Tifton Tea Party

A year ago, we were all being told H1N1 was going to wipe out large segments of the population. Now the ties between the World Health Organization and international pharmaceutical Industry have come to public light. Global warming was going to wipe us out in the matter of a hundred years or less, if we did not reduce carbon emissions by Law, such as Cap & Trade. Now the data and formulas have been shown to be fictitious. American health care system was reported to be broken and had to be fixed, by a bill which needed to be signed immediately, which was just short of 2000 pages long, but we did not need to read it, because we would find out what was in it after is was law.  We were told it would be less than a trillion dollars. Now that it is law, the price has been shown to jumped over 115 billion more than advertised and is still climbing.   The bill was not all encompassing and needs a doctor fix (another bill).  Many of the items, which protesters had feared were in the bill, are being shown to be true.

In more recent times, we heard that peace protesters were attacked by Israel. However the video footage shows these peace protesters with clubs, knives, guns and flash bangs. I have known a few true pacifists in my time and the actions of those terrorists were nowhere near the actions of a true pacifist. At the beginning of the catastrophe in the gulf, we were told only a small amount of oil was leaking. As time rolled on, the volume estimates raised continually. Both BP with its knowledgeable engineers and our government knew early on, within hours, how bad this was. Currently, there are still experts out there telling us the economy is in a recovery.  These are the same experts, who said in 2008 and before, no crash was possible.

All these events have one thing in common, the Truth. In all these events, the truth was not sought, so good decisions could be made. The truth was purposely pushed to the side, for political reasons. Georgia has a short time before it’s primary elections. It is important for us voters to define what our values are as individuals, seek candidates who we believe will adhere to those values, and when they are put into office, hold them to those values. Just one example of this, where both parties are guilty and should be held accountable, has been the current administration, illegally trying to manipulate elections, by bribing candidates. Any time elected officials are found or admit to breaking the law, they should be held accountable, period. If we do not insist on this at all levels of government, then We The People are the problem.

If you have not done so already, spend some time thinking of what values are important to you.  Then think about a few issues, which you believe strongly in, develop some questions around these issues for every level of government and ask them to the candidates that are running for office. You will rarely find a candidate who you agree with 100% of the time, but if they show the values you are concerned about and hold to strong beliefs on those issues, which are critical to you, then maybe they will earn your vote. Remember, too, whether you voted for an official or not, they are in a position to represent you and your neighbors, so its up to us to hold them accountable for their actions.

Jeff Korson

Alapaha, Ga.

Printed June 23

http://tiftongazette.com/opinion/x383281253/Your-Opinion-Where-are-we-now

You cannot prove what is not true.  In recent rants several writers state their opinion that this is not a Christian nation and that there is a separation of church and state. Not surprisingly these rants, which are short by nature, are not supported by any facts.  The purpose of this article is not to go over the evidence printed previously in the Tifton Gazette of our nations founding fathers and the role religion played, for a simple search on the Gazette’s web pages will give good results and once your appetite is wetted with those simple examples, you can really dig into our nations founding history.

The real purpose for this article is two parts.  The first is simple for those who still think our nation was not founded on Jew Dao Christian principals, prove that all the documented evidence of our founding fathers has nothing to do with said values.  What better document for you to start with than the first official act of our founding fathers and this nation, the Declaration of Independence?

The second reason is, to discuss the whys some fear the fact of our nation was and is a Christian nation.  There is but one truth. yet with so many denominations in Christianity, how can this be? Why does the Constitution state, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and lastly all rights are given to mankind by God, why is this so important?

The history of Europe is the key to understanding the religion clause in the first amendment.  Various countries were ruled and run by specific denominations and anyone who believed differently than the national religion was persecuted.  This was one of the reasons the first settlers came to the Americas.  Our founders understood there were differences in some of the beliefs of the various denominations, but they also knew the foundation of what would become the United States laws.  The guide was the 10 Commandments and Jesus knew the Commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself” was common and God’s intent for the basis of a society/nation.  As the Declaration clearly shows, our Founders firmly believed God gave mankind their rights.  They knew that when a nation had the 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus in common, this would be best chance for peace and prosperity.  They also knew they did not want one specific denomination in charge, for they saw, how man with all his failings, even with best intent, would try to force one’s Will over another.  Thus, “no law respecting an establishment of religion”, but with the intent any and all, including government officials, are free to express their religious beliefs, also clearly stated, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.

