cases reported per capita.

Pride - Aggregate of the other six offenses—because pride is the root of all sin.

Obama on Letterman... funny, but in a bad way.

In a somewhat entertaining conversation with President Obama on The Late Show with David Letterman, this segment consisted of things like discussion over healthcare (There were even some “Canadians” in the audience who apparently LOVE their country’s healthcare system – Yeah, Riiiiiight!), foreign policy, slumber parties, and heart-shaped potatoes (did you notice how great the band sounded on “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off?” Yeah, that was really an impromptu moment). But what was striking was the conversation regarding Jimmy Carters accusations of American racism toward Obama.

Letterman opened up the topic talking about the “vitriol” at the various town hall metting and Carter “SPECULATING” that “PERHAPS” the “unease or poor decorum” was “rooted in racism.”

On an NBC News interview, Carter actually said, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man – that he’s African American… And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of a belief of many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance…” That may have been his stated opinion, but the language did not come across as “speculation.”

To the President’s credit, I really think he started out well in response by responding (I removed all the “uhs” from Obama’s responses), “Well, first of all, think it’s important to realize that, I was actually black before the election. So, the… This is true, so… So the American people, I think, gave me this extraordinary honor and that tells you, I think, about where the country’s at.”

I though that was a great response to diffuse the argument and move on. Kudos to Obama for that!

It could have stopped there… BUT…

He had to keep going on…

“I actually think that what’s happened is that whenever a president tries to bring about significant changes, particularly in times of economic unease, then there is a certain segment of the population that gets very riled up”

It amazing me that he doesn’t remember that the policies and programs he supported and participated in ACTUALLY put us in “times of economic unease.”

“F.D.R. was called a socialist and a communist.”

Franklyn Delano Roosevelt WAS VERY socialistic in his policies and it was in spite of those programs that the United States survived the Great Depression and became prosperous again.

“J.F.K., there are all kinds of names hurled at him.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a conservative in just about every aspect where Obama is a radical leftist. The only derogatory fact you can apply to Kennedy was stated in the movie ‘Rat Pack.” – “He’s a bootlegger’s kid that likes to &^%$ `em two at a time.”

“Ronald Reagan, when he came into office, he was moving in a different direction, people were sure that he was bringing the country down.”

I can only imagine that he got this idea when he was in college and he didn’t want to be known as “a sellout” from those friends he chose carefully. “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The MARXIST professors and structural FEMINISTS and punk-rock performance poets.” (Dreams of My Father, p. 100). Or was it from his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis? Nonetheless, comparing himself to Reagan proved nothing but non sequitor.

“One of the things you sign up for in politics is folks yell at you.”

Glad he is a realist here because, if he keeps on the track he is on, there will be a lot more yelling!

“But I think that what has been missing from the conversation is that an overwhelming majority of people, republican or democrat, I think they just want to see some common sense. They want to see some honesty and integrity in Washington.”

I guess when you watch MSNBC or read the New York Times, you miss the fact that all those people yelling at town halls and rallies around the nation are not hearing “common sense” or “honesty and integrity” from you, and your ilk in Washington. And yes, you weren’t the start of this mess, but you ARE president NOW.

“I think they’re turned off by the shouting and the yelling. And they expect more from the public elected officials.”

The reason why they are shouting and yelling is because they aren’t getting “more from the public elected officials.”

This exchange proved that he again missed the TOTUS (teleprompter) and forgot the memorized drivel he spewed out to the Sunday show goons this weekend.

The rest of the show was basically nothing but Obama trying to be charming about his positions and Letterman overtly displaying his man-crush on the president.

One last point. Why in the HELL is our president on Letterman? Enough with the superfluous campaigning and do the job you were elected to!

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Law & Order: UK

Just saw the pilot episode and since I know there are fellow L&O fans out there, I thought I'd share!

Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Myth of Tolerance

The Myth of Tolerance by Gregory Koukl

This article first appeared in the Practical Apologetics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 24, number 4 (2002). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org.

One word can stop you in your tracks when you seek to “give an account for the hope that is in you” as an ambassador for Christ. That word is “tolerance.”

This idea is especially popular with postmodernists — that breed of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their rallying cry, “There is no truth,” is often followed by an appeal for tolerance.

The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each individual is permitted to decide for him or herself. No judgments allowed. No “forcing” personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism; but it’s a myth!

