Modern Crimes

Long Live the Confederacy

I am actually sort of glad Obama won. When the amazingly hard crash comes at least it will be under Dumbocrat control. Hopefully we have a real chance of secession this time. If we did it I am certain we could win this time and leave them with the $850 billion bailout plus the debt.

Here is Vox's take on it.

Baby Steps to Healthy Eating

I stole the baby steps idea from Dave Ramsey. Check out his financial info if you don't know who he is.

This is notes from talks that my wife and I have given on nutrition and ways to get started. Just do one thing until you are comfortable with it and then move to the next step. Don't try to change your whole life at once, it probably won't last long. Make small permanent changes, then when you are ready make another small permanent change.

Baby Steps to Healthy Eating

1. Cut the Crap!

1. Donuts
2. Cokes (both regular and artificially sweetened)
3. Anything fried in vegetable oil (French fries, chips, etc)
4. Non fish seafood –especially fried
5. Sweets-including artificial sweeteners, some of them are worse than sugar.
   

2. Drink lots of Pure Water

• God designed water for drinking.
• Avoid all processed drinks (cokes, sports drinks, fruit juices, pasteurized milk.)
• Limit tea-(green, herbal, and black), coffee, and alcohol
• Raw milk is good
• Beware of Contaminants (chlorine, fluoride, nitrates)

3. Eat Green Vegetables

• Color is a fairly good indicator of nutrition-Darker is better
  
• Green leafy vegetables are the best (spinach, kale, collard greens, etc)
• Raw is probably better than cooked
• Probably the only thing you can’t overdo
• Fruits are good in moderation
• Organic is best

4. Exercise

• Exercising burns calories
• It makes your body function better
• Strengthens the immune system and brain

5. Eat Whole Foods

• If your great-grandparents didn’t eat it, it isn’t food
• Processing of foods removes nutrition, adds bad things to foods (sugar, MSG, preservatives, etc)
• Raw foods are good in many cases
• The less processing the better
• Some experts say grains should be avoided by most people

6. Eat Clean Meats

• God’s rules to the Jews were for their health benefits, not just spiritual rules
• Modern research has proven the wisdom of avoiding certain foods.
• God taught them to sacrifice internal and external fats, kidneys, and liver so the didn't eat them
  
• Antibiotics, hormones, and grain-fed animals make it less healthy

7. Eat Good Fats

• Many fats and oils are bad for you
• Others that you have been told are bad are really good
• Use history as a guide
• Coconut and Palm for cooking
• Extra Virgin Olive for cold use

8. Supplement Wisely

• Watch for synthetic vitamins
• Don’t use vitamins as a first line of defense
• Fill in holes in your diet
• Try superfoods
• Good digestive bacteria
• Avoid antibacterial anything
• Find natural remedies

9. Educate Yourself

• Medical doctors generally have almost NO nutritional training
• Much doctor training is funded by pharmaceutical companies
• Leviticus – by Jehovah Rophe
• What the Bible says about Healthy Living - by Rex Russell, M.D.
• The Maker’s Diet – by Jordan S. Rubin N.M.D., Ph.D.
• Dr. Mercola's Total Health Cookbook and Program – by Dr. Joseph Mercola
• The Great Physician's RX for Health and Wellness – by Jordan Rubin
• Rejuvenate your Life – by Serene Allison
• www.mercola.com
• www.naturalnews.com
• www.westonaprice.org

Of course don’t believe everything you read or hear, look at many sources and make an
educated judgment.

A simple scientific experiment: Look around and see who's healthy
Let me invite you to look at a simple experiment here. If what organized medicine says is true, then you should be able to observe that people on drugs are healthy, while all the people taking herbs and vitamins are diseased.
Go park your car in front of a pharmacy and watch the first 100 people you see buying drugs, then ask yourself, "Are these healthy people?" Look at the way they walk, their energy and their posture. Do they look healthy? Then go park your car in front of a health food store and watch people entering and exiting that store. Ask yourself again: Do they look healthy?
If you do this experiment, you'll quickly find that the unhealthy people are the ones visiting the pharmacy. The healthy people are the ones visiting health food stores, which sell natural health products and supplements. Through this simple observation experiment, we can see for ourselves that conventional medicine doesn't make people healthy. Or, at the very least, we can say that the consumption of prescription drugs is strongly correlated with states of disease, while the consumption of health food store products (natural groceries, organic produce and nutritional supplements) is strongly correlated with the absence of disease. And this observation holds true through many levels: physical health, emotional health, mental health and spiritual health.

How to know if it is GOD's voice you are hearing

GOD's voice
How do you know if it is GOD's voice you are hearing

1.It will go against wordly wisdom-many people will say you are crazy
2.It will require Faith
3.It will require courage
4.It will line up with the written WORD
5.You will have Peace in your spirit-
not necessarily Peace in your mind or emotions.

Life Progressions

This is a list from a series of messages by Creflo Dollar. It tells us where the root is to what is going on in our life. If we want to change things we have to go back to the root.

Life Progressions

from Creflo Dollar

1. The words you hear(either GOD's word or satan's word) produce your

2. Thinking which produces your

3. Emotions and feeling- which affects your

4. Decisions- where you choose your

5. Actions- which produce

6. Habits- which become

7. Character- which ends up with your

8. Destiny

So if you don't like your destiny, you must go back to step 1 and change the words and ideas you are hearing. You can't change step5 without changing step . It will short circuit.

The 10 Cannots

Check out this blog article about voting and the 10 cannots

Bayou Renaissance Man: Thoughts before the election #1

Thoughts before the election #1

A number of readers have
e-mailed me, asking why I'm not providing more thoughts on the election
and who I support for President.

The answer's simple. I don't
believe I have the right to try to persuade anyone to vote according to
my view of the world. I have my own convictions (centrist, with a
conservative angle in terms of morality and an emphasis on the
individual versus the collective), but I don't want to impose them on
anyone else.

