A Christian Home

A Christian Home was a favorite of Grandpa Criss' and also my Dad's. I love this hymn! It has a very rich text! I especially like verse two. We sang A Christian Home last night at our church hymn sing.

O give us homes built firm upon the Saviour,
Where Christ is Head, and Counsellor and Guide;
Where ev'ry child is taught His love and favor
And gives his heart to Christ, the crucified:
How sweet to know that tho' his footsteps waver
His faithful Lord is walking by his side!

O give us homes with godly fathers, mothers,
Who always place their hope and trust in Him;
Whose tender patience turmoil never bothers,
Whose calm and courage trouble cannot dim;
A home where each finds joy in serving others,
And love still shines, tho' days be dark and grim.

O give us homes where Christ is Lord and Master,
The Bible read, the precious hymns still sung;
Where prayer comes first in peace or in disaster,
And praise is natural speech to ev'ry tongue;
Where mountains move before a faith that's vaster,
And Christ sufficient is for old and young.

O Lord, our God, our homes are Thine forever!
We trust to Thee their problems, toil, and care;
Their bonds of love no enemy can sever
If Thou art always Lord and Master there:
Be Thou the center of our least endeavor:
Be Thou our Guest, our hearts and homes to share.

NRA Sues Seattle Over Illegal Gun Ban

Wednesday, October 28, 2009


Fairfax, Va. - Today, the National Rifle Association filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Washington State against the City of Seattle, asking the court to enjoin and declare invalid a recently enacted parks and recreation administrative policy that prohibits firearms in parks, community centers and other city-owned buildings. Other plaintiffs in the case include state correctional officers and private citizens.

“NRA members are outraged that the City of Seattle has ignored and defied state law and an opinion of Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “The NRA will continue to fight this senseless infringement on the rights of law-abiding Seattle gun owners.”

The city is in violation of Washington’s preemption statute, which forbids localities from enacting this type of ban. In October 2008, Attorney General Rob McKenna issued an opinion, which put the City of Seattle and Mayor Nickels on further notice that Washington cities may not enact local laws prohibiting possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities.

“Law-abiding Seattle gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves when they go about their business, even in a park or other recreation facility,” concluded Cox. “This illegal ban even prohibits the most law-abiding citizens with Right-to-Carry permits from possession in ‘prohibited’ areas.”

The Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors, Inc. are working in conjunction with the NRA and are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the city.

Read the complaint.

-NRA-

Dad: A Son's First Hero

What is Loyalty?

From the Art of Manliness.

Like, courage, integrity, and personal responsibility, loyalty is one of the essential manly virtues. But like other lofty attributes, it is often easier to describe with examples than words. We know it in the soldier who will not leave a wounded comrade behind and dodges withering fire to bring the man to safety. We see it embodied in the prominent man who has women throw themselves at him when away from home, but who never strays from his wife, and in the religious martyr who chooses death over the disavowal of faith. And it is the bond that befuddles girlfriends who cannot understand why their beau is still friends with a childhood chum with whom he now seemingly shares little in common.


Josiah Royce, author of the 1920 book, The Philosophy of Loyalty, said loyalty was “the willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause.” Let’s unpack this definition:

Willing. Loyalty must born from your own choice and free will. It cannot be forced upon you by another person or organization. Loyalty must be chosen.

Practical and thoroughgoing devotion. Loyalty is not some pie in the sky abstraction. It must be coupled with action. Feeling and emotion can be part of loyalty, but action must always constitute the core.

To a cause. We often imagine loyalty as a bond between ourselves and individuals or organizations-with a friend, with a wife, with a church. Thus, when that individual entity changes and stops interesting us, we feel justified in breaking off our loyalty to it.

True loyalty must take as its cause something bigger than the individual; it must be rooted in principles, not people. Be not loyal to your buddy Eddie, but loyal to the idea of brotherhood and friendship. Be not loyal to your wife, but loyal to the idea of love and fidelity. Be not loyal to your sister but loyal to the sacred nature of familial bonds. Be not loyal to a church but loyal to the gospel.

