Monthly Archives: May 2011

Schwarzenegger kids dealing with betrayal before whole world

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger

FILE – In this April 4, 2011 file photo, actor and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, poses after receiving the insignia of Chevalier in the Order of the Legion of Honor during the MIPTV (International Television Programme Market) in Cannes, southern France. Schwarzenegger delayed his Hollywood comeback Thursday, May 19, 2011 as he braced for what could be a costly divorce prompted by revelations that he had an affair and child with a housekeeper who worked for his family for 20 years

New details on Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered child with a staffer – Early Show

Bonnie Rochman of Time Magazine reported yesterday:

Now that Arnold Schwarzenegger has officially confirmed he’s not much for monogamy, it’s hard to know who’s got the rawer end of the deal: his four children with Maria Shriver or the young teen boy conceived with the family housekeeper.

Infidelity is hard enough for kids to process, but when a dalliance yields a secret half-sibling, it complicates matters significantly, raising questions of love and loyalty. It’s still unclear whether the newly acknowledged son – whose gap-toothed smile and square jaw make him a miniature, if less-muscled, dead ringer for his biological father – knew that Schwarzenegger was his father. On Monday, former housekeeper Mildred Patricia Baena told the Los Angeles Times that her then-husband had fathered her son.

But Schwarzenegger’s admission of paternity scuttled that carefully constructed fabrication. On Wednesday, CNN reported that the son he fathered with Baena was born within days of Schwarzenegger and Shriver’s youngest son, who is 13. If the boy knew the truth of his parentage all along, he must be reeling, partly humiliated, partly relieved to know the truth. If he had no idea, he’s probably trying to synthesize the truth into the last 13 or so years of his existence.

“What if this kid is reading all this stuff and finding out he’s a heart-break just by being born?” says Linda Cavallero, an associate professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. “That’s a kick in the head.”

The calculations are not all that different from those of a child who learns in his teens that he’s adopted – with the caveat that in this case, of course, the boy finds out that his mother’s former employer is doubling as dad.

“It requires a redefinition of identity,” says Richard Warshak, the author of Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-Mouthing and Brainwashing and a clinical professor of psychology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

There’s likely lots of re-defining going on among Schwarzenegger’s four children with Shriver too. While CNN reports that they weren’t blindsided by the news, having been briefed “methodically” beforehand by their mother, it’s undeniable that children of any age need stability. The maelstrom of the past few days has provided anything but. To add to the otherworldliness of the situation, the Schwarzenegger children probably already know their half-sibling; it’s hard to imagine Baena having worked for their family for 20 years without their meeting her son.

Now, all five kids – ranging in age from 13 to 21 – are left trying to piece back together the notion of parental respect. It’s a process that any child who’s been publicly disappointed or humiliated by a parent – think adulterer, Ponzi schemer, porn star – has to go through.

Patrick Schwarzenegger, for example, seems to have been sufficiently embarrassed. He changed his last name – temporarily and on Twitter, at least – to his mother’s. Posting on Twitter as Patrick Shriver, the 17-year-old repurposed a line from “Where’d You Go?,” a Fort Minor song: “Some days you feel like s – , some days you want to quit and just be normal for a bit, yet i love my family till death do us apart.”

Meanwhile, his older sister, Katherine, tweeted: “This is definitely not easy but I appreciate your love and support as i begin to heal and move forward in life. I will always love my family!”

The younger kids – Schwarzenegger’s youngest child with Shriver is 13 – are apt to be more shocked because parents are still seen as all-powerful by early adolescents; older children, meanwhile, are less naÏve. They can appreciate the complexity of the situation.

 

“They can understand that somebody might be mostly good but do some things that aren’t good,” says Cavallero. “Where to the 13-year-old it could be much more shocking, the older ones are kind of like, This sucks, but at least they can get their heads around it.”

Mostly, though, it’s important for the children to realize that although Schwarzenegger disappointed his family, he’s not the enemy. “Their task is to put this new information into the entire context of their history with their dad,” says Warshak. “Parents are not defined only by their worst mistakes. These children have lost an idealized image of their father, and it would be best if they don’t lose the ability to love and receive love from him.”

That’s more likely to happen if Shriver can avoid encouraging their kids to take sides. Her brief statement on Tuesday did that, highlighting her role as their caregiver. “As a mother, my concern is for the children,” she said. “I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal.”

Of course, the public lens trained on the whole fiasco doesn’t make things any easier: it can be difficult to privately assimilate their family’s new reality when the entire world is weighing in.

Cavallero couldn’t help but think of Chelsea Clinton soldiering through the Monica Lewinsky incident, recalling her as “crying and saying, Why is this happening to me?”

“As a psychologist, I think about children in situations like that,” says Cavallero. “When he was president, she got a lot of benefits. But she also experienced the opposite. Anyone else’s father who is unfaithful doesn’t have to go on TV.”