I've therefore decided to share, over a few posts,
some of the thinkers whom I find valuable in evaluating the candidates
for office (whether the Presidency, Senate, Congress, or temporary
acting honorary assistant deputy dog-catcher). What I do is to take the
ideas of such thinkers and use them as a yardstick to evaluate the
candidates. How do they measure up? How well will they implement these
ideas or principles? If they don't and/or won't, I can't in good
conscience vote for them, irrespective of their political party or
philosophy, or their track record.

Today I'd like to introduce you to William J. H. Boetcker
(1873-1962). He was a Presbyterian minister, renowned for his
motivational public speaking, and had the knack of putting important
truths into concise, easily-grasped points.

Among his most
famous ideas are the 'Ten Cannots', dating from 1916. They're often
attributed - mistakenly - to Abraham Lincoln.

• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
• You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
• You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
• You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

I
think the 'Ten Cannots' say a great deal about our present society,
particularly its emphasis on 'big government' and 'handouts' and
'welfare' and suchlike. I don't believe in any of them. If a given
candidate (or political party) has a position that contradicts most of
the 'Ten Cannots', the odds are that I can't support them. If the
positions of all candidates (or parties) contradict the 'Ten Cannots',
I'll have to vote for the person or party who contradicts the fewest of
them, on the principle of choosing the lesser of the evils confronting
me.

Boetcker also coined the 'Seven National Crimes':

• I don’t think.
• I don’t know.
• I don’t care.
• I am too busy.
• I leave well enough alone.
• I have no time to read and find out.
• I am not interested.

These
may or may not apply to our politicians, but they sure apply to us as
voters! We should be asking ourselves whether we're guilty of any of
these attitudes: and, if so, we should try to change that.

In
the days ahead I'll write about a few more thinkers who've influenced
me, and helped to shape my outlook. I hope you find them as interesting
as I do - and helpful, in this election season.

Peter

22 Reasons people don't receive healing

I have some notes that I have been carrying in my Bible for years. I typed them up for my use, but thought others might be interested in them, so I will post them here. I am not a note taker generally. These are lists of items that I thought were vital.

22 Reasons People don't receive their healing.

Originally taught by Creflo Dollar

1. Insufficient Instruction

2. Lack of united prayer

3. Community Unbelief

4. Traditions of men

5. Breaking natural laws-eating, lack of exercise, etc

6. Unbelief of elder/minister who prays

7. Evil spirit must be cast our

8. Unconfessed sin

9. Lukewarmness in the church

10. Unwillingness to surrender to GOD

11. Unforgiving spirit

12. Need to seek forgiveness

13. Lack of diligence

14. Seeking miracles instead of healing

15. Watching Symptoms

16. Failure to act on faith

17. Lack of confidence

18. Failure to receive the HOLY SPIRIT

19. Lack of Faith

20. Failure to receive promises

21. Waiting for healing in order to believe in healing-I'll believe it after I see it.

Big government fingerprints on murder weapon

Big-government fingerprints on murder weapon

---

Big-government fingerprints on murder weapon
Posted: October 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

Whose fingerprints are on the weapon that murdered the U.S. economy?

Multiple culprits deserve blame, but the Clinton administration stands out as a ringleader for diverting billions of dollars into junk sub-prime mortgages. Those loans have fouled the economy and siphoned away the capital needed by businesses and families today.

Government created a quota system that required lending to people who lacked the ability to repay.

Clinton's HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) decreed that big chunks of mortgages must be issued to borrowers with poor finances. It started at 12 percent of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages in 1996. By 2008, that proportion had more than doubled, to 28 percent.

Because Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage market, holding about $5 trillion in mortgages, they effectively dictated mortgage standards. The result: Their misguided practices rippled through lenders across the country. If banks made a sub-prime loan, they could re-sell it to Fannie and Freddie. And unless banks made those loans, there was a limit to other loans that would be bought.

(Column continues below)



As HUD wrote in a 2004 report, explaining its post-1996 quotas:

HUD's ... Regulation imposes no requirement for the total number of home purchase mortgages that a GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] must buy. Rather, the rule provides that, however many home purchase loans in metropolitan areas the GSEs buy, a certain percentage must be in each goal category. For example, if a GSE buys 1 million home purchase mortgages in metropolitan areas in 2005, then 450,000 of these mortgages would need to be for low- and moderate-income families.

Under that scenario, for each million loans made in 2005 (when the "very low-income" goal was 22 percent), then 220,000 of those mortgages were required by federal regulation to be among the "special affordable" sub-prime group. Since Fannie and Freddie bought hundreds of billions in mortgages each year, this 22 percent quickly became a huge mandate to make poor-quality loans.

Lenders complied by creating the infamous zero-down loans and other loans that proved to be junk. This wasn't a failure to regulate. It was a failure by regulating too much!

Many motives were commendable, of course. The American dream of home ownership is common to all races, classes and income levels. But so, too, is the ability to get in over your head.

So how low was low-income to our government? "Very low-income," also called "special affordable loans," was defined as having less than 60 percent of an area's median income. Just being below the median alone put a household in the bottom half of income. Being in the bottom third of the bottom half was scraping along compared to most folks.

Local medians vary. Census numbers show a median range from $44,000 for a family of three in Arkansas to $81,000 for a family of three in Maryland. (These are 2008 dollars). Living on 60 percent of that would be $26,400 to $48,600, with all sorts of levels in-between, depending on locality.

Fannie and Freddie complied with HUD's requirements, increasing their sub-prime loans year after year. They didn't mind. Indeed, they and their congressional supporters bragged about it.

Protected by their political friends, especially in Congress, Fannie and Freddie not only met their quotas for backing home loans to people who couldn't afford houses, they surpassed them. In 2004, 24.2 percent of their mortgages went to very low-income families, beating the goal of 20 percent. The following year they bested the 22 percent goal, hitting 24.5 percent. In 2006 they smashed the 23 percent goal with 26.46 percent. A year later they slipped, but still exceeded the 25 percent goal with 25.65 percent.

Helping out was the controversial group ACORN, which joined other community organizations in channeling potential borrowers to banks that would make these special loans. Of course, ACORN and the other enablers received handsome fees for this effort.

But it wasn't a kindness to help poor people get into a house, only to be evicted because they couldn't pay. It was a setback to them.

