Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Milton Friedman nails the problem in this short video clip. No one wants their program cut but just the other guy’s.
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 1:15pm CST on May 2, 2011.
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 would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government’s jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. 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.
The Department of Agriculture is one of the largest agencies of the federal government. With fewer than 1 million farmers in the United States, the USDA employs over 110,000 employees, or roughly one federal employee for every nine farmers. Although farm and crop subsidies cost tens of billions of dollars each year, the largest USDA program continues to be funding for food stamps.
The program was originally created as a temporary program from 1939 to 1943, but became permanent in 1964 under President Lyndon Johnson. After the program swelled to more than 15 million recipients in 1974, and continued to increase in scope with the expanded benefits provided by Congress in 1993, Congress and the President finally decided to address the food stamp program through welfare reform in 1996. Food stamps were ultimately turned into a block grant program, which decreased the number of food stamp recipients, and helped lower costs. It wasn’t until 2002, under the direction of both a Republican President and Congress that the food stamp program was once again expanded.
In 2001, the food stamp program cost taxpayers $18 billion, but has since increased by more than 289 percent (FY2010 cost of $70 billion), and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this entitlement program will cost nearly $700 billion over the next 10 years.
While many automatic spending entitlement programs like food stamps will need to once again be re-evaluated for reform, including eliminating the more than $1 billion in annual erroneous and fraudulent food stamp payments, the proposal only recommends taking the food stamp program back to FY2008 levels
. This level of funding still represents a 122 percent increase over the 2000 levels. In addition, the proposal would take farm and crop subsidies back to 2008 levels as well.
Additional
Eligibility is based on income and assets, with the gross income cutoff set at 130 percent of the poverty level
(28,665 for a family of four). The maximum monthly benefit in 2009 for a household of four was $668 –
$8,016 per year.
According to the CDC, obesity rates are actually higher for adults and children who are below the poverty level or on food stamps. Because individuals tend to buy cheap, high calorie processed foods, the food stamp subsidy program continues to support an out-dated model of health standards and balanced meals.
Food stamps are not conditioned on work status and contribute to long-term dependence on the federalgovernment.
Ep. 7 – Who Protects the Consumer [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Milton Friedman served as economic advisor for two American Presidents – Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Although Friedman was inevitably drawn into the national political spotlight, he never held public office.
In the clip above you can see Milton Friedman attack those who are always trying to get government to “protect the consumer” or protect “the environment.” Many people are always trying to protect people by getting government to limit their right to choose. Below is a very interesting story concerning California that I heard about recently by reading an article by John Fund.
Ep. 7 – Who Protects the Consumer [2/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
On April 27, 2011 I got to hear John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak at 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.
After the luncheon I got to briefly talk to Mr. Fund and I told him that I have been getting some great numbers on the days that I blog about his Wall Street Journal articles. He asked the name of my blog and instead of telling him it was www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I told him to just google “Arkansas Milton Friedman” and he will pull up my website. Today I am showing why that phrase will identify my website. There are 4 video clips of Milton Friedman on this subject of protecting the consumer through government against which prohibits our freedom to choose.
Ep. 7 – Who Protects the Consumer [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
In his speech he mentioned the struggle that Arnold Schwarzenegger had with the envirnomentalists in California. Below is an excerpt from an article that Mr. Fund wrote for the Wall Street Journal in Feb of 2010:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is as green as any governor, from promoting alternative fuels to imposing carbon limits on California to fight climate change.
But even he’s had enough of the mindless interference with development that characterizes the actions of many environmentalists. In a state where one out of eight workers is unemployed, Mr. Schwarzenegger is asking the legislature for more authority to fast-track projects after they have undergone an environmental impact study.
“Right now the way it’s written, a lot of those laws, it’s an invitation to misuse them,” he told reporters last week. “And it holds up projects for too long a period of time, especially now.”
Mr. Schwarzenegger singled out environmental obstacles that are blocking construction of alternative energy farms in the Mojave Desert. Some of his green allies have become “fanatics,” he said, and “go overboard.” He then launched an extended riff explaining why he thought environmental objections to the Mojave Desert projects on the grounds they could hurt endangered species were, well, specious.
“So the environmentalists . . . are confused because they want to have renewable energy but then when it comes to the permitting process, creating that renewable energy and building the solar plants, they are then in the way. And they then talk about, ‘You cannot go and destroy this squirrel.'”
