Saturday, May 23, 2009

Posted By Bobby Eberle On May 12, 2009 at 7:22 am

Want a new car? You got it. Need a new dress? Done. How about a new flat-screen television? No problem. Oh, what's that? You don't have the money for it? A minor detail.... We can fix that.

Imagine buying anything you want, regardless of your budget. The federal government under Barack Obama is not only imagining it, it's doing it. And it's doing it to the tune of borrowing nearly 50 cents for every dollar it's spending. Could you run a household like that? Imagine spending $100,000 per year, when you make $50,000. The federal government can do it... why can't you?

The federal government is already in a hole. The Bush administration did its fair share of continuing the practice of deficit spending, but make no mistake -- Obama and company are completely rewriting the record books. They are spending more, and doing it in a shorter period of time, than any administration... ever!

As noted in the Associated Press story US to borrow 46 cents for every dollar spent, "The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates."

That's right. With the new analysis coming out, Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for 2010 is "paid for" by borrowing $1.8 trillion of it. Can everyone understand these numbers? This is an unsustainable path!

Remember Obama bragging that he was trimming the budget, because he planned to cut $17 billion in "wasteful or duplicative programs?" That entire "savings" was wiped out by the new budget deficit projections. Hey... Washington! I have a plan for you... Stop spending so much!

At no period over the next ten years is the annual budget deficit expected to be LESS than half a trillion dollars. And Obama keeps announcing more spending and more government. Next on his list is health care. Of course, he will try to tax the "rich" which just means more money taken out of individual's pockets... Individuals who hire people, purchase goods and services, and fund just about everything else in government.

Raise your hand if you think government involvement in health care will result in more efficiency, higher quality, and lower costs? Whenever government gets involved, costs grow! Red tape grows! We shouldn't be paying for it, and we certainly can't afford it.

With Obama's programs and the debt he and the Congress are amassing, the only recourse will be to raise taxes on everyone and everything. This means less choices and less freedom.

Is this how you run your household? And yet the American voters were fine with turning over America's household to these socialists. This is what we get. Obama is spending us to the point where even tax increases will not get us out. The spending must stop, and it must stop now. Cut the programs. Return government to the core functions for which it was intended, and let the American people keep their hard-earned money. Most of us can certainly run a household better than this.


There are videos on the web page. I chose not to put those with this post, but you can find them here.

I've been saying this for, gosh! I don't know how long. The Federal government has to start working under budget. If I want (or need) extra money, I have to earn it somehow. I take overtime, have a yard sale, whatever it takes and whatever I can get.

Like most Americans, I live on a fixed income (and yes, I know that term usually applies only to retirees, but it applies to nearly everybody). I have a full-time job, but I don't get raises when groceries, gas, or my electric or insurance goes up. And I didn't get a raise this year at all because the county coffers are lower than usual.

I have to work with the money I have, not with the money I'd like to have. The poor economy hasn't hit me as hard as it's hit others, but I'm feeling the pinch, too. I've had to rethink purchases and repairs on my condo.

Maybe it's time for the Federal government to remember that they are also allegedly working under a budget when they authorize unnecessary $320,000 fly-overs for photo ops or spend money foolishly.

Friday, May 22, 2009

A Random Act of Kindness Challenge

One site, probably among many more, devoted to Memorial Day.

Memorial Day is just that - a day in memorial, or to remember, those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live free. I've begun to tire of the phrase "the ultimate sacrifice" as it's used so much. But, it's the only way I can think of other than to just come out and say that a member of our national defense services has died in the line of duty.

Don't forget to offer thanks to those who survived their tours of duty as well as to remember those who didn't. And don't forget to thank their families for the sacrifices they made while their loved one was serving.

I'm not sure I said this in the best way, but I hope that you take the meaning of what I'm trying to say to heart.

