Deck of Cards T Texas Tyler

Here is a new way to look at a deck of cards!!
this was sung by T Texas Tyler and others

Deck of Cards

It was quiet that day, the guns and the mortars, and land mines for some reason hadn't been heard.

The young soldier knew it was Sunday, the holiest day of the week.

As he was sitting there, he got out an old deck of cards and laid them out across his bunk.

Just then an army sergeant came in and said, 'Why aren't you with the rest of the platoon?'

The soldier replied, 'I thought I would stay behind and spend some time with the Lord.'

The sergeant said, 'Looks to me like you're going to play cards.'

The soldier said, 'No, sir. You see, since we are not allowed to have Bibles or other spiritual books in this country,

I've decided to talk to the Lord by studying this deck of cards.'

The sergeant asked in disbelief, 'How will you do that?'

'You see the Ace, Sergeant? It reminds me that there is only one God.

The Two represents the two parts of the Bible, Old and New Testaments

The Three represents the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The Four stands for the Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John .

The Five is for the five virgins there were ten but only five of them were glorified.

The Six is for the six days it took God to create the Heavens and Earth.

The Seven is for the day God rested after making His Creation.

The Eight is for the family of Noah and his wife, their three sons and their wives -- the eight people God spared from the flood that destroyed the Earth.

The Nine is for the lepers that Jesus cleansed of leprosy He cleansed ten, but nine never thanked Him.

The Ten represents the Ten Commandments that God handed down to Moses on tablets made of stone.

The Jack is a reminder of Satan, one of God's first angels, but he got kicked out of heaven for his sly and wicked ways and is now the joker of eternal hell.

The Queen stands for the Virgin Mary.

The King stands for Jesus, for he is the King of all kings.

When I count the dots on all the cards, I come up with 365 total, one for every day of the year.

There are a total of 52 cards in a deck; each is a week - 52 weeks in a year.

The four suits represent the four seasons: Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter.

Each suit has thirteen cards -- there are exactly thirteen weeks in a quarter.

So when I want to talk to God and thank Him, I just pull out this old deck of cards and they remind me of all that I have to be thankful for.'

The sergeant just stood there. After a minute, with tears in his eyes and pain in his heart, he said, 'Soldier, can I borrow that
deck of cards?'

I Only hope we find GOD again before it is too late ! !

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary..

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... Terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW...'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it... No one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.



My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein













ReplyReply AllMove...AdlaandproancestryAuctionsBible ProBidvilleClassifiedsDallas InitiativesData ChristianDemocratsDEPOAe tradeebayefaxELBCAFloridaFTD.comgeneratorgoogle adGrantsguardianHHSPRESShostwayI need hitsinvestingJunoLCRALQman in mrrormarket watchMovingnet OoptimalPhotoRCIreal lifered vectorrefundsrentalsRepublicanSearch enginssharebuildersluethSt-Georgestormtd ameritradeTexasthe market guystravelVendioVerizonGo to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages Select Message EncodingASCII (ASCII)Greek (ISO-8859-7)Greek (Windows-1253)Latin-10 (ISO-8859-16)Latin-3 (ISO-8859-3)Latin-6 (ISO-8859-10)Latin-7 (ISO-8859-13)Latin-8 (ISO-8859-14)Latin-9 (ISO-8859-15)W. European (850)W. European (CP858)W. European (HPROMAN8)W. European (MACROMAN8)W. European (Windows-1252)Armenia (ARMSCII-8)Baltic Rim (ISO-8859-4)Baltic Rim (WINDOWS-1257)Cyrillic (866)Cyrillic (ISO-8859-5)Cyrillic (KOI8-R)Cyrillic (KOI8-RU)Cyrillic (KOI8-T)Cyrillic (KOI8-U)Cyrillic (WINDOWS-1251)Latin-2 (852)Latin-2 (ISO-8859-2)Latin-2 (WINDOWS-1250)Turkish (ISO-8859-9)Turkish (WINDOWS-1254)Arabic (ISO-8859-6, ASMO-708)Arabic (WINDOWS-1256)Hebrew (856)Hebrew (862)Hebrew (WINDOWS-1255)Chinese Simplified (GB-2312-80)Chinese Simplified (GB18030)Chinese Simplified (HZ-GB-2312)Chinese Simplified (ISO-2022-CN)Chinese Simplified (WINDOWS-936)Chinese Trad.-Hong Kong (BIG5-HKSCS)Chinese Traditional (BIG5)Chinese Traditional (EUC-TW)Japanese (SHIFT_JIS)Japanese (EUC-JP)Japanese (ISO-2022-JP)Korean (ISO-2022-KR)Korean (EUC-KR)Thai (TIS-620-2533)Thai (WINDOWS-874)Vietnamese (TCVN-5712)Vietnamese (VISCII)Vietnamese (WINDOWS-1258)Unicode (UTF-7)Unicode (UTF-8)Unicode (UTF-16)Unicode (UTF-32)| Full Headers