“I say, ‘What squirrel? I was out there, I didn’t see a squirrel.’
“They say, ‘Well, there could be a squirrel coming very soon.’
“So I say, ‘But there’s no squirrel there right now.’
“‘But you’ve got to protect things that could be there.'”
When Mr. Schwarzenegger was first elected in 2003, he promised to “blow up the boxes” of California’s government. He lost his enthusiasm for reform after a while, so it’s good to see him once again fighting the absurd constraints that California’s political class has imposed on job creation.
Ep. 7 – Who Protects the Consumer [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Dr. Friedman gives a speech at the 1976 Nobel ceremony.
The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.
In Feb of 1983 Milton Friedman wrote the article “Washington:Less Red Ink (An argument that the balanced-budget amendent would be a rare merging of public and private interests),” and here is a portion of that article:
Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government:
**7. The amendment introduces a near economic theory into the Constitution.**
It does nothing of the kind–unless the idea that there should be some connection between receipts and outlays is a new economic theory. The amendment does not even change the present budget process, if Congress enacts a balanced budget that rises by no greater a percentage than does national income. But it does significantly stiffen the requirement for passing a budget that is in deficit or for raising the fraction of our income spent on our behalf by the government.
The amendment recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves the wholehearted backing of every believer in a limited government and maximum freedom for the individual.
Ep. 10 – How to Stay Free [5/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Nicknamed “Mars”, Edwin M. Stanton was a pro-Breckinridge Democrat who was Attorney General under President James Buchanan (1860-61) and Secretary of War under Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson(1862-68). Stanton succeeded Simon Cameron to whom he had given legal advice (some of which helped get Cameron fired). Stanton was a sharp and abusive critic at the beginning of the war, calling Mr. Lincoln ‘the original gorilla. Only later, he became a strong supporter of President Lincoln. Six months before Stanton’s appointment to the Cabinet, he wrote former President Buchanan: “The dreadful disaster of Sunday [Battle of Bull Run] can scarcely be mentioned. The imbecility of this administration has culminated in that catastrophe, and irretrievable misfortune and national disgrace are to be added to the ruin of all peaceful pursuits and national bankruptcy as the result of Lincoln’s ‘running the machine’ for five months.”1 However, he sometimes bridled at the President’s directions and occasionally refused to obey them. At times, he conspired with Salmon Chase behind the President’s back. The President valued his tenacity and organizational abilities—if not his arrogance and duplicity, both of which Stanton had honed to virtual art forms.
“Henry Dawes of the Dawes Committee dropped in on the President after the appointment was announced to congratulate him on getting such a man as Stanton for his Cabinet, in the next breath making some remark that led Lincoln to say, yes, there were those who had warned him that the new Secretary of War would run away with the whole concern. ‘We may have to treat him as they are sometimes obliged to treat a Methodist minister I know of out West. He gets wrought to so high a pitch of excitement in his prayers and exhortations that they are obliged to put bricks in his pockets to keep him down. We may be obliged to serve Stanton in the same way, but I guess we’ll let him jump a while first. Besides, bricks in his pockets would be better than bricks in his hat.'”2
Stanton was transformed during 1862 from ardent friend to zealous foe of General George McClellan. He conspired with other cabinet members at the end of August 1862 to block McClellan from command of the Union army. The effort failed when President Lincoln met with McClellan and Halleck without Stanton and appointed him first to command Washington’s defenses and then as overall commander of the Army of the Potomac on September 5. According to biographers Benjamin P. Thomas and Harold Hyman, at a critical Cabinet meeting on September 2, “Stanton joined with Chase in leading a chorus of complaint. Lincoln, clearly distressed to find himself at odds with most of the cabinet, explained that he had acted on his own responsibility for what he considered the country’s best interest. He held no brief for McClellan; he admitted the general had the ‘slows.’ But he also knew the ground around Washington and was qualified beyond anyone else to whip the army back into shape. The remonstrance against McClellan remained in Stanton’s pocked. Lincoln had made up his mind, and experience had taught Stanton that argument in such circumstances was fruitless.”3
The President relied on Stanton and spent a great deal of time at the War Department. According to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, “Stanton does not care usually to come [to the White House], for the President is much of his time at the War Department, and what is said or done is communicated by the President, who is fond of telling as well as of hearing what is new. Three or four times daily the President goes to the War Department and into the telegraph office to look over communications.”4 Although Stanton was sometimes frustrated by the President’s compassion and humor, Mr. Lincoln maintained an easy relationship with the Secretary of War, as this anecdote from Congressman George W. Julian suggests:
It is related that a committee of Western men, headed by [Congressman Owen] Lovejoy, procured from the President an important order looking to the exchange of Eastern and Western soldiers with a view to more effective work. Repairing to the office of the Secretary, Mr. Lovejoy explained the scheme, as he had done before to the President, but was met by a flat refusal.
