By Semperpapa
Just another day at the office: Obama, via his cabinet minions, is purposely destroying the American economy in the obvious attempt to create enough financial chaos to spur civil unrest.
I know you are all saying that I am exaggerating the whole thing, but I will once day be proven correct, unfortunately.
As the Dept. of Energy is clearly exercising their power in handing out taxpayers' money to companies that, even as they fall into bankruptcy, are able to provide large amounts of return money to specific Obama donors, the Dept. of Interior is suspending the lease of Wayne National Forest, using as an excuse that the shale gas drilling process in Ohio requires additional studying in regard to environmental impact. But of course!
The study, which according to Interior will take at least 6 months, will indeed delay by at least that long the creation of approximately 204,000 good paying jobs.
And isn't that the "laser focus" of Obama? That and the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard?
The confidence of the American people in the integrity of said study should also reach the pinnacle of trust, especially after we just hear that the Obama regime pressured the contracting company ECSI to modify their report on the impact of recent mining regulations upon the mining industry. The company, after analyzing the new batch of regulations instituted against the coal industry, found out that the latest regulations would cost at least 7,000 coal jobs.
When the White House told the company to modify the findings to hide the job impact, the members of the researching panel refused, causing the non renewal of the government contract. In other words, ECSI did its job and was asked to falsify its report. When it refused, the government punished it by ending the contract.
The signs are obvious: Obama and its minions are bent on destroying the American economy. The financial ruination of our economic system is the fastest road for the statist despot to bring large masses of people to depend on the handout from the federal government. And depending on the federal government means that the government will take the decision making capability away from the individual and centralized it, including removing any and all individual rights.
And that's why Obama is purposely killing the American Economy. That's how dictatorships are born.
Just my thoughts!
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Obama Killing The Constitution
By Semperpapa
It is the Second Amendment that makes the Obama regime nervous, so, in the spirit of every totalitarian regime in the past, the attempt to kill the Constitutional right of the American people to own and bear arms continues.
The efforts are left handed, conducted by the minions of the regime, in this case the Bureau of Land Management, part of the Dept. of Interior.
This specific attack is directed at banning recreational shooting from public lands, which translates in millions of acres of American soil being off limits to shooters and hunters, especially in the West of the country, where the Obama regime has been on a binge of confiscating land.
The interesting part of the move from the BLM is that the decision is being made based on interaction between shooting enthusiasts and anti-gun morons. And it is not even based on the issue of safety, but in the emotional cracking that shooting noise causes in individuals opposed to the Second Amendment.
No, folks, I am no0t kidding!
According to Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with the BLM (by the way, BLM oversees 245 million acres of American soil):
"It is not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue" says Mr. Jenks, adding that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.
So, as you can see, it is a social problem, created by the emotional anguish that city dudes suffer when they are subjected to the cruel noise of firearms discharging.
Probably these are the same spineless bloodsuckers who protest the noise of military aircraft flying over as the sound of jet engines reminds them of the militaristic imperialism of evil America.
BLM also maintain that the expulsion of shooters and hunters from public lands is a decision to be made also on the amount of littering being perpetrated, but opposers claim that the parameter used to ban shooters is unclear.
What the BLM is stating is that as public lands are becoming increasingly populated, conflict arises from clashing of shooters and other land users. The BLM, they say, is continuously brought into mediate such conflicts and banning shooters all together is the practical thing to do.
That is convenient, don't you think?
Even if such conflicts are real, and I have my deep doubts about the veracity of what the Obama's regime says, why is the constitutionally guaranteed right of shooters and hunters trampled in favor of the whining of human mollusks?
And why is the BLM not including operators of off road vehicles in their policy? I believe there is more documentation of conflicts between ATV operators and urban scum than anything else.
And yet the regime is once again focusing on the Second Amendment.
The conduct of the Obama regime and its minions has been criminal in regard to the scandal of Operation Fast and Furious, an operation aimed at generating public outcry against the rights we American have to own firearms.
Every move from Obama to AG Eric Holder to senators and congress members is a continuous attack on our rights, and for good reason.
Disarming the American people is the best way for the forces of progressive liberalism to subjugate the masses to a dark age of tyranny.