Such unchanging principles must serve as the foundation of your loyalty. Thus, when people and organizations shift and change, your loyalty, anchored to immovable values, will remain steadfast.

Winchester 12 Gauge 3-1/2" Xpert High Velocity 1-1/4 oz BB Shot

It's not very forgiving. My shoulder hurts.

The Christians' Golden Calf by Laurence M. Vance

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." ~ (Exodus 20:3)

Most people know the story of Aaron’s golden calf.

After the Jews came out of Egypt, while Moses was up on Mount Sinai receiving from God the ten commandments on "tables of stone, written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18), the children of Israel complained to Aaron, Moses’ brother: "Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him" (Exodus 32:1). So, after the people donated their gold, Aaron made a golden calf and proclaimed: "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 32:4). Then Aaron made an altar, the people offered offerings, and they all had themselves one wild party (Exodus 32:6); that is, until Moses came down from the mount (Exodus 32:19).

Some, perhaps, also know the story of Jeroboam’s golden calves.

Years later in the history of Israel, when most of the tribes rebelled under Jeroboam, he "made two calves of gold" and said to the people: "Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 12:28). After placing one calf in Bethel and the other in Dan (1 Kings 12:29), Jeroboam appointed his own priests, ordained a feast, burnt incense, and made offerings on an altar, "sacrificing unto the calves that he had made" (1 Kings 12:32). The people likewise worshipped before these golden calves (1 Kings 12:30). As a consequence, the tribes that sinned under Jeroboam were "carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day" (2 Kings 17:22–23).

Ever since these incidents, a golden calf has referred to some object that is undeservedly worshipped or venerated.

To their shame, American Christians, who profess to serve the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and wouldn’t think of making a god out of gambling, Internet porn, or alcohol, have a god – a golden calf – they honor, reverence, and pay homage to. This god demands perpetual thanksgivings. This god demands obeisance on national holidays. This god demands special appreciation days. This god demands songs to be sung in praise to it. This god demands prayers to the Lord God on its behalf. This god demands sacrifices of young men and women. This god demands signs, buttons, shirts, bumper stickers, yellow ribbons, and lapel pins inscribed with its various names and slogans. This god tolerates no criticism of its activities.

The Christian’s golden calf is the U.S. military.

Not all Christians, mind you, but a great many Christians from throughout Christendom have exchanged biblical Christianity for imperial Christianity. From Catholic just-war theorists who oppose abortion (but not the killing of people outside of the womb) to progressive Christians who oppose the war in Iraq (but not military intervention in Darfur) to the Religious Right who oppose the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries (but not the American killing of Muslims in Muslim countries) – Christians of all branches and denominations are engaged an idolatrous affair with the U.S. military.

The worst offenders are the independent, evangelical, fundamentalist, and other conservative Christians. And I say this as one of them. With them it is the majority who bow before the golden calf. Yes, the majority. That is the conclusion I reached during the Bush years and that is still my conclusion now. In spite of the waning support for the war in Iraq and the venom directed toward Barack Obama by right-wing Christians, Christian reverence for the military remains unchanged.

I don’t make this golden calf accusation lightly. I say it after years of listening to conservative Christians, talking with them, reading hundreds of e-mails from them (both friend and foe), hearing scores of reports from disconsolate church members about their warmongering pastors and church leaders, reading numerous books, articles, blogs, and newsletters by Christian defenders of war and the warfare state, seeing the negative reaction to my book Christianity and War, and reading countless pathetic attempts to justify Christian participation in the state’s wars.

I still see on church signs and church websites the "support our troops," "pray for our troops," and "God bless our troops" mantras. It doesn’t matter where U.S. troops go, how many go, how long they stay, or what they do when they are there – support for the military is a fundamental of the faith, right up there with the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ.

And here is a resolution passed by the Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches at their annual meeting last year:

C. Support for Soldiers: Whereas there are young men and women from our country and our churches in military service, and some in perilous situations around the world, and whereas we appreciate their sacrifices and willingness to protect our freedom, BE IT RESOLVED that we will pray for our troops, support them in tangible ways as we have opportunity, and encourage them to make their field of service a harvest field for the Kingdom of God.