Not to be cute, but if you get a chance, hug a serviceman (or woman), any time you see one, but especially on Memorial Day. Pay for their meal if you see them at a restaurant. You will feel so good, and you will never guess how good it will make them feel. They need to know that we honor, respect, and appreciate the work they do.

And here's the challenge: Do a Random Act of Kindness for a member of our Armed Forces. You might not be able to do much for those who have crossed the bridge, but you can do something nice in their honor for their brother or sister in Arms. If you do something nice for a service man (or woman), post it here. And tell how it made you feel. If you are the recipient of some random act of kindness, I'd love it if you'd post it here. Tell how you felt after you did or received that Random Act of Kindness.

Those of you who do a Random Act of Kindness you can post with your name, Internet handle, anonymously, or however you feel comfortable. Those who receive a RAK, please post at least your service affiliation.

All I have to offer anyone who participates in this challenge is my thanks, and a bushleful of of good feelings.
Lunch and Taxes: Collected

And More Humor

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...'


"It's just too hot to wear clothes today," Jack says as he stepped out of the shower, "Honey, what do you think the neighbors would think if I mowed the lawn like this?"

"Probably that I married you for your money," she replied.


Dear Lord,

I pray for Wisdom to understand my man; Love to forgive him; And Patience for his moods. Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength, I'll beat him to death.


Q : Why do little boys whine?
A: They are practicing to be men.


Q: What does it mean when a man is in your bed gasping for breath and calling your name?
A: You didn't hold the pillow down long enough.


Q: How do you keep your husband from reading your e-mail?
A: Rename the mail folder "Instruction Manual".

Thursday, May 21, 2009

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax -- administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The IRS is disbanded and defunded.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
Love 'Em or Hate 'Em

I have a love-hate relationship with computers. I love 'em when they work and hate 'em when they don't.

I spent most of this afternoon putting my computer back to factory specs so that I can spend the next few days re-installing everything so that I can use the dang thing for a few weeks before I have to go through the whole thing all over again.

I'm told that it's the curse of Vista, a very unstable operating system. I don't know enough to know whether that's true or not, but I know I never had this trouble with any other operating system. I'm far from being a computer geek, but I learn a little more every time I have a problem.

I'm so glad I purchased and installed Carbonite. It has all my files (and most of my programs) backed up off my computer so that all I have to do is click a few links to reinstall everything. The first time I had to use it, I was amazed as I watched my folders reappear on my desktop as if by magic. For some reason, lately I've had some trouble getting it all downloaded in a reasonable time frame, but I finally figure out how to do it (I should be an expert by now, but sadly for some reason, I can't get it to work the first time). And until then, my files, photos, music, data, etc are all safe.

I purchased a 350gb portable external drive where I plan to store everything, but it hasn't come yet. The new drive has a USB connection so I won't have to keep it connected and maybe have it screwed up, or get a virus, or whatever else might hurt it.

I'll keep Carbonite as my main back-up for the time being. You know, a sort of belt and suspenders type thing until I figure out whether this is a good idea or not.
Medicine for the Achilles Heel of Our Democracy?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
By: Ken Hoagland

Intergenerational Theft and the FairTax

The massive amounts of money we are borrowing and spending today to save our economy—and satisfy powerful interests--comes, in truth, from the future earnings of generations of Americans yet to be born. It is nothing less than intergenerational theft on a scale that would even make Bernie Madoff blush. This destructive path is both irresponsible and immoral and is only accepted by the public because our system of taxation has so effectively divorced our perception of government spending from the truth of where that wealth comes from--us. No recovery effort can fully overcome the inevitable damage that such practices create.

To be fair, the economic tools at hand and our recent economic history almost require this of modern American politicians. President Obama, Members of Congress and financial experts on the national stage have become sophisticated in the magician’s art of misdirection. Little wonder. To admit that we are borrowing trillions of dollars against the earnings of unborn generations and then printing so much money that both foreign debt and our own purchasing power is devalued would both invite voter scorn and undermine the faith of foreign lenders whom we now count upon to finance our budgets.

