Category Archives: Jason Tolbert

Jason Rapert vindicated!!!! Take that Max Brantley!!!

  1. Associated Press Photo of Jason Rapert  By Danny Johnston
  2. ______________________

ISN’T IT FUN TO WATCH THE LIBERAL PRESS START TO BACKTRACK FROM THEIR EARLIER ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM JUST LIKE THE DANA AMIRA IS NOW DOING. I have said in the past that Jason Rapert had been unfairly treated. I can understand national publications like the Huffington Post, NY Magazine, and other liberal blogs being mislead by this hack job on Jason Rapert done by The Nation, but it is truly amazing to me that Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog who prides himself in always being completely honest would buy into this hack job on Jason Rapert. It is truly sad.  Furthermore on his blog Brantley asserted, “Rapert defenders contend he was talking about minority political interests, not minorities, references to the Obama birth certificate, Muslims and a Ramadan event notwithstanding.”

But the truth always does come out eventually. John Lyon of Stephens Media did have a balanced article that included an explantion from Jason Rapert and Jason Tolbert also gave both sides on his blog www.tolbertreport.com .

Now the truth has come out and it clear to see that the liberals in Arkansas has misrepresented the truth about the nature of Rapert’s comments.

Below KTHV’s website in Little Rock provided this statement that Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert released today:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) – Arkansas Sen. Jason Rapert, R – District 18, released the following statement Tuesday in response to SB134, which passed in the Senate last week.

“Last week, the Arkansas State Senate voted in favor of SB134, otherwise known as the “Heartbeat Bill”.

If passed into law, the Heartbeat Bill will ban abortion after the point when a heartbeat can be detected, which occurs around the 6th to 8th week of pregnancy and will become arguably the most influential piece of pro-life legislation ever introduced in the State of Arkansas and possibly the United States. The bill does recognize exceptions for rape, incest, to save the life of the mother or life threatening medical emergencies.

Because of the ground-breaking nature of the Heartbeat Bill, I have unfortunately fallen prey to the growing trend of destructive politics.

Pro-life opponents on the far Left dredged up a video of a speech that I delivered at a Tea Party rally in 2011, and edited my nearly 20-minute talk down to one and a half minutes. They highlighted the following words taken out of context and labeled me a racist-a description with which I would have never ever conceived being tagged.

‘I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don’t represent the country that I grew up with. And your values [are] not going to save us. We’re going to take this country back for the Lord. We’re going to try to take this country back for conservatism. And we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!’

Standing alone, these comments could very well appear to be racist. The term ‘minorities’ is most often used by Americans in reference to people of ethnic groups other than white. Upon viewing the entire context of my speech, which is broken up into five separate videos on YouTube, it is very evident that by ‘minorities’, I was referring to the minority of political interests that are not aligned with the views of the majority of the people of Arkansas.

Here are my comments in full context that preceded the aforementioned statement as I referred to President Obama’s liberal stances:

‘Here in Arkansas we tried to do something about our values on that. We said ‘You know what? Where we have foster children, we want them to be in a good home with a mommy and a daddy.’ Do ya’ll think that’s alright? Well, right here the other day a bunch of your Supreme Court Justices just struck it down – said your vote don’t count. I am here to tell you that we are a people that’s ruled by a majority in this country. And I am tired of minority interests that are running roughshod over you and me.’

Since the deceivingly edited video surfaced, I have been the subject of personal ridicule and the victim of threats against my family and me. National press and media outlets have cast false judgment on my character charging that I have no respect for women and a disdain for non-white American citizens, but more importantly than the false accusations hurled against me, the debate shifted focus from the lives of the unborn to political gamesmanship and nonsense.

Winston Churchill once said: “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

Here’s a look at the facts.

The truth of the matter is that my comments at the 2011 rally had nothing to do with anyone’s ethnic background.

The truth of the matter is that the personal attacks on my character are not even really about me at all.

The truth of the matter is that the Heartbeat Bill very clearly provides exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother and includes a provision stating that test would not have to be performed if there is a life-threatening medical emergency.

The truth of the matter is that the Heartbeat Bill passed in the Arkansas State Senate with a supermajority of 26 “yeas”, 8 “nays”, and 1 “absent” and included the votes of 5 Democrats and 3 Republican women.

The truth of the matter is that this unfortunate situation is about the rage of the liberal left because people are standing up for life in Arkansas, and for the first time, substantive legislation might actually be passed to do something about it.

The baseless charge of racism is an act of desperation. A man should be judged by the fruits he bears in his life-not a 90-second video, and the actions of my life clearly show that I am no racist. This includes several partnerships and friendships with pastors and non-profit leaders from various backgrounds both in Arkansas and all over the world. It includes my founding of Holy Ghost Ministries, Inc. (HGM), a faith-based

humanitarian organization providing clean water and assistance to the underprivileged and orphaned citizens of Ghana West Africa, Uganda and the Philippines-all of which are passions I’ve worked for longed before I became a State Senator.

The dissenters of the Heartbeat Bill have every right to disagree with the contents of it. They have every right to express their disagreement and to even fight against it. That is the beauty of the United States.

However, the problem arises when the dissenters lose all perspective of the actual issue and begin to hurl personal attacks at the supporters and initiators of the Heartbeat Bill. This is where they are wrong. This is where I speak on behalf of all Americans who favor civil discourse and call for the name-calling, threats, and vicious lies to cease.

If my political opponents want to debate me on the issues, I welcome it. If they want to engage in healthy and honest public discourse that is beneficial to Arkansan constituents, I am happy to oblige, but lies and distortions are the exact reason why American public opinion has turned so unfavorably against politics in general. They are tired of it, and so am I.

I believe that life begins at the moment of conception and that we, as leaders, have a moral obligation to protect the lives of children. I will continue to proudly support pro-life legislation in the Arkansas General Assembly and will be vocal in my defense of the unborn as the least among us. When there is a heartbeat, there is life.”

________________

I am really having fun watching the liberals try to squirm out of this one!!!

Related posts:

Jason Rapert vindicated!!!! Take that Max Brantley!!!

I have said in the past that Jason Raper had been unfairly treated.I can understand national publications like the Huffington Post, NY Magazine, and other liberal blogs being mislead by this hack job on Jason Rapert done by The Nation, but it is truly amazing to me that Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog [...]

Sad that political left will edit video tape in order to falsely accuse Jason Rapert of racism!!!!!

I am never surprised at what liberals will say. Being on the Arkansas Times Blog and debating gun control, and abortion over and over and over and over again like I have in the past has made me aware of what liberals will do to take one for the team even if deep down they [...]

Abortion supporters lying in order to further their cause? Article: “Window to the Womb” (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and [...]

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 6) For many pro-abortionists ” …the problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations”

The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really [...]