There are some organizations bringing opposition to the policy of BLM, but not much can be done when the executive branch of government is successful in circumventing the legislative branch via pre-positioned judicial activism.
Ultimately, it will be the defeat of liberalism across the spectrum that will give us, the people, some of our rights back, only if true small government conservatism is restored.
Short of that, and every one of our rights will just plain go away.
Just my thoughts!
It is the Second Amendment that makes the Obama regime nervous, so, in the spirit of every totalitarian regime in the past, the attempt to kill the Constitutional right of the American people to own and bear arms continues.
The efforts are left handed, conducted by the minions of the regime, in this case the Bureau of Land Management, part of the Dept. of Interior.
This specific attack is directed at banning recreational shooting from public lands, which translates in millions of acres of American soil being off limits to shooters and hunters, especially in the West of the country, where the Obama regime has been on a binge of confiscating land.
The interesting part of the move from the BLM is that the decision is being made based on interaction between shooting enthusiasts and anti-gun morons. And it is not even based on the issue of safety, but in the emotional cracking that shooting noise causes in individuals opposed to the Second Amendment.
No, folks, I am no0t kidding!
According to Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with the BLM (by the way, BLM oversees 245 million acres of American soil):
"It is not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue" says Mr. Jenks, adding that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.
So, as you can see, it is a social problem, created by the emotional anguish that city dudes suffer when they are subjected to the cruel noise of firearms discharging.
Probably these are the same spineless bloodsuckers who protest the noise of military aircraft flying over as the sound of jet engines reminds them of the militaristic imperialism of evil America.
BLM also maintain that the expulsion of shooters and hunters from public lands is a decision to be made also on the amount of littering being perpetrated, but opposers claim that the parameter used to ban shooters is unclear.
What the BLM is stating is that as public lands are becoming increasingly populated, conflict arises from clashing of shooters and other land users. The BLM, they say, is continuously brought into mediate such conflicts and banning shooters all together is the practical thing to do.
That is convenient, don't you think?
Even if such conflicts are real, and I have my deep doubts about the veracity of what the Obama's regime says, why is the constitutionally guaranteed right of shooters and hunters trampled in favor of the whining of human mollusks?
And why is the BLM not including operators of off road vehicles in their policy? I believe there is more documentation of conflicts between ATV operators and urban scum than anything else.
And yet the regime is once again focusing on the Second Amendment.
The conduct of the Obama regime and its minions has been criminal in regard to the scandal of Operation Fast and Furious, an operation aimed at generating public outcry against the rights we American have to own firearms.
Every move from Obama to AG Eric Holder to senators and congress members is a continuous attack on our rights, and for good reason.
Disarming the American people is the best way for the forces of progressive liberalism to subjugate the masses to a dark age of tyranny.
There are some organizations bringing opposition to the policy of BLM, but not much can be done when the executive branch of government is successful in circumventing the legislative branch via pre-positioned judicial activism.
Ultimately, it will be the defeat of liberalism across the spectrum that will give us, the people, some of our rights back, only if true small government conservatism is restored.
Short of that, and every one of our rights will just plain go away.
Just my thoughts!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Penn State Scandal: Disappointment
By Semperpapa
It sure is a disappointment for me to see that an institution I have always considered upstanding is really everything but.
The facade was impressive: a reputable school with a great football history, with a coach that had spent over four decades forming young men into productive members of society, even by just playing a game.
I have always like Penn State, and especially coach Joe Paterno. Not sure why, as I have absolutely no connection with the institution. I liked the fact that the team's jerseys did not have names, emphasizing the team effort more than the individual. Maybe the fact that coach Paterno's last name reminded me of southern Italy, where I am from.
At the beginning of College Footbal season, I found myself following the Nittany Lions of Joe Paterno, and hoping for their success.
The developments of the last couple of weeks have generated disappointment in me, as some ugly revelations have definitely tainted my opinion of Penn State.
And if the disappointment is there for me, I can only imagine what it must be for those who actually have direct involvement with the school: alumni, current students, parents, supporters.
In their case, maybe betrayal may be the better choice of words.
Should Paterno be held responsible for the alleged criminal actions of Sandusky? Probably not, but there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
In the case of Paterno, it looks like he may have followed the letter of the law by reporting the alleged transgressions to the athletic director, who in turn may have attempted to sandbag the whole thing. But then there is the spirit of the law, or more accurately, the right thing to be done.