The most compelling virtue of the FairTax, the national retail sales tax designed to replace the income tax system, may be that it turns every consumer in the United States into a "stakeholder" who will finally pressure politicians to limit irresponsible spending. The nation desperately needs this perspective because our politicians can't help themselves when it comes to spending our money. It is the surest path to election.

Advocates for FairTax legislation--which Washington loves to hate--rail against the destructive effects and unfair application of the income tax system. They point to trillions of dollars investment that is expected to flow into the United States with elimination of corporate and capital gains taxes. They love the idea of illegal immigrants and the entire underground economy joining the tax base. And they like the idea of a simple, visible tax on consumption that makes April 15th just another day and which frees desperately needed economic activity from the destructive effects of taxation.

But it is the medicine for the Achilles Heel of our democracy that may prove the most compelling strength of the FairTax. Thomas Jefferson and others warned that when, in a democracy, the public discovers that it can vote itself wealth from the public treasury, self-government may destroy the economic foundation of the nation. Many would argue that cynically ambitious candidates and elected officials have been buying votes with the public treasury for years.

Under the FairTax, every retail purchase of new goods and services is subject to federal taxation. The tax paid at the cash register is visible, unlike taxes that are now hidden in payroll withholding and embedded within the price of goods and services. Connecting government spending--however worthwhile--with what comes out of our paychecks is the currently missing "check and balance" that allows those who create wealth to fairly judge how government spends some of that wealth. If, as one wild example demonstrates, our leaders decide that colonization of the moon requires increasing the FairTax rate from it's current revenue neutral rate of 23% to 25% on all purchases, every consumer will demand a word about that. Today, by contrast, massive spending for entitlements, stimulus projects, pet projects and every other government program seems like “free money” to most voters. One need only look at the courting of the powerful senior citizen’s block of voters, or the growth of “earmarks” to understand the siren song of such promises both to elected officials and to the body politic.

The effect is destructive as politicians from both parties have taken us down a path of unsustainable spending. Some economists, like Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, cite current and obligated future government debt at the local, state and federal level as so large that it threatens the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Others wonder if we are approaching the point when foreign creditors no longer believe that we can ever satisfy such debt—the definition of national bankruptcy.

Our collective answer to such worries has been to spend more by borrowing more from foreign creditors—both to assuage public fears and to address real problems. We are now spending the earnings of our children and grandchildren on both the challenges of a modern society and the politically popular wishes of entrenched interest groups across the political spectrum. The other answer from national leaders has been to collect less by legislating tax cuts in the legitimate hope that such cuts will spur investment and growth. If we were not already in such deep debt, the debate between the two sides might make sense and a rational middle ground might be achieved. But with more than $11 trillion of national debt, another $50-60 trillion in obligated entitlement spending almost upon us and another $40-60 trillion of debt at the state and local level, this argument begins to look a lot like ideologues endlessly arguing over whether to bake bread or grow wheat while standing in the middle of a long-parched desert.

Last year we borrowed about $160 billion from foreign lenders to send stimulus checks to taxpayers to spark consumption here. In the months leading up to April 15th, however, Americans paradoxically spent an estimated $300 billion on tax preparation costs. The FairTax eliminates these wasted tax system costs, spurs massive private investment and, perhaps most importantly, makes clear to every American the real cost of government promises and programs. In this, the FairTax may prove not to just be a better national tax system but the best way to both save our economy and provide badly needed medicine for our Republic.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Buy A Soda, Pay for Government-Run Health Care

Liberals want to tax soda to pay for government-run health care

During the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama pledged that those making below $250,000 would not see their taxes go up one dime. He promised to cut taxes for the middle class and poor people. But if his friends in Congress get their way, President Obama will have a tough decision to make – whether to break his campaign pledge again in the form of higher taxes on soda and “sugary drinks” like sports and energy drinks.