Election result predictions on Romney vs. Obama

I came on here on Friday and predicted that Romney would win 301 to 237. My view was skewed by something I read on Jason Tolbert’s blog recently:

Our neighbors in Tennessee started casting ballots this week. Jim Geraghty with National Review notes a dramatic swing in what looks like good news for Republicans.

His blog notes

While Tennessee is not competitive in 2012, these results show a complete shift in voter enthusiasm from 2008 to 2012. Total voter turnout statewide on day one of early voting was up about 10 percent compared to four years ago, but voter turnout increased 31 percent in McCain counties while it dropped 30 percent in Obama counties.

Here is the view from John Brummett of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on Oct 21, 2012:

Here’s how I score it today: Romney will win Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

That’s 235 electoral votes, 35 short.

Of the six states truly in play—Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia—Romney probably will win Colorado with nine electoral votes. Let’s go ahead and give him Virginia, with 13 electoral votes, and New Hampshire, with four, though I’m not at all sure of either.

That brings him to 261 electors, nine short.

Let’s give him one more elector for a congressional-district victory in Maine, putting him at 262, eight short.

Obama will win California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

That’s 247 electoral votes, 23 short.

Of those six truly swing states, heavy Democratic early voting in Ohio and Iowa ought to deliver those to him—with 18 electors in Ohio and six in Iowa—and he probably will take Harry Reid’s Nevada, with six.

That gets him to 277 electors, seven over the top.

Let’s give him Omaha, Warren Buffett’s hometown, and thus one congressional-district victory in Nebraska. That offsets the single elector he lost to a congressional district In Maine, leaving him at 277.

It costs Romney one, dropping him back to 261.

There you have it: More people’s votes would be cast for Romney, but Obama would be heading back to the White House from the Electoral College, where, with 270 votes needed, Obama would have 277 and Romney 261.

In the U.S. Senate, the Democratic caucus lead of 53-47 would lose seats in Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana, but take over Republican seats in Massachusetts and Maine.

The latter is where Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe’s seat is likely to be won by the two-term independent governor, Angus King. He has endorsed Obama and is likely to caucus with Democrats.

So the Democrats’ usually hapless 53-47 advantage in the Senate would become a tad more hapless at 52-48.

The Republicans are likely to hold their workable membership lead in the U.S. House, but lose maybe four seats.

Party discipline and right-wing theology would pass a bevy of conservative bills in the House that would languish ad infinitum in the U.S. Senate and never get remotely near the minority occupant of the White House.

Despair will be mitigated by assurances on each side that the other side also despairs.

—–––––

John Brummett’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.

com. Read his blog at brummett.arkansasonline.com.

Editorial, Pages 81 on 10/21/2012

I predict that President Obama will lose to Mitt Romney because so many of the battleground states will go for Romney because of the horrible economies in their states.

Real Clear Politics as of 11:14 am on 10-19-12 had President Obama with 201 electorial votes locked up and Mitt Romney with 206. I think that President Obama has a good chance of getting Pennsylvania and Michigan to go his way which would bring his total up to 237. Romney should get all the rest which bring his total to 301.

Here is what Real Clear Politics website has to say:

Toss Up (131)
Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
Iowa (6)
Michigan (16)
Nevada (6)
New Hampshire (4)
Ohio (18)
Pennsylvania (20)
Virginia (13)
Wisconsin (10)

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 13)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

SENATOR MARK PRYOR WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SAME DEMOCRATIC STATE THAT RE-ELECTED HIS FATHER OVER AND OVER, BUT ARKANSAS NOW IS A REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLD. HECK, THE ONLY REASON PRYOR GOT RE-ELECTED IN 2008 WAS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS THOUGHT FOR SURE HILLARY WOULD BE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL TICKET AND WOULD HAVE COAT TAILS.

Back in 2009 there were 3 Democratic Congressman and 2 Democratic Senators from Arkansas. Now there are 3 Republican Congressman and 1 Republican Senator and the other two seats are held currently by Pryor who is not up for re-election till 2014 and Mike Ross who is vacated his seat at the end of 2012. Could it be that will no longer have any Democrats in Washington representing Arkansas in a couple of years?

I believe that Pryor has miscalculated by opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment and I think that Mike Ross is very popular because of his support of it.

Below is a piece I wrote a while back about Mike Ross.

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today:

U.S. Mike Ross photo

  • U.S. REP. MIKE ROSS

U.S. Mike Rossof Prescott surprised everyone by scheduling an announcement this morning in Little Rock to say he would not seek a seventh term in Congress in 2012.His statement is on the jump. He said he hadn’t decided yet on a race for governor in 2014, which he’s long been expected to make. But his reference to the race indicates it is very much in his sights.

ROSS NEWS RELEASE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott on Monday announced he will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Ross, who won re-election in 2010 by 18 points and has no announced opponent, has represented Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District in Congress since 2001. A fifth generation Arkansan, Ross is a former state senator and former small business owner.

Statement from U.S. Congressman Mike Ross:

Representing my home state of Arkansas in the U.S. Congress for the past eleven years has been a real privilege and honor. It is a job that I take very seriously and one that I love. However, as I reflect on turning 50 this year, I believe it is time for me to begin a new chapter in my life by spending more time with my family and exploring new opportunities here at home in Arkansas.

That’s why I have decided not to seek a seventh term to the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District. This was not an easy decision and one that I carefully made after a lot of reflection, thought and prayer.

Last year was a tough political environment to seek re-election. Yet, I won by 18 points—one of the largest margins of any member of Congress in a swing district. The trust and confidence the folks here at home have continually placed in me is something I will never forget. The people of Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District are good, decent, hard working people and I am proud to serve and represent them in the U.S. Congress.

A lot has changed since I was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2000. Congressional campaigns have gone from several months in length to never-ending, costing millions of dollars every two years. As a result, fundraising never ends nor do the political attacks. While I have worked hard to bring folks to the middle to craft commonsense solutions to the many problems that confront our nation, Washington is mired in gridlock, gamesmanship and constant partisan bickering. Too many issues and votes are based on partisan politics rather than good public policy. Despite our many challenges, I remain optimistic that America’s best days are still ahead of us.

I never believed that my service in the U.S. Congress should become a permanent career. This seat never belonged to me—it belongs to the people of Arkansas. And I know there are many bright people in Arkansas ready to step up, go to Washington and offer a new generation of leadership. Simply put, it is someone else’s turn to represent our state in the U.S. Congress.

I have many good memories of my service in the U.S. Congress, and we have helped thousands of people. None of this would have been possible without the support of the people here in Arkansas, and for that, my family and I will always be grateful to them.

I look forward to serving out the remainder of my term in the U.S. Congress, which doesn’t end until January 2013. I will continue to work each and every day on behalf of the people I represent, just as I have faithfully tried to do from the beginning.

