All you writers out there... this is for you!

First, I really wish that I could go to a writer's conference. I am saving my pennies, but it seems that there is always something more important like gas for the car or groceries or paying the Down With Debt fund. One day, God willing and the creek doesn't rise, I will be there soaking up all that wisdom and feasting on all the opportunities offered. One day it will happen.

However, the article which is the link of this title will help any blossoming author or even some of the veterans who may need some sage advice. It is crucially important to have all your ducks in a row before entering the water.

This is also true of bloggers and freelance article writers. It would seem that what makes publishers sit up and take notice is what sells. This is what Eric Wilson is so concerned about and frankly, Christian authors, too. Who wants to pour blood, sweat and tears into something which will never sell? It is fine to have a hobby, but God gives a gift to be used and shared for the edification of His church. That should be the main goal of every gifted writer, right?

Click on the link and soak in this sage advice, then put it into practice. What has worked before will work again.

Eric Wilson hanging up the gloves?

Perhaps this post should go on my Upon Reflection Blog, but I believe this is more of a global rant, rather than centered upon Christian fiction, I'll post it here.

Do we have a perception problem here? Wilson laments that the Christian fiction realm has become basically a milk and water pool with everything "scrubbed clean" so it will be palatable to the Christian market.

I disagree with that. I read five books a month, sometimes less sometimes more, and I completely understand Wilson's lament about the "poorly written" novels... but not about the "scrubbed clean" menu. I've read some things by Ted Dekker which frankly I couldn't stomach the whole because it conjured up images that made my stomach roil. Don't get me wrong, his writing is so excellent and my imagination so strong that the combination of the two put me into the criminals head too logistically and I went places I desired not to go. That won't keep me from reading more of Ted Dekker.

Eric, if you have a problem with milk and water publishers, then find another publisher! Bob Liparilo has some graphic stuff in his adult suspense that Thomas Nelson has no problem publishing. FaithWords publishes the graphic angst offered by Travis Thrasher, and Strang publishes Mike Dellosso's graphic mysteries, so why is Wilson giving up? Because he doesn't want to censor the "raw elements"?

There is a verse in scripture that I would like to remind you of, Eric.Philippians 4:8  For the rest, brothers, whatever is true, whatever honorable, whatever is right, whatever pure, whatever lovely, whatever of good report, if of any virtue, and if of any praise, think on these things.

Does this mean that we are not to get our hands dirty witnessing to the lost? God forbid! But, we are to live to a higher standard and we are to write by a higher standard! Write from God's heart. Glorifying the sins of God's people and of the lost is not within God's will. Living to a higher standard of conduct is not a suggestion therefore if we are commanded to live to the higher standard, then it follows that we are to write to a higher standard and if that means we must work harder and longer to craft sentences without vulgar language, and without the baser graphics that secular authors offer, then so be it. The rewards are higher, too.

God promised to provide for our every need, not to make us rich or provide roses without thorns. We should write our consciousnesses and on a Biblical level, trusting God to put the words in our hearts that He would have us to write.

Obama on the View...

I can't believe this. We've got all kinds of problems with global impact and our President wants to sit down and have a gabfest with some of the most liberal ladies of our time. I know where it's coming from, he's lost considerable favor amongst his own and now he's trying to gain back some ground. It seems that he really does want a second go-round as President so he's trying to reach the far left and has chosen his venue:  The View. I'm appalled.

Mr. President, please take care of business and leave the gabfesting to those who don't have better things to do.

But, guess what, that particular show (aired on Thursday this week) will probably have bigger ratings than any other show The View has aired. The President is news no matter what he does or where he goes.

Just wondering...

According to an AP report, 94 people were charged with Medicare fraud.

Now I'm wondering with this new 2500-page health care bill, how will anyone know if the law is being broken or not?

The article says that the new law gives the government the power to quit paying those suspected of fraudulent claims. What is being implied is that the government's hands were tied when it came to suspected fraud. I know that is not true because I can remember several times when people were arrested for filing fraudulent Medicare claims. It is very scary how the way things are worded can look like one thing but mean something else.

Has God backed away from America?

Perhaps Anne Graham Lotz was correct, that God has backed away from America because we have absolutely backed away from God.

We could certainly find plenty of Biblical backup for it, beginning in Genesis and ending with Revelation... But, then we also must add in that God will always turn what man means for evil in to something good as He did with Joseph and his brothers (among others).

Truth is as piercing as any two-edged sword dividing the marrow from the bone as Job's friends found out. Perhaps more than anything else, God's purpose is to show Satan that he has no power and his time is limited.

Since He hung the world in place and put the stars in space, I'm not too sure we even have the right to ask, "Why?" We weren't there when He put the belt around earth's middle. Who are we that God is mindful of us?

Hezekiah in 2Ch 31:20  And Hezekiah did this in all Judah, and did the good and the right and true before Jehovah his God. 21  And in every work that he began for the service of the house of God, and in the Law, and in the commandment, to seek his God with all his heart, he worked and prospered.

Yet…

2 Ch 32:31  Even so with the envoys of the rulers of Babylon, those sent to him to inquire of the wonder that had been in the land, God left him to test him, to know all his heart.

Oil globs in Lake Ponchartrain...

I was hoping that Lake Pontchartrain would be protected enough that tar balls would not enter the lake. However, the oil has reached the Rigolets, LA. That is within spitting distance of the lake. God, please help these people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas. Keep this from devastating this area. In Jesus name, amen.

A study of economics and the downfall of the US

Regina Burgess

Essay

Question Two

            Compare and contrast classical macroeconomic theory with Keynesian Economic theory.  Then explain which theory you believe provides a more compelling explanation of how the United States' economy functions and why. 

Compare…

Classical macroeconomic theory was best described by Adam Smith in 1776 in his writings The Wealth of Nations calling macroeconomy the “invisible hand of the marketplace”.  He had a philosophy of laissez fair which is “leave it alone and it will work itself out”; in other words, equilibrium is the natural state and shifts in supply and demand will bobble the economy but not devastate it.  The basic premise is that somebody somewhere will always want to buy something in the right quantity and at the right price.  “Self-adjustment was expected in the labor market.” (Shiller, Bradley R.  Essentials of Economics.  Fifth Edition, 2005 p 254, 2005).  Therefore, in the long term, the economy is stable and has steady growth. 

