text:
It's uncommon for me, as you know if you've been a part of Grace Church, to break up a series of studies and Bible books to talk about sort of issue-oriented messages, but from time to time the demand is very great. I want to say that I`m not under some illusion that you don't know how to respond to abortion because those of you who have been under the teaching of the Word of God surely you do already understand the biblical principles. But it is important for us to clearly articulate these in one setting so that we have a resource which we can provide to other people and so that we can crystallize in our minds the issues that are at stake.
Now someone might say, "Well, how does this fit into a worship service. After all, aren't we here to worship God?" And it is precisely because we are here to worship God that this is the right place to talk about this. In worshiping God we are affirming one great truth among many and that is that God is sovereign, that is to say that He is the King of the universe. He is the ultimate King of Kings, Lord of Lords, potentate, ruler, decider of fates, determiner of destiny. His will and His will alone is the ultimate issue. God is in charge, to put it simply.
The problem of abortion is primarily defined as a blow struck against the sovereignty of God. And so, in sort of a reverse fashion by looking at the issue of abortion, we will indirectly affirm again the sovereignty of God which, of course, is one very important element in our expression of worship. And as I shall try to demonstrate to you from Scripture this morning, the primary evil of abortion is its attack on the sovereignty of God. It is a direct and overt attack on God. And we'll see how and why as we look together to this subject and to Scripture this morning.
Now if you have read at all newspapers, magazines, or been alerted to the media in any way over the last few years, you've become increasingly aware that America presently is highly committed by law and by practice to mass murder. We have made that formal commitment and we are carrying out the execution of that commitment on a wholesale fashion. It's really a very, very stark transition from the America of history, a nation known as a nation of freedom and liberty and privilege and rights, a nation where justice was the protector of the people, a nation which always seemed to pride itself on its humanitarianism, its concern for the poor and the needy, the weak and the defensiveless. And yet, it is in this very nation which has stood in the world as the symbol of freedom and right and privilege that mass murder has been taking place for many years. In fact, the murderous and violent cycle of killing infants that's been going on in our country, particularly over the last 12 or 13 years, makes the Nazi holocaust look mild by comparison.
For example, there are nearly two million abortions a year, two million unborn children are killed a year in our country. Every third baby conceived is being murdered. Among teen-age women there are approximately 735 abortions for every thousand live births. Some statistic reflects that among married women, abortions exceed births three to two. Somewhere between forty- two hundred and forty-five hundred recorded abortions occur every single day which breaks down to about three a minute, or one every twenty seconds.
In some metropolitan hospitals in our nation, abortions out number live births. And though I'm always amazed America has an ability to sort of justify what it's doing and condemn everybody else, and we stand--at least some of our population--piously condemning activities in South Africa and so often the same liberal element piously condemning those activities in South Africa are eagerly leading the parade to massacre babies in our own nation. Tremendous inconsistencies.
The Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company is in the process now of developing a pill for women to take and abort babies at home so they don't need clinics or hospitals. Planned Parenthood, which is the father of sort of population control mentality that says, "We use abortion to control a population, recently had a meeting of what they called "The Planned Parenthood Physicians Association." One of their seminar leaders was a doctor by the name of Dr. Willard Cates (C-a-t-e-s), He presented a paper that had a very interesting title. The title of his paper given in a symposium to other doctors is "Abortion as treatment for unwanted pregnancy--the number two sexually-transmitted disease."
What Dr. Cates is saying is that pregnancy is a disease. It is the number two sexually-transmitted disease next to venereal disease. Now, by his definition, conceived children are simply symptoms of a disease that needs to be eliminated. Planned Parenthood, by the way, has over 700 abortion clinics doing about 60,000 recorded murders a year. And they receive presently in excess of $120 million dollars a year from the United States government as well as support from the United Way and a whole lot of other public agencies that funnel funds to them.
Our nation, along with the rest of the world, who--by the way--in mass this year will massacre 60 million babies, that will be the world total this year, is in the process--in effect--of wiping out an entire generation of people. Mass infanticide is going on all over the globe. The process itself is really bizarre. And I just give you a few details for your own information.
During the first trimester of pregnancy, the methods used for aborting the life of a child are usually D&S or D&C. D&S is Dilation and Suction. The woman is dilated and then a high- powered vacuum is placed in the woman and the vacuum dismembers the body of the small infant and sucks it down a tube. In Dilation and Curetage, a sharp instrument is used which cuts the child into pieces and then is also extracted, often forceps are used to crush the head to reduce its size for easy elimination. Of course this can result in sterility. It can result in torn parts of the woman's body, perforation and all kinds of things. And we've all heard the people who advocate abortions say, "But..if we didn't have legal abortion, under illegal abortion all kinds of women are butchered..." and so forth and so on. And we ought to be reminded of the fact that six to seven times more women die a year since legalized abortion than ever before, by the sheer volume of numbers of abortions that are being done.
During the second trimester, the safe comfortable home of the child which we call the amniotic sac filled with amniotic fluid in which the child exists is wounded violently by a large needle. That needle then extracts the amniotic fluid that is there and in its place saline concentrate solution is pumped into the womb, that creates a burning situation that literally burns the baby alive. In 24 hours, usually, the body will expel the baby, although on some occasions it can take as long 72 hours for that to take place.
During the third trimester, commonly, there is a hysterectomy used, sometimes an actual C-section or Caesarean abortion will be used. And then there is in various parts of this development of the child in different trimesters the use of prostaglandins which are a drug that induces labor pains that actually expels the baby. And very frequently the babies expelled are alive and old enough to be cared for and kept alive in the intensive care units of neonatal facilities. But when that does happen, as one nurse in our church told me it happened recently in her hospital, two such aborted babies were alive and could have been preserved but were shoved in a corner, typically, until they were dead.
A new way has been advocated by the National Abortion Federation in its recent annual meeting in California. It was advocated at one of their physicians workshops. It is to puncture the soft spot on the baby's head and vacuum out the brains.
Another abortionist suggested, and this for a group of physicians to which he was speaking, that abortionists charge according to the length of the foot of the aborted baby.
In Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, there was recently the situation where a woman was carrying two babies, twins. It was determined through medical examination that one of them was likely a possessor of the Down's syndrome and the parents did not want a Down's syndrome baby and so a process known as "cardiac puncture" was used to kill one baby while keeping the other one alive, in which the heart of that baby was punctured with a needle and all of its blood extracted and in its place some other poison placed.
When babies do live, by the way, there are all kinds of unimaginable consequences. One that never ceases to amaze me is Revenue Rule Number 73-156 of the IRS. That rule says that should you be having an abortion and the baby come out alive, you can count it as a tax deduction as a dependent. It's a non- person if its dead, it's a person if its alive. That is the stupidity of humanism.
I was amazed yesterday, as probably you were, to read or hear about the woman in Van Nuys, right in this neighborhood, who didn't want her family to know that she was illegitimately pregnant. She then went into the bathroom to give birth to her child, gave birth to the child in the bathroom. Tried unsuccessfully to drown it so she cut it up with a razor blade. And they have now determined that she should spend a minimum--if she is convicted--of 11 years in prison...which is an interesting sort of conundrum. If she had gone to an abortionist, she wouldn't have had any penalty at all. If she tried to kill the baby herself, she's going to be sentenced to 11 years. It won't be considered murder, it's sort of semi-murder because nobody knows what to do in the hopeless chaos of this dilemma.
The best term that I can think of as a parallel term for abortion is "convenience killing." And that is basically what it is. It is convenience killing. It is killing because it is convenient. In fact, we have gone to the extreme now where 15- year-olds can get abortions without parental knowledge or parental consent. And the assumption of the abortion advocates is that parents are enemies of their own children and they might try to stop them from having an abortion. Spousal consent, that is the consent of a husband to a wife's abortion, is also unconstitutional. The confusion is unbelievable.
When you talk about what happens to the aborted child, that opens a whole area of unbelievable understanding. For example, dead fetuses are used in all manner of experiments and so are live ones. And I've been reading over the last couple of months about this and it's a horrifying thing. I cannot imagine anything in any age of human history in any time period that could be anything worse than what is done both the live and the dead results of an abortive process.
In 1981, according to the "Journal of Clinical Pathology," it indicated that fetal organs are being grafted into mice and rats to see how long they could keep them alive. Frightening experiments, that I can't even speak of, taking place. Squibb Company, some that I can speak of, was involved in paying tens of thousands of dollars to Ob/Gyn doctors, Obstetrics and Gynecology, to experiment with fetuses for use in research on high-blood pressure drugs. The U.S. government has funded experiments on live aborted babies purchased from certain hospitals. The "Journal of Medicine...New England Journal of Medicine," probably one of the most prestigious in the world, reports that tissue cultures are obtained by dropping living babies who come out of abortions into sort of a meat grinder situation to culture their tissues.