The president without a country

The president without a country



The president without a country
By Pat Boone

"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President Barack Obama, June 2007

" America has been arrogant." - President Barack Obama

"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President Barack Obama

"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president. I keep wondering what country he believes he's president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale's "The Man without a Country," a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, "Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: "You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country's naval vessels - under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed."

And so it was Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan's dying hours in his small stateroom - now turned into a shrine to the country he fore swore - never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America , refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president - a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white - I want to ask him, "Just what country do you think you're president of?"

You surely can't be referring to the United States of America , can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It's because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn't you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago ? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900's that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson ' s intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute . were your ideas about America 's Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that " America is no longer a Christian nation"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that " America has been arrogant"?

Even if that's the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of "not always living up to her ideals," how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be "considered a Muslim nation"?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a "Muslim nation"?

Why are we not, then, a "Chinese nation"? A "Korean nation"? Even a "Vietnamese nation"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you're trying to make is a religious one, why is America not "a Jewish nation"? There's actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution - and the success of our Revolution and founding - owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran ? Even in Egypt ? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can't you? You do recall Muhammad's directives [Surah 9:5,73] to "break the cross" and "kill the infidel"?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are "no longer Christian," who have "failed to live up to our ideals," who "have been arrogant," and might even be "considered Muslim" - you are president of a country most Americans don't recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?

Howard Butts Jr

Winners can celebrate. But what about people who run the race, compete—and lose? Writer Al Hsu tells about two candidates in the Bible: Barsabbas and Matthias, two loyal believers who were being considered to join the apostles.

The lot fell to Matthias. And the question is: where did that leave Barsabbas? As a mature believer, very likely Barsabbas knew that this loss released him to serve God in another way. Al Hsu reminds us that throughout history, many candidates who were disappointed at the ballot box went on to serve in impressive, innovative ways.

This is Howard Butt, Jr., of Laity Lodge. Losing is not the last thing you do. Disappointment is not destiny. Your determination is destiny—in the high calling of our daily work.

Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (James 1:4)

Sermons

Lutherans abandon Bible teaching on homosexuality

Evangelical Lutherans abandon Bible teaching on homosexuality

Patrick Condon - Associated Press Writer - 8/22/2009 6:20:00 AMMINNEAPOLIS - Even though the Rev. Mark Chavez believes the leaders of his church made a decision in direct contradiction of the Bible by lifting a ban on sexually active, monogamous gays and lesbians as clergy, he said he's staying with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.




"I'm not leaving," Chavez said Friday night, promising an effort to keep the church moving even further toward what he sees as an embrace of behavior condemned by Scripture.



Chavez, of Landisville, Pa., is director of Lutheran CORE, a conservative group within the ELCA that fought the homosexual clergy policy. The group will hold a convention in Indianapolis in September to review its next steps, but Chavez said he thinks some ELCA clergy, congregations and individual members will walk away from the nation's largest Lutheran denomination.

Health Care...The real story

Zane F Pollard, MD

Eye Consultants of Atlanta
3225 Cumberland Blvd., SE
Suite 900
Atlanta , GA 30339
404-351-2220



By Zane F Pollard, MD



I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective of a doctor.



First off the government has involved very few of us physicians in the healthcare debate.While the American Medical Association has come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.



I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta , Georgia that accepts Medicaid.

For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list.



Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.



Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list.

Get the point -- rationing of care.





Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery.By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.



Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.



Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden , as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden . Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.



Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a lark. I have been told -- but of course there is no healthcare bill that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery.



