Travel Days

Going to put a couple thousand miles on the Old Buick. Time for annual summer trip to NODAK.

Will be spending a lot of time in the car. Hope it goes well.

See you all in a week.

Where the Government Health Care will take you - Free but unavailable

Chicago Boyz

I subscribe to a physician only web site that has a lot of political items in the mix. It has over 100,000 members, well over, I believe. The subject of dropping out of Medicare, and sometimes from all insurance, is a frequent subject. I thought it might be interesting to see the comments (some of them) to one such post.

I am opting out of Medicare

Last week I stopped seeing new Medicare patients. Today, I decided to opt-out completely. The sign in my waiting area reads:

Dear patients,

As of October 1, 2010, I will no longer accept Medicare insurance due to the harassment and cuts in payments by the federal government. My fees are very reasonable – please feel free to discuss them with me personally. I would love to continue to care for my Medicare patients, just without the federal government telling me how do my job or how much to get paid.

This is just the beginning of the healthcare reform. Please thank your elected representatives and think carefully how you vote in November.

Yours,

EndocrineMD

Read the whole thing:

Why Education will collapse

Stupid pension tricks.

June 17, 2010

By KAREN BERKOWITZ kberkowitz@pioneerlocal.com

Scores of retired teachers from some suburban high schools are pulling pensions of more than $100,000 a year because their school boards granted them raises of 40 percent as they headed toward the exits.

School districts that gave retiring teachers at least two pay bumps of 20 percent dominate the top ranks of districts with the most pensioners drawing six-figure income from the Teachers' Retirement System.

The runaway leader -- with 146 people in that category -- is Palatine Community High School District 211, a large northwest suburban district that serves 12,000 students in five high schools. The district includes Palatine, Conant, Hoffman Estates, Schaumburg and Fremd high schools.

In second place is neighboring Township High School District 214, where 95 retired teachers and administrators are entitled to pensions of more than $100,000. Three dozen more retirees from District 214 will break into six figures following the next 3 percent pay raise.

District 214 educates nearly 12,000 students in six high schools: Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove, John Hersey, Prospect, Rolling Meadows and Wheeling.

Three north suburban high schools with smaller headcounts occupy the third, fourth and fifth spots on the list. Niles Township High School District 219, a district of two high schools, has 82 retirees drawing six-figure pensions and many more headed their way.

Highland Park Township District 113, made up of Deerfield and Highland Park high schools, has 73 pensioners drawing more than $100,000, and Northfield District 225, which encompasses Glenbrook North and Glenbrook South, has 51 in that category.

The legislature effectively banned pay spiking in 2005 when it put a 6 percent lid on educators' pay raises during the four years that count toward the benefit calculation. (Educators receive up to 75 percent of their final years' pay depending on their years of service.)

Read the whole thing.............

stupid energy

From Shannon Love

Every time I get into a debate about “alternative” energy I point out it can’t be used for baseline power because it can’t provide reliable power, and it can’t provide reliable power because you can’t store the electricity that it episodically generates.

Immediately, someone will say, “We can use hydraulic storage!”

Hydraulic storage is basically a hydroelectric dam on a small or large scale, except instead of using water brought by a watershed, the water is pumped up behind the dam with pumps powered by the generator whose energy output you want to store. For example, you would have electric pumps powered by solar panels or wind turbines, the idea being that when the wind or cloud-free days produced a surplus of power (or you built in surplus capacity) the pumps would pump water from a lower reservoir uphill into a higher storage reservoir. The electricity would be stored as the potential energy in the elevated water. When you needed the power back, you would drain the water back downhill through turbines just like a hydroelectric damn.

Now, this certainly works and it has been done on a small scale. However, it will never, ever be a real-world, large-scale solution that can make alternative power work.

Why? Well, let’s just do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.

(Note: Below when I say “conservative assumption” I mean an assumption biased in favor of alternative power.)

Let’s say we want alternative power to produce just 30% of our current baseline power needs. Let’s make a very conservative estimate that we only need to have a 25% stored reserve. (This very optimistically assumes that alternative power will otherwise be able to provide sufficient power, when it’s needed, 75% of the time.) So, 25% of 30% equals 7.5 % of the total (0.30*0.25=0.075).

By happenstance, hydroelectric power today produces 8% of the nation’s electricity. This means that if we want to use hydraulic storage to make alternative power work, we will have to recreate the 93% of the generating capacity of every currently existing hydroelectric facility in this country. That’s right, Hoover Dam, the entire TVA, all the damns in the Rock Mountains, all the rest, all duplicated.

That alone raises the question: Where the hell are we going to put these dang dams anyway? All the places with the geography and the water supply to produce hydroelectric power are already in use. Worse, all the places that produce significant amounts of solar and wind power are simultaneously the worst places to build hydroelectric facilities. Solar energy is produced most abundantly in, wait for it, the desert, and wind power is produced most abundantly in very, very flat places. So any hydroelectric storage facilities will have to be a long, long way off from the point of generation.

It gets even sillier. Hydroelectric storage is only around 25% efficient. This mean that to get 1 watt back out of the system you have to put 4 watts in. This in turn means that in order to create a 25% energy store of 30% of total power, you have to actually generate 30% of total power just to get 8% of total power back out. All that in addition to 30% of the total power that goes straight into the grid.

So, to get 30% of total power from an alternative power system you actually have to build the generating capacity to supply 60% of total power! Half of the alternative power will go into immediate consumption and half will be stored.

read the whole thing

The future of Medical Care is Bleak

Welcome to HELL!

They tell me the doctor Medicare cuts went through. You mean the AMA, with all their sound and fury signifying nothing, failed to influence our Congressional leadership?

Gee, who knew?

Folks, this was the plan. The cuts were supposed to go through. So look at it on the bright side. Our government just saved $250 billion!

And quietly, practices will downsize their nicest employees or close all together. Many others will speed up their flight to be bought by big hospital systems - but these hospital systems will be more selective when deciding who they admit to their ranks. Inner city hospitals, struggling for survival, will look to the government for more subsidies to meet their demands for survival. Government will comply to protect themselves. Big hospitals and health systems with lots of doctor-employees will point to the decreased revenue by their doctors, tighten their belts a bit more by maintaining their months-long hiring freezes indefinitely, and fail to give those productivity bonuses to their workers as their construction contracts for their additions continue to get paid as they get ready for the "Big Wave."

