First, let’s dispense with the ridiculous notion that anyone in America does not have access to treatment. We can probably agree that calling 911 for an ambulance as taxi to the inner-city emergency room for a cough is not a very efficient method of accessing health services. “Free” preventative care won’t eliminate such nonsense, it occurs now precisely because it is perceived to be free. Access in America is rarely, if ever, denied.

Failure to diagnose the real issue sure would seem to present a problem with finding a solution…unless your job is to be a government hack that “solves” anything/everything. Personally I think the problem most Americans want to be addressed in this area is that of the seemingly excessive cost. If indeed we citizens are offended by the cost of “healthcare”, what could possibly incline anyone to believe government can make it less costly? When has that ever happened?

I would submit that there is no specific issue to which government intervention, control, mandate, etc. can be seriously argued to bring about improvement. That’s precisely why we don’t hear the specifics, instead we get broad labels of “unfair” or “broken”. Fairness is something that is much more often & effectively achieved by markets than mandates. This is inarguable, the only thing a central power can do fairly is oppress & destroy. Sounds harsh, but what does imposing the lowest common denominator accomplish? Government “levels the field” by bulldozing whatever has risen above the mean. Climbing out of the abyss of average is best done with government out of the way, and it’s never achieved “fairly” because the only fairness is in opportunity, not outcome.

So what are we to make of the “broken” label? This is the point on which I defer to the afforementioned article “Health Care Broken? Who Broke It?”

More generally, we all need to ask why politicians assert that American health care is broken, and what agenda does it serve. We should ask, if health care is broken, who broke it, and how did they break it?

Enjoy, CR

This is not another attempt to address the issue of why or who’s to blame for this morphing of our traditional sources of news and information to what they’ve become. It is what it is, and it’s increasingly obvious. The result is that we must be responsible for informing ourselves in this age. “By the people, for the people” fails when the people’s money can be used to manipulate the people’s will. Thus, my purpose in writing is to inform, not blame.

Once again we are hearing that the current “crisis” is due to rampant Wall Street and/or corporate greed, unregulated or deregulated banks/markets, and essentially (sometimes explicitly) a failure of capitalism. There is also a resounding chorus that it’s due to the economic policies of the last eight years. You might expect one party to espouse such a view, but for the other not to challenge it is puzzling. It leads to the perception that the allegation must be true. These charges, though oft repeated, are rarely questioned or examined. It’s widely understood that they will not be challenged either, therefore it’s also customary to level the charge with no evidence to back it up. Any analysis of the situation should be focused on the evidence, wherever it leads.

As I understand it, this situation is once again the result of government intervention in, and manipulation (a.k.a. regulation) of the market. As such, that’s the main problem I have with the “bailout” our nation is currently undertaking; we’re putting the fox in charge of our hen-house. When has that ever worked? An argument can be made that all major “market failures” we’ve experienced were in fact precipitated and/or exacerbated by government meddling. Exhaustive research has been done, and I don’t intend to repeat it due to the time required. See the following:

• Uncommon Knowledge: What Caused the Loan Crisis?
• What Now? Controlling the Narrative
• Dispelling the ‘Deregulation’ Myth
• The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
• The Lamps Are Going Out
• Government Intervention Is Needed to Solve the Housing Crisis? It Just Ain’t So
• The Goal Is Freedom: Government Failure
• Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure
• The Great Bank Robbery of 2008
• What Should Be Done About the Financial Markets?
• How the government stoked the mania
• Economists Raise Concerns About Bailout Plan

My conclusion from the research I’ve done is that the ball really got rolling when government and the media pressured lower level lending institutions to be “more fair” and lower lending standards. Late 60’s radicals (a.k.a. Community activists) in Chicago coined the term “redlining” to decry lending practices they deemed discriminatory. Is it discriminatory to refuse credit to bad risks? Perhaps if the determination was purely geographic or racial, as they allege, but that was not demonstrated (again the charge was leveled without evidence). It’s smart to deny credit to those without jobs or income. Eventually protesters like ACORN, paid with a significant percentage of tax dollars through government grants, hired layers like Obama to sue banks on behalf of “disenfranchised” potential borrowers. The media again fed the frenzy and ultimately the government required lenders to view unemployment and welfare payments as “income” and write more subprime loans (by beefing up the CRA). Government later turns on them for “predatory lending practices” to avoid culpability.