I spent two years in the US Navy during the Viet Nam war and was well treated by the military.There was tremendous rationing of care and we were told specificially what things the military personnel and their dependents could have and which things they could not have. While I was in in Viet Nam , my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland , California . She went home and went to her family's private internist in Beverly Hills . While it was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of care.



For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in England over 59 cannot receive stents for their coronary arteries. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.



While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have seen this sort of lowering of fees.



But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came to Atlanta , there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500 for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific reputation and in fact I had my mother's bilateral cataracts operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has 20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee.



However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that does medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate ( now $500) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will NOT be able to go to the head of the line under this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.



I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years).A neurosurgeon spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore.



We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate on at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also.This is true not only of Atlanta, but of every community in America.



The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.



Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state. I certainly could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian conditions.



One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for the past 15 years somewhere between 49 and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding.



The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I have now trained 35 fellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago -- she was head and heels above all others I have trained. She now practices only 3 days a week

Bible Gateway

Lookup a word or passage in the Bible
Include this form on your page

Wake up America

Remember 1987.....
I Had forgotten this, but it easily comes back to haunt. Do you remember when the senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective doesn't it? Have a great day.
Do you remember 1987.......










Thought you
might be interested in this forgotten bit of
information.........

It
was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of
Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the
third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a
senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security
system?'

Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'

The senator
continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little
excessive?'

'No, sir,' continued Ollie.

'No? And why not?' the
senator asked.

'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened,
sir.'

'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.

'By a
terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.

'Terrorist? What terrorist could
possibly scare you that much?'

'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie
replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but
couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple
of people laughed at the attempt.. Then the senator continued. Why are you so
afraid of this man?' the senator asked.

'Because, sir, he is the most
evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.


'And
what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.

'Well, sir,
if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to
eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'

The senator
disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.



By
the way, that senator was Al Gore!
(Thank you Al, you are such an embarrassment to Tennessee !!)

Also:


Terrorist
pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel
in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.. As part of the
Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,
Israel had to agree to release
so-called 'political prisoners.'

However, the Israelis would not release
any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton,
and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners be
released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by
flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade
Center .. This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first
identified.
It
was censored in the US from all later
reports.

Cap and trade or Cap and pay

Want a reason to oppose "Cap and Trade"? Here's fifty!




http://texasgopvote.com/blog/want-reason-oppose-cap-and-trade-heres-fifty

The High Cost of Cheap Labor

The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

Executive Summary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.


Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).


With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.


On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.


Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.


If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.


Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.


Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.


The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.


The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.


The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.



Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.

The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.

What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.

Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.

Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.

Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.

From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.

Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.

Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.

Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.

Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.

Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.

To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.

Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.

Those Texans (unknown author)

Those Texans


Gabriel went to the Lord and said, "I have to
Talk to you. We have some Texans up here who are causing
Some real problems ....

They're swinging on the Pearly Gates, my horn is
Missing, and they are wearing T-shirts instead of their
Robes; there's barbecue sauce and picante sauce all over
Everything, especially their T-shirts; their dogs are riding
In the chariots and chasing the
Sheep.

They are wearing baseball caps and cowboy hats
Instead of their halos.. They refuse to keep the stairway to
Heaven clean, and their boots are marking and scuffing up
The halls of Wisdom. There are watermelon seeds and tortilla
Chip crumbs all over the place. Some of them are walking
Around with just one wing; and they insist on bringing their
Darn horses with them."

The Lord said, "Texans are Texans, Gabriel.
Heaven is home to all of my children. If you want to know
About real problems, call the
Devil."

So Gabriel calls the Devil who
Answers the phone and
Says, "Hello -- hold on a
Minute."

When he returns to the phone the Devil says,
"O.K., I'm back. What can I do for
You?"

Gabriel replied, "I just want to know what kinds
Of problems you are having down there with the
Texans."

The Devil said, "Hold on again. I need to check
On something."

After about 5 minutes the Devil returned to the
Phone and said. "I'm back. Now what was
The question?"

Gabriel said, "What kind of problems are you
Having down there with the
Texans?"

The Devil said, "Man, I don't believe this
... Hold on."

This time the Devil was gone 15 minutes and when he
Returns he says, "I'm sorry Gabriel, I can't
Talk right now. Red Adair has put out the fire and and
Brown and Root is installing air
Conditioning."