Christina Schwarzenegger The Govenator Arnold Schwarzenegger takes a walk on Ocean Ave with his wife Maria Shriver and daughter Christina Schwarzenegger in Santa Monica, CA.

Arnold Schwarzenegger & Family Out For A Walk In Santa Monica

The Govenator Arnold Schwarzenegger takes a walk on Ocean Ave with his wife Maria Shriver and daughter Christina Schwarzenegger in Santa Monica, CA.

(// May 23, 2009- Photo by FlynetPictures.com)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 30)

 

 

Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.

I am not trying to beat up on the royal couple, but I want to help other young couples get off the best possible start. Erin Roach in her article, “Cohabiting Normative but Harmful,” Baptist Press, March 13, 2010 wrote:

Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults, a new study has found, but those who practice some facets of marriage without the foundation of commitment are harming their relationship.

“Over the past several decades, there have been large increases in the number of persons who have ever cohabited, that is, lived together with a sexual partner of the opposite sex,” said the study, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics March 2.

The data, collected in 2002, showed that the proportion of women in their late 30s who had ever cohabited had doubled in 15 years, to 61 percent. Half of couples who cohabit marry within three years, the study said, but the likelihood that a marriage would last for a decade or more decreased by six percentage points if the couple had lived together first. Additionally, a couple who lives together before getting engaged and married is 10 percentage points more likely to break up before their 10-year anniversary than is a married couple who didn’t cohabitate.

_____________________________________

Tim Hawkins Free Credit Report Dot Com Spoof

(5/5) Adrian Rogers – No Other Way to Heaven Except Through Jesus

Weekend to Remember – No Greater Love

__________________________________

Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part 9)

File photo of California Governor Schwarzenegger, ...

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, his son Christopher, 9, and his wife Maria Shriver hold hands as they walk to their vehicle after voting inthe U.S. midterm elections at the Crestwood Hills Recreation Center in Los Angeles, California, in this November 7, 2006 file photo. Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has acknowledged that he fathered a child more than ten years ago with a member of his household staff, the Los Angeles Times reported on May 17, 2011. REUTERS/Danny Moloshok/Files

Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life?

Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube clip above she comments:

“Like a lot of you I’m in transition: people come up to me all the time, asking, what are you doing next?” she said, adding: “It’s so stressful to not know what you are doing next when people ask what you are doing and they can’t believe you don’t know what you are doing.”

“I’d like to hear from other people who are in transition,” she said. “How did you find your transition: Personal, professional, emotional, spiritual, financial? How did you get through it?”

Mrs. Shriver has asked for spiritual input and I personally think that unless she gets the spiritual help that she needs then she will end up in the divorce court. I am starting a series on how a marriage can survive an infidelity. My first suggestion would be to attend a “Weekend to Remember” put on by the organization “Family Life” out of Little Rock, Arkansas. I actually posted this as a response to Mrs. Shriver’s request on you tube.

I wanted to share in two parts the article, “She Hated Her Husband: Brian and Julie Moreau thought there was no hope for their family,” by Mary May Larmoyeux. Here is the first portion:
Little Madissen and her big brother, Branden, often huddled in the closet together, wondering when their parents’ yelling would stop.

Brian and Julie Moreau didn’t protect their kids from their constant fits of rage. Their children “were always right in the middle of it,” Julie says, “with us screaming at each other.”

Julie regrets the time she shouted over and over to Brian, “I hate you! I hate you!” with the kids sitting right there.

Brian just turned around and walked out of the room. But something broke deep within his soul.

Was there any hope for this family?

Limping along in marriage

Brian and Julie were very possessive of each other. That started even before they married in 1991. They describe themselves as jealous, immature … not knowing what real love meant. “We had no business being together,” Julie says, “and my parents did not like Brian.”

Brian couldn’t seem to keep a job and his goal in life was to have fun. He says that Julie was the responsible one who had money in the bank.

Julie continually pointed out to her husband what he was doing wrong. She says that he had a money problem.

Julie was grateful for her one good friend. They often got together and criticized their husbands. Julie would complain about Brian’s spending habits. She’d also talk about Brian and her fights, and why they were always his fault.

Brian knew the woman’s husband, and they spent time together complaining about their wives. Brian would tell his friend about how Julie was trying to control whatever he was doing.

In 2000, after being married for nine years, Brian accepted a position as an internet technology manager at a hospital  three hours away. When the Moreaus arrived in their new community, Julie began a home daycare center.  She poured her life into the children. Brian poured his life into his job.

Because of Brian’s new position, the money issues in the family eased off. “At that point,” he says, “I had become committed to getting a career and holding a job down and supporting my family.”

Someone he could talk to

Brian often worked late into the night, and he became good friends with a co-worker—a married woman. It was easy for him to talk to her. They shared about their problems at home.

Brian didn’t want to be around his wife. “We didn’t like each other very much.” That’s why he deliberately came home after everyone was asleep in bed. And instead of going into the bedroom with Julie, he would prop himself up on the couch and fall asleep watching TV.