Market forces were already creating more capital and more lending in the subprime market through debt securitization instruments, but government would never get “credit” for that (so to speak). The innovation of debt securitization preceded the Clinton administration turbo-charging of the CRA, seems to be a good thing, a market force, and in itself served to spread risk and create the results the government was after.

The success of the securitization industry has helped many individuals with subprime credit histories obtain credit. Securitization allows more subprime loans to be made because it provides lenders an efficient way to manage credit risk. Efforts to curb “predatory” lending that inhibit the legitimate use of securitization by assigning liability to the purchaser of a loan or some other means, threaten the success of the beneficial subprime market. Secondary market purchasers of loans, traders of securitized bonds and investors are not in a position to control origination practices loan-by-loan. Regulation that seeks to place disproportionate responsibilities on the secondary market will only succeed in driving away the capital loan purchasers provide in the subprime market.

I urge Congress to move with great care as it addresses the problem of predatory lending. The secondary markets are a tremendous success story that has helped democratize credit in this country. Well intended, but overly restrictive, regulation in this area could easily do more harm than good.

Statement of Cameron L. Cowan Partner Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe, LLP On behalf of the American Securitization Forum
Before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit United States House of Representatives
Hearing on Protecting Homeowners: Preventing Abusive Lending While Preserving Access to Credit November 5, 2003

What I’m starting to see and question is the government instigation and subsequent corruption in debt securitization. The previously cited statement points out:

The first mortgage-backed securities arose from the secondary mortgage market in 1970. Investors had traded whole loans, or unsecuritized mortgages, for some time before the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), also called Ginnie Mae, guaranteed the first mortgage pass-through securities that pass the principal and interest payments on mortgages through to investors. (Ginnie Mae is a government agency that guarantees securities backed by HUD- and Veterans Administration-guaranteed mortgages.) Ginnie Mae was soon followed by Fannie Mae, a private corporation chartered by the federal government—along with Freddie Mac—to promote homeownership by fostering a secondary market in home mortgages.

In and of itself I think the securitization trend was a good thing. However it was the Government Secured Enterprises (GSEs) that initiated it, and that gives me pause. With the well documented, but rarely reported cozy relationship the GSEs had with their congressional overseers (FNM and the Democrats in particular) they stoked the machine by encouraging the government to force more & more subprime lending thinking they could soak up the additional risk with the layers and layers of abstraction that the derivatives provided. It was a corrupt relationship that stoked the housing bubble out of control. There were attempts to rein it in, but those who set it up successfully blocked those attempts. The greed was not in the capitalist mechanisms or the market, it was in the government and those that feed at their trough. Much was made of the handcuffing, trial & jailing of Enron & Worldcom CEOs for their culpability in the corruption that caused the collapse of their companies. The accounting practices at Fannie Mae were identical, requiring a year and a half to restate earnings afterwards, but the CEO becomes an adviser to prominent democrats? Note that in the former cases, corruption & greed resulted in collapse…the market at work?

There was a statement in the Fox News special report (10/4/08), ‘Saving Our Economy: What’$ Next?’ that mortgage securitization has been tried six other times in American history between the civil war & WWII, and each time it blew up with major economical consequences. If true, we would have to seriously question the level of market involvement in securitization, and it’s possibility to be a force for good. If you’ve seen the evidence, please comment…I’m still looking.

Don’t overlook the effect of the liberal doctrine of “fairness” in setting this fire either. Why force more subprime lending in the first place? Because it’s only fair that everyone own a home? Is it just as fair to burden those who can afford their payments and keep them up, with the defaults of those who can’t or don’t? Fairness can only be legitimately found in opportunity, not results. Individual will, fortitude and integrity must be added for opportunities to produce results. With unemployment at record lows throughout the period in question, was the opportunity to earn enough to legitimately qualify for a loan lacking? Doubtful. Clearly the self-discipline of living within one’s means is not part of the government “fairness” equation.