These are conservative, independent Baptist churches – and they are spewing forth anti-biblical nonsense.

And it is not just Red-State Christian fascists, Reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters (who recently expressed their support for warmonger Mike Huckabee in a Family Research Council Values Voter Summit), Christian Coalition moralists, and "God and country" social conservatives who support federal funding of school vouchers, abstinence education, and faith-based initiatives who venerate the military. It is also Christians who don’t consider themselves part of the Religious Right, Christians who don’t vote, Christians who oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, Christians who denounce abuses of the FBI, CIA, IRS, and BATF, Christians who oppose the Iraq War, Christians who caution against Christian service in the military, and Christians who oppose basically every other government institution.

Support for the military among Christians is pervasive, systemic, sacrosanct, and codified.

It is also an unholy alliance, an illicit affair, an affront to the Saviour whom Christians worship as the Prince of Peace, a blight on Christianity, and the worse form of statolatry. It also violates the whole tenor of the New Testament:

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:14).

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people (2 Corinthians 6:16).

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen (1 John 5:21).

I fear that things are hopeless. I see no end in sight to churches publicly honoring veterans, praising the troops for defending our freedoms, turning national holidays into military recognition days, having special military appreciation days, encouraging or not discouraging their young men (and sometimes women) to join the military, helping young men to become military chaplains, ostracizing those who disparage the military, equating admiration for the military with patriotism and criticism of the military with treason, imploring church members to pray for the troops, regarding the military’s acts of aggression as benevolent, presuming divine support for U.S. military interventions, accepting the militarism of society, having a superstitious reverence for the military, and remaining in willful ignorance of U.S. foreign policy and its use of the military as a force for evil in the world.

I have spoken about these things again and again and written about them time after time after time after time. I am afraid that my words are being heard and read for the most part by the wrong group of Christians – those who already reject the warfare state and a militarized Christianity.

The day is long past (if it ever existed) when the function of the U.S. military was limited to what it should be: defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies – not defending, guarding, patrolling, attacking, invading, or occupying other countries. And not providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, changing regimes, enforcing no-fly zones, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, promoting good governance, stationing troops in other countries, garrisoning the planet with bases, and killing foreigners in their countries and destroying their property.

A military not strictly for defense of U.S. borders, shores, coasts, and skies is nothing more than the president’s personal attack force staffed by mercenaries willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.

Christian, it is time to slay the golden calf.

October 19, 2009

We got Geese!

Gun Owners Win the Opening Battle on ObamaCare!

Friday, October 23, 2009

Congratulations!

You have stymied the shady tactics used by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi to try to pass the ObamaCare bill and -- in the opening salvo of the battle -- you blew them out of the water.

Gun Owners won a huge vote Wednesday in the Senate.

As you remember, the ObamaCare bill would dump your gun-related health data into a federal database. It would also put your (government mandated) insurance at risk if you keep a loaded gun for self-defense.

But there was a problem: The anti-gun health bills cost too much, and Obama had promised to pass a bill which would not raise the deficit by "one penny."

So what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did was to try to pass a separate bill (S. 1776) which would fund the anti-gun ObamaCare bill by raising the deficit another $247 billion dollars.

But, they would argue, because S. 1776 was a "separate bill," the ObamaCare bill itself would not raise the deficit.

In a Senate not known for morality, this rose to a level of sleaze and corruption that embarrassed many Democrats, in addition to all Republicans.

With gun owners responding vigorously to our alerts on this issue, the motion to invoke "cloture" (or shut off debate) on the bill failed by a 47-53 vote -- 13 votes short of the 60 votes the anti-gun socialists needed.

The victory on S. 1776 means that it will be much harder for Obama, Reid and Pelosi to pick up the somewhat fiscally-minded Blue Dog Democrats they so desperately need to get their anti-gun ObamaCare legislation passed.

So congratulations! It is true that this is only the first battle... but, if we continue battering Congress as we have, it will be the first of many victories.

To see the official listing of how each Senator voted, you can go to http://tinyurl.com/ykb6kjb.

But in the meantime, pat yourself on the back for a job well done... and have a great weekend!

