ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090602

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

Life is ten percent what you make it and ninety percent how you take it. -- Ben Franklin



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"The LORD your God is a devouring fire..." (Deuteronomy 4:24)

They were called the Great Fires of 1988. That year, wildfires swept through 1.4 million acres of Yellowstone National Park. The park was like a huge lumberyard filled with millions of wooden poles. Winds as powerful as a tornado whipped the flames through the forest with the sound of a freight train, reducing trees to piles of white ashes and small charred spears on the blackened earth.

But months later, the forest grew with new vigor. The heat from the fires split open the hulls of the pine cones, releasing their seeds and yielding a forest of little saplings sprouting everywhere. The dead underbrush had been burned away. New spears of grass turned the hillsides to spring green, and a bumper crop of wildflowers carpeted the meadows.

Anyone who has been near a fire of such magnitude understands its tremendous power. When it roars through an area, everything is changed. Ancient trees turn into cinders. Buildings are reduced to ashes. Nothing can withstand its fury. But in their wake, wildfires also bring new growth and regeneration.

God's holiness has even greater power. The fire of God can burn away sin and rebellion, but it also brings new life.

Of all God's attributes, nothing compares to the splendor and beauty of His holiness. It is chief among His attributes. That means His character is perfect in every way. He is totally pure. His moral excellence is the absolute standard of integrity and ethical purity. God's supreme holiness infinitely sets Him apart from His creation.



"The Patriot Post"

"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." -- George Washington, upon fumbling for his glasses before delivering the Newburgh Address, March 15, 1783

"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." -- John Adams, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 18, 1808

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821



"Focus On The Family"

May 27, 2009
Dear Friend,

The battle for marriage is erupting all around us, and the most important fight of all may be about to commence.

In a span of four days in April, same-sex “marriage” made huge leaps forward. First, Iowa became the latest victim of court-imposed same-sex “marriage”—joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont became the first state to legislatively enact such “marriages.”

Then the District of Columbia City Council voted to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states. Finally, the New Hampshire and Maine Legislatures approved same-sex marriage as well, though a veto is still possible in New Hampshire and citizens in Maine will soon be collecting signatures to place a "People's Veto" question on the ballot.

But there’s some good news. Just yesterday, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 – that’s state’s marriage protection amendment, which had been challenged in court following its passage last November.

Tom Minnery

Yet, as big as those skirmishes are, they simply foreshadow another battle that is threatening the marriage policies of the remaining states and our federal government. Your Focus on the Family Action team is preparing to win that battle, and we’ll need your help to do it. Let me quickly bring you up to date.

You may recall that in 1996, Congress passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and President Clinton signed it into law. In so doing, they ensured that the federal government wouldn’t recognize or provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex “marriages.” But that’s not all. DOMA also protects states from being forced to honor such same-sex marriages from another state.1

Obama and congressional leaders vow to dump DOMA
But, despite this important protection that DOMA provides, President Obama and leading congressional Democrats have made clear their intention to completely repeal DOMA.

Like many politicians, Mr. Obama has tried to walk a fine line on this issue. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” he told Rick Warren last August, echoing a line that he voiced several times during the campaign.2

Yet those assurances ring hollow when it comes to his position on specific policies that would actually preserve the age-old definition of marriage. For example, at the federal level, Obama voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment3 and insisted that each state should make its own decision. Yet at the state level, he opposed both the California4 and Florida5 2008 marriage amendments, as well as “similar efforts” in “other states.”6

In addition, he spelled out his position on DOMA on his campaign Web site on Feb. 28, 2008:

“I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.”7

Almost immediately after being sworn into office, Obama’s official White House Web site listed the repeal of DOMA as one of his legislative priorities.8 Then, in mid-March, Obama’s spokesman confirmed that the president “would work with Congress” to repeal DOMA.9

Why we must not lose this fight
If Obama and company get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, here’s what will likely happen:

• Some states—even those with pro-marriage constitutional amendments—will be taken to court by same-sex couples seeking recognition. Those states will face a more difficult legal situation if DOMA is repealed.