The government often intervenes supposedly to make the markets behave “fairly“. Where imbalance exists, there is usually a way for someone to benefit from correcting the condition; this is far more efficient and known as the root market force of the profit incentive. Debt securitization was providing a means for the market to take on more subprime risk. Government intervened anyway to mandate more risk taking. Again, regulation was a problem, not a solution. With the increased availability of easy credit and rapidly rising demand speculators & investors entered in a big way. To me that’s a good thing, as it concentrates the risk on the risk-takers. Most of the 2007 mortgage defaults were indeed in this segment of the market. As the market self-corrects, those incurring the most damage first are those seeking the greatest gain; that’s as it should be. The damage typically spreads when government intervenes on behalf of those not yet affected, thereby ensuring they are also damaged.

Markets encourage and incentivize fair behavior (evidence supports this truth, some simply refuse to believe it), whereas government can only require fair-sounding results. By setting the requirements they presume to know more/better, and quench the creativity that is best unleashed by the ability to personally gain.

The decision grid and most of what follows is from Pastor Chris Robinson of Grace Bible Church in Marshall, VA. He gave this message at least two if not three times between 1996 & 2004, with the effect that the unity we experienced at GBC we took for granted as commonplace in Christian fellowship. As time went on however we came to realize that unity, humility & respect is not as common as we thought & perhaps an intentional, thoughtful reasoning process was missing. Indeed, as a culture I’ve come to believe the process of reasoning & debate is largely lost to the immediacy of emotional appeal & soundbites.

When asked to give the message to our fellowship on 6/29/08 this was the most pressing topic on my heart. You can listen to the message here.

Romans 14:1 – Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.

Here, the strong in the faith are told to receive the weak and not to dispute over doubtful things – which literally means: “reasonings” or “opinions”.

2 – For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise [show contempt] him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

The strong in faith, the mature, are not to treat the weak with contempt, and the weak are not to judge the strong by attempting to place excessive limitations, or prohibitions, on them.

5 – One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 – He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

There were many holy days in Old Testament ceremonial law, and that is most likely what this refers to. Notice the last sentence in verse 5: Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. Clearly we each have a right to our own convictions. This is a basic principle in dealing with conflicts and disputes.

6b – He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 – But why to you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt [same word as despise in V.3] for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 – For it is written [Is. 45:23]: As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 – So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore, let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall [snare] in our brother’s way.

Clearly there are things that matter, and things that don’t. Some things we should overlook, and some we should not. As imperfect humans, it’s likely we’ll get those things confused…even wrong, from time to time. I think it might also be helpful to point out that the context of the previous verses is that of individuals relating to each other within the body of Christ. Members of a fellowship. The context would thus be different from that of corporate responsibility, or leadership and the responsibility to guide, oversee, and protect the body. What I really want to explore today is a level of personal responsibility within the context of individual relationships within the body.

The Christian life – either individually, or corporately as the body – should exhibit growth. Growth should be evident. We should always be growing, maturing, spiritually. I don’t think any of us would disagree with that, as far as it goes. Growth means change – change means choices – decisions must be made. And choices or decisions…usually are accompanied by conflict. In our culture conflicts over seemingly insignificant issues are sometimes hard to tell apart from the issues that really matter.

Think about some of your more recent decisions, big and small. More importantly, how did you arrive at your conclusions? Were they calculated, impetuous, selfish, routine, or godly? As Christians, we are admonished to put the decision making process through a Biblical grid. This “grid” helps us to discern whether our beliefs are only opinions or truly something we are willing to die for. Let me offer you a way to distinguish various levels in your belief system. This has helped my family tremendously over the years and I trust it will be a blessing to you.

Usually there are four levels at work in our lives: Opinions, Preferences, Convictions and Beliefs. The examples that follow are representative of where our family places issues and are not meant to be exhaustive.

A. Opinions – this is what I am willing to debate or enjoy discussing with others. I will not separate from another Christian over these because scripture does not specifically declare a position. (Examples – church building styles, clergy clothing, church fund raising, church sports teams, denominational name tags, carpet color, dichotomy vs. trichotomy). Two examples that might appear somewhere between opinion and preference would be church membership and the Bible Version Controversy.