Keynesian economic theory has several points in comparison to the “leave them alone and they’ll come home” classical theory. 

1.  A Keynesian believes that aggregate demand is influenced by a host of economic decisions—both public and private—and sometimes behaves erratically. The public decisions include, most prominently, those on monetary and fiscal (i.e., spending and tax) policy.

2.  According to Keynesian theory, changes in aggregate demand, whether anticipated or unanticipated, have their greatest short-run impact on real output and employment, not on prices.  Because prices are somewhat rigid, fluctuations in any component of spending—consumption, investment, or government expenditures—cause output to fluctuate. If government spending increases, for example, and all other components of spending remain constant, then output will increase.

3.  Keynesians believe that prices and, especially, wages respond slowly to changes in supply and demand, resulting in shortages and surpluses, especially of labor.

4.  Keynesians do not think that the typical level of unemployment is ideal—partly because unemployment is subject to the caprice of aggregate demand, and partly because they believe that prices adjust only gradually… Keynesians also feel certain that periods of recession or depression are economic maladies, not efficient market responses to unattractive opportunities.

5.  Keynesians advocate activist stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most important of all economic problems. Here Keynesians and monetarists (and even some conservative Keynesians) part company by doubting either the efficacy of stabilization policy or the wisdom of attempting it.  [Mainly because of lag time from inception to activation of policy.] (Blinder Alan S., The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics,  2002)

Contrast…

It is safe to say that the U.S. economy in its infant stages could be described as Classical.  The early presidents and congresses had a hands off, laissez fair  attitude.  Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton clashed over just how big government should be and how much power it should have.  During the growth years of the United States, after the Revolutionary War, imports and exports, products and services, population and land acquisition all were steadily expanding with only minor spurts and starts like a light foot on the brake peddle.  “The cornerstones of classical optimism were flexible prices and flexible wages.” (Shiller, 2005)  As the economy breathed, the prices and wages would contract and expand as the “invisible hand of the marketplace” moved across the land and the world.  During those years that the infant country called America or The United States was slowly but surely finding its legs to stand on, the economy was a classical ‘invisible hand’ economy.  The U.S. government had no teeth, yet and the people were definitely chary of allowing any power build up such as England had dominated her colonies with.  Hamilton did an excellent job of designing economic blueprints, but still, it was rolled-up plans compared to today’s economic structure.

In a more grown-up economy, there is a strong parallel with the Roman Empire under Augustus (he was Octavian, the adopted son of Julius Caesar) when he lifted the heavy tax burden off the people.  The steep taxation was to pay for the long years of war while the empire was being snatched from Marc Antony’s clutches.  According to Roman history, Augustus promoted free trade and private enterprise but it is unclear whether Octavian actually understood the reduction of taxes would promote private expenditures which would help rebuild patrician coffers and in turn would help fill plebian pockets as they produced goods for the Roman marketplace.  Because peace reigned in the empire, free trade and commerce abounded.  Oertel (1939) describes it this way:  

The first century of our era witnessed a definitely high level of economic prosperity, made possible by exceptionally favorable conditions. Within the framework of the Empire, embracing vast territories in which peace was established and communications were secure, it was possible for a bourgeoisie to come into being whose chief interests were economic, which maintained a form of economy resting on the old city culture and characterized by individualism and private enterprise, and which reaped all the benefits inherent in such a system. The State deliberately encouraged this activity of the bourgeoisie, both directly through government protection and its liberal economic policy, which guaranteed freedom of action and an organic growth on the lines of "laissez faire, laissez aller," and directly through measures encouraging economic activity. (Oertel, F.  "The Economic Life of the Empire." Cambridge Ancient History 12: 232-81. London: Cambridge University Press 1939).

It was a hands off policy and an equilibrium was established.  Except for the freebies in the form of free grain supplied by the Emperor from Egypt the economy of Rome could have stayed in the equilibrium.  As a result of the freebies, Rome received over three hundred thousand “poor, tired and hungry”, not to mention all the slaves who were freed so they could qualify for the free grain. (Bartlett, Bruce.  CATO Journal, Fall 1994, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p287, 19p).  Ownership of a ticket, citizenship and being male over the age of 14 was a requirement to receive the free corn under Augustus.  The number of people receiving this handout fluxuated from 120,000 to stabilize around  200,000. (Bartlett, 1994)

Additionally, the steady increase in taxes paying for the cumbersome yet necessary Roman army at an exorbitant cost to maintain, plus the free corn, and later free pork, wine and bread.  Then on top of that, the tax collectors added their own hefty fees to pay their fees for the privilege of collecting taxes.  This became so burdensome on the provinces they raised a hue and cry and “tax farming” (Bartlett, 1994) was abolished in favor of wealth taxes and population tax under Augustus.  It was a pro-growth instead of progressive tax system. 

This is because any growth in taxable capacity led to higher taxes under the tax farming system, while under the Augustinian system communities were only liable for a fixed payment. Thus any increase in income accrued entirely to the people and did not have to be shared with Rome. Individuals knew in advance the exact amount of their tax bill and that any income over and above that amount was entirely theirs. This was obviously a great incentive to produce, since the marginal tax rate above the tax assessment was zero. In economic terms, one can say that there was virtually no excess burden (Musgrave, R.A.  The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill 1959.)

Keith Hopkins notes there was an increase in trade because of this growth period, an increase in money supply but also a decrease in interest rates. (Hopkins, K. (1980) "Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.-A.D. 400)." Journal of Roman Studies 70: 101-25)  “There was probably also an increase in the demand for cash balances to pay taxes and rents, which would further explain why the increased money supply was non-inflationary.” (Bartlett, 1994).

Growth, plenty, economic boom and the State had copious revenue, so much so that Augustus began huge public works programs when he “repaired all the roads of Italy and Rome, restored the temples and built many new ones, and built many aqueducts, baths and other public buildings. Tiberius, however, cut back on the building program and hoarded large sums of cash. This led to a financial crisis in 33 A.D. in which there was a severe shortage of money. This shortage may have been triggered by a usury law which had not been applied for some years but was again enforced by the courts at this time” (Frank, T. "The Financial Crisis of 33 A.D." American Journal of Philology, 1935 56(4): 336-41).  “The shortage of money and the curtailment of state expenditures led to a sharp downturn in economic activity which was only relieved when the state made large loans at zero interest in order to provide liquidity” (Thornton, M.K., and Thornton, R.L. (1990) "The Financial Crisis of A.D. 33: A Keynesian Depression?" Journal of Economic History 50(3): 655-62).

