Monthly Archives: May 2011

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 45)

May 10, 2011 – 9:52 pm

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 10pm CST.

Senator Rand Paul on Feb 7, 2011 wrote the article “A Modest $500 Billion Proposal: My spending cuts would keep 85% of government funding and not touch Social Security,” Wall Street Journal and he observed:

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Interior
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease
Interior $3.111 B $10.934 B 78%
The Department of Interior is responsible for managing millions of acres of land, forests and parks, as well as building
dams. The department has consistently been given poor management ratings by the White House’s Office of
Management and Budget, and provides many functions that could be reduced or privatized. This proposal includes
taking many programs back to FY2008 levels, and includes additional cuts or elimination of certain programs,
including the Land and Mineral Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park
Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Land and Mineral Management: Reduce 50 percent
The management of public lands and resources is best left up to the states. States have firsthand knowledge about
what is good for them and the best ways to use their lands for energy, recreation, and natural beauty.

Bureau of Reclamation: Eliminate
Established in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has held a majority of the dams, hydroelectric power plants, and
canals in the western most 17 states. They are the largest wholesaler of water in the country and provide water for
farmers in those states.

Owning a majority block of energy and water resources is not the business of the federal government. Water rights
should be controlled by the states and agreements can be made between the states to ensure water supply to all.

U.S. Geological Survey: Reduce 29 percent
The U.S. Geological Survey is the largest water, earth, and biological science civilian mapping agency in the United
States. Though these are important activities, they can be given to state researchers at our colleges and universities,
without having large numbers of regional executives and multiple offices.

National Park Service: Reduce 42 percent
In 2009, repairs were performed on the Vietnam Memorial and those repairs were done without the use of taxpayer
funds. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund took over the duties of preserving the memorial because the National
Park Service did not have the resources from the federal government.
Every year the amount of appropriations increase to the National Park Service, yet both the GAO and the
Congressional Research Services have stated that NPS’s backlog on projects and maintenance would cost several
billion dollars to the American taxpayer. National Parks have seen a decrease in visitors and campers each year due
to trash, lack of facilities, or even safety. Returning these public lands back to the states and or the private sector
would allow an increase in quality, safety and a reduction in government spending each year.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: Eliminate
For far too long, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has swindled and mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian trust funds.
Former Special Trustee Thomas Slonaker in 2004 testified that they Department of the Interior and the BIA were
incapable of reform and were unwilling to hold people accountable for their actions. In addition, Paul Homan also has
testified before Congress saying that a “vast majority of upper and middle management at the BIA were incompetent.
Instead of wasting taxpayer funds throwing money into a bureau of corruption and incompetency, eliminate them and
allow the tribes to manage their own trust funds independently without government intervention.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Osama bin Laden’s sons think U.S. broke international law

May 10, 2011 – 4:13 pm
 

Omar bin Laden, son of Osama bin Laden, in his apartment in Al-Rahad city near Cairo in 2008

The New York Times reported today:

The adult sons of Osama bin Laden have lashed out at President Obama over their father’s death, accusing the United States of violating its basic legal principles by killing an unarmed man, shooting his family members and disposing of his body in the sea.

The statement said the family was asking why the leader of Al Qaeda “was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world.” Citing the trials of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, the statement questioned “the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated,” but the principles of presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial were ignored.

“We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems,” the statement said, adding that “justice must be seen to be done.”

The statement, prepared at the direction of Omar bin Laden, a son who had publicly denounced his father’s terrorism, was provided to The New York Times by Jean Sasson, an American author who helped the younger Bin Laden write a 2009 memoir, “Growing Up bin Laden.” A shorter, slightly different statement was posted on a jihadist Web site Tuesday.

Omar bin Laden, 30, lived with his father in Afghanistan until 1999, when he left with his mother, Najwa bin Laden, who co-wrote the memoir. In the book and other public statements, the younger bin Laden denounced violence of all kinds, a stance he repeated in the sons’ statement to The Times. None of Osama bin Laden’s sons other than Omar was named in the statement, so it was unclear exactly who else had approved the message.