One night in May 2004, Brian asked Julie for a divorce. Julie was shocked. She said they needed to go to a counselor. “I stayed up all night begging him and begging him that we couldn’t do it, that we had kids, that we couldn’t get a divorce.”

Brian finally gave in. “Fine, whatever,” he said. “… I’ll stay for the kids but I’m not staying for you.”

A couple of weeks later one of Julie’s friends told Julie that she had heard rumors of Brian having an affair. Julie confronted her husband.

Brian responded by saying Julie didn’t trust him and that he would never have an affair. The only reason he wanted a divorce, he said, was because he wasn’t happy. He also said the kids would be better off if they divorced.

After Julie confronted Brian two or three more times, he finally admitted to the affair. “I can have conversations with her that I can’t have with you,” he said. 

The Moreaus’ relationship continued to deteriorate until Julie saw no hope for her marriage. In July 2004, she reluctantly told her husband, “Fine, let’s get a divorce.” 

Out of control

For the next two months, the Moreaus’ marriage was like a runaway roller coaster. One day Julie said, “It’s over, I can’t do this,” and the next she said, “We have to try.” She saw an attorney. He looked for an apartment for himself. He asked for her forgiveness. Then they said to one another, “Let’s try to work this out.”

Up and down. Their marriage was out of control … and their three children were watching.

“This craziness continued until the end of August,” Julie says. That’s when Brian sat on the couch at home with his two oldest children; Madissen was six years old and Branden was eight. He told them that he was leaving.

“Does that mean that we’re going to have another house?” Madissen asked. “Will I get my own room?”

Branden said nothing. He just sat there.

About that same time Julie and Brian went to their pastor for counseling. He told them that some marriages just don’t work. But other new friends disagreed. They told Julie and Brian that they could make it. “We had these Christian people coming around us that were insisting that we couldn’t get divorced … that we had to work it out,” Brian recalls.

Julie’s family physician was one of those friends. He had met Brian at the hospital, and his wife led a Bible study that Julie participated in. He took Brian to lunch one day and brought his Bible with him. “I told him to close the Bible,” Brian says. “I said I didn’t need that and I wanted some real-world advice.”

A ray of hope

In the fall of 2004, a friend handed Julie a brochure about a marriage getaway called Weekend to Remember®. She suggested that Julie and Brian try it before they divorced. Julie almost threw the brochure away.

Brian came home for lunch that day, and Julie handed him the Weekend to Remember brochure. He returned to work, and about two hours later the phone rang. It was Brian. He told Julie that he had registered for the conference, had booked a hotel room, and that she needed to be sure her parents could watch the kids. For the first time in years, she felt a little optimistic…

Mary May Larmoyeux is a writer and editor for FamilyLife. She is the author of My Heart’s at Home: Encouragement for Working Moms, Help for Busy Moms: Purposeful Living to Simplify Life, co-author of There’s No Place Like Home: Steps to Becoming a Stay-at-Home Mom, and co-author of the Resurrection Eggs® Activity Book.

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no, Part 31 (Input from Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute Part 3)(Milton Friedman worked with Senator Hatch on amendment)

Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch explains the bill it’s ramifications and limitations. Senator Hatch actually worked on this bill with renowned economist Milton Friedman. This ammendment is the first big step in saving our country.

Photo detail

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

Dan Mitchell wrote a great article called “Why a Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment is Needed to Control Spending,” Cato Institute, Feb 19, 1997. I will be posted portions of that article the next few days. Here is the third portion:

What Should the Balanced Budget Amendment Say?

How The amendment is written will depend on the purpose desired. Two competing versions of the balanced budget amendment are before Congress at the present time, one with a supermajority tax limitation provision and one without. Both amendments include a requirement that lawmakers balance the budget unless a deficit has been approved by a supermajority vote of Congress. A third proposal also has been offered, but it is not a true “balanced budget” amendment because it exempts a significant portion of the federal budget before the calculations are made. The three amendments can be described generally as follows:

  • The Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment. Sponsored in the House by Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), this amendment contains a prohibition on deficits and debts without a two-thirds vote of Congress. It also includes a special escape clause in case of war. The most important provision of the Barton amendment is its requirement that tax increases also must obtain two-thirds approval.
  • A Balanced Budget Amendment. Sponsored by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Representatives Charles Stenholm (D-TX) and Dan Schaefer (R-CO), this version is very similar to the Barton tax limitation/balanced budget amendment. It does not include, however, a meaningful provision that prevents efforts to balance the budget by raising taxes. There is a requirement that tax increases be approved by a “constitutional majority” (51 in the Senate and 218 in the House) during a roll call vote, but this is only a small improvement over current law. In addition, only a three-fifths vote would be required to approve deficits or debt. Both this version of the amendment and that of Representative Barton enjoyed significant support in the 104th Congress.
  • The “Exempt Social Security” Amendment. Led by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), some Members of Congress are proposing an amendment that supposedly would require a balanced budget while allowing politicians to pretend that Social Security did not exist. The most noteworthy feature of this version is its political relevance. Many Members of Congress do not want a balanced budget requirement, but they realize that voting “no” would antagonize voters. Presenting a phony alternative allows these members to vote against a legitimate version of the amendment and, at the same time, tell their constituents that they voted for a balanced budget amendment.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s son Patrick born 6 days apart from other son