I asked myself what my actions would have been in Paterno's shoes, and in a situation like the one that appears to have been taking place, I would have probably personally taken the scum bag to the cops by his testicles, dealing with the consequences afterward.
I don't care if the accusations were "alleged", but the piece of shit would have not been on my campus until fully and clearly exonerated in a court of law.
Instead, Joe Paterno seems to have preferred to go by the procedural approach and follow the complaint to the athletic director. Even as nothing happened, he appears to have opted for the "sweeping under the rug" of the whole thing.
The students of Penn State actually rioted in the streets as the announcement of the firing of Joe Paterno hit the news, a testimony to the deep disappointment felt among that school's population.
No, it is not about football anymore, but about the downfall of an iconic figure that had signified so much for thousands of young people.
The reputation of Penn State, its administration, its athletic department and Joe Paterno is tarnished and will take a very long time for it to regain faith.
As for Sandusky, I think he should stop talking to the media and prepare for his day in court, because I don't think there are too many people who really care to hear his opinion these days.
Just my thoughts!
It sure is a disappointment for me to see that an institution I have always considered upstanding is really everything but.
The facade was impressive: a reputable school with a great football history, with a coach that had spent over four decades forming young men into productive members of society, even by just playing a game.
I have always like Penn State, and especially coach Joe Paterno. Not sure why, as I have absolutely no connection with the institution. I liked the fact that the team's jerseys did not have names, emphasizing the team effort more than the individual. Maybe the fact that coach Paterno's last name reminded me of southern Italy, where I am from.
At the beginning of College Footbal season, I found myself following the Nittany Lions of Joe Paterno, and hoping for their success.
The developments of the last couple of weeks have generated disappointment in me, as some ugly revelations have definitely tainted my opinion of Penn State.
And if the disappointment is there for me, I can only imagine what it must be for those who actually have direct involvement with the school: alumni, current students, parents, supporters.
In their case, maybe betrayal may be the better choice of words.
Should Paterno be held responsible for the alleged criminal actions of Sandusky? Probably not, but there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
In the case of Paterno, it looks like he may have followed the letter of the law by reporting the alleged transgressions to the athletic director, who in turn may have attempted to sandbag the whole thing. But then there is the spirit of the law, or more accurately, the right thing to be done.
I asked myself what my actions would have been in Paterno's shoes, and in a situation like the one that appears to have been taking place, I would have probably personally taken the scum bag to the cops by his testicles, dealing with the consequences afterward.
I don't care if the accusations were "alleged", but the piece of shit would have not been on my campus until fully and clearly exonerated in a court of law.
Instead, Joe Paterno seems to have preferred to go by the procedural approach and follow the complaint to the athletic director. Even as nothing happened, he appears to have opted for the "sweeping under the rug" of the whole thing.
The students of Penn State actually rioted in the streets as the announcement of the firing of Joe Paterno hit the news, a testimony to the deep disappointment felt among that school's population.
No, it is not about football anymore, but about the downfall of an iconic figure that had signified so much for thousands of young people.
The reputation of Penn State, its administration, its athletic department and Joe Paterno is tarnished and will take a very long time for it to regain faith.
As for Sandusky, I think he should stop talking to the media and prepare for his day in court, because I don't think there are too many people who really care to hear his opinion these days.
Just my thoughts!
Nancy, Oh Nancy
By SemperpapaHas she been caught with the proverbial hand in the cookie jar?
But of course she has, again.
Will anything come about from this?
But of course not. She is the Ugly Witch of the West, after all.
http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2011/11/14/60-minutes-exposes-pelosi-corruption
The only way that any good can actually come out from this will be if the California queen has pissed someone one off in the Washington D.C. proletarian circles, or if it would mean the take down of some Republican.
Personally, I could not care less if Republicans would go down due to their breaking of the law, but I must admit that I do have a recurring dream to one day see Nancy Pelosi being led out of the Capitol building in handcuffs, kicking and screaming, to pay for the destruction that she has brought upon our Nation for decades.
My dream also includes Pelosi being followed by Boxer, Feinstein and Waxman, because it would be a good starting point to cleanse California and the whole Nation.
Just my thoughts!