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2. When it comes to bible versions there are issues that fall into all categories; what scripture is, and what it’s good for are clearly stated. That scripture is the Verbal, plenary, inspiration is a hill worth dying on, but when you start getting in to this version or that, it’s not a “hill to die on” anymore.

B. Preferences – this is what I am willing to argue over with others. I will not separate over these because scripture does not specifically declare a position. However, as I interpret the Word I may feel that I found principles that seem to support my preferences, while recognizing that other respected interpreters do not necessarily agree on my particular slant. (Examples – music styles, clothing standards, social drinking or smoking, card playing, tithing vs. grace giving, Eschatology) Two examples that might appear somewhere between preference and conviction would be church government style, covenant vs. dispensational theology and the divorce/remarriage issue.

C. Conviction – this is what I am willing to “fight” over with others. I would consider separating from a church or from other brethren because Scripture gives clear direction in these matters. The interpretation I follow seems consistent and comprehensive. (Examples – sin of adultery, gambling and abortion, required sign gifts in the life of the believer, sowing discord among the brethren, ecumenical issues such as ordination of female pastors and/or homosexuals. While the ordinance of communion and baptism would be considered convictions the style or place of such ordinances would be preferences.)

D. Beliefs – this is what I am willing to die for. These beliefs have been held (even defended to the death) by believers through the centuries. (Examples – the absolute authority of Scripture, the deity, resurrection and virgin birth of Christ, the Trinity, the fact of the second coming of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace through faith).

Having a process or “grid” like this for making decisions can be very important in building and sustaining relationships. It’s not uncommon in our society to see someone totally “lose it” over nothing. Think about road rage, or incidents of little league dads committing assault. It’s not the norm, but it’s not unfamiliar to any of you. Couldn’t you describe it as passions not being prioritized? Or priorities all out of whack? And probably simply due to not taking the time to consider where it falls in the overall scheme of things. Scripture consistently exhorts us to “consider” or “reason” or “think”. It also tells us not to be carried away by emotion. Emotion is a key characteristic of our created being, and an essential one; but it is not healthy to relationships for decisions to be based on emotions.

The true value I’ve found in this process is that it so much easier to respect the person you disagree with when you understand the decision making process they use. Respect and humility – simply holding others in higher esteem than yourself – lead to unity. The body of Christ is us; a collection of individuals that needs to learn to effectively communicate and relate with one another if we are to go about doing His work effectively. It doesn’t happen by default.
It is also I think much easier to function in the world, truly being an integral part of the community, while not being of the world – when you have a clear understanding of where you stand in your own opinions, preferences, convictions, and beliefs.
Most of your examples will fall under the first 3 levels.Just remember, choose your “hills” carefully and be ready always to give a reason of the hope that is in you, I Peter 3:15.

It’s probably not worth documenting in detail, but we at least owe a brief explanation. It was at the end of November that we were sure the business opportunity I was pursuing in the Rochester, MN market was not a good fit for our family. It took a bit of wind out of our sails to abandon that path, but the Lord is true to His ways and soon revealed a better opportunity that allows us to not only stay in the Winona area, but build a business centered here while still serving a broader area of MN and WI. We are so thankful that this opportunity came along, and are continually amazed at how it is so much of a better fit for what I am called to do. See the newly launched ChrisRengert.com to learn more!

Then, just after getting going in that endeavor we found out we still owned the house we thought was sold last summer. Due to some very unfortunate circumstances the buyer was unable to obtain the planned financing & had to default on the purchase. That turn of events got us to thinking strategically about the new business & where we intend to be in the next several years. Instead of putting the house back on the market or renting it, we felt that it would be financially prudent to move back into it…and stay put for a while! It also serves the business plan with a nice office to which clients are welcomed.

There’s plenty more news to come, but for now we are settling in once again in Gilmore Valley and quite busy with all that entails. We really enjoyed the two years we spent on the farm, are thankful for it and miss several things about it, but are blessed and very happy to be making this our home again.

Timeline | Adoption Links | How You Can Help | Donation Pool | Journal Page

Why Ukraine?