 

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bGjrvjt9xk]

In 1984, Dudley Moore played a bigamist whose wives, “Micki and Maude,” had babies at the same time. In the Schwarzenegger-Shriver-Baena love triangle, Patty Baena and Maria Shriver gave birth to Schwarzenegger’s sons within six days of each other.

Schwarzenegger and Shriver have always seemed to be a poster couple. They have a 25-year marriage and four beautiful kids. There have been rumors of flirtations on Arnold’s part, but by and large the marriage appeared healthy, especially when you consider the odds stacked against them.

Schwarzenegger and Shriver have weathered years of Kennedy family drama. Shriver is JFK’s niece and the daughter of Sargent and Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Then there was Arnold’s high-profile movie career and Maria’s front-woman post with NBC.

Most difficult of all may be that the couple is on opposite sides of the political coin: she is a strict Democrat while he is a first-water Republican. My husband and I have similar politics, but even our few differences can be hard on our relationship. Polar opposites must make strange bedfellows.

The rock-solid house of Schwarzenegger was recently discovered to have cracks in the foundation, however. After the governor’s term of office was up in January, he was back in circulation on the film scene sans wife. Then Shriver moved out of their mansion. Rumors of infidelity surfaced, but nothing specific.

On May 17, the bombshell broke. “Conan” had been in an affair with his housekeeper, Mildred Patricia “Patty” Baena. More than that, the two had a child together. Despite Baena’s claims that her husband at the time, Rogelio Baena, was the father, Schwarzenegger admitted to paternity.

Here’s where the “Micki and Maude” part comes in. TMZ obtained copies of the child’s birth certificate. The document shows that Schwarzenegger’s fourth and youngest child Christopher was born to Maria Shriver at the same time his baby mama, Patty Baena was giving birth to their love child.

Baena’s child’s birthday is Oct. 2, 1997. Shriver’s son Christopher Sargent Shriver was born Sept. 27, 1997. The former Mr. Universe’s boys are six days apart.

Photos of Baena, with the child show his face blurred to preserve juvenile privacy. However the famous Schwarzenegger grin is still visible. Even in an indefinite image, the child looks like his father.

Reading about the tandem births, I immediately thought of the “Micki and Maude” connection. “Micki and Maude” was a funny, warm movie. After a dust-up when the two women discover each other and their coincident babies, it turns out well. Everyone kisses and makes up after a neat 90-minute wind-up. But it’s a movie.

Schwarzenegger has hurt a lot of people by his choices: his wife, his children (especially Christopher and the unnamed son of Patty Baena), Rogelio Baena, and even arguably Patty Baena herself. In real life, adultery and deceit don’t dovetail so neatly as they do in movies.

Marilisa Kinney Sachteleben writes from 22 years parenting four children and 25 years teaching K-8, special needs, psychology, adult education and homeschool.

Osama bin Laden’s last audio recording released by Al Qaeda

Osama bin Laden
 
  • Broadcast
    As the U.S. fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bin Laden periodically released audio and video recordings (like this one, from 2007) calling for the destruction of America and its allies
Al Qaeda release Osama recording
Al Qaeda have released a posthumous audio recording by Osama bin Laden, in which he praises revolutions across the Arab world.
 

Sami Aboudi of Reuters reported this morning:

CAIRO (Reuters) – Al Qaeda released a posthumous audio recording by Osama bin Laden in which he praised revolutions sweeping through several Arab countries, and called for more Muslim “tyrants” to be toppled.

Islamists have conspicuously been absent in the uprisings in the Middle East that have largely been led by ordinary citizens angered by autocratic rule, corruption and mismanaged economies.

Al Qaeda and other militant groups have waged bloody, but unsuccessful, campaigns to topple these same rulers and by praising the revolts, bin Laden, who was killed in a U.S. raid on May 2 in Pakistan, appeared to be trying to make the Islamists relevant again.

Al Qaeda had said bin Laden, who masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, recorded a message a week before his death. The audio was included in an Internet video more than 12 minutes-long and posted on Islamist websites.

“The sun of the revolution has risen from the Maghreb. The light of the revolution came from Tunisia. It has given the nation tranquility and made the faces of the people happy,” the speaker, who sounds like bin Laden, said.

“To the Muslim nation — we are watching with you this great historic event and share with you the joy and happiness. Congratulations for your victories and may God grant your martyrs mercy, your injured recovery and your prisoners freedom.”

Tunisia’s president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was overthrown by mass protests in January, followed by Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak.

