Monthly Archives: May 2011

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 5):

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund discusses the stimulus bill during Missouri Chamber Day at the Capitol Part 2

Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by  KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund.
John Fund writes the weekly “On the Trail” column for OpinionJournal.com. He is author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy” (Encounter, 2004).

He joined The Wall Street Journal as a deputy editorial features editor in 1984 and was a member of the editorial board from 1995 through 2001. The articles he has written have appeared in Esquire, Reader’s Digest, Reason, The New Republic, and National Review. He became an editorial page writer specializing in politics and government in October 1986 and was a member of the Journal’s editorial board from 1995 through 2001. Next month’s guest speaker will be Andrew Breitbart.

In his talk he mentioned that the Republicans pick individuals who have paid their dues to run as their presidential nominee. However, he did mention that Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty  was a man that we should keep our eye on even though he hasn’t been around for a long time. After the Republicans first Presidential Debate on May 5, 2011 in Greenville, SC, Fund wrote the article “A Preview Presidential Debate: There were two winners and a loser in last night’s first debate among Republican presidential contenders in South Carolina. Call it a preview of coming attractions” Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2011. Here it is:

There were two winners and a loser in last night’s first debate among Republican presidential contenders in South Carolina. But because most of the big-name potential candidates were absent, the impact of the debate will be limited. Call it a preview of coming attractions.

Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, was a hitherto unknown candidate before he stepped onto the Fox News stage last night. The last time he had been in the spotlight was in 1994, when as head of the National Restaurant Association he had been a leader in the campaign against Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan.

But the fact that there were only five candidates in last night’s debate allowed Mr. Cain to shine. A Fox focus group of GOP voters held after the debate showed that he picked up the support of voters who wanted a no-bull businessman who wants to take on Washington. The focus group’s antipathy toward Donald Trump—who did not attend the debate—and Mr. Cain’s success with pithy one-liners, make me more convinced than ever that Mr. Trump won’t be running for the GOP nomination.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum helped himself modestly by articulating his brand of social conservatism. Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson kept their libertarian base satisfied but got trapped in rhetorical cul-de-sacs by questions on their support for the decriminalization of drug use.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the other big winner last night. He clearly had the most stature and took the opportunity to introduce himself to voters as the product of a blue-collar family who understood the pressures that a tough economy can impose on families. He also shone in the way he repudiated his earlier support for legislation to cap carbon emissions, a stance he now says would impose undue burdens on the economy. “I was wrong,” he told viewers. “It was a mistake and I’m sorry. I just admit it. I don’t try to duck it and bob it and weave it. I look the American people in the eye and say, ‘I’ve made a mistake.'”

Mr. Pawlenty’s forthrightness stands in contrast to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who hasn’t come up with a plausible story line for why he embraced a state-level health-care plan that strongly resembles ObamaCare. Indeed, Mr. Romney’s decision not to attend last night’s debate has to be viewed as a mistake, albeit a minor one. While most of the candidates avoided direct attacks on him, he left many voters in the Fox focus group wondering why the front-runner in polls had skipped the event.

But any damage that Mr. Romney suffered by his absence will be limited, given that Washington insiders are still focused elsewhere right now. House Speaker John Boehner opted to spend time at a steakhouse rather than in front of a TV set. “I’ll read about it tomorrow,” he told the newsletter Hotsheet.

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 4)

Mike_Huckabee - Mike Huckabee campaigns in Iowa

Mike Huckabee campaigns in Iowa

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attends a rally at the Veterans Memorial Building during the final day of campaigning before the Iowa Caucus in Grinnell, Iowa on January 3, 2008. Iowa will hold its presidential caucus tonight. (UPI Photo/Laura Cavanaugh)

 

Adrian Rogers – [3/3] 5 Minutes After Death

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

Let us resist the evil urge to say it all makes sense — that the Big Huckster would be in that location and that Lucifer would have tabbed him for special responsibilities on account of his gift of gab.

Huckabee opened his altogether superfluous public statement by saying it was most unusual to celebrate death. So then he proceeded to celebrate death, apparently licensed by his own pre-emptive acknowledgment of the questionable taste that he was about to display.

That’s a little like the first three paragraphs of this column — saying something tacky by the trick of asserting that it would be inappropriate to say the thing being said. Those paragraphs were written only for ironic effect, you see, to make the point of applying Huckabee’s device to himself.

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.

I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. 

The next few days I will be posting portions of the article “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries. Here is the third installment:

Why Hell?

Hell is also necessary because of the nature of man.

Human depravity requires hell. The only just punishment for sin against the eternal God is eternal punishment. God is absolutely perfect and mankind is sinful.