I have received a lot of encouragement to run for Governor of Arkansas when Governor Beebe’s term ends in 2014. I’ve always been very upfront and honest in the fact that, as a fifth generation Arkansan, I love our state and would like very much to help lead it at some point in the future. Whether I run for Governor in 2014 is a decision I have not yet made and won’t make until sometime after my term in this Congress ends.

__________________________________

Ross will tough to beat in the governor race in 2014. However, I do think that the Republicans will have an excellent chance to capture a fourth Congressional seat in 2012. Will there ever be another Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Arkansas? (In fact if you check out some of the information at the Red Arkansas Blog and you will see that most people view this district as a Republican pick up.)

John Brummett in his article “Ross is running, but I repeat myself,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 26, 2011 noted:

To win, a Democrat will need to be as good a politician as Ross. I can’t identify such a Democrat at present.

At this point I’d give tea party pageanteer Beth Anne Rankin, the Sarah Palin wannabe of Arkansas, a decent shot.

Jason Tolbert reported:
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge.  However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.

Republican Tom Cotton from Dardanelle confirms to the Tolbert Report this morning that he will seek the open seat and is already putting together his team.  Potential donors have confirmed that Cotton is lining up support and may already have over six figures in commitments.  In addition, Cotton has been seen meeting recently with Second District Congressman Tim Griffin who could lend support to Cotton’s campaign.

Cotton was one of the many names considering a run for Senate in 2010 against former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but ultimately decided against it. Cotton currently works for international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company. A veteran, he also serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. Cotton lives in Yell County, which was part of the Second Congressional District represented by Congressman Griffin. It was moved to the Fourth Congressional Disctrict in the last redistricting process.

In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well.  Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration.  She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years.  Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.

In addition, sources close to State Rep. Lane Jean of Magnolia confirm that he is “strongly considering” getting into the race as well.  Jean was elected to his first term in the Arkansas House in 2010.

Other potential Republicans names mentioned are: State Rep. Matthew Shepherd, former Congressional candidate Glenn Gallas, and Will Rockfeller – the son of the late Lt. Gov. Win Rockfeller.

Senator Mark Pryor running for re-election in 2014, Open letter to Pryor

Today while reading the Arkansas Times Blog I discovered that Senator Pryor was going to run for re-election. I was quite surprised that he was doing so because he knows how much his support of President Obama’s agenda has hurt him in the state (Jason Tolbert did a great post on that on 4-10-12).

I have been writing Senator Pryor every Monday and Thursday for almost a year now. Every Monday I email a letter to him with suggested spending cut ideas (which he requested) and then I post my suggestions on my blog. Every Thursday I write a “Thirsty Thursday” post where I argue in open letters to Senator Pryor that we must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.

The fact of the matter is that I have probably written more about Senator Pryor than any other elected official (except the president) and my blog has flourished. My blog www.thedailyhatch.org has  had over 300,000 hits over the last 17 months of being online. I think it is because people know that this reckless spending must be stopped.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson put it best:

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us down with perpetual debt.”

Today is Thursday and I continue with my “Thirsty Thursday” series below.

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

There’s nothing nutty about a balanced-budget amendment
In fact, it makes a lot of sense
Thursday, July 21, 2011
By Dick Thornburgh

A late entry in the budget deficit-debt ceiling talkathon in Washington is increasing support for a constitutional requirement that the federal budget be balanced each and every year.

Doctrinaire liberals will no doubt characterize this proposal as a nutty one, but careful scrutiny of such an amendment to our Constitution demonstrates its potential to prevent future train wrecks in the budgeting process.

Coupled with a presidential line-item veto and separate capital budgeting (which differentiates investments from current outlays), a constitutional budget-balancing requirement makes sense. These tools already are available to most governors and state legislatures. And they work.

The current debate in the Congress will likely include the following arguments usually raised against a balanced-budget amendment.

First, it will be argued that the amendment would “clutter up” our basic document in a way contrary to the intention of the founding fathers.

This is clearly wrong. The framers of the Constitution contemplated that amendments would be necessary to keep it abreast of the times. It already has been amended on 27 occasions.

Moreover, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, one of the major preoccupations was how to liquidate the Revolutionary War debts of the states. Certainly, it would have been unthinkable to the framers that the federal government itself would systematically run at a deficit, decade after decade. Indeed, the Treasury did not begin to follow such a practice until the mid-1930s.

Second, critics will argue that the adoption of a balanced-budget amendment would not solve the deficit problem overnight.

This is correct, but begs the issue. Serious supporters of the amendment recognize that a phasing-in period of five or 10 years would be required to reach a zero deficit. During this interim period, however, budget makers would be disciplined to meet declining deficit targets in order to reach a balanced budget by the established deadline.

As pointed out by former Commerce Secretary Peter G. Peterson, such “steady progress toward eliminating the deficit will maintain investor confidence, keep long-term interest rates headed down and keep our economy growing.”

Third, it will be argued that such an amendment would require vast cuts in social services and entitlements or defense expenditures.

Not necessarily. True, these programs would have to be paid for on a current basis rather than heaped on the backs of upcoming generations. Certainly, difficult choices would have to be made about priorities and levels of program funding. But the very purpose of the amendment is to discipline the executive and legislative branches actually to debate these choices and not to propose or perpetuate vast spending programs without providing the revenues to fund them.

The amendment would, in effect, make the president and Congress fully accountable for their spending and taxing decisions, as they should be.

Fourth, critics will say that a balanced-budget amendment would prevent or hinder our capacity to respond to national defense or economic emergencies.

This concern is easy to counter. Any sensible amendment proposal would feature a “safety valve” to exempt deficits incurred in response to such emergencies, requiring, for example, a three-fifths “super majority” in both houses of Congress. Such action should, of course, be based on a finding that such an emergency actually exists.

Fifth, it will be said that a balanced-budget amendment would be “more loophole than law” and might be easily circumvented.

The experience of the states suggests otherwise. Balanced-budget requirements are now in effect in all but one of the 50 states and have served them well.

Moreover, the line-item veto, available to 43 governors, would assure that any specific congressional overruns (or loophole end-runs) could be dealt with by the president. The public’s outcry, the elective process and the courts would also provide backup restraint on any tendency to simply ignore a constitutional directive.

In the final analysis, most of the excuses raised for not enacting a constitutional mandate to balance the budget rest on a stated or implied preference for solving our deficit dilemma through the “political process” — that is to say, through responsible action by the president and Congress.

But that has been tried and found wanting, again and again.

Surely, this country is ready for a simple, clear and supreme directive that its elected officials fulfill their fiscal responsibilities. A constitutional amendment is the only instrument that will meet this need effectively. Years of experience at the state level argue persuasively in favor of such a step. Years of debate have produced no persuasive arguments against it.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson put it best:

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us down with perpetual debt.”