So, what if Fannie and Freddie had balked, rather than happily complied? Ultimately, the law created penalties that could reach $25,000 each day if they were not aggressive enough in marketing mortgages to those who had limited ability to pay.

This quota system for mortgage loans began when Congress in 1992 created the requirement that Fannie and Freddie must back loans to very low-income persons. However, the legislation specified only that this goal must be "not less than 1 percent." Starting at 12 percent and scaling up to 28 percent, the Clinton administration went above and beyond this. And the Bush administration did not reverse that course.

The left is aggressively working to convince America that a "failure to regulate" made lenders go crazy and wreck our economy through greed. The truth is that our economy was legislated and regulated into this mess. Even if our economy isn't already regulated to death, it's still attempted murder.

No Nonsense Self Defense

No Nonsense Self Defense - Reliable information for dangerous situations

I came across this site recently.  There is a ton of good information on safety in lot's of situations and how to avoid violence.  I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but there is a lot of good information.

Our loathsome members of Congress

Dr Williams tells it well. Now there is a black man I would vote for if he ran for anything.

---

---

Our loathsome members of Congress

---

Posted: October 08, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

In my more cynical moments, I think that we Americans deserve what we get from our politicians, many of whom can be generally described as nothing less than loathsome. You say, "Williams, that's a pretty heavy putdown." My question to you is how else would you describe these congressmen who are now blaming the financial mess on the failure of the free market? Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses. The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster, but there was a congressional chorus of denial.

Five years ago, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said, "I do not see any possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury." In 2004 congressional hearings, where the Bush administration sought greater oversight over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae," adding that "the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals." Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." In these hearings, Barney Frank said that he doesn't see "anything in the reports that raises safety and soundness problems." Earlier this year, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" to help people get home mortgage loans, adding that they "need to do more" to help high-risk borrowers get better loans.

The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market, because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans. They were forced to by the heavy hand of government. The solution is not a taxpayer-financed bailout. The solution is to let them fail and allow the people who invested in them, as well as the people who purchased homes they couldn't afford, suffer the losses. Of course, that takes a level of political courage that is in short supply. There are other measures that should be taken as part of a second-best solution.

(Column continues below)

In 2002, when the Enron and WorldCom scandal broke, the Congress held hearings, and some chief executives were jailed. Who did what was the big story in the major news media almost every night. Congress rushed to enact the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The act placed unnecessary, onerous and costly accounting standards on American businesses. The Enron and WorldCom debacle is a drop in the bucket compared to the financial mess Congress has created through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the name of "affordable" housing. Have you heard Congress calling for hearings? They haven't called for hearings because many of them, both Democrats and Republicans, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, were in cahoots with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If Americans are going to be on the hook to bail out these government-sponsored enterprises, at the minimum congressional hearings ought to be held to find out who did what and when.

Corporations employ accounting practices promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that established Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government agencies have accounting practices that don't come close to, and never did, the honesty of private accounting practices. Accounting fraud and deception are the dominant features of government agencies. If a private business kept and cooked the books, like government agencies do, the top executives would go to jail. Shouldn't the accounting standards businesses have to meet be applied to Washington? My answer is yes, and if a congressman says no, I'd like for him to tell us why.

Is a third party vote wasted?

Vox Day has an interesting blog about how if you are a conservative and vote republican that your vote is the vote that is wasted, not those of us who vote third party and get what we expect.

The beginning of the end

The bailout bill I think represents the beginning of the end of the great experiment in freedom known as the United States of America. There have been attacks on freedom from it's inception with great crisis giving dictocratic leaders the reasons to take away freedom; Abe Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, and GWB being among the worst.But this bill results in the socialization of 10% of the american economy to solve problems created by Congress and their wealthy contributors.

I compare this to someone who get's a diagnosis of terminal cancer. You may not know the time frame, but short of a miracle the time will be too short. Prepare yourself, it could be ugly before the end.

On the positive side, I saved some money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. (not really)

On the truly positive side this may hasten Jesus return to earth. Most biblical scholars don't believe the US is pictured in the Revelation of John. So, somewhere along the way the power and influence of the US has to wane. The economic free fall that this set up could sure do that. Prepare yourself Spiritually first, then prepare naturally for times that will be like no other in our history. What is that old Chinese blessing/curse? "May you live in interesting times?

Letter

Here is a copy of the letter I send to my congressman and senators about their votes to give away $700 Billion of my money to wealthy businessmen to solve a problem created by the US government.

I have never been so disgusted in the actions of my elected officials as I am now. Your recent vote to spend $700 Billion dollars of someone else's(my) money to socialize 10% of the American economy is unthinkable. It has been clear for a while that most Republicans are alomost as much big government socialists as the Democrats. I have already gotten to the point that I can't imagine voting for a Republican for President and now I must include Senators and Congressmen in that. I know the Libertarian party attracts some idiots, but it also attracts men of true principle.

The Federal Government created the mess by socializing parts of the monetary system, banking, securities, etc. Now you want to solve the problem by more of the same problem. This was not a market failure, it was a socialism failure and $700 Billion more socialism will only make it worse. You may have delayed the crash for a little while but it will come and it will probably be worse. This is the beginning of the end of the United States of America. I had spoken with JoAnn in the San Angelo office and she assured me you would not vote for the bailout, but after voting no on the first one you caved to special interests and left your constituents with the bill.

Rest assured that I will never vote for you for any office again and will actively work to get you voted out of office.

Third Party Candidates

Check out this site for ideas on how to help third party freedom candidates get electoral traction. Don't vote for lesser evil, vote for good people.

Financial Crisis Pt 2

Now we are up into relatively modern times. I remember when Jimmy Carter was elected and I remember Ronald Reagan coming on the scene to supposedly clean up the mess(he tried, but failed).

Fannie Mae was also a quasi public entity(private stockholders with some government control) created in 1938 to help Americans buy homes. Basically a bank would loan someone the money to buy a house, then the bank would sell the loan to Fannie Mae and the interest and payments went to Fannie Mae until the loan was paid off. Freddie Mac was created for more of the same in 1970. As long as home values were going up(due to inflation) and people paid on their mortgages everything looked rosy.