Bin Laden praised the Egyptian revolution and urged Arab protesters to maintain their momentum, adding: “I believe that the winds of change will envelope the entire Muslim world.”

“This revolution was not for food and clothing. Rather, it was a revolution of glory and pride, a revolution of sacrifice and giving. It has lit the Nile’s cities and its villages from its lower reaches to the top,” he said.

“To those free rebels in all the countries — retain the initiative and be careful of dialogue. No meeting mid-way between the people of truth and those of deviation.”

Bin Laden made no specific reference to Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, where pro-democracy protesters have had less success than in Egypt and Tunisia, but said Israel, reviled by many ordinary Arabs, was worried by the unrest.

REVOLUTION CALL

Bin Laden called on young Arabs to consult “those of experience and honesty” and to set up a framework that would allow them to “follow up events and works in parallel… to save the people that are struggling to bring down their tyrants.”

But he did not mention or advocate democratic rule, which was a key demand of protesters in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain in particular. Al Qaeda figures usually pour scorn on Western-style democracy which they see as contradicting Islamic values.

“Tunisia was the first but swiftly the knights of Egypt have taken a spark from the free people of Tunisia to Tahrir Square,” said bin Laden, adding: “It has made the rulers worried.”

U.S. commandos killed bin Laden in a compound in Abbottabad, a garrison town near the Pakistani capital. The incident embarrassed Pakistan’s military and spy agencies and led to calls by members of the U.S. Congress for a tougher approach toward the country.

Al Jazeera television, citing Pakistani security sources, said on Wednesday that al Qaeda had appointed Egyptian Saif al-Adel as temporary leader following bin Laden’s death, but bin Laden’s number two Ayman al-Zawahri, another Egyptian, is widely seen as best placed to take over the whole organization.

Audio and video announcements from bin Laden largely dried up in recent years while Zawahri recorded frequent messages. But Zawahri, an Egyptian medical doctor, is seen as lacking the charisma and oratorical skills of Saudi-born bin Laden, who has Yemeni roots.

Al Qaeda has an active wing in Yemen but has not managed to establish itself in Egypt, the most populous Arab nation.

(Writing by David Stamp and Andrew Hammond; Editing by Miral Fahmy)

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death.

Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes Stephen Hawking for saying ‘there is no heaven’ ” Washington Post, May 19, 2011, notes:


Kirk Cameron in 2001. (JIM COOPER – AP) “Growing Pains” actor turned Christian film star Kirk Cameron is taking issue with comments famed physicist Stephen Hawking made about the existence of heaven. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers,” Hawking said of the human brain to the Guardian newspaper Monday. “That is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Cameron, a Christian evangelist who heads the online ministry, Way of the Master, responded on his Facebook page Wednesday, writing that “to say anything negative about Stephen Hawking is like bullying a blind man. He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas.” Hawking suffers from a motor neurone disease that has left him totally paralyzed.

“Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life,” the actor continued.

Cameron, who last appeared on television with the Duggar Family on their TLC show “19 Kids and Counting,” also had harsh words for Beatles singer, John Lennon. “(Hawking) says he knows there is no Heaven. John Lennon wasn’t sure. He said to pretend there’s no Heaven. That’s easy if you try. Then he said he hoped that someday we would join him. Such wishful thinking reveals John and Stephen’s religious beliefs, not good science.”

______________________________________

Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below:

I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

That verse prompted  me in 1992 to start sending a particular cassette tape out to these skeptics. This tape included three messages (“How I know the Bible is the Word of God,” Adrian Rogers, Sept 1972; “The Final Judgement,” Adrian Rogers,Sept 1972; “How to get a pure heart,” Bill Elliff, 1992.)

On Dec 5, 1995 Carl Sagan while suffering from cancer took time to finally answer the 4 letters I had written to him up to that point.(I don’t know if he ever listened to the tapes I had sent him.) Here is his response:

Thanks for your recent letter about evolution and abortion. The correlation is hardly one to one; there are evolutionists who are anti-abortion and anti-evolutionists who are pro-abortion.You argue that God exists because otherwise we could not understand the world in our consciousness. But if you think God is necessary to understand the world, then why do you not ask the next question of where God came from? And if you say “God was always here,” why not say that the universe was always here? On abortion, my views are contained in the enclosed article (Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan {1990}, “The Question of Abortion,” Parade Magazine, April 22.)

I responded with a two page letter on Jan 10, 1996 and I never heard back again from Dr. Sagan and he died on Dec 20, 1996. His wife Ann Druyan reported that many people of faith reached out to Sagan in last few months of his life, but he never left his agnosticism.

I have read lots of Carl Sagan’s books and written several reviews and papers on his views. I will just leave you with two thoughts.

Sagan observed,”Plainly, there’s something within me that’s ready to believe in life after death…If some good evidence for life after death was announced, I’d be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere antedote”(pp 203-204, The DemonHaunted World, 1995).