‘But we have the President’s order sir,’ said Lovejoy.
‘Did Lincoln give you an order of that kind?’ said Stanton.
‘He did, sir.’
‘Then he is a d—d fool,’ said the irate Secretary.
“Do you mean to say the President is a d—d fool?’ asked Lovejoy, in amazement.
‘Yes, sir, if he gave you such an order as that.’
The bewildered Congressman from Illinois betook himself at once to the President, and related the result of his conference.
‘Did Stanton say I was a d–d fool? Asked Lincoln at the close of the recital.
‘He did, sir; and repeated it.’
After a moment’s pause, and looking up, the President said:
‘If Stanton said I was a d–d fool, then I must be one, for he is nearly always right, and generally says what he means. I will step over and see him.’5
General James Fry, a War Department official who had frequent opportunity to observe the relations between the two men, noted such anecdotes were “interpreted as meaning that Lincoln could not control Stanton. The inference is erroneous. Lincoln, so far as I could discover, was in every respect the actual head of the administration, and whenever he chose to do so, he controlled Stanton as well as all the other Cabinet ministers.” Fry related a conflict between President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton which concluded with the following dialogue in Stanton’s office. Stanton said: “Now Mr. President, those are the facts, and you must see that your order cannot be executed.” The President cordially replied: “Mr. Secretary, I reckon you’ll have to execute the order.” Stanton objected: “Mr. President, I cannot do it. The order is an improper one, and I cannot execute it.” The President stared down the shorter Stanton and firmly issued an order: “Mr. Secretary, it will have to be done.”6
Generally, Stanton was much more irritable and explosive than the President. William Crook contrasted the personalities of the two men:
To such expressions of a natural impatience Mr. Lincoln opposed a placid front. More than that, he was placid. He knew Secretary Stanton’s intense, irritable nature. He knew how the excitement of the time tried men’s tempers and shattered their nerves. He himself, apparently, was the only one who was not to be allowed the indulgence of giving way. So Mr. Stanton’s indignation passed unnoticed. The two men were often at variance when it came to matters of discipline in the army. On one occasion, I have heard, Secretary Stanton was particularly angry with one of the generals. He was eloquent about him. ‘I would like to tell him what I think of him!’ he stormed.
‘Why don’t you?’ Mr. Lincoln agreed. ‘Write it all down – do.’
Mr. Stanton wrote his letter. When it was finished he took it to the President. The President listened to it all.
‘All right. Capital!’ he nodded. ‘And now, Stanton, what are you going to do with it?’
‘Do with it? Why, send it, of course!’
‘I wouldn’t,’ said the President. ‘Throw it in the waste-paper basket.’
‘But it took me two days to write —‘
‘Yes, yes, and it did you ever so much good. You feel better now. That is all that is necessary. Just throw it in the basket.’