“We want to remind the world that Omar bin Laden, the fourth-born son of our father, always disagreed with our father regarding any violence and always sent messages to our father, that he must change his ways and that no civilians should be attacked under any circumstances,” the statement said. “Despite the difficulty of publicly disagreeing with our father, he never hesitated to condemn any violent attacks made by anyone, and expressed sorrow for the victims of any and all attacks.”

Condemning the shooting of one of the Qaeda leader’s wives during the assault on May 2 in Abbottabad, Pakistan, the statement added: “As he condemned our father, we now condemn the president of the United States for ordering the execution of unarmed men and women.”

The sons’ statement called on the government of Pakistan to hand over to family members the three wives and several children of the terrorist now believed to be in Pakistani custody and asked for a United Nations investigation of the circumstances of their father’s death.

In addition to the statement, Ms. Sasson shared with The Times notes on what Omar bin Laden, who declined to be interviewed directly, has told her by phone in recent days. The notes describe Mr. bin Laden’s struggle, as he came of age, to understand and eventually reject his father’s embrace of religious violence.

Mr. bin Laden told Ms. Sasson the death of his father “has affected this family in much the same way as many other families in the past in the loss of a family member.”

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.

Osama bin Laden
Naseer Ahmed / Reuters

The End
On May 1, 2011, President Obama announced that bin Laden had been tracked to a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was killed by a team of Navy Seals. Here, men in Quetta, Pakistan, watch Obama deliver to the world the news of the terrorist leader’s death.

Read more:
President Obama Monitors the bin Laden Mission
Pete Souza / The White House
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama | Comments (0)

Will Huckabee step down from Fox and run for Presidential nomimation? Brummett and Brawner say no, Brantley and Tolbert say it sounds like he will (Part 2)

May 10, 2011 – 9:43 am

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee might run to stay on tv,” May 10, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, noted:

As a Fox News television talent alone, Mike Huckabee is not as compelling as Sean Hannity or as commanding as Bill O’Reilly or even as good-looking as Greta van Susteren…

I remain on record predicting that Huckabee, in the end, will opt not to run for president.

That’s because his ultimate calculation will be that his over-arching career goal, that of ongoing media/show biz personality, can best be pursued by sticking with that career as it exists, even without renewal of the political brand, rather than by risking having to take off four whole years, which would be all the American people could possibly survive, to function as best he might as president of the United States.

He does not want to be president. He did not even want to be governor. He wants to gab; he wants to get paid by the word; he wants his own microphone and camera; he wants an adapted Falwell-Robertson kind of appeal; he wants to put out pamphlets and call them books; he wants stuff.

Might I be wrong in my prediction? Might he run?

His challenge will be finding someone in this Republican field to whom he can be certain of running second.

The best bet seems to be Romney, who, as it happens, is the one rival Huckabee cannot stand. That serves only to compound the ironic predicament.

In his article “Huckabee isn’t running,” April 24, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, Steve Brawner observed:

Huckabee’s record as governor won’t play as well in 2012, when he would start the race as a contender, as it did in 2008, when he never really threatened to win it. In Arkansas, he raised taxes, created a big government-run health care program called ARKids First, and helped release a lot of convicts from prison, including two really bad guys, Wayne Dumond and Maurice Clemmons, who went on to kill people.

That’s not exactly a record that will win the support of the TEA Party – or of big business types who will back candidates like Romney…

Huckabee isn’t lying when he says that he won’t decide until this summer. There is still a part of him that hasn’t shut the door. But he’s leaning strongly enough against the idea that he is comfortable with building this big house.

Jason Tolbert reported:

KATV’s Scott Inman sat down for an extended segment with Gov. Huckabee today on which aired tonight in central Arkansas.  In it, he sounds like he is inching closer to a decision to run.