Sagan said he had taken a look at Old Testament prophecy and it did not impress him because it was too vague. He had taken a look at Christ’s life in the gospels, but said it was unrealistic for God to send a man to communicate for God. Instead, Sagan suggested that God could have written a mathematical formula in the Bible or put a cross in the sky.However, what happens at the conclusion of the movie Contact?  This is Sagan’s last message to the world in the form of the movie that appeared shortly after his death. Dr Arroway (Jodie Foster) who is a young atheistic scientist who meets with an alien and this alien takes the form of Dr. Arroway’s father. The alien tells her that they thought this would make it easier for her. In fact, he meets her on a beach that resembles a beach that she grew up near so she would also be comfortable with the surroundings. Carl Sagan when writing this script chose to put the alien in human form so Dr. Arroway could relate to the alien. Christ chose to take our form and come into our world too and still many make up excuses for not believing.

Lastly, Carl Sagan could not rid himself of the “mannishness of man.” Those who have read Francis Schaeffer’s many books know exactly what I am talking about. We are made in God’s image and we are living in God’s world. Therefore, we can not totally suppress the objective truths of our unique humanity. In my letter of Jan 10, 1996 to Dr. Sagan, I really camped out on this point a long time because I had read Sagan’s  book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors  and in it  Sagan attempts to  totally debunk the idea that we are any way special. However, what does Dr. Sagan have Dr. Arroway say at the end of the movie Contact when she is testifying before Congress about the alien that  communicated with her? See if you can pick out the one illogical word in her statement: “I was given a vision how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we all are. We belong to something that is greater than ourselves and none of us are alone.”

Dr Sagan deep down knows that we are special so he could not avoid putting the word “precious” in there. Schaeffer said unbelievers are put in a place of tension when they have to live in the world that God has made because deep down they know they are special because God has put that knowledge in their hearts.We are not the result of survival of the fittest and headed back to the dirt forevermore. This is what Schaeffer calls “taking the roof off” of the unbeliever’s worldview and showing the inconsistency that exists.

In several of my letters I quoted this passage below:

Romans 1:17-22 (Amplified Bible)

17For in the Gospel a righteousness which God ascribes is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed through the way of faith that arouses to more faith]. As it is written, The man who through faith is just and upright shall live and shall live by faith.(A)

18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)

21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [a]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

Related posts:

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died jh47

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Pausing to take a look at the life of HARRY KROTO Part F (Discussing his favorite book “THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan”

It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of 76. He was a scientist of remarkable abilities and a man of great humor too. In this series  I posted the Memorial by Richard Dawkins for Dr. Kroto and […]

THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. New York: Random House, 1995. 457 pages, extensive references, index. Hardcover; $25.95. PSCF 48 (December 1996): 263.

_____________ THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. New York: Random House, 1995. 457 pages, extensive references, index. Hardcover; $25.95. PSCF 48 (December 1996): 263. Sagan is the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell University. He is author of many best sellers, including Cosmos, which […]

Carl Sagan’s search for the of meaning of life

________________ … Kansas – Dust In The Wind “Live” HD Rolling Stones: “Satisfaction!” U2 Still Haven’t Found (with lyrics) __________________________________________________ On December 5, 1995, I got a letter back from Carl Sagan and I was very impressed that he took time to answer several of my questions and to respond to some of the points that […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part F “Carl Sagan’s views on how God should try and contact us” includes film “The Basis for Human Dignity”

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Carl Sagan v. Nancy Pearcey

On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog ______________________________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

Carl Sagan versus RC Sproul

At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)jh68

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ This is a review I did a few years ago. THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog ______________________________________ I was really enjoyed this review of Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot.” Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. […]

Candidate #4,Congressman Ron Paul: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 7)(A Night with Ron Paul Part F)

Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron

Pt 6/6 Ron Paul  4/15/11 CSPAN

Ron Paul is becoming more and more popular because the country is coming over more to his Libertarian way of thinking. People see the federal government increasing to 24.7 % of GDP when it had been below 4% the first 150 years of our nation’s existence. Just yesterday Jason Tolbert reported that the Libertarian party in Arkansas gathered more than enough signatures to get their candidate on the ballot in Arkansas. I have had an overwhelming response to these blog posts I have done on Ron Paul. This is actually my  seventh post. My posting of Milton Friedman videos has been relentless also. People are ready for liberty to return and want to get rid of massive government control of our lives!!!

Robert Wenzel, Editor & Publisher of the Economy Policy Journal wrote a fine article “On the road with Ron Paul,” May 2, 2011. I will be posting portions of that article the next few days. Here is the sixth part:

During his speech, he told the crowd that when Alan Greenspan was Fed chairman, he got Alan Greenspan to sign a copy of a paper Greenspan wrote in 1966 where he called for a gold standard and against the concept of a central bank.

