Guns, laws, and politicians. Will it ever change?

A fight for freedom

The United States of America is a country of many rights including the freedom to bear arms. However, should we ordinary citizens be allowed to bear arms in our modern times? The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants citizens the right to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was established in 1791 and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which also allowed citizens to bear arms. James Madison's initial proposal to the bill of rights read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person". The original intent of our forefathers was basically to allow citizens to be armed in order to participate in militias, in the defense of the country, and to put down insurrections. There was also a concern that the people needed a way to balance the power of any standing army that the federal government put in place. They believed that if citizens had the right to bear arms they would basically outnumber any standing army , and ensure that government didn't become tyrannical and oppressive.  When the second amendment was put in place this country was still the wild west. People needed guns for protection of all sorts. Protection from wild animals, protection from unfriendly natives, protection from criminals. The U.S. did not have a police force that could adequately protect their rights, and the U.S. didn't have a professional army, only the militias comprised of citizen volunteers. Fast forward to modern times and we no longer have militias. We have the largest military force in the world that outspends every other country combined. Every town, city, and state has multiple levels of police presence. We have the third largest police force in the world behind China and India. We also have 31,672 needless deaths a year with fire arms of all types as counted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). We rank number one in the world in the number of guns owned by it's citizens. We have 270 million total guns in the U.S. and that averages to 89 firearms per 100 residents. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2011 in the year 2011 there where 467,321 fire arms crime victims in the U.S. Since 1982 there have been at least 62 mass shootings in the U.S. In the past few years we've had mass shooting in movie theaters in Colorado, places of worship such as the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, at wok sites like the sign manufacturer in Minneapolis, and even in a elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut to name just a few. Three quarters of the 143 guns used in these horrific crimes where obtained legally and 71 of them where semi-automatics. Out of the 71 semi-automatics, more then half (48), would be outlawed if there where laws similar to the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 which failed to pass.

Modern hand guns

Pro Gun groups would like to have the country believe that everybody should have a gun. That every law abiding citizen has the right to self defense, and to protect themselves and their property. Wayne LaPierre the Executive Vice President of the National Riffle Association (NRA) said during the Conservative Political Action Conference "We trust our freedom, In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive, to protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns and handguns we want. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you?" Thomas Jefferson in the Thomas Jefferson Papers states "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". Having a gun in this country is legal and as James Banks said it "...does not mean that I feel a need to justify owning guns beyond the fact that I use them responsibly, am old enough to purchase them legally, and enjoy having them." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stated that having a gun is "a human right for every person on the planet" and when running for president in 2012 he proposed that a treaty in the U.N. should be created to that end. Mr. Gingrich said that this would allow for "far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed, far fewer towns would be destroyed."

Where does that leaves us? A country that has lost according to the CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 61, No. 4, May 8, 2013 well over 360,000 citizens from 1999-2010. That is more than all terrorist attacks to this country combined. The NRA has contributed more than $20 million toward political candidates since 1990, and another $32 million on lobbying since 1998. The NRA in 1996 successfully lobbied to cut funding of the CDC's gun violence research program which would've provided us with more useful information on the role of fire arms in this country. So we as a country could make informed decisions instead of emotional ones. Recently President Obama unfroze the program via an executive order.
Should the law be changed to allow only professionals with the necessity to carry fire-arms in carrying out their duties. This group of professionals being limited to the police force and other security professionals that protects the public's interest. Allowing anybody to own a fire arm just increase the pool of available weapons available to criminals. There are no reliable statistics that point out how law abiding citizen use their fire arms for self protection. However, the criminal element in this country has easily accessible weapons because of our constitutional right and because of that easy access crime with guns occurs. Other countries that have a stronger laws on fire arms have a much lower crime rates. In 2009 the UK had 138 gun deaths; in 2009 Canada had 173 gun deaths; in 2008 Japan's and 11 gun deaths; in 2010 Australia had 30 gun deaths.

Having such an abundant supply of fire arms and a culture of acceptance towards violence incorrectly allows criminals, vigilantes, people with mental health issues to take matters into their own hands. It allows criminals to commit more dangerous crimes against citizens. It  robs our inner city youth of their lives, and their futures. It allows massacres of the innocent in theaters, in workplaces, in schools, in military bases. On a more personal note my son in 2012 at the age of 17 was shoot 10 times by a criminal. The fact is that regardless if the fire arm was obtained legally or not ,or regardless of what laws where on the books this young man was in possession of a fire arm. My son did survive, and is just another statistic in this whole gun debate, and I venture to guess that if guns weren't readily available then that criminal element would find it harder if not nearly impossible to obtain a fire arm.