In business, nothing changes quickly. Especially big, money-hungry, bureaucratic machines. But the paranoia will grow amongst the administrative and medical supplier ranks as senior leadership looks to cut back. You see, doctors are just the first.

And then there's the patients. If you're in a big town, you won't notice the difference. That's because in the operating rooms, there will still be one nurse where there had been two. In the ICU's, your nurse will visit you a bit less, but thanks to electronics, she'll still be watching or listening for you. You might notice it's harder to understand the foreign accent of your doctor, but he or she will be pleasant. At least until the next doctor arrives on the night shift.

But for the rural patients. Best of luck. Hope you've got frequent flier miles or low mileage on your car. You're going to need it. I have no doubt that you'll be able to get a telemedicine doctor to see you, provided you have more than a dial-up connection and a new computer with a videocam. What, you can't afford one? Better ask the government for a computer, then, okay? And while you're on the phone, ask them how possible acute appendicitis will be handled, will you?

Fortunately, if you're below 65, you'll see the effects a bit later. But if you're over 65, better tap into your savings a bit, so you can pay to have a doctor.

That's just the way it's going to be.

Educational Insanity: Toy Soldiers Violate School Gun Policy

By Bob Ellis on June 18th, 2010

Do you ever get the feeling that our education system has been taken over by morons? I do.

From the Canadian Press:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A Rhode Island mother says her son’s school cited its no-weapons policy in stopping the second-grader from wearing a patriotic hat he made to honour Army troops.

Christan Morales says her 8-year-old son, David, was assigned to make a crazy hat for his class at the Tiogue School in Coventry. She says they brainstormed and he came up with an idea to glue small plastic army figures to a camouflage hat with an American flag.

But she says David was not allowed to wear the hat for the project. Morales says his teacher called her to say it wasn’t appropriate because it had guns, violating a school ban on weapons and toy weapons.

These liberal idiots are completely bereft of common sense (perhaps anti-military, too?)…and what’s worse, they’re teaching our children not to exercise any, either.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own

Will it be Sarah Vs Hillary in 2012

Looks like da Bamsta is going to be one terming it. So what now.

Lots of people think this will be the battle of the Power Women.

Should be fun.

Jobs down the drain

As our economy drifts off into the dark night, states and educational systems will find themselves more and more like this story from Sacramento.

Sacramento County is sending another 700-plus workers to the unemployment line.

That news came Thursday with the Board of Supervisors' passage of a fiscal year 2010-11 budget, a $1.94 billion general fund spending plan that will mean widespread reductions in programs and services countywide.

The severity of the layoffs will hurt the area's still-reeling economy, experts say.

"It's a significant loss of jobs and a significant loss of income," said Jeff Michael, director of the Business Forecasting Center at the University of the Pacific. "If it were a factory laying off 800 people this would be a major story, and it's no different with county government."

The good times are over for teachers and government workers. The money is all gone.

Margaret Thatcher once said that "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

It's all over but the shouting and the shouting will be substantial.

OBAMA RULES FOR GOLF

NEW OBAMA RULES FOR GOLF:

0bama has now appointed a Golf Czar. Announcements were just made of major rule changes in the game of golf which will become effective 01 June 2010.

This is only a preview as the complete rule book is being rewritten as we speak. It will be written in English, Spanish, and a new edition in Farsi.

Here are a few basic changes:

Golfers with handicaps:
- below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%.
- between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees.
- above 18 will get a $25 check each time they play.

The dollar amount placed in bets will be as follows:
-for handicaps below 10, an additional $10.
-between 11 and 18, no additional amount.
-above 18, you will receive the total amount in the pot even if you do not play.

The term “gimme” will be changed to “entitlement” and will be used as follows:
-handicaps below 10, no entitlements.
-handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts.
-handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick your ball up.

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring.

In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given 18-hole round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par,can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again.

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes, but the term ‘net score’ will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to ‘redistribute’ the success of winning by making sure that in every competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only ‘net score’ against every other player’s gross score.

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf. Golf must be about fairness. It should have nothing to do with ability.

:
Doug is the owner of Stix Blog. He has also contributed to Grizzly Groundswell, Heading Right, Snooper Report, Modern Conservative. He is also the Managing Editor for Technology at 73 Wire. And can be found on twitter at stix1972. You can also leave me a voice mail at (618) 688-2156

Stupid

A new museum of World War II is opening in London. Some anonymous nanny stater has taken the liberty of airbrushing the cigar from Winston Churchill’s mouth.

It isn’t even a very good job as the whole lower left side of his face is distorted. The museum directors say they don’t know who did it. It is a mystery but not surprising.

The FDR Memorial that was put up in Washington a few years ago, does not show FDR with his cigarette holder that was so characteristic of him in public. I gave a cigarette holder like that to my grandfather when I was a child. He loved it because it made him look like FDR.

The FDR Memorial shows something that was never seen in public when he was alive. He is shown in a wheelchair. He would never have allowed that but the modern nannies have to draw the last drop of sanctimonious pap from the scene.

Thus goes the slow decline of common sense and reality in our lives and those of our friends.

The cover of a new book....Me Like

Asking, what is the American Way of Life?

What is the American Way of Life?

1. America has an ideology of free, independent individuals, and this self-image, and the conduct associated with it, are deeply rooted in our culture.
2. The foundation of this culture is the nuclear family, which creates enterprising and self-reliant families and individuals, and this type of family is different from the family types found in other cultures, which create expectations of dependency and which make lifelong demands oonest) observer would notice and say, “these are the things that make America n individuals.
3. The origins of this culture are in England, transmitted to us by the English colonists, and subsequent waves of migration have largely adapted themselves to it, and we expect others emigrating here to similarly adapt themselves to it.
4. Americans are egalitarian, believing that social classes either don’t exist, or should be open to entry by anyone, and that the rewards of life should be available to all, but granted to those who have earned them, or had good fortune, in an open, competitive process.
5. Americans have middle-class values, generally disliking the culture associated with poverty and not respecting the culture associated with unearned wealth. Americans want to own their own homes, and expect that their home is their castle. They built the suburbs because they like the life of the suburbs.
6. Americans want the freedom to come and go as they please, including by automobile.
7. Americans believe that major disputes should be solved by operation of law, that the legal system should be fair, that people should not have to make bribes or use self-help or personal violence to defend themselves or to solve major disputes. Nonetheless, Americans insist on having access to lethal force to defend their homes and themselves.
8. Americans believe that major economic decision should be made by individuals or voluntary groups, such as business corporations, not by the government.
9. Americans believe the government exists to protect them, their homes, their families, and their material well-being. They have low expectations about what governments can accomplish, and tend to distrust it. They expect government to operate reasonably honestly and transparently, and without excessive corruption.
10. Americans are empiricists, practical-minded, open to technology, and optimistic about the prospects of material progress. Americans are realists about the defects of human nature and are not utopian.