That is the aim of a balanced-budget amendment. Reform-minded members of Congress should choose to support such an amendment to our Constitution as a means of resolving future legislative crises and ending “credit card” government once and for all.

A nutty idea? Not by a long shot.

Dick Thornburgh, of counsel to the Pittsburgh law firm K&L Gates, is a former U.S. attorney general and governor of Pennsylvania.
First published on July 21, 2011 at 12:00 am

If the Democrats want to back Obamacare then let them go down with the ship

On March 19, 2012 Jason Tolbert pointed out that the Democrats in Little Rock were using Obama’s talking points concerning Obamacare, but it appears to me that they go down with the ship according to the mood in the country. Take a look at this fine article from the Cato Institute.

In this article below you will see that the American people do not want Obamacare but yet it is being crammed down their throats and all the regulations that go with that too.

Sickening Regulation

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on February 29, 2012

This article appeared in National Review (Online) on February 29, 2012.

Never underestimate the brilliance of our federal bureaucracy.

The Department of Health and Human Services has announced that it must delay implementation of new reimbursement codes for Medicare. Those new regulations would have increased the total number of reimbursement codes from the current 18,000 to more than 140,000 separate codes. The delay will undoubtedly come as a relief for physicians who will have additional time to try to understand the bureaucratic complexity of rules that, for example, apply 36 different codes for treating a snake bite, depending on the type of snake, its geographical region, and whether the incident was accidental, intentional self-harm, assault, or undetermined. The new codes also thoroughly differentiate between nine different types of hang-gliding injuries, four different types of alligator attacks, and the important difference between injuries sustained by walking into a wall and those resulting from walking into a lamppost.

And Democrats wonder why Americans still resist having the government control our health care?

Less than a month before the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare, the American people have already reached their judgment. According to the latest USA Today poll, fully 75 percent of Americans believe the new health-care law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. And if the Court doesn’t throw Obamacare out, Americans want Congress to do so: Half of voters want the law repealed, compared to 44 percent who want it retained. Moreover, those who want it repealed feel much more intensely about it. Fully 32 percent “strongly support” repeal, compared to just 18 percent who “strongly oppose” it. This is consistent with other polls — for example, the latest Rasmussen poll has 53 percent of likely voters supporting repeal, with just 38 percent opposed — and virtually unchanged since the law passed.

[F]ully 75 percent of Americans believe the new health-care law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Despite constant predictions by the media and the laws supporters, Obamacare is not becoming more popular.

The public seems to understand that government intervention does not generally make things less expensive. And there are good reasons for the public’s skepticism. For example, the Congressional Budget Office reported in December that at least six programs that were supposed to save money under Obamacare not only don’t, but some actually are increasing costs. And Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of both Obamacare and its precursor Romneycare, now says that premiums are likely to rise under the new health-care law. In fact, Gruber warns that, even after receiving government subsidies, some individuals will end up paying more than they would have without the reform. Gee, thanks, Mr. President.

And the public understands that imposing new taxes, mandates, and regulations will do nothing to create jobs in a struggling economy. In fact, a poll released last month by the Chamber of Commerce showed that for 74 percent of small businesses they’re “causing an impediment to job creation.”

At the same time, the controversy over the administration’s contraception mandate has brought home to voters just how coercive the health-care law really is.

Most of all, Americans understand that, from the beginning, the debate over health-care reform has been about control. The Obama administration believes that decisions about health care are simply too important and too complex for the average American and his doctor to make for themselves. Only the experts in Washington can get those decisions right. After all, only Washington can understand the difference between a burn from a hot toaster (Code No. X15.1) and a burn from an electronic-game keyboard (Code No. Y93.C1).

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the American people just don’t believe them.

__________-

Updated version:Rick Crawford falls for Democrats’ trick:raise taxes first and we will cut spending later

RAISE TAXES: Report says Rick Crawford will break from GOP and back millionaires tax.

  • RAISE TAXES: Report says Rick Crawford will break from GOP and back millionaires’ tax.

The Arkansas Times reported that Congressman Rick Crawford has a plan that includes raising taxes for 5 years if there is an agreement to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. However, if after 5 years the Balanced Budget Amendment does not get passed then the new tax increase would be abolished.

My question to Crawford would be this: “Would the tax money collected during that 5 year period be refunded?”

In 1982 the Democrats promised future spending cuts if Ronald Reagan would agree to a tax increase, but you guessed it, the taxes were increased and the spending cuts never came. THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT THAT WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TAXES BUT WE DON’T WANT TO CUT SPENDING!!!

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

Concerning spending cuts Reagan believed, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.” However, can you believe a drug addict when he tells you he is not ever going to do his habit again? Congress is addicted to spending too much money.  Lee Edwards wrote in his article “Golden Years” about Ronald Reagan:

Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 — $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good “70 percent” deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as “the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration,” although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.”[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to “trust but verify,” whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

________

Dan Mitchell has a great article on Crawford.

I’ve remarked before that Democrats are the evil party and Republicans are the stupid party. Well, if anyone needs additional proof about GOPers being clueless and tone deaf, exhibit A is Congressman Rick Crawford of Arkansas, who has decided to preemptively capitulate in favor of higher tax rates.

Here are the relevant details from a Politico story.

Freshman Republican Rep. Rick Crawford will propose a surtax on millionaires Thursday morning, a crack in the steadfast GOP opposition to extracting more money from the nation’s top earners. The Arkansas Republican will unveil the plan during a local television interview Thursday morning, and plans to introduce legislation when the House returns next week, according to sources familiar with his thinking. Crawford will propose the additional tax— expected to be north of 2.5 percent — on individual income over $1 million as part of a broader fiscal responsibility package.

I have no idea if Congressman Crawford is simply naive, unaware that tax-increase deals inevitably lead to higher spending and more red ink. Or perhaps he’s trying to become the kind of Republican who thinks he can advance his career by saying things that will earn him pats on the head from the establishment media.

But I do know that America’s fiscal problem is a government that is far too big. You don’t solve the problem with more taxes, just as you don’t cure alcoholics by giving them more to drink.

Congressman Crawford, though, wants to give away the keys to a liquor store without even asking for an insincere commitment for future sobriety in exchange. Indeed, the Congressman’s naiveté is so impressive that he is the first winner of the Charlie Brown Award for Vapidness and Gullibility.

There’s a rumor that he is sending former President George H.W. “read my lips” Bush to collect his award, but I’m unable to confirm at this point.

This new award is part of a series, with the “Bob Dole Award” having been announced earlier this year.

In the same vein, but recognizing concepts rather than people, we also have “Mitchell’s Law” and “Mitchell’s Golden Rule.”

____________

UPDATE: Crawford claims the tax would not go into law until the Balanced Budget Amendment was passed according to the Tolbert Report.

Crawford’s Democrat opponents have called him opportunist and they are right.  People go into the booth to vote for the welfare party or the conservative job creating party and they can tell when someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth. It is sad when a newbie don’t talk to someone who has been in the conservative trenches for years fighting the good fight.