 Here we have a perfect example of the “invisible hand of the marketplace” being held by big government.  The time frame between the boom of Augustus and flop of Tiberius was just a year or two.  Did Augustus actually practice hands off policy?  Not really, not when there was an abundance of public works underway, and not when the taxes were lowered.  In the traditional Keynes philosophy, public works and lower taxes are government tactics used to give the economy a burst of energy.  In other words, government induced economic growth.  Augustus employed Keynes theory before Keynes was a twinkle in his daddy’s eye.

Did the depression happen because Tiberius hoarded large sums of cash (the economy was based on a cash flow system and credit was not widely used).  Was the zero percent interest a shot in the arm in Keynesian style?  In contrast to the laissez faire classical macroeconomic theorist point of view, yes.  Since the government was not keeping a hands off attitude but was digging deep into public revenues it was the beginning of the fall.  The emperors of Rome began to degrade the amount of gold and silver in coins.  This debasement of coinage caused inflation which led to the population hoarding the more valuable coins and paying taxes with the less valuable coins.  This led to a greater need for revenue by the government so taxes were raised and this resulted in the privately wealthy to be slowly robbed of their wealth.  The natural inclination of the patricians to hide their wealth came in the form of tax evasion. The sights of the government were then turned to the middle class.  These employed the tactics of the rich by tax evasion in various forms mostly by appearing to be poor or by outright selling themselves as slaves to the larger land owners.  (Slaves didn’t have to pay taxes.)  The constant drain on the empire’s coffers by the military caused a greater and greater need for more revenue.  The emperors put less and less gold and silver in the coinage.  It was an economic nightmare.

Keynesian economics is founded on the notion that there are often unused resources in the economy. This notion is usually described as disequilibrium in the market for labor: There is involuntary unemployment; the supply of labor is greater than the demand for labor. The Keynesian economics of the 1950s was notably weak in accounting for the dynamics of inflation. (Hoover, Kevin D.  “The rational expectations revolution: An assessment”  CATO Journal, Spring/Summer 1992, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p 81).

What happened during Tiberius’ reign proves this.  Hoarding monetary resources results in inflation and economic nightmare, but the unused resources are definitely there.

Robert King observes:  Keynesian macroeconomics did not begin with the assumption that an economy is made up of individually rational economic suppliers and demanders. Instead of deriving demand from individual choices that are made within specified constraints, for example, the Keynesian procedure was to directly specify a behavioral rule. Keynes claimed that aggregate spending on consumption was governed by a "consumption function" in which consumption depended solely on current income. More generally, Keynesian macroeconomics posited that people followed fixed rules of thumb, with no presumption that firms and households made rational choices. Partly, this grew out of a suspicion on the part of Keynesian modelers that people did not typically act rationally. Partly, it was a pragmatic modeling decision: if people's economic behavior is purposeful, the task of specifying how they will act in various situations is more complicated and, therefore, more difficult to model. (New Classical Macroeconomics, King, Robert.   The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics  Library of Economics and Liberty.  Retrieved April 6, 2005 http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/NewClassicalMacroeconomics.html

It seems to me that the wealthy have acted the same since the first century.  Is it irrational to want to save what one owns against unreasonable government demands?  I think not. 

Keynes had a great grasp of exactly how the powerful government can manipulate economic growth patterns.  When the prices were low, raise the interest rates.  When prices were high, lower the interest rates. (Keynes, 1923, Tract on Monetary Reform)  This would keep the economy stabilized.  But Britain’s unemployment sky rocketed after the war which made Keynes do more research and study.  Then he wrote General Theory.  The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics puts it this way:

Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money revolutionized the way economists think about economics. It was path breaking in several ways. The two most important are, first, that it introduced the notion of aggregate demand as the sum of consumption, investment, and government spending. Second, it showed (or purported to show) that full employment could be maintained only with the help of government spending. Economists still argue about what Keynes thought caused high unemployment. Some think that Keynes attributed unemployment to wages that take a long time to fall. But Keynes actually wanted wages not to fall, and advocated in the General Theory that wages be kept stable. A general cut in wages, he argued, would decrease income, consumption, and aggregate demand. This would offset any benefits to output that the lower price of labor might have contributed.

Why shouldn't government, thought Keynes, fill the shoes of business by investing in public works and hiring the unemployed? General Theory advocated deficit spending during economic downturns to maintain full employment. Keynes's conclusion initially met with opposition. At the time, balanced budgets were standard practice with the government. But the idea soon took hold and the United States government put people back to work on public works projects. Of course, once policymakers had taken deficit spending to heart, they could not let it go.

Contrary to some of his critics' assertions, Keynes was a relatively strong advocate of free markets. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Keynes.html Retrieved April 7, 2005.

Okay…so what happened in Rome?  The problem was that under Tiberius, the government- economic rug was yanked out from under the populace; when government financed programs were shut down many were thrown into unemployed status.  Therefore we have not only a lack of government spending, but also a lack of populace spending because of high unemployment.  Because the government withdrew from the market, the economy floundered.  This illustrates Keynes’ view that government intervention plays a major role in equilibrium of the economy.  Lower taxes and government public works programs seemed to be the great economic answer for Augustus.  Keynes idea that government intervention spurs the economy and eliminates market failure actually has great merit when viewed through Roman glasses:  Tiberius hoarding money and tax evasions of the wealthy led to economic failure which is proof in reverse.

The supply in the market suddenly had huge excesses because the government’s demand for the public project supplies dropped drastically when Tiberius stopped the public works programs.  A Keynesian idea that does not fit in this scenario is that those who have the money will not spend it rationally and they will spend immediate income without regard to future income.  This idea contrasts with the classical view that those who have the money will spend it rationally and will spend some and save some.  This comes from Adam Smith’s philosophy in his Wealth of Nations:  individuals will make rational decisions and this will lead to socially acceptable economic outcomes.  Not so with the Romans.  If they had wealth, they had to hide it and this was perpetuated through the 3^rd century because of the over burdensome demand for more revenue in the form of higher taxes and a degraded coinage.