• Your federal taxes will begin paying for benefits for same-sex partners of federal
employees who identify themselves as homosexual, and President Obama is likely to order Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs to begin immediately issuing benefits to same-sex “spouses” throughout the nation. As a result, nearly insolvent programs will be further weakened by deficit spending.

Make a difference in 2009.

Help support the work of Focus Action.

And while those are the short-term results, the long-term impact of repealing DOMA will likely be to pave the way for further court rulings that ultimately mandate that same-sex marriage be available everywhere.10

I'm convinced we can win. Here’s why:

1) Many senators and representatives who philosophically support repealing DOMA come from states where a huge majority of the people voted for marriage amendments. With your help, Focus Action will run media campaigns to remind the politicians of those votes.

2) There is enormous energy when it comes to defending marriage. Just look at the spirited work in California to pass Prop 8 . . . or the reaction to the Iowa judges’ outrageous decision. By harnessing that energy, we can mobilize major grassroots groundswells in key states—with a strong chance of turning votes our way.

3) Forty-one. That’s the magic number of votes needed. Just 41 votes in the Senate will allow a filibuster to block any repeal of DOMA. It won’t be easy, but it’s possible.

Will you continue to stand with us to help us in this battle for marriage and other crucial values issues?

Here are a few examples of how your gift to Focus Action can help:

• Even very modest gifts can help us reach and activate hundreds or even thousands of
people through automated phone calls to key districts.

• Because of our history, Focus Action is naturally adept at mobilizing people through the radio. In addition to our own programs, we often produce carefully targeted ads designed to put appropriate heat on particular politicians. Many times, a moderate-sized gift can pay for an entire day’s worth of ads on certain stations.

• Depending on the situation and available funding, we also rely on educating and activating citizens through action-alert mailings, newspaper ads, grassroots organizing, church mobilization and much more. Your gift of any size can help make those efforts possible as we work to defend marriage nationally.

Again, thanks for your help that makes such work possible! And thank you for standing with us in prayer for our nation and for our work here at Focus Action.

Sincerely,

Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President
Focus on the Family Action



"The Web"

Born Again American

http://www.bornagainamerican.org/



Shredding The Constitution

http://townhall.com/video/HamNation/1450_052909Constitution



General Motors Files Bankruptcy

IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS
(U.S. Bankr. Ct., S.D. N.Y., Jun. 1, 2009) - General Motors (GM), one of Detroit's 'Big 3' automakers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in New York. The global auto company lists billions in debt and liabilities, and has an extensive list of creditors to whom it owes money. Read more...

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gm/bankruptcy60109petition..html

Related Resources
• GM to reorganize in government-led bankruptcy (AP)

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/06-01-2009/20090601015007_19.html



Lawyers Tag Sotomayor as Terror on the Bench

By: Tom LoBianco, The Washington Times

Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary - a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.

The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments.

Judge Sotomayor's demeanor on the bench will be one of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee tackles when she appears for her confirmation hearing. A lack of a good temperament has been used as a line of attack against nominees in the past - most notably conservative Judge Robert H. Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated.

But several lawyers and legal scholars on a call organized by the White House said the criticism is misplaced and that Judge Sotomayor's legal acumen is overwhelming.

"She does not suffer fools gladly," said Kevin Russell, a partner for Howe & Russell P.C. who argued a case before Judge Sotomayor about respiratory ailments suffered by the men and women who cleaned up ground zero after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "I guess it is predictable that some of those fools would then complain about it."

Much of the public vetting of Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama nominated to be the first Hispanic woman to sit on the nation's highest court, has focused on her range of rulings on hot-button social issues.

Although the same lawyers who chastised her temperament gave her high marks on her legal abilities, Judge Sotomayor was the only member of the 2nd Circuit to receive a universally negative review of her temperament.

"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts," one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she "abuses lawyers."

The authors of the almanac interviewed at least eight lawyers who practice regularly before the judges and granted them anonymity so that they could provide candid assessments, said Megan Rosen, the editor of the almanac. The guide profiles every federal judge.

Ms. Rosen said that although Judge Sotomayor's evaluations in the area of temperament were harsh, lawyers clearly respect her abilities - something not true of every judge reviewed in the almanac.