This is what I do...

Will You Love Every Future President?

by Tom Engelhardt and David Swanson

Presidential power has been on a pathway of expansion beyond what the Constitution outlined, and what a government of, by, and for the people requires, since George Washington was president. That expansion, which hit the highway after World War II, got a turbo boost during the co-presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Some of the new powers that those two stole from Congress, the courts, the states, and us the people are being abused less severely in this new age of Obama; others, more so; but far more crucially, in a pattern followed by recent presidencies, all are being maintained, if not expanded, and thus more firmly cemented into place for future presidents to use. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you are likely to strongly oppose some major decisions of some future presidents. So it shouldn't be hard to envision some pretty undesirable consequences that might flow from presidential power that increasingly approaches the absolute.

Our television news and newspapers don't seem terribly interested in this story, despite scraping its surface with reports on the many "czars" Obama has appointed or lectures on the importance of renewing, or only marginally amending, the PATRIOT Act. And Congress seems, if possible, even less interested. That's not so surprising, given that we've replaced the three branches of government with the two parties, so that at any given time roughly half the members of Congress take as their leader a president who is theoretically supposed to execute the will of Congress. And the other half usually obey their party's "leaders" in Congress, whose primary interest is in electing one of their own as the next president. Both parties continue to value presidential power itself either for its uses in the present, or for when their candidate is elected. Everyone wants to inherit the imperial presidency, not constrain it.

Under these circumstances, bills to create commissions investigating presidential abuses, to place a judicial check on claims of "state secrets," limit the use of presidential signing statements, or to allow more than eight members of Congress to be given "security" briefings by the executive branch prove not to be priorities for either party.

These days, the old-fashioned idea of checking executive abuses of existing laws through the issuance of subpoenas or by impeachment is, in Washington, widely considered a scandalous proposition. Congress impeached a judge this year who had groped his employees, but Jay Bybee, who signed secret memos purporting to legalize aggressive war and torture, and who now holds a lifetime seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is protected from such a step by his recent membership in the executive branch (and the displeasure Fox News would express toward his impeachment).

In April, Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Bybee to testify, and the judge refused, just as many of his former colleagues in the Bush administration had in 2007 and 2008. Leahy may be unwilling to follow up by issuing a subpoena that even the new Department of Justice might refuse to enforce. The current department, for instance, allowed the White House Counsel to negotiate partial compliance with a House Judiciary Committee subpoena by former presidential advisor Karl Rove. And if Leahy is like most members of Congress, he will not even consider the option of using the Capitol Police to enforce a subpoena himself – something that no committee has done in 75 years.

All Power to the President

Any quick survey of the powers the presidency now claims would have to include the power to make laws, the power to make wars, the power to spend money, the power to make treaties, the power to grant immunity for crimes, the power to operate in secrecy, the power to spy without warrants, the power to detain without charge, and the power to torture.

Laws are still made by Congress, but they can be rewritten via signing statements; that is, statements announcing a president's intention to violate particular sections of the very bill he is signing into law. Neither Congress nor President Obama has thrown out all of Bush's extensive signing statements that did indeed alter laws. In fact, Obama has announced that his subordinates will review his predecessor's signing statements only as the need arises.

This policy might please those imagining that the Obama administration will always make the right decision about whether to maintain or reject a Bush-made amendment to a law, but it does nothing to strip the presidency of the power to use the mechanism of the signing statement to re-make or amend or alter new laws. As it happens, Obama has already published his own law-making signing statements.

Presidents now also routinely determine national policy through executive orders and, in doing so, run the country out of the White House rather than through departments headed by officials approved by Congress. They also increasingly dictate a legislative agenda to Congress – and both members of Congress and members of the public generally accept without comment or opposition that inversion of our constitutional system. And then there are the secret memos.

In those secret memos, Bush's lawyers in the Department of Justice dutifully "legalized" numerous illegal acts, including aggressive war and torture. Despite years of public back-and-forth between the White House and the Congress over the question of whether to ban torture, any act of complicity in torture was already a felony in the U.S. code under the Anti-Torture Act, which enforced the Convention Against Torture signed by President Ronald Reagan. However, the secret Justice Department memos were taken as the final word in legality, no matter what the law said.