For all their confident bluster, the relativists’ appeal actually asserts two principles or “truths,” one rational and one moral. The first is the rational “truth” that there is no truth. The second is the moral “truth” that one ought to tolerate the viewpoints of others. Their stand, contradictory on at least two counts, serves as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.

The Tolerance Trick. As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Francis Beckwith calls the “passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” Returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word. Allow me to give you a real-life example.


Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Faith-Based Double Standards

"Faith-Based Double Standards" by MOLLIE ZIEGLER HEMINGWAY at the Wall Street Journal

In 2001, President Bush issued his first executive order as president. He created a program to encourage religious organizations to receive taxpayer funds to perform social services. The Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, as it was called, infuriated many. Civil libertarians said it violated the separation of church and state, liberals suggested that the office was paying off political supporters, and even Christian conservatives worried about the tentacles of government regulation.

The Village Voice fretted over Mr. Bush's "plan to let churches run the government's welfare system" and his "march toward turning the U.S. into a religious state." Former Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal wrote an article on Salon.com about the faith-based efforts with the subtitle: "By pandering to Christian zealots, Bush has come close to establishing a national religious party."

Now that Mr. Bush is gone, however, no one seems particularly worried about the entanglement of the federal government with religious organizations. A recent study sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that President Obama's "faith-based initiative has so far generated little of the contentious press coverage associated with Bush's effort."

According to Pew, the media ran nearly seven times as much coverage of President Bush's faith-based initiative during his first six months in office as President Obama's. And the stories on Mr. Bush's initiative were almost 50% more likely to be on the front-page, emphasizing the controversial nature of the program. The stories on Mr. Obama's initiative were buried deeper in the paper and focused on procedure. Few, if any, stories questioned whether the current president would use his office to advance a religious agenda, a major theme of coverage during the Bush ­administration.

This scant media attention is all the more incredible given that, as Americans United for Separation of Church and State has noted, Mr. Obama has left "the entire architecture of the Bush Faith-Based Initiative intact—every rule, every regulation, every executive order." More controversially, the office has become a major hub of political outreach. In frequent conference calls, the administration informs faith-based leaders of its policy initiatives, as when it recently asked rabbis around the country to give sermons on health-care reform during the coming high holiday season. Representatives from politically important religious groups have been appointed to a 25-member religious advisory council. The office was also involved in drafting President Obama's June speech delivered from Cairo calling for alliances with ­Muslims.

Even The Nation magazine complains that Mr. Obama's faith-based office "is plagued by a lack of transparency and accountability and has seemingly already been exploited as a tool for rewarding religious constituencies with government jobs."

The political-outreach emphasis of Mr. Obama's office is particularly well-suited to the Rev. Josh Dubois, the 27-year-old campaign operative and Pentecostal minister who heads the show. Mara Vanderslice, who pioneered faith outreach for the Democrats following their 2004 losses and later launched a pro-Obama political action committee, runs the advisory council. By contrast, two of Mr. Bush's appointments to head the office, John DiIulio and Jay Hein, were steeped in social-science research and public policy, while another, Jim Towey, had worked as a lawyer for Mother Teresa.

There is some confusion about the purpose of the faith-based office. It does not distribute federal funds. Instead, the office works with the White House Office of Management and Budget to set goals and "best practices" for each federal agency that distributes grant money.

The legacy of Mr. Bush's effort was to "level the playing field" for religious groups. The Bush administration rewrote 16 federal rules to help faith-based organizations compete for federal grants, set aside $300 million to help small organizations apply for grants, trained more than 100,000 personnel at nonprofits about working with the federal government, and encouraged 36 states and more than 100 cities to create faith-based offices.

When President Obama campaigned for office, he promised a new name signifying a new mission. His Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships office would allegedly differ because it would train larger faith-based groups to mentor smaller religious groups and it would work with state and local governments. But "Taking Stock: The Bush Faith-Based Initiative and What Lies Ahead," a June report from the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute, said that neither aim was new as "both were significant elements in the Bush administration's ­program."

If the claimed mission and structure of the office are the same, the pivotal difference between the two presidents' approaches was supposed to be hiring policy. President Bush advocated exempting religious organizations that accept taxpayer funding from regulations forbidding religious discrimination in hiring. President Obama said he would overturn that policy.

"If you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can't discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion," he said on the stump. But when he rolled out his office in February, he tabled that issue, sending it to the Justice Department for review. The Bush administration also asked Justice to handle the issue.

Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was a vocal critic of Mr. Bush's faith-based office. Now, under Mr. Obama, he serves on the advisory council's task force to improve the functioning of the office. Explaining his turnaround, he said he doesn't view Mr. Obama's office as partisan—the way Mr. Bush's was. But acknowledging that there was no substantive difference between the offices yet, Mr. Lynn said: "We have a guarded optimism that when the advisory council, Justice and the White House act and get down to the nitty gritty, they will make this a constitutionally protected program. However, we have no proof of that and no guarantee."

Now that is the audacity of hope.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

On Mission, Changing the World, and Not Being Able to Do It All

“[W]e need to make sure our exhortations to do more rise to the level of God’s glory and sink deep into the gospel. If the exhortations don’t culminate in the glory of God then the youth people and the evangelism people and the poverty people are not really after the same thing. They are just competing interest groups in your church or in your mind. And if the exhortations don’t go deep into the gospel (and they often don’t), then we are just beating up others and ourselves with utopian dreams and masochistic oughts.” – Rev. Kevin DeYoung

On Mission, Changing the World, and Not Being Able to Do It All

Friday, September 11, 2009

In One Single Moment, Everything Can Change.

If you have audio capabilities and would like to hear some beautiful music while you read, press play

Today, this hour, this minute, this second, this particular moment, one single moment in time is so very precious and cannot be taken for granted. Why, because just like that it is gone. FOREVER!!!!!

In 2001, there was a sequence of events that happened over several very perishable moments. Those moments are gone forever and can never happen again. But what remains of that day, so profound, are memories…. And unfortunately for many Americans, memories are all they have of that day.

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the very core of what America stands for was brutally and viciously attacked. Thousands were murdered or left with the significant loss of someone they loved. There were no moments that came and went on that day that did NOT profoundly affect EVERY single American in one way or the other.

There were moments of panic.
There were moments of fear.
There were moments of loss.
There were moments of dread.
There were moments of confusion.
There were moments of fatigue.

Those moments seemed to last a lifetime on that long September day.

But, by God’s grace, Americans showed us other moments as well.

There were moments of caring.
There were moments of generosity.
There were moments of heroism.
There were moments of selflessness.
There were moments of solidarity.
There were even moments of VICTORY!

Amazing as it seems, when struck, bloodied, and bruised; Americans showed the very best of what America is. We didn’t forget to show and do, with incredible guile those very things which we were being attacked for – individuals uniting to strive for the highest in what we do and who we are.

Moments. Tiny moments in time where our posterity was left with a profound inheritance! What Americans did on that day and on the days after 9/11, was to once again show those who will come after us, what it means to be an American. We get jabbed in the gut or even kidney punched from time to time, but we ALWAYS keep going with liberty and prosperity of heart as our goals.

And now we have reached another anniversary of that sobering fateful day.

And it truly seems like we have forgotten about those things for which we were attacked.

We are bickering amongst ourselves of ideological nonsense that has nothing to do with the liberty and prosperity of our nation.

Those souls who lost their lives and those who gave them eight years ago don’t have to worry about liberals, conservatives, radicals, terrorism, the economy, health care coverage, czars, jobs, AARP, Bill O’Reilly, Perez Hilton, Hugo Chaves, Kim Jung-Il, hurricanes, earthquakes, the NRA, the AFL-CIO, Scott Walker, Richard Trumka or so many things that seem to so readily and religiously occupy the current moments of our lives.

Those lost on 9/11 don’t have to worry about them because THEY ARE DEAD.

So why is it that we spend so much time focused on things that occupy mere moments in our lives? Yes, it is very important to stand by our convictions and principles when we deal with the aspects of life. Yet, consider this - What would the problems be to us if we didn’t have to worry about those things for the same reason the dead of 9/11 don’t have to?

Did any of you spend any moments at all today bickering with your spouse or family, worrying about bills and finances, complaining about the bonehead who just doesn’t get it at your job, getting annoyed at a truly insignificant thing, or even habitually complaining about the state of the nation or world?

Those moments you spent today are now gone forever. What difference did they make to you now? Tonight? Tomorrow? Next week? Next Month? Next Year?

September 11, 2001 showed us that EVERYTHING CAN CHANGE in one single moment. If you truly want to be able to make any moments count, then don’t be stupid by wasting the ones before you now.

Start today. Remember the ones you love and NEVER let a moment go by where there is a doubt about your love for them.