Two Horses
Author Unknown
Just up the road from my home is a field, with two horses in it.
From a distance, each horse looks like any other horse.
But if you stop your car, or are walking by, you will notice something quite amazing....
Looking into the eyes of one horse will disclose that he is blind.His owner has chosen not to have him put down, but has made a good home for him.
This alone is amazing. If you stand nearby and listen, you will hear the sound of a bell. Looking around for the source of the sound, you will see that it comes from the smaller horse in the field.
Attached to the horse's halter is a small bell. It lets the blind friend know where the other horse is, so he can follow.
As you stand and watch these two friends, you'll see that the horse with the bell is always checking on the blind horse, and that the blind horse will listen for the bell and then slowly walk to where the other horse is, trusting that he will not be led astray.
When the horse with the bell returns to the shelter of the barn each evening, it stops occasionally and looks back,
Making sure that the blind friend isn't too far behind to hear the bell.
Like the owners of these two horses, God does not throw us away just because we are not perfect or because we have problems or challenges.
He watches over us and even brings others into our lives
To help us when we are in need..
Sometimes we are the blind horse being guided by the little ringing bell of those who God places in our lives.
Other times we are the guide horse, helping others to find their way....
Good friends are like that... You may not always see them, but you know they are always there..
Please listen for my bell and I'll listen for yours, and remember...
Be kinder than necessary-
Everyone you meet is fighting
Some kind of battle.
Live simply,
Love generously,
Care deeply,
Speak kindly.......
And leave the rest to God!
FOR WE WALK BY FAITH AND NOT BY SIGHT
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Hard to believe but true! Thanks Dr. Hovermale!
Subject: It's hard to believe isn't it.
THIS IS WHAT A TRAITOR LOOKS LIKE TO MOST OF US.
In
1952
President Truman
established one day a year as a
"National Day of Prayer."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In
1988
President Reagan
designated the
First Thursday in May of each year as
the National Day of Prayer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June
2007
(then)
Presidential
Candidate Barack Obama
declared that the USA
"Was no longer a
Christian nation."
---------------------------------------------------------------
This year
President Obama
canceled the
21st annual National Day
of Prayer ceremony
at the White
House under the ruse
Of "not wanting to offend anyone"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT... on September 25, 2009
from 4 AM until 7 PM,
a National Day of Prayer
FOR THE MUSLIM RELIGION
was Held on Capitol Hill,
Beside the White House.
There were over 50,000 Muslims
in D.C. that day.
(President obama shown removing his shoes to pray along with the muslims)
HE PRAYS WITH THE MUSLIMS!
I guess it Doesn't matter
if "Christians"
Are offended by this event -
We obviously
Don't count as
"anyone" Anymore.
The direction this country is headed
should strike fear in the heart of every Christian,
especially knowing that the
Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be
converted, they should be annihilated.
This is not a Rumor -
Go to the website
To confirm this info:
http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com
Send this to ten people
and the person who
sent it to you!...
to let them know that
indeed, it was sent
out to many more.
THIS IS WHAT A TRAITOR LOOKS LIKE TO MOST OF US.
In
1952
President Truman
established one day a year as a
"National Day of Prayer."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In
1988
President Reagan
designated the
First Thursday in May of each year as
the National Day of Prayer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June
2007
(then)
Presidential
Candidate Barack Obama
declared that the USA
"Was no longer a
Christian nation."
---------------------------------------------------------------
This year
President Obama
canceled the
21st annual National Day
of Prayer ceremony
at the White
House under the ruse
Of "not wanting to offend anyone"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT... on September 25, 2009
from 4 AM until 7 PM,
a National Day of Prayer
FOR THE MUSLIM RELIGION
was Held on Capitol Hill,
Beside the White House.
There were over 50,000 Muslims
in D.C. that day.
(President obama shown removing his shoes to pray along with the muslims)
HE PRAYS WITH THE MUSLIMS!
I guess it Doesn't matter
if "Christians"
Are offended by this event -
We obviously
Don't count as
"anyone" Anymore.
The direction this country is headed
should strike fear in the heart of every Christian,
especially knowing that the
Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be
converted, they should be annihilated.
This is not a Rumor -
Go to the website
To confirm this info:
http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com
Send this to ten people
and the person who
sent it to you!...
to let them know that
indeed, it was sent
out to many more.
Krauthammer on Union-owned Democrats... Thanks Judi cole!
Hey! I don't want to appear to be anti-union, because I have been in unions, although mostly out of unions, during my working career. No kidding the owners would escape benevolence for workers for extra profits as was shown in the Chicago stockyards at the beginning of the twentieth century. Cattle went in and all product, very little waste, came out. Our public ate the results. Workers were treated tyranically. Many other situations brought about more unionization and then union bosses were taken in by the Mafia and the pendulumn was swung in the favor of the worker.