Obama has directed the Justice Department not to prosecute those at the highest levels responsible for producing those memos, though he has permitted consideration – whether seriously intended or not – of the possibility of prosecuting a handful of low-ranking staffers who strayed beyond the illegal policies outlined in the memos. Not only does this bestow immunity on the most prominent criminals, reversing the approach – starting at the top – that the U.S. took at the Nuremburg war crimes trials after World War II, but it has the potential to create a terrifying precedent for the future. If a president can use his justice department to legalize a crime simply by asking a lawyer to write a memo, then who can doubt that a president has something approaching absolute power?

Presidents, not Congress, do indeed make wars now, whether or not they consult Jay Bybee's memo on the subject. They make wars without congressional declarations of war, using instead vague bills to maintain a pretense of congressional involvement – and then they don't even comply with the terms outlined in those authorizations. Illegal (as well as unconstitutional) as they may be, these wars can be expanded into apparently permanent occupations that include the construction of gigantic military bases from which additional wars may be launched. In the process, mercenaries often take the place of soldiers, and as "private contractors" they then operate even further from congressional oversight or the law.

To invade Iraq, President Bush spent money not appropriated for that purpose. He also gave himself the power to transfer money into "black budgets" beyond the purview of all but a few members of Congress, and so use it for secret tasks signed off on by his officials. Of course, massive secret budgets under the control of the president are nothing new, though they've grown through the years. Neither are they constitutional or sustainable.

On October 6th, the leaders of the two parties met with President Obama and, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's account, let him know that he could end, decrease, maintain, or escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan as he saw fit. The Senate had voted the previous week not to call on war commander Stanley McChrystal for public testimony about that ongoing war until after the president determines his war policy, which of course means a war policy for all of us. Two days later, in a surprising flicker of dissent, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey released a statement suggesting that, contrary to everything he'd said for years, he recognizes that Congress has the power to choose not to fund those wars and thereby to end them.

As his presidency was winding down, George W. Bush concluded an unofficial treaty (though it was called a Status of Forces Agreement) with the government of U.S.-occupied Iraq for three more years of war there without feeling the slightest need for it to be ratified by the Senate. Ever since, the U.S. military has actually violated the terms of that document, while its key commanders continued to publicly state their intention to remain in Iraq beyond the end of 2011, a clear violation of the agreement. In the meantime, this White House has used the treaty as cover for an ongoing illegal occupation of Iraq with, at this point, 120,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of private contractors.

Is Congress Broken?

When many feared that Bush might pardon his subordinates for crimes he had himself authorized, the consensus among members of Congress and scholars was that he could, in fact, do such a thing. In some ways what both Bush and Obama have actually done is worse. With a big assist from Congress in the form of bills like the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act, they have worked to grant immunity for crimes without even naming the criminals or revealing what they have done. Obama's Department of Justice is now arguing, appealing, or re-appealing in various court cases to keep secret the abuses of government officials and corporations involved in torture and warrantless spying. Recently, the Justice Department even argued that, when it comes to denying information to a court or the public, telecommunication corporations must be considered a part of the executive branch of the federal government, and earlier this year the administration threatened the British government with an end to intelligence sharing if it revealed evidence of torture.

President Obama announced that he will only claim the right to hide information from a court on the grounds that important "state secrets" are involved after careful review by lawyers at the Department of Justice. This may be an improvement over the Bush years – not exactly a hard standard to reach – but notably this decision still cedes not an ounce of power to any branch other than the executive, even as Obama's lawyers make radical "state secrets" claims in attempts to block entire court cases, rather than over particular pieces of information.

While this president is ceding modest amounts of territory claimed by the previous one, he is ceding nothing when it comes to presidential power itself. For example, the president said he would release White House visitor logs (as the Bush administration had not), just not those already recorded, including the ones that held records of the visits of deal-making health insurance executives, nor any future logs that he thinks would endanger "national security." That offers change of a sort, however modest, but leaves it entirely in the president's hands to decide which logs to release.

