Osama bin Laden, the elusive terror mastermind killed by Navy SEALs in an intense firefight, was hunted down based on information first gleaned years ago from detainees at secret CIA prison sites.
President Barack Obama (2nd L) and Vice President Joe Biden (L), along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission againstOsama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Also pictured are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd R) and Defense Secretary Robert Gates (R). Please note: A classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured at source. REUTERS/White House/Pete Souza/Handout« Read less
In this image released by the White House and digitally altered by the source to diffuse the paper in front of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House
President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama listens during one in a series of meetings discussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White HouseMay 1, 2011
U.S. President Barack Obama talks with members of the national security team at the conclusion of one in a series of meetings discussing the mission againstOsama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White House May 1, 2011. Picture taken May 1, 2011.
The people who gathered Sunday in the Situation Room know all about high-pressure situations. But this was something else. For 40 minutes, the President and his senior aides could do nothing but watch the video screens and listen to the operation and ensuing firefight on the other side of the world. At Barack Obama’s orders, special operations teams were invading the airspace of a foreign country, targeting a compound with unknown occupants, and hoping to get out unscathed. The target was America’s No. 1 enemy, Osama bin Laden. But no one knew for sure if he was even there.
The President sat stone-faced through much of the events. Several of his aides, however, were pacing. For long periods of time, nobody said a thing, as everyone waited for the next update. In the modern age, Presidents can experience their own military actions like a video game, except that they have no control over the events. They cannot, and would not, intervene to contact the commanders running the operation. So when word came that a helicopter had been grounded, a sign that the plan was already off course, the tension increased. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan hideout.)
Minutes later, more word came over the transom. “We’ve IDed Geronimo,” said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America’s most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties. (See pictures of people celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death.)
The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.
The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios – the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above. (See TIME’s al-Qaeda covers.)
Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault. At that point, the operation was taken out of his hands. He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck. He was putting his presidency in the hands of history.
U.S. President Barack Obama talks on the phone in the Oval Office before making a statement to the media about the mission against Osama bin Laden, atthe White House May 1, 2011. The president made a series of calls to former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and others to inform them of the successful mission. Picture taken May 1, 2011.
In this image released by the White House, from left, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, CIA DirectorLeon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden listen as President Barack Obama delivers a televised speech from the East Room at the White House in Washington on Sunday, May 1, 2011,
In this image released by the White House and digitally altered by the source to diffuse the paper in front of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton,President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, Sunday, May 1, 2011, in Washington
In this image released by the White House, President Barack Obama makes a point during one in a series of meetings in the Situation Room of the White Housediscussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, Sunday, May 1, 2011. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon is pictured at right
______________________________________
A crowd of hundreds celebrated out front of the White House after President Obama announced the death of al Qaeda figurehead Osama bin Laden. Chip Reid reports.
The liberal Pat Lynch in his article “Worry Inc.” Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, April 4, 2011 commented:
While the budget cutters are busy going after programs that help mere citizens, any notion of bringing taxrates for the wealthy back to the levels of the Clinton era, when there was a federal surplus, is off the table.
Liberals always think they can raise the taxes on the rich and everything else will take care of itself. The problem with our deficit is not that the politicians need more money but they need to spend less. I heard Congressman Tim Griffin say that at a townhall meeting a couple of weeks ago.
Before coming to Heritage in 2001, Riedl worked for then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, former Rep. Mark Green (R-WI)., and the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. Riedl holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin, and a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University.
Growing long-term budget deficits are exclusively the result of rising spending, not declining revenues. Thus, common sense suggests that most reforms should occur on the spending side. Given the magnitude of the long-term spending increase, even splitting the difference between spending cuts and tax increases would leave the highest sustained spending—and tax burden—in American history. Permanently transforming the federal government in this manner would slow economic growth and harm families and businesses.
Rapid growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs and interest payments on the national debt will cause virtually all of this new spending. The annual cost of these four expenditures will surge from $1.6 trillion this year to $3.5 trillion in 2020. This will cause massive budget deficits in the next decade and must be the focus of any serious effort to reduce the budget deficit.