Many owners wanted to avoid unions by simply treating their employees better.
All of that is history. We are a post-industrial nation now who meeds to become industrialized once more. It requires competitive manufacturing companies. I would love to see blue collar jobs in America again. It won't happen by politicians holding back on fair trade agreements with important allies who also want to compete in the vast world economies.
Thanks Judi Cole! I otherwise missed Mr. Krauthammers important piece.
SamKat
Why would judges or the administration interfere with free enterprise? The simple truth is those who do, attempt to circumvent the Constitution and/or the rights of individuals. Free-trade agreements, the Boeing expansion and the Wisconsin fiasco show to what lengths partisans will go to further their causes. Judge for yourself. Ted
The union-owned Democrats
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: June 16
“Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” observed President Obama this week, enjoying a nice chuckle about the unhappy fate of his near-$1 trillion stimulus. To be sure, Obama has also been promoting a less amusing remedy for anemic growth and high unemployment: exports. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he proclaimed a national goal of doubling exports within five years.
One obvious way to increase exports is through free-trade agreements. But unions don’t like them. No surprise then that for two years Obama has been sitting on three free-trade agreements — with Colombia, Panama and South Korea — already negotiated by his predecessor.
Under the pressure of dire economic conditions and of the consequences of stiffing three valued allies, Obama appeared ready to relent — only to put up a last-minute roadblock. He’s demanding an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance — taxpayer money (beyond unemployment compensation) given to workers displaced by foreign competition, something denied to Americans rendered unemployed by domestic competition. It’s an idea of dubious fairness but nicely designed to hold up ratification, while placing blame on Republican heartlessness rather than on political sabotage by Democrats beholden to unions for the millions they pour into Democratic coffers. (A deal reportedly may be near. But the years of delay have been costly. Colombia, for example, is negotiating broad trade deals with China, including a possible Chinese-built railway to bypass the Panama Canal.)
Nothing new here. In 2009, Obama pushed through a federally run, questionably legal, bankruptcy for the auto companies that robbed first-in-line creditors in order to bail out the United Auto Workers. Elsewhere, Delta Air Lines workers have voted four times to reject unionization. A federal agency, naturally, is investigating and, notes economist Irwin Stelzer, can order still another election in the hope that it yields the answer Obama’s campaign team wants.
But Democratic fealty to unions does not stop there. Boeing has just completed a production facility in South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with Democrats — including one former union lawyer considered so partisan that he required a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him — is trying to get the plant declared illegal. Why? Because by choosing right-to-work South Carolina, Boeing is accused of retaliating against its unionized Washington state workers for previous strikes.
In fact, Boeing has increased unionized employment by more than 2,000 at its Puget Sound plant. Moreover, the idea that a company in a unionized state can thus be prohibited from expanding into right-to-work states by a partisan regulatory body is quite insane. It violates the fundamental principle in a free-market economy that companies can move and build in response to market conditions, rather than administrative fiat. It jeopardizes the economic recovery, not only targeting America’s single largest exporter in its attempt to compete with Airbus for a huge global market, but also threatening any other company that might think of expanding in any way displeasing to unions and their NLRB patrons.
Obama has been utterly silent in the Boeing affair. Which is understood by all as tacit approval. He’s facing reelection next year. And Democrats need unions.
Of course, unions need Democrats — who deliver quite faithfully. In last year’s nationwide “shellacking” of Democrats, for example, Wisconsin gave Republicans control of both legislative chambers and elected a Republican governor who made clear his intention to rein in public-sector union power.
When the Republicans tried to do as promised, Democrats, lacking the votes, tried to block it by every extra-parliamentary maneuver short of arson. State Senate Democrats fled Wisconsin to prevent a quorum. Demonstrators filled the statehouse for days and nights on end. And when the bill finally passed nonetheless, Dane County’s Democratic district attorney went to court to have it thrown out on procedural grounds.
They found a pliant judge to invalidate the law. A famous victory, but short-lived. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the ruling, upbraiding the judge for having “usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature.” The law is reinstated.
Instructive cases all, demonstrating how those who lose popular support — Democrats at the polls, unions in their declining membership — can subvert and circumvent the popular will by judicial usurpation (Wisconsin) or administrative fiat (Boeing).
The Wisconsin maneuver ultimately failed, as likely will the assault on Boeing. In the interim, however, there is collateral damage — to U.S. exports, to the larger economy, to bankruptcy law, to free trade, to a constitutional system wherein the legislatures make the laws, rather than willful judges and partisan regulators.