I mean, it goes on and on like that. I don't want to create monstrosities in your mind, but I do want you to understand where we are. Dr. Dominguez of New York City writes, "That on any (and I'm quoting) Monday, you can see 70 garbage bags with fetal material in them along the sidewalks of abortion clinics in New York City," end quote.
And it has become a reality, folks, that it is now possible to do to a baby what you couldn't get away with doing to a dog or a cat. And if you tried, you would have had the anti- vivisectionists all over the place. It's a strange and bizarre situation that the same people who seem to be screaming "Save the whales" are also in the parade yelling "Kill the babies."
In fact, I was amazed to read about a recent case in California called "Kurlander(?) vs Bio-science Labs." And in this case, it is now possible because of that case for children to sue their parents for wrongful life, for letting them live rather than aborting them. In other words, if you are handicapped or deformed or something, or if life isn't all that it ought to be for you, there is at least a precedent for you to sue your parents for wrongful life. That was in the "Newsletter" of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The stupidity of all of this is demonstrated further by the fact that recently in Maryland, a wounded American eagle was found and it was rushed to emergency treatment. The emergency treatment was too late and the eagle died and a $5,000 reward was offered for the arrest of the eagle killer. Now eagles are nice birds but it's a little inconsistent. And I'm sure you don't know this because it's sort of a New England law, but it's illegal to ship pregnant lobsters regardless of which trimester of pregnancy they're in. There's a $1,000 fine for shipping a pregnant lobster because it might do damage to the little lobster.
Massachusetts has a law called "The Anti-Cruelty Law." And in that law it is forbidden or illegal to award goldfish as prizes in games of chance. And the law reads like this: Why? "To protect the tendency to dull humanitarian feelings and corrupt the morals of those who abuse them," end quote. Save the goldfish because if we don't we might be corrupting morals and dulling humanitarian feelings of people.
You say, "Well, why all of this going on?" Well, for one thing, in 1981 alone it was in excess of a one-billion dollar business. Abortion is a money maker. Big business. It is not only a business in the abortion...business in the abortion clinic itself but it goes on from there. Not only do they get what they get from the person whose baby is aborted, but then they get whatever they can get for the sale of the fetal material--the placenta and all that's left, including the baby itself. We became aware here at Grace Church of a particular organization known as "Bip-Med" having to do with medical by-products which collects and resells fetal material for about $1.40 a pound. There is evidence that babies have been sold by the bag, $25 a bag. The sale of late-term elected abortions at Washington D.C.'s General Hospital over a ten-year period brought in excess of $68 thousand which was used to decorate a lounge for visiting professors.
And Dr. Olga Fairfax says, "When I saw the first ad on television advertising collagen-enriched cosmetics, I was speechless. Collagen is the gelatinous substance found in corrective...pardon me...in connective tissues, bones and cartilage. A glance through a local drug store revealed that the shampoos and hand creams contained collagen. Unless your beauty produce specifies animal collagen, it could be human, obtained from aborted fetuses. There is triple profit to be had. The first is from the abortion, estimated at half billion a year by "Fortune" magazine. The second comes from the sale of the aborted babies bodies. And the third profit is from the unsuspecting customer buying cosmetics that contain collagen from babies," end quote.
And all of this is so bizarre that it taxes our minds to conceive of something like this occurring in our society. But it is. And the fallout to women is frightening. In Japan, in the last 30 years, since about 1955, there have been an excess of 50 million recorded abortions. The fallout is frightening. There are now in the land of Japan certain Buddhist temples that have been selected and built for the express purpose of memorializing what they call"water babies." Water babies are unborn infants that are aborted.
Because of the trauma to the mother, because of the mother's need to get some resolution as to what happens to that infant that's been aborted, these Buddhist temples have arisen in which a mother--for a price of somewhere between 340 and 640 American dollars--can purchase a small stone Buddha as a memorial to her water baby. In just one of those temples in Japan--which you can visit--there are at least 10,000 such little stone Buddhas. You pay a price to go in and you can take pictures of this. At the same time, grieving mothers traumatized by the haunting reality that they have killed a baby can go back to those places and the Buddhist priest will offer prayers for the water babies at a dollar twenty per baby, or forty dollars each additional aborted baby by the same mother. So religion in Japan is trying to come to the aid of traumatized women.
Psychologists tells us that between 400 and 800 percent higher is the suicide rate of women who have had abortions than the normal female population. And there is evidence that hypochondria, depression, withdrawal, guilt, shame, diminished self-esteem, drug, and alcohol dependency and serious psychosis result from abortions. And after I preached this message in the first service, someone came to me and said, "You better talk about forgiveness because there were a couple of women who went out of the service saying they felt like they ought to kill themselves." Well yes, God forgives, but that's just an example of the trauma that this kind of thing creates.
Now the question comes, "How did this get started? Where did it all begin?" Let me give it to you very simple. Jesus said it. He told us where it all began. You don't need to look it up because it's a familiar verse. It's John chapter 8 and verse 44 and I want you to listen to what Jesus said because this is the foundation of this whole matter. In Jesus' conversation with the Pharisees, He said: "You are of your father, the devil. And the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning."
Where does all of this murder of infants come from? It comes from the devil, Satan. It is a supernatural Satanic conspiracy. It is a reflection of the prince of this world, the god of this age, the spirit that now rules in the hearts of fallen men. It is Satanic. And Satan has always been a murderer. It started out with Cain killing Abel.
Satan has even been a mass murderer. You can go back into Canaanitish civilization and read horrific accounts of the Canaanites massacring of their babies, burying live babies in walls of new buildings. You can read about the people in the land of Canaan, even among the Jews sometimes, who offered their born children as sacrifices over the fire to the god Molech.
Satan has always been a murderer and he has always been a murderer of children. He tried through, obviously, the time of Moses to massacre the Messianic line in the massacre of all of the babies that Pharaoh ordered. He tried again in the massacre that was carried out by Herod at the birth of Christ. Satan has always been a murderer. Since it is God who gives life, Satan is the one who desires to take life. He has the power of death, Hebrews 2:14 says. Satan is a murderer from the very beginning and he fosters murderous intent among men in order that he might kill what God has made. It is not that he is concerned with murder itself, he is concerned with how it impacts God's intended purpose.
So, murder goes a long way back and so child murder and so does abortion. If you read the Talmud, the Jewish Talmud, you will read statements made by Jewish rabbis throughout ancient history in which they say that abortion is murder and has no place in the society of the people of God. Thou shalt not abort a child. Abortion is not new.
I was reading just this week that Aristotle and Plato both advocated abortion as a way to control large families and stop population development. And I was reading a book about abortion and the early church which is a very interesting restructuring of the scenario around the early church period, the time of Christ and the Greco-Roman, pagan world which tells us that they were very busily engaged in abortions even at the time of Christ and the Apostle Paul and the New Testament.
And I was interested to read the reasons that the Greco- Roman pagans gave for abortion. These were their reasons. One, was to conceal illicit sex. Nothing new about that. Number two, rich women who were illegitimately impregnated in their love affairs by low class common men did not want to give birth to low class common children and then have to waste their fortune on them. So they had abortion to keep from having to give birth to low class children.
And then the Greco-Roman pagans also said that abortion was convenient because "It allowed a woman to preserve her sex appeal so that she would not," and I'm quoting from an ancient source, "be troubling her womb with bouncing babies," end quote. Abortion then was a contraception to conceal illicit sex, to prevent unwanted children, to preserve your figure...just as it is today. Nothing new...convenience killing.
I was also fascinated to read how abortions were done in those days. We sometimes think that ancient times were less than sophisticated in all areas, but that's not the case. They had developed some very, very effective techniques--to some extent-- in aborting babies. Although without sterilization, the threat of peritonitis and the death of the mother was far more imminent than it would be today. But nonetheless, the methods are used and very well defined.
I was reading one of the medical journals. There is one on gynecology written by Soranus, way back at the time of the early church, a Greek. And in his gynecological book, that is--by the way--a Greek word, gune is the word for "woman, study of a woman." So in his book on all of this he gives all the procedures for how to go through the birth canal, how to mix the poisons...they used drugs. Sometimes drugs were taken orally, sometimes they were induced. They were poisons that were concocted and they knew what worked by trial and error. They had developed poisons and drugs that would effectively kill the fetus.
They also had a process by which they would tie the woman's stomach tight with ropes so that the fetus couldn't develop and eventually would be dead by strangulation. And then there were blows. Once the child was large enough, they would try to locate its head and kill it that way.
Now the pagan world accepted this. They also accepted the use of blades through the birth canal. And they even had a hook--and I read the whole section on how to hold the hook to do the job right and get the baby's head out and so forth and so on. the Jews were against it. The pagans were for it. The Jews, because of their view of God and His sovereignty and His creative power and because of the sanctity of human life and because they knew that the second great commandment from the Deuteronomic law was to love your neighbor as yourself and they saw that infant as a neighbor, they knew this was a sin, a horrendous crime of violent murder. And they spoke out against it. And there is no indication in any Jewish community of ancient times that they advocated abortions, although many Jews today advocate and have and do abortions. That's contrary to their heritage.