The merchants (plebeians) of the times could not invest in their businesses because this would give them the appearance of affluence which would make the tax dragons breathe fire upon them thus burning up any extra cash they may have accrued.  Current cash flow had to be hidden which shoots down another Keynesian pillar of thought.  He proposed that people would spend what they have regardless of how little or how much income they might have in the future.  Therefore, taxes have a tremendous effect on economic booms and busts.

How our economy functions, and why…

Government cannot control the market effectively because of lag time.  It takes months to devise a fiscal policy, then months for the President to promote it and gain support, then months to discuss it in congress then vote on it and then perhaps the judicial system will take a look at it and say it isn’t constitutional and all that time was for naught.  This lag time is also reflected in economic boons which transcend presidents in office.  Case in point, President Clinton enjoyed quite a bit of economy gains because of the reforms of Reagan and George H.

The only thing that can change instantaneously is interest rate.  This was what Keynes first focused on in his economic theory.  It has been proven in the past two decades that interest rates play a major role in the economy health as well as world events such 9/11 on the World Trade Center and the war in Iraq.  These have an impact on investors who, as a whole, make the stock market go up and down.  When it goes up, more people are confident and spend more money.  When it goes down, more people spend less and this results in a contraction in the market.  With 9/11, there was much less confidence and the stock market plummeted, interest rates were rock bottom and spending was at an all time low during the Christmas splurge season.  Now, OPEC decides the cost of a barrel of oil which is the hand in the glove on the handle of prices.  The cost of energy effects aggregate demand because it affects all costs of production.  Pricing is not an immediate effect, however.  Lower prices do stimulate spending but then the labor market suffers if the prices remain too low for too long.  Since the government of the U.S. has no strong-arm control over pricing and a modicum control over wages with the minimum wage limit, it would seem that the economy has much more laissez faire with regard to aggregate demand.  

However, aggregate demand does include Government spending and our Government does love to spend money with an attitude, “If I don’t spend my budget this year, then next year I lose my money.”  The federal government also puts money in people’s pockets in an attempt to redistribute the available money through welfare and other benefits which actually does lend to the aggregate demand because the poorer people now have money to spend not just food stamps.  The Roman Caesars found out that once the freebies started flowing, they could not stem the flow because the poorer populace had mob-power.  Public officials also feel the pinch of mob-power when voters go to the polls every election day.  One false step and the elected official will not be serving another term.  The freebies must flow, the taxes must be collected, the government must spend and Greenspan still rules the roost in the economic world.

Since the debate between classical and Keynesians is still raging and there is much on each side of the argument which leaves gaping holes which the other side fills quite nicely, in my opinion, I believe our economy rocks along breathing, growing, contracting, expanding in both the laissez faire and Keynesian processes, but more on the Keynesian side than laissez faire. 

Keynesian because of government spending and because the Fed controls the interest rates.   Even though the Fed is not controlled by the Government, it must be included in the Keynesian theory because it is a lever used to control the economy which is not what laissez faire is all about.  When there is a surplus, more spending and when there is a deficit still more spending; balanced budget does not seem to be the issue.  The issue is how much is in a constituent’s pocket, rich, poor doesn’t matter because the poor will get government benefits and the rich will be expected to produce and hire more because they are receiving tax deductions and credits.  Because the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch generally agree on lower taxes because their constituents demand lower taxes, we see a Keynesian-type of control on the marketplace that was illustrated by the Roman economy during Augustus’ time.  Our government will continue to spend lavishly on defense, public works and improvements of quality of life while maintaining public servant wages close to the private sector for similar jobs; along with stable tax laws (and for now, lower taxes), this reads as Keynesian.  Because of this, our economy does function in a Keynesian style.  However…

Laissez faire because the government is a slow and lumbering giant that has three sets of reins, Executive, Legislative and Judicial and those reins do not always pull or tug in the same direction.  Since wages and prices are the main economic anchors and these are not manipulated by government strings, the steady economic growth is shown by our steady increase in GDP and in aggregate demand.  Since capitalism does reward the ingenious and the hard worker, our economy is as stable as an ocean liner on heavy seas because it is a buoyant as it is heavy.
 (c) Copyright 2010 all rights reserved, no reprints or publishing of this without the express written permission of Gina Burgess, author.

References…

Bartlett, Bruce.  CATO Journal, Fall 1994, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p287, 19p

Blinder, Alan S. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics,             http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html  Retrieved April 18,            2005

Concise Encyclopedia of Economics,             http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Keynes.html            Retrieved April 7, 2005.

Frank, T. (1935) "The Financial Crisis of 33 A.D." American Journal of Philology 56(4): 336-        41.

Hoover, Kevin D.  “The rational expectations revolution: An assessment”  CATO Journal,             Spring/Summer 1992, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p 81

Hopkins, K. (1980) "Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.-A.D. 400)." Journal of       Roman Studies 70: 101-25

King, Robert.  New Classical Macroeconomics The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics   Library            of Economics and Liberty.  Retrieved April 6, 2005      http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/NewClassicalMacroeconomics.html

Musgrave, R.A. (1959) The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oertel, F. (1939) "The Economic Life of the Empire." Cambridge Ancient History 12: 232-81.      London: Cambridge University Press.

Shiller, Bradley R.  Essentials of Economics.  Fifth Edition, 2005 p 254

Thornton, M.K., and Thornton, R.L. (1990) "The Financial Crisis of A.D. 33: A Keynesian           Depression?" Journal of Economic History 50(3): 655-62.

Happy Birthday America!

Republicans and Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings

I was seriously worried two months ago when Obama nominated Elena Kagan for Supreme Court Justice. Back then, no one seemed to care that she had zero experience as a Federal Court judge. (The crux of her experience was being dean of Harvard Law School.) Little or no courtroom experience aside, she has an  Xtreme liberal viewpoint which is so far to the left she almost falls off the scale.

Today, her hearings for confirmation begin. I am praying that Truth will come to light and that the Republicans who are even now poised for a fight  will dig in their heels and keep this woman off the Supreme Court bench. I shudder to think how my children and grandchildren would suffer under this liberal's "interpretation" of the laws of our land.