Is the Gulf Oil Spill proof of the fallacy of Peak Oil?

I have wondered since the advent of the spill. How is this possible? I thought we were down to a trickle.

But, I am aware of the ABIOTIC theory of Oil. That there is no shortage of oil. This oil spill MIGHT have the benefit of proving that.

Here is a pretty good article. Read it.

You will see. Agree or not, it doesn't matter. If the Abiotic production of oil is true, the world will change.

Humility in Relationships

TGIF Today God Is First Volume 1, by Os Hillman
06-13-2010

"All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.'" - 1 Peter 5:5b

I'll never forget the first time I discovered what a feeling was. It was in my early forties. "Surely not!" you may be thinking. Yes, it is true. Since then, I have discovered many men still live in this condition. It took an older mentor to help me understand the difference between information and a feeling. Wives are frustrated because their husbands share information, but not their feelings. They want to know what is going on inside their man. The fact is, most men have not been taught to identify feelings, much less how to share them. It is something that men must learn to do because it is not a natural trait. If they do share their feelings, society often portrays them as weak. No man willingly wants to be portrayed as weak.

In order to become an effective friend and leader, one must learn to be vulnerable with others and develop an ability to share feelings. It is a vital step to becoming a real person with whom others can connect emotionally. This is not easy to do if your parents did not teach you to share your emotional life with others. Emotional vulnerability is especially hard for men. Author Dr. Larry Crabb states,

Men who as boys felt neglected by their dads often remain distant from their own children. The sins of fathers are passed on to children, often through the dynamic of self-protection. It hurts to be neglected, and it creates questions about our value to others. So to avoid feeling the sting of further rejection, we refuse to give that part of ourselves we fear might once again be received with indifference. When our approach to life revolves around discipline, commitment, and knowledge [which the Greek influence teaches us] but runs from feeling the hurt of unmet longings that come from a lack of deeper relationships, then our efforts to love will be marked more by required action than by liberating passion. We will be known as reliable, but not involved. Honest friends will report that they enjoy being with us, but have trouble feeling close. Even our best friends (including spouses) will feel guarded around us, a little tense and vaguely distant. It's not uncommon for Christian leaders to have no real friends. [Larry Crabb, Inside Out (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Navpress, n.d.), 98-99.]

If this describes you, why not begin on a new journey of opening up your life to others in a way that others can see who you really are? It might be scary at first, but as you grow in this area, you will find new freedom in your life. Then, others will more readily connect with you.

Carter/Nixon President

President Obama has much going for him.

He's smart. He's a good speaker. He looks good. He's from Chicago. He broke the Color Barrier.

BUT..he has things against him:
...
He is inexperienced as a leader in effective governance (which he demonstrates daily). He has surrounded himself with unwise and in a few cases evil advisers. His worldview (ultra left) is way out of sync with the majority of Americans (center right). He lets pride (Hubris) get in the way of his leadership ability. He doesn't seem to be able to sort out the crazy voices all around him.

Barack Obama is a combination Carter/Nixon President. The worst of both.

Abolish Public Education. There. Someone said it, now let's do it.

A $600+ Billion Spending Cut

by Gary North

This will not be done. It will not be done because Americans do not really want major spending cuts.

To demonstrate my point, let us consider America's sacred cow, tax-funded education.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook, the United States spends about 5.3% of gross domestic product each year on education. If that estimate is accurate, this means about $750 billion a year.

The United Nations estimate places the figure of 5.7% of GDP.

That would mean expenditures in the range of $800 billion a year. If we assume that about 80% of these expenditures are funded by governments at various levels, we are talking something in the range of $600–$650 billion a year.

There is no economic reason why 100% of the expenditures on education should not be paid for by the parents of students or by the students themselves, when they reach college or graduate school level. There is also nothing that says that a government has the moral authority to coerce parents who hold to one view of education, or one view of how the world works, to subsidize the educations of other families, whose children attend schools that teach a view of the world closer to that approved by the subsidized parents.

To say this is to announce one of the most hated heresies of the modern world. I mean "heresy" in the good old-fashioned way that it was meant in the Middle Ages and in virtually any society prior to the Enlightenment. This heresy involves calling into question the legitimacy of a priesthood, self-appointed and self-policed, which gains its money from the civil government.

The establishment of churches funded by tax money has been common in most societies throughout history. I contend that it is basic to the modern world, too. The modern priesthood is the educational establishment in each nation. Tax funding goes to those institutions that have been certified as reputable by the priesthood.

An educational institution that claims to be legitimate in the modern world is pressured strongly to become accredited by institutions that are run by the priests whose standards are enforced by the state. An institution that sets up a college that is not approved by one of these accrediting associations cannot issue certain kinds of degrees without breaking the law. This system of accreditation extends all the way down to infant care.

The state regulates educational establishments, even including home schools, in order to preserve control over the content and methodology of education. In earlier centuries, a similar oligopoly was run in conjunction with state funding and also state coercion. Churches policed the society, including the morals of society, by means of a monopoly granted to them by the civil government.

The state in seventeenth-century New England could legally compel church attendance by every member of the society. What is not understood is that this law was rarely enforced in Boston. In his book, Winthrop's Boston (1965), Darrett Rutman concluded that the churches of Boston three centuries earlier could contain only about 25% of the residents of Boston at one time.

The modern educational system is far more compulsory than churches were in New England in 1665. The school bus system is indicative of just how compulsory it is. On this point, read my story of the two buses.