Many insinuate the Constitution states, “separation of church and state”, but, as written in past articles and quoted from the Constitution above. no such thing exists, only the fact that the government cannot force any specific religion on We the People.  We the People, being the real power, can and should pick and elect people who have true values, found in Christianity, such as, Honesty, Reverence, Humility, and Personal Responsibility, to mention a few.  When an elected official veers from these values, as can happen for we are all human, they should be held accountable.  We the People, also have the power to change current events.  When a school stops praying, lets say at a game or event, because two people may be offended, then it is time for the other 99% of People to peaceably take action, such as praying out loud, overwhelming the PA system and also by attending the next school board meetings.  Remember, the First Amendment also has the quotes, “or abridging the freedom of speech,” and “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”.

The reason for so many denominations is simple.  We are human and we err and sin.  There are many common messages in the different Christian denominations and there are also many differences, such as alcohol consumption. Some denominations believe, even one drink is wrong and others believe drinking in moderation is fine.  Should laws be based on this? No, for freedom of personal choice and responsibility are the keys to this. This is just one example, but considering there are thousands of recognized denominations, there are a few more differences you will find and thus again, the reason our founders did not want the Government to establish one religion over others, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

The main reasons many dislike Christianity, is because of the values it exposes.  Many do not like to be told what they are doing is wrong.  Understand, there is a difference between unlawful and wrong.  Just because something is wrong in the eyes of God, does not mean it is or needs to be unlawful.  God gave us Free Will to make our own decisions.  These were the basis our Founding Fathers used, God given rights, A foundation for laws, and freedom from oppression ie, ”Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.  The other big reason is because of an agenda some have to demean any Christians and separate them from God, by placing man/government in-between them.  Changing the understanding of God given rights to Government given rights.  Thus, changing faith, from faith in God, to a faith in Government.

So, in closing and for the purpose of discussion, I would like to hear from some of those who still believe our nation was not founded on Jew Dao Christian principals.  Show me where our Founding Fathers aspired not in faith, but in some other belief system.  For my Christian counterparts, the question is, have you fulfilled your obligations as a Christian? Have you spoken up and spread the good news of Jesus, his message and what the Holy Spirit has left in your heart?

Addendum: To my Man-Made Global Warming Zealots, I am still interested in your debate whenever you are done with the personal attacks, special from my lawyer friend this is for you. The purpose of the judicial system is to ensure truth and facts are used, but as we all know in our judicial system today there is another tactic used to often, which is to deflect focus, confuse information and ultimately evade the truth. I appreciate your level setting of my IQ from afar, So, I await your assessment of the IQ’s of those scientists whom were responsible for the facts in my last articles.

Jeff Korson

Alapaha, Ga.

Printed 5 30 2010

http://tiftongazette.com/opinion/x1174314845/Your-Opinion-Truth-speaks-for-itself

My Mother taught me, many years ago, that “sticks and stones my break my bones but names will never hurt me”. In a recent article it was insinuated that I am a right wing extremist. I have spent several years of my life inside a steel tube, under the oceans of the world. Needless to say, a bunch of bored sailors, who have nothing better to do than to antagonize their counterparts, is the norm, so I have had some of the best try to insult me, to no avail. I am a Proud Christian, Conservative, Veteran and will make no bones about that. With that said, the article was an opinion piece with the premise, that because facts did not come from a source the writer liked, it makes them ignorable. This goes right to the root of the problem of the global warming discussion. Many scientists have refuted man made global warming and offered much evidence against it. Because proper scientific method, where research is checked and tested vigorously, by said colleges before final conclusions are reached, was not followed, we are here at present day, where trust has been broken in the scientific community. Hence, the dialog we are having right now. Another thing the article does is open up the door to good debate and I do like to debate.

So, in order to focus a little bit more around some of the facts and to further the discussion, I will spell some of the recent facts out.