Then under the Clinton administration new banking regulations were put in place that made non discrimination a part of the loan process. Banks had to have a certain percentage of loans to minorities. But since inflation was the rising tide that raises all boats the banks got away with this for a while. They loosened their lending standards and created things like "interest only loans" and "subprime mortgages"(low interest for a short period with a large gotcha at the end) so people with no income or ability to pay a mortgage could still buy a house. Then those notes were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so they bank was off the hook. Another part of the trap was in place.

Because of many years of stability the US dollar had been the world's currency for many years. Because of this the Treasury could sell Treasury notes to the world to create the money the Fed loaned to banks(remember the banks loan out the same money 10 times). But in the last few years the Euro has gained strength against the dollar(because of the dollar's inflation) and is a threat to become the world's currency. This put even more pressure on the Fed to stop printing money and act responsibly. But like an alcoholic that goes back for one more drink, the couldn't stop printing.

Today the weak dollar with a deteriorating US economy(due largely to regulating and taxing business so much that costs are increased) has put us in a situation that can't continue. The banks have loaned out Billions of dollars 10 times over for property that isn't even worth what they loaned out on it. So if a bank has loans worth $10 million, but the property is only worth $8 Million they have lost $2 Million. But wait, remember they loaned out that same money 10 times, so they have lost $20 million. And once the panic starts, prices drop even more and starts the vicious cycle.

This is where we are today. Hopefully I have explained it well enough so that you see it is a direct result of improper(illegal and unconstitutional) government actions. Years of these actions for the benefit of extremely powerful and politically connected people have created a problem. So what is our government's solution. Give these rich people$700 Billion(today's estimate which works out to about $2500 for every man, woman, and child in the US)(what are the chances this government program will take more money that expected(over 100%))of US taxpayers money to keep them from taking a loss. This is a failure of socialism with more socialism prescribed as the cure.

So what should be done? The government should allow these companies to fail if they cannot pay their notes. Those failures will definitely hurt our economy and make life difficult for a while. But much of the burden will be on the rich and powerful who legislated the problem. Get the government out of the business of regulating banks and such and let the true free market work. Government regulation keeps out competition for the rich and powerful and enables them to outcompete the little guys for a while. Ultimately we should get back to the gold standard where we have a money that is worth something and can't be manipulated for the benefit of the rich and powerful. This goes along with returning our government to its constitutionally defined limits before it strangle the US.

What can you do to protect yourself? Well, hopefully you started years ago getting out of debt. It is real hard to accomplish much now, but get to work on it. Owning gold helps protect your value, but is difficult and impractical for many. The only things that truly hold their value in inflation are "hard" assets(real estate, precious metals, etc). Be at least somewhat self sufficient. Have cash reserves, both in the bank and real cash on hand. Pray that GOD protects you and guides you through this mess. It has the potential to get very ugly.

For more studies

Shadow Stats shows the US money supply over time and demonstrates what inflation really is and how bad it has been.

The Ludwig von Mises institute can educate you about how economics really works

Dave Ramsey can teach you how to get out of debt. I love his work, but some of his advice was only good in the past and I don't think is the best option in the future.

Financial Crisis Pt 1

I am tired of hearing news readers talk about how the current financial crisis is caused by free markets, capitalism, and greed and that we need the government to fix it. Free markets and capitalism have nothing to do with it. The United States government has created the problem(accidentally or on purpose) with influence from greedy anti free market business people. I will try to keep this short, but there is a lot of ground to cover.

First, I must define inflation. Every economist agrees with the basic definition of inflation, but their definition is different than what the government and modern media use. If you hear someone talking about inflation you think about rising prices; ie food, gas, clothing, etc. The prices actually rise as a result of inflation, they are not the cause. Inflation is defined as an increase in the supply of money. In the old days a ruler would issue gold and silver coins that would be used in trade. Periodically the ruler would want to spend more than he could afford and didn't have enough money. So he would call in the coins, melt them down and reissue them with the same stated value, but slightly less gold or silver weight(either by making them smaller, or mixing them with cheaper metals). This was inflating the money supply. You still had 100 $1 coins, but there was less gold than before.

Gold was the most common money supply in the history of the world. Paper money had been tried in the US by several states and the US, but had always failed shortly when money got tight and the printing presses started running. Soon you could only buy a loaf of bread with a wheelbarrow full of money. That is one of the reasons our Constitution gave Congress the power to "coin"(not print) money. OUr founding fathers knew that printing money would destroy us. The US was basically on a Gold standard up until 1933. Sometimes gold was used as the actual medium or exchange, and sometimes paper money was issued that was backed by gold. If you lost confidence in the paper you could exchange it for gold. US Dollars were virtually 100% gold backed until 1933, and were mostly gold backed until 1971. A $20 gold piece(about 1 ounce of gold) was worth pretty much $20 until 1933(it is worth about $880 today).

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act created the Federal Reserve. The Fed is a private company(semi government controlled) that manages the US money supply. The Fed is the third attempt at a national banking system. The other two only survived about 20 years. The Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system it created are the root of today's financial crisis. The Fed basically has the authority to create money out of thin air. Basically the Fed authorizes the sale of Treasury Notes to supply itself with money. Then it loans that money out to banks. Then the banks are(legally) allowed to loan out 10 times what they have on hand. So the Fed creates $1 Million and loans it to banks, those banks can then loan out $10 Million. They theoritically only created $1 Million, but the money supply was really increased by $10 Million so your dollars are worth less than before.

The Fed was handcuffed by the gold standard. They could not really create money until 1971 when the US went totally off the gold standard. In fact, Congress and President Nixon made it illegal to own gold in 1971. From then on the Fed could do whatever it wanted. It wanted to print money. It really began to perfect printing money while Jimmy Carter was president, but it got out of hand and had to be reined in or the US would have been bankrupt sooner. Since then the Fed has walked a tightrope with a rate of inflation(money printing) that was slow and steady enough that most people wouldn't notice, but that provided a steady flow of money the the Fed and it's stockholders. Using official government statistics. What cost $100 to purchase in 1967 now costs $656, and what costs $100 in 1982 now costs $220. But government has continued to grow and this wasn't enough. The inflation has really been growing recently. In 2006 the US government quit publishing M3 money supply data which basically showed the results of the Fed creating money out of thin air and then loaning it to banks that loaned out the same money 10 times. See this chart for the results.