Some liberals in Congress have proposed paying for government-run health care by hiking taxes on soft drinks and other beverages. Because the socialized health care schemes being considered will cost at least a trillion dollars, liberal politicians are looking for ways to pay for their schemes without upsetting too many folks. So they think that a tax on soft drinks is better than any other type of tax. They are wrong, and need to understand this message loud and clear: NO NEW TAXES!

As if government-run health care weren’t bad enough in terms of quality, now we have another reason to stop it dead in its tracks. Paying for government-run health care will cost every American that enjoys soft drinks, or even sports and energy drinks. This tax and spend scheme is typical of liberals, and only reinforces my belief that this is about them increasing their power, and their control over our lives. We can’t let them get away with it anymore. TAKE ACTION!

The battle against higher taxes and government-run health care is just beginning. But if we can stand together and show our opposition loud enough, we just might be able to defend liberty, and keep more money in our pockets as well.


Dick Armey
Wanted: A Fighting Party
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 05/12/2009 ET
Updated 05/12/2009 ET

As was evident at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, it is deja vu, 1961, all over again. We have a young, cool, witty, personable president -- and an adoring press corps.

"I am Barack Obama," the president introduced himself. "Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me. (Laughter and applause.) Apologies to the Fox table. (Laughter.)"

What is also evident is that, without its new superstar in the lineup, the Democratic Party is a second-division ball club. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not terribly formidable. Last fall, the Congress they ran had an approval rating below Vice President Cheney.

Why then is the Republican Party agonizing publicly over what it is supposed to do? If history is any guide, the pendulum will swing back in 2010.

After all, in 1952, Eisenhower was elected in a more impressive victory than Obama's, and ended the Korean War by June. And, in 1954, he lost both houses of Congress.

Lyndon Johnson crushed Goldwater by three times the margin of Obama's victory. He got Medicare, Medicaid, voting rights, and a host of Great Society programs. And, in 1966, he lost 47 House seats.

Ronald Reagan won a 44-state landslide in 1980, cut tax rates -- and proceeded to lose 26 sets in 1982.

Bill Clinton recaptured the presidency for his party in 1992 after 12 years of Republican rule. In 1994, he lost 52 seats and both houses of Congress.

Though, demographically, the nation is tilting toward the Party of Government, the GOP must remain the party of free enterprise, and should follow the counsel of Australia's Robert Menzies, long ago:

"(T)he duty of an opposition ... is to oppose selectively. No government is always wrong on everything. . The opposition must choose the ground on which it is to attack. To attack indiscriminately is to risk public opinion, which has a reserve of fairness not always understood."

Rather than debating what the national party position should be on foreign policy, health care, education, or social issues -- which the party will decide when it chooses a nominee in 2012 -- the GOP should focus now, and unite now, on what it will stand against.

Here the party has a good start. With the exception of Specter the Defector and the ladies from Maine, it united against the $800 billion stimulus bill. And as it is impossible to shovel out an added 6 percent of GDP in two years, without vast waste, fraud and abuse, this stimulus package is going to come back and bite Obama by 2010.

And, recall, in his address to Congress, Obama assigned Joe Biden to see to it there was no waste, fraud or abuse in spending the $800 billion: "And that's why I've asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort -- because nobody messes with Joe."

Joe has been set up to take the fall.

The next place to take a stand is against "cap and trade."

More and more Americans are coming to conclude, after the record cold temperatures in many cities this winter, that global warning is a crock -- that there is no conclusive proof it is happening, no conclusive proof man is the cause, no conclusive proof it would be a calamity for us or the polar bears.

But cap and trade would mean a huge hike in the cost of energy for all Americans, the shutdown of fuel-efficient U.S. factories, and their replacement by dirtier and less fuel-efficient Chinese plants.

And we do know the agenda here is a vast transfer of wealth and power from U.S. citizens to government bureaucrats, and from the U.S. Government to global bureaucrats who will run the oversight and enforcement machinery set up by the Kyoto II conclave in Copenhagen.