After a little more expostulation, into the basket it went.7
According to historian Allen Nevins, Stanton’s “arbitrary temper was accentuated by his tendency to jump to conclusions. He would impetuously take a stand just to prove his authority, as he did early in the war in trying to destroy the invaluable Sanitary Commission. It was accentuated also by his intolerant, vindictive nursing of prejudices and grudges. He almost never admitted himself wrong, tried to see a situation from an antagonist’s eye, or showed generosity to a foe either victorious or defeated.”8
Stanton had a deserved reputation for irascibility but he also had a softer side, as revealed by an incident reported by Homer Bates, who worked in the War Department’s telegraph office: “One evening, in the summer of 1864, I rode out to the Soldiers Home with important despatches for the President and Secretary of War, who were temporarily domiciled with their families on the grounds of the Home. I found Stanton reclining on the grass, playing with Lewis, one of his children ..He invited me to a seat on the greensward while he read the telegrams; and then, business being finished, we began talking of early times in Steubenville, Ohio, his native town and mine. One of us mentioned the game of ‘mumble-the-peg,’ and he asked me if I could play it. Of course I said yes, and he proposed that we should have a game then and there. Stanton entered into the spirit of the boyish sport with great zest , and for the moment all the perplexing questions of the terrible war were forgotten. I do not remember who won.'”9
Because of his fragile health, Stanton tried to resign shortly after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox in April 1865, but his resignation was rejected by President Lincoln. “‘Stanton,’ reported his biographer Fletcher Pratt, ‘you cannot go. Reconstruction is more difficult and dangerous than construction or destruction. You have been our main reliance; you must help us through the final act. The bag is filled. It must be tied and tied securely. Some knots slip; yours do not. You understand the situation better than anybody else, and it is my wish and the country’s that you remain.'”10
Like Ward Hill Lamon, he had a continuing concern for the President’s safety and the inadequacy of his security arrangements. He tried to keep President Lincoln from going to the theater on April 14, 1865 by ordering one of his subordinates, Major Thomas Eckert, not to accompany the Lincolns. After Mr. Lincoln died, Stanton announced: “Now he belongs to the ages.” Stanton organized the response to Lincoln’s assassination, the pursuit of assassin John Wilkes Booth, and the prosecution of the assassination conspiracists.
Shortly after President Lincoln’s assassination, John Hay told Stanton: “Not everyone knows, as I do, how close you stood to our lost leader, how he loved you and trusted you, and how vain were all the efforts to shake that trust and confidence, not lightly given and never withdrawn.”11
Stanton was the lead attorney on McCormick Reaper patent case on which Lincoln also served as counsel. Later, Stanton fought over Reconstruction with President Andrew Johnson, who tried to remove him. Stanton was named to the Supreme Court by President Grant shortly before Stanton’s death. Born poor, determined and imperious, devious but devoted, self-centered and self-confident, quick to judge and condemn, irritable and irascible, Stanton was driven by ambition as well as bile.
1-4 ISLAM -VS- CHRISTIANITY – The Concept of God DEBATE
Last night I was on one side of the house and I heard an argument between my son Wilson and my wife. The argument was over if Osama Bin Laden was going to hell or not. My son said we would not know for sure until we were in Heaven ourselves and did not see him there. He said that Osama could have put his faith in Christ just moments before he died.
My wife said that Osama’s religious faith in Islam could be easily seen by his works and there was little or no chance that he had put his faith in Christ. I could see where both aspects of this issue could be valid talking points, and told them that according to our Christian views they both were making potentially correct statements. (Below you can see that we hold to the traditional Christian views that faith alone in Christ is the road to heaven.) However, I was a little suprised to see this below in the news today.
Part 2 of John Ankerberg Show on Islam and Christianity
Former Arkansas governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Americans and “decent people” have reason to cheer the death Osama bin Laden and told the Al-Qaida leader “Welcome to hell.”
According to Huckabee, “It is unusual to celebrate a death, but today Americans and decent people the world over cheer the news that madman, murderer and terrorist Osama Bin Laden is dead.”
Continuing, Huckabee said, “It has taken a long time for this monster to be brought to justice. Welcome to hell, bin Laden. Let us all hope that his demise will serve notice to Islamic radicals the world over that the United States will be relentless is tracking down and terminating those who would inflict terror, mayhem and death on any of our citizens.”
Picture of Mike Huckabee
Part 3 of John Ankerberg Show on Islam and Christianity
Just as there are physical laws that govern
the physical universe, so are there spiritual laws
that govern your relationship with God.
God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.
God’s Love
“God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NIV).
God’s Plan [Christ speaking] “I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly”
[that it might be full and meaningful] (John 10:10).
Why is it that most people are not experiencing that abundant life?
Because…
Man is sinful and separated from God.
Therefore, he cannot know and experience
God’s love and plan for his life.
Man is Sinful “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his own stubborn
self-will, he chose to go his own independent way and fellowship with God was broken.
This self-will, characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference,
is an evidence of what the Bible calls sin.