So what is the solution? Do we make it harder to own a weapon? Do we go the route of other countries and make it impossible? We as a country need to stop being so emotional over this issue. We need to sit down and have a real conversation of the issue, and find a solution. We should institute common sense laws, move to newer technology for fire arms. There are smart guns available that can negate the firing of the weapon by unauthorized users. The Armatix IP1 is one example of such a device. We should invest more in mental health services and education. We should remove the negative influence of lobbyist on this issue.

Ultimately, we should respect our laws, and honor the rights that so many of our citizens have died for, but we must remember that the constitution, and all works of men are not holly and sacred. We are flawed creatures, and our creations are only as perfect as we are. Times change and we adapt to the changes in our society, culture, and environment, and our laws should adapt with the changing times.

What the Frac...ing

The United States has been a major consumer of oil, coal, and natural gas. We have used those energy resources for the past 100 years. Our industrial sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, mining, construction), our transportation sectors (vehicles used to transport people or goods), our commercial sectors (office buildings, stores, churches, service industry, etc...) and even our homes depend on fossil fuels. As of 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 81% of our energy needs came from fossil fuels, with only 9% from various renewable energy sources, and 8% from nuclear electric power. The United States in 2012 was able to produce 83% of the energy needed with the remainder imported. It's clear that we as a nation depend on energy to keep our economy going, but is the continued consumption of fossil fuel the right thing in the long run. It's estimated that we have enough oil to last anywhere from 50 to 140 years, depending on who you believe and that may increase with continued innovations and efficiencies to technology that makes oil accessible.Our need for energy is so demanding that we have created a new process called Hydraulic fracturing better known as fracking. Fracking drills a whole into the earth right above a shale deposit. The drill goes down a few miles then angles of horizontally for a couple of miles and then basically pushes water, sand, and chemicals into cracks made by the drill until natural gas is released.  Fracking is being done at the Bakken and Marcellus shale formation in the northern Appalachian Basin which goes through various states.

The U.S. Geological Survey 2013 reassessment of the Bakken and Three forks area found that the Bakken and Three Forks area contained "7.4 billion barrels of oil, 6.7 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 0.53 billion barrels of natural gas liquids". The OhioEPA on their "Drilling for Natural Gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shales: Environmental Regulatory Basics" paper states that there are "363 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to satisfy U.S. energy demands for about 14 years." This enormous amount has brought the oil industry to expand into these areas. The oil companies have moved into these areas and leased the land from home owners and created thousands of wells. The wells are flushed with "...up to four million gallons of fresh water" and that water contains sand and chemicals. Most of the water stays underground and around 15% of it comes up the well within 7 days. The environmental impact of fracking hasn't be thoroughly studied, but there's a growing concern that the process may be contaminating groundwater. In 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft report stating that chemicals from fracking were found in well water in Wyoming.

The environmental problems are just one of the issues surrounding fracking. The presence of newly found oil and gas brings a huge amounts of people from all walks of life from around the U.S. into the affected areas. The oil companies have to keep water, waste water, gas, oil, and other products moving to and from the sites. Oil workers of all types work at the rigs and become permanent workers of the areas as the wells can last 30-40 years. Small rural towns that weren't equipped to handle thousands of people find struggle through growing pains. The boom is great for local business like restaurants, bars, hotels, and stores. However, there is a darker side in the increase in crime, prostitution and the change in the rural communities culture. The towns don't have the resources, or the budgets, to build new roads, schools, or hire staff. Hiring staff becomes a problem as the towns can't pay as well a salary as the oil companies. The documentary "Boom! Behind the Bakken" by PBS Montana chronicles the issues around fast growth of the town of Williston in Montana, a small town around the Bakken area. Economically fracking is positive for the individuals, towns, region and country. It creates thousands of jobs and provides and energy resource that the country needs.