Obviously the real problem is spending and not that taxes are not high enough!!!! Take a look at this clip from Milton Friedman:
An ever-combative champion of freedom, Milton Friedman’s career and contributions in defense of individual liberty are unique in our time
Steeling the Mind Bible Conference pt 4 of 6 David Barton
In Washington’s own words:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by our justice, shall counsel.
Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In the next few days I will post portions of George Washington’s farewell speech (which really was just a newspaper article) but since it is so long I will put an outline of the speech that is provided by David Barton of Wallbuilders.
“Foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.”
“The great rule of conduct for us”: “as little political connection as possible.”
we should fulfill obligations, then stop
we should not get involved in Europe’s affairs.
Our “detached and distant situation . . . enables . . . a different course.”
“Steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
However, we may have “temporary alliances, for extraordinary emergencies.”
Maintain “a liberal intercourse with all nations.”
n pictures: Japan earthquake and tsunami
In association with
Houses in Natori were caught as a wall of water up to 10m (33ft) high in some places swept inland.
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 3:30 pm CST on May 2, 2011.
Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion.
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.
Examples of federal waste are more abundant than ever. For example, the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons activities should be placed under the purview of the Department of Defense. Many of its other activities amount to nothing more than corporate handouts. It provides research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of new, cleaner forms of energy. This means nearly all forms of energy development here in the U.S. are subsidized by the federal government, from oil and coal to nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels. These subsidies often go to research and companies that can survive without them. This drives up the cost of energy for all Americans, both as taxpayers and consumers.
Per the CATO Institute: “Most American industries fund their own research and development programs. The agriculture industry is a notable exception. USDA spends about $3 billion annually on agricultural research, statistical information services, and economic studies.”
Agriculture, like all other industries can perform its own research and development without the use of federal subsidies to do so. The research done by USDA is there to keep the status quo.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture: Eliminated
National Institute of Food and Agriculture is the parent agency to the Agriculture Research Service. NIFA is essentially the communications arm to spread ARS information to the public. The department’s main area of study is responding to “quality-of-life problems” – (1) Improving agricultural productivity, (2) Creating new products, (3) Protecting animal and plant health, (4) Promoting sound human nutrition and health, (5) Strengthening children, youth, and families, (6) Revitalizing rural American communities.
When looking at their main focus issues, we can see that like ARS, government and its subsidiaries are in the business of keeping the status quo and stifle real research and development.
This issue is best left up to the states to determine what the best way is to preserve and protect their environment.
The balance of using the resources available for production, conservation, and recreation is best decided by from people in the region.
Foreign Agricultural Services: Eliminated
Originally, this agency was created to manage our agricultural trade agreements and the daily/weekly prices of agriculture commodities across the globe. In a world of constant information, we do not need this program putting out daily reports regarding the fluctuations of commodity prices.
He is right that the actual deficit is caused by direct government spending exceeding income, an imbalance mostly caused, he will tell you with some justification, by the fact that we don’t tax rich people as much as we did in happier and more prosperous times.
We have heard the liberals like John Brummett say for years that Bush put us into this horrible position of deficits because of his tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. However, if Bush was responsible for taking the 236 billion surplus he inherited in 2000 and turning everything downward because of the tax cuts, then why did we only have a budget deficit of 161 billion in 2007?
Brian Riedl is The Heritage Foundation’s lead budget analyst and has built a solid reputation for interpreting, explaining and reforming the often arcane realm of federal budget policy.
Splitting the Difference or Addressing the Source
Having established that spending is causing the expanding long-term budget deficits, the next question is how to fix that problem. Lawmakers seeking deficit reduction will not find any easy targets. Defenders of each spending program will surely claim some special status that should exempt their program from reforms. Defenders of current tax policies will point out the negative economic consequences of large tax hikes. As the debate proceeds, two competing reform frameworks will likely emerge:
A “split the difference” approach that closes half the gap with tax increases and half with spending cuts; and
An “address the source” approach that targets the policies that are actually driving the deficit up.
Most people argue that the “split the difference” approach seems moderate and reasonable. By reforming all tax and spending policies equally, Congress would not single out any one policy. Conservatives and liberals could compromise in a bipartisan show of strength. However, politicians should not take the path of least resistance with a problem of this significance. A solution sustainable over the long term must address the budget deficit at the source. After all, when a family purchases a larger home than it can afford, the proper response is not to obtain second jobs, put the kids to work, and drastically cut back on groceries, electricity, and medical care. The proper response is to address the source of financial distress by moving back to a smaller home.