Fact: Head of CRU (Climate Research Unit) Phil Jones resigned due to the recent scandal.
Fact Phil Jones admitted there might have been medieval warming.
Fact Phil Jones admitted 15 years of no “Statistically Significant” warming.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/ Note the Daily Mail is mentioned in this article along with the BBC interview info http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm )

Fact: In the email Phil Jones discussed destroying the base data and formulas used for alterations to base data.
Fact: Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann under investigation, schools investigation one charge still pending. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/ )

Fact: CRU disposed of the raw data (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/ )

Fact: CRU data was used in Nasa’s report.
Fact: NOAA Monitoring stations used for NASA’s samples had urban development occur around them altering the environment over time and cooler station locations removed (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/?feat=home_editorials )

Fact: Nasa data had errors found in it.
( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/?page=2 )

Fact: Nasa still refusing to release its data and show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as 1930’s.
( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/print/ )

Fact: Concerns that relying on NOAA or any of its affiliates to be repositories of accurate climate data may be akin to allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/federal-global-warming-office-a-bad-idea/ )

Fact: Some elite individuals have personal financial and regulatory power interest invested in forcing global warming agenda. ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/pseudoscience-cesspool/ more to think about GE, Al Gore, Cap N Trade to name some extras here in the states. This is bigger than one political party it is a power grab.)

All the above are facts and easily found and researched. The only question is what your opinion will be after researching for yourself and what the meaning is behind these facts to you.

Now, let’s try a little math experiment. First step is to remember basic chemistry, where CO2 is a chemical compound, which has one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. This is important because Oxygen and Carbon are the root elements of the processes, which are always occurring. We breathe in oxygen; our body process it, then combines the carbon and oxygen. Then, we breathe out small amounts of CO2, just as fuel combustion and the natural processes do (volcanoes, animals, bacteria, dying vegetation, and oceans). Then, there are things like plants and plankton, which reverses these processes and separates the CO2 back into carbon and oxygen. For the purpose of this experiment, let’s assume no change in this process and natural made CO2 levels are perfectly balanced with natures breakdown process. Also known is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is approx .038%. The atmosphere mass is approx 5 × 1018 kg (5 quintillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth ), yes, one of the few things with numbers higher than the national debt. In 2005, man made CO2 was 3× 1013 (30 trillion http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/globalcommunity/crudeoilfuture.htm ), yes, smaller than the nations total national unfounded liabilities. For the year of 2005, we can figure out what percentage of increase man made CO2 was. 3 × 1013 / 5 × 1018 = .000006 = .0006%. This would show, at the end of 2005 the atmosphere would have .0386%. Add the knowledge that H2O (water) is a much more effective green house gas and is 23 times more prevalent in the atmosphere. These are the facts and here are the questions. Has plant life and plankton growth been consistent over all time? Is it reasonable to believe an increase of plant and plankton would not occur? God designed a marvelous world and I, for one, believe, even if mankind did actually cause a true increase of CO2, God’s creation can overcome this, as it has overcome far worse natural disasters in the past.

I will conclude with this. I write in hopes to inspire others to ask questions and research subjects on their own. One of the big problems we are suffering, as a nation, is apathy. Too often, in the past, good men and women have remained quiet and ignored things going on around them, thinking it would just go away. This was and is wrong, for all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. Altered quote questionably attributed to Edmund Burke.

Jeff Korson
Alapaha, Ga.
Printed May 10 2010
http://tiftongazette.com/opinion/x1700422509/Your-Opinion-Global-warming-dialogue

TIFTON — “There are none so blind as those who will not see,” a quote attributed to John Heywood in 1546, still rings true today. Please tell me why anyone would want government-controlled health care! All one has to do is look at all of the other government-controlled entities to see where we are headed: Social Security — broke; post office — $2.8 billion in the red in 2009; Fannie Mae — broke; Freddie Mac — broke; Medicare — broke; Medicaid — broke.

You name it, if it’s a government-run agency it is bankrupt. Yet G.W. Tibbetts wants you to believe that the recently passed government-run health care plan will be beneficial to everyone.

Or is Tibbetts just touting the Democratic tax and spend, redistribution mantra. The current estimates of the cost for Obamacare exceeds $1 trillion and this estimate does not take into account businesses such as IBM, Caterpillar, GE and many others that will likely drop their current health care plans for employees because the government penalty will be far more economical.