Max Brantley in March noted:

I think Mike Huckabee is going to run for president, but I think he’s going to finesse the decision as long as possible to hang onto the money he makes as a non-candidate with his radio show (now on 560 stations) and his show on Fox News, which recently booted two commentators who’ve made not much more presidential noise than Huckabee.

Where do I stand on this? I think Huckabee will probably not run. I earlier thought that he would run and I knew that he could always come back to Fox later and get his job back.However, I heard John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak the other day and he commented that when people like the liberal President Obama are in control, it makes his job so much more easy. The subjects for the articles are handed to him on a platter by Obama everyday. I think the same is true for Huckabee and his show. I think that Brummett and Brawner are right. In other words, Huckabee is having too good of a time making fun of Obama and he knows he is serving the conservative cause by getting the truth out there on the air every week. Ronald Reagan said that liberalism has always failed whenever it is tried, and Huckabee has an abundance of Obama’s mistakes to make fun of everyday on his show. The comedy material is just too much to say no to!!!!

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Jason Tolbert, Mike Huckabee | Comments (0)

Arnold Schwarzenegger is fond of quoting Milton Friedman but he rejected fiscal conservative idea to cut spending

May 10, 2011 – 8:53 am
Photos and Pictures - Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver with family at a day with
 
Photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver and their family at the Los Angeles Premiere of “The Benchwarmers,” presented by Columbia Pictures.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver and their family photoArnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver and their family

Transcript from the opening introduction to the film series “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman, but did Arnold abandon the principles of Friedman?

Hi, I am Arnold Schwarzenegger. I would like a moment of your time because I wanted you to know something. I wanted you to know about Dr. Milton Friedman’s TV series, Free to Choose. I truly believe that the series has changed my life. When you have such a powerful experience as that, I think you shouldn’t keep it to yourself, I wanted to share it with you.

Being free to choose for me means being free to make your own decisions; free to live your own life; pursue your own goals; chase your own rainbow; without the government breathing down on your neck or standing on your shoes. For me that meant coming here to America. Because I came from a socialistic country in which the government controls the economy. It is a place where you can hear 18 year old kids already talking about their pension. But me __ I wanted more. I wanted to be the best __ individualism like that is incompatible with socialism. So I felt I had to come to America. I had no money in my pocket, but here I had the freedom to get it. I have been able to parlay my big muscles into big business and a big movie career. Along the way I was able to save and invest and I watched America change and I noticed this __ that the more the government interfered and intervened and inserted itself into the free market, the worse the country did. But when the government stepped back and let the free enterprise system do its work, then the better we did, the more robust our economy grew, the better I did, and the better my business grew, and the more I was able to hire and help others.

Okay. So there I was in Palm Springs, waiting for Maria to get ready so we could go out for a game of mixed doubles. I started flipping through the television dial and I caught a glimpse of Nobel Prize winner, Economist Dr. Milton Friedman. I recognized him from the studying of my own degree of economics in business, but I didn’t know I was watching Free to Choose __ it knocked me out. Dr. Friedman expressed, validated and explained everything I ever thought or experienced or observed about the way the economy works. I guess I was really ready to hear it. He said, the economic race should not be arranged so that everyone ends at the finish line at the same time, but so that everyone starts at the starting line at the same time. Wow! I would like to write that one home to Austria. He said, that society that puts equality before freedom winds up with neither, but that society puts freedom before equality, we will end up with a great measure of both. Boy, if I would have come up with that one myself, I maybe wouldn’t have had to get into body building.

When I did beef up my body building, at business school, of course it started with what Thomas Jefferson believed and what Adam Smith thought, even what Milton Friedman had to say __ I would be free to choose __ it all came together. Their economic thought with my own personal experience, and in a way I felt that I had come home. I sought out Dr. Friedman and had great pleasure and privilege of meeting him and his economist wife, Rose, and we have all become friends, and now I call him Milton. Then I became a big pain in the neck about Free to Choose.