I did not see Face the Nation on CBS on Sunday, but this quote disturbs me greatly:

"I think you're going to see a brilliant woman, a brilliant legal mind, and you're going to see somebody who is going to be the 112th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on Sunday's "Face the Nation."
But that same argument was made by Justice Samuel Alito's supporters when he was nominated by President Bush in 2005. Alito was widely viewed as intellectually qualified and, as an appellate court judge, highly experienced. He too got the ABA's highest rating and had significant support from liberals -- including his liberal colleagues, who said he was intellectually honest, didn't have an agenda and was not an ideologue.
Nonetheless, then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as well as current Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy not only voted against Alito's nomination -- they also tried to mount a filibuster to block it.
On "Face the Nation" Sunday, Leahy deflected a question about the Democrats' shaky grounds for complaints about a possible Republican filibuster of Kagan, in light of their attempts to block Alito. Their efforts in 2006 were "symbolic at best," Leahy said.

It disturbs me as well as heartens me because I believe the Republicans will do the right thing by vetoing her confirmation. I pray so. We absolutely cannot have a Supreme Court Justice who has an agenda sitting on the bench. Kagan has an agenda, actually she has several. She has been very clear about it, too.

She has stated several times she wants the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repealed. She is lesbian and has a chip on her shoulder concerning civil liberties, especially concerning GLBT. She is extreme pro-abortion. She is against the right to bear arms, she is pro-bussing (no matter how long a child must ride the bus) for desegregation. Some very strong views she wrote in some memos to Justice Thurgood Marshall whom she clerked for and whom she called her hero. She tried to blow-off her strong views as a "pipsqueak... working for  an 80-year-old giant in the law, and a person who, let us be frank, had very strong jurisprudential and legal views."

Sounds like someone trying to sweep something under the rug and doing a slight of hand, finger-pointing blame game, to me.

A Believer is beaten by her family in Somalia

 From Voice of the Martyrs ...

"A 17-year-old girl in the Gedo Region of Somalia was severely beaten by her family recently after they discovered she had converted to Christianity, according to Compass Direct News. Nurta Mohamed Farah, 17, was later taken to a doctor, who prescribed medication for a "mental illness." When she refused to abandon her Christian faith, her family forced her to take the medication."

How tragic this young woman is considered mentally ill because she believes in Jesus, and how doubly tragic her family resorted to beating the faith out of her. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have my family turn on me for what I believe. A young woman dependent upon her family doesn't have a recourse. Her family has been reading the Koran to her every day since May 4 because Muslims believe the Koran has healing powers. Can you imagine what it would be like to have read to you something that is so far removed from what you believe? How stressful that would be on a new believer, how confusing that could be.

I knew that things were bad for Christians in Muslim lands. I knew it is really bad for women. But, it seems a woman who converts has no mercy. 

BP Oil spill just keeps on gushing problems

I have a huge question in my mind. Have people suddenly become really stupid? This oil spill in the Gulf is the worst disaster I have ever seen. Not because of the initial impact, but because of the decades it will take to recover from it. We are not talking five or six years like the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, or Hurricane Ivan, or Camile, or Betsy. We are talking decades. Now there is An Event happening this weekend which goes beyond stupidity in my estimation.

I was going through my inbox and ran across this notice from Great NonProfits... Hands Across the Sand.

This Saturday, June 26, people all over the world will be joining hands on their local beaches in a show of solidarity against offshore oil drilling. The aptly-named Hands Across The Sand movement was founded by surfer and restauranteur Dave Rauschkolb in October of 2009, but the upcoming event may prove to be the largest event to date in light of the BP oil spill.

Hands Across The Sand is sponsored by many environmentally-minded nonprofit organizations, including the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Rainforest Action Network and Center for Biological Diversity.

The thing is not against unsafe offshore drilling... just offshore drilling. I wonder if these "thousands" of people truly understand what they are against?

First off, there is the $300 billion in bills that can't be paid by the offshore oil drilling company workers. This of course wouldn't effect any of those who are joining hands because they are activists in the environmentally-minded  nonprofit organizations. Their pay checks aren't being effected so it isn't any concern of theirs if families whose livelyhood come from offshore drilling don't have food on the table or electricity or clean water because they can't pay their bills because papa or mama has been laid off due to lack of work. (Praise God from Whom all blessings flow that a Federal Court judge had the gumption to cancel the ill-advised moratorium set forth by a president who acts first then gets all the facts.)

Secondly, no more offshore exploratory drilling would cost more than 20,000 jobs according to a Bloomberg report. The average oil rig worker salary is between $35,000 and $60,000 so the economic impact for losing more than 20,000 jobs is more than $970 million dollars. In an economy which is only now returning from almost complete devastation because of Katrina, that kind of economic impact is staggering.

I am astounded how many people in this world care more for animals than they do for real people with real economic problems. Again, since it doesn't effect their own paychecks or their A/C or food on their tables, it's okay to try to set in motion something that will eventually make the cost of gasoline skyrocket. But, they don't see that. Just like boycotting BP gasoline stations. That is another rack up on stupidity.

The BP stations are not company owned, they are locally owned. The gasoline going into the BP station tanks is not from a BP refinery but from some other refinery--which ever refinery has the best price the distributor can find! I have personally seen Shell tankers at an Exxon station filling their underground tanks. Distributors buy the raw gasoline from refineries and then put the Brand additives into the tanker as it is being filled from a Shell refinery, or ExxonMobile refinery, or whatever other refinery. The sheer cost of freight to transport refined BP petroleum from somewhere else in the world to your local BP station would make the cost of one gallon of gas rise to an extremely high, uncompetitive price.

Come on people, wake up! Ask God for some wisdom when reading news stories or listening to them. Ask Him to give you discernment to differentiate between truth and lies. Ask God to give wisdom in the kinds of causes that will be best for His people and to bring glory to Him.

Nikki Haley is she really Christian--political whisper campaign

Here we go again... political whisper campaigns are nothing more than magnified gossip. Nikki Haley is an American Indian and converted when she was 24. She, her husband and her children go to a Methodist church in South Carolina, but people who support her opponent (including two pastors) are questioning her faith. Their main proof is her website which changed "God Almighty" to "Christ" where she talks about her faith.

Oh bother!

I am not surprised. These kinds of tactics were used blatantly on Sarah Palin. Things which were not at all true, but were twisted from some obscure facts. I would like to remind every Christian out there that Paul used every means he could to reach the lost. He said that he became a Jew for the Jews and a Gentile for the Gentiles.