Where do we stop the deficit spending? Our national debt now stands at over $12.9 trillion. If you are like me, that’s a figure that I cannot comprehend. Take a look at the national debt clock to see just how fast our national debt is increasing. Our national debt has increased by $4.3 billion every day since September 2007.

And to top that, Obamacare will cost additional billions if not trillions that we do not have. Where will it end?

Again this morning we hear that Freddie Mac needs another $8.4 billion and that the European Union needs $1 trillion as a bailout, much of which will come from American taxpayers.

Two quotes from Thomas Jefferson are very pertinent to where we find ourselves:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would not.”

and

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debt as it goes, a principle if which acted on would save one-half of the wars of the world.”

Fellow Americans, we must put an end to this irrational spending and we must do it now. Our elected representatives in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have lost all sense of reason when it comes to spending our hard-earned tax dollars.

We will have an opportunity in November to begin to rectify this situation. I am afraid if we wait until 2012 it will be too late and we will be bankrupt like Greece or many third-world countries. Think long and hard before you cast your vote. I don’t know about you, but I am not happy with our current government and plan to make a “real change” come November.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Lynch

Tifton

Printer May 13 2010 http://tiftongazette.com/opinion/x895849028/Your-Opinion-Planning-changes-in-November

An oath is a sworn loyalty to a stated cause or specific contract. The Constitution of the United States of America requires that a candidate for offices serving the citizenry willingly commit to certain behavior and is accountable to the way they govern. It is reasonable to expect government office holders to adhere to oaths as stated and perform their duties according to the foundational document that defines our nation, the Constitution.

The oath is a contact with God and the country — “We the People.” Public servants used to be known as statesmen and patriots — Webster def.  “a person who loves and  loyally supports their own country.” An oath is a bond based on trust. Let’s look at the oaths required by the Constitution.

The oath required of senators and representatives read as follows: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: so help me God.” A sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution has many implications. Our form of government, a republic, given to us by our forefathers, has birthed and grown the greatest country in the history of the world. To undermine this form of governing jeopardizes our very survival. Historical documents prove this is predictable. If we are to survive, we have to hold these oathtakers accountable; limit terms, recall, impeachment, etc.: It’s the only way to preserve our freedom and way of life.

The oath required of an incoming president reads as follows: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” A leader that takes this oath should not apologize to the world for our country. He should not ignore the Constitution with the agendas he proposes. Why do elected candidates believe they are destined to rule? Because power entrusted to them to serve sometimes intoxicates them and impairs their perception of reality. This intoxication makes mere mortals act irresponsible and do irrational things. They forget their oath of office they swore on the Bible. A ruler imposes his or her will on their subjects. A servant seeks to do the will of those they are serving. “We the People” have to get educated, informed, engaged and get involved in the process of preserving freedom as was intended by our forefathers.

This form of governing resulted in a Constitution and Bill of Rights and was entrusted to the people to protect and preserve. If enough are unconcerned to the point of doing nothing, everything is lost; and the many lives, sacrifices and efforts have been in vain. A great number of people are seemingly indifferent about our America because our freedoms do not seem to be in imminent danger to the uninformed, but be sure our freedoms are in grave danger. We’re so close to losing our republic, it’s frightening.

America, please wake up; our grandkids deserve the America we cherish. We can no longer take things for granted. The phrase “the only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing: has never been as relevant as it is today.

By the way, the oathtakers aren’t the only ones that are accountable to our country; we all have pledged allegiance to our United States of America.

Solutions, not revolution!

Randy Thompson

Sycamore

Printed 5 8 2010 http://tiftongazette.com/opinion/x1008078642/Your-Opinion-Oath-of-Office

Anyone who would argue that climate change does not exist would be foolish. One only has to open the door and walk outside on a daily basis to see, feel, and hear the differences of the climate over time. Now to the claim that mankind is changing the climate is a far different beast. At the root of this claim is that the average temperature for present years are hotter than the average temperature of past years and that manmade CO2 was the cause of this recent trend.