Friday, November 11, 2011
Example Of Today's Leadership
By Semperpapa
Anyone who believes that the defeat of Obama next November 2012 and even the re-taking of the US Senate would easily solve the ailments of our Nation, is greatly misguided in their trust.
It would definitely be a good starting point, but the main problem remains that local leadership is infected by the same anti-American garbage that is occupying Washington DC these days. And nowhere more than here in California, is the liberal cancer prominent.
We have seen the results of unbridled liberalism in the mayor of the city of Oakland, California, one piece of work Jean Quan, who thanks to her official support of the protesters in Oakland should be held responsible for the violence that has taken place there. She told city workers to participate in the day of general strike last week, all city workers with the exception of the police officers who had instead to maintain order. That is very confusing to say the least, not to mention that such action would potentially place police officers against city workers. Divide and conquer!
Today, to the pride of California citizens and in the face of Veterans Day, another California mayor has succeeded in stealing the "scum bag of the day" liberal title.
Gayle McLaughlin, mayor of the city of Richmond, has declared in an e-mail to the San Jose Mercury News, that she will skip the city's salute to Veterans to join an Occupy rally.
She is unperturbed about the indignation she is causing, probably enjoying the lime light of controversy. She supports the Military, she says, by supporting those groups that are against any war, organizations like Veterans for Peace and Iraq Vets Against the War, groups that make that douche bag traitor Sen. John F. Kerry proud.
Mayor McLaughlin is another example of the uphill battle that America has in returning to rational, pro-American footing. These are literal moles that the cancer of progressivism has placed within the fibers of our society, and they are so ingrained in such fibers that it will be an gigantic, painful and long fight to overturn the damage done.
I, for one, am not a believer that the American people, the average American citizen, has the fortitude any more for such fight.
Just my thoughts!
Anyone who believes that the defeat of Obama next November 2012 and even the re-taking of the US Senate would easily solve the ailments of our Nation, is greatly misguided in their trust.
It would definitely be a good starting point, but the main problem remains that local leadership is infected by the same anti-American garbage that is occupying Washington DC these days. And nowhere more than here in California, is the liberal cancer prominent.
We have seen the results of unbridled liberalism in the mayor of the city of Oakland, California, one piece of work Jean Quan, who thanks to her official support of the protesters in Oakland should be held responsible for the violence that has taken place there. She told city workers to participate in the day of general strike last week, all city workers with the exception of the police officers who had instead to maintain order. That is very confusing to say the least, not to mention that such action would potentially place police officers against city workers. Divide and conquer!
Today, to the pride of California citizens and in the face of Veterans Day, another California mayor has succeeded in stealing the "scum bag of the day" liberal title.
Gayle McLaughlin, mayor of the city of Richmond, has declared in an e-mail to the San Jose Mercury News, that she will skip the city's salute to Veterans to join an Occupy rally.
She is unperturbed about the indignation she is causing, probably enjoying the lime light of controversy. She supports the Military, she says, by supporting those groups that are against any war, organizations like Veterans for Peace and Iraq Vets Against the War, groups that make that douche bag traitor Sen. John F. Kerry proud.
Mayor McLaughlin is another example of the uphill battle that America has in returning to rational, pro-American footing. These are literal moles that the cancer of progressivism has placed within the fibers of our society, and they are so ingrained in such fibers that it will be an gigantic, painful and long fight to overturn the damage done.
I, for one, am not a believer that the American people, the average American citizen, has the fortitude any more for such fight.
Just my thoughts!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
One Day At The Time
By Semperpapa
That is the way it has to be, as certain things cannot be rushed nor imposed.
I am a smoker, have been one for many years. I can say that I really gave into the addiction and habit when I turned 18.
Up to that time, mind you it was 1978, smoking was cool and gave stupid kids like me the illusion of belonging to the mature masses of adult smokers. But as life demands changed, so did the image that that cigarette took in my mind.
All through High School, that cigarette was a social symbol aimed at making me cool and accepted by those around me. Once out of High School and faced with the the need to establish a plan for the rest of my life, that cigarette became more of a companion than a social statement. I was definitely addicted.
The last 34 years have seen tobacco smoking going from a dubious, misguided symbol of coolness to a pretest for ostracism. We smokers have been maligned into a group marked for elimination via legalized persecution.