Local governments, state governments, and even the Federal government use tax money and the threat of violence against any parent who does not agree that the state has the right to shape the content of his children's education. This has been going on for so long that most Americans accept this regime as somehow established by natural law. The irony here is that the schools teach Darwinism, and Darwinism has no concept of natural law. Darwinism destroyed the concept of natural law. If the universe is evolving in autonomous, unpredictable ways, in terms of such random phenomena as genetic mutation, there can be no such thing as natural law. No social order is permanent; no legal order is permanent. The laws change as society changes.

In the modern world, anyone who suggests that all tax money should be withdrawn from the funding of educational programs is regarded as a crackpot. I am such a crackpot. I believe that the state does not have a moral right to compel parents to support other people's educations.

If it were my decision, I would shut off the funding by the state for every school in the United States, including the military academies. This would add something in the range of $600 billion to the private sector. Governments would not be able to persuade parents and others to hand over their money at the point of a gun from one person in order to subsidize the education of another person.

One of the oddities about life is that a statement regarding a widely believed moral imperative in one area is regarded as morally unsustainable when virtually the same statement is applied to another area. What virtually everybody accepts as self-evident truth in one area is regarded as self-evident error in another area.

In order to discuss tax-funded education, I want to change the topic from tax support of educational institutions to tax support of churches. The logic that I am about present applies equally well to both forms of institutional arrangements. But the public is unwilling to accept the logic of the disestablishment of churches when it is applied to disestablishment of education.

DISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM

In 1818, the state of Connecticut ceased funding the Congregational churches of the state. In 1833, Massachusetts followed Connecticut's lead. Massachusetts at that time was the last remaining state in the United States that used tax money to support churches.

Critics of the tax funding of churches had a number of arguments. I present here a brief summary of some of the more famous of these arguments, as a way of explaining the justification for the disestablishing of education. As you read these arguments, substitute the word "schools" for "churches."

THE MORAL ARGUMENT. The issues of life that are dealt with in churches are of fundamental importance. These issues are life-and-death issues. Some churches believe that there are eternal life and death issues.

There was a time when virtually all Western churches believed this. To compel someone to spread the message of a rival religion is an intolerable form of state coercion.

THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT. Politicians rarely give much thought to the fundamental issues of life. They are too busy getting elected and reelected. They cannot devote the time necessary to sort out fundamental truths from fundamental errors. To imagine that they can select the churches that are deserving of financial support at the expense of others that do not share the same views, is to impute a degree of wisdom not possessed by government officials. Politicians can barely be trusted to run the government, let alone run the churches.

THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT. To allow this year's majority in the state legislature to set standards for what should be taught in the churches is to grant them too much power to shape the thinking of the voters. The politicians will use this power as a way to subsidize those churches and those ministers who preach a message that is congenial to the majority in the legislature.

When a majority of votes in the legislature can determine the content of what is going to be taught in the churches, a society has transferred enormous authority to politicians to shape the thinking of the next generation. This is a way for politicians to preserve their majority, despite the fact that, had they not funded those churches that are favorable to their viewpoint, they would have been voted out of office at some future election.

The politicians will use the power of civil government to extend the public's acceptance of those political views and political conclusions that are favored by the present majority in the legislature. This will turn politics into a battle zone between rival churches.

THE INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT. Competition is basic to progress in every area of life. Churches should therefore compete apart from tax money that favors one procedure or one set of principles over another.

If tax money is used to fund churches, the quality of the preaching will decline. If preachers know that they are going to receive guaranteed income from the state, they have less incentive to preach according to the beliefs of the members of their congregations. If their income can be maintained apart from the donations from their members, then incentive to slack off increases.

There is an incentive to trim the content of the preaching in order to meet the standards of the latest political majority. Preachers who don't hold to such views have a harder time starting rival congregations, because the older congregations are the recipients of tax money.

This subsidizes the status quo. The public is kept from hearing new ideas, better ideas, and more effectively preached ideas precisely because congregations are not in control of the purse strings. A minister who has been granted certification by the hierarchy in a tax-supported denomination is granted immunity for poor performance in the pulpit when counseling. There will be a dumbing down of preaching precisely because more effective preaching does not receive its economic reward.

THE CHARITY ARGUMENT. Throughout Western history, churches have been a major source of charitable giving. Members of local congregations contribute money to the churches, and the churches pass some of that money back into the community by supporting the poor. Christianity has repeatedly preached that the support of the poor is morally obligatory, and furthermore, the success of the church will always be related to its success in charitable giving.

When the state provides the funding for the churches, the charitable impulse is weakened. Members assume that the money coming in from other taxpayers will go to the support of the poor. They more readily accept the concept of the welfare state, but they accept it as flowing through their local congregations. The impulse to sacrificially give to the poor is cut short, because the state provides the funds to support the poor.

The church then becomes a paid agency of the state, operating in terms of the latest rulebook governing state welfare expenditures. The church becomes an agency of the modern welfare state, while individuals within the churches feel less pressure to fund private programs of charity. The ability of charitable giving to become more effective is cut short, because the state's money will continue to fund the churches charitable ministries, just so long as the church conforms to the rulebook governing the distribution of tax funded welfare.

When compassionate conservatism funds church-run welfare programs, conservatism will become less compassionate. So will church members. "See this badge? See this gun? You're going to be compassionate, or else." This was not what Jesus had in mind.

THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR ARGUMENT. Whenever state funds are used to subsidize any program, the outlook of lowest common political denominator takes over the funding. The reason for this is that voters can exercise authority over politicians by putting them into offices or tossing them out of office. The politicians want to be elected or reelected. They cater to the opinions of those groups of voters that have the greatest clout at the polls.

Those voters who are most easily swayed by emotional arguments rather than by scientific or factual arguments become the swing voters who will determine the outcome of close elections. Under such circumstances, the opinions of the broad mass of voters will prevail in every area of government. To the extent that the broad mass of voters are not well informed on theological matters, to this extent will the funding of churches by the state debase the quality of the preaching as well as the intellectual content of the preaching. Churches will look to the state as their source of funding, which places them at the mercy of the lowest common denominator voter. The opinions shared by these people will determine which denominations win or lose in the arena of public opinion. This arena is not the arena of competitive preaching; it is the arena of political vote-getting.