First and foremost in making decisions on things, is to know and seek the truth. What we do know about the leaders of the global warming theory, is, in their own words from the emails they wrote, that data was manipulated ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html , http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-three-of-the-four-temperature-datasets-now-irrevocably-tainted/ ). They stated and did destroy and hide their formulas along with base data, and to ignore dissenters theory’s and demonize their persons. The purposeful lie of the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, in the 2007 IPCC report ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html ), NASA data was inferior to CRU (IPCC) data and tainted with samples of CRU data ( http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/?singlepage=true ). We also know there are billions of dollars spent and pending to scientist forwarding this façade. The other concern is with the governments that appear to blindly support this theory, such as some in our government. They want to push forward regulations, which will affect many aspects of our lives, through home energy consumption, temperature we keep our homes at, fuel to fill our cars and indirectly will affect the price of everything we use and consume. This, in itself, will bring Draconian rules.

Next thing that helps draw a picture is the name of the claim itself. Climate Change, but why was the name changed from Global Warming and for those whom have been around since the 70’s or have researched the issue, you may remember “Global Cooling”. The answer is obvious. The patterns of the earth’s temperature change, but are cyclical and a claim in a specific direction is only good for so long. So, with an ambiguous claim, such as we are hearing now of climate change, no specific claim can be nailed down. Also pre-industrial age history, shows both major warming and cooling periods. This, of course. is totally contrary to man made global warming theory, because the whole premise is man’s production of CO2, via modern technology is the root of the claim. There are two major and disreputable events written into the history books, which are in the 1200’s Medieval warming, when grapes were growing in England and the 1400’s, Little Ice Age( http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered ). There are several other examples and much information for anyone to investigate. The truth is out there.

Why have the leaders of the global warming claim blinded themselves from the main possible cause of global warming? Yes, the heat producing body at the center of our solar system, the Sun. Without the sun there would be NO warming. True? Yet, none of the leaders of global warming wish to open their eyes to this basic scientific fact, we all can agree on. There are studies and evidence, which directly correlates to the sunspot activity, which is directly proportional to the solar winds, which inversely affect the cloud formations, by deflecting cosmic rays from the earth. Cosmic rays are required for the formation of clouds. The more clouds there are, the more sun(heat) energy is reflected back into space and the cooler the Earth becomes. In short, heavy sun spot activity increases solar wind, which decrease cloud production, reflecting less heat back into space and warming the earth up (http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/sunspots_and_climate_change ). Unless you have personally researched this, you may have never heard of it. This is because it does not fit the model and scientific method is not the true goal of the global warming leaders.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .038% and in a recent Science Daily report, the premise of an increase in CO2 over the last 150 years is in itself false ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm ). Also, related to this fact, is the added knowledge that natural causes of CO2, such as Volcanoes, animals, bacteria, dying vegetation, and oceans produce 96.8% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans production of CO2, via modern technology is 3.2%. Water vapor, which is much more efficient global warming gas, makes up .87% of the atmosphere or 23 times all CO2 levels ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A , http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html ). Thus clouds and water have a much larger effect than CO2 and is why sun spot activity bears much more weight.

In a recent article, “Yep, global warming is real”, the writer pointed to several repots from American Meteorological Society, National Geographic Society, National Academies of Sciences, and NASA, But, he did not mention all these reports are based on the false information from the IPCC and NASA scandals. True scientific method is to make a theory, gather data to support and test the theory, have others challenge the theory and fine tune the errors into the final synapses. The real tragedy is this process was not followed and now the scientific community has a large black mark, which will take a lot of effort to correct and regain the trust of others.

Yes, seek the truth. As with all things in life, the truth shall set you free, but lies can build chains that bind. If you know you are being lied to and believe in the known lie, does that speak to a false faith? Continue to educate yourselves, challenge and discuss “facts”, because they are not always what they seem. In our day and age, finding and discerning the truth from fiction is extremely complicated, but it is our responsibility to do what we can to seek and find the truth.

Jeff Korson
Alapaha, Ga.