Always remember ... TEXANS SURVIVE ... Despite the odds against
Us!!!

Just the begining

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 2 hrs 11 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Despite a less-than-rousing reaction from the Obama administration, House Democrats are considering a new tax on employer-provided health benefits to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured.

Several officials also said an outline of emerging legislation envisions a requirement for all individuals to purchase affordable coverage, with an unspecified penalty for those who refuse and a waiver for those who cannot cover the cost.

"There's no sense having a mandate unless you have a contribution," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Monday. He referred to the suggestion as "play or pay."

Rangel and other senior Democrats arranged to bring members of the party's rank and file up to date at a midday session Tuesday on the effort to draft health care legislation at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda.

No details were available on the possible tax on health benefits, and several officials stressed that no final decisions would be made for several days.

The idea has been gaining currency in recent weeks as Congress intensifies its search for more than $1 trillion to help pay for a health care overhaul.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., first floated the idea several weeks ago, and emerged from a White House meeting last week saying Obama was open to it.

Obama's top aides did not disagree, even though the president attacked the idea lustily last year when campaign rival John McCain proposed it. Instead, White House officials say Obama prefers his own suggestions: cuts in projected Medicare spending and tax increases on the wealthy that thus far have gained little favor among Democrats in Congress.

Several officials said the House legislation will include a government-run insurance option as well as plans offered by private companies. The government option draws near-unanimous opposition from Republicans and provokes concerns among many Democrats as well, although Obama has spoken out in favor of it.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the presentation to rank-and-file Democrats on Tuesday.

Under the House Democratic plan, individuals and small businesses would be able to purchase coverage from a "health exchange" and the government would require all plans to contain a minimum benefit, these officials added. No applicant could be rejected for pre-existing conditions, nor could one be charged a higher premium, they said.

House Democrats also are considering a wide-ranging change for Medicaid that would provide a uniform benefit across all 50 states and increase payments to providers, according to several officials. Medicaid is a joint state-federal program of health coverage for the poor.

The disclosures came as the pace of activity quickened in both the House and Senate on health insurance legislation. Obama scheduled a meeting Tuesday at the White House with several Democrats.

Party leaders hope to pass legislation in both houses by early August and complete work on a compromise measure in the fall for Obama's signature.

The president has stepped up his own involvement in the issue in recent days, and there has been a flurry of negotiations involving outside interest groups who have pledged to take steps to achieve savings within the private insurance market.

Alongside those efforts, financing Obama's plan to spread coverage more widely carries a price tag estimated at more than $1 trillion over a decade. House Democrats are considering cutting projected Medicare payments to home health care, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospitals and others to cover costs, but not on the scale that the president proposed last winter.

The option for taxing insurance benefits is also under consideration as part of legislation taking shape across the Capitol in the Senate Finance Committee.

Numerous options are possible, many of which involve either a tax levied according to the value of an individual's employer-provided health plan or on the benefits received by upper-income taxpayers.

The issue poses multiple potential problems for Obama, who has pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $250,000 and also ran commercials criticizing McCain's call for a tax on health benefits in last fall's campaign.

In recent weeks, the president and his aides have sought to straddle the issue, neither accepting it nor ruling it out.

___

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

Jessica's Graduation

Only GOD could do this

Kennedy Healt Care

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 9 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Employers would be required to offer health care to employees or pay a penalty — and all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance — under a draft bill circulated Friday by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's health committee.

The bill would provide subsidies to help poor people pay for care, guarantee patients the right to select any doctor they want and require everyone to purchase insurance, with exceptions for those who can't afford to.

Insurers would be supposed to offer a basic level of care and would be required to cover all comers, without turning people away because of pre-existing conditions or other reasons. Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs.

It all adds up to sweeping changes in how America's health care system operates and aims to achieve President Barack Obama's goal of holding down costs and extending health coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.

It's already been known that Kennedy's health committee was planning to pursue most of the concepts outlined in the draft of the bill, called the "American Health Choices Act." But it's the first actual bill language to circulate since Congress began working on Obama's health care overhaul.

Congressional and interest groups officials cautioned that the language in the document was not final.

"It's a draft of a draft. HELP Democrats are still actively talking amongst themselves and their Republican colleagues," said Anthony Coley, spokesman for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that's chaired by Kennedy, D-Mass.