Early in 2001, after getting back on the international adoption bandwagon (following an unsolicited domestic opportunity that fell through) we heard of Ukraine cost and child selection advantages from a friend, and after much prayer & information gleaned from the EEAC Ukraine listserve we decided to pursue that. Ukrainian adoption has several advantages over other countries in our opinion…

• Ukrainian law prevents agencies from “baby-selling”
• The adopting couple chooses the child or children themselves…on the same trip the adoption takes place
• It can be accomplished very quickly…less than six months in many cases (eight in ours)
• Affordability – Total cost for adopting two children from Ukraine is about half the cost of one from Bulgaria
• Child availability – we were seeking two children under six yrs old, preferably of mixed/minority race such as Tatar or Roma (Gypsy)

How You can help

There are many ways anyone can help a family undertaking international adoption…first and foremost is prayer. We certainly felt the prayers of many family members and friends through the whole process. To us Ukraine was attractive because we felt one had to be lead by the Lord in order to “choose” a child or children and have peace about it. Without His leading, we would have been incredibly anxious about medical conditions, were we making the right choice, etc.

This entire process is also a very expensive proposition, and we depended on the Lord to guide and provide. He did, in a very big way! We were blessed with gifts that enabled us to complete our adoption without borrowing – Praise the Lord!

The orphanages in Ukraine have very significant needs, and we very much wanted to help more than just one or two children.

We wanted to do something more for the children there – and created the Orphanage Donation Pool! How it worked: Individuals donated between $1 & $5 for each submission (some were lead to do much more) – half of the total amount collected was used for a needs-based donation to the orphanage we adopted from, and the other half became a charitable donation to His Kids Too in the name of the winner. These children have more needs than we can even imagine, and it breaks our hearts. Well, the Lord blessed and despite a slow start, the pool bore much fruit! We collected almost $400! We spent about $200 on items the orphanage in Orshivtsi had requested (itemized in the journal), and sent $200 to His Kids Too in the name of the winner…drumroll please…Janet Benett of Grace Bible Church! We know kids have & will benefit, and that’s the best thing.

The Process & Timeline

We signed up with Sense Resource Center Inc. to be our facilitator, and what a blessing that was! Their web site has lots of information as to how the process works & what the expected timeline and expenses are.

Here’s how it went…

• • Food – $400 or so for the whole trip
  • Trains, planes (excluding to/from US) – $1010
  • Taxis & automobiles – $didn’t add separately
  • Internet use & one 5 minute phone call – $16
  • Hotels in Ukraine – $600
  • Hotel in Warsaw – $300
  • Personal Orphanage donations, cash for care takers, OTC meds, etc. (~$300)
  • Fees & gifts ~ $550