Fracking creates jobs. During the Conservative Policy Summit this year Senator Ted Cruz of Texas goes on the say that the average pay of North Dakota is $45 an hour. That McDonalds was given a $300 sign in bonus, that high school graduates can earn more than $80k driving a truck and Wal-Mart cashiers are making $17 an hour.  Daniel Simmons Director of State Affairs at the Institute for Energy Research stated that  "...multistate governmental agency representing states' oil and gas interests have found no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids." Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy Corporation explains fresh water aqua-firs occur from the surface to at most 1000 feet below the surface and that companies are fracking at a distance much further than that . He implied that the drinking water will be safe.

A 60 Minutes show aired on May 4, 2013 goes into details around the human errors that cause accidents, leakeages, spills, and explosions. The state EPA fined a fracking company after recording infrared images of hissing and poping smoke stack. The same video shows an accident in Lousiana where 17 cows died because they ingested fracking fluids that run off into their pastures. If those chemicals can kill a cow what do you think it will do humans? To make matters worst the companies that conduct fracking are not required by law to list what chemicals are being used to frac. This is because they where exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) via a loop hole known as Haliburton loop hole which was pushed by then Vice President Dick Cheney. Even with the issues documented with fracking it is still a real opportunity for the U.S. to become energy independent and remove OPEC from our energy equation. It shouldn't be an end all. We should continue with fracking but ensure that companies adhere to the law and that government puts in place stronger safety standards that minimize accidents. The corporations running the fracking sites should be held to a more stringent safety standard to ensure the environment isn't destroyed. Furthermore, government should continue to invest in the creation of cleaner, renewable energy and see the additional fossil fuel capacity of the shale formations as bridge to green energy. This will be the way our economy can transition from old and dying legacy fuels to greener, cleaner, healthier alternatives that can keep our economy growing without destroying our environment.

Reflections...

On the afternoon of April 15, 2013 I was home with my husband. I was prepping the ingredients for our dinner for that evening. We were laughing, talking and just enjoying each others company. As usual the television in the kitchen was on, when all of a sudden out of nowhere there was an interruption on the news about what was happening in the 117th Boston Marathon. We both sat down watching in disbelief as another terrorist attack was unfolding in our own backward. My first thoughts were for real? How can this be? It felt surreal. I saw the images on the television but couldn't believe it was happening. I remember my husband saying god bless those people and give them strength. I felt the pain of those poor people as if it was me in the middle of that chaos. How I would freak out, feel confused, scared, and not be sure of what to do or where to go. How can somebody in the middle of all that chaos know where it was safe to go?

The city and our Government learned that the country is still vulnerable to terrorist attack. The nation realized that the "war on terror" as President Bush declared isn't over. The world learned that people will do evil and cowardly things to make their points, and that Boston citizens are tough and don't cave in to terrorism. We are Boston strong. We all saw the bystanders that run into the blast to help out their fellow citizens.That horrible event also showcased how as Richard Serino stated in his statement to the hearing for Lessons Learned from the Boston Marathon Bombings: Preparing for and Responding to the Attack on July 10, 2013 "It was an amazing example of humanity, service and teamwork". In the same hearing Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, III stated that "The community plays one of the most important roles in our Nation’s fight against terrorism. They contributed to the success, efficiency and safe resolution of the investigation by providing videos, photographs, information and sheltering in place." Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann stated that "Boston’s responders were both lucky and good". The real lesson learned in this horrible event is that we as people don't really have the power to stop a lone wolf intent in hurting people, but we have the power to live and help those in need.



As a society we have to understand that terrorism is a form of manipulation. It is meant to terrify a community to despair and and give in to the terrorist demands. So what do we do about it? We do like that old British propaganda saying "Keep Calm Carry On". We don't let the terrorist dictate how we live. We live our lives without fear even if the possibility of an attack is around the corner. The minute we lock ourselves away and stop living freely we lose to the terrorist. We become stronger by continuing living and not fearing. We remember the victims of these horrible acts and turn it into moments of solidarity. Our next steps should be to identify how this happened. How a person living in this country can so easily turn into a lone wolf terrorist and use the very freedoms guaranteed by our constitution to terrorize.

The latest terror threats we receive are from Muslims extremist intent on harming the west by any means necessary. As a country we need to look into the war on terror, and be honest in determining if these wars have made us safer or left us with more enemies. In an analysis by James L. Payne of Osama's bin Laden's statements and interviews documented in the book "Messages to the World (2005)" by Bruce Lawrence 72% of bin Laden's statement revolve around "Criticism of U.S./Western/Jewish aggression, oppression, and
exploitation of Muslim lands and peoples". The percentage is staggering and telling if the ill will towards the west comes from our involvement with Muslims lands and it's people ,then why not give the terrorist what they want. Let's leave those country alone. Let them figure out what they want for their own lives, governments, and countries.