Kennedy's committee is scheduled to begin voting on legislation later this month, as is the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax issues. The House also will get to work soon to meet Obama's goal of passing legislation through both chambers by August, so the president can sign a bill in fall.

The draft bill sets up a system of state-level "exchanges," where people would go to shop for insurance plans and which would also oversee the marketplace. The federal-state Medicaid program for the poor would be greatly expanded.

Insurers would be required to pay for preventive care, and a new Medical Advisory Council would make recommendations on required health care benefits that would take effect unless Congress rejected them all at once — similar to how military base closures are handled.

The draft doesn't address how this would all be paid for. That remains a major sticking point.

The bill language became public on the eve of the kickoff of a national campaign to rally support for health care legislation that's being orchestrated by Obama's campaign team. Thousands of community events are scheduled around the nation Saturday where tens of thousands of people are supposed to discuss health care issues with their neighbors and create a groundswell for congressional action.

Yet many hurdles remain. Republicans are strongly opposed to a new public plan, especially the way Kennedy's bill designs it. Under Kennedy's bill the "affordable access plan" would pay providers 10 percent over Medicare rates, which would make it cheaper for patients, but harder for private insurers to compete with. Private insurers fear such a construct would drive them out of business, and there's even division within Democratic ranks.

That was underscored Friday in the House, as the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus released a set of principles for how the public plan should operate that directly contradicted principles released Thursday by the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats.

IN GOD WE TRUST ON CURRENCY

Fact Sheets: Currency & Coins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of 'In God We Trust'
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

As a part of a comprehensive modernization program the BEP successfully developed and installed new high-speed rotary intaglio printing presses in 1957. These allowed BEP to print currency by the dry intaglio process, 32 notes to the sheet. One-dollar silver certificates were the first denomination printed on the new high-speed presses. They included IN GOD WE TRUST as part of the reverse design as BEP adopted new dies according to the law. The motto also appeared on one-dollar silver certificates of the 1957-A and 1957-B series.

BEP prints United States paper currency by an intaglio process from engraved plates. It was necessary, therefore, to engrave the motto into the printing plates as a part of the basic engraved design to give it the prominence it deserved.

One-dollar silver certificates series 1935, 1935-A, 1935-B, 1935-C, 1935-D, 1935-E, 1935-F, 1935-G, and 1935-H were all printed on the older flat-bed presses by the wet intaglio process. P.L. 84-140 recognized that an enormous expense would be associated with immediately replacing the costly printing plates. The law allowed BEP to gradually convert to the inclusion of IN GOD WE TRUST on the currency. Accordingly, the motto is not found on series 1935-E and 1935-F one-dollar notes. By September 1961, IN GOD WE TRUST had been added to the back design of the Series 1935-G notes. Some early printings of this series do not bear the motto. IN GOD WE TRUST appears on all series 1935-H one-dollar silver certificates.

Jesus Daily

Jesus Daily As a fan of Jesus Daily, you’re already walking with Jesus. At EveryStudent.com, you can make a difference in the lives of people who don’t yet know the Lord. This is a ministry that I personally support because it uses the internet to win students to Christ. I highly encourage you to get involved: http://give3.ccci.org/every-student/14068.php?u=1

My back yard

HOME SWEET HOME

No..this is not Heaven..this is the Texas Hill Country. Welcome to one of the best kept secrets in the entire USA....Lake Buchanan & Inks Lake in central Texas.

2012 election

Why all the hype about the 2012 election

By election time it will not matter who runs, no one will be able to afford a car to get to polling booth, the ones left with a car will not be able to buy gass, the only ones voting will be government employes that we supply with a car and gas.

Why Aren't Scientists Allowed to Believe in God?

Why Aren't Scientists Allowed to Believe in God?

There was a time when most scientists were also deeply religious men. When scientists were not forced to choose between belief in God and the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. But that all ended with Charles Darwin.

In his stunning new book, The Darwin Myth, author Benjamin Wiker cuts through the politically correct lies and cultural misconceptions to reveal the true Charles Darwin: the man who separated God from science.

Taking a "warts and all" approach, Wiker not only offers a critical, scientific analysis of Darwin's life and his history-changing theory, but exposes Darwin's ultimate goal: the elimination of God from all science—not just evolution.