OK, maybe I am exaggerating a bit, but in reality not too much.
Leaving aside the restrictions instituted to protect non-smokers, restrictions which, by the way, I not only agree with but engaged in long before they became law, forbidding smokers to smoke within the city limits of a town, or in their own homes or in their vehicles gets really close to trampling the basic rights of alleged free people.
Smokers have been dubbed every name in the book from stupid to immoral. While I may be inclined to sort of agree with the former, I strongly reject the label of immoral just because I like to lit up a Marlboro once in while, in the privacy of my home bunker or of my car. And it would not surprise me if some of those who consider my smoking "immoral" for the detrimental impact it may have on others are fervent supporters of abortion. I know, nobody ever promised me that people would make sense all the time, or even some of the time.
My problem with smoking is that I really enjoy it. It does have a calming effect on my nerves and I am addicted to it. Only those who share the whole concept with me can understand. It is as if I tried to understand the addiction that alcoholics have: I can understand the addiction part but, not being a drinker, not the attraction to the feelings of intoxication.
Researchers have stated that addiction to nicotine may be as powerful as the one to heroin. Never done heroin or cocaine or any other illegal substances, so my comparative ability is very limited. What I know for sure is that every time I have attempted to stop smoking, the results have been less than successful.
Today I am on day 24 of my latest attempt to rid myself of this addiction. And I am doing fine, mostly because the choice was mine and while my family has been insisting that I kick the bad habit, it was my decision about the time and the modality of my attempt.
First is motivation: I have been a smoker for over three decades and even someone as addicted as I am can find a spark of lucidity strong enough to understand that that shit is going to kill me. So the motivation is simple: I rather be around those I love for a while longer.
Second is trickery: I have been telling my body that I am just delaying the purchase of the next pack until later. The mind wants to remove those chains but the body screams against it. Victory in a war is the collections of as many victories in smaller battles as possible. Two hours without smoking is a small victory on the first day. A full day is a bigger battle yet, and so on.
Third is stubbornness: one of the things that everyone has been telling me in the past is that smoking is as much a habit as an addiction. As much as I agree with that statement, the suggestion that I need to change my habits, that I must give up certain behavior that may be related to smoking in order to resist the urge is unacceptable. Let me explain.
The common approach is to avoid any action that may be associated with a cigarette. One of the best times of the day for me is when I first get up in the morning and have my first cup of coffee. Well, that first cup of coffee comes with a cigarette, probably the best cig of the day together with checking out the news on line.
According to common knowledge I should have rejected that first cup of coffee too, and checking up on the world. Instead I still maintain the same routine minus the cigarette. It probably made it harder, but I forced myself to not have to give up more than I had to. Plus resisting the urge for that first smoke made the rest of the day almost easier.
One thing I can assure everyone it will not happen. This smoker is not going to become one of those ex-smokers that many want to take to the woods and execute.
I am not going to preach to other smokers what they should do. It is a personal decision, just like any other behavior. I will try to help anyone who asks me, but will not volunteer practices that are going to make it "easier" because nothing does.
The patches, the gum, the pills, the hypnosis, the e-cig, they all are successful in their own way. And they are not. If you are looking for a way to quit smoking that will not involve pain and withdrawals and nervousness, save your money.
Any of those methods will help only, and ONLY if, you really want to quit. But if you do, than you do not need any of them.
It gets better. On day 24 is much better than t was on day 1 or 2, 10 or 23. Still get some urges, but they become easier to control as time goes by.
The reward for me is that my family is around me, that I can hug my grandsons without leaving them smelling like an ashtray; that my bunker at home does not reek of spent cigarette butts.
What it comes down to is that smoking, just as any addiction, is a matter of personal decision.
I will be a smoker for the rest of my life, but I can make the conscientious decision to postpone smoking the next one as long as possible and do so one day at the time.
Just my thoughts!
That is the way it has to be, as certain things cannot be rushed nor imposed.
I am a smoker, have been one for many years. I can say that I really gave into the addiction and habit when I turned 18.
Up to that time, mind you it was 1978, smoking was cool and gave stupid kids like me the illusion of belonging to the mature masses of adult smokers. But as life demands changed, so did the image that that cigarette took in my mind.