Chuck Baldwin

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President | Ron Paul .com

Money

The Bailout Reader - Mises.org - Mises Institute

I am planning on writing a blog entry about the government caused financial crisis and how the proposed $700 Billion bailout is the worst possible solution to the problem.  Until I write my summary, the above link shows links to many articles explaining how the banking and financial systems work.

More Later

Palin/McCain

See Vox Day's article about McCain's choice of Palin.

This is a brilliant pick by McCain. But remember it is McCain/Palin and not the other way around. As far as I know Sarah Palin is the kind of person we want in Washington. But, a VP has almost no power. As long as McCain is alive VP Palin would be a figurehead to make people that don't like McCain vote for him. It does not signal a change in McCain's way of thinking, just a political ploy to get votes. The best option now is that McCain wins now and then dies early in office. But I am still not voting for John McCain. Don't listen to what he is saying now, look at 20 years of his voting record as a Senator. That is the McCain you will get, not the one you are hearing now. If you think he will appoint good SC judges, just look at who he partnered with to defeat GW's mediocre judge selections. He might cut spending and he is at least somewhat prolife. But he is wrong on virtually every other issue. Here is Gun Owners of America's report card on Senator John McCain.

Chuck Baldwin 2008

Update 1: As I have processed this longer and more info has come out I have some new thoughts. I still think Palin was a brilliant pick for McCain. But, several things are bothering me. There seems to be a fair amount of feminism in Mrs Palin. While she was busy being governor, her 15 year old daughter was growing up and exploring her sexuality. Would having her mother at home guiding her have changed her actions? She was a 4 month old baby with Downs Syndrome. What is going to happen to him while she is campaigning and being VP? If Paul's qualifications for elder were applied to national candidates, would she qualify? Would any of them qualify? It is hard to imagine most of the women I know and respect leaving a 4 month Downs child at home while they are campaiging for VP. Yes most "Conservative Christians" are hailing her as a great choice. Her positions on the issues I agree with but I guess I question her priorities and commitments to family.

Articles

Here is an interesting article about uninvolved people stepping in with guns in a gunfight. And here is a blog post from a nurse with lots of experience in bad areas. They are both interesting to read, ponder, and prepare yourself.

Gun Control

Open vs Concealed Carry

I just learned about an interesting movement in Texas and nationwide. It is the Open Carry of firearms. Did you know that in 42 states you can open carry a firearm(with various levels of restrictions). Also, interesting enough Texas is not one of those states. There is quite a debate about the benefits of concealed carry vs open carry. You can check it out at the web sites above. I will attempt to summarize the arguments and then give my opinion.

• Open carry is easier-Definitely true in Texas in the summertime and for smaller people
• Open carry is a better deterrent to crime-Maybe, some argue that if someone is known to be armed the bad guy can take them out first.
• Open carry is a constitutional right-True, but the Texas constitution allows the restriction of that right
• Honest citizens will be scared if honest Texicans are openly carrying guns-probably true at first if open carry ever became popular. But I think we would get used to it over time.
• There will be gunfights in the streets-that is what was said when the CHL law was passed too and crime went down
• Property owners are more likely to not allow carrying openly-probably true, but business people don't like to lose money either
• Protecting is the police's job-Not true, in fact court cases have shown the police have no obligation to protect(no matter what they put on the cars). Police can prevent some crimes, and they can investigate and arrest after the fact. There are simply not enough of them and too many of us(and the bad guys)
  

I think any expansion of gun rights is a good thing, so I am in favor of Open Carry. I think it could happen but probably with a gradual process, or maybe just be allowed by CHL. In an ideal world any Good Texican(or American) over 18(except convicted VIOLENT criminals and the legally insane) would be allowed to carry a firearm openly or concealed except on private property where not allowed by the owner. Any steps toward this would be good. The more honest people carry guns the lower the odds are for the bad guys and some of them will give up and get a real job instead of preying on the weaker. Also remember that a gun is the only way too even up the odds between a young large male attacker and a small, or female, or elderly, or handicapped person. Give your mother/wife/daughter/poor neighbor/handicapped friend a chance to protect themself.

Right now in Texas a concealed firearm can not be visible to normal observation. This had made quite a market for holsters that attempt to hide a gun on a human. It is fairly difficult to conceal a large gun(especially on a small person or someone wearing tight clothes) and large guns make bigger holes in bad guys. Many people don't carry because it it too difficult to conceal properly so open carry would probably result in more Good Guys carrying guns(a good thing). Also right now you have to be 21 years old to get a CHL(unless you are military). I would really like to see that lowered to 18, in fact to me(as a father of girls) that is a much higher priority than open carry. Also the NRA and TSRA don't want to get strongly behind open carry. They think it will give gun owners a bad wrap with the public and hurt their image and their ability to get legislation passed.

So, I would like to see open carry legalized in Texas. A friend asked me recently if I would carry openly if it was legal. I told him probably not most of the time. In fact, it is legal now on premises that I own or control and I rarely open carry there(never in public). I guess if it got to be more socially accepted I would and there would probably be times that I would in a high risk area. But I don't think I would carry openly on a regular basis. But I still think this would be a step in the right direction. If nothing else I would carry a larger gun concealed and worry less about if it was totally concealed. That would be very nice in Texas in the summertime.

An armed society is a polite society.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

DC vs Heller part 2

WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | DC Rejects Handgun Application

I said before that all the majority of the Supreme Court said was that DC had to issue a license to Heller to keep his gun at home. Now they have thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court and refused to even do that. This should be interesting.

DC vs Heller

The supreme court recently ruled in the case of DC vs Heller. The case is considered a victory for gun rights. Was it? It is certainly a mixed bag.