Printed Tifton Gazette 4/10/10

“I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie… I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name.”
“Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade.
Since the Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade in 1973 there have been 50 million abortions. The decision has wreaked havoc upon a nation. The victims are not only the unborn who have been denied the right to life, but the teenagers, mothers, fathers and families that have been physically and psychologically harmed by abortion.
The largest abortion provider in the world today is Planned Parenthood, with over one million abortions a year and an annual profit of $120 million. Its founder was Margaret Sanger, an atheist, avowed socialist and birth control activist. At a 1925 birth control gathering in New York City, Sanger’s group warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril and the need to sterilize those designated as “unfit.” In 1932 she wrote, “Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population… whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” Raised in a large dysfunctional family, one of 11 children, Sanger wrote in her autobiography, “I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts and jails with large families… The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger died in 1966, eight years short of seeing her eugenic experiment come true when Roe v. Wade was made the law of the land.
The genesis of the court case that legalized abortion began in Texas in 1970. Two young lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, feminist ideologues and followers of Sanger, made known they were looking for a pregnant woman so they could test the legality of abortion in the courts. Through referrals they found Norma McCorvey (alias “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade), who claimed to be pregnant as a result of rape. She was 21, unemployed, unmarried and pregnant for the third time. McCorvey later admitted that her account of being raped was a lie, saying she was a “pawn” and was used by the two attorneys. “I was desperate, and didn’t know what to do with my pregnancy. I needed financial or vocational help, and help to get off drugs and alcohol. The lawyers instead were looking for a young, white woman to be a guinea pig for a great new social experiment.” Before the case got to the Supreme Court, McCorvey had given birth to the child that was the center of Roe v. Wade and she had put the baby up for adoption. Ironically, today this child who was a candidate for the first legal abortion is now living, while 50 million others have died.
At the same time, in Georgia, another feminist ideologue and follower of Sanger, Margie Pitts Hames, a lawyer, was also looking for a pregnant woman to test the legality of abortion. Sandra Cano (alias “Mary Doe” in Doe v. Bolton), said that Hames lied to her in order to have a plaintiff. Cano, a mental patient at a state hospital, was a married, pregnant 22-year-old and the mother of three children, two in foster care and the third having been placed for adoption. Cano came to Hames wanting only a divorce from a convicted child molester and help in getting her children back, but was told this would happen only if she got an abortion. Cano was adamantly against abortion and fled the state and only agreed to return if she didn’t have to have an abortion. But Doe v. Bolton was presented to the Supreme Court as a woman seeking an abortion based on mental health.
It took three years for the two cases to reach the Supreme Court. On Jan. 22, 1973, the Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, and Doe v. Bolton, and sealed the fate of millions of the unborn. The two cases together overturned laws against abortion in all 50 states. While “Roe” prohibited abortion after the first trimester, the lesser known “Doe” expanded the right by using “health” and “mental health” of the mother. “Health” was defined as physical, emotional, psychological or social, so any whim or caprice of the mother was sufficient to obtain an abortion for any reason for all nine months of pregnancy.
Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on a person’s right to privacy; but the constitution doesn’t explicitly mention any right of privacy. The Court creatively found support for various privacy rights indirectly in a vague previous case law, but gave no consideration to a person’s inalienable Right to Life, which is clearly defined in the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the laws of the land, not author them. Justice Harry Blackmun, in support of Roe wrote, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins… the judiciary… is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Justice Byron White, who did not support Roe said, “…the court had simply fashioned and announced a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers…”
Sandra Cano (”Mary Doe”) and Norma McCorvey (”Jane Roe”) are now pro-life activists; and on June 23, 2005, McCorvey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee seeking to overturn her case that made abortion legal. She stated, “I want you to know the horrible and evil things that Roe v. Wade did to me and others. I never got the opportunity to speak for myself in my own court case…”
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation.” Mother Teresa
Ann Wolfe
Tifton
Printed Mar 26 2010 http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion/local_story_085233156.html

I have been writing warnings of concern for several months now, and the concerns are valid. But by no means have I given up on America. Why? It’s American — and Americans are freedom-loving people, but they’re also nostalgic. Nostalgia is not a thing of the past, it’s our heritage. It’s more than remembering the good times; it helps us define our roots, re-live our past and measure our progress. This helps us know who we are and what we stand for and gives us a good foundation. Without a good foundation, nothing will stand the storms.