People do horrible things and this is nothing new. After all we been dealing with terrorism for decades, prior to 9/11 we had domestic terrorist. We have people dying through mass shootings in schools, malls, and churches. We also have empathetic, altruistic and brave people that jump into the fray and help out others. That characteristic of the american psyche is was makes me proud to be an american. We are strong, independent and don't give up easily.

9/11 did we make a mistake?

On September 11, 2001 the world as we knew it changed. It was the day that no american ever expected to see in their lifetimes. An attack on multiple sites at a massive scale on American soil. The country of the free and the brave was given a black eye, beaten down and left on the ground crying. The attack, perpetrated by al-Qaeda, turned  our own planes into missiles that went straight into the leadership of our military in the Pentagon and our financial power house in the world trade center. Almost three thousand lives where lost that day. It was more than the lives taken in Pearl Harbor and once again it had awaken a sleeping giant.

The attack change the blundering Bush administration from a vacationing President to as he called himself a "War President" with War in his mind. It also changed the American psyche forever. It made terrorism something that no longer happened in other places but could happen to them at anytime. That fear was then played up by the Bush administration to make sweeping changes to our government and country. The administration led the country into two wars. In October 2011 with support from various NATO nations we invaded Afghanistan with the purpose of finding Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. Later the administration started making the case to invade Iraq and according to Bush's Treasury Secretary,  Paul O'Neill, the administration was intent in removing Saddam Hussein from power prior to the terrorist attack on 9/11. The administration claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to use them on the United States. In an address to the nation on March 22, 2003 President Bush stated "our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." According to an article by Joby Warrick of the Washington Post WMDs or biological weapons where never found.

The administration also took this opportunity to create a new behemoth of an organization to rule all other intelligence agencies. The Department of Homeland security was born out of this chaos, not to mention the growth of what the Washington Post investigation called "Top Secret America"where over 850,000 people have top security clearances and large corporations are involved in this new business for profit. The patriot act was also created during this time and it gave those agencies broad scope in powers that allowed them to eaves drop on all American citizens.

The administration used the terrorist attack to push this country into a war on terrorism. The reaction and response to the terrorist attack was overkill. It created fear and suffering not only in this country but through out the world. The intent presented to the public was to make america safe from terrorism.

There are various people that believe the war with Iraq was worth it. James Phillips Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation stated that "...the Iraq war was a risk worth taking". Abraham Sofaer George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution stated "...the war was worth the cost, for one reason above all: It freed the world of a dangerous, determined, and irrational leader..." CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate believes that we are much safer now in this new world than what we were in 2001. He believes we have better intelligence sharing and cooperation around the world. He states "the proof is in the pudding we've disrupted plots". The 9/11 Commission 10 year report card in conclusion states "Today, our country is undoubtedly safer and more secure

than it was a decade ago."

This is America's longest war and it hasn't succeeded in making America safer or stopping terrorism in the world. As the Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations states in the conclusion of their report "We have damaged our enemy,  but the ideology of violent Islamist extremism is alive and  attracting new adherents, including right here in our own country". According to a recent study conducted by a collaboration of Universities and the Iraqi government there have been 500,000 deaths in Iraq alone. Think about how many of those family left suffering blame their condition to United States rash decision to go to war. We are no closer to winning this war on terror. We have provided the necessary anger, frustration, hate needed for disenfranchised Muslims to join in bin Laden's Jihad for years to come. In the process we have lost 8,400 precious soldiers and over 50,000 of those brave souls have sustained injuries. We have spent 1.7 trillion dollars in the war in Iraq alone and now a Harvard study projects that in the decades to come the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan war will reach 4 to 6 trillion dollars. The wars during the Bush administration created ill will towards America. Committed billions of dollars into destroying a country and then trying to rebuild the same. All the while American citizens where losing their jobs and homes and where constantly being stressed out with warnings of possible terrorist attacks. America is worst off now than it was prior to the wars.