First is the fact that is was a 5-4 decision. This means we are only 1 Supreme Court appointment away from a 4-5 decision. We have a Presidential election coming this year and the chances that the next president will appoint judges who can read and understand the Constitution is virtually zero.

Second, the facts were very narrow. Basically the court required DC to issue Heller a permit to keep a gun in his home. Anything more than that will require additional court cases.

Third, Justice Scalia writing for the majority was very clear in stating that the second amendment applies to individuals whether or not they are part of the organized militia. He and Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined in the most clear defense of the second amendment you can read. Check out this quote from page 34 of the Opinion of the Court.

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived
to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such
a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any
blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint
on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

Fourth, while clearly agreeing that the 2nd was an individual right, the court suggested that limits on that right could be constitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.

This ruling was a positive for gun rights and maybe more positives will follow.

Under the Constitution the Federal Government was absolutely prohibited from barring the keeping and bearing of arms. This would mean ownership and carrying of ANY type of weapons. Yes, that would include F-35s with Tomahawk missiles if you can afford it. Here is a quote from page 47 of the Courts Opinion.

The second amendment . . .
means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
92 U. S., at 553. States, we said, were free to
restrict or protect the right under their police powers. The
limited discussion of the Second Amendment in Cruikshank
supports, if anything, the individual-rights interpretation.

On the other hand under the Constitution the Sovereign States could limit keeping and bearing of arms. So the 2nd is not a real protection. But remember Courts and laws are not the basis of our rights. According to the Declaration of Independence rights are given by GOD and therefore can only be taken away by GOD. For Government to attempt to take away a GOD given right is a usurpation of power that should never be allowed by anyone. Here is another quote from page 33 of the Opinion of the Court

Tucker elaborated on the Second Amendment:“This may be considered as the true palladium ofliberty . . . . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible.

President

Well it's official. Ron Paul is no longer a candidate for President. He has started a movement and website to move us forward to Liberty. What do we do now. I don't think I can ever vote for McCain. He is a Democrat in everything but name. He is certainly less evil than Barak Hussein Obama, but then again who isn't. I have a real hard time with the vote for the lesser of two evils thought pattern. If I admit that a man is evil and I vote for him, can I stand up to GOD and say I did the right thing. Many people say that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, is it? In a way yes, if you don't vote or vote for someone who can not possibly win then you have not helped get the lesser evil elected. However that is only the short term view. Our two party system has worked to the detriment of freedom in the US. In the long term I think that if a large percentage of the voters said I am not voting for anyone evil and voted their conscience that it could be the beginning of a turnaround for our country. Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party candidate and Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate. These two men are only slightly more likely to win the 2008 election than I am. But a vote for either of them is a statement that we no longer want only 2 choices.

Who will I vote for? At this point I am not sure. Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party come closer to my views, but Chuck Baldwin doesn't have a past voting record to see if his rhetoric matches his votes and the Constitution Party may not be on the ballot in Texas. Bob Barr has a decent record as a member of Congress, but not great. His views of freedom may have been improving, but it could be for show. The Libertarian Party will be on the ballot in Texas. At this point if both are on the ballot I will probably vote for Baldwin, but if the Constitution Party doesn't get on the ballot then I will probably vote for Barr instead of writing in Baldwin. But I have some time to make a final decision.

Texas Concealed Handgun License

A group of Home School ladies in the area are planning on qualifying for their CHL. I wanted them to know what the advantages of it were so they would know if it was worth the effort and money. I thought I would repost it here in case someone else was interested. This of course only applies in Texas although the principles are true elsewhere.

Ladies, before you go out and spend $250 ish for you CHL I wanted to
make sure you knew what you are getting. In Texas you are already free
to carry a gun on premises you own or control(house, businesses, etc) or
in non public places where you have permission from the person who owns
or controls it(friends, family, neighbors, etc). If your employer has
spelled it out in the policy manual, you can carry at work. You can
carry openly or concealed in these places with or without a CHL. You
can also carry in your vehicle as long as the gun is out of plain sight
and you are not committing any crime(besides traffic offense). This
includes from your house(or other allowed place) to the vehicle.

The CHL means you can carry into public places as long as the gun is
concealed from normal observation. There are place you cannot carry,
but generally you can carry to most places you go. You can also carry
in 28 states that recognize the Texas CHL. Their laws may not give you
the ability to carry in your vehicle without the CHL. The class teaches
you mostly about Texas law, when you can legally display the firearm and
when you can legally shoot at a human person. The laws for this are the
same for CHL and non CHL, the only difference is that without the CHL
you can't legally have the gun in as many places. It is illegal for
someone without the CHL to carry a concealed firearm into a public
place; however, if it concealed properly no one will know unless you
are forced to use it. Carry at your own risk. "It is better to be
tried by 12 than carried by six."

The CHL is a great thing. But, if you are not going to regularly carry
outside of your vehicle it is probably not worth the hassle. If you are
only interested in learning to handle a gun safely and shoot well, find
a qualified person to teach you and then carry where you can legally.
The CHL training assumes you know how to safely handle and accurately
shoot a handgun, if you need real training and practice get it before
the class starts. Also, get good recommendations on what kind of gun
you want to use to qualify and to carry(they may be different). Neil
Grant and his bunch at The Outdoorsman are very good at this.

All of that being said, my wife is planning on getting her CHL, I have
had mine for almost 2 years. There are places I would not feel near as
comfortable going unarmed, especially as I travel. In my opinion, the
more honest and well trained people carry guns the better off we are.
The criminals will have them whether they are legal or not. If I can
answer any questions, let me know.

RZ

Texas State Rifle Assoc CHL page

A map showing states that
recognize the Texas CHL

Texas Concealed Handgun Association a great association that has a legal services plan that is interesting.
TCHA's list of reciprocity agreements
TCHA's chart of where you can and cannot carry in Texas.

Pray for Trey and Tyler...

