This written by Elise Cooper and everyone should read it for it will touch your heart and thoughts on Mothers days.
 
Remembering Two Great
Mothers on Mother's Day
by Elise Cooper


{ americanthinker.com } ~ This year, two great mothers died.  One is famous, and one is not.  Yet they both had a lot in common.

On April 17, Barbara Bush died at the age of ninety-two.  My mom, Cynthia Audrey Czerniak, although not well known except to her family, died on February 23, at the age of eighty-eight.  This Sunday is Mother's Day and anyone with a loving mom will understand the dedication below.

The finality of her passing is setting in, and I think how I wish my mom could come back and stay a while.  I want to hear her voice.  And see her smile.  I want to hug her tight.  And say how much I love her.  The quote from best-selling author Kristin Hannah expresses how any loving child feels: "love for a mother is a durable thing, as vast as this landscape, as immutable as the sea.  Stronger than time itself." 

In his eulogy to his mom, Jeb Bush told of how she "filled our life with laughter and joy.  In the case of our family, she was our teacher and role model on how to live a life with purpose and meaning.  Our mom was our first and important teacher, making sure we sat up, looked people in the eye, said please and thank you, did our homework, and quit whining and complaining.  What a blessing to have a teacher like that 24-7."

I have to agree wholeheartedly, since through my mom's strength, persistence, encouragement, and determination, I was able to persevere and overcome a physical handicap.  It was incredible to me that she could look at my face or hear my voice on the phone and know something was bothering me.  Even in her state of dementia and with all her physical problems, there would be times when I gave a long sigh, and she would ask what was wrong and how can she help.  Yes, there were times she did not remember my name, but there were also times when I would say, "Who am I?," and she gave me that look of hers, like "What are you talking about?  Of course I know who you are, and then she would humor me by saying, "My daughter, Elise."

Jeb Bush describes his mom's style as "a benevolent dictatorship where there were no safe spaces or micro-aggressions allowed."  My dad used to refer to mom as "the general."  Both women were tough and had expectations of their children and grandchildren.  These mothers, who came from the "Greatest Generation," had an old-fashioned view of the world and insisted that we follow the rules of civility and manners, something that is more needed today than ever.

Bestselling author Iris Johansen describes her character as a mother who would become a "female terminator."  Both Barbara Bush and my mom fit the mold.  They would circle the wagons when one of the clan was threatened, while realizing that as a family we can get through anything.  Their special job was to keep the darkness out and insulate, trying to surround their loved ones by joy and sunlight.

Both women believed fiercely in family.  They knew that having arguments and disagreements was a part of life but insisted that "we get over it," emphasizing that without family, you have nobody.  In honoring her memory, I think of how my mom would want the family to remain close.  She taught all of us to realize that there are times we get angry at each other, are disappointed with one another, might disagree, but in the end, we should honor and love each other.  Mom said over the years, "It takes a strong person to say sorry, and a stronger person to forgive.  To have love, you must move on."

Cynthia was not only a marvelous mother, but a fantastic grandmother as well.  Giving unconditional love is what grandmas do best.  My children recall that their grandmother was full of love and warmth, with unconditional devotion and commitment to her family.  "What is remembered most is the huge smile and hug grandma would give immediately upon walking in.  And of course, she insisted on the goodbye kiss from us.  Looking back, there isn't a better feeling than first seeing Grandma's smile so full of warmth.  She was our family's heart."

Anyone who has watched the Blue Bloods TV show knows that the most important scene was the family sitting around the dinner table.  At my house, it was the family holiday dinners.  We all waited for my dad to toast her: "The hostess with the mostest!"  This was deservedly so, since it was her phenomenal cooking that made these family outings so special every single year.  She could whip up anything delicious at a moment's notice.  But it wasn't just the actual taste of the food that made it so great.  It was the fact of how much she cared and how much pride she took in making it for her loved ones so that they would have fond memories.  Everything she had a hand in always tasted better, probably because it was made with love.

My mom will remain a presence in her family's life.  This is the first Mother's Day without her, and although she will not be with us in body, her spirit will always guide us.  As an unknown poet said about mothers, "now the time has come for you to rest.  So go in peace, you've earned your sleep.  Your love in our hearts we'll eternally keep."  Everyone who still has a mother alive today should make sure to let her know how much she is loved.

Views: 10

Reply to This

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

ALERT ALERT

FBI Text Should Alarm Every American

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

TEA PARTY TARGET

 Trump Poised To Take
 Control Of The Federal Reserve 

  • The Fed doesn’t stabilize markets and money — it does the opposite
  • President Trump sharply criticized the Federal Reserve this week, saying interest rate increases are hurting the economy.
  • Trump will have the opportunity to fashion the central bank in the image he would like as he has four vacancies to fill on the board of governors.
  • The result could be a more politicized Fed.

President Donald Trump has multiple reasons as to why he should take control of the Federal Reserve. He will do so both because he can and because his broader policies argue that he should do so. The president is anti-overregulating American industry. The Fed is a leader in pushing stringent regulation on the nation. By raising interest rates and stopping the growth in the money supply it stands in the way of further growth in the American economy.

First, He Can

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump.

The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Other than the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.

Second, Regulation

Following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act in July 2010, the Fed was given enormous power to regulate the banking industry. It moved quickly to implement a number of new rules. The Fed set up a system that would penalize banks that failed to obey its new rules. These rules included setting limits as to how big an individual bank could be; how much money the banks had to invest in fed funds and Treasurys as a percent of their assets; which loans were desirable and which were not; where the banks had to obtain their funding and many, many, more up to and including how much a bank could pay its investors in dividends.

These rules have meaningfully slowed bank investments in the economy (the Volcker Rule) and they have had a crippling effect on bank lending in the housing markets (other agencies have had an impact here also).

Thus, of all of the government agencies the Fed has been possibly the most restrictive. The president has already moved to correct these excesses by putting in place a new Fed Governor (Randal Quarles) to regulate the banking industry.

Three, Killing Economic Growth

In the second quarter of 2018, the growth in non-seasonally adjusted money supply (M2) has been zero. That’s right, the money supply did not grow at all. This is because the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet ultimately by $50 billion per month. In addition, the Fed has raised interest rates seven times since Q4 2015. Supposedly there are five more rate increases coming.

This is the tightest monetary policy since Paul Volcker headed the institution in the mid-1980s. It will be recalled his policies led to back-to-back recessions. Current Fed monetary policy is directly in conflict with the president’s economic goals.

Moreover, the Treasury is estimating it will pay $415 billion in interest on the federal debt in this fiscal year. A better estimate might be $450 billion if rates keep going up. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels and jobs that could be created with this money.

Then there is inflation. It is likely to rise if the Fed eases its policies. If that happens paying down the federal debt becomes easier. On a less desirable note, higher interest rates lower real estate values. Lower rates that stimulate inflation increase real estate values.

Bottom Line

The president can and will take control of the Fed. It may be recalled when the law was written creating the Federal Reserve the secretary of the Treasury was designated as the head of the Federal Reserve. We are going to return to that era. Like it or not the Fed is about to be politicized.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service