And you thought I didn’t have a sense of humour.
BREAKING NEWS –
To the citizens of the United States of America
from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up ‘revocation’ in the Oxford English Dictionary.)Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy). Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘colour,’ ‘favour,’ ‘labour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix ‘-ize’ will be replaced by the suffix ‘-ise.’ Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up ‘vocabulary’).
2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ”like’ and ‘you know’ is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter ‘u” and the elimination of ‘-ize.’
3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can’t sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you’re not ready to shoot grouse.
5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. Australian beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth – see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one’s ears removed with a cheese grater.
11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.
14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty’s Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with Devonshire creme) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
___________________________________
Levity… just little levity for today, for the news du jour is *way* too amusing… and you thought I could only be serious.
God bless you…
Obama on abortion & ‘mistakes’ that ‘punish’
The first thing he’d do… as President. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
So… what happened?
ditditdit dahdahdah ditditdit
A little weekend reading… Okay, a lot of weekend reading… especially if you connect the dots.
I think I hear it… the faint call is becoming louder: … – – – … is becoming …- – -…
I started thinking along this line recently as I have been thinking more and more: dot, dot, dot… connect the dots. American people: dot, dot, dot… connect the dots! The I considered Morse Code and the sound of dots and dashes or dits and dah’s. So, in these days, if people are of a mind to hear, they’ll hear the dits…and the connecting of the dots will soon sound like: ditditdit dahdahdah ditditditdit. That’s SOS in Morse Code.
So, I posted the link to the Al Smith dinner last night, I thought I’d go ahead and post a few links… a few connect the dots links. Yes… they are connect-the-dots and see the links to Barack Obama. I’m thinking that one of the worst things for a candidate is: history. It could also be the best thing for a candidate, too, for that matter. Either way, historical record is friend or foe… Dot. Dot. Dot.
Dreams From My Father… is BarakO really the author as the title byline says? (Dot) Or is someone else? (Dot) And is that someone else a friend of BarakO or is he just a colleague? You know… someone to whom BarakO really has no real tie. (Dot) If the American public would have the time or take the time to review or compare writing styles as Jack Cashill has, they’d surely see a stunning connection and would have to face the question and come to the conclusion that Barak Obama’s literary style so strikingly reminiscent of William ‘Bill’ Ayers. (Dot)
The socialistic plan for America. (Dot) Is it even remotely possible for 95% of the population to ‘get a taxcut’ considering… well, read on…
Obama’s 95% Illusion – WSJ.com: “It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of ‘tax cut.’ For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase ‘tax credit.'”
[can anyone say: socialism? (ditditditdahdahdahditditdit]
…
“Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.” — the Amateur Economist (Dot)And what really, does BarakO say to the “Joe the Plumber” and the rest of the regular Joe’s of the US –Rick Moran, American Thinker (Dot)
And so… what else is there about Ayers and his ties to him that BarakO doesn’t want the general public to see? Connect, connect, connect.
(Dot)
And then there’s that very strange (but not so strange, and certainly not surprising) (little m)messiah factor. Here and here. (Dot. Dot.) And then… let us not forget that a man is often known or understood by the company he keeps (or kept). (Dot. Dot. Dot.)And then, don’t forget earlier BarakO ties. (Dot)With the Washington Post endorsing BarakO and the NY Times apparently doing so in the upcoming Sunday edition… it seems the man’s got it made.
“THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.
The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.
Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building.” —NYP
Ahhhh……….. that nuanced grasp. (Dot)
“…having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values. But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books [[who writes his books?? (Dot) ]] can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America’s place in it.” [Riiight.] (Dot)
And then one last piece for today… Louis Farrakkhan (Dot): “A new beginning…” (Dot.) and this is the man who calls BarakO “… the herald of the Messiah.
The Washington Post article concludes in its defense to endorse Barak Obama (over the qualified but disappointing McCain),
“ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama’s résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.”
“But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.”
… uh, Okay… what did they just say? (Dot)
Interesting…
McCain & Obama at a dinner… interesting.
the double standard of feminine dressssss
I was listening to the radio as I was driving to pick up some of the children who were visiting friends and I heard a talk-show host comment (with surprised and almost disgusted amazement) that men are really going beyond the appropriate boundaries of dress when they will now buy and wear “mantyhose” – men’s pantyhose – and there was a bit of chuckle-chuckle over that one.