Terry Rice of Waldron: Small town honesty and hard work

When I think of the attributes that matter the most to Arkansans, it is probably honesty and hard work. I am hoping that Terry Rice of Waldron will be the next speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives. We will find out on Friday if he is elected in the first vote. However, the real vote will come in January of 2013. 

First here is something that Jason Tolbert wrote the other day followed by a flyer about Terry from 3 years ago and then followed with an article about a mentor of Terry’s from Waldron.

From Tolbert Report:

If you walk into a meeting at the Arkansas House of Representative, Rep. Terry Rice (R-Waldron) would not be the first member to grab your attention.

Observers could see him quietly taking in the happenings of committee meetings and talking to colleagues in the back of the room.  But this soft-spoken servant leadership style might be the key to his becoming the first Republican Speaker of the House.

Rice currently represents rural House District 62, just southeast of the Fort Smith area. He will return next year for his third and final term –  before term limits apply — representing the newly drawn House District 21, which makes up roughly the same area. Rice is unopposed in both his primary and general election.

Rice has lived the Waldron his whole life raising two kids with his wife of almost 40 years.  He tells me that now has four grandkids.  He is the owner of Rice Furniture and Appliance stores and is past president of the Arkansas Home Furnishing Association.

But politics is in Rice’s blood with both his father, W.R. (Bud) Rice, and grandfather, W.S. Rice serving in the state legislature. Terry Rice is a Republican, but his father and grandfather served as Democrats.

Perhaps this heritage may help Rice in his next challenge of being elected Speaker. The election takes place next Friday (March 9) as the House meets to caucus after concluding its work for the fiscal session. Outgoing House members elect a Speaker-designate for the next year.

___________

Today I am profiling St lawmaker Terry Rice of Waldron who I deeply respect.

Terry has known the Sawyer family since his youth and grew up in the

First Baptist Church were the Sawyers got to know him.

Meet Terry Rice

I am passionate in my belief that we cannot continue the status quo.  We cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity.  Government must become more efficient just as successful businesses have.  With over 35 years business experience I am president and co-owner of three Rice Furniture & Appliance stores.  I believe our state needs to foster the right environment to attract business while at the same time practicing tax conservation for the future.  I currently serve on the southeast region board of Associated Volume Buyers/ Brand Source national dealer group and am past president of the Arkansas Home Furnishings Association, serving on the board for over ten years.  Serving people’s needs and solving problems are everyday goals for me in our family’s 58 year third generation business.  I have been recognized as state and region “Dealer of the Year” from our various industry associates.

I believe our faith, life and family values are the foundation of this great country and must stand before political correctness.  Lifelong residents of Scott County, my wife, JoAnn, and I have been married 35 years, have 2 sons, Jeremy and wife, Kim, and Paul and wife, Sarah, who have blessed us with four grandchildren. We are active members of the Bates Baptist Church. I have raised cattle and have been a long time supporter of FFA and 4-H Youth livestock programs.  I understand the importance agriculture plays in District 62 and the state.  I helped establish and served as past president of the State Line Volunteer Fire Department and will support our community fire departments.

I have long been interested in our legislative process and feel now is the time to make a difference by voicing my conservative values for our future.  Hard work and a common sense approach are needed to serve District 62.  I do not seek personal gain or recognition from the office and only seek to work for the good of all people.  I stand for principles and integrity.  I follow the tradition of proven leaders.  My dad, W.R. Bud Rice, served South Sebastian and Scott counties as state representative for 18 years from 1977-1995.  My granddad, Worth Rice, served in the House from 1935-1939.

I know the education and training of Arkansans is vital for our state to compete and I will work to further improve those goals.  I look forward to meeting and listening to your concerns during this campaign.  I believe when Arkansans passed term limits for serving in political office their intent was to be represented by ideas and fresh view points that come from the people and not a single view point passed back and forth from spouses swapping political offices.  This is about the people having a choice to have their voices heard.

I am dedicated to spending the time and resources needed to serve District 62 in the Arkansas House of Representatives, and I will be the one who handles constituent concerns myself as your elected official.  Please feel free to contact me about the issues that are important to you.  I humbly ask for your vote and support in the November 4th General Election

Originally published in Saline Courier on January 8, 2011

     E-mail
 
 