Romans 3:23 states that all are guilty of sin and fall far short of God’s perfect standard. Sinful, unrepentant man cannot stand before a holy and perfect God. In order for God to maintain His perfection and the perfection of heaven, sin must be accounted for. For those who have received the gift of God’s grace, sin has been cleansed by the payment of Christ’s life. Those who have rejected Christ remain guilty of sin. Heaven cannot be a perfect paradise if sin is present. Therefore, man’s sin requires separation from God.

Second, human dignity requires hell. God created us as free moral creatures, and He will not force people into His presence if they do not want to be there. If a person chooses not to be with God in his or her lifetime, He will respect that decision. In Matthew 23:37-39, Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel because they rejected their savior and thus were not willing to accept the love of God. Christ as Lord of creation could have forced His will on His creatures, but instead respected their decision even though it broke His heart.

My grandfather suffered a stroke as the result of high blood pressure, a high level of cholesterol, and a few other ailments. While in the hospital, the doctors recommended a diet and treatment program. However, he found the diet and treatment not to his liking. The doctor explained the treatment and the ramifications if my grandfather would not change his lifestyle. He chose not to follow the doctor’s prescription. Even though the doctor knew the serious consequences that would follow, he respected my grandfather’s wish and allowed him to return home. In the same way, although God knows the consequences of our choice, He respects our dignity and honors our decision.

Romans 1 states that all have had an opportunity to respond to God’s invitation and are therefore without excuse. Human beings are created in God’s image and are creatures of incredible value. God does not annihilate beings of value even though they rejected His love. Instead He respects their decision, honors their dignity, and allows them to dwell eternally apart from Him as they have chosen.

God’s justice and love plus man’s nature requires a hell.


Notes

1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282.
2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18.
3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.
4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.

Huckabee on Bin Laden’s Death: Who Cares How We Did It, This Was a Murderer

As we waited for President Obama to speak at Fort Campbell, Mike Huckabee talked to Neil about how Usama bin Laden’s death went down.

Golf Legend Seve Ballesteros dies

seve ballesteros
Getty Images
Seve Ballesteros wasn’t in trouble even when he was in trouble, said Ben Crenshaw, because trouble was normal for him.

Seve Ballesteros Dies At 54

On 6 May 2011, his family released a press release announcing that Ballesteros’s neurological condition had “suffered a severe deterioration”.He died within hours of the announcement in the early hours of 7 May 2011.  I got to see him play in the Danny Thomas Memphis Classic when he was only 19 yrs old. I got an autograph from him and he was a very kind man. 

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Seve Ballesteros was as inspirational in Europe as Arnold Palmer was in America, a handsome figure who feared no shot and often played from where no golfer had ever been.

In a long list of spectacular shots, perhaps the most memorable came from a parking lot next to the 16th fairway at Royal Lytham & St. Annes in the 1979 British Open. Leading by two shots in the final round, he drove into the car park, had a car removed to get his free drop, then fired his second shot into 15 feet and made birdie on his way to his first major.

SEVE BALLESTEROS

In his groundbreaking career, Seve Ballesteros won a record 50 European Tour titles, amassed five majors and was a key figure in Ryder Cup history.

“He was a man who got into trouble. Only for Seve, there was no such thing as trouble,” Gary Player once said. “He could manufacture shots like a genius.”

His last challenge came from an unbeatable foe: cancer.

Ballesteros fainted in a Madrid airport while waiting to board a flight to Germany on Oct. 6, 2008, and was subsequently diagnosed with the brain tumor. He underwent four separate operations, including a 6-hour procedure to remove the tumor and reduce swelling around the brain. After leaving the hospital, his treatment continued with chemotherapy.

Ballesteros looked thin and pale while making several public appearances in 2009 after being given what he referred to as the “mulligan of my life.” He rarely has been seen in public since March 2010, when he fell off a golf cart and hit his head on the ground.

His few appearances or public statements were usually in connection with his Seve Ballesteros Foundation to fight cancer. He wanted but was unable to take part in a champions exhibition at St. Andrews.

Such was his stature, even out of the public eye, that European players celebrated his most recent birthday — the Saturday of the Masters — as if it was a national holiday.

For such greatness, his career was relatively short because of back injuries.

Ballesteros won a record 50 times on the European Tour, first as a 19-year-old in the Dutch Open, his final victory when he was 38 at the 1995 Peugeot Open in his native Spain. That also was his last year playing in the Ryder Cup, where he had a 20-12-5 record in eight appearances. He was captain in 1997 when Europe won at Valderrama.

Ballesteros was the reason the Ryder Cup was expanded in 1979 to include continental Europe, and the Europeans finally beat the United States in 1985 to begin more than two decades of dominance. While others have played in more matches and won more points, no player better represents the spirit and desire of Europe than Ballesteros.

He announced his retirement in a tearful press conference at Carnoustie before the 2007 British Open. Ballesteros had returned to Augusta National that year to play the Masters one last time, but shot 86-80 to finish last. After turning 50, he tried one Champions Tour event, but again came in last.

His back was ailing, his eyes were no longer as lively, and his best game had left him years earlier.

“I don’t have the desire,” Ballesteros said.

That desire was as big a part of his game as any shot he manufactured from the trees, the sand, just about anywhere.

Born April 9, 1957, in the tiny town of Pedrena, Spain, he learned golf with only one club — a 3-iron — that forced him to create shots most players could never imagine.

Ballesteros first gained major notoriety at 19 in the final round of the British Open at Royal Birkdale, where he threaded a shot through the bunkers and onto the green at the 18th hole, finishing second to Johnny Miller and in a tie with Jack Nicklaus.

“He invented shots around the green,” Nicklaus said in the weeks before Ballesteros was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1999. “You don’t find many big hitters like him with that kind of imagination and touch around the green. He’s been a big inspiration to golf in continental Europe, more than anyone has.”

Ballesteros went on to win the Order of Merit on the European tour that year, the first of six such titles. Two years later, he won the first time he teed it up in America, a one-shot victory at the Greater Greensboro Open.

Partly because of his humble roots, partly because of his Spanish blood, Ballesteros always played as though he had something to prove. Even after some called him “Car Park Champion” for his shot at Lytham when he won the 1979 British Open, the Spaniard showed that was no fluke when he arrived at Augusta National the next year.

He obliterated the field in the 1980 Masters, much like Tiger Woods did in 1997. Applying his genius to a course built for imagination, Ballesteros took a seven-shot lead into the final round and led by 10 at one point until he started spraying tee shots and won by four. Even so, at 23 he was the youngest Masters champion until Woods won at age 21.

Ballesteros won the Masters again in 1983, and he was equally dominant in golf’s oldest championship. He won the British Open in 1984 at St. Andrews over Tom Watson, then won again at Lytham in 1988 by closing with a 65 — the best score of the tournament — to beat Nick Price and Nick Faldo.

His career was marked by nasty disputes with European tour officials and PGA Tour officials. He quit the European tour in 1981 in a disagreement over appearance money, the only year he missed the Ryder Cup. He became angry with PGA Tour commissioner Deane Beman in 1985 for not playing the required 15 events for membership.

Despite his five majors and 87 titles around the world, Ballesteros forever will be linked to the Ryder Cup. He developed an “us against them” attitude that became infectious with what had been an inferior European team. He made his teammates believe.

Ballesteros was headed for defeat in 1983 at PGA National, his ball beneath the lip of a bunker, some 245 yards from the green, when he lashed a 3-wood to the fringe and escape with a halve against Fuzzy Zoeller. The Americans narrowly won, but the Ryder Cup was never the same after that year — and perhaps after that shot.

“His desire to beat the Americans was paramount, and probably the reason they beat us,” Tom Watson said. “The Ryder Cup became the focus of world golf, and Seve was right there as the leader.”

He teamed with Jose Maria Olazabal to become the most formidable partnership in Ryder Cup history, producing an 11-2-2 record. In his final Ryder Cup, at Oak Hill in 1995, he was playing a singles match against Tom Lehman when Ballesteros drove wildly to the right.

A TV commentator said his only two choices were to pitch back to the fairway or play a big hook around a massive tree. Ballesteros studied his options, then hit over the tree to the front of the green.

Such was the unpredictable nature of Ballesteros. There have not been many like him, if any at all.

“Seve is a genius, one of the few geniuses in the game,” Ben Crenshaw once said. “The thing is, Seve is never in trouble. He’s in the trees quite a lot, but that’s not trouble for him. That’s normal.”

_______________________________________

Seve Ballesteros is a Spanish professional golfer and former World No. 1, who was one of the sport’s leading figures from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s. He announced himself to the golfing world in 1976, when at age 19 he finished second at The Open Championship. A part of a gifted golfing family, Ballesteros won five major tournaments between the years of 1979 and 1988, including The Open Championship three times, and The Masters twice. He was also successful in the Ryder Cup, helping the European team to five wins both as a player and captain. He is best known for his great short game, and his erratic driving of the golf ball.

Al-Qaida wants revenge for Osama bin Laden’s death

Supporter of Pakistani religious party Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Islam

A supporter of the Pakistani religious party Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Islam holds an image of Osama bin Laden during an anti-U.S. rally on the outskirts of Quetta, May 6, 2011.

A supporter of Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Islam holds an ...

 REUTERS/Naseer Ahme

The Associated Press reported yesterday:

 Al-Qaida vowed to keep fighting the United States and avenge the death of Osama bin Laden, which it acknowledged for the first time Friday in an Internet statement apparently designed to convince followers that it will remain vigorous and intact even after its founder’s demise.

Al-Qaida’s plots are usually large-scale and involve planning over months or even years. But Western intelligence officials say they are seeing increased chatter about cheap, small-scale attacks — perhaps by individuals or small extremist groups inspired to take revenge for the killing.

“USA, you will pay!” chanted more than 100 participants in a pro-bin Laden protest outside the U.S. Embassy in London on Friday.

A Western intelligence official said no concrete threat has emerged so far that authorities considered credible. “There have been mentions of shootings, bombings and random violence, though it is not surprising, given bin Laden’s death,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Authorities in the U.S. and Europe chose not to elevate threat levels.

Interpol has asked law enforcement agencies in 188 countries to be on alert for retaliatory attacks. Communities have been warned to report anything suspicious. Embassies and some American businesses have added new security measures.

Despite the Internet chatter, reaction in the Islamic world to bin Laden’s death has been relatively muted compared with the rage that he long inspired, raising questions about his relevance in the Middle East — a region that has been changed by a wave of pro-democracy uprisings.

The al-Qaida statement, entitled “You lived as a good man, you died as a martyr,” did not name a successor to bin Laden. His deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, is now the most prominent figure in the group and a likely contender to take his place.

“The blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is too precious to us and to all Muslims to go in vain,” the statement said. “We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries.”

“Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness,” it said, “their blood will be mingled with their tears.”

Although the statement’s authenticity could not be independently confirmed, it was considered to be authentic. It was posted on militant websites Friday by the al-Fajr Center, al-Qaida’s online media distribution network, and the writing style was typical for al-Qaida. The statement was issued in the name of the organization’s General Command and dated Tuesday, the day after bin Laden’s death.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said U.S. officials are aware of the statement and the threat. “What it does obviously is acknowledge the obvious, which is that Osama bin Laden was killed,” said Carney. “We’re quite aware of the potential for (terrorist) activity and are highly vigilant on that matter for that reason.”

Despite the new threats against the United States, the overall theme of the al-Qaida statement was that of continuity for the organization. Much of the 11-paragraph statement was dedicated to underlining that al-Qaida would live on, depicting him as another in a line of “martyrs” from the group.

“Sheik Osama didn’t build an organization to die when he dies,” the statement read. “The university of faith, Quran and jihad from which bin Laden graduated will not close its doors,” it added.

“The soldiers of Islam will continue in groups and united, plotting and planning without getting bored, tired, with determination, without giving up until striking a blow,” the statement said.

It said bin Laden was killed “along an established path followed by the best of those who came before him and those who will come after him.”

The acknowledgment by al-Qaida should remove doubt among all but the most die-hard conspiracy theorists that bin Laden is in fact dead.

The need to provide proof was behind some arguments that the U.S. should release a photo of the slain terror leader. President Barack Obama has chosen to withhold the photo.

Earlier Friday, hundreds of members of radical Islamic parties protested in several Pakistan cities against the U.S. raid. Many chanted “Osama is alive” and criticized the U.S. for violating the country’s sovereignty.

In the statement, al-Qaida also called on Pakistanis to revolt against the country’s leaders to “cleanse the shame.” And it said that an audio message bin Laden recorded a week before his death would be issued soon.

The writers of the al-Qaida statement appeared unaware of the U.S. announcement that bin Laden’s body had been buried at sea. The statement warned against mishandling or mistreating bin Laden’s body and demanded that it be handed over to his family, saying “any harm (to the body) will open more doors of evil, and there will be no one to blame but yourselves.”

There had been hope that bin Laden’s death would cause the Afghan Taliban to rethink its ties with al-Qaida — a union the U.S. insists must end if the insurgents want to talk peace. The foundation of their relationship was believed to be rooted in bin Laden’s long friendship with the Taliban’s reclusive leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

But on Friday, the Afghan Taliban issued a statement saying bin Laden’s death will only boost morale among insurgents fighting the U.S. and NATO.

The Taliban praised bin Laden for his sacrifice in the Afghan war against the Soviets in the 1980s and said anyone who believes his death will undermine the current conflict is displaying a “lack of insight.”

Al-Zawahri, an Egyptian who is the most likely successor to bin Laden, is a less charismatic, unifying figure. He is believed to lack bin Laden’s ability to bring together the many nationalities and ethnic groups that make up al-Qaida. His appointment could further fracture an organization that is thought to be increasingly decentralized.

Al-Zawahri has long been considered the operational head of al-Qaida while bin Laden was assumed to be an inspirational figure who was uninvolved in operations.

But documents Navy SEALs seized in Monday’s raid on the hideout in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad suggest that bin Laden may have been more involved in operations than had been thought.

The documents reveal plans for derailing an American train on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2011 attacks. Counterterrorism officials said they believe the plot was in the initial planning stages at the time.

Al-Qaida, which carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has never abandoned its hope of again attacking the U.S. homeland.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, urged that the country’s threat level be stepped up while the material seized from bin Laden’s compound is reviewed.

In Europe, security officials said there is no specific plot to justify raising the threat level.

British cleric Anjem Choudary, who helped organize Friday’s demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in London, said revenge attacks in Britain and abroad were likely. Choudary used to head the outlawed al-Muhajiroun group and is now a member of the Muslims Against Crusades group.

“I think Britain is more likely to face a 7/7 today than ever,” he said in reference to the London suicide bombings on July 7, 2005. “Osama bin Laden was a high-profile leader. If the Americans talk of justice, they shouldn’t have killed him. The next attacks will likely be high profile and could very well happen in Europe or in the U.S.”

He said he had no knowledge of any planned attacks.

___

Associated Press writers Paisley Dodds in London and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

Bounty for Osama bin Laden goes to who?

bin-laden-poster.top.jpg

CNNMoney reported on May 2, 2011:

The photograph of Osama bin Laden on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list has a new caption: Deceased.

But it was unclear Monday how much, if any, of the up to $25 million in reward money offered on the terrorist leader has been granted.The man behind the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history was killed Sunday by American forces in Pakistan, in what President Barack Obama called “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.”

In the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks, the CIA, the FBI and other intelligence agencies have worked to locate bin Laden, who was found living in a compound outside of Islamabad.

The use of reward money has become an important asset in the government’s fight against global terrorism.

The Rewards for Justice program, run by the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, has paid out more than $100 million to over 60 people since it was created in 1984.

The program grants money to people who provided “actionable information that put terrorists behind bars or prevented acts of international terrorism worldwide,” according to a statement on its website.

“The department does not generally discuss nominations for awards,” said Harry Edwards, a spokesman for the State Department. The offer, he added, is for a maximum of $25 million. “If it were paid, it could be less.”

It is possible that no reward money will be granted. According to Obama administration officials, unidentified detainees provided a key piece of information that helped investigators locate bin Laden.

But rewards have been granted for the capture of other international terrorists, including Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

The largest reward ever paid under the program was $30 million to one person who provided information on Uday and Qusay Hussein, the sons of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In 2003, after an intense firefight with U.S. forces, both brothers were killed.

The government is currently offering up to $25 million for information on Ayman Al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second-in-command, and an heir apparent to bin Laden.

The average reward offered for the 30 other terrorists on the most wanted list is $5 million.

In 2008, the maximum reward was raised to $50 million for any one target, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not authorized that amount, according to Edwards.

For safety reasons, the State Department generally does not disclose details about the recipients of rewards. But officials may announce the amount rewarded in certain high-profile cases.

There have been four public award ceremonies in the Philippines, including one in 2007 where a total of $10 million was awarded.

In addition to the $25 million bounty offered by the government, the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association have offered a combined $2 million reward for information on bin Laden.

Steve Lott, a spokesman for the ATA, said the association has not received any formal request for supplemental reward money. But he said the ATA could grant up to $1 million in additional funds under a long-standing anti-terrorism program with the government.

The APA did not immediately respond to calls requesting information on the reward.  To top of page

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 16)

photo

Bridesmaids and page boys

Page boy Tom Petiffer (right) glances up as he waits with bridesmaids and page boys inside Westminster Abbey before the marriage service of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, 29 April 2011.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wed at Westminster Abbey, after exchanging rings and vows.

The engagement of Prince William to longtime girlfriend Kate Middleton came as no surprise to inhabitants of Anglesey, the island in North Wales where the second in line to the British throne has lived quietly with his bride-to-be for several months.

On Anglesey, William and Kate are just another set of young lovebirds when they pop into a local pub for a pint. The Anglesey Mail hasn’t run any front-page photos of the couple stocking up on staples for the secluded farmhouse in which they cohabit.

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 am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Whether you call it “test-driving marriage,” “living together,” “shacking up” or “living in sin,” cohabitation is on the rise. Sadly, so are the consequences of sharing a home without the commitment of marriage.

So, what do you do if you’re convinced that living together is/was a bad idea, after all?

  1. If you haven’t moved in together yet, don’t. Even if you think you’re the exception; that you can dodge the realities listed above, why risk it? If you “really love each other and plan to get married some day” why live together and lower your odds to 30 percent? Or if you buck that trend and do get married, why increase your likelihood of divorce 80 percent over couples who didn’t live together first?
  2. If you’re already living together, end it. It doesn’t have to mean the end of your relationship. It just changes it to a more appropriate dating relationship, where you’ll be able to actually court and romance each other and work toward a possible marriage. Reclaim your singleness. Wouldn’t it be nice to be “wooed” again? You either consciously decided to live together or you drifted into it. How it happened doesn’t matter. Now, consciously decide to stop living together. Take a look at alternatives so you can afford to get out. If money’s an issue: find a roommate, move back in with your parents for a time, look for a more affordable place.Copyright © 2002, Brad Lewis. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. Used by permission.

1Only 30 percent of couples who live together actually get married. John D. Cunningham and John K. Antill, “Cohabitation and Marriage: Retrospective and Predictive Comparisions,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11 (1994), pp. 77-93.
2Ibid.
3From a nationwide survey conducted by the University of Rhode Island, quoted in “Live-in Relationship More Prone to Violence,” by Robert Haddocks, South Coast Today, http://www.s-t.com/projects/DomVio/Livein.html
4Michael D. Newcomb and P.M. Bentler, “Assessment of Personality and Demographic Assets of Cohabitation and Marital Success,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 1980, p.16.
5Cunningham and Antill.

Weekend to Remember-Family Life…Fireproof your marriage

Tim Hawkins- Old Rock Star Songs

Introduction to the Book Of Revelation- Dr Adrian Rogers

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 41)

 

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 below I just emailed to him myself at 1:49pm CST on May 6, 2011.

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:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third consecutive year in which the federal government is running a deficit near or greater than $1 trillion. The solution to the government’s fiscal crisis must begin by cutting spending in all areas, particularly in those that can be better run at the state or local level. Last month I introduced legislation to do just that. And though it seems extreme to some—containing over $500 billion in spending cuts enacted over one year—it is a necessary first step toward ending our fiscal crisis…

My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare. But by reducing wasteful spending and shuttering departments that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education, we can cut nearly 40% of our projected deficit and at the same time remove thousands of big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency.

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Health and Human Services

 

Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease

HHS [Discretionary Only] $72.493 $26.510 B 26%

The Department of Health and Human Services is the largest department in the federal government. The department includes programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as other entitlement programs. HHS, and the programs within, remains one of the government’s largest challenges – and among the largest contributors to our fiscal crisis.

In fact, Medicare alone has a $38 trillion unfunded liability, and will continue to grow until it eventually consumes all government outlays.

Unfortunately, there are a number of individuals who have failed to set aside savings, or have failed to plan adequately based on the assumption that they would be eligible for certain entitlement programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. These programs need to be reformed, not necessarily just cut, and therefore, this proposal does not include most of the mandatory spending at the HHS. However, because the department is so large, it would have been negligent to avoid other areas which can provide much needed government savings.

This proposal takes most of the agency’s discretionary programs back to FY2008 levels, and makes further reductions to the Public Health Service programs.

Food and Drug Administration: Reduce 62 Percent

The Food and Drug Administration is another example of an agency that continues to expand every year in power and funding. New FDA powers granted by the recent Food Safety Modernization Act provide examples of the most recent growth of federal government overreach, granting the government further intrusion into the nation’s food supply.

Health Resources and Services Administration: Reduce 34 Percent

One way to combat illegal immigration is to remove the benefits our country provides to non-citizens. The Health Resources and Services Administration provides funding for 1,645 free health clinics for migrant workers all over the United States, contributing to the incentives for illegal immigrants to take advantage of our country and its taxpayers.

These clinics are an unnecessary burden, and do not serve the interests of Americans.

Indian Health Services: Reduce 46 Percent

The federal government’s Indian Health Services agency is notoriously wrought with fraud. A June 2009 Government Accountability Office reports that “millions of dollars in property and equipment continue to be lost or stolen.” It is time to put an end to this blatant government waste and tighten the belt on such programs.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Reduce 28 Percent

The annual budget for the Centers for Disease Control also keeps increasing annually, in spite of “cost-saving efforts” by the department in the way of travel expenses and contract reductions to the tune of $100 million. It seems no matter how much money is appropriated to this or any government agency, they find a “need” for it. It is time for the CDC to work aggressively to find savings in other areas, particularly focusing on domestic priorities rather than spending billions on overseas initiatives.

 

National Institute of Health: Reduce 37 Percent

 

President Obama’s FY2011 budget calls for a $1 billion increase in funding to the National Institutes for Health. Reducing federal grants in this area would realize billions in savings. Each of the HHS cuts called for in this proposal will stop the bleeding in these ever-increasing budgets 

Kate “Waity Katie” Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 15)

 

Royal Wedding 2011: Prince William, Kate Married

ImagePrevious

Prince William and Kate Middleton were married in a beautiful ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London Friday. There were so many picture-perfect moments from the star-studded guest list and the bride’s gorgeous gown to the carriage processional and two balcony kisses, we just had to share them all. Click through to see highlights from the royal wedding including the queen, the Middletons, the gown, the newlyweds, and so much more!

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.

Jan Tuckwood in her article Kate Middleton, Britain’s commoner queen-to-be,” Nov 16, 2010 wrote:

William asked Kate to marry him during a private holiday in Kenya last month, after getting her father’s permission.

Charles told reporters that he was “thrilled, obviously,” and said, joking, “They have been practicing long enough it makes me feel very old.”

Of course, who did Charles end up with? Camilla Parker-Bowles, a divorcée who was neither virgin nor hot. Camilla had one thing in common with Kate Middleton, however: longevity.

Kate’s been dating William on and off for eight years, so long the tabloids dubbed her “Waity Katie.”

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. I wish the term “Waity Katie” had been earned for staying a virgin until marriage like Diana did.  I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
 
 

Whether you call it “test-driving marriage,” “living together,” “shacking up” or “living in sin,” cohabitation is on the rise. Sadly, so are the consequences of sharing a home without the commitment of marriage.

Try as you may, it’s not easy to defend cohabiting as “just the same as marriage.” The following myths and truths paint a compelling picture.

Myth: “This is just temporary. We’ll be getting married when we feel ready.”

Truth: Only 30 percent of couples who live together actually get married. 1

Myth: “We want to try each other out. We’ll have a better chance of staying married if we live together first.”

Truth: The dissolution rate for couples who lived together before marriage is 80 percent higher than it is for couples who didn’t. 2

Myth: “We’ll get along better once we’re married.”

Truth: Thirty-five out of 100 couples living together experienced a physical assault in a 12-month period; that’s more than double the rate of violence among married couples, which is 15 out of 100.3 The top three problems for couples who live together before marriage are: drunkenness, adultery and drug abuse.4

Myth: “We just want to get a head start on our finances before we get married.”

Truth: Men who live with their girlfriends before marrying them are more likely to be underemployed (before and after the marriage) than men who have not cohabited. Women who live with their boyfriends before marrying them are more likely to need to be employed full time to compensate for their husbands’ underemployment. 5

Copyright © 2002, Brad Lewis. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. Used by permission.

1Only 30 percent of couples who live together actually get married. John D. Cunningham and John K. Antill, “Cohabitation and Marriage: Retrospective and Predictive Comparisions,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11 (1994), pp. 77-93.
2Ibid.
3From a nationwide survey conducted by the University of Rhode Island, quoted in “Live-in Relationship More Prone to Violence,” by Robert Haddocks, South Coast Today, http://www.s-t.com/projects/DomVio/Livein.html
4Michael D. Newcomb and P.M. Bentler, “Assessment of Personality and Demographic Assets of Cohabitation and Marital Success,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 1980, p.16.
5Cunningham and Antill.

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

Arkansas Times blogger picks California business environment over Texas, proves liberals don’t live in real world(Part 2)

arnold_schwarzenegger_family_kwinter_200505
  
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with his family
 
I posted a portion of an article by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that pointed out that many businesses are leaving California because of all of their government red tape and moving to Texas. My username is SalineRepublican and this is how “Couldn’tBeBetter” responded this morning:

Saline, if Texas is so great, don’t let the door hit you as you head southwest.

Frankly, I wouldn’t do that to myself or anyone I love. That Texas attitude is what happens when Republicans take over anything. Ray-Gun selfishness all over again but on a state-wide basis and a mouth ten times larger than their brain. BTW, why is Perry asking for fire aid? I thought he didn’t need the rest of us. When those oil wells finally play out, Texas will be a welfare state like Somalia with the same attitude. Let them go and good-bye, Saline.

Responding to Couldn’t be better: You are right about one thing. People are voting with their feet.

In his article “Census: Fast growth in states with no income tax,” Washington Examiner, Dec 21, 2011, Michael Barone noted:
 
For those of us who are demographic buffs, Christmas came four days early when Census Bureau director Robert Groves announced on Tuesday the first results of the 2010 census and the reapportionment of House seats (and therefore electoral votes) among the states.
The resident population of the United States, he told us in a webcast, was 308,745,538. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent from the 281,421,906 in the 2000 census — the smallest proportional increase than in any decade other than the Depression 1930s but a pretty robust increase for an advanced nation. It’s hard to get a grasp on such large numbers. So let me share a few observations on what they mean.

First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.

Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

Then on May 4th I saw another response by Couldn’tBeBetter:

COULDN’T BE BETTER wrote: Saline, Given the choice, I’d take CA any day over TX. Except for an island of sanity around Austin, the whole of TX is pretty dismal in terms of its politics. Demographics are going to catch up with them soon. Not enough gringos moving in to out strip the growth in the Hispanic population. Who would you want for governor? Governor “Good Hair” Rick Perry or someone with a brain like Jerry Brown.

My response: Sometimes I wonder what planet liberals are from. The economy of California was the strongest in the nation in the 1970’s when Ronald Reagan was the governor, but after the green movement and other liberal regulators got a hold of it, things went south fast.

I could give you countless stories about people I know that have told me that their customers are in California, but they build their warehouses in surrounding states and ship their products into California. They tell me that you would have to be crazy to try to build a warehouse in California because of all the red tape you have to put up with.

Look at how many businesses have moved from California to Texas.

 Hasta La Vista, Arnold!: What California’s Budget Mess Means for America

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 3)

big Mike Huckabee family

Pictured above is Mike Huckabee and his family while he was governor of Arkansas

Adrian Rogers – [2/3] 5 Minutes After Death

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

So here is what happened: Super-elite American military personnel acting bravely and ably in our national defense shot Osama bin Laden in the side of the face and killed him, then dumped him in the sea.

President Obama credited himself a tad too generously in his announcement of this news to the nation. He spoke too freely of his favorite person, “I.”

Expert underlings gave him information and options on elaborate plans. He chose the most surgical, eschewing a bombing of the compound where, he was advised, there was a 50 percent to 80 percent chance of bin Laden’s presence. Then he gave the go-ahead to a daring night raid that Navy SEALS performed admirably.

That the president would have borne full blame had the raid failed — inside a sovereign and semi-hostile nation at that — is an insufficient excuse for taking too much credit. Great leadership is the art of delegation, of praise for others and of personal understatement. It is self-deference, not self-reference. Bragging should be received, not self-inflicted, and biographical, not autobiographical.

Alas, politicians swarmed like termites from the woodwork to get their names into news releases by which they could leverage some supposed association with this shooting death. Even the state Republican Party headquarters in Little Rock felt a need to make official comment.

At the risk of generalization, let us assume that politicians would not be
politicians if they understood the beauty of personal discretion.

But no one — absolutely no one — could possibly compete in the grandstanding sweepstakes with the tacky Floridian, meaning the second-favorite son of Hope, Mike Huckabee.

“Welcome to hell,” Huckabee presumed to say to this dead body, revealing himself, again, as more a tabloid headline than a responsible communicator.

Huckabee opened his altogether superfluous public statement by saying it was most unusual to celebrate death. So then he proceeded to celebrate death, apparently licensed by his own pre-emptive acknowledgment of the questionable taste that he was about to display.

The doctrine of hell is a very serious thing to Christians, and I think that bringing it into political discussions does make some people laugh. However, it is not a laughing matter. Huckabee really does believe in hell, but I have my doubts about Brummett.  

The next few days I will be posting portions of the article “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries. Here is the second installment:

Print E-mail

 

Why Hell Is Necessary and Just

Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.

Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13). The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.

A second reason hell is necessary is that God’s love requires it. Love does not force itself on an individual, but honors the option of rejecting the love of another. Those who do not wish to love God must be allowed not to do so. Forcing oneself upon another is to dishonor the dignity and right of the individual. Those who do not want to be with God in this lifetime, will not be forced to be with Him for all eternity. It is important to understand that heaven is where God dwells and being the Lord of all creation, He is the heart and focus of heaven. His glory fills the entire realm, and inhabitants of heaven will be in His immediate and intimate presence for eternity. One cannot be in heaven and not know the presence of God. Therefore, those who do not want to be with God in this lifetime will not be forced to be in His presence for all eternity. Instead, God will honor their desire and let them dwell apart from Him in hell. Love honors the right of the other person to reject that love.

Third, God’s sovereignty requires hell. If there is no hell, there would be no final victory over evil. If there were no ultimate separation of good from evil, good would not ultimately triumph and God would not be in ultimate control. God declares He will have victory over evil (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and Revelation 20-22). God will defeat evil by quarantining evil and separating it from good eternally.

The biblical teaching on hell fulfills the justice, holiness, and sovereignty of God and remains consistent with His character of love.


Notes

1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282.
2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18.
3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.
4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.