• Applied for copies of Chris’ birth certificate for INS paperwork ~ 2/20 ($30)
• Sent in application to Sense Resource Center Inc. ~ 4/23 ($35)
• Phone interview w/Sense Resource Center Inc. – 5/4
• Received certified copies of marriage certificate from NV – 5/7 ($14)
• Gave up & asked Chris’ dad to get birth certificates ~ 5/25
• INS I-600A submitted – 6/2/01($455)
• Received authenticated marriage certificate from NV ($20)
• Home study updated/submitted to INS – 7/2/01(free)
• Fingerprints taken for INS – 6/23/01
• Police clearances obtained – 6/25/01(free)
• Passport applications filed – 6/25/01($140)
• Medical clearances obtained – 7/10/01($20 copays)
• First significant hitch…received letter from INS requesting more official records…in work – 7/11/01
• Passports received – 7/19/01
• Praise Him!! INS Approval received even though we could not get the requested info – 8/1/01
• Had final dossier forms notarized – 8/2/01
• Sent dossier to Richmond, VA. for authentication – 8/3/01($130)
• 8/3/01 – Got travel date from SRC Inc.!! We’ll be in Ukraine by 10/16/01!!
• Received authenticated forms back from Commonwealth – 8/7/01
• Bundled and sent dossier for Federal authentication/Ukraine Consulate – 8/9/01($480)
• Dossier assistance/preparation fee paid, SRC Inc. – 8/9/01($1985)
• Ukraine Visa & Travel Arrangements fee, GT&C – 8/22/01($1000)
• Dossier arrives in Kiev Ukraine! – 8/31/01
• Dossier translated and submitted to National Adoption Center – 9/5/01
• Received Ukraine Visas – 9/7/01
• Purchased tickets; Swiss Air – including two children’s return tickets – 9/20/01($2274)
• Dossier approved by NAC! – 9/28/01
• Swiss Air bankrupt and grounded, uh-oh, this could mean our tickets are worthless – 10/2/01
• Swiss taxpayer funds help Swissair take off again – 10/4/01
• Additional child adopted in same court hearing, SRC Inc. – 10/5/01($1000)
• Departed – 10/13/01 – praise the Lord, no problems with the airline!
• Arrived safely and sleepily – 10/15/01 – Ukraine program fee, SRC Inc. ($2000)
• Visited NAC and departed to Chernivtsi region to see twin Gypsy boys – 10/16/01(train tickets $52)
• Met our boys & started paperwork – 10/17/01
• Gotcha Day – Court hearing where we officially became parents of Brandon Dmytro & Benjamin Victor – 10/24/01
• Took custody of the boys & boarded train back to Kiev, after ALL day getting passports – 10/26/01 (train tickets $32)
• Visited Medical Center ($50 each boy) & Embassy ($96) – 10/29/01
• Flew to Warsaw, Poland – 10/30/01 (plane tickets $927)
• Visited Warsaw Embassy & got US entry Visas by 12:30 – 10/31/01($650)
• Got home & were greeted by 30 or more friends from church – 11/1/01
• Personal Travel Expenses all together (~$2500)

Adoption Links

• Resources
• Sense Resource Center
• His Kids Too!
• Families for Russian and Ukrainian Adoption
• Eastern European Adoption Coalition
• Independent Ukraine Adoptions
• International Adoptions Health Resource Center
• International Pediatric Health Services
• Adoption Travel (tips)
• Rainbow Kids – International Adoption Information
• KPnews.com – News about Ukraine
• Crimean Tatar Home Page
• Cathy Harris’ Home Page

Founders Give Thanks

Following the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress recognized the need to give thanks for delivering the country from war and into independence. Congress issued a proclamation on October 11, 1782:

By the United States in Congress assembled.

PROCLAMATION.

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:—– Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleveth day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.

Charles Thomson, Secretary.

Yes, America’s oil companies, besieged by foreign dictators, attacked endlessly in the media, mocked and belittled in the academic world, are vital to the survival of this country. Just try to imagine America without oil — we’d be embroiled in “Mad Max”-style chaos within a week. We would be living in complete anarchy.

Instead, we have a rich, advanced nation where the whole society and its progress float on liberally supplied, bargain-priced petroleum. And, like surly teenagers who hate their parents because they’re totally dependent on them, we respond by hating the oil companies.

This is a sure way to commit national suicide. The oil companies aren’t run by rich conspirators out of some Oliver Stone movie. They’re not monopolists illegally fixing prices the way Rockefeller did more than a century ago. They’re owned by people like us, employing people like us, saving the rear ends of people like us.

I think it’s summed up best in the next paragraph:

If they’re making a legal product that we can’t live without in a legal way and selling it at a legal price, let’s lay the heck off of them and let them do their jobs. If you think the oil companies make too much money for their stockholders, then buy their stock for your retirement.

Here’s a video report of the scene from wcco.com. This clip has Grandma Aldinger being interviewed about the neighbor couple that died driving into the chasm Sunday morning.

This video report has Grandpa Aldinger.

We are very thankful to be safe up here on the top of the ridge. Many of the valley areas around us have been devastated.

wcco.com has posted a slideshow of damage in the surrounding area.

Go to this page for the gallery/slideshow.

“I’ve never seen that before!”

Well neither of them have ever seen the corn grow this high. I guess we got enough rain at just the right stages – Praise the Lord! As I’ve driven through the area I have seen a lot of stressed and even brown withered corn, so clearly the results are more localized than regional. There is pretty heavy soil up here, which tends to retain the moisture pretty well. About the time of this picture the corn was measured at 11 feet, 8 inches. Wow!