My wife’s grandfather was Lecil Richard “Tom” Sawyer and he lived from September 30, 1906 to September 5, 2004. He was one of the most outstanding men I have ever known. In Waldron, he was a legendary football coach that won 87% of games during the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, and they would later name the football field after him.
Coach Sawyer was married for over 60 years to Vera Mae Martin Sawyer, and their children are Tom Franklin Sawyer of Houston, Texas (who is my father-in-law) and State Senator Mary Anne Salmon of North Little Rock (who is my wife’s aunt).
Most of the details for this article come from an interview I had on Dec. 22nd with Edward “Odell” Fryar who was a running back on the Waldron Bulldog team. Odell and his wife Peggy live in Little Rock, and I got to know them in 1983 when I was a member of Little Rock’s First Baptist Church.
“Coach Sawyer was probably the best high school football coach in Arkansas,” Fryar said. “He was a task master on the practice field and made sure every player played hard every play. Moreover, he was an even better person off the field.”
Tom Franklin Sawyer noted, “My father cared about his players, but he got the most out of them. I remember that if a running back fumbled the ball in a game, then that player would carry a football with him to all his school classes the next week.”
“My father was a great motivator and encourager and those two qualities brought out the best in his players,” daughter Mary Anne Salmon said.
Fryar was a junior on the  district winning 1948 team, and actually Waldron won the district all three years that Fryar was on the team (1947-49). Waldron was a small town of only 1,292 people in 1948 and Benton had over 6,000 people. Fryar said it was not unusual for Waldron to have 30 players dressed out and to be facing teams that had many more players and also the opposing players would be much larger than they were.
The day after Thanksgiving in 1948, Waldron had traveled to Bentonville and beat the undefeated Tigers. Fryar said that the Tigers should have won the game, but  two trick plays resulted in big plays for Waldron.
The first was on a kick off when Herman Jones faked a hand off to Buddy Rogers while returning a kickoff, and all the team blocked for Rogers. The result was that the whole Bentonville team tried to pursue Rogers while Jones hid the ball on his hip and ran slowly all the way to the 10 -yard line.
The second trick play involved Fryar getting a pitch from the quarterback, Leon Bobbitt, and running hard to the left. When the defense  rushed him,  he threw a long 45 -yard lofty pass to Bush McGaugh who was wide open, and McGaugh ran under it and took it for a long touchdown play. That resulted in a  20-19 victory over a very good Bentonville team. Now, Waldron would advance to play the Benton Panthers in the state playoffs.
The victory over Bentonville was a costly one for the Waldron Bulldogs. Johnny Evans, the star running back,was banged up and Fryar had to replace him most of the time for the Benton game.
Fryar said there was  a big crowd on hand and a thick fog settling over the field. The Panthers had more players suited out than Waldron, and they looked much bigger than the Bulldogs did too. However, Waldron had the tallest player on the field with tight end Don Sevier who was 6-8, and later Sevier earned All Conference honors for Arkansas Tech in basketball as their center, and eventually served as the Athletic Director for Arkansas Tech.
Benton Panther standout players included Bill Level, a 225 lb tackle, who was a four year letterman, and “Shoat” Shoppach, 165 lb left halfback.
According to the December 9, 1948 issue of The Benton Courier, the Benton Panthers defeated Waldron 13-6 at C.W. Lewis Stadium. Here is what the article reported:
The Benton Panthers were pushed to defeat the unbeaten and untied Waldron Bulldogs 13-6 at Lewis Stadium Friday night.
The Panthers scored late in the second quarter on a pass from Erwin to Jennings, who was standing in the end zone. Lovell’s try for the extra point was good. The Panthers led 7-0 at the half.
Benton kicked off to start the last half. One play after the kick off Buddy Rogers got on a 75 yard run, and was brought down on the 5 yard line. Two plays later Herman Jones try for the extra point was blocked. Benton led 7-6.
Benton scored in the last quarter on a pass from Erwin to Smith that was good for 35 yards and Smith ran 20 more to score. Lovell’s kick for the extra point was blocked.
Waldron was hampered by injuries, and many of the players had to be taken from the field. There was a fog all the last half which made seeing the ball difficult for the players, as well as the fans.
The final score was Benton 13, Waldron 6.
Probably the greatest legacy that Sawyer had was the family and friends that he influenced. Not only did Sawyer serve as football coach but he was the Waldron School Superintendent from 1934 to 1975 and Mayor of Waldron from 1975 to 1983. He also taught a men’s Sunday School Class at the Waldron First Baptist Church for many years.
“There are few people in my life that have received the level of respect I hold for L.R. “Tom” Sawyer,” state representative Terry Rice of Waldron said. “I guess the saying, ‘You give respect, you get respect’ fits well here. Whether it was a small child who needed reassuring, a student who had acted up, or an adult from any walk of life, I witnessed someone who could be as kind, as tough, or as knowledgeable as possible while always listening”
Rice said that even though Sawyer could have moved on to have “achieve lofty heights and big pay,” he chose to stay and touch the lives of thousands of people in Scott County.
William Roy Wilson, Jr., an United States Senior District Judge, recalls a story from his senior year at Waldron High School involving Sawyer and some chewing gum.
“I was in the library chewing gum, and Mr. Sawyer called me outside and told me, ‘Billy Roy, you are kind of a leader and I need for you do me a favor,” Wilson recalls. “’If you see anyone chewing gum, tell them it is against the rules and I am sure they will listen to you.’ I swallowed that gum on the spot.”
About a year ago, my wife Jill and I talked about the legacy of her grandfather  who we called, “PapPaw.” I told her that I decided to have my grandkids call me PapPaw out of honor of the memory of her grandfather. The complicating factor was that my 3 yr old grandson, Luke Hatcher, had already been calling me “Granddaddy.” However, he did well in the transition, and he told my son , “Granddaddy wants me to call him PapPaw!!!”
I hope that one day Luke will ask me why I chose the name “PapPaw, and I will be glad to tell him.
• • •
Everette Hatcher is a regular contributor to The Saline Courier. He is the fourth generation in his family to work in the broom manufacturing business. Everette and his wife Jill have four children and live in Alexander.

LR “Tom” Sawyer shown at his desk at Waldron School District around 1940.

 
 
 
    
 
 
.

Obama, Garry Smith, Jesus, Republicans and abortion (part 2)

This is the second of two posts. Here is the link to the first post. In this second post I will show that the pro-life Republicans hold the the Biblical pro-life view that Jesus would embrace if he were here today and the pro-choice view would be rejected (a minority of Republicans are pro-choice though and some Democrats are pro-life).

Jason Tolbert hit the nail on the head in his recent post:

It seems Democratic Rep. Garry Smith of El Dorado stepped into a bit of a mess this week when speaking to the newly formed Union County Democratic Club. Perhaps he wasn’t aware that intrepid cub reporter Heather Hawley of the El Dorado News-Times  was in the room taking notes when he promptly stuck both feet firmly in his mouth.

He began with saying how proud he was to be a Democrat going so far as to say “if Jesus were here today, he would be a Democrat because he tried to help everybody and he still does.”

He then offered praise for the head of his party, President Obama, saying he is “proud of his leadership ability and his tenacity” and hopes he gets elected to a second term.

__________________

A great article on some Biblical passages against abortion are found in this link and is the entire  article:

An Eye for an Eye? Exodus and Abortion

DA365
James R. White

This article first appeared in the Viewpoint column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 1 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to:http://www.equip.org.


Scott Klusendorf has presented several excellent pro-life arguments in his feature article in this issue of the Journal based upon the hypothetical “given” that Scripture is silent on the issue of abortion. Many scholars, however, believe Scripture does, in fact, address the issue, even if not explicitly. Scripture provides us with principles that, through the exercise of godly wisdom, can be applied to the wide variety of situations we encounter in modern culture. In the realm of human behavior, there is “nothing new under the sun,” and the Bible, written by One who knows the human heart intimately, does indeed speak to every aspect of human life, including our thoughts, our actions, and our beliefs.

The value of human life as something special, a gift from God, is found throughout Scripture. The commandment not to murder carries with it the corollary responsibility to save and honor life. Many today dismiss the influence of God’s moral law on the nations of the West. The laws of most of those nations, nevertheless, are steeped in the recognition of such things as “inalienable rights” — inalienable because they are derived from our Creator. One such inalienable right is life.

The story of how Western civilizations have departed from a high view of human life to the current view that justifies infanticide is sad and complex; indeed, modern Western culture has sanctified a form of infanticide. Abortion is internal infanticide: the murder of a child at the most vulnerable time of life — those precious months when the child develops and grows while sheltered in the womb. There is no medical, philosophical, theological, or rational difference between the violent murder of an infant who has lived long enough to travel down the birth canal and the same infant separated by a small period of time or a space measurable in inches. Undeniable facts, knowable to anyone who inquires into the subject, establish the humanity and personhood of the infant in the womb. Modern society, however, preferring sexual license to truth and morality, has sanctioned infanticide under the more palatable term “abortion” and the even more wishful phrase “termination of pregnancy.” So committed are the proponents of intrauterine infanticide that the procedure known as “partial-birth abortion,” an act comparable to the mass murders the Nazis committed at Auschwitz and Dachau, is unashamedly protected and defended at all political and moral cost by many of the highest leaders in government.