Man Is Separated “The wages of sin is death” [spiritual separation from God] (Romans 6:23).
This diagram illustrates that God is holy and man is sinful. A great gulf separates the two. The arrows illustrate that man is continually trying to reach God and the abundant life through his own efforts, such as a good life, philosophy, or religion
-but he inevitably fails.The third law explains the only way to bridge this gulf…
Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin.
Through Him you can know and experience
God’s love and plan for your life.
He Died In Our Place
“God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
He Rose from the Dead
“Christ died for our sins… He was buried… He was raised on the third day,
according to the Scriptures… He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve.
After that He appeared to more than five hundred…” (1 Corinthians 15:3-6).
He Is the Only Way to God
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to
the Father but through Me'” (John 14:6).
This diagram illustrates that God has bridged the gulf that separates us from Him by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross in our place to pay the penalty for our sins.It is not enough just to know these three laws…
We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord;
then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.
We Must Receive Christ “As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children
of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12).
We Receive Christ Through Faith “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God; not as result of works that no one should boast” (Ephesians 2:8,9).
When We Receive Christ, We Experience a New Birth (Read John 3:1-8.)
We Receive Christ Through Personal Invitation [Christ speaking] “Behold, I stand at the door and knock;
if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him” (Revelation 3:20).
Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self (repentance) and trusting
Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us what He wants us to be.
Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross
for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience.
We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of the will.
These two circles represent two kinds of lives:
Self-Directed Life S-Self is on the throne -Christ is outside the life -Interests are directed by self, often
resulting in discord and frustration
Christ-Directed Life -Christ is in the life and on the throne S-Self is yielding to Christ,
resulting in harmony with God’s plan -Interests are directed by Christ,
resulting in harmony with God’s plan
Which circle best represents your life?
Which circle would you like to have represent your life?
The following explains how you can receive Christ:
You Can Receive Christ Right Now by Faith Through Prayer
(Prayer is talking with God)
God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude
of your heart. The following is a suggested prayer:
Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life.
Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.
Does this prayer express the desire of your heart? If it does, I invite you to pray this
prayer right now, and Christ will come into your life, as He promised.
On this web site:
Copyrighted 2007 by Bright Media Foundation and Campus Crusade for Christ.
All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Permission for use from the publisher,
Campus Crusade for Christ, 375 Highway 74 South, Suite A, Peachtree City, GA 30269
Part 4 of John Ankerberg Show on Islam and Christianity
George H.W.Bush’s Gulf War was very successful, nevertheless, it could not lead him to a re-election.
Bill Clinton’s success in 1992 election attempt was brought on in part to the public’s forgetfulness.
The chances of President Obama’s re-election have to improved since the events of yesterday. Last night people were singing in the streets. In fact, I just watched a video clip on the Tolbert Report website showing people shouting “USA,USA” outside the Whitehouse. However, it is my view that 18 months is too long for people to remember. First lets take a look at the typical reaction of the press today which is almost crown him already the winner in 2012. This is especially true of bloggers today. Mike Dorning does a good job of giving a good overview of the latest events.
The long-awaited retribution against al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for the Sept. 11 attacks likely will strengthen President Barack Obama’s hand in pursuing both his foreign policy and domestic goals.
Six days after the terrorist attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush declared bin Laden was “Wanted: Dead or Alive,” Nearly 10 years later, after the bearded terrorist eluded capture when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and continued to taunt the nation with videotaped statements, Obama last night announced: “Justice has been done.”
Rivals and allies alike offered congratulations to the administration for the U.S. raid that killed bin Laden yesterday in Pakistan.
Bush, Obama’s Republican predecessor, called the mission “a momentous success” and “a victory for America.”
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, one of the Republicans who may run against him next year, included Obama among those deserving credit, offering “congratulations to our intelligence community, our military and the president.”
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, another Republican weighing a presidential bid, also congratulated Obama and the military for ’’a job well done.’’
The timing of bin Laden’s death strengthens Obama’s standing as he begins negotiations with congressional Republicans on a long-term deficit reduction package and on legislation to raise the national debt ceiling. He is scheduled to have a dinner with bipartisan congressional leaders at the White House tonight and Vice President Joe Biden opens budget negotiations on May 5.