I would also like to remind everyone out there that right after God said to honor Himself and the Sabbath, He said to Honor thy father and mother. These political saboteurs say, "she described her marriage in a Methodist church but did not mention that she and her husband also participated in a Sikh wedding ceremony, and that she continues to attend Sikh services with her family a few times a year." This is supposed to mean what exactly? She isn't Christian? Give me a break.

I am disgusted with the political shenanigans that are being foisted upon the American voters. I seriously doubt there is anything ethical or valuable in anything any of the campaigns have to say about their opponents.

It is the same gossip. We hear some juicy tidbit and can't wait to call a friend to ask for prayer for so-and-so because... oh, haven't you heard? Well, the way I heard it was...No wonder our churches are emptying. If we treat our siblings in such a way, who would ever want to worship with us?

Age of accountability

         The question of babies going to heaven and how old does someone have to be to be held accountable has been bandied about since probably Jonah's day. I'd like to take a quick look at that question...

         Take a look at Romans 7:7 Paul says "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have KNOWN sin except through the Law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8. But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the Law, sin was dead. 9. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

         Absolutely All have sinned and fall short. This includes little babies and little children. However, in God's mercy and with Paul's eloquent teaching we learn that the Law as set down by Moses was to specifically convict of sin. As I'm sure you know any conscience can be numbed by constant justification and rationalization. Except babies and children only understand their immediate environment. I'm hungry. Feed me! I'm thirsty. I'm dirty or wet or just uncomfortable. I'm tired. Their world is filled with I...Me...Mine. As soon as their horizon broadens to incorporate understanding the difference between right and wrong only then can they begin to understand choices and free will. 

        So many have held to the belief that a spouse and children of the couple are saved just because one of the parents is saved. That is not true. 

        John 3:15 and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. 16 "This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. 17 God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. 18 Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.

         I looked at several different versions and this one is The Message. I like it because it emphasizes each person is responsible for his/her own belief in Jesus the one and only. It also points out how crucial it is to salvation for a person to not only hear but to believe and to trust in Him. Babies don't have a clue how to believe in anything. Nor do they trust. How can they when they don't even have the strength to do much more than eat, sleep and cry.

         The whole point here is freedom of choice. When we believe in Jesus we are freely choosing to trust Him. A baby or small child has no such choices. They have to drink the milk given to them; accept the clothes put on them; sleep in the brand of diapers put on them; sit in the car seat they are put in; go where their mother drives them; listen to the kind of music the mother (or father or brother etc.) chooses...

         They live in a world of no choice whereas older children, teens, young adults, adults all live in a world of choices. We choose to believe Jesus or we choose not to believe. (And here's the sticky part) We choose to live a godly, Christian life or we choose to be a Sunday Christian. Life is all about choices.

Is there a "thought-nabber"?

I wandered over to Patsy Clairmont's blog this morning and was struck by her post "Duh?"


It reminded me of a story my Aunt Vonny told about my Aunt Mattie this week.

My Aunt Mattie is 96 years old and last week she called her sister at 9:30 pm on Saturday evening…

“Von? Hon, you and Lee will just have to go on to church without me this morning. I got up and have eaten breakfast and made my bed, but there’s just not enough time for me to get ready for church.”

“Mattie, its only 9:30 on Saturday evening. You just go back to bed and back to sleep until tomorrow morning… Sunday morning.”

True story!

Hannah -- a glimpse into a marvelous woman

Walk with me, if you will, though 1 Samuel 1 for a glimpse at what makes women tick.

There was a man...named Elkanah...and he had two wives…

Of course polygamy/bigamy is forbidden in the US and in most places around the world it isn't practiced -- men have wised up since the days of Solomon.  But there are a lot of things that men can be married to besides a woman.

A woman needs to know her man loves her above all others.  When a man spends long hours at work, at a hobby, working out, with "the boys" then there needs to be priority adjustment if the marriage is going to work.  When ...Elkanah sacrifices, he gave several shares of the meat to his wife Peninnah with all her sons and daughters; but, although he loved Hannah, he gave her only one share…

A husband needs to show his wife he loves her.  We are not told how Elkanah showed Hannah how much he loved her but he allowed her rival, Peninnah, to revile her and torment her because she had no children.  That doesn't show much love and allows conflict within the family.  No matter what the husband puts in place of his wife--hobby, children, work etc, this thing getting the attention the wife should have is reviling her and humiliating her.  It is torment to love someone and be treated as the "second" wife.  Year after year this happened...  It is worse when nothing changes.

Tears usually mean, "I need you to comfort me and show me how much I mean to you."  Once when she was in tears and would not eat, her husband said to her, "Hannah, why are you crying and eating nothing?  Why are you so miserable?  Am I not more to you than ten sons?"

In a word, Hannah said, “No.”

Why is that? Remember the song in Funny Girl, Sadie, Sadie, Married Lady? For a Jewish woman, getting married was what she was born for, and the next was having children, preferably boys with a few daughters sprinkled in for old age. It was everything. When a woman had no children, she was nothing and was made to feel to be nothing with hurtful, sly, and snide remarks from the other wives of the home and the village. It was always pointed out. “Oh, yes, you know Hannah. She’s the barren wife of Elkanah.” The barren one.

Today, we are not admonished in public. But, inside we wither just a bit with so much longing to have a baby. Women sometimes worry themselves sick which literally keeps them from getting pregnant. Is the husband more than ten sons? In a word, “No.” There is no comparison. A husband cannot replace a son, nor can a son replace a husband. It is a ridiculous thought and one I am sure earned Elkanah a withering glance through Hannah’s tears.

And Hannah rose up after eating and drinking. That word translated “rose up” or “rise up” is very interesting.  קוּם  qûm koom The meaning is full of action:  accomplish, confirm, continue, decree, make good, help, hold, (help to) lift up (again), make, X but newly, ordain, perform, pitch, raise (up), rear (up), remain, (a-) rise (up) (again, against), rouse up, set (up), (e-) stablish, (make to) stand (up), stir up, strengthen, succeed, (as-, make) sure (-ly), (be) up (-hold, -rising). Isn’t if fabulous the word UP is included. We all know Who is the Up-est of all Ups. She had decided to take some definitive action. She went to the Temple and made a vow.

This was one of the hardest things any woman could do. One has to wonder if she truly measured the cost of giving up her son after he was weaned. Samuel was around two or three when she grabbed his little hand and deposited him at Eli’s front door.