A third issue on which Republicans ought to stand and fight is health care. For the end goal of Obamacare is the same end goal as Hillarycare: nationalization, bureaucrats deciding what care each of us shall receive, when we may receive it, and whether we even ought to have it.

If the Republican Party remains the party of the individual and the private sector, does it have any choice but to fight?

For if cap-and-trade passes, and Obamacare becomes law, the government share of GDP rises to European socialist levels, and, as we saw after the Great Society, there is no going back.

A party defines itself by what it stands for, and what it stands against. After the Bush era, the Republican Party has been given the opportunity to redeem and redefine itself -- in opposition to a party and a president who are further left than any in American history.

A true conservative party would relish such an opportunity.

After all, the Goldwater young did not lie down and die after a defeat far more crushing than the one the party suffered last fall.

Is this Republican Party made of similar stuff?

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

I believe -

That true friendship continues to grow, even over the longest distance. Same goes for true love.

Monday, May 18, 2009

has everyone given up?
by Greta Van Susteren

Transparency or Dodging? You tell me…

Will the White House release ALL the pictures taken from the AF 1 fly over Manhattan? or not? Remember, that trip cost you $328,000 so you ought to see what you paid for. They could at least put on the White House website, right?

The White House released ONE picture and I would bet my right arm that more pics than one were taken on that photo op / glamour trip over Manhattan.

Why won’t they release ALL the pics?

Is the White House Press Corps giving up asking ?


For what it's worth, I agree. The pictures should be released to the American taxpayers. We paid for them, we should get to see them. When I hire a photographer to take photos at a wedding or party or event, I get to see the proofs and decide what ones I want. Is this really any different? I'm a taxpayer, the photos were paid for with taxpayer money. Remember, the Federal government only has the money they get from us, the taxpayers.

Now, what to do with the proofs. Here's some ideas:

*Make them screen savers on every Federal computer as a reminder of what a colossal waste of money is.

*Make "motivational" posters to remind all Federal employees to not make such a stupid mistake.

*Put them on Federal credit cards (like Capital One has) so that when a Federal employee whips out the plastic, they are reminded to rethink spending taxpayer money.

* Required email signature tags reminding Federal employees that it's not only the other party that make stupid decisions.

*Replace Obama's rising sun change emblem with a plane and Statue of Liberty reminiscent of the fly over.

To answer Greta's question, sure, the media's given up. They think the issue is dead and buried and they're going back to bowing and scraping when Obama graces them with his presence. I hope that one day they will go back to their jobs of reporting the news, but I'll be happy if they go back to questioning everything the Administration does, like they did with Bush.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, questioning the government. But if they want to be investigative reporters, do the job properly, and uncover the truth, no matter who is head of the Administration. Let's not stop now that the hated and evil Bush has been driven out and replaced by the beloved and saintly Obama.

And we as taxpayers have a duty to question those things we believe need to be questioned. Not because there is someone in the White House we don't like, but because we bankroll the process. People, it's our money they are playing with. No. Not just ours. It's ours and the next generation's and the next. And maybe the next, I'm not sure anymore. Personally, I don't think there's an end in sight. In a very few years, we will all be Federal employees. The banks, the auto industry, the housing industry, probably insurance, will all be owned to some extent by the Federal government. I said a very few years. It may be longer, but I believe it will happen. And you know what happens when the government runs something. They are great at defense, but lousy at delivering mail.

Just wait until Uncle Sam starts giving you your physical, dispensing your meds, or diagnosing your illness. I hope it will be a change we can believe in, because we're going to have to live with it.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Don't Leave It On The Desk

There was a certain Professor of Religion named Dr. Christianson, a studious man who taught at a small college in the western United States. Dr. Christianson taught the required survey course in Christianity at this particular institution. Every student was required to take this course their freshman year, regardless of his or her major.