But the church always, along with the Jews, stood against it. And basically for the same reasons, for the reason that that life is a creation of God, for the reason that that life is not the woman but that is a neighbor that is being cared for and preserved by that woman in the most protected place on the earth, a woman's womb. And to violate that God-given protection and murder the child protected in that womb was the ultimate violent act. So said the church, it was an act of lovelessness and an act of murder.
They advocated the fact that Jesus reached out to the poor and the weak and the helpless and the needy and defenseless and that was the style of His loving ministry. And there was no more defenseless human than one still in the womb of his mother and so the love of Jesus demonstrated to that one in the womb could not effect a murder. You can read in the Didache which is a sort of codification of early church law, things like this, quote: "Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion." And you can find in things like the Epistle of Barnabas which gives us insight into the years after the New Testament that abortion was rejected by the church because it was the opposite of loving your neighbor, for that little one was seen as a neighbor, someone to care for.
The Didache defined the way of life and the way of death very clearly. And in defining the way of death, or damnation, the Didache said that the way of death is full of cursing, murders, adulteries and the murders of children. And it calls them corruptors of God's creatures. And a third century Latin source even translates that abortuontes(?) or abortionists. So they had that even then, it isn't anything new.
Satan has always wanted to destroy what God has made. And the early church taught that abortion brought down the wrath and the judgment of God...a form of murder, a form of violence and the antithesis of loving care. "To follow Jesus," said the early church, "was to shed any thought of murder or violence to anyone, including the unborn."
What I'm saying is that the problem isn't new and the church's position isn't new either. What is frightening to me is how many churches are now pro-abortion, or pro-choice. And I'll be giving you a list of those next week so you'll know.
Well, you say, "I understand the history of it then but how in the world did it ever come to be in our country? How did it arise?" Well, you know the scene. Let me just run by very fast a few steps. It all started with a promotion of abortion as a matter of freedom. This is a free country. Women ought to have their freedom. It all came out of the new sex ethic "free fornication for everybody all the time with whoever you want with no consequences." I mean, that's basically the sex ethic of our time. Free sex, free love, no consequence.
So, if we're going to have real freedom which is now defined as fornication, or prostitution, or whatever else you want to call it...
...then we can't have women being victimized by men in that they become pregnant. So in order for them to have the real freedom that they ought to have to express their sex life, we've got to get rid of the consequence which are babies. That's the mentality of our society. You see it with AIDS right now. We don't want them to have to deal with the consequence of their vile life style so we're working furiously to eliminate those consequences. I understand that because there are many innocent victims for whom the consequence should be eliminated. But it is the mentality of our society that free sex, free love, free life style shouldn't have any consequences. And God keeps punctuating the situation by saying, "But there are consequences."
So, they say we'll eliminate them. And that's where it all begins with that free sex viewpoint that started splurging on to our society in the fifties and sixties. And then many of you will remember the thalidomide babies. And as a result of this, English physicians began to advocate what is commonly called "eugenic abortion." That is, abortion because of the fact that this child to be born is deformed and will cost society a lot of money and be a lot of trouble to everybody. So we wipe out all of those deformed children, and you have a sort of, if not genetic engineering, a post-genetic engineering. And so the elimination of defective children became another pressure moving this nation toward wholesale legality of abortion.
Then, of course, came the rise of feminism and all these lesbian women got that thing started and then a lot of other women jumped on the bandwagon. And the hue and cry--I don't know if you remember, it was a little phrase--"total reproductive freedom." You remember that? Total reproductive freedom...in other words, vile sex life with no consequence--right back to that freedom cry again. And Betty Friedan said, "Women must have abortion as a backup to contraceptive failure."
And then came the ERA and the ERA said, "All right, if it's okay for women to have freedom, if everybody's supposed to have total reproductive liberation then we've got to have on-demand abortion at tax payers' expense. And they advocated that. "Women are not equal to men unless they are rid of childbearing responsibilities," said the ERA.
Then along came the population people, the Planned Parenthood people saying, "If we keep having babies, we're all going to be sitting on top of each other. There won't be any food." Remember all that? You don't hear that anymore, but you used to hear that. We're all going to be all over each other. And nobody ever bothered to say that the entire population of the world right now can fit into the state of Rhode Island. But we were getting all kinds of lies and all kinds of half-truths from the Planned Parenthood Association about controlling population. And so that added to the impetus to abortion.
But the final blow was struck by the Supreme Court of the United States, supposedly the men most esteemed in our nation, the greatest men of wisdom, the wisest men of this entire land, who voted wholesale murder of babies on January 22, 1973 in their decision in the Roe vs Wade case in which they legalized abortion. And they violated the fourteenth amendment that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. They legalized murder. They did it because they were under the pressure of all of these accumulating responses from those who would destroy what God has made.
The court ignored the issue of life. It ignored the issue of personhood, when life begins, when personhood begins. It totally ignored that. They couldn't get into it, by the way, because if they had they would have had to admit that personhood begins at conception and that would have been a very difficult thing for them to deal with. So they totally ignored it in the entire decision. And they came up with the unspeakable conundrum of the fact that criminals have been successfully prosecuted for killing unborn children in an attack on a pregnant mother while the child is considered a non-person if it's own mother decides to kill it.
In other words, you can only kill a baby if you're its mother. Otherwise you can't kill a baby unless you want to be criminally prosecuted. And only China has a more permissive abortion policy than the United States. It is reflective of a materialistic selfish atheistic ethic that is absolutely hostile to the sovereignty of God. And we are seeing in our country something that literally makes the holocaust of Nazi Germany in the massacre of six million Jews look like child's play.
Now somebody will ask the question, "Well, are we sure that at conception a real life begins?" There's no question about it. Professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Rene' de Carte(?) in Paris is a man name Dr. Jerome LaJeun(?). He summarizes it very well when he writes, "Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning--the moment of its conception. The material link is the molecular thread of DNA. In each reproductive cell, this ribbon of DNA, roughly one meter long, is cut into 23 pieces, or chromosomes. As soon as the 23 paternally derived chromosomes are united through fertilization to the 23 maternal ones, the full genetic meeting necessary to express all the inborn qualities of the new individual is gathered and personal constitution takes place." Now that's at conception.
Further, he says, "At two months of age, the human being is less than one thumb length's from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there--hands, feet, head, organs, brain. Which, by the way, since the fourth week or so has had self-consciousness for the core has begun to form. His heart has been beating for a month already. His fingerprints can be detected. His little heart is beating 150 to 170 beats a minute. To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," end quote. Now that written by not a Christian but a doctor.
Well, that's the scene. And we could say a lot more about the ugliness of the scene, but you get the picture.
Now what does the Bible have to say? This morning, in the time that is left, and next Sunday, I want to point this out to you. But for this morning, I just want to give you one bottom line principle, then I'll give you another four or five next time. And that is this, this is where it all starts. The first biblical principle you must understand relating to abortion is this: conception is an act of God. Conception is an act of God. That's the bottom line. God creates personally and individually every human life. Don't for one moment be under the allusion of the deist who saw God as a great power starting a process and then backing out of it. And it all sort of works its own way out.
No. It is not that God started the creative process and we carry it on, it is that we carry on a process but God sustains that process and is aggressive and active and sovereign in that process. So that it isn't that God makes Adam and Eve and Adam and Eve make everybody else. It is that God starts a procreative process but is active in that process, bringing into existence all those people whom He has foreordained to life. That is His sovereignty.
Now Scripture makes this fact clear. Let me show you, you can look it negatively and positively. Just listen to some Scripture.
From the negative viewpoint. And we'll go back to the earliest perceptions of the Pentateuch and the book of Job and see how the saints of God in that time perceived this matter. In Genesis, for example, in chapter 20, we read this statement: "For the Lord had completely closed all the wombs of the house of Abimelech." In other words, the perception is..was that the women were not having babies because the Lord had closed the womb. God was in charge of who had babies.
In the sixteenth chapter of Genesis, the situation is that of Sarah, then called Sarai, and Abraham. And Sarah says to her husband, "The Lord has restrained me from bearing." In other words, they had the confidence that life was a gift from God and everyone who was bearing children was bearing because God energized it and anyone who was not was not because God restrained it.
In 1 Samuel 1 you have that wonderful story in chapters 1 and 2 of Hannah and the giving of birth of Samuel. And you remember in chapter 1 verse 5 and also chapter 1 verse 6, in both those verses Hannah is described in this way: "The Lord had shut up her womb. The Lord had shut up her womb." It's mentioned twice.
Now looking at it from the positive side, the Lord also opens the womb. In Genesis 17:16, God says to Abraham, "I will bless her," referring to Sarah, "and give thee a son also of her and she shall be the mother of nations." Now God says not only am I going to open Sarah's womb, but I'm going to allow as a result of the opening of her womb that all...a large number of people constituting a nation will become alive. So God says, "I'll open her womb."
In Genesis 21:2, it says Sarah conceived, bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which the Lord had spoken to him. God is sovereign. God has foreordained who will live and when they will live. Life is in His hands.
In Genesis 25, we have the situation with Isaac. And he went to the Lord, it says in verse 21, and prayed to God because his wife was barren. And the Lord heard his prayer, it says, and Rebecca his wife conceived. Why? Because God answered his prayer and God gave her conception.
You remember I mentioned a moment ago 1 Samuel 1, "The Lord had shut the womb of Hannah?" Well, after she pours out her heart, the Lord hears her prayer and in 1 Samuel 1:19 and 20 it says the Lord remembered her, "Therefore it came to pass after she had conceived that she bore a son and called his name Sam-u- el." El being the name of God and she called him that saying, "Because I have asked him of the Lord." She knew that her ability to conceive and bring forth a child, that child, was because of God's creative act.
And in that beautiful story of Ruth and Boaz and their coming together in marriage, chapter 4 of Ruth, verse 13 says, "Boaz took Ruth and she was his wife. And when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception." I love that statement, "The Lord gave her conception, and she had a son."
And then there was Manoah. And Manoah and his wife in Judges 13,"And the angel of the Lord appeared to the wife of Manoah and said to her, Behold, now thou art barren and bearest not, but thou shalt conceive and bear a son." And God gave to Manoah's wife a son. You remember his name was Samson, a judge in Israel. But God had to give her that conception.
In Isaiah 43:7, on a broader scale, the Lord looks at the whole of the nation of Israel, all the individual people, and He says, "I have created him for My glory, I have formed him, yes, I have made him." And God takes responsibility as the creator for every Jew constituting the nation of Israel.
Now these passages tell us that God is the power behind conception, that every life that begins begins because God has foreordained that life to begin. I believe that once that life begins in the plan of God, that life is eternal. And by God's grace, when an infant is aborted, that infant lives forever in the presence of God in the fullness of what God intended in its original creation.
Now there are other passages that enrich this truth and I want to share just a few of them with you. Look at Job with me for a moment. I want to take you on a quick tour of a few verses. In Job chapter 10 verse 8, Job--of course--is now in a situation where God is allowing the devil to assault him and all kinds of things are going wrong in his world. And he cries out to God with a most interesting argument, or a most interesting perspective in Job 10:8. He says: "Thine hands have made me and fashioned me." And that's a very intimate terminology, as if he was the product of the clay in the hands of God Himself. "Thine hands have me and fashioned me together round about, yet Thou dost destroy me." In other words, his paradox is - how can You be letting all this evil come into my life when You're the one that made me? Did You make me to destroy me?
But further as he discusses that God is his maker, verse 9,"Remember, I beseech Thee that Thou hast made me as the clay and wilt Thou bring me into the dust again? Hast Thou not poured me out as milk and curdled me like cheese?" You've produced me, I'm the product of Your efforts. "You have clothed me with skin an flesh and have fenced me with bones and sinews, You have granted me life in favor and Your care has preserved my spirit."
In other words, You made me body and spirit. You formed me. You made me. That's the testimony of Job...perhaps the most ancient book of all the Old Testament. That is a very early and accurate perception, that God is the creator of all.
In Job 31, verse 15, Job again says, "Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" In other words, God is the one who creates that one.
Now let me say something right here. Beloved, this answers all these other questions that really are pointless, like: what about a rape? Or, what about the death of the mother? Or, what about incest? Or, what about deformity? The point is any creature created in a womb is created by whom? By God and therefore is not up to the discretion of any human being as to its worthiness to live. This is the issue.
In Job 33 and verse 4, Job approaches it from another view here in the testimony of Elihu, "The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." And so he gives testimony to the fact that God is the creator.
Psalm 22, quickly, verses 9 and 10 adds to our understanding and enrichment of this truth. In Psalm 22 verse 9 we read, "But Thou art He," he's speaking of God, the Lord, "Thou art He who took me out of the womb." David says, "You took me out of the womb, You made me hope on my mother's breasts. I was cast upon Thee from the womb. Thou art my God from my mother's body." In other words, God, You've been involved in my life since I was in my mother's womb, You are the one who planted me in her womb, You are the one who preserved me in her womb, You brought me out of her womb and You've placed me on her breast.
How about Psalm 100, do you remember that wonderful familiar Psalm that we all learned as children? "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, come before His presence with singing." Then verse 3, do you remember it? "Know ye that the Lord He is God, it is He who hath made us and not we ourselves." Men don't make men, God makes men. He uses the human procreative process, but it is He who ordains life.
In Psalm 104, verse 30 says, "Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are created." Creation is a work of the Spirit of God.
And then that absolutely beautiful statement made in Psalm 127 verse 3. This is such an important statement. "Lo, or behold--an exclamation--children are an heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His reward." Children come from the Lord. Children are not an accident. They are not an inconvenience. They are not symptoms of a venereal disease. Children are not a disruption. Children are a gift from God. He gives them life for His own holy purposes. And even when men kill that life, I believe once that life is life, it exists forever and the Lord will bring that aborted infant into the fullness of his intention for it to glorify Him in eternity.
In Ecclesiastes 11 verse 5, a most interesting verse here, "As thou knowest not what is the way of the wind." You don't know how the wind works, you don't understand it. "Nor how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so thou knowest not the works of God who makes all." You can't know how the wind blows. You can't see it, you can only feel it. You can't know how a fetus grows, how it becomes a child, you can't know the work of God. That is the work of God. The point of the verse that I want you to note is that the wind and the womb are the work of God.
Turn to Isaiah 44. In Isaiah 44, the testimony of Isaiah adds to this. In verse 1 he says, "Yet now hear, O Jacob, My servant, in Israel whom I have chosen," He identifies the fact that He had chosen them to be His people. Then in verse 2, he says, "Thus saith the Lord that made thee and formed thee from the womb." Again God identifies Himself as the one who forms from the womb. Verse 24, same thing again, "Thus saith the Lord, Thy redeemer and He who formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord who makes all things."
Chapter 45, again, beginning in verse 9, and just picking some highlights out, "Woe to him that fights with his maker." Boy, that's pretty straight, isn't it? When you abort a baby, you're fighting with God the creator. And he says later in verse 9, "Shall the clay to him that fashioned it, What are you making?" In other words, a derisive thing - what right do you have to make that? Do you have a right to say that, to question the maker? "Woe to him," verse 10 says, "that says to his father, Why did you beget? Or the mother, What have you brought forth? What right do you have?" In other words, who would ever think to question the one who gives birth? Who would strive with God?
"Thus saith the Lord," verse 11, "the holy one of Israel and his maker. Ask Me of things to come concerning My sons and concerning the work of My hands, command ye Me I have made the earth and created man upon it. I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens and all their hosts have I commanded," and so forth. In other words, the whole point of this passage is: would you ever ask God what right He had to make a person or to make a planet or to make anything? It's all His creation.
Isaiah 49:5, "And now saith the Lord who formed me from the womb to be His servant." And here Isaiah has the sense that he himself was formed in the womb by God. And then Jeremiah 1 is a good parallel to that. It says about another prophet, Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee." Boy, that's a tremendous statement. Before he was even conceived in the womb of his mother, God knew that Jeremiah was a person who would exist. "Before I even formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you came out of the womb, I set you apart and ordained you a prophet to the nations."
Now when you strike a blow against something that God has created, someone that God has created, you're striking a blow against the sovereign intended purpose of God. By the way, when he says in verse 5, "I knew thee," the word is the word oida, and it means a rational experimental kind of knowledge, not a distant detached kind. Already in the mind of God, Jeremiah was a reality, an intimate reality before his own conception.
The testimony of the Apostle Paul is not unlike this. In Galatians 1:15, "When it pleased God who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by His grace." Paul had the sense of being the work of God even from his mother's womb.
How about John the Baptist? When the angel comes to Zechariah and says, "Your wife is going to have a baby and the child that is in her will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb," and goes on to tell about this child being John the Baptist."This child a forerunner of the Messiah. He'll be great. He'll lead many people to righteousness. He'll drink neither wine nor strong drink." And it goes on to describe this man.
It was not some nameless non-personal blob in the womb of Elizabeth, it was the prophet of God. It was not a nameless blob in the womb of the mother of Jeremiah, it was a prophet of God. It was not a nameless appendage to the body of the mother of Isaiah, it was the prophet of God. In fact, when the testimony of Mary and Elizabeth came together in Luke chapter 1, the babe leaped for joy. And Elizabeth even said to Mary that she would be the mother of the Lord. And when Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit, she had in her not some appendage that was discretionary as to whether it should be retained, but she had in her the incarnate Son of God. And may I suggest to you that the incarnation did not begin in Bethlehem. It began in conception and Jesus so totally identified with humanity that Jesus was fully human, even identifying as an unborn infant from conception to death. And when the angel came and announced to Joseph that his wife was pregnant, "Because that which is conceived," Matthew 1:20 says, "in her is of the Holy Spirit and she shall bring forth a son and you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." He wasn't describing some non- descript blob, some non-personal appendage, some potential life, but the very Son of God as yet unborn but a person.
So, the testimony of Scripture is marvelous, it's marvelous. Just to strengthen that. In Luke 1:41 it says, "Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb." Now that word"babe," brephos, b-r-e-p-h-o-s in English, is the word for babe. But it's speaking there of an unborn babe.
In Luke 2 verse 12, in Luke 2 verse 16, in Luke 18 verse 15 and 16, that's four other places, the same word is used. Every other time it's used it's used of a born baby, of a born baby. So the New Testament writer and the Holy Spirit use the same word "baby," brephos, for that child born or unborn. Once conceived it became a baby. And it was a baby unborn until it was a baby born.
You say, "Well, do you mean that even if it's deformed, even if it's crippled or even if it's defective, it's still the work of God?" Listen to Exodus 4:11, "Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?" Yes, yes, the Lord made all. And let me tell you something that I've learned in my life. Some of the most handicapped people in the world are not handicapped physically but they're handicapped mentally and emotionally. I can't think of any more handicapped people than abortionists. To say that because a person has a physical disability they are less than a creature of God is ludicrous. That's not God's purpose.
Now, what we've established--and this is what I want you to understand--is that life begins at conception and conception is an act of God. No matter what kind of person is there, man has no discretionary right to take that life, that is murder of the first degree. Even the blind man in John 9, the disciple said, "Why is he blind? Who sinned, this man or his parents? And Jesus said, Neither, but for the glory of God." Let God have His glory. Let Him fulfill His purpose.
Somebody says, "Well what about rape? And what about this...?" That is never an issue...never an issue. I always remember reading a beautiful story about a little black girl in Pennsylvania, just had her thirteenth birthday. She was attacked by a white man and she was raped. And she was pregnant. And some months later she gave birth to a little baby. Could have had an abortion...might have in this day and time. But she didn't. That little baby grew up to become one of the most beloved people American society has ever known, the dear and precious sweet lady in whom the grace of Christ was radiant. She made her mark, first of all, on society as a beloved actress. Later became known for the song, "His eye is on the sparrow." Her name is Ethel Waters. There are thousands of Ethel Waters in the world. Who can judge? Certainly not you, not unless you want to fight God who gives life. Let's bow in prayer.
Father, thank You for this beginning to understand Your Word. Thank You for a clear word that life is Your gift, not ours to take. We pray that You would speak peace to any who are here with troubled hearts because they've already done this. Bring them the grace of forgiveness in Christ. Help us to stand for Your truth and Your Word against an evil generation. And, Father, I pray for everyone here, that each of us might know You personally in Jesus Christ, that we might live for Your glory, that we might obey Your Word, that we might love Your people, that we might extend Your Kingdom.


text:
Finding a present for a precious little one is easy when you shop at Gifts.com. Our various gift ideas for a 1 year old girl will make any little princess enjoy her special day.
Celebrating a first birthday is an exciting occasion, so don't go to her birthday party without first perusing our one year old gift ideas. Personalize items that she can grow with; whether it's a stool with her name emblazoned in beautiful colors or a pretty pillowcase where she can rest her little head, our gift ideas for a 1 year old girl are sure to please both her parents and the birthday girl.
A soft plush doll is a lovely and appropriate option, and a cross with her name on it makes for beautiful wall décor. Keep her cozy with any of our comforting gift ideas for a 1 year old girl. A buttery soft quilt makes sleep come easy, and a comfy bodysuit will make dressing up for any occasion easy on her parents. You can also select from our various practical gift ideas for a 1 year old girl. From nightlights etched with her name to a bib that will keep the birthday cake from getting on her clothing, her parents will appreciate the utility infused with personality.
When trying to choose from our one year old gift ideas, don't forget to include her parents—it's a wonderful occasion for them, as well. We have birthday gift ideas that they will get enjoyment from, like the delivery of a bountiful bouquet, especially if you live miles away and can't make it to the celebrations. Perfectly pink chocolate covered strawberries are a welcome addition to a birthday party's spread, and a basket of gourmet nuts will serve as a scrumptious snack while the birthday girl enjoys the festivities.
Find gifts for a one year old within our wonderful assortment, and let us help you handle all your 1 year old baby gifts in the future to make shopping for new family members easier than ever. We also offer new baby gift ideas to welcome new additions. Our baby gifts combine function, style, and sweetness to fit for your favorite little girl so make the first birthday she ever has go off without a hitch.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
It's a good thing the Highlands Cowgirls had Amanda Beauchamp, Desiree Valentine and Katelyn White back in the fold for Monday night's home game against University of the Southwest. Considering all the fouls whistled against NMHU in the first half alone, the team needed the extra personnel.
Indeed, free throw shooting allowed Southwest to stay in the game in the early going. Highlands, increasingly healthy and boasting a nearly full roster for the first time this season, controlled much of the contest but the Mustangs used a late flourish to snag a 59-51 win.
If you currently subscribe or have subscribed in the past to the Las Vegas Optic, then simply find your account number on your mailing label and enter it below.
Click the question mark below to see where your account ID appears on your mailing label.
|ZIP Code:


text:
It's Monday again, and that means it's time for another Reader Mailbag.
I think I read an old post where you gave a suggestion into when it is good to utilize a credit cards rewards program and when it isn't such a good idea. I don't remember too much about the post but I think it's somewhere along the lines of "you should sign up for the rewards program only if a certain condition is met". I am trying to see whether or not I should keep my bank's (Wells Fargo) reward program and it has an annual fee of $20.
– Raymond
Here's my philosophy for rewards credit cards in a nutshell.
First, if you're not earning multiple percentage points in rewards, don't bother. A good rewards credit card will earn you more than 1% back in rewards. Some cards in some situations can earn you as much as 4% back. Don't waste your time with a card that earns less than 2%.
Second, if those "rewards" are intrinsically tied to points that are very limited in terms of what you can use them for, don't bother. If your "rewards" are tied to some catalog of consumer goods set up by your credit card holder, don't bother with the card unless there's some explicit way of maximizing that. For example, our Amazon card requires us to explicitly go to a catalog site and choose to use our rewards on Amazon gift certificates, which we can then use on all sorts of things.
Third, if the card's rewards program encourages you to spend more at retailers that you normally don't use, don't bother. A rewards program should never cause you to alter your spending habits in the direction of spending more. Instead, look for cards in line with how you already spend your money, such as cards tied to the gas stations you use, the grocery stores you use, or aren't tied to any retailer at all.
Use those three rules and you'll filter out the vast majority of rewards programs. Stick with one that makes it through that trial by fire.
How did you get over the fear of introducing your blog to those closest to you? Weren't you afraid they were going to know how deep your financial hole was? Did anyone judge you when you did reveal it?
– Gina
I really didn't worry about it at all.
One big reason I started The Simple Dollar is I wanted to convince my friends and some of my family that it was okay to talk about money issues, particularly with me. I decided the best way to make everyone feel more comfortable about it is by confessing my mistakes right off the bat.
It actually worked. While it hasn't wound up causing many big roundtable discussions about money, I have had many money-related one-on-one conversations with my family and friends about financial issues. They already know that I've messed up badly when it comes to finances and they also know I've done the footwork to figure out how to fix it. Add that into the fact that they know me personally and (most) judge me to be reasonably trustworthy (I think, anyway), they're willing to talk to me about it.
I'm thrilled about it.
Another thing: if someone is going to look down at me because I've confessed my mistakes publicly and am working to fix the problems, I don't really think too much of them. No one is perfect. Every single person you see makes mistakes – and they're often big ones. If they simultaneously look down at me but, at the same time, don't have the courage themselves to publicly share their life mistakes, I don't really have a whole lot of respect for that.
How do you decide where to draw the line when discussing elements of your life?
– May
With an audience as large as The Simple Dollar has, this is an issue I've considered quite a lot over the years. I have a pretty set policy at this point.
If it directly affects just me, I'm pretty open about it. If it affects my wife, I know what boundaries she has about discussing elements of her life. The same goes for my kids – my wife and I have a policy when it comes to sharing about them.
I have a few minor disabilities that I don't usually discuss because they usually don't affect anything and I'm so used to them that I roll straight through it (for those curious, I am completely deaf in one ear, almost completely blind in one eye, and basically have no thyroid gland), although they have affected some of my financial decisions on occasion. In fact, those three minor issues might actually fill in a few little gaps for long-time readers.
When it comes to my family and friends, I obfuscate heavily. I will combine elements of different people. I will check with people before I write about them in any way that's specific at all and allow them to read it first and veto it if they choose (no one ever has). I don't feel it's right to invade their privacy or dignity. I do have some blanket permissions from a few people very close to me to write about them (John being one).
I'm also careful with specific pieces of information that are irrelevant to the issue at hand but which could be used for identity theft. I often completely substitute false information in these cases.
There are times when these concerns can sometimes interfere with a full discussion of a financial issue on The Simple Dollar. In those cases, I usually do the best I can to make do while steering clear of those concerns. More than once, this has caused me to be strongly attacked by readers.
I am 31 years old with a comfortable income and no kids. I currently max out my Roth IRA contributions with a standing withdrawal from my bank account. I recently moved to Finland, so I am no longer receiving any 401(K) benefits. My 401(K) investments I had accrued with my employer in the U.S. is now just sitting in a Fidelity account. Is there any reason to roll this into a regular IRA? Or do I just move over some of it to the Roth IRA and stop contributing for 2010?
– Angela
The reason one would want to roll over a 401(k) is so that one has better access to investment options for that money. If you're really happy with the options that Fidelity gives you for the 401(k), leave it there. Otherwise, I'd roll it over into a traditional IRA with an investment house that you trust (I usually recommend Vanguard).
A separate question revolves around converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. 2010 is the year to do this if you're going to do it because there's no income test for a conversion in 2010. Anyone can convert to a Roth, pay the taxes, and secure untaxed income in retirement. Should you convert? If you believe your tax rate in retirement will be lower than your tax rate now, then it's probably worth your while.
No matter what, it shouldn't affect your contributions for 2010. You should absolutely continue to contribute towards your retirement.
I have question about closing a Roth IRA to pay off debt. Currently I have 7500 in credit card debt and my wife has about 11,000 (once we use our tax return to pay off some of her debt). I had a mutal fund that isn't performing very well, I have had it for 10+ years ($1600). I'm closing the account and adding it to an emergency fund that has about $150. I also have a Roth IRA with about $1600 in after an intial investment of $4000 (during the tech boom). My question to you is should I close this Roth IRA and use it to pay off debt, knowing that I will get penalized for closing it and taxed or should I just transfer it to a another account (Vangard or Fedelity Roth IRA)? Can I write off the Roth IRA loss ($4000 to $1600) on my tax return?
– Oscar
Your only penalty here would be losing the balance of your Roth IRA without converting it. Your basis for the Roth is the amount you put into the account – $4,000. If you take out the full balance – $1,600 – it's just a straight loss of $2,400.
Can you claim that on your taxes? You can only claim it if you close ALL of your Roth IRA accounts at the same time. This sounds like it's your only Roth IRA, so you would just need to close this one.
If you wish to move your Roth IRA, contact the business to which you want to move the account and explain your situation. They will be able to help you move the account.
I will be getting back a substantial reimbursement from he IRS but I owe just as much on a credit card which has an interest rate of 23%. Since I do not have any emergency fund, I was thinking of just banking that money and continue paying my credit card at approximately $500. a month. I know the logical thing to do is pay off the credit card and save the $500. monthly but I'm actually almost afraid of doing that. I live with my boyfriend and he is currently facing the possibility of a lay off. What are your thoughts on this. Should I save the large sum or pay off the credit card with it?
– Yomaira
If you're facing the strong possibility of a layoff and you would have to support both you and your boyfriend with your savings, then you should bank the money and keep making minimum payments on that debt. A job loss is a significant risk with some pretty strong consequences.
Once the situation is clear, however, you should keep an emergency fund of about $1,000, take the rest of it, and make a giant payment on that credit card.
The most important thing you can do in this situation, though, is get out of the habit of using credit cards. Put them in a place where they're hard to reach and learn how to live without them for a while. One common suggestion is the old "block of ice" trick, but that's often fixed with a hammer. I like the "put them in a coffee can and bury them" trick better.
My husband and I had a wonderfully misspent youth and much of our older lives. We were not financially wise and the way things worked out we moved around a lot to stay employed. Moving takes money and we find ourselves at the brink of retirement with insufficient savings. Worse, we do not have a house that is even close to paid off. And finally, my husband is being forced to retire in June pushing us to make some financial decisions.
Our current house is at the low end of the market for where we live. We confirmed with a real estate friend last night that pretty much any housing option in our town that puts a roof over our heads will cost about what we are currently paying. I am still employed in a good job but we will not be able to keep the house and our current expenses with just my salary. My husband can likely find some contracts and consulting but not full time employment at the salary he was making before.
We could move somewhere else. We have checked the MLS in areas where we used to live or would consider moving and we could have a house for much less than we pay here. Only if we move, I am walking away from a good job in an uncertain economy. At my current age I am competing with younger, fresher, and cheaper talent. There would be no guarantees beyond our fairly minimal retirement benefits for either of us.
The bottom line is that where we are we have one good job but living expenses beyond our means. We could move to where life is cheaper but would then have no additional income or guarantee of job. What to do….?
– Delores
The first thought that comes to mind when I read your story is cohabitation. Do you have a room or two in your house that you could rent out to someone, perhaps a college student or someone in town for a short period for a consulting job? That's one efficient way to reduce the burden of your mortgage.
The second option I would suggest is polishing up your resume and seeing if you can find work in the areas where you would consider moving. There's no penalty in at least trying to find work, even if you aren't successful. If you do find a job there, problem solved.
The final thing I would do in your situation is encourage your husband to do the same thing you're doing. He should be beating the pavement hard looking for opportunities. Now is the perfect time to hunt up old colleagues to see if they're aware of any work opportunities.
Good luck!
When I bought my car almost 3 years ago, I had 2 90-day late marks on my credit report. I didn't know about them until I got my car loan. At that moment I was in a bad spot – my home and lifestyle mandate that I have a vehicle and my old one was dead in the parking lot (and yes, I was also young and dumb, excited to be buying a new-used car, and fresh out of college making good money while my student loans were still in deferrment). So I got stuck with 11% interest rate and was too stupid to do anything about it for a while.
When I realized I can probably renegotiate my interest rate I assumed I should probably work on improving my credit score first so I'd have some negotiating power.
The two late pays were real, although both were honest mistakes (one was an account with an annual fee that I forgot to close, and the other had to do with the post office not forwarding my mail for a few months). They are both off my record now (worked with the credit card company to remove the one where I wasn't getting the bill and the other one expired) but I've made some other mistakes. Nothing big. There have been several times when my car payment was 1-3 days late. And there've been some times when I had to defer a payment (within in the terms of the loan agreement) This wouldn't be on my credit report but the credit union that owns the loan will surely know about them. I'm afraid it will go against my plea of "I'm a good customer. I always pay my bill. Please give me a break."
I've also used my credit cards more than I should have so my debt-to-credit ratio is high.
Anyway, I thought you might be able to provide some insight about negotiating a lower interest rate on an existing loan.
– Julie
The first thing you need to do is go take a look at your credit report. Visit annualcreditreport.com and find out what your credit report looks like. You need to at least know what facts about you are being shared.
If you find anything on there that's inaccurate, chase it down and get it off the report. This might take some time and some phone calls, but it's usually not too terrible and it can make a big difference.
Once you've verified that the report is accurate and as good as it can be, you'll want to head to a local credit union. Explain that you signed a very poor car loan and would like to refinance it. I don't think direct negotiation with your current loan holder will do you much good here.
Good luck!
My husband and I and 2 kids love to go out to eat, especially Chinese or Thai food. We have done a great job in curbing our 4 times a week going out to once a week. Although both of us work, we are working to get debt free and any money saved goes to paying off debt. Hopefully we will only owe a mortgage by August. I am not too worried about the mortgage b/c interest rate is 4.75%. Back to my question: I really thinks my Dear Hubby believes that he is a king. When we go out to eat, he has to have the most expensive dinner and soup and salad and appetizer or sushi. The kids have come to expect this also, but we end up only ordering one thing between the two of them. I have finally convinced my dear hubby to drink water so the kids will not want a drink either. Our bill comes out to be $45 or more sometimes. And that is after I end up eating very light to compensate for his extravagance. We discuss this all the time and he feels I am wrong wanting to limit the amount he wants to eat. I feel that we should be able to indulge on special occasions (bdays and anniversaries) and on other going out days, eat sensibly. So who would you say is in the right?
– Nisha
If going out for a nice meal is something that your husband deeply values and he's frugal in other areas of his life, you're spending less than $50 to feed your whole family, you've cut dining out down to one night a week, and you're spending quite a bit less than you earn, I think I have to side with your husband on this one.
Small extravagances, if done with forethought and moderation, are part of the spice of life and can contribute greatly to one's enjoyment of life. If your husband's one real splurge in a week is a very nice meal – one where the total family bill is still less than $50 – I see nothing wrong with it, particularly if you're still spending substantially less than you earn ater that meal.
If your husband spends money left and right, then there's a bigger problem at work here that involves overall responsible use of money and deserves special treatment and long conversations. But that doesn't sound like the case here.
Why won't you review [personal finance book X]?
– Sheila
First of all, there are thousands of personal finance books I've never reviewed and there are more printed every week. I have a single review slot each week to fill.
Because of that, I have to be somewhat selective about what I review for the site. I try hard to pick books that say something interesting to me and also to my readers.
At the same time, I try not to review books that engage in practices I dislike, like selling fear as part of the financial message or offering up highly questionable tactics without discussing the risks or drawbacks of those tactics. I don't think books like that have value and I won't waste editorial space on them.
After that, a major factor is availability. Does my library have it? Will the publisher send me a review copy of it? If one of those two is true, I'm much more likely to review it.
Got any questions? Ask in the comments or send me an email and I'll try to include it in a future reader mailbag.


text:
Rayco Style 4 Weissenborn with Dazzo Pickup. All Koa, Made in Canada.
* Mastergrade flame koa back, sides and top
* Koa veneer headstock
* Weissenborn style 4 binding
* Koa bridge and fretboard
* Custom mop diamond inlay
* Custom made high gloss finish
* Waverly tuner
* Dazzo Pickup


text:
Race: Artifact
Class: Arkentool
Attuned to: Charlie
Associated Discipline:
One of the Arkentools, currently possessed by and attuned to Charlie of Charlescomm.Erf-b1-p042Erf-b1-p092
Arkendish gives its attuned user superior Thinkamancy abilities.Erf-b1-p089
Proposed Canon
The Arkendish can do many things, most of them connected to Thinkamancy.
With it, Charlie can handle an unlimited number of Thinkagrams, and extend some of his abilities to his personal Archons in his tower.
Any commander in the world can get those Archons' attention by concentrating hard enough, for long enough. This could take hours or even days, but Charlescomm would establish contact eventually. This allows him to hire out to any side or barbarian in the world.
If, as some casters believe, the Arkenpliers allow Wanda to extend Croakamancy into the Life axis, then perhaps the Arkendish allows Charlie to extend Thinkamancy into the Matter axis.
The signature unit of the Dish seems to be the Archons, flying female knight-class units with an array of powers. Charlie can pop one archon every turn or three archons every two turns with a turnamancer. Whether this capability is granted by the Dish is unknown. Most other cities cannot pop archons at all and those that can take multiple turns.
Other abilities may be to interfere with and/or tap into other communication devices (Eyebook, prime example)Erf-b1-p100 and possibly listen in on other sides' thinkagrams (the technology behind the Eyebook). Immediately after being shown to be "on another call" while Parson gives his Spacerock battle plan to WandaErf-b2-p38, Charlie seems to be acting with knowledge of it when he tries to convince Jillian to returnErf-b2-p39 and Tramennis to refuse parley.Erf-b2-p41 Presumably he doesn't share Parson's battle plan with either of them because it's more important to protect his eavesdropping secret.
The Arkendish apparently enhances (if Charlie is a caster) or grants him the ability to act as a Thinkamancer for the purpose of forming a Caster link over extreme range. In spite of the distance, this link is possibly more powerful than a normal Thinkamancer link.book-2-–-text-updates-014 , Erf-b2-p22 While the caster link is active, the Arkendish can't be used for communication.book-2-–-text-updates-018
Might give enhanced Thinkamancy abilities to units under Charlie's control (Charlie's Archons).
Extreme speculation: Mind control/influence, especially when directly communicating. (Maggie is very worried when Parson asks her to contact Charlie.)Erf-b1-p088
More extreme speculation: given its Thinkamancy based abilities, a four-caster link may be possible.
Real World References
The Arkendish resembles the antenna used for satellite television.
It was pointed out that Dish Network formed by Charles W. "Charlie" Ergen provides satellite television service in the United States.


text:
Note: this feature ran in the print edition on Thursday, July 32rd.
ADDISON COUNTY — Want to know what it might cost to finance your new home? Take a look at the chart below to find out an approximate payment schedule for a mortgage, depending on the price of the home and the initial down payment.
Loan officer Madeline Gardner from the National Bank of Middlebury recommends a down payment of 20 percent, if this is possible for the homebuyer. This is the minimum down payment that a homebuyer can make without paying an additional monthly fee for PMI (private mortgage insurance). Although there are programs that will allow the homebuyer to take out a loan for the total cost of the house with no down payment, these are increasingly rare.
The rates in the table are calculated using a 5.5 percent interest rate over 30 years.
Amortization schedule
Source: www.bankrate.com
To find out more about financing your new home, visit bankrate.com's mortgage calculator.
For basic mortgage information from the Federal Reserve Board, click here, and for more information click here.


text:
Early voting results, which only provides voter demographics and not ballot choices, is often used as electoral tea leaves, to try to divine trends or predictions before election day. Louisiana's early and absentee voting ended this week, so I took a look at the numbers from the Secretary of State's office to see who the state's eager beavers are.
This year, 517,614 people early voted in Louisiana, 31% more than in 2012, and 43% more than in 2008. Early voting is clearly a growing phenomenon, at least here, though there are similar reports of records being broken across the country.
Of those, 38% were Republicans, 44% were Democrats, and 16% were Libertarians, Greens, other parties, or unaffiliated voters. Before you take this to mean Hillary is going to win one of the reddest of red states, let's take a look at prior years.
Four years ago, early voting was a little bluer. In 2012, 50% were Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 14% other. I shouldn't need to remind you that Louisiana was still very, very red in 2012. Romney won 57% of the total vote to Obama's 40%. Even though Democrats had a majority of the early vote, Republicans still took the total vote by a huge margin due to election day turnout.
Four years before that, early voting was bluer still. In 2008, 57% were Democrats, 28% were Republicans, and 13% other. That year, McCain beat Obama 58 to 39.
At least in Lousiana, early voting demographics don't seem to be predictive of either party's total vote share. As Republicans have increased their early voting share significantly, by 6-7 points each cycle, their total share of the total presidential vote has remained about the same.


text:
A New Bern man remained in jail Monday after he was charged Friday in connection with a wreck and an attempt to flee custody of law enforcement.
A New Bern man remained in jail Monday after he was charged Friday in connection with a wreck and an attempt to flee custody of law enforcement.
Sean Gregory Barlow, 46, of 109 White Ash Lane in New Bern faces one count of hit and run-leaving the scene of an accident with property damage, making an unsafe movement and driving while his license was revoked, warrants state. The incident occurred around 1:55 a.m. Friday on Pollock Street in downtown New Bern.
Warrants state Barlow failed to provide his name, address, driver�s license number and license plate number at the accident scene. His bail was set at $2,000.
Later on Friday, Barlow made an attempt to escape from Sheriff�s Department custody, court papers state. A warrant states Barlow tried to escape from the custody of a deputy at the Craven County Confinement Facility, where he was awaiting a first court appearance on unrelated financial card charges. Bail for the attempted escape charge has been set at $1,000.
In the unrelated financial card case, Barlow is charged with one count of financial card theft and two counts of felony financial card fraud in connection with a May incident, warrants state.
Barlow allegedly took possession of a New Bern woman�s debit card without consent and used it to obtain money and goods, court documents state. The amount taken in the first count was $1,201.21, while the amount of the second offense was greater than $500, warrants state.
Barlow has been ordered to stay away from the victim in the financial card case. His next court date is Aug. 9. Bail for these charges was set at $5,000.
Megan Beyer can be reached at 252-635-5671 or email@example.com.


text:
Selected short messages and links you might have missed if you don't follow me on Twitter.
Dec 28, 2009
LeaseWeb seems to have removed malicious servers from its network after my blog post about the "GNU GPL" scripts. (OVH still hosts hackers)
Dec 30, 2009
Good Guys Bring Down the Mega-D Botnet – respect @FireEye !
Jan 2, 2010
If you want more real-time experience, you can follow @UnmaskParasites on Twitter.
Related posts:


text:
Watch BrickStix on Fox & Friends with Meredith Sinclair »
The Martha Stewart "Do Something" Show with BrickStix
It's official, BrickStix are Martha Stewart approved! Greyson MacLean, BrickStix Kid Inventor, dazzles Ms. Stewart with his innovative, simple idea. Watch now!
12-Year-Old Inventor Greyson MacLean Drops Truthbombs
BrickStix had the great pleasure of flying out to Los Angeles to be on the Conan O'Brien show. Conan wanted to interview our very own kid inventor, Greyson. What an amazing time we had and what a hilarious interview, watch now and get ready to laugh!


text:
Letter to the House Education and Labor Committee on retaining civil rights protections in the Head Start bill
March 02, 2007
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we urge you to retain critical civil rights protections as you draft and mark-up legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program. Specifically, we urge you to oppose any amendment to repeal longstanding provisions designed to protect the over 198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and 1,450,000 parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on religion in federally-funded Head Start programs. Actions in committee on this issue may be scored in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 110th Congress.
NEA recognizes the invaluable contributions of religious organizations participating in Head Start. In fact, many faith-based organizations have been providing Head Start services for decades while abiding by the law's civil rights protections. These fundamental protections were inserted into the law in 1981—in reauthorization legislation signed by President Reagan—and have been included in every reauthorization since then. Clearly, faith-based providers do not need a repeal of 35-year-old civil rights protections to continue to provide Head Start services.
Repeal of the Head Start civil rights provisions would mark the first time Congress has ever acted to repeal existing, statutory antidiscrimination protections. Allowing discrimination based on religion would significantly impede the important goals of Head Start by allowing programs to fire qualified teachers and staff who do not share the religious beliefs of their employer. Most importantly, repealing these protections would send a damaging message to Head Start students, contradicting important lessons about diversity and tolerance.
Repealing Head Start civil rights protections is divisive, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. We urge you reject any such efforts.
Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations
Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Advocacy


text:
FitzGerald's battle with Thatcher's 'Fortress Falklands nationalism'
An election victory and unionist aides hardened the British leader's stance, 1983 papers show
Irish politicians and civil servants were indefatigable in their research on Margaret Thatcher and her probable approach to Northern
Ireland policy.
Jim Prior, her Northern secretary, confided that she was greatly influenced by Enoch Powell, "whose intellect she enjoyed" and who had the persuasive powers to reinforce her own "very strong" support for the union.
Thatcher's foreign secretary Francis Pym spoke to Irish diplomats of another influence, that of her parliamentary private secretary, Ian Gow, whom he characterised as a "rabid" and "romantic" unionist: Thatcher he described as "an emotional unionist". Prior added that, on Northern Ireland, it was his experience that she did "not focus on the problem and probably wished it would
go away".
In her memoirs, Thatcher writes that in approaching Anglo-Irish relations in 1983, she was always "wary about allowing the Irish to set the pace". Evidence in the Irish archives, just released under the 30-year rule, confirms this guardedness.
Recalling this period later, Thatcher complained about "the whirly-gig of Irish politics", which saw both Charles Haughey and Garret FitzGerald win and lose power twice in quick succession. But with FitzGerald's convincing win in the November 1982 general election, there was some prospect of continuity. Indeed at his meeting with her in the margins of an EEC summit in March 1983, FitzGerald suggested reviving "the old relationship"; he was also interested in reactivating official level contact "without publicity". While Thatcher acquiesced, she thought it important to "go slowly on all of this".
Decidedly lukewarm
And she was decidedly lukewarm about FitzGerald's obvious enthusiasm for the New Ireland Forum recently established in Dublin at which constitutional politicians were invited to explore new political structures in Ireland. She
had invariably noted from unionists, "immediately and sharply", a negative response to any mention of the forum: it "revived all the Sunningdale ghosts".
Some three months later, in preparation for another meeting in the margins of another EEC summit in Stuttgart, FitzGerald was briefed on the importance of convincing Thatcher that the forum was "a responsible and important enterprise" which could be positive for both countries.
Between these summits, Thatcher had convincingly retained power in a British general election. She retained Prior in her government, safer within cabinet than on the backbenches, and safer still in the difficult, intractable job of Northern secretary where there was little prospect of anything like a success that might prompt him to attempt a leadership bid. In advance of the Stuttgart summit, FitzGerald was warned, by his trusted adviser in Iveagh House, Michael Lillis, that Thatcher's post-election mood on Ireland was likely to be "one of heady and reinforced certitude". Her "Fortress Falklands nationalism" had proved popular and had stirred "deep patriotic feeling among the British people". Set against this "stiffened chauvinism", the concerns of Irish nationalism were likely to be seen as "inherently adversarial" and could even be seen as "somewhat irrational or contemptible [whining]".
Thatcher could be expected to admit of "no doubt or nuance" on her handling
of the hunger strikes: she would not "accept that her stern obduracy contributed to the present problem of alienation among Northern nationalists". Moreover, this would make it particularly difficult "to penetrate her stated conviction that terrorists should be hanged for their crimes of murder".
Free vote
Presently, there was to be a free vote at Westminster on the reintroduction of capital punishment. The advice to FitzGerald was that he should insist both governments consult each other on any major departure in the fight against terrorism; and he should cite, as an example, any return to capital punishment. "The taoiseach might go on to say that facing the reality of Irish nationalism means facing the difficult fact that hanging Irish nationalist terrorists would be a catastrophe for all of us." The situation "would quickly become worse than anything we had experienced in the past 13 years".
This was seen as a nightmare scenario in Dublin and not only by Irish politicians: the British embassy had also sent "a strong cable" to London, warning that hanging IRA members would "create a situation much worse than the H-Block hunger strikes".
It was suggested to FitzGerald that he should emphasise that, for the Irish government, the Northern Ireland issue would "always receive the highest priority above every other problem"; and that he would hope and believe that Thatcher would accord it similar importance. It would "require all the courage and ingenuity" of both leaders to "prevail over the appalling legacy of history".
But these were qualities which she had already "amply demonstrated".
At the summit FitzGerald emphasised the degree of intimidation and personation by Sinn Féin in the recent elections in Northern Ireland. The SDLP had put women in as personation agents because of their "greater courage" in facing IRA intimidation. In one polling booth, a woman had "turned away 240 people who were attempting personation – out of a total of about 900 who were supposed to vote at the booth. She had been threatened by Sinn Féin and, finally, driven away from the booth in a Saracen armoured car."
Thatcher expressed "horror" at this account and wondered how it could be given wider publicity. FitzGerald said it was not being reported "possibly because journalists also suffered intimidation". FitzGerald spoke at some length about his hopes for the forum: how its deliberations might improve southern appreciation of the unionist position. He was also
anxious to develop a concept
of nationalism "which was much more open". He was not convinced Haughey would support this, "but he did not exclude the possibility".
When FitzGerald mentioned their next meeting Thatcher was immediately receptive to the idea insisting that "we should meet more often".
The alienation of Northern nationalists and the growth of support for Sinn Féin was again a theme in the only formal summit of 1983 held at Chequers on November 7th. FitzGerald warned the SDLP was a party of "part-timers", open to being outflanked by Sinn Féin, a young, wealthy and resourceful party which posed a threat to stability. Commenting on this risk south of the Border, FitzGerald complained that there were "many soft-headed people in the country and there was a form of atavistic nationalist feeling just under the surface".
Thatcher more than once said they "had identified the problems but she had not seen any solutions". They were both concerned that Brian Walden's Weekend World programme had, the previous day, "concentrated on the subject of joint sovereignty", suggesting FitzGerald was coming to Chequers to propose it as a solution. FitzGerald said he had stressed to the media that "he would not be looking for hard decisions or conclusions at this point".
They then both agreed, obviously in anticipation
of media queries, that they
had not been discussing
joint sovereignty.
'Somewhat unhappy'
In discussing their next meeting FitzGerald presumed Thatcher would come to Dublin. "The prime minister did not respond directly to
this but commented that
the extent of the security necessary on the occasion of her first visit to Dublin left her somewhat unhappy."
If, as government secretary Dermot Nally suggested, the essential agenda of this first summit would be the "normalisation" of Anglo-Irish relations, the minutes now released could be considered evidence of success in this modest ambition.
The communique described it formally as the first meeting at heads of government level of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, which Thatcher had established with FitzGerald in his first term as taoiseach. But in her memoirs, she seemed disdainful, describing its title as "rather grand sounding" and complaining that initially FitzGerald had pressed her "to agree talks between officials on future co-operation" despite the fact she did not believe "there was much to talk about".
'Band of brothers'
The mandarins on both sides seem to have thought otherwise: indeed they would, in time, become such friends that Robert Armstrong, cabinet secretary in Downing Street, would use the term "we band of brothers" to describe their working relationship. And it was their efforts which would, within 18 months, produce the historic breakthrough at Hillsborough of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Haughey's phrase from the December 1980 communique that officials would give "special consideration" to the "totality of relationships within these islands" proved to be something of a blank cheque.
It could always be relied upon to provide some agenda
where officials could discuss more pragmatic initiatives than were ever likely to be suggested by Thatcher's rabid unionist advisers, Ian Gow or Enoch Powell.
Thatcher had always disliked references to "the totality of relationships", but she had never succeeded in shaking the phrase off and, with hindsight, it may well be reckoned to have provided the first step in a new approach to the Irish Question.
John Bowman is a historian
and broadcaster