I imagine she probably wanted to say, “Here’s my drunken dream, Eli-man. What do you say to that?” But, I’m sure she didn’t. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to give up your son and only see him once a year? Can you imagine what it would be like to lovingly make clothes for him through out the year and then not see him wear them? To know he would out grow them? To love him, but not chat with him, or hear about the frogs and snakes he found? Nor ever to get a bouquet of wildflowers in a grubby little hand, or a hug that smelled of clean mud and a whiff of barn yard? Aching hearted, this woman gave up her rights of being Mother to give Israel a prophet who would anoint the kings of Israel. God must have settled her soul, and gave her comfort.

Women are resilient, persistent, hopeful, tolerant, prayer warriors. Those of us who put God first, know who has created us, given us our family, and who provides for us daily. There isn’t a man in the world who can fathom all the intricacies of women, or what makes them tick. So I am sorry if you clicked on this under false pretenses. The magnitude of a woman’s heart knows no boundaries, and the prayers of a righteous woman avails much.

Change is so difficult because--

I promise, I was not wasting time, but I was checking out Twitter and found a reference to this story about why Change is so hard to do -- it requires self-control and that commodity is expendable/exhaustible. Hmmm.

That sounds good, and the experiment with the chocolate chip cookies and the radishes seems to support the theory. But, there is something that just doesn't sound quite right about it.

If you indulge yourself with a chocolate chip cookie, you are supposed to be able to do some task for a longer period of time than if you exert self-control and eat radishes while the savory aroma of chocolate chips, all melty and warm and gooey floats about you.

This is one of the things that I had problems with in my Social Psychology class in college. So many of the things that these social psychologists "test" with their experiments completely leave out the God-factor in their experiments. They either do not know, or forget that self-control is part of the Fruit of the Spirit. If a person asks God for help with a task that has to be done, but seems insurmountable, then the task does become easier to do.

I have found that God will never do a task for me if whatever job He has set for me to do contributes to my growth in the eternal scope of things. He will provide things for me supernaturally which I am constantly amazed at, but I keep thinking that God is sitting on His throne and is jogging on the inside (laughing) at some of these crazy experiments that we humans come up with in order to understand the human Psyche.

Pass the cookies, please.

The Man who never was

Saw a story on the Military Channel last night, actually I had DVR'd it. I just love that feature on DishNet. 


Quite compelling story of a deception one man pulled on Hitler who had a military bent bordering on fanatic (big surprise, that) to protect all the land he had captured in the war. 


The Allies were going to come across the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa and take one of three places, Sicily,  Sardinia, or through the Balkans. Which ever route taken, they wanted Hitler to retreat from the area so it would be easier to take the place. It was decided that Sicily would be the best because it would open up the traffic lanes for safer supply lines as well as moving troops about. 


The key was to deceive Hitler into thinking the Allies were ready to take Sardinia which would cutoff supplies to Rommel in North Africa altogether. Either Sicily or Sardinia would be tactic coups.


Major William Martin of the Royal Marines fit the ticket. He had died of pneumonia and pathologists knew that this kind of death would make it appear that Maj. Martin had drowned at sea. It was called, "Operation Mincemeat" 


He was dressed in his military uniform, his briefcase filled with all kinds of official documents, oh so subtly directing German eyes toward Sardinia -- one statement in a letter talked about "bringing a can of sardines with him." He had a pompous letter from his papa, a few folded and refolded love letters from his sweetheart Pam, and an invitation to a gala event which could have had the house of cards come tumbling down if the Germans had been paying close attention.


Thus he was released off the coast of Spain. He was found and the "top secret" documents were read, copied, and ferried to German headquarters all as planned by one ingenious  Lt. Cmdr. Ewen Montagu, a Royal Navy intelligence officer. Major William Martin of the Royal Marines, was a rounding success. He deserved medals of honor except...


Major Martin was never in the military. He had been refused for service. He was homeless, and he was an alcoholic. If he had not died from pneumonia, he would have died from liver disease. His family had allowed the use of his corpse as long has his real name was never revealed.


It is the only time in history that a world of freedom was saved over a man's dead body. He was dead, but he saved many lives. Thank you, Glyndwr Michael for lending your body for the pursuit of freedom. Job well done.

Memorial Day… lest we forget!

This is going around in email. I’ve seen it before and it never fails to bring tears to my eyes. Let us never forget our true American Heroes.

 

 

It is the
VETERAN,
not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.


It is the
VETERAN who
salutes the Flag,

It is
the
VETERAN
who serves
under the Flag,

 

ETERNAL
REST GRANT THEM O LORD, AND LET PERPETUAL LIGHT SHINE UPON
THEM.

God
Bless them all!!!

 

O Almighty God, please grant protect of millions of angels on our troops serving here and on foreign ground. Thank you, God for these mighty men of valour who paid the price for our freedom and the freedom of those in other countries. God bless America, land of the free. Stand beside her and guide her, forgive her God. Make us godly again, help us to bring you Glory, AMEN.

Technorati Tags: Memorial Day,salute to our fallen soldiers

Don't Ask Don't Tell--bull's eye on the forehead

It seems that this 1990's law just keeps on taking the hits. Fox News reports a compromise has been reached. No details have been released since the "negotiations are sensitive".

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is in favor of repealing this law. I'm wondering if he has even thought about how this will effect the troops? I am mostly protected against the virulent platitudes of the homosexuals in hot pursuit of absolution and approval for their lifestyle. Why else would they spend millions of dollars on their agenda making American believe there are more of them than there really are?

Back in the 2000 Census, less than 4% of the US population admitted to living the homosexual lifestyle, yet they would have us believe that fully 10% of the population are homosexual. I kept hearing 10% and 12% being bandied about from news media. I kept hearing all kinds of reports of horror stories of how gays were being mistreated which made it appear that the problem was much worse than it actually was. (Please take note--I am not saying homosexuals should be mistreated!!!)

Now, we are living in a society in which the media are pushing the homosexual agenda. Amazing Race usually has at least one team of homosexuals. Stories about them always make the evening news and the morning papers. There is a larger force at work than just approval of a lifestyle that God proclaims is an abomination.

The lifestyle is evil. The people are deceived by Satan into believing they were "born that way," or that they "can't change what God made." Poppycock.