All my friends and acquaintances got the tapes and the books for Christmas after Christmas, all the way through the Reagan years when I was able to tell them all __ you see, Milton is right. And I think it’s crucial that we all keep moving in the same direction, away from socialism and to its greater freedom and opportunity. That is why I am so excited that Milton Friedman is updating Free to Choose, bringing it into the 90’s by discussing how to deal with the drug disaster, the chabain phenomenon, and of course, the miserable failure of communism. By the way, there are plans now to translate Free to Choose into the languages of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. And you know, they really need it to guide them through it __ to take the first walk toward freedom. But we need it too.

I commend to you the new television series Free to Choose and encourage you to walk into the 21st century in freedom, in opportunity and in success, with Dr. Milton Friedman.

Thanks for listening.

_________________________________

[Milton Friedman]
Milton Friedman, prior to his retirement from the University.

 

________________________________________________

Below is a portion of an article from Reason Magazine:

Schwarzenegger’s Failure

If the California governor is the face of “moderate” Republicanism, the party is even more doomed than the 2008 elections suggest.

from the February 2009 issue

The promise of coastal Republicans in Name Only like Schwarzenegger, at least for the limited-government proponents (including me) who have invested hope in him over the years, was supposed to be that the descriptor socially liberal would be followed by another very important phrase: fiscally conservative. And that’s where the Milton Friedman–quoting governor has been an unalloyed disaster.

Schwarzenegger blew into office decrying California’s bloated budget, vowing to “blow up the boxes” of Sacramento’s bureaucracy, and promising to never again let the Golden State go near Gray Davis’ record-setting $38 billion deficit. Five years into the Schwarzenegger era, the budget has ballooned from $100 billion to $145 billion, and the state’s legislative analyst announced in November that California was facing a deficit of $28 billion. Bond market ratings assess the state as a bigger lending risk than Slovakia. And those bureaucratic boxes have remained largely intact.

How does Schwarzenegger defend this sorry record? In part, by blaming Republicans. “I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to also look at other issues that are very important for this country and not to get stuck in ideology,” he said on CNN five days after the election. “Let’s go and talk about health care reform. Let’s go and…fund programs if they’re necessary programs and not get stuck just on the fiscal responsibility.”

What are some of these “necessary programs”? How about a $9.9 billion bond for a long-dreamed-of high-speed rail project between Los Angeles and San Francisco that is expected to cost at least $45 billion, which even supporters such as the Los Angeles Times editorial board think will require “many billions more” in subsidies? Then there’s the $3 billion bond from 2004 to put California bureaucrats in the stem cell research business, mostly as a poke in the eye of George W. Bush.

How to pay for all this during what the governor has declared a “financial emergency”? Partly by rattling the tin cup outside the White House. Schwarzenegger was one of the first governors to hit up Washington for some of that fat bailout money gushing from the Oval Office.

But the spending splurge also requires new taxes, according to the governor: a “temporary” 1.5-percentage-point increase in the 7.25 percent sales tax, an increase in the number of services covered by the sales tax, higher taxes for alcohol and oil production, and so on. Many analysts believe that the governor who quickly fulfilled his recall-campaign promise to cut the state’s vehicle license fees will soon resort to restoring those charges to at least Gray Davis levels.

Even on social issues, where Schwarzenegger’s more libertarian approach was supposed to avoid the Republican trap of freedom constricting politics, the governor instead has embraced the freedom-constricting policies of the left. To cite one particularly ironic example, in 2004 he signed a law requiring every California employer with more than 50 workers to force upon its managers state-approved sexual harassment training.

Republicans in 2009 are in a mess of their own making. If they interpret the Democrats’ sweeping victory as a clarion call to foray further into religiously inspired, Terry Schiavo–style politics that uses government as a lever to manipulate and control other people’s lives, then they will deserve their exile from power.

But it will take more than just eschewing cultural conservatism and adopting the Democrats’ interventionist economic approach to refresh the Republican brand. There is room right now for an opposition party that emphasizes what the governing party does not: freedom, as both the ultimate goal and the means to achieve it.

Back when he was taping testimonials for Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, Arnold Schwarzenegger looked like the kind of person who would indeed choose freedom if given a chance to govern. Instead, he punted on the radical, government-reducing reforms offered to him by his own box-exploding California Performance Review and learned to love—or at least perpetuate—the very bureaucracy he was elected to confront. That’s not a blueprint for 21st-century Republicanism. It’s just George W. Bush’s big-government conservatism with a Hollywood face.

Matt Welch is editor in chief of reason.

Katherine Schwarzenegger Governor Schwarzenegger goes to cast his vote on election day with his wife Maria Shriver and their daughters Christina and Katherine (her first time voting), at the Kenter Canyon elementary school in Brentwood.
The Schwarzenegger Family Voting

Governor Schwarzenegger goes to cast his vote on election day with his wife Maria Shriver and their daughters Christina and Katherine (her first time voting), at the Kenter Canyon elementary school in Brentwood.

(November 4, 2008- Photo by FlynetPictures.com)

I have written many times about Arnold Schwarzenegger before. Here are just a few of the times:

1. President Reagan having a photo taken with Arnold Schwarzenegger at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. 8/23/84.

2.Here is a video clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger using an Airlight
Broom as a prop for “cleaning house” in the California Recall
Election as seen on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, ect in 2003. The
Airlight Broom is manufactured by Little Rock Broom Works.

3. I heard John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak in Little Rock on April 27, 2011 and in his speech he mentioned the struggle that Arnold Schwarzenegger had with the envirnomentalists in California. I took time to repeat a lot of the facts about that in my blog post that day.

4. At that same luncheon on April 27th that I mentioned earlier, one subject that John Fund brought up was the red tape that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to deal with in California. I wrote about that too.

5. St. James Palace has confirmed  that Kate Middleton and Prince William – or, more officially, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge – will be visiting California from July 8-10 this summer. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to greet the Royals as they touch down.

6. Which is better for setting up a business: California or Texas? Arnold Schwarzenegger is mentioned in this post too.

7. Arnold Schwarzenegger is fond of quoting Milton Friedman but he rejected fiscal conservative idea to cut spending.

8. Pictures of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver through the years. Video clip of them at Ronald Reagan’s funeral.

9. I wrote a post on American Exceptionalism and put in a video clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger doing the introduction to an episode of “Free to Choose.”

10. Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of  infidelity? I hope so (Part 1).

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)

Candidate #7, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 1)Did he win first debate in Greenville, SC May 5, 2011?

May 10, 2011 – 7:43 am

First GOP Presidential Debate Part 1

The first GOP presidential debate for 2012 was held in South Carolina the evening of May 5, 2011. Participants were Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, businessman Herman Cain, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

Slade Shomer in his article, “The Man Who Could Beat Obama (But Won’t Get the Chance)” noted:

If the Republican Party and its Tea Party influencers are serious about reducing the size and scope of government, relieving our unsustainable debt burden and balancing the budget, then the man who should be its 2012 nominee officially entered the lackluster field on Thursday morning.

Of course, in order to get the small government credibility and civil liberty protections that come with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, Republicans will have to put up with a candidate who not only believes in the legalization of marijuana, but someone who admits to smoking it extensively; a candidate who not only believes in a sensible, enforcement-last immigration policy, but someone who doesn’t approve of the right’s rhetoric; and a candidate who openly admires GOP black sheep Ron Paul.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Candidate #6,Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 1)Did he win first debate in Greenville, SC May 5, 2011?

May 10, 2011 – 7:21 am

First GOP Presidential Debate Part 4

The first GOP presidential debate for 2012 was held in South Carolina the evening of May 5, 2011. Participants were Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, businessman Herman Cain, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

Rick Santorum

Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post wrote:

In an interview with CBN’s chief political correspondent, David Brody, Rick Santorum says that it’s “silly” to think that he can’t win the GOP nomination in 2012. That said, he thinks that “Obamacare is the most important domestic policy issue that we have to deal with,” which will probably come as something of a surprise to everyone who’s come up on the wrong end of the massive unemployment crisis the nation is currently undergoing. As you might expect, however, Santorum’s direct attack on the Affordable Care Act sends indirect fire in the direction of the presumed GOP frontrunner:

SANTORUM: I think Obamacare is the most important domestic policy issue that we have to deal with. It is bad policy, it is government control of health care, it’s the wrong approach and anybody that supports an approach similar to it, I think is on the wrong track. They [Massachusetts] certainly had the right to pass this. I will agree with that. Unlike the federal statute, the Obamacare statute, which I think is unconstitutional. Clearly Massachusetts had the right to pass an individual mandate, and to have a government basically exercise control over the health care system. The question is is it the right thing to do? Not whether they had the right to do it, was it right to do? And I think it was not right to do, I don’t think that’s the way that you control costs. I don’t think that’s the way that you improve quality of care, and I don’t think it’s the way that you make sure that patients earn control of the system.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Candidate #5,businessman Herman Cain: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 1)Did he win first debate in Greenville, SC May 5, 2011?

May 10, 2011 – 7:17 am

First GOP Presidential Debate Part 3

The first GOP presidential debate for 2012 was held in South Carolina the evening of May 5, 2011. Participants were Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, businessman Herman Cain, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

 
Written By : Robert Stacy McCain

After the Dec. 15 Red State poll that showed Atlanta businessman and talk-radio host Herman Cain topping even Sarah Palin as a favorite of the online conservative grassroots, I began blogging about the Cain phenomenon and did an interview with Cain for The American Spectator.

Yesterday a commenter at my blog chastised me, saying my “gushing over Herman Cain is starting to get embarrassing.” One of the knocks on Cain’s candidacy is that he has never held public office and, therefore, is presumably un-electable. That kind of pre-emptive discounting of an otherwise appealing candidate sticks in my craw, especially after a year in which voters elected so many Tea Party-backed Republican challengers who had also never held public office. So I replied today to the negativity:

In a David-vs.-Goliath situation, you don’t start by trying to calculate the odds of success, because the odds are liable to be so daunting as to inspire helpless despair. But let me ask you this: What were Herman Cain’s odds in 2006, when the doctors diagnosed him with Stage 4 cancer? Think about that before you say Cain can’t win. . .

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Candidate #4,Congressman Ron Paul: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 1)Did he win first debate in Greenville, SC May 5, 2011?

May 10, 2011 – 7:11 am

First GOP Presidential Debate Part 2

The first GOP presidential debate for 2012 was held in South Carolina the evening of May 5, 2011. Participants were Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, businessman Herman Cain, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

According to the Huffington Post Ron Paul “certainly has the most enthusiastic fan base.”

Can Ron Paul win? Back in 2007, Dr Murray Sabrin wrote:

“Ron’s political base is fiscal conservatives, anti-tax citizens, anti-war Republicans, Democrats and Independents, constitutionalists, hard-money advocates, small business owners, civil libertarians, anti-universal healthcare physicians, pro-lifers, parents who home school, and anyone else who considers himself a real patriot. In other words, if Ron’s substantial base provides him with volunteers, contributions and votes, he would be a very competitive candidate.”

Most libertarians have prochoice views, but Ron Paul is pro-life.  This is one of the reasons I really like Ron Paul.

The LA Times reported:

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

Speaking at the Iowa Family Leader’s presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul, an obstetrician and a Christian, explained that he disagreed with the popular belief that to be a Libertarian means having a laissez faire attitude of “it’s the woman’s body; she can do whatever she wants.”

“Life comes from our creator, not our government,” Politico reported Paul as saying. “Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”

Paul’s stance on abortion won him the endorsement in 2008 of none other than “Jane Roe” from the landmark Roe v. Wade legal case of the ’70s.

“Roe,” whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a pro-life advocate a decade ago and supported Paul in the last presidential election specifically because of his views on abortion. “I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade,” McCorvey said. “He has never wavered … on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.”

When Paul accepted the endorsement he said, “As much as I talk about economic liberties, and civil liberties and trying to avoid the killing overseas, I think the issue of life is paramount.”

_______________________________________

I probably loved this next article about Ron Paul because I too am a Christian and love liberty. In the article ,”Will Ron Paul Be the Candidate of the Christian Right?,” Laurence Vance writes:ce M. e

In the typical presidential election, conservative Christians who have some understanding of the benefits of liberty and limited government and don’t blindly follow the Republican Party do one of three things: they don’t vote, they “waste” their vote on a third party, or else they hold their nose, close their eyes, stop their ears, and fight a gag reflex as they vote for the Republican candidate because they consider him to be the lesser of two evils. But most of these Christians have short memories, for when the lesser evil turns out to be just as evil as the greater evil, or sometimes even worse, they generally repeat the process all over again.

The newest individual to announce that he is seeking the Republican nomination for president is Ron Paul. He formally declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on March 12, 2007, when he appeared as a guest on C-SPAN.

Ron Paul is a veteran. He is a physician. He currently represents the 14th district in Texas (south of Houston) in the U.S. House of Representatives, a seat which he has held since 1997. He previously represented Texas’s 22nd district in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985. Dr. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. He is the former honorary chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on The New American magazine’s “Conservative Index.” He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom.

But will he be the candidate of the Christian Right? By the Christian Right’s own criteria, their candidate ought to be Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a man of faith. He is a Protestant Christian and a regular churchgoer.

Ron Paul is pro-life. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. Dr. Paul is not just an opponent of partial-birth abortion; he is an opponent of abortion itself. He is also opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Ron Paul is a believer in family values. Unlike many Christian “leaders” and Republican politicians who have admitted to adulterous affairs and/or been married multiple times, Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years. He and his wife have been blessed with five children and seventeen grandchildren.

Ron Paul is opposed to same-sex marriage. Although he doesn’t want to strip homosexuals of their civil rights, he has voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

Ron Paul is a patriot. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1967. He opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance.

Ron Paul is opposed to unrestricted immigration. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English.

Ron Paul is opposed to gun control. Not only does he believe that gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, he also thinks it’s a myth that gun control reduces crime. Representative Paul introduced legislation in Congress that would have repealed waiting periods and instant background checks.

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. He has consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation. Congressman Paul was recently recognized, for the tenth year in a row, as a “Taxpayer’s Friend” by the National Taxpayers Union.

Ron Paul is opposed to the United Nations. He has introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Dr. Paul believes that the UN is rife with corruption. It serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Instead of being reformed, the UN needs to be renounced. Dr. Paul is against any kind of world government or new world order.

Ron Paul is the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. He believes in absolute religious and political liberty for all Americans. He strongly supports private property rights. He believes that government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

But even though he appears to live up to the usual criteria of the Christian Right, the question still remains: Will Ron Paul be the candidate of the Christian Right?

As a Christian, I admire Dr. Paul’s principled stand on many issues, but I don’t believe the leadership of the Christian Right will embrace him. I think they love centralization more than federalism. I think they love political power more than liberty. I think they love war more than peace. I think they love politicians more than principles. I think they love faith-based socialism more than the free market. And I think they love the state more than God Almighty.

April 26, 2007

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. He is also the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He is the author ofChristianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest book is King James, His Bible, and Its Translators. Visit his website.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 19)

May 10, 2011 – 6:52 am
photo

Carriage procession to Buckingham Palace

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge approach the Queen Victoria Memorial outside Buckingham Palace, 29 April 2011.