Similarly, the nation’s rising long-term budget deficits are almost exclusively the result of Washington making entitlement commitments that the nation cannot afford. Therefore, the presumption must be to pare back these commitments to an affordable level. Yet “split the difference” essentially lets most of the entitlement spending growth off the hook and passes a significant burden onto taxpayers and onto federal programs that have succeeded without raising costs. With Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs projected to rise by 10 percent of GDP by 2050,[18] splitting the difference would still require by far the largest tax increase in American history, leaving spending and taxes at levels never seen before during peacetime. It would allow expanding entitlement programs to transform the entire federal budget.
This approach is also unsustainable over the long run. Even if lawmakers broadly raise taxes and reduce spending to balance the budget in the short run, their failure to address the problem at its source means that entitlement costs will likely continue to grow quickly. This would in turn require continuous additional spending cuts and tax hikes elsewhere to keep the budget under control.
Finally, splitting the difference sends the wrong message to future lawmakers by rewarding policies that aggressively increase the short-term budget deficit. Liberal lawmakers could enact large new spending bills without paying for them, believing that much of the future deficit reduction will be split across tax hikes and other spending programs, effectively locking in much of the targeted spending increase—the “feed the beast” strategy. Conservative lawmakers could deeply cut taxes without paying for them on the assumption that half of the resulting deficits will eventually be closed by spending cuts—the “starve the beast” strategy. In either case, the “split the difference” approach to deficit reduction would sacrifice other budget priorities to make room for the new, unaffordable policy.
____________________________________
I am doing a series on famous Arkansans and today is the last part on Wayne Jackson who grew up in West Memphis. He worked with many famous groups such as U2. Below you will see a song he worked on with them “Where the streets have no name.”
(b. 1941) – Wayne Jackson grew up in West Memphis playing the guitar. He found his true passion at age 11 when his mother brought home a trumpet. When he was in the 12th grade his love for music took him across the Mississippi River to Memphis, where he became a legendary backup trumpeter in such groups as the Mar-Keys, and would go on to perform with a who’s who of artists. He has played on recordings by Aretha Franklin, Sting, Elvis Presley, U2, Peter Gabriel, Willie Nelson, Billy Joel, Otis Redding, The Doobie Brothers, Jimmy Buffet and Rod Stewart. Jackson was the co-founder, with Andrew Love of the legendary Memphis backing band, of The Memphis Horns. He has performed on 52 number one hits, 83 Gold & Platinum albums, 115 top-ten records and 15 Grammy award winners. Recently, he recorded the new James Bond theme song for “A Quantum of Solace” with Alicia Keys and Jack White.
Advice from Dr. Adrian Rogers on a husband’s role in the household.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. 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.
Notice in the clip above what Dr. Adrian Rogers had to say about the husband taking the leadership role in the family. In the article “Should Kate Middleton ‘obey’ her prince?,” March 31, 2011, Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote:
Reuters/Toby Melville
Britain’s Prince William and his fiancee Kate Middleton visit St. Andrews University in Fife, Scotland February 25, 2011.
When Kate Middleton walks down the aisle to wed Prince William on April 29, spectators all over the world will be hanging on her every word. And the one they’ll be listening for in particular isn’t “love” or “cherish.” It’s “obey.”
You might think that one little word — and all that it implies — had fallen completely off the charts. The Episcopal Church scrubbed it from its Book of Common Prayer way back in 1922. In 1981, William’s mother, Diana, dropped it from her vows to Prince Charles. But five years later, Sarah Ferguson slipped the word back into her wedding vows to Prince Andrew. And in 1999, Sophie Rhys-Jones did likewise when she tied the knot to Prince Edward.
As for Middleton, the 29-year-old future wife of the someday king of England knows where she stands, but she isn’t saying. Earlier this week, the palace released the statement that the “couple have made a decision on which vows to use but wish their decision to remain private until their wedding. We will not comment on speculation.” Their choice of officiant may hold a clue, though — they’ll be married by Archbishop Rowan Williams, whose Archbishops’ Council reported 2006 that “A promise to obey was in the past part of different standards and expectations of women and men within marriage.”
Yet the couple is, in many ways, a pair of old-school royals. Middleton has managed to make it to nearly 30 with no real job to speak of. She left her gig as an accessory buyer back in 2007, and has since gotten by as a fashion icon and girlfriend. And her fiancé has already declared his intention to eschew wearing a wedding ring, though his bride, of course, will. (He’s unlikely to pass as single on those out-of-town business trips anyway.)
The notion of what constitutes obedience is a highly personal one. As Rev. Peter Nott, who married Sophie Rhys-Jones and Prince Edward, says, “It is a mistaken assumption that, when a bride says she will obey, it means that she is going to be subservient — it is to do with trust and listening, to recognize that in a family you have different functions.”
“What are the Main Arguments for and Against Living Together Before Marriage in Modern Societies?”
“To the degree that there is a scholarly debate about the growth of cohabitation, it is typically polarized into ‘for’ and ‘against’ without much concern for the nuances. On one side is the religiously inspired view that living with someone outside of marriage, indeed all premarital sex, represents an assault on the sanctity of marriage. If you are ready for sex you are ready for marriage, the argument goes, and the two should always go together, following biblical injunction. This side is typically supportive of early marriage as an antidote to sexual promiscuity, and as worthwhile in its own right.”
“The other side, based in secular thought, holds that we can’t realistically expect people to remain sexually abstinent from today’s puberty at age eleven or twelve (even earlier for some) to marriage in the late twenties, which is empirically the most desirable age for insuring a lasting union. Therefore, it is better that they cohabit during that time with a few others than be promiscuous with many. This side also finds the idea of a trial marriage quite appealing. Modern societies in any event, the argument goes, have become so highly sexualized and the practice of cohabitation has become so widely accepted that there is no way to stop it.”
“The anti-cohabitation perspective believes in linking sex to marriage, but fails to answer the question of how to postpone sex until marriage at a time when the age of marriage has risen to an average of almost 26, the highest in this century. Cold showers, anyone? Nor is there evidence to support the idea that marriage at a younger age is a good solution. On the contrary, marrying later in life seems to provide some protection against divorce. Teenage marriages, for example, have a much higher risk of breaking up than do marriages among young adults in their twenties. The reasons are fairly obvious; at older ages people are more emotionally mature and established in their jobs and careers, and usually better able to know what they want in a lifetime mate.”
“Pro-cohabitation arguments recognize the demographic and social realities but fail to answer another question: if the aim is to have a strong, lifelong marriage, and for most people it still is, can cohabitation be of any help? As we have seen the statistical data are unsupportive on this point. So far, at least, living together before marriage has been remarkably unsuccessful as a generator of happy and long-lasting marriages.”
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers
The State University of New Jersey
25 Bishop Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181
(732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
Great opportunity for couples to take time out and re-connect with each other. time honored and proven wisdom from great teachers
January, 1999
Royals and Celebrities In Attendance
See the famous faces helping Kate and William celebrate their big day. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)
The Save Your sex Summit took place in Chicago featuring author and Speaker, Josh McDowell. Teenagers and youth groups came from all over the city to hear him speak on the Importance of Saving sex til Marriage. (Part 2)
n the final installment, all four of the Queen’s children talk frankly for the first time about their working roles as part of the Royal Family. The younger generation are also seen to be getting involved. There’s an early-morning surprise for the residents of an inner-city hostel when they come down to breakfast and find Prince William making the coffee. Prince Harry attends a strategy meeting for his African charity, Sentebale. And we see what happens when all the family turn up for a very proud moment at Sandhurst.
Dr. Friedman and his wife, Rose, attend the Nobel Ball in 1976.
Ep. 10 – How to Stay Free [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
I really enjoy responding to Gene Lyons’ articles. He is very entertaining with his articles and he is a good respresentative of the liberal point of view. Since I am a conservative, it is rare when we agree.
Also contrary to Republican mythology, the infamous Bush tax cuts did anything but increase revenue, as tax cuts never do. As Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett shows, federal revenues dropped from 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to 18.5 percent in 2007.
I am starting a new series that breaks down Lyon’s claims and take a look at the cold hard facts.