It's alive...welcome to the Super PAC

In the year 2008 a new change in the law was introduced in the United States. It was the year that Supreme Court ruled on the Citizen's United vs. FEC (Federal Election Commission) case in favor of Citizen's United. The ruling allowed corporations and organizations for the first time to have the same rights as U.S. citizens. Specifically the ruling would give the first amendment right of freedom of speech to corporations. This change can be a game changer for democracy it has the power to empower a broader conversation within our political system. A level of transparency can be seen from the listing of donors for each of the Super PACs. At the same time there is an influx of large sums of money that are used to gain a media advantage over the competition which can be unfair.

‘My Super PAC Can Beat Up Your Super PAC!’

The conservatives are claiming that this move is "good for democracy". They believe because of the ruling there will be an increase in the "number of voices in campaigns". David Bossie from Citizen United said it was a victory for the first amendment and the "...fundamental rights of people to participate in the political process and the market place of ideas". They claim to be spreading awareness and education. The supporters of the decision don't see the corporations as evil entities. They see corporations as "legitimate enterprises" that should have the right to express the companies political views. Cleta Mitchell from Foley & Lardner LLC stated "the bigger the business in America the more politically correct it is". They see the ruling as a way to level the playing field which allows conservatives to have better exposure in the media. The conservatives believe if we don't let corporations and associations voice their political views then we are limiting our democracy.

The liberals on the other hand are afraid that the influx of corporate money, the possibility of billions, will harm the political process by allowing the Super PACs to manipulate the results of an election. They believe that with enough money an election can be purchased via the use of political ads to influence the voter base. They specifically worry about the influence to those citizens with limited education. Another if not greater fear is that corporations will back conservatives over liberals because of their "pro business" stance in the GOP party. However, with that being said they also believe that it gives corporations "too much power" in this country's political process.That it allows the Super PACs to run ads that may not be accurate or "downright manipulative", but allows a candidate to safely claim it wasn't their doing.

Student body Super PAC by DAVID FITZSIMMONS

ABC-Washington Post poll results

Once again I'm with the liberal point of view on this one. I don't think it's a good idea for corporations to have the first amendment right. The corporations speech should be limited to selling their product or services and providing customer support. A corporation is a group of people and as individuals they can voice their personal political views just like any other citizen. The conservatives would like you to believe that it levels the playing field and allows an increase in the number of voices in a campaign. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of us our voices are drowned in the political process. The top 25 donors to the Super PAC's in 2012 gave over $300 million dollars, with the Adelson family given a whopping $93 Million. How can a regular Joe compete with those numbers? The reporter Rachel Maddow in MSNBC said "...what's the point in individual people trying to influence politics with their donations if Exxon or some other company can quite literally match and therefore cancel out the combined donation of every single individual donor in the nation whenever it wants". That's a very scary prospect that our political system can be even more unresponsive to the people and cater even further to big business. Lastly let point you to a 2010 ABC-Washington Post poll done in Feb. 4-8, 2010 that showed %80 of individuals opposed the ruling. Ironic that a country founded by the people for the people now gives rights to corporations, which sole purpose is to make money, and with their money the corporations have a bigger voice than the people.

Interview of a friend

Government Cheese from 1960s-1990s

I'm excited to share with you all what I learned while interviewing my friend James Johnson (named changed at his request). James was raised in the inner city, and at 14 didn't see much of a future for himself, or his friends. He came from a blue color family that was always struggling. Even though both his parents worked full time jobs they had a hard time making ends meets. James remembers various instances where his mother and father were laid off from work and had nothing to fall on. These where tough times but the government was there to help with food stamps and government cheese. James attended various high schools, but they weren't safe or stimulating , and like many of his peers he dropped out. He decided to signed up for a government program called Job Corps (www.jobcorps.gov) . This is a program that helps disadvantage youth earn an education, and a trade, so they could become productive citizens. That was another way which government helped James in his life.





James considers himself an independent with a strong liberal tendency. Although he considers himself an independent , he hasn't voted once for the republican parties benefit. When asked why he stated that" he was more aligned to the democratic party" in the belief that government has a duty to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities, and that system treat everybody fairly , and equally. James said, "I'm more for the people than for businesses. People have morality and value life, while the majority of business only value their bottom lines." James also stated that he could relate to some ideals of the republican party such as the death penalty, personal responsibility, and individual liberties, but was turned off by their rigid views on abortions, homosexuality, marriage, global warming, science, gun-control, support for a massive military and their eagerness to wage war. In my opinion James political views revolve around social justice and fairness.