Robert Gates has no clue what repealing this will do to our troops. This will raise all kinds of problems with some of the misguided riff-raff which makes it into our military. The vast majority of our military are truly heroes and gentlemen. There are a few who are not. Trouble will come from the few, not the many.

My question remains: Why must we condone what goes on behind closed bedroom doors? Why do they feel it necessary to announce to all the world what they do?

If you want some stomach-churning stuff, just read Leviticus 18. It plainly states God finds the practice of this lifestyle abhorrent and an abomination. It is what our Sunday School lesson was on this past Sunday. As I read the background passages, I became more and more nauseated. I am glad that even the discussion of sin makes me nauseous. But, isn't it sad that we must be taught what is sin in God's eyes? Isn't it just plain awful that we Christians don't practice what God preaches?

I did some study on this god Molech (Maw-lekh). I was astounded at what came up. Somehow I landed on GayChristian101.com. This was an eyeopener for me, and yet I know I shouldn't be surprised. Here we see what is being taught as truth.

These demon gods of ancient times required baby sacrifices and fertility orgies, even having male and female temple prostitutes. Skipping right over the baby sacrifices, this website teaches that the sexual intercourse rituals practiced by the "worshipers" of the demon god Molech were not homosexual acts. [shock]

God specifically states that a man lying with a man as he would a woman is an abomination. It is Plain Speaking, a black and white statement of sin. This website says that Leviticus 18 "simply does not say that homosexuality is a sin." And that is a lie, because it does.

I shouldn't be shocked, but I am. I should know by now that people will read what they want to in scripture, and will twist God's words to match their own agenda.

Leviticus teaches  Lev 18:29  For anyone who does any of these disgusting things, even the persons who are doing them, shall be cut off from the midst of their people. 

Yet, there is forgiveness for the repentant persons. Manasseh was Hezekiah's son and offered up his sons (notice the plural?) to be passed through the fire. This is offering up to Molech for he was the fire god and his belly held the hottest fires which when the baby was placed in the idol's hand would roll off the hands into the fire to be burned...alive.  And Manasseh repented. 2 Chronicles tells the story. He was hooked by the Assyrians, meaning that they pierced his flesh with metal hooks and dragged him to Babylon. That is when he sought the face of God and was humbled exceedingly. He repented. He was given back his throne and he knew that Jehovah is God. He went about undoing everything he had done and he reigned for 55 years. But, he never got the sons who burned in the fires of Molech back. How he must have grieved over what he had done. But, he was forgiven.


Just as he did abominations and was forgiven, so too are we forgiven. Though our sins be as scarlet, the blood of Jesus makes them white as wool. While we are waiting for our Bridegroom to come fetch us, we should be about our Father's work which He prepared for us. Our works do not save us, make no mistake. However, we will wear bright white linen which are our righteous acts. let's be sure our heavenly garments cover us properly!


Photo by Marion Ruben

Life drainers and life fillers

Ask God to manage you time. He is worthy of that kind of trust and that task. He reminds me all the time of this, but I somehow have to be reminded daily in numerous different ways.

***Disclaimer***
Don't worry, I asked Angela Hunt if I could use this piece at our ladies retreat way back a long time ago in a galaxy..uh, er... state far away. She said I could use it however, just give her the credit. AND how! She is a wonderful author and quite gifted with short points as well as completely fleshed-out works.
******

Life-drainer: accepting a position on my neighborhood's board of directors.

Life-filler: starting a neighborhood book club (where we frequently discuss spiritual themes).

Life-drainer: working seven days a week.

Life-filler: taking a Sabbath and keeping it holy.

Life-drainer: bad books, bad movies, bad TV.

Life-filler: good books, good movies, great TV.

Life-drainer: trying to exercise someone else's spiritual gift.

Life-filler: exercising mine.

Life-drainer: joining a fitness club.

Life-filler: hitting the treadmill every morning while watching good TV.

Life-drainer: trying to be all things to all people.

Life-filler: finding my God-ordained niche and filling it.

Miscellaneous life-drainers: purposeless meetings, trying to maintain fake nails, window shopping, foolish arguments, email chain letters and urban myths.

Miscellaneous life-fillers: any time spent encouraging children, a good hair cut, time spent with my hubby, shopping with a purpose, riveting debates with friends who speak the truth in love, going back to school to keep learning.

We need never go a few days without being reminded that our time is worth a lot. How do we get ourselves in a Life Drainer situation? Does the word "No" mean anything any more?

I went on the hunt to find Angela to let her know I was using this again, and got side-tracked by my friend Wayne Carlan's new post "Help me Tom Cruise" which is hilarious, but you'll have to go to my Facebook page to see it because I can't figure out how to link a Facebook entry on a blog post. Just when I think I've got some savvy in this technology thing, I find out I'm not as smart as I'd like to think I am. That was the first sidetrack, then I notice that Jayce O'Neal said something to me on Twitter with a link to his new video. So, of course I must watch it and answer back, then I see several Tweets by Newt Gingrich I have to reTweet because they are so good, I think of something that is good to Tweet, I notice something on Tammie Rigney's wall that I want to Tweet. By this time there are almost another 100 Tweets to look at. Which I do.

My daughter calls to tell me that my phone is out again. For some reason, when it rains, our phone goes out. No clue why. Now, I've got to get the phone guy here to fix that problem.

I write my post for Everyday Christian and send that in. It is now 1:22 pm and I have yet to start on the task God told me to do last night. I wonder if it is procrastination or if I'm just bubble-headed today.... Hey! no cracks about that! God is good enough with His practical jokes on me.

Whenever it looks like rain or it is raining when we go to church, the conversation is, "Should we take the umbrella?" "Naw, it isn't far and we won't melt." But yesterday, I took my umbrella because it was raining. All the other times in the past months and months, God turned the faucet off so we could go into church or out of church without getting wet. Yesterday, God looked in the back seat and saw the umbrella. What happened when I put the car in park? Whoosh! The bottom dropped out of the clouds and God said, "Okay, Baby, you brought the umbrella, you use the umbrella!"

Don't you just love it when God "gently" reminds you that when you trust Him, He will take care of you? So do I. And I especially love it when He does it in such a funny way! He has assured me in many different ways that He will help when I ask and give Him enough elbow room to work. Sometimes my faith for this is huge and sometimes it gets lost in a tea cup. No matter how large or small, God is faithful and true.