SUBSIDIES AND INTELLECTUAL BLINDNESS

If these arguments make sense to you when applied to churches, you should consider their validity when applied to all forms of education. As far as I can see, the same problems of tax funding that are involved in the establishment of churches also apply to the establishment of educational institutions. The same conflicts, the same temptation to the misuse of power, the same lowest common denominator principle, the same tyranny apply to the tax funding of education as applies to the tax funding of churches.

As surely as Congregationalists in Massachusetts could not understand the logic of these arguments in 1825, or 1725, so the members of the established church of political salvation do not understand the logic of privately funded education. It took decades of criticism from Baptists and Quakers to persuade the members of tax-funded churches to give up their claim of other people's money.

It is worth noting that within five years of the decision of the Massachusetts government to cease funding the Congregational churches of the state, the government began funding local schools. A Unitarian lawyer, Horace Mann, became the first major official in the new state educational system. He made tax-funded education respectable throughout New England. That heritage now is widely accepted throughout the country.

One of the best books on how tax-funded churches took advantage of their power to box out independently-funded churches is The Churching of America, by Finke and Stark. Tax funding weakened the established churches so much that they could no longer compete when the subsidies ended.

Back in the 1950s, theologian and historian R. J. Rushdoony identified the underlying commitment of tax-funded education. He wrote a book on the background of the public school systems, with extensive citation from primary sources regarding the faith of the original educational bureaucrats in the ability of state education to make mankind better. Rushdoony called his book The Messianic Character of American Education (1963). He called the public school system America's only established church. He called the employees of this church "priests."

The interesting thing is that a liberal theologian and historian, Sydney E. Mead, wrote a book in the same year that also identified the public schools as priestly. Rushdoony opposed the educational priesthood. Mead favored it. He called his book The Lively Experiment. That experiment has been deadly for competitive education, just as it was for New England's Calvinist churches.

The transfer of tax money from the churches to the schools replaced the older system of established religion. The underlying principles of tax funding have not changed. The underlying presuppositions of the benefits of this funding have not changed. The difference is this: there were a lot of Baptists in the early 1800s, and there were a lot more of them by 1890. They had the votes. They opposed tax-funded churches. They had been on the receiving end of that tyranny for too long. Unfortunately, they adopted the religion of public education with the same fervor that other denominations did in the nineteenth century.

CONCLUSION

I am of the opinion that we will continue to see $600 billion or more per year of tax money pour into America's only established churches. It would be nice, as citizens, to get that money sent back to us in the form of tax rebates, and then to see the tax codes revised in future years, so that the money would never be sent to the politicians in the first place.

I wonder if most tea party members would agree with me. I wonder how many of them would agree with me. Probably about as many as would agree that Social Security and Medicare should be abolished.

The deficits will rise. The defaults will come. Home schools will flourish.

Who's afraid of Barack Obama? Nobody

S.E. Cupp

Wednesday, June 9th 2010, 4:00 AM

Many great thinkers have written about power and fear, and more adroitly, about the power of fear. There's Michel Foucault, who asserts the power of surveillance (or, at least, the power of the threat of surveillance). Then there's Machiavelli's sobering advice to Lorenzo de' Medici, about using fear to maintain stability. Even Gandhi reflected on the power of fear, opining that the "power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment."

No offense to the Mahatma, but he'd have made a terrible President of the United States.

The question of the moment is whether Barack Obama understands the power of fear, or if, like Gandhi, he prefers the power of love. If the last month is any indication, he doesn't seem particularly effective at either.

After outcries from the left and the right that the President hasn't been an effective leader on the oil spill, he seems to have read those cries as a push for, well, more profanity, telling aides to "plug the damn hole" and the "Today" show that he wants to know whose "ass to kick."

While his momentary turn as foulmouthed intimidator (I can't recall a time when another President had to be bleeped during a televised interview) may reveal he knows the value of bravado, there is much evidence to show he hasn't quite mastered the power of fear and intimidation to actually get what he wants. Obama may be walking loudly, but he is carrying a very small stick.

Proof? Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. While the controversy over alleged job offers to the Democratic candidates in return for their bowing out of crucial elections may not stick come 2012, what it reveals about the limits of the President's influence paints a far more ominous picture for Obama.

"As a scandal, the whole thing is a joke," said Democratic political consultant and Forbes columnist Dan Gerstein. "But it does reflect poorly on the administration in a different way. It shows that this White House is not very adept at wielding power or instilling fear."

And fear is key. "That Sestak and Romanoff, along with David Paterson, were not scared at all of telling Patrick Gaspard and Jim Messina to stuff it," Gerstein says, could be a big problem for Obama.

Yes, it's true that these sort of offers are made - and turned down - all the time. Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, put it to me this way: "The administration didn't succeed in its goal in either case. That's obvious. But in how many other cases did it succeed? We don't know that. The batting average counts."

But when you look at Obama's batting average, it's clear he's no Ted Williams. He wanted a public option in health care - and didn't get it.

He wanted Europe to follow us into stimulus oblivion - and it didn't (Britain and Germany, in fact, announced major spending cuts just this week).

He wanted meaningful climate change legislation - and didn't get it. He wanted Israel to end settlements in East Jerusalem - and was offended when Joe Biden's mere presence in Israel wasn't enough to stop them. And now he wants a new jobs bill - but hasn't been able to effectively corral Democrats and Republicans into action.

This isn't just an issue of Republican obstructionism - his clout abroad and among Democrats is clearly waning. As one GOP House leader I spoke with said, "These instances are clear evidence Obama does not control the left, but was created by it."

Fear-mongering and skillfully using fear are not the same thing. Other Presidents knew this. Gerstein mentions FDR, Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. But increasingly, presidential historians and political pundits are comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter - hardly good news for a President who has a lot yet to do and a reelection looming.

"Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved." Machiavelli may sound a touch paranoid today, but his words are still a meaningful comment on the political economy of fear, and suggest that the President should be afraid - very afraid - for his future.

Weight Loss Tip

I have lost a great deal of weight (25#) in about 60 days without dieting. I will share my little secret.
1. No more drive thrus of anything, ever. Full stop. In fact no fast food at all.
2. No candy period. Ok a chocolate bar now and then. Otherwise none. Ditto sugar soda.
3. Eat only half of what is placed be...fore you in a restaurant then STOP. Take the rest home.
4. Eat breakfast, sausage, eggs to kick off the Metabolism.
5. Don't snack for comfort. No chips, Cheetos or cheese. Nothing.
I'm going to need to buy new pants. I didn't read about this, I had the heck scared out of me by my Doc. I just decided to do something about my weight. And did. So can you.