"Generally, when lawyers have respect for a judge it shows in all their other categories," Ms. Rosen said. "If you know it's just the general demeanor of the judge, it can help ease some of the tension that would otherwise be there."

The lawyer reviews cover the rulings, political leanings and legal abilities of the jurists. The almanac, published in November, said Judge Sotomayor writes good opinions, is liberal but careful to follow precedent and has good legal abilities.

"She is a direct and candid questioner," said Thomas H. Dupree Jr., a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general who has argued five cases before Judge Sotomayor since 2007.

People often mistake her intensity for aggression and anger, Judge Sotomayor told the Associated Press in 1998.

During a high-profile national security case heard by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in December, Judge Sotomayor gave the attorney for a Canadian man who had been detained by U.S. forces little room to work.

Judge Sotomayor interrupted the lawyer, David Cole, numerous times about whether there was standing for a U.S. court to hear the case, before eventually explaining her aggressive questioning.

"That's why I'm trying to figure out and untie your arguments a bit," Judge Sotomayor told Mr. Cole.

Legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen documented concerns from 2nd Circuit law clerks and New York prosecutors in a piece he wrote for the New Republic earlier this month. In the piece, he quoted anonymous members of the New York legal community who described Judge Sotomayor as an intellectual lightweight and "kind of a bully on the bench."

On the White House-organized call, Judge Sotomayor's colleagues praised her careful reading of laws and characterized her as a judge bent on restraint and narrow readings of statutes.

Lawyers on the call couched her aggressive questioning as a product of a "hot bench" and poring over details meticulously.

Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperament was raised during her 1997 confirmation hearing to the appeals court. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who recently became the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Judge Sotomayor that she was out of bounds when she criticized mandatory minimum sentences from the bench during one sentencing proceeding.

"I do think that a judge, would you not agree, has to be careful in conducting themselves in a way that reflects respect for the law and the system," Mr. Sessions said.

Judge Sotomayor said she probably should not have used the word "abomination" to describe the guidelines, but that her record showed she didn't let her personal opinions affect her rulings.

"I do what the law requires, and I think that is the greatest respect I could show for it," she told Mr. Sessions.

Harvard law professor and Obama mentor Charles Ogletree said lawyers caught off guard by Judge Sotomayor's demeanor who criticize her are "misconstruing her sense as a well-prepared judge, one who is not on a fishing expedition."

Conservative activists have decided on attacking Judge Sotomayor as a judicial activist who would work outside the rule of law. The Judicial Confirmation Network, which is leading a coalition of conservative groups, is airing an ad featuring Judge Sotomayor talking about whether judges set policy from the bench.



Conservatives Will Make Case Against Sotomayor, Even if Republicans Don't

Written by Richard Viguerie

http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/253

President Barack Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is unfit, based on her record, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but conservatives will need time (September/October) to make that case to the American people.

David Axelrod said on Hardball that Obama wants Sotomayor to adapt laws to a modern context. That’s an admission of Obama’s goals for judicial activism, and why he nominated Sotomayor. The fight about Sotomayor is really a fight about Obama’s radical, unconstitutional agenda.

How much opposition conservatives can generate depends significantly on how much of a fight Republican Senators and the Republican Party puts up.

But conservatives are not waiting for Republican politicians. Conservatives will quickly launch a massive educational campaign using all forms of new and alternative media with special emphasis on the Internet, talk radio, direct mail, cable TV, and You Tube.

If Judge Sotomayor were confirmed, conservatives expect she would vote wrong on every issue of importance to conservatives; therefore she can expect to be opposed by every right-of-center organization.

President Obama has done something that has eluded conservatives in recent years – he’s united all conservatives – economic, libertarian, traditional, foreign policy, social and neo-cons.

The road that leads to Republican victories in 2010 and 2012 and defeat of Obama’s socialized health care plan and Cap and Trade starts with the Sotomayor nomination.

If Republicans fail to launch a major effort to defeat her nomination by defining Sotomayor and Obama as anti-U S Constitution, left-wing radicals, it will further discourage and disillusion the grassroots making their involvement in future battles including the 2009 and 2010 elections problematic.



Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look

Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

Seeking New Revenue

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

Sales Tax Gains Momentum

Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."



Brent Bozell Challenges FCC Chief on Fairness Doctrine

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell has urged acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps to call for a vote on a bill that would end efforts to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

The doctrine requires broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views, which would stifle conservative talk radio.

Copps recently stated that the Fairness Doctrine is "long gone" and "not coming back," Bozell pointed out.

However, Bozell also noted that last summer House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not allow an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine, and instead left it languishing in committee.

Copps has said on two occasions that those who express concern about the doctrine's reinstatement are "conspiracy theorists" who are engaged in "issue mongering" by "resurrecting the straw man of a bygone Fairness Doctrine."

Bozell on Tuesday issued a statement reminding Copps that more than 15 members of Congress have called for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, including Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.

Bozell urged Copps to call for a vote on the bill.

The Fairness Doctrine was originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC and repealed in 1987. Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the doctrine's “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.

In his statement, Bozell declared: “I am most appreciative that my friend — FCC Chairman Michael Copps — has no intention of reinstating the anti-First Amendment so-called ‘Fairness’ Doctrine. But his statement that those of us concerned about its reimposition are . . . 'conspiracy theorists’ is off-base given the stated desires of so many members of Congress.

“When this many high-powered elected officials are calling for a return of the mis-named Fairness Doctrine, and are actively opposing a vote on the bill to prevent the FCC from reinstating it, it isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a determination to shut down free speech on talk radio.

“The solution is simple: Chairman Copps should call on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to allow a full, fair, stand-alone vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. That way we will know once and for all how each member of Congress thinks — are they for free speech, or are they for the ‘Fairness’ Doctrine?”



"The e-mail Bag"

OH GOD, Please! Make Me Women

A man was sick and tired of going to work every day while his wife stayed home. He wanted her to see what he went through so he prayed: "Dear Lord: I go to work every day and put in 8 hours while my wife merely stays at home. I want her to know what I go through, so please allow her body to switch with mine for a day. Amen.” God, in his infinite wisdom, granted the man's wish.

The next morning, sure enough, the man awoke as a woman. He arose, cooked breakfast for his mate, awakened the kids, set out their school clothes, fed them breakfast, packed their lunches, drove them to school, came home and picked up the dry cleaning, took it to the cleaners and stopped at the bank to make a deposit, went grocery shopping. Then drove home to put away the groceries, paid the bills, and balanced the checkbook. He cleaned the cat's litter box and bathed the dog. Then it was already 1 P.M. and he hurried to make he beds, do the laundry, vacuum, dust, and sweep and mop the kitchen floor. Ran to the school to pick up the kids and got into an argument with them on the way home. Set out milk and cookies and got the kids organized to do their homework, then set up the ironing board and watched TV while he did the ironing.

At 4:30 he began peeling potatoes and washing vegetables for salad, breaded the pork chops and snapped fresh beans for supper. After supper, he cleaned the kitchen, ran the dishwasher, folded laundry, bathed the kids, and put them to bed. At 9 P.M. He was exhausted and, though his daily chores weren't finished, he went to bed where he was expected to make love, which he managed to get through without complaint. The next morning, he awoke and immediately knelt by the bed and said, Lord, I don't know what I was thinking. I was so wrong to envy my wife's being able to stay home all day. Please, oh please, let us trade back.

"The Lord, in his infinite wisdom, replied: "My son, I feel you have learned your lesson and I will be happy to change things back to the way they were. You'll just have to wait nine months, though. You got pregnant last night."



Husband’s Duties

One day my housework-challenged husband decided to wash his Sweat-shirt. Seconds after he stepped into the laundry room, he shouted to me, 'What setting do I use on the washing machine?'

'It depends,' I replied. 'What does it say on your shirt?'

He yelled back, ' OHIO STATE ! '

And they say blondes are dumb...



A Happy Woman

A couple is lying in bed. The man says, 'I am going to make you the happiest woman in the world.'

The woman replies, 'I'll miss you...'