Dr. Paul said that he  asked Greenspan if he still held the beliefs as outlined in the 1966 paper, and Greenspan said that he believed every bit in them. Dr. Paul then said he has still not been able to square how Greenspan held those beliefs and could hold the position of Federal Reserve chairman.

Ron Paul answers questions from a television reporter in Reno, Nevada at a Republican breakfast for Dr. Paul.

On the way to the airport, we talked about the metal in coins again. I mis-spoke and said the current penny had 75% copper. It’s really the nickel that contains 75% copper and Dr. Paul caught my error immediately and politely said, “Oh I think it is a lot less than that.” When I corrected myself and said the pre-1982 penny (which is 95% copper) now has almost 3 cents worth of metal in it. He said with some glee. “They [The Fed] have turned the copper coin into a coin with real value.”

At the airport, an airport employee asked to have his picture taken with Dr. Paul. At the hotel earlier, Dr. Paul posed for a couple of pictures with me but the pictures were a bit dark because of the hotel lighting. I had forgotten, but Dr Paul remembered and said to me, “Let’s get another shot here in the light.”

Dr. Paul then gave another radio interview with a Reno station, and reported back to us that the interviewer asked him to come to the studio next time for an interview.

My visit with Dr. Paul was just about over. I was prepared to head back to the hotel and catch a quick nap, when Dr. Paul leaned over to me, and after what he had called the busiest week of his life, said to me, “I can’t wait to get home so I can go bicycling.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s estranged wife became the star of Oprah Winfrey’s final talk show

Cheated Shriver

Oprah Winfrey and Maria Shriver at Chicago’s United Centre yesterday for the taping of the star’s final show after 25 years. Picture: AP Source: AP

The Australian reported today:

THE mother of former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s love child was named yesterday as the actor’s estranged wife became the star of Oprah Winfrey’s final talk show.

Schwarzenegger, who last week announced his separation from Maria Shriver after 25 years of marriage, admitted on Tuesday to fathering a child with a longtime employee about 10 years ago.

RadarOnline and Star magazine named housekeeper Mildred Baene, 50, as the employee and reported that she had worked for Schwarzenegger and Shriver for 20 years before retiring in January.

“She’s the one,” a source said.

A second source confirmed: “They have a son together.”

Ms Shriver revealed at the taping of Winfrey’s finale that the talk show host had “given me love, support, wisdom and, most of all, the truth”.

She said she knew she was not “alone in receiving those gifts”and told Winfrey the star host “believed in others so they could believe in themselves”.

Hollywood’s A-list celebrities bade a star-studded farewell to Winfrey in a double-taping of her talk show.

“I feel the love and I thank you for it,” Winfrey told the crowd.

“Thank you for being a part of this great night, this celebration of what you have done for The Oprah Winfrey Show. You have made it possible for us to stand for 25 years.”

Tom Hanks, then Tom Cruise, greeted Winfrey after she came on stage to a standing ovation from the audience of 13,000 gathered for Surprise Oprah! A Farewell Spectacular at Chicago’s United Centre.

Josh Groban and Patti LaBelle sang Somewhere Over the Rainbow as Winfrey sat in a white chair onstage.

“Was that not the coolest?” Winfrey said when they finished.

She announced in November 2009 that she would end her popular talk show after 25 years.

Yesterday’s taping will air in the US on Monday and Tuesday, before Winfrey’s final show on Wednesday.

In Australia, the shows will be broadcast in prime-time on the Ten Network a day later.

Madonna told the crowd she was among the millions inspired by Winfrey.

“She fights for things that she believes in, even if it makes her unpopular,” Madonna said. The second show’s taping began with Will Smith and his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, who thanked Winfrey and told her she had mothered millions and “that puts you in the status of a goddess”.

Former basketballer Michael Jordan came on stage to hug Winfrey and told her he loved her and that she inspired him. Jamie Foxx and Stevie Wonder sang Isn’t She Lovely to Winfrey. Wonder followed with his own song, singing to her: “Oprah, thank you for using your gifts to uplift so many hearts.”

Simon Cowell made an appearance, Rosie O’Donnell sang a Broadway-style song and Jerry Seinfeld did a comedy routine. Grammy winner John Legend was beamed in from a school in New Orleans, and actress Dakota Fanning led a group of children talking about Winfrey’s influence on their lives.

“You always had the power, and that is the message you brought into our lives,” Cruise told Winfrey.

Halle Berry, Queen Latifah, Katie Holmes and Diane Sawyer were there, too. Beyonce sang her song Run the World (Girls), backed by dozens of dancers. And Rascal Flatts also performed.

“Oprah Winfrey, because of you women everywhere have graduated to a new level of understanding of who we are, of what we are and, most of all, who we can be,” Beyonce said.

Who was Milton Friedman and what did he say about Social Security Reform? (Part 3)

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.
Milton Friedman

 Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [2/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions.

Traveling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed.

The American economist Milton Friedman challenged the Keynesian orthodoxy with his monetarist theories.