Life does have storms, with all its ups and downs. We need something to give us stability and peace of mind. Nostalgia can be a tranquilizer; letting us go back and relive a simpler time, when we maybe got “tired” from our labors, but not “tired of” the hustle and bustle of our stress-filled lives today. Being “tired of” drains energy levels to the point of exhaustion. People are quietly desperate, scarcely motivated and definitely bored; from the monotony of going somewhere they’d rather not, doing something they don’t like doing, for someone they don’t like, every day for the rest of their life.

Nostalgia is big business. Look at the sale of CDs, the ‘50s and ‘60s classics. We buy these because we can listen to them and mentally revert to some pleasant time in our life. Anything having to do with our history, or roots, collectibles they’re called, is big business today.

In America, our history is relatively infant compared to the old world. With the great advances in knowledge, technology and mechanical design, life is on such a fast track; most people have trouble coping, much less keeping up. It’s no wonder we have stress and anxiety so prevalent in our society. Anything that will give even a small break in the hustle and bustle of a busy life is sought by the masses. Our past does reflect simpler times.

Another reason for hope in America is — it’s spiritual. Although the future has looked very bleak in recent years, II Chronicles 7:14 is still in the Bible; and many are invoking God’s promise. My Dad used to say that God is a gentleman and that He would never lie. I believe that because He’s never failed me. I do think the end time is near, but it doesn’t have to be with our generation. A thousand years is as one day with God and my Bible also says only the Father in Heaven knows when it will be. God has blessed America and will continue to do so as long as His people honor Him.

And finally, I don’t want my generation to be the one that lost our freedom. Read the story of King Ahab coveting Naboth’s vineyard in I Kings, chapter 21. Naboth told him, “The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” Americans are nostalgic, spiritual for the most part, and we will pay a huge price to preserve our freedom-loving way of life. “Lord grant me the courage to stand, the strength to fight and the wisdom to know your will.”

Solutions, not revolution!

Randy Thompson

Sycamore Printed 18 Mar 2010 http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion/local_story_077001603.html

Recently, there has been discussion on cutting the 4H budget which many do not wish to have this happen.  You can call and protest, for that action is protected by the Constitution and your First Amendment right.  It is also your duty as a citizen to be informed on your decisions.

The real thing you should be doing is educating yourself on why these cuts are occurring? The original projected 2009 budget was $20.4 billion. The actual revenue for 2009 was $16.8 billion, which is a difference of $3.6 billion or 17.6%.  The Great State of Georgia has a balance budget law, unlike the federal government, which is spending money several years into the future right now.  A synopsis of the law is, the state cannot spend more in a fiscal year than they receive in the same fiscal year in revenue. So how does the state receive revenue?  Basically in taxes, licenses, registrations, fines, recipes from some public parks, and federal grants are the main sources.

There are only two areas which we can make changes to reverse the states current status. First area is to cut spending.  To do this, “We the People” need to fully understand what the state is paying for.  Then determine what is essential and what is none essential, what could be contracted out to private business, taking government completely out of the mix.  A good example of this on local levels has been trash removal.  Lastly, what things should the state just stop administering? Right now our State representatives are discussing these various things.  The only problem I see is they are only looking at it as a patch, when they should be looking at fixing things.  What I am getting at is, they are still cutting things close and most likely will have to return again in the near future to cut some more.  Case in point, this is not the first time in several months they had to do this.  I believe we should overshoot and get it right the first time.  When you pull a tooth, do you pull it out quickly or do you pull slowly, with an increasing pressure, until it hurts, then stop and start again later?  Which is more effective in removing the tooth and allowing you to go on with your day?

The second area is to raise taxes and fees.  I, for one, believe we pay enough taxes and any more only forces us to make decisions on what is essential and what is not as discussed in the earlier paragraph, but now in our personal lives.  Frankly, this is in direct contrast to the clause, Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness in that it positions government in-between us and our Pursuit of Happiness. Please do not get me wrong.  God and family are more important to happiness, but money is a tool which can help relieve some of life’s pressures, opening doors to happiness. Lastly, the time tested and proven path is to lower taxes and lessen regulation to inspire those whom still have moneys for capital expenditures to invest it and start or expand business, driving the state back into the black.  In the last 100 years, there were two great examples of this on the national level.  The first was in the 1920’s, Warren Harding, and the other was in the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan did it.  Yes, make Georgia the state companies yearn to come to and invest in.  Drop Taxes, lessen regulations, push back on the Federal Government and return Georgia to the Sovereign State it was and watch the state prosper far better than the rest.