All through High School, that cigarette was a social symbol aimed at making me cool and accepted by those around me. Once out of High School and faced with the the need to establish a plan for the rest of my life, that cigarette became more of a companion than a social statement. I was definitely addicted.
The last 34 years have seen tobacco smoking going from a dubious, misguided symbol of coolness to a pretest for ostracism. We smokers have been maligned into a group marked for elimination via legalized persecution.
OK, maybe I am exaggerating a bit, but in reality not too much.
Leaving aside the restrictions instituted to protect non-smokers, restrictions which, by the way, I not only agree with but engaged in long before they became law, forbidding smokers to smoke within the city limits of a town, or in their own homes or in their vehicles gets really close to trampling the basic rights of alleged free people.
Smokers have been dubbed every name in the book from stupid to immoral. While I may be inclined to sort of agree with the former, I strongly reject the label of immoral just because I like to lit up a Marlboro once in while, in the privacy of my home bunker or of my car. And it would not surprise me if some of those who consider my smoking "immoral" for the detrimental impact it may have on others are fervent supporters of abortion. I know, nobody ever promised me that people would make sense all the time, or even some of the time.
My problem with smoking is that I really enjoy it. It does have a calming effect on my nerves and I am addicted to it. Only those who share the whole concept with me can understand. It is as if I tried to understand the addiction that alcoholics have: I can understand the addiction part but, not being a drinker, not the attraction to the feelings of intoxication.
Researchers have stated that addiction to nicotine may be as powerful as the one to heroin. Never done heroin or cocaine or any other illegal substances, so my comparative ability is very limited. What I know for sure is that every time I have attempted to stop smoking, the results have been less than successful.
Today I am on day 24 of my latest attempt to rid myself of this addiction. And I am doing fine, mostly because the choice was mine and while my family has been insisting that I kick the bad habit, it was my decision about the time and the modality of my attempt.
First is motivation: I have been a smoker for over three decades and even someone as addicted as I am can find a spark of lucidity strong enough to understand that that shit is going to kill me. So the motivation is simple: I rather be around those I love for a while longer.
Second is trickery: I have been telling my body that I am just delaying the purchase of the next pack until later. The mind wants to remove those chains but the body screams against it. Victory in a war is the collections of as many victories in smaller battles as possible. Two hours without smoking is a small victory on the first day. A full day is a bigger battle yet, and so on.
Third is stubbornness: one of the things that everyone has been telling me in the past is that smoking is as much a habit as an addiction. As much as I agree with that statement, the suggestion that I need to change my habits, that I must give up certain behavior that may be related to smoking in order to resist the urge is unacceptable. Let me explain.
The common approach is to avoid any action that may be associated with a cigarette. One of the best times of the day for me is when I first get up in the morning and have my first cup of coffee. Well, that first cup of coffee comes with a cigarette, probably the best cig of the day together with checking out the news on line.
According to common knowledge I should have rejected that first cup of coffee too, and checking up on the world. Instead I still maintain the same routine minus the cigarette. It probably made it harder, but I forced myself to not have to give up more than I had to. Plus resisting the urge for that first smoke made the rest of the day almost easier.
One thing I can assure everyone it will not happen. This smoker is not going to become one of those ex-smokers that many want to take to the woods and execute.
I am not going to preach to other smokers what they should do. It is a personal decision, just like any other behavior. I will try to help anyone who asks me, but will not volunteer practices that are going to make it "easier" because nothing does.
The patches, the gum, the pills, the hypnosis, the e-cig, they all are successful in their own way. And they are not. If you are looking for a way to quit smoking that will not involve pain and withdrawals and nervousness, save your money.
Any of those methods will help only, and ONLY if, you really want to quit. But if you do, than you do not need any of them.
It gets better. On day 24 is much better than t was on day 1 or 2, 10 or 23. Still get some urges, but they become easier to control as time goes by.
The reward for me is that my family is around me, that I can hug my grandsons without leaving them smelling like an ashtray; that my bunker at home does not reek of spent cigarette butts.
What it comes down to is that smoking, just as any addiction, is a matter of personal decision.
I will be a smoker for the rest of my life, but I can make the conscientious decision to postpone smoking the next one as long as possible and do so one day at the time.
Just my thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