So, yeah… I did… I did come home and google the mantyhose and, yes, I did see they are, indeed, being marketed (don’t even ask why I didn’t link them here). But you know what I was thinking? You know what I’ve been thinking for a long time? Well, I’ll tell you… why is it strange? why is it even appalling to hear of or consider that a man is wearing hosiery commonly accepted as ‘women’s clothing’ and why is it so peculiar to both men and women that men would wear stuff pertaining to the fairer gender? For, consider this: women wear *men’s* clothing every day. They wear men’s clothing everyday and it is perfectly n-o-r-m-a-l. Strange how this is not obvious. Stranger, still, how this is not blatantly obvious to Christian women! I mean, I can and do understand how women outside the Word would just go with the flow of the mainstream — but women who have the Scriptures and fail to see (and dress accordingly) God’s clear distinctive design and created difference between men and women — this, I truly cannot understand. Truly, I cannot.
I’ve had people ask me over the years how I came to the decision to wear exclusively feminine clothing – and dresses/skirts in particular. And, I suppose in addition to my preference for wearing dresses for most all of my adult life – bcz of many things – including how I felt in dresses and how I was treated when wearing dresses and how I loved sewing dresses and skirts for myself and then our daughters.
But then there came a time — sort of a collision of a couple of events many years ago. One being that I read in the Word that men should not wear that which pertaineth to women… etc., etc., and I decided I would take this to heart and pray about it for my own life and settle it once and for all. Then, the other event, in that aforementioned collision, occurred while I was at a seminar and saw an attractive woman retrieving her belongings each time there was a break in the meetings — and time after time this woman would stoop down or bend over to gather her things and in full view was the inseam of her slacks (okay, so you get the picture). And somehow, that day, the Scripture and the view of that whole should-be-private-area sort of confirmed to me the decision to, as a general rule, to never wear pants for outerwear again. I determined that day that just as bizarre as it would be for Wes to reach across to my side of the closet and wear a feminine garment, so also it must be just as unseemly for me to reach over and wear a pair of jeans or a camouflage shirt or a manly jacket or whatever.
Now… I must say that I might wear some pants for some extreme reason – though that reason has not yet come up – but I might. That’s why I say that as a general rule, I never wear pants – or pants with no complete covering. I wear leggings under dresses for hiking – and leggings under dresses for snow-play and for working outside in winter. But slacks or jeans or pants or… whatever: no.
Though wearing dresses much of the time prior to that, that decision was made well over fifteen years ago and so, I suppose, the likelihood of something coming up to change my mind is quite slim. And so I continue this journey – it feels rather like a pilgrimage or even a crusade from time to time as I seek to demonstrate the need for women to abandon manly dress and embrace femininity. I have occasional opportunities to teach on this matter — but even then, the opposition to distinctly feminine clothing is quite strong. One thing we women are not short on is strong opinion — that is for sure, especially when defending our position on a matter. Or our children. ;o)
I ache for the women who are slaves to fashion and wear clothing that both attracts attention and teases men — clothing that entices but won’t fulfill — clothing that speaks louder than their professed walk — clothing that says they don’t embrace the loving design of the Creator God. I ache for daughters who unintentionally tease boys — worse when it’s an intentional decision. I ache for the girls who are sensually used in the thoughts of others bcz of their ignorance or arrogance.
But… what’s probably the most difficult to accept is the willingness to continue rejecting the unique design of men and of women — and dressing to both signify and dignify it. O, for the end of the double standard of dress for believers… that the Word of God would be believed.
TEOTWAWKI – and a fun activity
I always get a little nervous when my husband smiles a certain smile and says he has a fun family activity.
On Sunday night we were talking with friends about all the amazing things going on in our nation, in the government, the political climate and in the financial institutions in our nation and around the world — read: end times; and Wes said he thought he might like for our family to try this fun activity. I knew where this was going — not bcz I had seen the covers of different books Wes has recently been reading and not bcz I saw a couple of websites he was reading. No… no, I knew we were in for some real family fun when I heard him speak and saw the sparkle in his eye. He shared with the friends what we might do. Hmmmm… I thought; and then I wondered if that would be a weekend where our home would be the ‘host home’ for our house-church? Would that be a weekend where I had a retreat planned? O, I’m kidding. ;o) My mind raced about what we might do and how we might carry out this fun activity. But it wouldn’t be a game if it was for real – if it was for real, all this joking aside, we’d be pretty astonished.
So, a teotwawki survival weekend is survival or disaster practice. Now, doesn’t that sound like fun? Now, not being a conspiracy theorist or a survial anything afficianado, the idea of gathering all the family together some friday afternoon and telling them we’re going to intentionally turn off all electricity (and/or other power sources) *and* water and see how much fun we can have for the weekend doesn’t seem all that great to me and I don’t even want to do it — but as these last couple of days have passed, I’m rethinking that… and am wondering if it might not be that bad of an idea after all — and that we actually should do it. O, and TEOTWAWKI, translated is: the end of the world as we know it.
So, curious, I deceded to take a look at a few sites when we got home Sunday night. This is my year for adventure, so I’m thinking we might try this — now, mind you, we did nothing for “Y2K” preparedness – well, save the fact that we didn’t have a large savings in the bank. O, but that wasn’t intentional. So, I guess we didn’t do anything to prepare for the “unknown” except stay up and live through the passing of minutes before and after 12:00 midnight 12/31 – 1/1/00… I guess we clapped and then yawned and went to bed. I’m not a hiker (well, not seriously – though, as you know, I *did* climb Mt. Pilchuck) and we’re not “campers” — though we have been camping; and I’m not one for “roughing it” — though we have roughed it. a lot. sometimes. We’ve only done so out of necessity – not intentionally. So, this “weekend experiment…” I wonder if Wes will want to try this fun activity before or after the list of lists is printed and (some?) items gathered? Sort of “cold turkey” or after a trip to Starbucks the grocery store.
The only preparation I have for surviving teotwawki is – uh, one thing — and it’s not tangible, but it’s for real — it’s none other than oil in my lamp. Oil in my lamp is my only hope…
“My Hope is Built on Nothing Less”
by Edward Mote, 1797-1874
1. My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
2. When darkness veils His lovely face,
I rest on His unchanging grace;
In every high and stormy gale
My anchor holds within the veil.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
3. His oath, His covenant, and blood
Support me in the whelming flood;
When every earthly prop gives way,
He then is all my Hope and Stay.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
4. When He shall come with trumpet sound,
Oh, may I then in Him be found,
Clothed in His righteousness alone,
Faultless to stand before the throne!
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
The days go by… so fast.
Another Monday…
Monday’s are sort of reflection days for me — maybe they are for you, too. It sort sets the pace for the week in reflection & prayer as I work around our home. I reflect on what was shared in the Sunday meeting — the messages, songs, prayers… etc., etc. I also reflect on whatever else happened over the weekend — which, most weekends, is at least one event or another.
My mind sort of floods with thoughts of Saturday. I had the privilege to speak at a retreat in Olympia and the faces of the women are seemingly right before me — precious women whose hearts are to serve the LORD and serve their families. As is often the case after such an event, the day sort of replays in the theater of my mind and I second-guess or doubt what I shared – doubt whether they were the right messages or if there was offense or whatever. It always seems as though the enemy slips in a doubt or an attempt cloud to my thoughts as I share some challenging or thought provoking message.
I know this is especially true when I attend a retreat with convicting or inspiring messages, the enemy seems to relentlessly attempt to thwart my attention or a distracting thought comes my way or whatever. My husband was of great consolation to me as he prayed for me – and shared with me that there must’ve been something significant against the enemy for him to pester me so — something against worldly ways that would be damaging to the enemy agenda. And I thought on that — or I think on those thoughts today — and realize that whenever I speak strongly about marriage, the different roles of men and women and the biblical design for wives and mothers, there is great opposition – and so I am trusting the LORD today for the outcome and trusting Him for the hearts and minds of each of the women in attendance and their families, too.
Christian womanhood is quite under attack – and when even the ‘teachers’ and ‘preachers’ of the land will not speak Truth, it is no wonder. It is no wonder there is such confusion when the very Word of God is not revered and taught. For if the Word were clearly taught, so much of what we’ve come to accept — socially — would have to go; so much of what we think we want, need or like would have to go; so many of our own agendas, preconceived notions and personal preferences would be challenged and judged – and enormous changes would necessarily have to take place. And… we’d have to face the Truth. Whether we face it now or later, we will face It.
Timothy posted the following note… I think it’s probably from “Stuff Christians Like” — a site that’s a take off on “Stuff White People Like” but I digress. Anyway, I think this is so true:
— Soren Kierkegaard
Today’s email Funny…
My mom sent me this one in the email today: Thought it was too funny… but it’s sort of ironic… since we just got a dog last night and we’ve never asked the second question.
2 questions…
1.) Should I get a dog…?
Or.
2.) Should I have children?….