Two of my cousins were is a serious wreck 5/18. Trey has recovered enough to leave the hospital after several surgeries. He should make a full recovery, but if titanium ever becomes really valuable he may be able to sell himself by the pound. Tyler had some serious burns, he has had on skin graft surgery and will have another on Monday. He is fighting an infection that is starting to wear him down. Please pray for an end to the infection and successful surgery on Monday. He is a fighter(just ask the ICU nurses), but this will be a long fight. Here is a website some friends have set up to track their progress.

FLDS update

Good news for the parents of the children kidnapped from the FLDS compound near Eldorado. A state appeals court judge has rule that Judge Walther exceed her discretion when she order the state to take custody of the children. Judge Walther has 10 days to vacate her order.

"The Department (CPS) did not present any evidence of danger to the
physical health or safety of any male children or any female children
who had not reached puberty," the panel wrote in its order.

Here is a link to the Houston Chronicle article and some comments by Tim Lambert from the Texas HomeSchool Coalition
Update on Parental Rights Challenge: FLDS vs CPS

The law says that the state must show that the children are in imminent danger. That was clearly not true of all the children that were removed. Although it could be true of girls near puberty IF the state has proof of a pattern of underage marriages.

With regard to underage marriages. Up until several years ago, Texas law allowed 14 and older to be married with parental permission. After the FLDS group moved to Eldorado, the law was changed to make 16 the youngest age of marriage with parental consent. While it is hard for me to imagine my soon to be 14 year old daughter being married, if you look at history it is fairly normal for girls to marry soon after puberty. If it was okay in Texas in 1908, or 1988, why is it not okay in 2008? It would be interesting for most of us to research our great grandparents and older to see what age they married at. It might put this whole "underage" marriage issue in a different light.

The ultimate question is does that state of Texas have to follow their own laws about the burden of proof that is required before seizing children. The appeals court has said they do. But the court system and CPS got away with disobeying the law for 60 days. Who will repair the trauma caused to the children by the state's illegal actions? Will CPS or Judge Walther be disciplined in any way for the refusal to follow Texas law?

Another good summary article.

The state supreme court slapped CPS and Judge Walther today(5/29). They affirmed the appeals court decision that the children were in no immediate danger and should be returned to their parents within a reasonable time period. The ruling technically applied to only 124 children and 38 parents, but the rest of the parents are attempting to be added and Judge Walther may reverse her ruling. A victory for justice, but not until after the families had been abused by the CPS and the legal system for over 60 days.

It will be very interesting to see if any charges are filed against any of the men who were supposedly abusing children.

(5/31) Apparently Judge Walther doesn't like being slapped by the Texas Supreme Court for not following the law. In this article she is setting requirements on the parents getting their children back. The can't leave the state(this one I think is reasonable), they can't travel more than 60 miles from home without her permission, they must take parenting classes(state approved), and the must allow CPS on the ranch to interview the children and continue their witch hunt(clearly unconstitutional). If the parents don't sign these agreements they won't get their kids back. She also said she would only sign the document after all of the 38 mothers signed it(not individual decisions as the law requires). This should continue to be interesting. But I think the tide of public opinion is turning.

Also, interestingly the Supreme Court decision referenced 5 girls who the state says have been abused. That is 5 out of 460 something. And that is only if the state is right about the ages and the abuse(their story changes daily). Still no arrests of child abusers or molesters.

Lawyers cry foul in FLDS seizures

Cycle of Abuse: The FLDS Raid

FLDS Update: Judge-Attorney conference ends in confusion

Free the Texas children now!

Impeach Judge Walther

FLDS Eldorado

I had a friend email me wondering about my thoughts on the FLDS kidnappings in Eldorado. Here are some bullet points.

• 
  
  
  
  
  Govt kidnaps 460 kids because they have unusual religious beliefs.
• 
  After 60 days no men have been arrested for abuse.
• 
  All of the supposed underage mothers are actually of legal consent
  age. They had provided documents proving ages, but CPS didn't believe their documents.
  
• 
  Stupid judges say parents can have their kids back after psychiatric
  evaluations, parenting classes, and training.
• 
  It looks like the phone call was just an excuse to get an overly broad
  warrant. The person who made the phone call was not a member of the
  group, faked the phone call, and has been arrested. However no one
  checked out her story before issuing a warrant.
• 
  Absolutely no publicly available evidence of abuse, but everyone
  "knows" they abuse them.
• 
  Children were almost all very healthy prior to the kidnapping.
  Afterwards many are unhealthy.
• 
  Even state MHMR agencies are saying CPS lied, manipulated, and treated
  the mothers and children abusively.
• 
  All in all the most clear govt abuse of power in the US in recent
  memory(possibly ever).
• The judge that issued the warrants and took the children from their parents is a Republican. I thought they were on our side.
  

There is an article in the Ft Worth Star Telegram that talks about a state senator proposing that the state seize FLDS assets to pay for the costs of "taking care" of the children(housing, legal, CPS costs). Here the state with accusations of abuse, but no legal proof, has kidnapped 460 kids and now wants to steal the parents assets to pay for the costs of keeping them. It is a clear legal violation to keep them without proof of abuse, but very few are complaining about it. It really reminds me of the quote

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

What is next? Who is next? What if you have more children than normal, can they be taken? What if you homeschool? What if you choose not to have your children immunized with dangerous drugs to prevent minor illnesses? What if you don't let your children date and have sexual relations before marriage?

This could be a test to see how much outcry there is, they started with a group that is somewhat odd and very secretive. But will they stop there? Who do the children belong to? How do we stop them?

Social Security

I had not gotten social security numbers on children 4-9. I figured that they were neither paying or collecting social security so why did they need them. I had not been able to claim them as dependents on my taxes(it had not made much difference), but other than that I had no problems with SS#s until recently. This year the tax difference was fairly large so I decided to get the numbers. I found out later that you can not get individual health insurance on people without SS#s. I knew Birth Certificates would be required so I got all of them($23 each), then I diligently go to the SS website and got the forms I thought I needed. I missed the comment about

We may use one document for two purposes. For example, we may use your U.S. passport as proof of both citizenship and identity. However, you must provide at least two separate documents.

All documents must be either originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. We cannot accept photocopies or notarized copies of documents.

I took in the birth certificates and they told me they had to have another form of identification. Here is the list from the website

Your child: We can accept only certain documents as proof of your child’s identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and show your child’s name, identifying information and preferably a recent photograph. We generally can accept a non-photo identity document if it has enough information to identify the child (such as the child’s name and age, date of birth or parents’ names). We prefer to see the child’s U.S. passport. If that document is not available, we may accept the child’s:

• Adoption decree;
• Doctor, clinic or hospital record;
• Religious record (e.g., baptismal record);
• Daycare center or school record; or
• School identification card.

The first thing they request is the childs passport. You can not get a passport without a SS# so that is impossible.

The children are not adopted so the first bullet point wouldn't work.

4 of the 6 had been to the doctor, so I could get medical records on them. But it would be a pain, so I decided to try other things.

Bullet 3 looked like a good choice, so I got together dedication certificates on 7, 8, and 9. Signed by third party ministers.

Since Homeschools are private schools in Texas I did school records for 4, 5, and 6(below compulsory attendance age, but schooling).

Guess what piece of information you have to have to enter a Govt school and get a school ID. If you guessed SS# go to the front of the line.

I go back in with these documents. They tell me none of the documents are acceptable because they don't have date of birth(have you ever seen a religious document with date of birth). I tell them I can add a date of birth to the school records, which is not required information on the list above. Then they tell me they have no probative value since they are done by the parents. After arguing for a while they agree to send them to the regional office for approval. They promise to call back when they get an answer(this was 4 pm on Friday).

On Wednesday I go in since I haven't heard from them. They tell me that none of the documents are acceptable. I ask what would be acceptable, they tell me medical records with date of birth. I ask what about the ones who have never seen a doctor, they tell me again that all they will accept is medical records with date of birth. I call HSLDA for help and they offer to send me third party verification letters.

I go to the local congressional office and tell Joanne Powell who runs the local office the story. She seems amazed that they won't take what I have. She calls the manager and talks to him for 30 minutes and then says there is nothing she can do, he is following the procedures. Of course this is all the democrats fault this they are the majority. The republicans would fix this if they were in the majority.

The following Monday I take the HSLDA letters in(in the meantime I have gotten medical records on 4, 5, and 6 from the pediatrician, but I don't tell them that). They first tell me it isn't acceptable. I ask them why and they said they would refer it to regional again, but it probably would not be acceptable. I ask them to get me explanation of why they are not acceptable and why the religious records are not acceptable. They promise to call when they get an answer from regional.To be continued so far two weeks and no SS numbers. But at least they didn't kidnap my kids because they aren't govt schooled and have wierd ideas like they have the FLDS kids from Eldorado. I think I might have to take 2 or 3 healthy kids and pay for a doctors visit so I have medical records on them to get a SS#.

Update #1(5-25-08) The SS office called me Friday to tell me that they haven't heard back from the regional office if the HSLDA letters are acceptable. I took them in on Monday. I have medical records on 4-6 and letters from a doctor friend for 7-9. So if they refuse the HSLDA letters, I will try those.

Update #2(5-29-08) Went into SS office today because I hadn't heard an answer on the HSLDA letters and because I had all the medical records. I had tried to call and their phone is always busy. They showed me an email from regional that explained that they refused the Church documents because they were based on parents statements and had not probative value(not true since they were signed by third party ministers). They had no answer on the HSLDA letters, he said they were not school records so he couldn't use them. I said that they were a third party verification of the school records(which he had refused because they came from the parents). Then I gave them the medical documents I had, he said I think we can use these. He checked with his boss and said they were okay and he could do 4 of them today. The other two were born in Concho County and he has to call and verify them because they don't report to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. He hadn't verified them in the past 4 weeks. He said I should have cards on the 4 in about 7 to 10 days(I assume he means working days). He will(supposedly)call if there are any problems with the other 2.

Update #3(6/13/08) We received cards on 4 and 6 on 6/6, we received the cards for 3 and 7 on 6/10, 9 came on 6/13 and 8 came in on 6/16/08, so we have them all now.

The Untold Story of the New Testament Church: An Extraordinary Guide to Understanding the New Testament [ILLUSTRATED] (Paperback)

I just finished a very interesting book by Frank Viola. Did you know what order our church fathers put Paul's letter to churches? The are in order from longest to shortest. Apparently this was a common way of ordering letters at some point in the past. Of course I would think chronologically would make more sense, but I wasn't around when they were deciding such things. And then, take the fact that we only get the letters that Paul, Peter, and others wrote. You don't get the letters written to them that they are in response to, and you don't get the personal reports from Timothy, Titus, etc that others were in response to. Kind of like listening to one side of a phone conversation.

Anyway, in this book Frank Viola take the NT story from the book of Acts, he adds some additional information and then tells where in that story the epistles were written and what specifically Paul, Peter, and Jude were addressing. It is an amazing way of looking at things. Now; of course, it takes some reading between the lines to come up with all of this. He uses some extra Biblical history and some "mirror reading." "Mirror Reading" is his term for reading a letter trying to find out what questions were asked that the author is trying to answer. Not the way to be most absolutely correct, but very interesting.

He is trying to recreate as much of the history as possible. Some of it is an educated guess at what was going on. Don't take this book as the absolute truth of what was going on, but it can have a profound effect on your thinking about the New Testament. Buy it and read it.

Aggie Football

A little late to post, but it was a great Thanksgiving. Dennis Franchione looked like the best coach in the world during the tu game. We thumped them and then he resigned after the game. It was a buyout/resignation so he gets paid a big chunk of money, but he wasn't fired.

Then a couple of days later AD Bill Byrne announced the hiring of Mike Sherman. Sherman had been at A&M for several years under RC Slocum. He was promoted to Offensive Coordinator by RC, but then he left to take that same job with the Green Bay Packers. When Mike Holmgren left he was moved up to head coach. He was there for several pretty good years before leaving. Most recently he was Offensive Coordinator for the Houston Texans and greatly improved them.

I think Sherman is a great hire, he has an A&M background, strong coaching experience, and can recruit well. I hope he does great, but it is a tough job.