Milton Friedman congratulated by President Ronald Reagan. © 2008 Free To Choose Media, courtesy of the Power of Choice press kit

In this series I want to both look  closely at who Milton Friedman was and what his views were about Social Security reform. Here is the second portion of an autobiography from Nobelprize.org:

In economics, I had the good fortune to be exposed to two remarkable men: Arthur F. Burns, then teaching at Rutgers while completing his doctoral dissertation for Columbia; and Homer Jones, teaching between spells of graduate work at the University of Chicago. Arthur Burns shaped my understanding of economic research, introduced me to the highest scientific standards, and became a guiding influence on my subsequent career. Homer Jones introduced me to rigorous economic theory, made economics exciting and relevant, and encouraged me to go on to graduate work. On his recommendation, the Chicago Economics Department offered me a tuition scholarship. As it happened, I was also offered a scholarship by Brown University in Applied Mathematics, but, by that time, I had definitely transferred my primary allegiance to economics. Arthur Burns and Homer Jones remain today among my closest and most valued friends.

Though 1932-33, my first year at Chicago, was, financially, my most difficult year; intellectually, it opened new worlds. Jacob Viner, Frank Knight, Henry Schultz, Lloyd Mints, Henry Simons and, equally important, a brilliant group of graduate students from all over the world exposed me to a cosmopolitan and vibrant intellectual atmosphere of a kind that I had never dreamed existed. I have never recovered.

Personally, the most important event of that year was meeting a shy, withdrawn, lovely, and extremely bright fellow economics student, Rose Director. We were married six years later, when our depression fears of where our livelihood would come from had been dissipated, and, in the words of the fairy tale, have lived happily ever after. Rose has been an active partner in all my professional work since that time.

Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

Milton Friedman wrote an excellent article, “Speaking the truth about Social Security Reform,” April 12, 1999, Cato Institute and I will posting portions of that article in the next few days.  Milton Friedman, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics, was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Originally published in the New York Times January 11, 1999. Here is the third portion:

The Myth of Transition Cost

The link between the payroll tax and benefit

payments is part of a confidence game to convince

the public that what the Social Security

Administration calls a social insurance program

is equivalent to private insurance; that, in the

administration’s words, “the workers themselves

contribute to their own future retirement benefit

by making regular payments into a joint fund.”

Balderdash. Taxes paid by today’s workers are

used to pay today’s retirees. If money is left over,

it finances other government spending—though,

to maintain the insurance fiction, paper entries are

created in a “trust fund” that is simultaneously an

asset and a liability of the government. When the

benefits that are due exceed the proceeds from

payroll taxes, as they will in the not very distant

future, the difference will have to be financed by

raising taxes, borrowing, creating money, or

reducing other government spending. And that is

true no matter how large the “trust fund.”

The assurance that workers will receive benefits

when they retire does not depend on the particular

tax used to finance the benefits or on any

“trust fund.” It depends solely on the expectation

that future Congresses will honor promise made

by earlier Congresses—what supporters call “a

compact between the generations” and opponents

call a Ponzi scheme.

The present discounted value of the promises

embedded in the Social Security law greatly

exceeds the present discounted value of the

expected proceeds from the payroll tax. The difference

is an unfunded liability variously estimated

at from $4 trillion to $11 trillion—or from

slightly larger than the funded federal debt that is

in the hands of the public to three times as large.

For perspective, the market value of all domestic

corporations in the United States at the end of

1997 was roughly $13 trillion.

To see the phoniness of “transition costs” (the

supposed net cost of privatizing the current Social

Security system), consider the following thought

experiment: As of January 1, 2005, the current

Social Security system is repealed. To meet current

commitments, every participant in the system will

receive a governmental obligation equal to his or

her actuarial share of the unfunded liability.

For those already retired, that would be an

obligation—a treasury bill or bond—with a market

value equal to the present actuarial value of

expected future benefits minus expected future

payroll taxes, if any. For everyone else, it would be

an obligation due when the individual would have

been eligible to receive benefits under the current

system. The maturity value would equal the present

value of benefits the person would have been

entitled to, less the present value of the person’s

future tax liability, both adjusted for mortality.

The result would be a complete transition to a

strictly private system, with every participant

receiving what current law promises. Yet, aside

from the cost of distributing the new obligations,

the total funded and unfunded debt of the United

States would not change by a dollar. There are

no “costs of transition.” The unfunded liability

would simply have become funded. The compact

between the generations would have left as a

legacy the newly funded debt.

How would that funded debt be paid when it

came due? By taxing, borrowing, creating money,

or reducing other government spending. There

are no other ways. There is no more reason to

finance the repayment of this part of the funded

debt by a payroll tax than any other part. Yet

that is the implicit assumption of those who

argue that the “costs of transition” mean there

can be only partial privatization.

The payroll tax is a bad tax: a regressive tax

on productive activity. It should long since have

been repealed. Privatizing Social Security would

be a good occasion to do so.