Although Dr. Christianson tried hard to communicate the essence of the gospel in his class, he found that most of his students looked upon the course as nothing but required drudgery. Despite his best efforts, most students refused to take Christianity seriously.

This year, Dr. Christianson had a special student named Steve. Steve was only a freshman, but was studying with the intent of going onto seminary for the ministry. Steve was popular, he was well liked, and he was an imposing physical specimen. He was now the starting center on the school football team, and was the best student in the professor’s class.

One day, Dr. Christianson asked Steve to stay after class so he could talk with him.

“How many push-ups can you do?”

Steve said, “I do about 200 every night.”

“200? That’s pretty good, Steve,” Dr. Christianson said. “Do you think you could do 300?”

Steve replied, “I don’t know....I’ve never done 300 at a time.”

“Do you think you could?” again asked Dr. Christianson.

“Well, I can try,” said Steve.

“Can you do 300 in sets of 10? I have a class project in mind and I need you to do about 300 push-ups in sets of ten for this to work. Can you do it?

I need you to tell me you can do it,” said the professor. Steve said, “Well... I think I can...yeah, I can do it.”

Dr. Christianson said, “Good! I need you to do this on Friday. Let me explain what I have in mind.”

Friday came and Steve got to class early and sat in the front of the room. When class started, the professor pulled out a big box of donuts. No, these weren’t the normal kinds of donuts, they were the extra fancy BIG kind, with cream centers and frosting swirls. Everyone was pretty excited it was Friday, the last class of the day, and they were going to get an early start on the weekend with a party in Dr. Christianson’s class.

Dr. Christianson went to the first girl in the first row and asked, “Cynthia, do you want to have one of these donuts?”

Cynthia said, “Yes”

Dr. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Cynthia can have a donut?”

“Sure!” Steve jumped down from his desk to do a quick ten. Then Steve again sat at his desk Dr. Christianson put a donut on Cynthia’s desk.

Dr. Christianson then went to Joe, the next person, and asked, “Joe, do you want a donut?”

Joe said, “Yes.” Dr. Christianson asked, “Steve would you do ten push-ups so Joe can have a donut?”

Steve did ten push-ups, Joe got a donut. And so it went, down the first aisle, Steve did ten push-ups for every person before they got their donut.

Walking down the second aisle, Dr. Christianson came to Scott. Scott was on the basketball team, and in as good condition as Steve. He was very popular and never lacking for female companionship.

When the professor asked, “Scott do you want a donut?”

Scott’s reply was, “Well, can I do my own push-ups?”

Dr. Christianson said, “No, Steve has to do them.”

Then Scott said, “Well, I don’t want one then.”

Dr. Christianson shrugged and then turned to Steve and asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Scott can have a donut he doesn’t want?”

With perfect obedience Steve started to do ten push-ups.
Scott said, “HEY! I said I didn’t want one!”

Dr. Christianson said, “Look! This is my classroom, my class, my desks, and these are my donuts. Just leave it on the desk if you don’t want it.” And he put a donut on Scott’s desk.

Now by this time, Steve had begun to slow down a little. He just stayed on the floor between sets because it took too much effort to be getting up and down. You could start to see a little perspiration coming out around his brow.

Dr. Christianson started down the third row. Now the students were beginning to get a little angry. Dr. Christianson asked Jenny, “Jenny, do you want a donut?”

Sternly, Jenny said, “No.”

Then Dr Christianson asked Steve, “Steve, would you do ten more push-ups so Jenny can have a donut that she doesn’t want?”

Steve did ten....Jenny got a donut.

By now, a growing sense of uneasiness filled the room. The students were beginning to say, “No!” and there were all these uneaten donuts on the desks.

Steve also had to really put forth a lot of extra effort to get these push-ups done for each donut. There began to be a small pool of sweat on the floor beneath his face, his arms and brow were beginning to get red because of the physical effort involved.