The passage of time has only added to the guilt of destroying our young. Our advancing technology now allows us to peer directly into the womb and observe the wonder of the developing child. We now know, beyond question, that the preborn child is an individual human being who possesses a unique genetic code. Anyone who uses terms like “mass of tissue” to describe the preborn child is engaging in sophistry, for the facts demonstrate beyond all doubt his or her humanity and individuality. These facts are so compelling on any logical, scientific, or forensic level that the proponents of abortion, in general, seek to avoid, at all costs, direct and fair debate with those who oppose abortion and who are well prepared to make their case.

The immorality of abortion is also easily discerned by a review of the biblical facts, and Klusendorf has laid out the case along a number of lines. Scripture is the firmest foundation upon which to condemn this heinous act. The Bible provides no basis on which anyone can possibly build a case for the murder of unborn children, and the few attempts that have been made to do so are so easily refuted that it is easy to understand why their originators hide from serious interaction with biblical scholars and apologists. The biblical case against the taking of life is, in fact, full and robust, even though the specific action of abortion (since it utilizes modern technological procedures) is not explicitly addressed. Human technology progresses; yet humans remain unchanged. The principles of Scripture, therefore, remain applicable today.

God differentiates Himself from all false gods primarily by claiming to be the Creator of all things. His greatest creation is humankind, which is created in His image (Gen. 1:27). Humans are the special workmanship of God, different from all the rest of His creation. Listen to these words of the psalmist:

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.(Ps. 139:13–16 NASB 1995 ed.)

The Bible knows nothing of humanity as a random-chance result of natural processes. Humanity is the specific creation of God, and clearly the existence of a person can be traced from the very first stages of development prior to birth. John the Baptist, for example, experienced the ministry of the Holy Spirit while yet unborn, for when Mary greeted John’s mother, Elizabeth, the child leaped in the womb at the sound of Mary’s voice (Luke 1:41). Inanimate objects and “masses of tissue” do not respond to the ministry of the Spirit, nor do they leap at the sound of the voice of the Lord’s mother. How can the personhood of the preborn child be denied in such a situation as this? Are we seriously to make John an exception? If so, on what basis?

One of the most important passages on this topic is found in Exodus 21:22–25. The passage reads:

And if men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely [ESV: “her children come out”], but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband will put on him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NET)

Many attempts have been made to confuse this passage and strip it of its clarity. Some ancient translators inserted their own interpretation into the passage, and many have followed their understanding over the years. One could claim that a “majority” of commentators have taken the passage to refer only to a miscarriage; yet, the text is far less obscure than many would have us believe. Consider the following: the term yeled in the original text is translated “child” with reference to a living human being the vast majority of the times it is used in the Old Testament. This is joined with the verb yasa, “to come out,” which is never used in the Bible to refer to a miscarriage. Only once in all the uses of this verb regarding birth is it found in a passage that speaks of something other than a live birth, that being an obvious case of stillbirth (Num. 12:12). There is no reason, however, to think that anything other than the live birth of a human being is in view inExodus 21:22 — a live birth that is brought on prematurely by men striking a pregnant woman while fighting with each other. In more than 1,075 uses of this word in the Hebrew Bible, it is never translated “miscarriage.” This is clearly a live, but premature, birth.1

The man who strikes the woman is to be punished for bringing on the premature birth. The phrase “if there is no serious injury” refers to both the mother and the child born of her; to say otherwise is to ignore the normative use of yeled and yasa. The phrase “if there is serious injury,” therefore, would likewise refer to both the mother and the child. What follows, then, is the lex talionis, which indicates that the punishment in the case of more serious injury should be “life for life,” literally “soul for soul.” This text identifies the yeled, the child born prematurely, as a nephesh, a soul, a living human being. It then applies the death penalty in the case of the death of either the mother orthe child.

The testimony of Scripture is compelling: Life is a sacred gift, and we are to protect and honor it. Taking the life of a child in the womb differs not at all from taking the life of the mother, or anyone else. All the platitudes and politically correct phrases will not change the verdict of God: Abortion is infanticide, and it is an abomination in His eyes.

_________________

This is where I would caution a fellow Christian like Garry Smith. We have to let the Bible be our guide in our lives and that means being pro-life or else we will just be like the world. I have often wondered why we got to this point in our country’s life and we allow abortion. The answer is found in the words of Francis Schaeffer.
Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.

Below is a clip from the film series “How Then Shall We Live?”

Related Posts:

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we [...]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 10)

Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, a leading pro-life advocate and convert to Catholicism, died at the age of 84 on Monday a week ago in his New York home, after a long struggle with cancer. The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Chapter 12 is titled To The Thanatoriums, an allusion the Walker [...]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

On eve of Shutdown Republicans cave on demand concerning eliminating Planned Parenthood Funding

The pro-life position is very important to a great many of the freshmen members of the House of Representatives. As you can see above in the clip from the film series Whatever Happened to the Human Race? by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, the unborn baby is a child, but we are treating many [...]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 9)(Donald Trump changes to pro-life view)

When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the [...]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

 

Obama, Garry Smith, Jesus, the Republicans and Abortion (Part 1)

This is going to take two posts to cover.

Jason Tolbert hit the nail on the head in his recent post:

It seems Democratic Rep. Garry Smith of El Dorado stepped into a bit of a mess this week when speaking to the newly formed Union County Democratic Club. Perhaps he wasn’t aware that intrepid cub reporter Heather Hawley of the El Dorado News-Times  was in the room taking notes when he promptly stuck both feet firmly in his mouth.

He began with saying how proud he was to be a Democrat going so far as to say “if Jesus were here today, he would be a Democrat because he tried to help everybody and he still does.”

He then offered praise for the head of his party, President Obama, saying he is “proud of his leadership ability and his tenacity” and hopes he gets elected to a second term.

In the previous legislative session, Smith sat on the House Public Health Committee.  He was present when Rep. Andy Mayberry brought a bill that would have banned abortions in Arkansas after the point at which unborn babies can feel pain.  This bill, which would have outlawed the barbaric practice of ripping babies apart in what is no doubt the harshest form of torture, would likely have passed if it could have made it out of committee.  The votes were close, but when it came time for Smith to vote, his chose to remain silent.  When his name was called, he sat in his chair refusing to speak to vote either yes or no. In doing so, he killed the bill.

_______________

In this first post I want to show from the Tolbert article above that Garry Smith is not pro-life and then I wanted to show below that President Obama is radically pro-abortion.

______________

Part 1 of 2 Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor speaks at Queen’s Hall, Parliament House, Victoria. Australia – on the eve of the debate to decriminalize abortion in Victoria.
Gianna’s visit was sponsored by the Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee.