Casting aside Darwinism's politically correct veneer, The Darwin Myth reveals:


The Darwin Myth: Darwin insisted that evolution must be godless to be scientific


Charles Darwin didn't "discover" evolution—he just put his name on it. (It was explored in the 17th Century, long before his time.)


Although not Darwin's intention, Darwinism provides an open rationale for eugenics, genocide and racism


Darwin's own theory supported natural slavery—an institution he detested


Many of his best friends and allies criticized Darwin's theory, and he never definitively refuted their objections

From Darwin's obsession with making evolution his own to his belief that progress meant the advance of secularized science against religion, Wiker shows how Darwin's legacy set atheism as the default position of the scientific community and irrevocably divorced God from science.

Sotomayor (not now not ever I hope and pray)

WASHINGTON -- The top Republican involved in the confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee says he would prefer his colleagues refrain from calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist. (Soo...does this mean we can not call a car a car, or a tree a tree or..)

Hill Country Fellowship Church

Hill Country Fellowship Church Oaks Nursing Home

Listening to God by Howard E Butts

Listening to God
8.15.08

Jesus had an amazing way of responding to people's questions. His answers often pierce through what's being asked to more important matters: what's on the person's heart and Jesus' own identity and mission .

For example, when a man asks Jesus to tell his brother to divide the family's inheritance with him, Jesus cautions the man to be wary of greed. Then he tells the story of the Rich Fool who dies on the very night he's contemplating his windfall profits (Luke 12:16-21).

When a Pharisee invites Jesus to dinner, a prostitute interrupts the decorous occasion by washing Jesus' feet with her tears, drying them with her hair, and anointing them with perfume. The Pharisee believes the woman's actions prove Jesus cannot be a prophet, because a prophet would never let a prostitute touch him (Luke 7:44-47).

In reply to the Pharisee's unspoken doubts, Jesus tells the story of the money lender who forgives two debts, one for five hundred denarii and the other for fifty. He then asks which person will love the money lender more.

The Pharisee replies the one who had the bigger debt canceled (Luke 7:42).

Then Jesus speaks to the Pharisee's discourteous reception of him and the Pharisee's doubts, which lie behind his behavior. He points out that the Pharisee has totally neglected the common courtesies extended to dinner guests. He has supplied no water for Jesus to wash his feet, he did not greet Jesus with a brotherly kiss, nor give him oil for his head. But the prostitute has transformed these common courtesies into profound acts of love. "Therefore I tell you," Jesus says, "her many sins are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little" (Luke 7:47).

Jesus not only answers the unspoken question of the Pharisee—"Is this man a prophet?"—by intuiting what's in the man's heart; he proclaims that he is more than a prophet by forgiving the woman's sins. In the process, he lets the Pharisee know that his own hardness of heart keeps him from being forgiven.

This pattern of questioning and transcendent response is found again and again in the Gospels, from the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-7) to the Pharisees' question about paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:17-22). Jesus knows the unworthiness of the woman's accusers and the power politics behind the tax question, and he points out to both groups that they should be most concerned about their own relationships with God.

The answer Jesus gave to the most pointed question he was ever asked contains the secret of his incomparable ability to answer the question behind the question.

In the eighth chapter of John's Gospel, the Pharisees are haranguing Jesus, questioning his authority on various grounds. Finally, in their perplexity, they come right out and ask, "Who are you?"

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be, and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him" (John 8:28-29).

I do nothing on my own, Jesus says. I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. Jesus proclaims here that his entire ministry—everything he taught, every answer he gave to a question—originated in his communion with the Father. The Son listened to the Father, communed with the Father, and out of this communion Jesus taught. Out of this communion he answered questions spoken and unspoken.

We usually think of Jesus' communion with the Father, his prayer, in terms of specific, dramatic instances. We remember Jesus' Temptation in the Desert, his retreats to the Galilean hills, the ecstasy of the Transfiguration, and the agony of Gethsemane. But in Jesus' replies that pierce peoples' hearts and proclaim his identity and mission, we overhear another aspect of his prayer: his continual communion with the Father—his prayer without ceasing.