Counterweight to Criticism
For Obama — who last week released his birth certificate to quiet critics who questioned his eligibility to be president and who, as a candidate, fended off false rumors that he was a Muslim — his role in ordering the operation and announcing its successful completion now provides a counterweight to criticism of his foreign policy, particularly his use of U.S. power.
Rick Nelson, director of the homeland security and counterterrorism program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the death of bin Laden won’t immediately change the tactical battle against terrorism because, at the time of his death, the al-Qaeda leader wasn’t delivering operational orders to the group’s affiliates.
“Its ultimate significance will be on a strategic-symbolic level,” Nelson said. “It’s incumbent on the Obama administration to seize on this moment, especially amid the popular uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.”
Something to Celebrate
The killing of the man who had come to embody the global terrorist threat now provides a victory to celebrate for a public soured by a slow economic recovery, high gasoline prices and dissatisfaction with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a CBS/New York Times poll completed April 20, 70 percent of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, the worst reading in more than two years. Perceptions about the country’s direction historically have been among the factors predicting an incumbent president’s re-election prospects.
As news of bin Laden’s death spread, crowds gathered outside the White House and at the “Ground Zero” site of the attack on the World Trade Center in Manhattan to cheer, shout “USA” and wave American flags. Shortly before Obama addressed the nation, the crowd outside the White House began singing “The Star Spangled Banner,” the national anthem.
Matthew Murray, 24, of Arlington, Virginia, stood in front of the White House waving an American flag. Dressed in shorts, sneakers and a t-shirt, Murray said he ran five miles from his home to join the crowd.
‘Spontaneous Outpouring’
“It’s a struggle we’ve spent years working on, and it’s finally over,” Murray said. “I’ve never seen a spontaneous outpouring of joy like this.”
The mood extended to markets. U.S. stock-index futures and Asian shares jumped and crude oil dropped as Obama made the announcement.
Standard & Poor’s 500 Index futures expiring in June climbed 0.6 percent to 1,367.6 at 6:11 a.m. in New York. The benchmark measure of U.S. shares closed last week at the highest level since June 2008. Oil for June delivery was down $2.25 at $111.38 a barrel after declining as much as $3.11 to $110.82 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Obama used his television address to shift the ground to themes of national unity and optimism that were pillars of his 2008 election campaign. He asked the country to “think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11.”
He also said that, while the task of securing the nation against terrorism isn’t finished, “we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to.”
George H.W. Bush prepares to give his Jan. 16, 1991, Oval Office speech announcing the beginning of military action in Iraq (left); and Bill Clinton on the campaign trail in 1992.
The Gulf War that began 20 years ago this past week ended with America’s political class in nearly universal agreement on one point: The Democrats were screwed in 1992.
In the months before the war, as he’d dispatched hundreds of thousands of troops to the Persian Gulf in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, there had been widespread fear among Americans that President George H.W. Bush was leading them into another Vietnam. But as wars go, Operation Desert Storm proved surprisingly tidy: The verdict was quick and decisive and American casualties were low. It was everything Vietnam hadn’t been, and when Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28, a months-long national celebration ensued, complete with parades, prime-time television specials — and, of course, soaring popularity for the commander in chief, whose leadership was hailed by even his harshest critics.
It was in this climate that Bush, his approval ratings edging over 90 percent in some polls, was branded a shoo-in for reelection in ’92. Sure, he’d gone back on his “no new taxes” pledge the year before, and yes, the economy was clearly in recession, but none of this mattered anymore: Even Harry Truman after the Japanese surrender hadn’t enjoyed Bush’s standing with his fellow countrymen, and it was simply inconceivable that they might turn around and give him the boot 20 months later — especially when almost every Democrat being mentioned as a potential candidate had been against the war. One poll matched Bush against the man widely considered the Democrats’ best bet for ’92, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, in a trial heat: Bush came out on top … by 62 points.
“Large problems and small bedevil the Democrats,” the Washington Post’s Mary McGrory wrote in mid-March. “They are fairly resigned to the idea that the 1992 presidential election was decided during Operation Desert Storm, and they realize they may not get the sand out of their shoes until Thanksgiving, if then.”