Ark Times says Planned Parenthood in Little Rock performs abortions. A while back I mentioned a lady by the name of Abby Johnson who was a director of a Planned Parenthood center in Texas. Take time to read this post and see why she left Planned Parenthood and never went back. It amazes me that liberals are constantly trying to make abortions more available than ever. I don’t think they have taken a close look at the process.
Gianna Jessen is an abortion survivor. She  was intervewed on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, where she shared her personal story and also commented on Obama’s voting record. As an Illinois state senator, four times he voted “no” on the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Defined Act, which would protect babies born alive after failed abortions.
There is a lively discussion at the end about whether or not Obama, by his vote, was in fact denying born babies (abortion survivors now outside the womb), the right to live. Pay attention especially to Alan Combs who tries to defend his pro-life liberal president.
Sean Hannity show with Gianna Jessen
Did you see how difficult it was for Alan Combs to defend his liberal president from the charge of infanticide. Logically there is no escape but he tried the best he could.  President Obama was so intent on protecting Roe v Wade that he had to endorse a form of infanticide in order to protect Roe v Wade.
Liberals must acknowledge that hospitals are required to save lives. However, if a hospital is paid to perform an abortion and they botch the job then they must turn from trying to snuff out a life to trying to save it again. How ironic.
Part 2 of 2 Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor speaks at Queen’s Hall.

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 13)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

SENATOR MARK PRYOR WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SAME DEMOCRATIC STATE THAT RE-ELECTED HIS FATHER OVER AND OVER, BUT ARKANSAS NOW IS A REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLD. HECK, THE ONLY REASON PRYOR GOT RE-ELECTED IN 2008 WAS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS THOUGHT FOR SURE HILLARY WOULD BE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL TICKET AND WOULD HAVE COAT TAILS.

Back in 2009 there were 3 Democratic Congressman and 2 Democratic Senators from Arkansas. Now there are 3 Republican Congressman and 1 Republican Senator and the other two seats are held currently by Pryor who is not up for re-election till 2014 and Mike Ross who is vacated his seat at the end of 2012. Could it be that will no longer have any Democrats in Washington representing Arkansas in a couple of years?

I believe that Pryor has miscalculated by opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment and I think that Mike Ross is very popular because of his support of it.

Below is a piece I wrote a while back about Mike Ross.

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today:

U.S. Mike Ross photo

  • U.S. REP. MIKE ROSS

U.S. Mike Rossof Prescott surprised everyone by scheduling an announcement this morning in Little Rock to say he would not seek a seventh term in Congress in 2012.His statement is on the jump. He said he hadn’t decided yet on a race for governor in 2014, which he’s long been expected to make. But his reference to the race indicates it is very much in his sights.

ROSS NEWS RELEASE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott on Monday announced he will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Ross, who won re-election in 2010 by 18 points and has no announced opponent, has represented Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District in Congress since 2001. A fifth generation Arkansan, Ross is a former state senator and former small business owner.

Statement from U.S. Congressman Mike Ross:

Representing my home state of Arkansas in the U.S. Congress for the past eleven years has been a real privilege and honor. It is a job that I take very seriously and one that I love. However, as I reflect on turning 50 this year, I believe it is time for me to begin a new chapter in my life by spending more time with my family and exploring new opportunities here at home in Arkansas.

That’s why I have decided not to seek a seventh term to the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District. This was not an easy decision and one that I carefully made after a lot of reflection, thought and prayer.

Last year was a tough political environment to seek re-election. Yet, I won by 18 points—one of the largest margins of any member of Congress in a swing district. The trust and confidence the folks here at home have continually placed in me is something I will never forget. The people of Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District are good, decent, hard working people and I am proud to serve and represent them in the U.S. Congress.

A lot has changed since I was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2000. Congressional campaigns have gone from several months in length to never-ending, costing millions of dollars every two years. As a result, fundraising never ends nor do the political attacks. While I have worked hard to bring folks to the middle to craft commonsense solutions to the many problems that confront our nation, Washington is mired in gridlock, gamesmanship and constant partisan bickering. Too many issues and votes are based on partisan politics rather than good public policy. Despite our many challenges, I remain optimistic that America’s best days are still ahead of us.

I never believed that my service in the U.S. Congress should become a permanent career. This seat never belonged to me—it belongs to the people of Arkansas. And I know there are many bright people in Arkansas ready to step up, go to Washington and offer a new generation of leadership. Simply put, it is someone else’s turn to represent our state in the U.S. Congress.

I have many good memories of my service in the U.S. Congress, and we have helped thousands of people. None of this would have been possible without the support of the people here in Arkansas, and for that, my family and I will always be grateful to them.

I look forward to serving out the remainder of my term in the U.S. Congress, which doesn’t end until January 2013. I will continue to work each and every day on behalf of the people I represent, just as I have faithfully tried to do from the beginning.

I have received a lot of encouragement to run for Governor of Arkansas when Governor Beebe’s term ends in 2014. I’ve always been very upfront and honest in the fact that, as a fifth generation Arkansan, I love our state and would like very much to help lead it at some point in the future. Whether I run for Governor in 2014 is a decision I have not yet made and won’t make until sometime after my term in this Congress ends.

__________________________________

Ross will tough to beat in the governor race in 2014. However, I do think that the Republicans will have an excellent chance to capture a fourth Congressional seat in 2012. Will there ever be another Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Arkansas? (In fact if you check out some of the information at the Red Arkansas Blog and you will see that most people view this district as a Republican pick up.)

John Brummett in his article “Ross is running, but I repeat myself,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 26, 2011 noted:

To win, a Democrat will need to be as good a politician as Ross. I can’t identify such a Democrat at present.

At this point I’d give tea party pageanteer Beth Anne Rankin, the Sarah Palin wannabe of Arkansas, a decent shot.

Jason Tolbert reported:

 
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge.  However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.

Republican Tom Cotton from Dardanelle confirms to the Tolbert Report this morning that he will seek the open seat and is already putting together his team.  Potential donors have confirmed that Cotton is lining up support and may already have over six figures in commitments.  In addition, Cotton has been seen meeting recently with Second District Congressman Tim Griffin who could lend support to Cotton’s campaign.

Cotton was one of the many names considering a run for Senate in 2010 against former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but ultimately decided against it. Cotton currently works for international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company. A veteran, he also serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. Cotton lives in Yell County, which was part of the Second Congressional District represented by Congressman Griffin. It was moved to the Fourth Congressional Disctrict in the last redistricting process.

In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well.  Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration.  She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years.  Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.

In addition, sources close to State Rep. Lane Jean of Magnolia confirm that he is “strongly considering” getting into the race as well.  Jean was elected to his first term in the Arkansas House in 2010.

Other potential Republicans names mentioned are: State Rep. Matthew Shepherd, former Congressional candidate Glenn Gallas, and Will Rockfeller – the son of the late Lt. Gov. Win Rockfeller.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117 other followers