We might say that Jesus never had a simple, two-way conversation. The Father and the Holy Spirit were always there as well. Jesus' conversation had a Trinitarian character. He brought the Father and the Holy Spirit's witness into the midst of every conversation.

As we pray, as we listen to God, we need to bring God's presence in Christ into the midst of our own conversations with other people. And into every circumstance, as well. We are not on our own; God is with us, but God cannot make his presence felt unless we invite him into the midst of our lives.

I find that when I keep soaking myself in Scripture, consulting with Christian friends, and prayerfully waiting on the Lord, he keeps clarifying what I need to do to make my relationships right with other people. He gives me insights into troubling situations I would never have otherwise.

from howard e butts

Pastors not muzzled

Saturday, May 16, 2009
CAP: IRS VICTORY: Pastors Can Speak Out on Issues!‏

Despite attempts by some to silence pastors and churches on the important moral issues of our day, this week the IRS upheld the rights of a group that held public policy conferences for pastors in 2006. The pastors were encouraged to vote their values and to encourage their members to register to vote and to vote their values. The IRS found that this did not qualify as "political intervention" and therefore did not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the nonprofit group that held the conference. This ruling is a victory for free speech and means that, once again, the right of pastors and churches to speak out on moral issues has been affirmed. Pastors can fulfill their biblical duty to address moral issues without fearing repercussions from the IRS.


Out-of-Wedlock Births on Rise
In a room full of ten American babies, it is likely that four of those children were born to a single mother. The latest reports from the National Center for Health Statistics show that out-of-wedlock births are sharply on the rise, currently at 40% of all births. That number has doubled since 1980. The sharp increase results from women in their 20s and 30s intentionally deciding to have children without getting married. This news yet again shows the devaluing of marriage in our culture. It also shows how much our society has moved away from the knowledge that children do best with a mom and a dad. Note that this isn't about single parent households resulting from death or divorce. No, this increasingly new societal norm says it no longer matters whether children have a mom and a dad. Yet study after study continues to show that the best way to raise a child is with two married parents. Better school performance, less drug use, and more successful futures are just a small sampling of the overall benefits typically received by children raised by their married parents instead of cohabitating or single parents. Read more on our blog.

Hill Country Fellowship Church

National Day Of Prayer at the Burnet, Texas Town Square

Amazing, by Toni Smothers

Life was mute – Few rainbows.
And there were only puny, fleeting sunsets.
No time to notice anything,
Ttoo many goals, too busy - Numb to love’s ever-flowing rhythm.
Trees and flowers swayed, giving beauty to each day.
So what?
God’s perfect truth, His essence – Was a distant myth.
My frozen granite heart knew better.
Life was for self, snatching moments, surviving.
The entire world cannot comfort one heart void of hope.
So what?
Busyness is foolishness – More unstable than whirlwinds.
Worse even than plain falsity, wherein dwells the Devil.
Funny - The evil one knew me well enough to swear he'd won me -
With his shiny dime.
So What?
So everything...At least according to the Lord.
The One God, Almighty.
The author of it all - Creator extraordinaire!
He sent his answers well before I asked for them.
Turns out that I'm more precious than I’d ever dreamt -
Jesus told me so.
Why did He care so much that he could not abide my anguish?
Why indeed?
Why had the great God claimed me?
If ever there was a good reason to ask, "Why me?" I know none better.
But claim me he did - His own, from the very first.
Never to be lost again!
Remarkable!
He sweetly healed each grief, searched me, and still He took me to Himself.
A place beyond rainbows, beyond sunsets... and far past shiny dimes.
Thank God!
Thank God for His perfect love, which sweetens all of life.
Its music plays a chorus within all hearts to hear.
Eyes see each sight and sound beam bright with promise.
And Grace and mercy transform all who would come –Yes, even you -
If you will take a chance and simply draw near!
Amazing!
Posted by Toni Smothers at 7:05 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Followers

Blog Archive
▼ 2009 (4)
▼ April (4)

St. Luke Evangelical Christian Ministries: Sermon for March 9, 2008 on Psalm 113

St. Luke Evangelical Christian Ministries: Sermon for March 9, 2008 on Psalm 113

Texas Hillcountry Deer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S0lj6UGAVo

I shot this sitting on my patio

Isabella

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXb92Ku7PXg

David's Place

lAKE BUCHANA LOOKING WEST