The Royal Wedding Ceremony of William and Kate Live part 2/4

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 really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
 
Tiffany Stuart wrote a great article, “Six-Month Security:Living together was a farce, a halfhearted commitment with a huge ‘Exit’ sign looming over it,” Focus on the Family. I will be dividing the article into four parts. Here is the second part:  

Apartment Anxiety

Derek and I signed a six-month lease on a two-bedroom apartment, but I didn’t trust Derek’s long-term commitment. I demanded separate closets and bathrooms. I didn’t want my dishes, pots and pans getting mixed up, so I shoved Derek’s stuff into different cabinets. Like a student practicing a fire drill, I mentally rehearsed my escape — just in case. I had one foot in the door and an eye on the exit.

All I had was six-months of security — a signed rental agreement. Even though I prepared for the day the fire alarm would sound, I constantly pushed for commitment. I wanted intimacy and a way out at the same time.

“Where’s our relationship going? Are we just going to live together? Do you see a future?” I complained.

“Sure I do. I want to marry you someday. But how can we? We don’t have the money,” Derek said. “I don’t know how else to prove to you I’m committed. I left my friends and moved in with you. I say I love you every day. I come home every night. What more do you want?”

Living together is too easy for you. How about marriage? An engagement ring would help.

The truth was, I hated the living arrangements. But it was my way of controlling something, since I couldn’t control our future.

Whenever Derek and I argued, I shut down, pouted and slept in the second bedroom. I waited in the dark for him to come and make up. Instead, Derek fell asleep. He wasn’t interested in knocking down my protective walls — at midnight. Great, Derek is probably getting sick of this. What’s going to happen when our lease expires? Will we stay together? He’s probably going to leave me.

 

Tim Hawkins – The Dog’s on Fire

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

Revelation (Biblical Numbers 3 of 4)-Dr Adrian Rogers

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers | Comments (0)

Another Myth about Social Security (Part 2) (Walter Williams discusses Social Security Myth)

May 10, 2011 – 6:48 am

 

Author Biography

Eric Schurenberg is Editor-in-Chief of BNET.com and Editorial Director of CBS MoneyWatch.com. Previously, Eric was managing editor of MONEY. As managing editor, he expanded the editorial focus to new interests including real estate, family finance, health, retirement, and the workplace. Prior to MONEY, Eric was deputy editor of Business 2.0. He was also the managing editor of goldman.com, a Web site for Goldman Sachs Group’s personal wealth management business, and an assistant managing editor at Fortune magazine. Schurenberg has won a Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business journalism, a National Magazine Award, and a Page One Award.

In his article “5 Social Security Myths That Have to Go, ” Schurenberg notes:

Social Security isn’t the only cause of America’s fiscal problems, but it is Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them. No serious solution to our debt can ignore a program that will tax and spend about 4.8% of GDP this year and account for about 20% of all federal spending-and that within a few decades will count almost a third of the population as beneficiaries. But whenever I write about Social Security here at CBS MoneyWatch, I’m always struck by how much disagreement there is about how the system really works.

A handful of misconceptions tend to crop up repeatedly-often having to do with that fiscal fun-house mirror, the Social Security trust fund. And despite the efforts of writers like Allan Sloan and experts like the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle, the myths won’t die. This column won’t kill them either, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a whack. Here goes:

Myth: Social Security benefits are earned; reducing them amounts to confiscation

It’s not hard to see why this illusion exists, since Social Security’s own website refers to “earned credits” and sometimes refers to payroll taxes as contributions. But despite Social Security’s fetish for language that echoes private pensions, no one ever vests in Social Security. You don’t own your benefits until you cash the check.

It’s more accurate to say your benefits are an entitlement granted by act of Congress and subject to change at any time by another act of Congress. As long as voters consider benefits inviolate, they will be. When voters decide fiscal responsibility is more important, then Social Security benefits- “earned” or not-will be up for review.

__________________________________________

Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Social Security | Comments (0)