Liberals are really BAD at Economics

For years I have said that Progressives and Liberals were ignorant of basic economics, Including the current occupant of the White House. I don't think it got much traction. People thought it was all politics.

Today's WSJ has a piece asking why there is such a direct relationship between basic economics and political views. It is true. Most people who are Liberal are bad at economics. Or they lie to themselves.

Should intentional ignorance be acceptable? Seems like that's what we have. And it's part of the reason for the mess we have now. Who's ass should I kick?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html

How to Recognize when a Company, Church or Country is Drifing into Decline

Whether the task was the building of a tabernacle or the creation of the universe, God has always demanded and exhibited excellence. His attributes emanate perfection at the highest level.

Quality if ignored will slip away. Max DePree warned about losing the commitment to quality in his book Leadership is an Art. He identified twenty signals of entropy, which he defined as “a tendency to deteriorate.”

• Tendency toward superficiality
• Tension among key people
• Lack of celebration and ritual
• No distinction between rewards and ritual
• Absence of tribal stories
• Oversimplification of business difficulties
• Inconsistent understanding of responsibility or “service” or “trust.”
• Problem-makers outnumbering problem-solvers
• People confusing heroes and celebrities
• Leaders controlling rather than liberating
• Day-to-day operations eliminating concern for vision and risk
• Preference for business school rules over “contribution, spirit, excellence, beauty and joy.”
• Customers /members becoming an imposition, not an opportunity to serve.
• Manuals.
• An urge to quantify.
• An urge for ratios.
• Reliance upon structure instead of people.
• Loss of confidence in judgment, experience and wisdom.
• Loss of grace, style and civility.
• Loss of respect for the English language.

DePree concluded that any organization that wants to be as good as it can be needs to constantly be on the alert for the signs of entropy.

Taken from Leadership is an Art by Max DePree. Copyrite 1987 by Max Depree. Published by Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

More Revelation on the Ugly Truth about Wind Power

Wind Power is Ugly and it doesn't work.

Gee...what's new.

Of the total installed capacity of all wind power in Germany they average about 8% yield. If this were not government supported it would already be in the scrap heap.

And California doesn't work either. How long do we have to put up with this insanity?

Terminal Frustration with Obama

If you are like me, I am no longer frustrated with Barack Obama. I'm not angry. I'm not disgusted.

I'm just done. He is the most incompetent man ever to hold the high office of President. I used to believe he had evil intent but now I am see that he just dithers dawdles and destroys things like a child who is clumsy and bumbles everything he touches.

Even his most core support has been eroded.

I haven't said this for real before, but even Joe Biden would be better.

Barack Obama must resign for lack of capacity to lead.

He has none.

Not the End of the World

I like to read what Jerry Pournelle writes. I have a struggle in trying to Hyperlink to a specific story in his blog design. So in spite of the fact it will upset some people, I am going to reprint this verbatim with attribution. It's a great observation, worthy of repeat. The link is here, but the problem with Mr Pournelle's blog is it seems to de link often. So, read Jerry's wisdom. If the permalink thing on his format is ever figured out I'll use it.

It's an Oil Spill, Not the End of the World

Today is full of dismaying news. First, the hole isn't plugged. In fact, while President Obama was telling us that the maneuver to fill the pipe with driller's mud would have a 60% chance of plugging it, the operation had been called off, apparently by the people who have their boot on BP's neck. The government has given the Attorney General orders to make sure the boot stays in place. The effect of that on actually plugging the hole isn't known, nor is it known whether the AG will go to Louisiana, where I am sure more lawyers are needed.

Not that I am carrying any brief for BP. I don't know the whole story -- I doubt anyone does -- but all the evidence I have seen points to BP always taking the cheapest course even when the cost differences involved are a few million to tens of millions of dollars in operations that bring in billions. Of course managing economic risks is part of what capitalist ventures do. The problem here is that the consequences of failure are borne not merely by the capitalist venture, but by all of us. It's another case of thr rewards of success going to the private venture, while the cost of failure is borne by others. We've seen a lot of that in the past few years. Both the Creeps and the Nuts like that sort of "gamble."

We all know how the Creeps played with Credit Default Swaps and such. The Nuts do it a bit differently but the results are the same. The Nuts, for example, insisted on minimum wages for Samoa; that ran the cost of fish processing up, so a number of canneries closed their Samoan operations and moved to other places in Asia where there is no minimum wage. Now the Nuts are sending a few tens of millions to Samoa to bail out the collapsing economy. The economy wasn't in collapse until the fish processing plants closed eliminating one of the major job sources. Of course that's small potatoes compare with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac injecting more and more money into the housing market, buying up bundles of junk mortgages and using those piles of junk bonds as security to borrow more public money to inject into the housing market. Meanwhile the Nuts insisted that we spread housing ownership around, meaning that finance companies should ought to make loans to nearly anyone who wanted in on the American Dream of housing ownership. Which of course led to the sob stories about the gardener with a $40,000 a year "stated" (i.e. not verified or even documented) income being able to "buy" a $450,000 house that, after the collapse of the bubble, turned out to be "worth" about $200,000; now the poor chap is being foreclosed and evicted. It's the end of his Dream. Etc.

Decoupling risk from consequences didn't work too well in keeping the economy going. How well has it worked with deepwater oil drilling?

Actually, a lot better than it did with the housing market. We've heard a lot about the terrible damage from the oil torrent, and it is certainly frightening; but it turns out not to be quite so big in the context of other oil spills. I first heard that this morning on the Rush Limbaugh show. Rush is seldom my primary source of information, but this morning he gave his source, Dr. Roy Spencer, whom we've recommended here in the past. Limbaugh shows Spencer's chart on his web page, and it's instructive. Yes, it's a disaster, but it's not large in comparison with previous -- even frequent -- disasters. This isn't the end of the world as we know it. The torrent has to be stopped, the oil has to be contained, the hole has to be plugged, and the longer that takes the worse it will be, but the Persian Gulf recovered from the world's worst oil spill (deliberate at that) and the Gulf of Mexico will recover from this one.