This administration has indeed released some of the secret memos that Bush's Department of Justice used to justify torture and never shared with the public, but only when compelled by courts. The Justice Department has, in fact, fought fiercely against their release and has redacted significant sections of them before making them public.

Bush claimed for the presidency the power to detain people without charge or legal process – and then used it. Obama stood in front of the U.S. Constitution in the National Archives in Washington and asserted the same power, in violation of the right of habeas corpus found in that torn and tattered document. Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta and presidential advisor David Axelrod have similarly made clear that the president still claims the power to engage in "harsh interrogation techniques" but chooses not to use it. Torture in this way has been transformed from a crime into a policy choice, with the intended message apparently being that we can stop torture temporarily by choosing to elect Democrats. This is perilous territory.

Perhaps presidents simply cannot be expected to give back powers gained by the executive branch, but shouldn't we expect Congress to work to take them back on our behalf? When Alberto Gonzales resigned as attorney general, he did so because a rapidly growing list of members of Congress signed onto a one-sentence bill directing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate possible grounds for his impeachment. Such an approach toward Judge Jay Bybee could begin to restore the power of Congress to assert itself in other areas as well, while pressuring the Justice Department to enforce the law, and potentially making public a great deal of information through the subpoenas involved in any impeachment hearing, which does not permit claims of "executive privilege." Information subpoenaed in an impeachment hearing must be produced, or the failure to produce it can become another impeachable offense.

Many of us probably consider our current president a much nicer guy than our local congressional representative. That doesn't change the fact that influencing a president, or even a senator, via grassroots pressure is infinitely more difficult than influencing a member of the House of Representatives.

This is not a new discovery. After all, isn't this, in part, why the House was given the power of the purse and the power of impeachment? Being closer to the ground, that body is, by its nature, going to be more amenable to democratic pressure and direction. If we want once again to have a real hand in making our nation's policies, our best shot – admittedly still a distinctly uphill course – is to focus on the person who represents us in the House.

Unfortunately, we have to compel each of them to do something they have come to collectively fear: taking back the power originally bestowed on them and not on behalf of their party, but of their branch of government, of the Constitution to which they've sworn an oath, and of the proper sovereigns of this nation: we the people. Otherwise the chief legacy of the Obama years will, like those of his immediate predecessors, be the slide from republic into empire and the continuing growth of an imperial presidency.

October 19, 2009

The Big Country 1958

Wealthy sea captain James McKay, very humble and a gentleman, travels to the American west to join his fiancée Patricia at the enormous ranch of her father, Major Terrill. Pat is spoiled, selfish and controlled by her wealthy father. Terrill is a powerful rancher who is feuding with the equally tough patriarch of a poorer, less refined clan, Rufus Hannassey. Patricia's best friend, Julie Maragon, schoolteacher and a true lady, is caught between the two, as she is the owner of the "Big Muddy", a ranch with a vital source of water; Hannassey desperately needs it for his cattle, while Terrill wants it just so he can deny it to his rival. McKay is a puzzle to Major Terrill, his foreman Steve Leech and even Patricia; he refuses to be provoked into proving his manhood.

One morning, McKay rides out without telling anyone, goes to the Big Muddy, and persuades Julie to sell him the ranch by promising that both the Terrills and the Hannasseys will always have access to the river. Everyone believes McKay is lost, and a search party spends two days looking for him. When McKay shows up and says he knew where he was all the time, Leech calls him a liar in front of Patricia and the Major, but McKay refuses to be goaded into a fight. In private, Patricia expresses her shame at what she sees as McKay's cowardice. McKay tells her he will be moving into town to give them both time to think things over. Early the next morning, before anybody else is up, McKay settles with Leech. They fight away from the house, without witnesses, to an exhausted draw. Afterwords, McKay asks "what did we prove?" and Leech gains respect for him


An excellent study in true manliness vs, tough guy, true femininity vs. a selfish girl, pride and peer pressure vs. humility and standing alone.

Opening Day Duck & Goose

Opening day wasn't as beautiful as pictured above but hopefully it will on later dates. It was pouring rain and dark. We didn't see any ducks and the geese were all out of range. We did find a good blind and got it ready for next time.