But what are those when there are unions to appease and elections to win?
Many owners wanted to avoid unions by simply treating their employees better.
All of that is history. We are a post-industrial nation now who meeds to become industrialized once more. It requires competitive manufacturing companies. I would love to see blue collar jobs in America again. It won't happen by politicians holding back on fair trade agreements with important allies who also want to compete in the vast world economies.
Thanks Judi Cole! I otherwise missed Mr. Krauthammers important piece.
SamKat
Why would judges or the administration interfere with free enterprise? The simple truth is those who do, attempt to circumvent the Constitution and/or the rights of individuals. Free-trade agreements, the Boeing expansion and the Wisconsin fiasco show to what lengths partisans will go to further their causes. Judge for yourself. Ted
The union-owned Democrats
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: June 16
“Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” observed President Obama this week, enjoying a nice chuckle about the unhappy fate of his near-$1 trillion stimulus. To be sure, Obama has also been promoting a less amusing remedy for anemic growth and high unemployment: exports. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he proclaimed a national goal of doubling exports within five years.
One obvious way to increase exports is through free-trade agreements. But unions don’t like them. No surprise then that for two years Obama has been sitting on three free-trade agreements — with Colombia, Panama and South Korea — already negotiated by his predecessor.
Under the pressure of dire economic conditions and of the consequences of stiffing three valued allies, Obama appeared ready to relent — only to put up a last-minute roadblock. He’s demanding an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance — taxpayer money (beyond unemployment compensation) given to workers displaced by foreign competition, something denied to Americans rendered unemployed by domestic competition. It’s an idea of dubious fairness but nicely designed to hold up ratification, while placing blame on Republican heartlessness rather than on political sabotage by Democrats beholden to unions for the millions they pour into Democratic coffers. (A deal reportedly may be near. But the years of delay have been costly. Colombia, for example, is negotiating broad trade deals with China, including a possible Chinese-built railway to bypass the Panama Canal.)
Nothing new here. In 2009, Obama pushed through a federally run, questionably legal, bankruptcy for the auto companies that robbed first-in-line creditors in order to bail out the United Auto Workers. Elsewhere, Delta Air Lines workers have voted four times to reject unionization. A federal agency, naturally, is investigating and, notes economist Irwin Stelzer, can order still another election in the hope that it yields the answer Obama’s campaign team wants.
But Democratic fealty to unions does not stop there. Boeing has just completed a production facility in South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with Democrats — including one former union lawyer considered so partisan that he required a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him — is trying to get the plant declared illegal. Why? Because by choosing right-to-work South Carolina, Boeing is accused of retaliating against its unionized Washington state workers for previous strikes.
In fact, Boeing has increased unionized employment by more than 2,000 at its Puget Sound plant. Moreover, the idea that a company in a unionized state can thus be prohibited from expanding into right-to-work states by a partisan regulatory body is quite insane. It violates the fundamental principle in a free-market economy that companies can move and build in response to market conditions, rather than administrative fiat. It jeopardizes the economic recovery, not only targeting America’s single largest exporter in its attempt to compete with Airbus for a huge global market, but also threatening any other company that might think of expanding in any way displeasing to unions and their NLRB patrons.
Obama has been utterly silent in the Boeing affair. Which is understood by all as tacit approval. He’s facing reelection next year. And Democrats need unions.
Of course, unions need Democrats — who deliver quite faithfully. In last year’s nationwide “shellacking” of Democrats, for example, Wisconsin gave Republicans control of both legislative chambers and elected a Republican governor who made clear his intention to rein in public-sector union power.
When the Republicans tried to do as promised, Democrats, lacking the votes, tried to block it by every extra-parliamentary maneuver short of arson. State Senate Democrats fled Wisconsin to prevent a quorum. Demonstrators filled the statehouse for days and nights on end. And when the bill finally passed nonetheless, Dane County’s Democratic district attorney went to court to have it thrown out on procedural grounds.
They found a pliant judge to invalidate the law. A famous victory, but short-lived. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the ruling, upbraiding the judge for having “usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature.” The law is reinstated.
Instructive cases all, demonstrating how those who lose popular support — Democrats at the polls, unions in their declining membership — can subvert and circumvent the popular will by judicial usurpation (Wisconsin) or administrative fiat (Boeing).
The Wisconsin maneuver ultimately failed, as likely will the assault on Boeing. In the interim, however, there is collateral damage — to U.S. exports, to the larger economy, to bankruptcy law, to free trade, to a constitutional system wherein the legislatures make the laws, rather than willful judges and partisan regulators.
But what are those when there are unions to appease and elections to win?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)