That doesn't excuse us from the obligation to learn more about containing these disasters, and my recommendation is that every oil pumping operation should be subject to a separation tax devoted to funding the creation of Civil Defense organizations, a recovery force of specialists, and research and development of recovery methods. I'm no great fan of bureaucracies, but sometimes they are necessary. Fire Departments are bureaucracies. Volunteer fire departments work in some places, private fire fighters have been advocated by strict libertarians, but I'm quite pleased with the Los Angeles Fire Department. I gather that New Yorkers are fond of the NYFD; and indeed mot places I go seem happy with the local fire departments. But that's another discussion about details: the most important thing needed for the future is to re-create Civil Defense, not just for oil spill containment but also hurricanes, earthquakes, twisters, etc.

We can be dismayed that the hole is not plugged (the Top Fill attempt apparently was stopped by the US government, perhaps for good reasons); but at least we know this isn't the worst disaster of the Gulf and isn't the end of the world as we know it.

Winning the war on Terror

How one brave Nigerian is risking his life to win militants and terrorists to Christ.

Kelechi Okengwu has taught me to face my fears.

This 32-year-old Nigerian evangelist will probably never star in a movie or be featured on the evening news. But he has been a younger role model for me since I met him seven years ago.

Converted to Christ at 21, Kelechi has spent the past decade reaching dangerous militants who are spreading violence on Nigeria's university campuses. Through his Gospel Mania Project, the young preacher shares his faith with leaders of The Black Axe, Brotherhood of the Black Brigade, The Big Eye, The Pyrates, the Buccaneers and The Mafia—clandestine groups that mix African occultism with drugs and violence to spread fear and political instability throughout the country.

"Dying for Christ is the highest honor we could ever experience. I am not afraid to die. That would be one way to say thank you to God for all He has done for me." — Kelechi Okengwu

"Many people think what I do is madness," Kelechi told me last month when I visited him in the city of Akure. These campus gangs kill 30 to 40 students a year in Nigeria. The murders have forced many parents to send their children abroad to study, creating a brain drain that has siphoned off many of the country's potential leaders.

I am constantly inspired by Kelechi's courage. The students he is reaching are involved in assassinations, bloody occult rituals and bank robberies. They have been known to slit students' throats and bury the bodies in the woods. They often enjoy demonic protection (which they get from witchdoctors) but they are also armed with rifles and machetes.

Who would dare risk being near these people—much less reaching out to befriend them? Yet Kelechi has led more than 400 of these dangerous young men and women to Jesus.

In a typical campus meeting, held outdoors, Kelechi will preach the gospel and then ask if any of the campus militants will surrender their lives to Christ and leave their gangs. The power of God always shows up. "Sometimes they will fall down on the ground, under conviction," Kelechi says. "Sometimes, if they are demon possessed, they will fall on the ground and scream."

Those who respond to Kelechi's message surrender their witchcraft paraphernalia—which often includes bones, belts, woodcarvings, charms, powders and other objects that supposedly offer spiritual protection. They also lay down their weapons and drugs. Today, many of them serve as part of Kelechi's unique mission team to reach other militants.

As if this level of danger isn't enough for him, Kelechi has taken on a new and even riskier assignment in the past six months. He and his disciples are now evangelizing the Muslim terrorists who have been setting up training camps in northern Nigeria. They identify young Nigerian men who are being radicalized by Islamists from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and Afghanistan. Then they attempt to share Christ with them.

It is the ultimate in counter-terrorism—with no bombs or bullets involved. Kelechi's weapons consist only of (1) the Bible, (2) unconditional love and (3) lots of fasting and prayer.

I asked Kelechi if he ever feels afraid. He admitted some fear, but then explained why he won't let it paralyze him.

"It is the fear of death that causes people to be afraid of witnessing," Kelechi told me. "But dying for Christ is the highest honor we could ever experience. I am not afraid to die. That would be one way to say thank you to God for all He has done for me."

It's easy for us in the West to sit on our comfortable couches in our air-conditioned homes and pontificate about how to stop terrorism while we watch the news from Nigeria or the Middle East on our flat-screen TVs. But after spending time with Kelechi and viewing this threat from his vantage point, I am humbled.

I've never looked into the eyes of a terrorist. I have certainly never put my life on the line by offering the gospel to a guy holding an AK-47. I pray I could have half the boldness my friend has.

I am grateful to Kelechi and all the other nameless and faceless heroes who are modeling selfless New Testament Christianity in the developing world. They are on the front lines in today's global struggle. We owe them our prayers, our support and our utmost respect.

Housing Values about to drop Again

Everybody take a nice long look at today's Pending Home Sales Index from the National Association of Realtors, because it's just about the last positive picture we're going to see for a while.

Yes, the index rose even more than expected, as buyers rushed in to take advantage of the home buyer tax credit.

And yes, those numbers will show up in Existing Home Sales in May and June, but then look out.

This index is based on contracts signed in August, and that's how the credit was set up; you had to sign your contract by April 30th and close by June 30th in order to get your $8000 if you're a first time buyer and $6500 if you're a move up buyer.

And then came May, traditionally the height of the spring housing season.

Mortgage applications to purchase a home began to sink. Now, four weeks later, mortgage purchase applications are down nearly 40 percent from a month ago to their lowest level since April of 1997. Yes, you can argue that a larger-than normal share of buyers today are all cash, but those are largely investors.

That means real organic buyers are exiting in droves.

"With another week of historically low mortgage rates, the trend from the prior three weeks continued, as refinance applications increased while purchase applications dropped. Purchase applications are now almost 40 percent below their level four weeks ago, while the refinance share, at 74 percent, is at its highest level since December," said Michael Fratantoni, MBA's Vice President of Research and Economics.

And then the Realtors' chief economist, Lawrence Yun, after touting the numbers and telling all of us how much home equity was "preserved" by the tax credit stabilizing prices ($900 billion), throws water on his own numbers:

“A big concern surfacing recently is insufficient time to close the deal at the settlement table. Under normal circumstances, two months would be enough time from contract signing to settlement date,” Yun said.

“However, the recent housing cycle has brought long delays related to the short sales approval process by banks, and from ongoing appraisal issues. There could be a sizable number of homebuyers who responded to tax credit incentives, but may encounter problems meeting the settlement deadline by June 30.”