Democrat's common logo

My political views are also on the left side of the spectrum. I see myself as an independent and just like James I do favor the Democratic party over the Republicans. Like James, my political views where defined by my culture and social standing early on in childhood. My family received similar services as James, with a lot more complications. I didn't have a two parent family that was able to make ends meet. My siblings and I were part of a system that cared for children without homes ,at the time named (DSS) now known as (DCF) , and is funded by the government ,and without that system I would've never made it. That system was part of a social safety net that liberals believe in and support. That's not to say that I have total faith in the system. I believe the leadership of our system is failing it's people. There is a sentiment of injustice and a unbalance of power. In this country those with power stay in power and those with money make more money ,while the rest of us barely make ends meet. We need leaders that can work together for the common good of the country through consensus and true desire to build a pathway to the middle class again and bring a level of equality to all.

Throughout this interviewed I was reminded that people have strong political views that are based on their experiences. That their political beliefs are often molded by not only their family, but their upbringing and experiences. Had James been from a middle class family in the Midwest or had his parents not needing the support from the government his views would've been different. However, because he did depend on those programs as did I ,our views where shaped by those events and ideals. Talking to James confirmed my views about politicians and politics in general. There's good to be done in this country, but if we let the career politicians pretend to care and do the job ,the job will never be completed for our people.

The questions asked

1. How did you vote in the last election? Why? 
2. Do you consider yourself a liberal, conservative, or independent? 
3. What life experiences have shaped your political values? 
4. What key issues are most important to you, when it comes to US policy? 
5. Who will you likely vote for in the future? Are you happy with your party?
6. How do you feel about the Tea Party and are they effective?
7. Do you think immigration reform should be passed? Should there be amnesty?
8. How do you feel about a flat tax?
9. Now that two states have legalized the use of Marijuana do you think the federal government should also make it legal?
10. If you could mandate one change in our political system what would that be?

Welcome to my blog!!

So this is my very first venture into the blogosphere. It being my very first I'll give you some basics about me, talk a little about my ethnicity, my city, my children, and my interest. Bear with me as I make this very first trip.

Simple Bio

Puerto Rico's Flag

Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I'm originally from the Boston area, born and raised. Attended various schools in Boston. I'm Boricua by ancestry and for those that don't know that means that I'm Puerto Rican. May not have been born there but that doesn't make a difference.  Yo Soy Boricua Pa’ Que Tu Lo Sepas.

Being a Boricua means you know the sound of the Coquí. Somehow we all know about the Coquí, even if we've never been to Puerto Rico. It may very well be imprinted in our DNA. Here I am rambling about the Coquí and realized that you may not even know what it is. If you don't check out the el boricua site for interesting information about our favorite little frog (oh yeah the Coquí is a tree frog, and no it doesn't look like Kermit.) The most interesting part of a Coquí other than it's a frog that can climb trees is the sound it makes. It's just music to us Borinqueños ears. Look at the video of the cute little frog to have a listen.

Enough of frogs and songs. I do have four children which will remain nameless for privacy sake. Oh and they're all boys. Two are grown with their own families and two are still growing. Who am I kidding, we are all still growing in one way or another. The minute you stop growing and learning is the minute you cease to exist. So with my ancestry and family out of the way you may be asking what I like to do....well my interest vary.

Children of the world (I think one of mine is in there somewhere)

My Interest

I enjoy playing tennis and volleyball, but I must admit it's been a while since I've played. Maybe one day I'll have that pleasure again.

I don't really play any video games of sort, but in my down time when I'm not caring for my kids, cooking, cleaning I play DragonVale on my phone. It's a silly little game but I'm hooked. It's available for Android devices and iPhones. See the video below and tell me I'm not crazy.

I love to cook. Nothing like your own ethnic food. I love me some Puerto Rican food. Just go to el boricua and take a look at some of the recipes and tell me it doesn't look good. Puerto Rican food is my passion, next to Italian and cleanliness...yes I'm a neat freak. I have to have my house sparkling clean. Isn't it said that "cleanliness is next to godliness". You be the judge.

As a kid I always wanted to be a writer. I enjoy writing and putting ideas and experiences on paper as long as they're facts. I have a vision of someday writing my life story even if it doesn't get published. Just as a way to show my children and family how one can overcome adversity, how one can make something of what's given to us even if it's not the best situation. How everybody deserves to fall in love at least once in their life and live life not just let life go by. Someday, I'll sit down and write about those experiences and maybe even share it.