Dr. Christianson asked Robert, who was the most vocal unbeliever in the class, to watch Steve do each push up to make sure he did the full ten push-ups in a set because he couldn’t bear to watch all of Steve”s work for all of those uneaten donuts. He sent Robert over to where Steve was so Robert could count the set and watch Steve closely.

Dr. Christianson started down the fourth row. During his class, however, some students from other classes had wandered in and sat down on the steps along the radiators that ran down the sides of the room. When the professor realized this, he did a quick count and saw that now there were 34 students in the room. He started to worry if Steve would be able to make it.

Dr. Christianson went on to the next person and the next and the next. Near the end of that row, Steve was really having a rough time. He was taking a lot more time to complete each set. Steve asked Dr. Christianson, “Do I have to make my nose touch on each one?”
Dr. Christianson thought for a moment, “Well, they’re your push-ups. You are in charge now. You can do them any way that you want.” And Dr. Christianson went on.

A few moments later, Jason, a recent transfer student, came to the room and was about to come in when all the students yelled in one voice, “NO! Don’t come in! Stay out!”

Jason didn’t know what was going on. Steve picked up his head and said, “No, let him come.”

Professor Christianson said, “You realize that if Jason comes in you will have to do ten push-ups for him?”

Steve said, “Yes, let him come in. Give him a donut.”

Dr. Christianson said, “Okay, Steve, I’ll let you get Jason’s out of the way right now. Jason, do you want a donut?

Jason, new to the room, hardly knew what was going on. “Yes,” he said, “give me a donut.”

“Steve, will you do ten push-ups so that Jason can have a donut?”

Steve did ten push-ups very slowly and with great effort. Jason, bewildered, was handed a donut and sat down.

Dr Christianson finished the fourth row, and then started on those visitors seated by the heaters. Steve’s arms were now shaking with each push-up in a struggle to lift himself against the force of gravity. By this time sweat was profusely dropping off of his face, there was no sound except his heavy breathing; there was not a dry eye in the room.

The very last two students in the room were two young women, both cheerleaders, and very popular. Dr. Christianson went to Linda, the second to last, and asked, “Linda, do you want a doughnut?”

Linda said, very sadly, “No, thank you.”

Professor Christianson quietly asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Linda can have a donut she doesn’t want?”

Grunting from the effort, Steve did ten very slow push-ups for Linda.

Then Dr. Christianson turned to the last girl, Susan. “Susan, do you want a donut?”

Susan, with tears flowing down her face, began to cry. “Dr. Christianson, why can’t I help him?”

Dr Christianson, with tears of his own, said, “No, Steve has to do it alone; I have given him this task and he is in charge of seeing that everyone has an opportunity for a donut whether they want it or not.
When I decided to have a party this last day of class, I looked at my grade book. Steve here is the only student with a perfect grade. Everyone else has failed a test, skipped class, or offered me inferior work. Steve told me that in football practice, when a player messes up he must do push-ups. I told Steve that none of you could come to my party unless he paid the price by doing your push-ups. He and I made a deal for your sakes.”

“Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Susan can have a donut?”

As Steve very slowly finished his last push-up, with the understanding that he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 350 push-ups, his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor.

Dr. Christianson turned to the room and said, “And so it was, that our Savior, Jesus Christ, on the cross, plead to the Father, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit.” With the understanding that He had done everything that was required of Him, He yielded up His life. And like some of those in this room, many of us leave the gift on the desk, uneaten.”

Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, physically exhausted, but wearing a thin smile.

“Well done, good and faithful servant,” said the professor, adding, “Not all sermons are preached in words.”

Turning to his class, the professor said, “My wish is that you might understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

He spared not only His Begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, for the whole Church, now and forever. Whether or not we choose to accept His gift to us, the price has been paid.”

“Wouldn’t you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?”

Share this with someone. It’s bound to touch their heart and demonstrate Salvation in a very special way.