So now the NAR is asking Congress to provide flexibility on the deadline for closing.

Let's see how that goes over, as the government continues to try to find the back door out of the housing market.

What do you get when you have the worst of Carter, Nixon and LBJ? OBAMA

You Can Take the Pol Out of Chicago. . .

Jennifer Rubin - 05.30.2010 - 8:17 AM

As he often does, Obama tried to distance himself from his own administration’s mess. He ducked a personal response and had his lawyer issue a memo on the Joe Sestak job-offer scandal on the Friday before Memorial Day. He thereby succeeded in revealing that Sestak is a fabulist, his own White House is little more than a Blago-like operation, an ex-president has been reduced to the the role of a “cut out,” and the whole lot of them practice the same sleazy-politics-as usual that Obama ran against (which, ironically, was symbolized in the primary by Hillary Clinton).

The White House counsel says it really wasn’t the secretary of the Navy post that was offered. It was an unpaid advisory-board position. A few problems there. You send a former president to offer that to avoid a primary fight? And more important, it doesn’t get over the legal hurdle. As Hans von Spakovsky explains:

[White House Counsel Robert] Bauer admits that Rahm Emanuel asked Bill Clinton to offer Sestak an appointment to a “Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board,” and that the appointment would be attractive, i.e., a benefit. The statute does not absolve you of liability if you are offering someone an uncompensated appointment. It also specifies that you are guilty of a violation if you make such an offer “directly or indirectly.” Moreover, since the executive branch may not spend money that is not appropriated by Congress, any such board would be authorized by or at least paid for by an “Act of Congress.”

And boy, did they pick the wrong election cycle to pull this. The underlying gambit is bad enough, but the roll out of the explanation is potentially worse and will be thrown in Sestak’s face in the election. The stall. The lawyer swooping in with the cover story. The process of getting everyone on the same page. It is precisely what the voters are screaming about: backroom deals, evasive pols, lack of transparency, and dishonesty. Obama has made perfect hash out of the race, first by pulling the weather vane Arlen Specter into the Democratic Party, then trying to unsuccessfully push the opponent out of the way, and finally by sullying everyone involved.

Obama has been compared to Jimmy Carter (in his misguided notions about the world), to Richard Nixon (in his sleazy backroom dealing and lack of transparency) and to LBJ (in his infatuation with government). Unfortunately, it appears that he embodies the worst of three unsuccessful presidents. And like all three, he may manage to drag his party down with him.

Obama's foolish behavior

'There are legitimate questions as to whether he’s out of his depth or not' [Robert Costa]

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) to National Review Online . . .

On Sestak:

“Oh my,” McCain laughs, his voice dripping with jest. “Can’t we just trust their words? I mean, what’s the matter with you? If Robert Gibbs says nothing untoward took place, then that, of course, satisfies any concerns I might have.” More seriously: “All I can say is this: Imagine if this was the Bush administration. The media wolf pack would be in full cry. But this is something we’ve grown used to. We have a compliant media. The good thing is that the American people have figured it out. They’re not being guided by the views of the mainstream media. If they were, the president’s polls wouldn’t be where they are.”

On President Obama’s visit to the Senate:

“The president had very strong disagreements with Senator Barrasso and Senator Corker,” McCain says. “Barrasso was chronicling how Obamacare was a failure and the president just ripped into him, saying ‘you know, John, there’s no press here.’ That took me aback. You think Barrasso thought press was in there? Then the president spoke repeatedly about how he’s supposedly taken on the left wing of his party. Please, does he really want our sympathy? It’s laughable.” Is the president as serious as you once thought? “There are legitimate questions as to whether he’s out of his depth or not,” McCain says.

On Mitt Romney:

“Nobody did more for me between the time I won the nomination and Election Day than Mitt Romney,” McCain says. “He did everything the campaign asked, from giving speeches everywhere to media. Cindy and I have developed a friendship with him and Ann since the campaign. They’ve stayed at our place in northern Arizona for a weekend and he stops by to see me whenever he’s in Washington. It’s a very good relationship.”

Is Romney using his political winter effectively? “Yes, very much so,” McCain says. “He’s doing the right things with his abilities — not too much, not too little, and traveling around to the early primary states. And, as I know, you always have a certain advantage the second time around, even if you support the surge.”

On writer Joe McGinniss, Sarah Palin’s new neighbor:

“How low can you sink?” McCain asks. “There should be an outcry amongst the media. What he’s doing is just terrible. It’s unbelievable that somebody would sink that low.

A really unfair and unbalanced look at the news...So I recommend it

THE HILL DAILY NEWS



ILLEGALS in Arizona
The ECONOMY in peril
GAYS in the Military
OIL in the Gulf
JOBS in rigor mortis
NUKES in Iran
TRILLIONS in Debt
O-BORTION in the law

Sell in MAY and Run Away

There are some very dire things in the Stock Market. The future doesn't look good.

I will have to say....I am not alone.

and there are problems in Iran and North Korea.

Not a good place to be invested. Unless it's in your mattress.

IRAN and KOREA

http://prophetgene.blogspot.com/2010/05/pointed-gun-and-finger-on-trigger.html

http://prophetgene.blogspot.com/2010/05/psalm-83-and-coming-mid-east-war.html

http://www.debka.com/article/8803/

The Uber Bears are right....

http://www.businessinsider.com/dow-theorist-richard-russell-sell-everything-liquid-you-wont-recognize-america-by-the-end-of-the-year-2010-5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7756684/Nouriel-Roubini-said-said-the-bubble-would-burst-and-it-did.-So-what-next.html

When WE speak in tongues we speak in the language of THE HEARER

I know of situations like this one. People who are in another culture, speak in tongues and find they are speaking the language of the hearers. When WE speak in tongues we speak in the language of THE HEARER. I love these signs and wonders.

Hebrew Tongues Israel

www.youtube.com

This is amazing!

I hope the White House Media types brought along a few quarts

I hope the White House Media types brought along a few quarts of 10W30 for the occasion...

Dominic Lawson: Not such a big spill after all - Dominic Lawson, Commentators - The Independent

www.independent.co.uk

Barack Obama's media advisers were quite distressed when the President travelled down to the Louisiana coastline last week to make his first on-the-spot statement about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Their distress was caused by what they didn't discover, rather than what they did.