I got a new duck call and goose flute which I tried and have been practicing with today.

We have high expectations for the upcoming hunts in the next few weeks. As the fields flood more we'll see lots more ducks hanging around. I'm earger to shoot my first duck! A goose would be a lot of fun!

Sisters

John Cutting Firewood

Making Applesauce

Snow!

 

 

Potato Digging

Multnomah Falls

Where are the men?

This is a poem my younger sister wrote this last week which I thought she did a wonderful job on.


Where are the men, who for freedom fought,
With blood, and tears this country they bought?
Where are the men, who gave their lives,
So their future children and grandchildren could rise?
It’s these men we crave, who are not afraid of the grave.
It’s these men we need, who are heroes because of their deed.

Where are the men, who died with Washington,
Those who did not give up, ‘till the war was won?
Where are the men, who stood straight and tall,
Who helped out country, when she teetered but did not fall?
It’s these men we want, danger will not their spirits taunt.
It’s these men we yearn, for this country their brave hearts did burn.

Where are the men, who fought in World War II?
They fought, bled, cried and lay dead in the dew.
Where are the men, who bled for Uncle Sam?
Young boys, going off to war, and became a man.
It’s these men and boys, who gave up their toys,
To become the heroes, as they fought our foes.

Where are the men, who fought, but while at home?
Their battles just as big, but not in Japan, Spain, or Rome.
Where are the men, who lead our families the right way,
Fighting the good fight and fighting it every single day?
Fathers, sons, and leaders, pastors and teachers.
We need more of them, we need more of these true men!

Where are the men, brave soldiers and strong fathers?
Who fight for their wives, theirs sons, and their daughters?
Where are the men? In our country going tender!
The true men are dying, and their number getting slender.
We need you, true men! This country needs you again!
Do not hide in fright. Don’t just sit, but fight the good fight!

~Susanna R. Criss

Now That's a Work Bench!

I've always wanted to build my own work bench. One that wasn't too small or flimsy. Something one could pound on without it falling apart. A bench an elephant could walk on. Basically a work bench I could actually use to work on and not just look at. Well, here it is! A 12' x 28" heavy duty work bench. Now I just need to set up the wood working and reloading area.

The Scarlet and the Black (1983)

The Scarlet and the Black tells the true story of a Holy Office notary who, during Nazi occupation of Rome, covertly ran an underground railroad for Jews, anti-Fascists, and escaped Allied POWs.

This WWII drama stars Gregory Peck as Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty, a plain-speaking, straight-dealing Irish priest who boldly aids enemies of the Third Reich under the watchful eye of Christopher Plummer’s Nazi Lt. Col. Herbert Kappler.

A suspenseful and inspiring movie! There are a few inappropriate women fast forward scenes (thank you sisters!) and mild  language. Not recommended for younger children. Some torture and Nazi Murder scenes. Catholicism was also highly praised.

Lunch Fellowship After Church

lil' Blessings

Turkey Processing

Phil's 20th Birthday!

Give us Men!

Give us Men!
Men-from every rank,
Fresh and free and frank;
Men of thought and reading,
Men of light and leading,
Men of loyal breeding,
The nation’s welfare speeding;
Men of faith and not of fiction,
Men of lofty aim in action;
Give us Men-I say again,
Give us Men!

Give us Men!
Strong and stalwart ones;
Men whom highest hope inspires,
Men whom purest honor fires,
Men who trample self beneath them,
Men who make their country wreath them
As her noble sons,
Worthy of their sires;
Men who never shame their mothers,
Men who never fail their brothers,
True, however false are others:
Give us Men-I say again,
Give us Men!

Give us Men!
Men who, when the tempest gathers,
Grasp the standard of their fathers
In the thickest fight;
Men who strike for home and later,
(Let the coward cringe and falter),
God defend the right!
True as truth the lorn and lonely,
Tender, as the brave are lonely,
Men who treat where saints have trod,
Men for Country, Home- and God:
Give us Men! I say again- again-
Give us Men!

-Josiah Gilbert Holland

Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill