1) Dr. Charles F. Stanley's 30
Life Principles –
Our Intimacy with God
Scripture: Psalm 63:1-8
I. Introduction: Do you have an intimate connection with God? The Father designed us with the emotional and spiritual capacity to have a loving, personal relationship with Him.
King David knew how to have an intimate relationship with the Lord. Although he was far from perfect, David had learned that only the Father's love could satisfy his heart's deepest longings (Ps. 63:3). The king passionately sought God through prayer, repentance, and obedience. From his example, you and I can learn how to enjoy closeness with the Father.
II. Man's Relationship with God
A.
Direct. The Lord is the ultimate authority over each and every
person's life—even those who refuse to acknowledge His sovereignty.
B.
Distinct. If you have trusted in Jesus' death on the cross to pay for
your sin-debt, you've become one of God's children and have a unique
relationship with Him.
C.
Distant. Sometimes God's children allow their relationship with Him
to suffer. They may attend church, but might not read their Bibles faithfully
or know how to relate to the Lord in prayer. As a result, they excuse sin in
their lives and don't have a sense of oneness with Him.
D.
Developing. Some believers passionately pursue relationship with the
Father on a continual, daily basis—regardless of life's circumstances.
III. Requirements for an Intimate Relationship with God
A.
A Spiritual Focus. For most people, the word
"intimacy" is associated primarily with sexuality. But genuine
fellowship with God involves relating to Him on an emotional and spiritual
level rather than a physical one.
B.
Personal Involvement. The Lord created humans in His
image so that all people could relate to Him on an individual basis. The Holy
Spirit lives within every believer, giving each one the ability to develop a
personal friendship with Christ.
C.
Trust. Intimacy cannot exist without trust. If you and I refuse to
surrender to and obey God, we can't expect to have an intimate relationship
with Him.
D.
Love. Oneness with God must be motivated out of love, not duty.
Remember that God forgave you on the basis of Christ's death on the cross. You
don't have to earn His affection. Let that fact motivate you to freely and
genuinely devote yourself to knowing Him better.
E.
Openness and Transparency. Confess specific sins
and shortcomings to the Lord. Be honest with Him, and intimacy will grow.
F.
Two-way Communication. Ask the Father to show you how to
hear His guidance for your life, and set aside time to listen to Him.
G.
Time and Effort. You must devote yourself to knowing the Lord if you want to
experience the fullness of friendship with Him.
IV. Benefits of Intimacy with the Father
A.
Stability. In the midst of life's storms, a solid relationship with God
is your anchor.
B.
Security. You can have the assurance that He is always with you, ready
to help in any situation or circumstance.
C.
Serenity. Intimacy gives you quietness and peace in your spirit, no
matter what happens. You can trust that the Lord will guide you through
difficulty.
D.
Sensitivity. God will give you greater spiritual understanding and
increased awareness to the needs of others. .
V. Barriers to Intimacy
A.
Pride. Some put their trust in themselves and pursue relationships,
accomplishments, or possessions instead of a relationship with the Father.
B.
Rebellion. When we deliberately disobey the Lord, we cannot have
intimacy with Him.
C.
Hurry. Some people never find intimacy with God because they are
always impatient.
VI. Conclusion: I pray your relationship with God is characterized by unity, surrender, and joy. But if you aren't experiencing intimacy with the Lord, He desires to reveal Himself in a personal way to you. Let go of pride, confess your sin and rebellion, and devote yourself to a relationship with Him. David wrote, "In Your presence is fullness of joy; in Your right hand there are pleasures forever" (Ps. 16:11). Only God can satisfy the deepest longings of your heart. Take time to discover the awesome depth of the Father's love through an intimate relationship with Him.
2) The 30-Day Reading List That Will Lead You to Becoming a Knowledgeable Libertarian by Robert Wenzel
The Task Confronting
Libertarians
Introduction
From
time to time over the last 30 years, after I have talked or written about some
new restriction on human liberty in the economic field, some new attack on
private enterprise, I have been asked in person or received a letter asking,
"What can I do" — to fight the inflationist or socialist
trend? Other writers or lecturers, I find, are often asked the same question.
The
answer is seldom an easy one. For it depends on the circumstances and ability
of the questioner — who may be a businessman, a housewife, a student, informed
or not, intelligent or not, articulate or not. And the answer must vary with
these presumed circumstances.
The
general answer is easier than the particular answer. So here I want to write
about the task now confronting all libertarians considered collectively.
This
task has become tremendous, and seems to grow greater every day. A few nations
that have already gone completely communist, like Soviet Russia and its
satellites, try, as a result of sad experience, to draw back a little from
complete centralization, and experiment with one or two quasi-capitalist
techniques; but the world's prevailing drift — in more than 100 out of the 111
or so nations and mini-nations that are now members of the International
Monetary Fund — is in the direction of increasing socialism and controls.
The
task of the tiny minority that is trying to combat this socialistic drift seems
nearly hopeless. The war must be fought on a thousand fronts, and the true
libertarians are grossly outnumbered on practically all these fronts.
In
a thousand fields the welfarists, statists, socialists, and interventionists
are daily driving for more restrictions on individual liberty; and the
libertarians must combat them. But few of us individually have the time,
energy, and special knowledge in more than a handful of subjects to be able to
do this.
One
of our gravest problems is that we find ourselves confronting the armies of
bureaucrats who already control us, and who have a vested interest in keeping
and expanding the controls they were hired to enforce.
A Growing Bureaucracy
The
federal government now embraces some 2,500 different functioning agencies,
bureaus, departments, and divisions. Federal full-time permanent civilian
employees are estimated to reach 2,693,508 as of June 30, 1970.
And
we know, to take a few specific examples, that of these bureaucrats 16,800
administer the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
106,700 the programs (including Social Security) of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and 152,300 the programs of the Veterans
Administration.
If
we want to look at the rate at which parts of this bureaucracy have been
growing, let us refer again to the Department of Agriculture. In 1929, before
the United States Government started crop controls and price supports on an
extensive scale, there were 24,000 employees in that Department. Today,
counting part-time workers, there are 120,000, five times as many, all of them
with a vital economic interest — to wit, their own jobs — in proving that the
particular controls they were hired to formulate and enforce should be
continued and expanded.
"The war must be fought on a
thousand fronts, and the true libertarians are grossly outnumbered on
practically all these fronts."
What
chance does the individual businessman, the occasional disinterested professor
of economics, or columnist, or editorial writer, have in arguing against the
policies and actions of this 120,000-man army, even if he has had time to learn
the detailed facts of a particular issue? His criticisms are either ignored or
drowned out in the organized counterstatements.
This
is only one example out of scores. A few of us may suspect that there is much
unjustified or foolish expenditure in the United States Social Security
program, or that the unfunded liabilities already undertaken by the program
(one authoritative estimate of these exceeds a trillion dollars) may
prove to be unpayable without a gross monetary inflation. A handful of us may
suspect that the whole principle of compulsory government old age and
survivor's insurance is open to question. But there are some 100,000 full-time
permanent employees in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to
dismiss all such fears as foolish, and to insist that we are still not doing
nearly enough for our older citizens, our sick, and our widows and orphans.
And
then there are the millions of those who are already on the receiving end of
these payments, who have come to consider them as an earned right, who of
course find them inadequate, and who are outraged at the slightest suggestion
of a critical reexamination of the subject. The political pressure for constant
extension and increase of these benefits is almost irresistible.
And
even if there weren't whole armies of government economists, statisticians, and
administrators to answer him, the lone disinterested critic, who hopes to have
his criticism heard and respected by other disinterested and thoughtful people,
finds himself compelled to keep up with appalling mountains of detail.
Too Many Cases to Follow
The
National Labor Relations Board, for example, hands down hundreds of decisions
every year in passing on "unfair" labor practices. In the fiscal year
1967 it passed on 803 cases "contested as to the law and the facts."
Most of these decisions are strongly biased in favor of the labor unions; many
of them pervert the intention of the Taft-Hartley Act that they ostensibly
enforce; and in some of them the board arrogates to itself powers that go far
beyond those granted by the Act. The texts of many of these decisions are very
long in their statement of facts or alleged facts and of the board's
conclusions. How is the individual economist or editor to keep abreast of the
decisions and to comment informedly and intelligently on those that involve an
important principle or public interest?
Or
take again such major agencies as the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal
Communications Commission. These agencies often combine the functions of
legislators, prosecutors, judges, juries, and administrators.
Yet
how can the individual economist, student of government, journalist, or anyone
interested in defending or preserving liberty, hope to keep abreast of this
Niagara of decisions, regulations, and administrative laws? He may sometimes
consider himself lucky to be able to master in many months the facts concerning
one of these decisions.
The armies of bureaucrats have a
vested interest in keeping and expanding the controls they were hired to
enforce.
Professor
Sylvester Petro of New York University has written a full book on the Kohler strike and another full book on the Kingsport strike, and the public lessons to be learned from them. Professor Martin Anderson has specialized in the follies of urban renewal programs.
But how many are there among those of us who call ourselves libertarians who
are willing — or have the time — to do this specialized and microscopic but
indispensable research?
In
July, 1967, the Federal Communications Commission handed down an extremely
harmful decision ordering the American Telephone and Telegraph Company to lower
its interstate rates — which were already 20 percent lower than in 1940, though
the general price level since that time had gone up 163 percent. In order to
write a single editorial or column on this (and to feel confident he had his
facts straight), a conscientious journalist had to study, among other material,
the text of the decision. That decision consisted of 114 single-spaced
typewritten pages.
… and Schemes for Reform
We
libertarians have our work cut out for us.
In
order to indicate further the dimensions of this work, it is not merely the
organized bureaucracy that the libertarian has to answer; it is the individual
private zealots. A day never passes without some ardent reformer or group of
reformers suggesting some new government intervention, some new statist scheme
to fill some alleged "need" or relieve some alleged distress. They accompany
their scheme by elaborate statistics that supposedly prove the need or the
distress that they want the taxpayers to relieve. So it comes about that the
reputed "experts" on relief, unemployment insurance, Social Security,
Medicare, subsidized housing, foreign aid, and the like are precisely the
people who are advocating more relief, unemployment insurance, Social Security,
Medicare, subsidized housing, foreign aid, and all the rest.
Let
us come to some of the lessons we must draw from all this.
Specialists for the Defense
We
libertarians cannot content ourselves merely with repeating pious generalities
about liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. To assert and repeat
these general principles is absolutely necessary, of course, either as prologue
or conclusion. But if we hope to be individually or collectively effective, we
must individually master a great deal of detailed knowledge, and make ourselves
specialists in one or two lines, so that we can show how our libertarian
principles apply in special fields, and so that we can convincingly dispute the
proponents of statist schemes for public housing, farm subsidies, increased
relief, bigger Social Security benefits, bigger Medicare, guaranteed incomes,
bigger government spending, bigger taxation, especially more progressive income
taxation, higher tariffs or import quotas, restrictions or penalties on foreign
investment and foreign travel, price controls, wage controls, rent controls,
interest rate controls, more laws for so-called consumer protection, and still
tighter regulations and restrictions on business everywhere.
This
means, among other things, that libertarians must form and maintain
organizations not only to promote their broad principles — as do, for example,
the Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, the
American Institute for Economic Research at Great Barrington, Massachusetts,
and the American Economic Foundation in New York City — but to promote these
principles in special fields. I am thinking, for example, of such excellent
existing specialized organizations as the Citizens Foreign Aid Committee, the
Economists' National Committee on Monetary Policy, the Tax Foundation, and so
on.
"It is not merely the organized
bureaucracy that the libertarian has to answer; it is the individual private
zealots."
We
need not fear that too many of these specialized organizations will be formed.
The real danger is the opposite. The private libertarian organizations in the
United States are probably outnumbered ten to one by communist, socialist,
statist, and other left-wing organizations that have shown themselves to be
only too effective.
And
I am sorry to report that almost none of the old-line business associations
that I am acquainted with are as effective as they could be. It is not merely
that they have been timorous or silent where they should have spoken out, or
even that they have unwisely compromised. Recently, for fear of being called
ultraconservative or reactionary, they have been supporting measures harmful to
the very interests they were formed to protect. Several of them, for example,
came out in favor of the Johnson administration's tax increase on corporations
in 1968, because they were afraid to say that that Administration ought rather
to have slashed its profligate welfare spending.
The
sad fact is that today most of the heads of big businesses in America have
become so confused or intimidated that, so far from carrying the argument to
the enemy, they fail to defend themselves adequately even when attacked. The
pharmaceutical industry, subjected since 1962 to a discriminatory law that
applies questionable and dangerous legal principles which the government has
not yet dared to apply in other fields, has been too timid to present its own
case effectively. And the automobile makers, attacked by a single zealot for
turning out cars "unsafe at any speed," handled the matter with an
incredible combination of neglect and ineptitude that brought down on their
heads legislation harmful not only to the industry but to the driving public.
The Timidity of Businessmen
It
is impossible to tell today where the anti-business sentiment in Washington,
plus the itch for more government control, is going to strike next. In 1967
Congress allowed itself to be stampeded into a dubious extension of federal
power over intrastate meat sales. In 1968 it passed a
"truth-in-lending" law, forcing lenders to calculate and state
interest rates the way federal bureaucrats want them calculated and stated.
When, in January, 1968, President Johnson suddenly announced that he was
prohibiting American business from making further direct investments in Europe,
and that he was restricting them elsewhere, most newspapers and businessmen,
instead of raising a storm of protest against these unprecedented invasions of
our liberties, deplored their "necessity" and hoped they would be
only "temporary."
The
very existence of the business timidity that allows these things to happen is
evidence that government controls and power are already excessive.
Why
are the heads of big business in America so timid? That is a long story, but I
will suggest a few reasons:
1.
They may be entirely or largely
dependent on government war contracts.
2.
They never know when or on what
grounds they will be held guilty of violating the antitrust laws.
3.
They never know when or on what
grounds the National Labor Relations Board will hold them guilty of unfair
labor practices.
4.
They never know when their personal
income tax returns will be hostilely examined, and they are certainly not
confident that such an examination, and its findings, will be entirely
independent of whether they have been personally friendly or hostile to the
Administration in power.
It
will be noticed that the governmental actions or laws of which businessmen
stand in fear are actions or laws that leave a great deal to administrative
discretion. Discretionary administrative law should be reduced to a minimum; it
breeds bribery and corruption, and is always potentially blackmail or blackjack
law.
Schumpeter's Indictment
"Discretionary administrative
law should be reduced to a minimum; it breeds bribery and corruption."
Libertarians
are learning to their sorrow that big businessmen cannot necessarily be relied
upon to be their allies in the battle against extension of governmental
encroachments. The reasons are many. Sometimes businessmen will advocate
tariffs, import quotas, subsidies, and restrictions of competition, because
they think, rightly or wrongly, that these government interventions will be in
their personal interest, or in the interest of their companies, and are not
concerned whether or not they may be at the expense of the general public. More
often, I think, businessmen advocate these interventions because they are
honestly confused, because they just don't realize what the actual consequences
will be of the particular measures they propose, or fail to perceive the
cumulative debilitating effects of growing restrictions on human liberty.
Perhaps
most often of all, however, businessmen today acquiesce in new government
controls out of sheer timidity.
A
generation ago, in his pessimistic book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), the late Joseph A. Schumpeter maintained the thesis
that "in the capitalistic system there is a tendency toward
self-destruction." And as one evidence of this he cited the
"cowardice" of big businessmen when facing direct attack:
They
talk and plead — or hire people to do it for them; they snatch at every chance of
compromise; they are ever ready to give in; they never put up a fight under the
flag of their own ideals and interests — in this country there was no real
resistance anywhere against the imposition of crushing financial burdens during
the last decade or against labor legislation incompatible with the effective
management of industry.
So
much for the formidable problems facing dedicated libertarians. They find it
extremely difficult to defend particular firms and industries from harassment
or persecution when those industries will not adequately or competently defend
themselves. Yet division of labor is both possible and desirable in the defense
of liberty, as it is in other fields. And many, who have neither the time nor
the specialized knowledge to analyze particular industries or special complex
problems, can be nonetheless effective in the libertarian cause by hammering
incessantly on some single principle or point until it is driven home.
Some Basic Principles
Is
there any single principle or point on which libertarians could most
effectively concentrate? Let us look, and we may end by finding not one but
several.
One
simple truth that could be endlessly reiterated, and effectively applied to
nine-tenths of the statist proposals now being put forward or enacted in such
profusion, is that the government has nothing to give to anybody that it
doesn't first take from somebody else. In other words, all its relief and
subsidy schemes are merely ways of robbing Peter to support Paul.
Thus,
it can be pointed out that the modern welfare state is merely a complicated
arrangement by which nobody pays for the education of his own children, but
everybody pays for the education of everybody else's children; by which nobody
pays his own medical bills, but everybody pays everybody else's medical bills;
by which nobody provides for his own old-age security, but everybody pays for
everybody else's old-age security; and so on. As noted before, Bastiat exposed
the illusive character of all these welfare schemes more than a century ago in
his aphorism: "The State is the great fiction by which everybody tries to
live at the expense of everybody else."
"The government has nothing to
give to anybody that it doesn't first take from somebody else. In other words,
all its relief and subsidy schemes are merely ways of robbing Peter to support
Paul."
Another
way of showing what is wrong with all the state handout schemes is to keep
pointing out that you can't get a quart out of a pint jug. Or, as the state
giveaway programs must all be paid for out of taxation, with each new scheme
proposed the libertarian can ask, "Instead of what?" Thus, if
it is proposed to spend another $1 billion on putting more men on the moon or
developing a supersonic commercial plane, it may be pointed out that this $1
billion, taken in taxation, will not then be able to meet a million personal
needs or wants of the millions of taxpayers from whom it is to be taken.
Of
course, some champions of ever-greater governmental power and spending
recognize this very well, and like Professor J.K. Galbraith,
for instance, they invent the theory that the taxpayers, left to themselves,
spend the money they have earned very foolishly, on all sorts of trivialities
and rubbish, and that only the bureaucrats, by first seizing it from them, will
know how to spend it wisely.
Knowing the Consequences
Another
very important principle to which the libertarian can constantly appeal is to
ask the statists to consider the secondary and long-run consequences of their
proposals as well as merely their intended direct and immediate consequences.
The statists will sometimes admit quite freely, for example, that they have
nothing to give to anybody that they must not first take from somebody else.
They will admit that they must rob Peter to pay Paul. But their argument is
that they are seizing only from rich Peter to support poor Paul. As President
Johnson once put it quite frankly in a speech on January 15, 1964: "We are
going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being
spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots' that need it
so much."
Those
who have the habit of considering long-run consequences will recognize that all
these programs for sharing the wealth and guaranteeing incomes must reduce
incentives at both ends of the economic scale. They must reduce the incentives
both of those who are capable of earning a higher income, but find it taken
away from them, and those who are capable of earning at least a moderate
income, but find themselves supplied with the necessities of life without
working.
"They will admit that they must
rob Peter to pay Paul. But their argument is that they are seizing only from
rich Peter to support poor Paul."
This
vital consideration of incentives is almost systematically overlooked in the
proposals of agitators for more and bigger government welfare schemes. We
should all be concerned about the plight of the poor and unfortunate. But the
hard two-part question that any plan for relieving poverty must answer is: How
can we mitigate the penalties of failure and misfortune without undermining
the incentives to effort and success? Most of our would-be reformers and
humanitarians simply ignore the second half of this problem. And when those of
us who advocate freedom of enterprise are compelled to reject one of these
specious "antipoverty" schemes after another on the ground that it
will undermine these incentives and in the long run produce more evil than
good, we are accused by the demagogues and the thoughtless of being
"negative" and stony-hearted obstructionists. But the libertarian
must have the strength not to be intimidated by this.
Finally,
the libertarian who wishes to hammer in a few general principles can repeatedly
appeal to the enormous advantages of liberty as compared with coercion. But he,
too, will have influence and perform his duty properly only if he has arrived
at his principles through careful study and thought. "The common people of
England," once wrote Adam Smith, "are very jealous of their liberty,
but like the common people of most other countries have never rightly
understood in what it consists." To arrive at the proper concept and
definition of liberty is difficult, not easy.[1]
Legal and Political Aspects
So
far, I have written as if the libertarian's study, thought, and argument need
be confined solely to the field of economics. But, of course, liberty cannot be
enlarged or preserved unless its necessity is understood in many other fields —
and most notably in law and in politics.
We
have to ask, for example, whether liberty, economic progress, and political
stability can be preserved if we continue to allow the people on relief — the
people who are mainly or solely supported by the government and who live at the
expense of the taxpayers — to exercise the franchise. The great liberals of the
19th and early 20th centuries, including John Stuart Mill and A.V. Dicey,
expressed the most serious misgivings on this point.
An Honest Currency and an End to Inflation
This
brings me, finally, to one more single issue on which all those libertarians
who lack the time or background for specialized study can effectively
concentrate. This is in demanding that the government provide an honest
currency, and that it stop inflating.
This
issue has the inherent advantage that it can be made clear and simple because
fundamentally it is clear and simple. All inflation is government made.
All inflation is the result of increasing the quantity of money and credit; and
the cure is simply to halt the increase.
If
libertarians lose on the inflation issue, they are threatened with the loss of
every other issue. If libertarians could win the inflation issue, they could
come close to winning everything else. If they could succeed in halting the
increase in the quantity of money, it would be because they could halt the
chronic deficits that force this increase. If they could halt these chronic
deficits, it would be because they had halted the rapid increase in welfare
spending and all the socialistic schemes that are dependent on welfare
spending. If they could halt the constant increase in spending, they could halt
the constant increase in government power.
The
devaluation of the British pound, first in 1949 and again in 1967, may as an
offset have the longer effect of helping the libertarian cause. It exposes the
bankruptcy of the welfare state. It exposes the fragility and complete
undependability of the paper-gold international monetary system under which the
world has been operating since 1944. There is hardly one of the hundred or more
currencies in the International Monetary Fund, with the exception of the
dollar, that has not been devalued at least once since the IMF opened its doors
for business. There is not a single currency unit — and there is no exception
to this statement — that does not buy less today than when the Fund started.
At
the moment of writing this, the dollar, to which practically every other
currency is tied in the present system, is in the gravest peril. If liberty is
to be preserved, the world must eventually get back to a full gold standard
system in which each major country's currency unit must be convertible into
gold on demand, by anybody who holds it, without discrimination. I am aware
that some technical defects can be pointed out in the gold standard, but it has
one virtue that more than outweighs them all. It is not, like paper money,
subject to the day-to-day whims of the politicians; it cannot be printed or
otherwise manipulated by the politicians; it frees the individual holder from
that form of swindling or expropriation by the politicians; it is an essential
safeguard for the preservation, not only of the value of the currency unit
itself, but of human liberty. Every libertarian should support it.
I have one last word. In whatever field he specializes, or
on whatever principle or issue he elects to take his stand, the libertarian must
take a stand. He cannot afford to do or say nothing. I have only to remind him
of the eloquent call to battle on the final page of Ludwig von Mises's great
book Socialism, written 35 years ago:
Everyone
carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of
responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if
society is sweeping toward destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own
interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None
can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result.
Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical
struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.
Henry
Hazlitt (1894–1993) was a well-known journalist who wrote on economic affairs
for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek,
among many other publications. He is perhaps best known as the author of the
classic Economics in One Lesson (1946).
Notes
[1] I
strongly recommend The Constitution of Liberty, by F.A. Hayek
(University of Chicago Press, 1960).
3)
Roger’s Rangers
Rules or Plan of Discipline by Major Robert Rogers
Rule
#1
All
Rangers are to be subject to the rules and articles of war; to appear at
roll-call every evening on their own parade, equipped each with a firelock,
sixty rounds of powder and ball, and a hatchet, at which time an officer from
each company is to inspect the same, to see they are in order, so as to be
ready on any emergency to march at a minute's warning; and before they are
dismissed the necessary guards are to drafted, and scouts for the next day
appointed.
4) 52 Weeks to
Preparedness by Tess Pennington
Week
1 of 52: Short Term Emergency Food Supply (List 1)
FEMA suggests that each family have a 2 week supply of food and water for their home. Starting a food supply does not have to be a budget breaker. By slowly accumulating emergency supplies, you will not feel the financial “burn” compared to having to pay for everything up front. Therefore, keeping in mind what type of emergencies that you are planning for, if there are any family members with medical needs, how long you want your food supply to last, and so on, will help you make the best choice for your family.
Taking time to read the nutritional information on the back of the food source and knowing other considerations, will help a person make the best choices for their needs. If a person needs to use their stashed food supply, having foods high in vitamins, nutrients, and proteins will provide their body with what it needs for needed energy and mental clarity.
Preps to buy:
- 1 gallon of water per day for each
family member (But enough for 2 weeks and remember that having more water
stored up is better than being short on your supply)
- 2 jars of peanut butter
- 2 cans of juice per family member
- 2 cans of meat per family member
- 2 cans of soup or stew for each
family member
- 3 non perishable items such as
saltine crackers, graham crackers, etc.
- 1 hand operated can opener
- Permanent marker
- Additional supplies for infants or
elderly – 2 weeks worth (diapers, wipes, children’s medication, formula,
protein/calorie drinks, prescription medications, extra pair of glasses)
For those who have pets:
1 large container of dry food – This amount should last 2 weeks or longer
Action Items:
- Date perishable goods with a marker
- If possible, set aside $20 to use
for emergencies
- Make a disaster plan and decide what types of disasters
you are planning for (weather related, natural disasters, economic or
personal disasters)
- Decide upon an out-of-area contact
who can coordinate information with friends and family members.
- Once the out-of-area contact has
been decided, email or call the newly designated emergency contact and
provide phone numbers and names of family members for them to call.
Author: Tess Pennington
5) 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in
Company and Conversation by George Washington
1st - Every
Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that
are Present.
2nd - When in
Company, put not your Hands to any Part of the Body, not usually Discovered
3rd - Show
Nothing to your Friend that may affright him.
No comments:
Post a Comment