In every case over the last 60 years, major tax cuts have more than paid for themselves. In fact, every major tax cut since JFK has been followed by substantial increases in revenue, not to mention solid economic growth. Moreover, total federal revenue rose at a faster rate after each of those tax cuts than it did before them. Anyone can confirm these basic facts for themselves by checking federal budget data and economic indicators before and after major tax cuts (see, for example, Federal Budget Data, Data 360 Unemployment U.S., andTotal Economy Database). Let’s take a closer look at the results of the last four major tax cuts (and then for good measure we’ll examine the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s).
Reagan Tax Cuts: In 1994 President Clinton’s own Council of Economic Advisers stated: “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth.”
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year–the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let’s look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:
VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567 www.amport.com
Unjust laws exist. Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally under such a government as this think that they ought to wait until they think they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt?… Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels? p. 183
“Speaking on slavery and the unjust Fugitive Slave Law to a New England audience, Emerson on January 25, 1855, stated the following:
Now what is the effect of this evil government? To Discredit government. When the public fails in its duty, private men take its place…When the American government and courts are false to their trust, men disobey the government, put it in the wrong; the government is forced into all manner of false and ridiculous attitudes. Men hear reason and truth from private men who have brave hearts and great minds. This is the compensation of bad government–the field it affords for illustrious men, and we have a great debt to the brave and faithful men who in the very hour and place of the evil act, made their protest for themselves and their countrymen, by word and by deed. They are justified and the law is condemned
Emerson was speaking specifically of the slavery controversy…but the majestic sweep of his rhetoric encompasses every phylum, every genus, every species of man’s inhumanity to man. It is strong rhetorical medicine; it applies in every sense to the principles at stake in the abortion conflict.” P. 184
From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by such writers as John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, cement did not exist in North America when they said they did.
Helaman chapter 3, verse 7 in the Book of Mormon states: “And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.” There is no evidence of cement being used in the ancient Americas around the times of Christ. Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon plates as being deposited in a stone box in a New York hillside. The box was described as “formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement”.[75]
_______________________________________
Tel Dan Stele Was the house and kingdom of David a Biblical myth or did they really exist?
An inscription containing the words “house of David” was found on a black basalt stone slab called the Tel Dan Stele, from Tel Dan, Israel, 9th Century B.C.
The “House of David” is inscribed on this victory stele excavated at Tel Dan, in the Galilee region of Israel. It is dated from the 9th Century BC. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. The Tel Dan Stele is important in the study of Biblical Archaeology, it mentions the House of David in an Inscription. With this important discovery it is clear that King David is a real figure in ancient history, as Jesus confirmed.
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
Tel Dan Stele, Biblical Archaeology
1 Kings 8:16 – “Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.”
1 Kings 2:11– “And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.”
Material – Basalt Stone Stele
Israel Period of the Kings
Date: 858-824 BC
Language: Aramaic
Height: 32 cm
Width: 22 cm
Depth:
Tel Dan, Galilee
Excavated by: Avraham Biran 1994
Location: Israel Museum, Jerusalem
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Excerpt
The Aramaic Stele
Fragments of the Aramaic stele
Fragments of a large inscribed basalt stele were found in the square located in front of the Israelite city gate complex. The largest of these fragments measures 32 x 22 cm. and, of the original inscription, thirteen lines have been partially preserved. The language is ancient Aramaic.
The 9th century BCE and the beginning of the 8th century BCE were marked by military conflicts between the kings of Israel and the expanding kingdom of Aram-Damascus. (1 Kings 15:20) Thus the stele was erected by one of the Aramean kings of Damascus who captured Dan – although which king cannot be ascertained as yet. It is probable that in lines 7-8 two kings of Israel and Judah, who ruled at the same time, are mentioned: Jehoram, king of Israel and Ahaziah, king of Judah, referred to as a king of the House of David. These two kings were allies and were defeated by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus. (2 Kings 8:7-15, 28; 9:24-29; 2 Chronicles 22:5)
The stele describing Hazael’s victory over his enemies was, in all probability, erected by him when he conquered Dan in the mid-9th century BCE. It is reasonable to assume that Jehoash, king of Israel, who fought the Arameans three times and defeated them (2 Kings 13:25) recovering territories previously lost, including the city of Dan, symbolically smashed the stele erected there by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus.
Although the broken stele raises serious historical problems, it is one of the most important written finds in Israel and the first non-biblical text which mentions the House of David by name. It is hoped that more fragments of this unique stele will be uncovered in future excavations.
Excavated by A. Biran, on behalf of Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem
Tel Dan Stele, Biblical Archaeology
Zechariah 12:7 – “The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify [themselves] against Judah. “
The same highway flyover just seconds later as the tsunami swells. On the right of this screengrab from the NHK television channel, a building can be seen floating away.
I grew up listening to sermons by Adrian Rogers who was the longtime pastor of Bellevue Church in Memphis. In fact, since 1927 only four pastors have led Bellevue and I have had the opportunity to hear all four speak (Robert G. Lee [1927-1960], Ramsey Pollard [1960-1972], Adrian Rogers [1972-2005], Steve Gaines [2005- present]).
Here is a clip from a fine message of his on salvation (part 2):
The Scottish-born Benson came to the U.S. to cover the Beatles’ first American tour in 1964 — and never left. For 50 years, he’s covered the world’s most remarkable people (including every U.S. president from Eisenshower to Obama) and the last half-century’s most memorable events. He photographed for LIFE for 30 years, and remains under contract with Vanity Fair. He first photographed the Reagans in 1965, when he covered a breakfast event where Ronald Reagan announced he was entering California’s 1966 gubernatorial race. “A lot of people thought of him only as an actor,” Benson recently told LIFE.com, “but it was clear to me that he was a formidable politician. As for Nancy, who of course had been a fine actress in her own right … well, there was no question that she could hold her own with her husband. They were a very appealing, gracious couple.” Above: Ronald and Nancy Reagan at their ranch, 1966
Second Reagan-Mondale presidential debate 1984 #3
Oct 21, 1984 Presidential Debate Reagan v Mondale
MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan.
Soviet Union
MR. KALB: Mr. President, you have often described the Soviet Union as a powerful, evil empire intent on world domination. But this year you have said, and I quote. “If they want to keep their Mickey Mouse system, that’s okay with me.” Which is it, Mr. President? Do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detente — or what goes for detente — or do you really want to roll back their empire?
THE PRESIDENT: I have said on a number of occasions exactly what I believe about the Soviet Union. I retract nothing that I have said. I believe that many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality that we have. But I also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world, we have to live with each other. And I told Mr. Gromyko we don’t like their system. They don’t like ours. And we’re not going to change their system, and they sure better not try to change ours. But between us, we can either destroy the world or we can save it. And I suggested that, certainly, it was to their common interest, along with ours, to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the nuclear weapons. And I think that perhaps we established a little better understanding.
I think that in dealing with the Soviet Union one has to be realistic. I know that Mr. Mondale, in the past, has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves, and if we were kind and good and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. And the result was unilateral disarmament. We canceled the B – 1 under the previous administration. What did we get for it? Nothing.
The Soviet Union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man at the same time that we tried the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness, if you will. And now we are putting up a defense of our own. And I’ve made it very plain to them, we seek no superiority. We simply are going to provide a deterrent so that it will be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. Now, they claim they’re not. And I made it plain to them, we’re not. There’s been no change in my attitude at all. I just thought when I came into office it was time that there was some realistic talk to and about the Soviet Union. And we did get their attention.
Regions Vital to U.S. Interests
MR. KALB: Mr. President, perhaps the other side of the coin, a related question, sir. Since World War II, the vital interests of the United States have always been defined by treaty commitments and by Presidential proclamations. Aside from what is obvious, such as NATO, for example, which countries, which regions in the world do you regard as vital national interests of this country, meaning that you would send American troops to fight there if they were in danger?
THE PRESIDENT: Ah, well, now you’ve added a hypothetical there at the end, Mr. Kalb, about where we would send troops in to fight. I am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be, but obviously there are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us. One is the Middle East, and that is of interest to the whole Western World and the industrialized nations, because of the great supply of energy upon which so many depend there. Our neighbors here in America are vital to us. We’re working right now in trying to be of help in southern Africa with regard to the independence of Namibia and the removal of the Cuban surrogates, the thousands of them, from Angola.
So, I can say there are a great many interests. I believe that we have a great interest in the Pacific Basin. That is where I think the future of the world lies. But I am not going to pick out one and, in advance, hypothetically say, “Oh, yes, we would send troops there.” I don’t want to send troops any place.
MR. NEWMAN: I’m sorry, Mr. President. Sir, your time was up.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
It has been 150 years since the beginning of the Civil War that started in April of 1861 at Ft Sumter.
The last surviving veteran of any particular war, upon his or her death, marks the end of a historic era. Exactly who is the last surviving veteran is often an issue of contention, especially with records from long-ago wars. The “last man standing” was often very young at the time of enlistment and in many cases had lied about his age to gain entry into the service, which confuses matters further.
There were sometimes incentives for men to lie about their ages after their military service ended. In addition, there were some impostors who claimed to have served but did not (such as Walter Williams, who claimed to be 117 in 1959). For example, many former Confederate States in the South gave pensions to Confederate veterans of the American Civil War. Several men falsified their ages in order to qualify for these pensions, especially during the Great Depression; this makes the question of the identity of the last Confederate veteran especially problematic. The status of the officially recognized “last Confederate veteran” is in dispute.
Albert Woolson of Minnesota was a Union drummer boy who died in 1956, and the Civil War’s last authenticated survivor.
Albert Woolson, a Civil War veteran and a son of a Civil War veteran was made an Honorary Commander-in-Chief of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War at the 72nd National Encampment held in Buffalo, New York on August 23 – 27, 1953.
Comrade Woolson was born in the New York farm hamlet of Antwerp, 22 miles northeast of Watertown, on February 11, 1847, the same day that Thomas Alva Edison, the inventor, was born. Willard Woolson, his father, was a carpenter in Watertown and apprenticed his son to the trade. The senior Woolson, however, had a second vocation. He was a musician, and when President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers in 1861, he and his fellow musicians enlisted in a body. When his family did not hear from him for more than a year, they traced him through Army records to a hospital in Minnesota suffering from a leg wound received at the battle of Shiloh. Shortly after the family was reunited, his leg had to be amputated and he died.
Minnesota’s manpower was stretched thin to furnish its quota for the Union forces and at the same time to hold back the Sioux Indians, who were off the reservation in 1863. The Union needed heavy artillery and Col. William Colville organized a Minnesota heavy artillery regiment of 1,800 men. Albert Woolson got his mother’s consent and was accepted into Company C, First Minnesota Volunteer Heavy Artillery. His military service dated from October 10, 1864. Enlisted as a rifleman, he eventually was assigned as a drummer and bugler. Late in 1864, the Regiment joined the Army of the Cumberland in Tennessee. It was commanded by Maj. General George H. Thomas, known to history as The Rock of Chickamauga, but more familiarly to his men as Pap.
The First Minnesota sat out the spring and early summer of 1865 in the shadow of Lookout Mountain, near Chattanooga, and in August the Regiment was ordered home. Comrade Woolson received his discharge on September 7, 1865.
He married Sarah Jane Sloper in 1868. She died in 1901. Three years later he married Anna Haugen who died in 1949. Survivors include six daughters, Mrs. John Kobus, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, and Mrs. Robert Campbell, all of Duluth; Mrs. Adelaid Wellcome, Mrs. F.W. Rye, and Mrs. J.C. Barrett, all of Seattle; and two sons, Dr. A.H. Woolson of Spokane, Washington, and R.C. Woolson of Dayton, Washington.
Comrade Woolson was a member of and participated in the last Grand Army of the Republic National Encampment in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1949, and was the last surviving member of that Organization.
On August 2, 1956, Comrade Woolson died at the age of 109 years. He had been hospitalized for nine weeks with a recurring lung congestion condition. He lapsed into a coma five days before his death and did not regain consciousness. Members of his family were at his bedside when he died in St. Luke’s Hospital, Duluth, Minnesota. In Washington, President Eisenhower said, The death of Mr. Woolson brings sorrow to the hearts of Americans. The American people have lost the last personal link with the Union Army.
On August 6, 1956, Comrade Woolson, the Union Army veteran who outlived all his comrades, was laid to rest in the family plot in Park Hill Cemetery, Duluth, Minnesota. as thousands paid final tribute.
Secretary of the Army, Wilber Bruckner, headed a delegation of political and military dignities including Assistant Secretary Hugh M. Milton, Senators Hubert H. Humphrey and Edward J. Thye, as well as Representative John A. Blatnick. Other dignitaries included Lt. General William H. Arnold, Fifth Army Commander, Chicago; Governor Orville Freeman and Maj. General Jos. E. Nelson, State Adjutant General.
More than 1,500 persons attended the 2 P.M. funeral in the Duluth armory, hundreds more lined the route to the cemetery, and about 2,000 watched as the bronze casket was set down with full military honors.
At 1:45 P.M., an army drum and bugle corps, stationed outside the armory with an army marching unit of 109 men (one for each of Comrade Woolson’s years), blew retreat. A military guard of honor, lining the walk to the armory door, snapped to attention. Military men saluted and the Fifth Army Band played a funeral processional.
Six Army Sergeants, acting as pall bearers, carried the casket into the armory, following Lt. Col. Augustine P. Donnelly, a Presbyterian chaplain attached to Fifth Army Headquarters, Chicago. As the procession entered the armory, the Carillon Chorus Club sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Col. Donnelly, who conducted the services, started the ceremony at 2:03 P.M. with, I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord. The service ended with a short prayer at 2:45 P.M.
The procession left the armory with the band – the drums were decked in black – playing Chopin’s Funeral Dirge. Behind the band came the army marching unit plodding in slow cadence in the 85 degree heat. At 4 P.M. the band’s drums could be heard at the cemetery.
The Mt. Vernon, Ohio, Fife and Drum corps of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War took over the procession’s lead at the cemetery gate and played Onward Christian Soldiers. The color guard followed the fife and drum corps. Behind them marched Col. Donnelly. Then came the hearse and numerous automobiles.
At 4:17 P.M. pall bearers brought the casket and Col. Donnelly presented a short funeral oration. The pall bearers, who had been holding the casket flag two feet above the casket, folded it and gave it to Secretary of the Army Bruckner, who in turn presented it to Mrs. Kobus.
The Grand Army of the Republic funeral service was then performed by members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, as they placed a wreath, a rose, and a miniature United States flag atop the casket.
An army firing squad fired three volleys. The bugler sounded Taps while military men saluted. The group was silent. The firing squad marched away. The fife and drum corps faded into the distance with the fifes whistling the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
The next-to-the last Union veteran was James Albert Hard of New York. He died March 12, 1953, at the claimed age of 111. However, census research indicates that he was probably a year or two younger as well and may have inflated his age to gain service. He is recorded as having joined the Union army May 14, 1861, aged ’19.’ However, the 1850, 1910, and 1920 censuses indicate that he was born in 1843, 1842, and 1842, respectively.
William Allen Magee died on January 23, 1953 in Long Beach, California, at age 106. He is listed as enlisting as a bugler on October 20, 1863, at age 18 (a 2-year age exaggeration) in Company M, 12th Cavalry Regiment Ohio, so he was a veteran regardless of age.
The last surviving Civil War general was Brevet-Brigadier General Aaron S. Daggett of Maine, who died in 1938 at age 100. However, others who served in the war and were later promoted to General survived into the 1940s.
On the Confederate side the answer is somewhat more difficult to confirm.
An article by historian William Marvel, published in Blue and Gray magazine in February 1991, and titled “The Great Impostors,” names Pleasant Crump of the 10th Alabama, who died in 1951, the last Confederate vet. Prior claimants to the distinction included Walter Washington Williams (who died December 19, 1959) of Texas and John Salling (who died March 19, 1959) of Virginia. A thorough check of official census records by Marvel suggests that both Williams and Salling were too young to have served.
We went back to the search results to substantiate our findings, only to discover that the reference desk at the Chicago Public Library, in answer to the very same question, still lists Mr. Walter W. Williams as the last Confederate survivor, despite the fact that the page was updated in April, 1999.
Looking for more? The real-life last Confederate widow, Mrs. Alberta Martin died in 2004. It is to be a celebration of Confederate heritage. “Old times there are not forgotten…”