So, yes, make your decisions based on knowledge, call your representatives and let them know what is and what is not essential. Then continue to step out and be engaged, It is you, your family, your friends and neighbors, who are having their teeth pulled right now.  How do you want to perform the operation? These same things need to occur on the national level also, or have you not noticed the recent CBO report warning of larger deficits and lower federal revenue than projected just a couple days ago?

For those who want higher taxes, remember no one is stopping you from opening your wallet and handing over the needed funds to support your position by actions, instead of just words.

Jeff Korson

Alapaha, Ga.

http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion/local_story_070231544.html?keyword=topstory

Many discussions have occurred in recent years about the General Welfare clause in the Constitution and what it means. The beginning of Article 1 section 8 “Powers of Congress” reads, “The Congress shall have Power To Lay and Collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to Pay the Debts and Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

One point of view believes this clause opens the powers of Congress to anything that could be construed as welfare of an individual. thus giving Congress the power to make any law for what they believe is the good of anyone via the term “General Welfare”.  Current events show this by simply looking at the news.  Congress believes they have the right to force health care on everyone and Cap and Trade, as well.  Congress knows what is good for you and passes laws against smoking, current agenda items like controlling your salt intake, laws on fat foods and fast foods, federal gun bans, establishment of EPA and OSHA, just some examples from recent years.  All of which Congress was not granted power over in the constitution.

My point of view is totally different.  Just the basic logic shows the previous mindset to be in error.  Our founding fathers had just gave life and blood to revolt against a tyrant, who had too much power.  Why would they ever replace one tyrant with another tyrant? Now with some deeper understanding of our founding fathers, one would know there was a large disagreement about that very thought of replacing one king for another. This point and several others were fought out by the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist.  Much understanding can come from reading about these two groups and their thoughts, but what is important is who the winners of these discussions were and what were their principles which were adopted? The winners of the disagreements were the Federalist.  The Anti-Federalist did not want an executive branch, because they did not trust a central government, since it would eventually become the tyrant they feared.  The final fix the Federalist used was the three branches of government, which can hold each other in check and had their own different specific powers.  The three branches we now have: Executive with the Civilian power over the Military, Cabinets, Pardons, Appointments, Congress with the power to make laws within the guideline of the Constitution and the Judiciary, which has the powers to setup the Supreme Court and any inferior courts designated by congress, Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, and Treason.  There is much more to this story.  The differences of opinion Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had with Alexander Hamilton, which you may want to dig into, had an end result that was Alexander Hamilton’s push for a larger central government and an early equivalent to the Federal Reserve was stopped.

Federalist paper 41 written by James Madison describes and address the “General Welfare” clause and the specific point that it is not an open door to any power Congress wants to write laws on.  In short James Madison said: “If there were no definition of power, such as there is in the Constitution, Article 1 section 8, one could possibly believe then the general welfare clause was an open check for interpretation, but because the powers are defined, one cannot then assume different intent, because the intent is defined with the specific powers of the Congress.”  Federalist papers are full of in depth thought from our founders and vital to an understanding to the reasoning behind much of our Constitution.  The authors of the Federalist papers were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.  Oh yeah, James Madison, the author of Federalist paper 41, is also considered the Father of the Constitution, so his word should carry a fair amount of weight in the meaning of Article 1 Section 8.

Speaking about against the national bank (early Fed) and the implied power “general welfare” clause on Feb 15 1791, Thomas Jefferson discussed the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

So what do we do now? Continue to educate yourself. Challenge your elected leaders currently in office.  Ensure the next set of elected leaders understand their obligations to the Constitution and “We the People”. Discuss things with friends and neighbors.  Lastly, fulfill your Duty and Responsibility and make an informed vote during elections!

Jeff Korson
Alapaha, Ga.

http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion/local_story_051235420.html