There was one Democrat, though, who was interested in running for president for whom all of this was good news — very good news. Forty-five-year-old Bill Clinton had just been reelected the previous fall to his fifth term as Arkansas’ governor. But his barely concealed national ambitions — he’d walked to the starting line for the 1988 presidential race before backing out and citing family concerns — had been a liability in that campaign, and Clinton had responded by promising Arkansans not to seek the White House if they returned him to the statehouse. By the final days of the race, when it was clear he’d survive, Clinton was already looking for a way to wiggle out of that commitment, but it would be a process. He needed time.
The Gulf War gave him plenty of it. In the previous presidential campaign cycle, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephardt, Joe Biden and Bruce Babbitt had all been essentially running full-fledged presidential campaigns by the spring of 1987. But in the spring of 1991, about the only thing to be heard on the Democratic side was crickets. The party’s brightest stars all made it clear that they either weren’t running in ’92, or were in no hurry to decide. They were all intimidated by Bush’s imposing poll numbers, and many of them also wondered if their opposition to what had turned into an immensely popular war would render them unelectable…
Thus, there was room for Clinton to ease his way into the national conversation — to slowly acclimate Arkansans to the idea that he’d go back on his pledge, the better to avoid an embarrassing home state backlash when he finally did jump in. The calculations that were keeping so many big-name Democrats away from the presidential race didn’t really apply to Clinton.
This enabled Clinton get the Democratic Nomination but one of the main reasons he beat President Bush was the Gulf War victory was too far in the past for people to remember.
Al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden is dead and the United States has his body, a person familiar with the developments says. (May 1)
George W. Bush has to be the happiest man in the world tonight. The mastermind of 9/11 was killed by the USA, and to me that tells the world that the USA will get our enemies eventually. I remember like yesterday the video clip of President Bush telling the people of New York that justice will be served.
George W. Bush visits police, firemen, and rescue workers at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.
The Associated Press reported today in the article,"Sources: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead" by Julie Pace:
Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, is dead, and the U.S. is in possession of his body, a person familiar with the situation said late Sunday.
President Barack Obama was expected to address the nation on the developments Sunday night.
Two senior counterterrorism officials confirmed that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan last week. One said bin Laden was killed in a ground operation, not by a Predator drone. Both said the operation was based on U.S. intelligence, and both said the U.S. is in possession of bin Laden's body.
Officials long believed bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world, was hiding a mountainous region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak ahead of the president.
The development comes just months before the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon, orchestrated by bin Laden's al-Qaida organization, that killed more than 3,000 people.
The attacks set off a chain of events that led the United States into wars in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and America's entire intelligence apparatus was overhauled to counter the threat of more terror attacks at home.
Al-Qaida organization was also blamed for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 people and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in Yemen, as well as countless other plots, some successful and some foiled.
_____________________________________________________________
My son Hunter has done a tour in Iraq and will be heading to Afghanistan for a second tour. My nephew Jeremy Parks is in Afghanistan right now finishing up his first tour. Probably neither one of them would have even joined the army if it had not been for 9/11.
A september 11 2001 tribute, and a watch of what happend that horrible morning near World Trade Center buildings, A terrible saw of what happend on the towers basements also. Never Forget 9/11/01
But that didn’t mean journalists were spared any ridicule Saturday night.
The evening’s celebrity host Seth Meyers, “Saturday Night Live” writer and star, mocked some of the industry’s best-known faces.
“Katie [Couric] was known best for asking those tough questions like, ‘name a newspaper,” Meyers said, referencing Couric’s 2008 interview with Sarah Palin. “Years of hard-hitting questions, and she’s going to be remembered for the one that could have doubled as a category on ‘The Family Feud.’ “
On Juan Williams, the NPR journalist fired after saying he gets nervous on a plane when he sees people dressed in “Muslim garb,” Meyers said, “so Juan is black and afraid of Muslims, making him the least likely man to get a cab in New York City.”
But some of Meyers most biting remarks were reserved for 2012 hopefuls and the president himself.
Meyers suggested Romney’s book “No Apologies” actually indicated Romney made many mistakes. “If I come home from a trip to Vegas and the first thing I say to my girlfriend is ‘no apologies,’ we’re gonna have a follow up conversation,” Meyers quipped.
Meyers made fun of Trump’s hair, likening it to a fox that would be happy to finish the leftovers at his table, said Pawlenty makes Al Gore look like drag queen RuPaul, and joked that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and son Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have something in common with Meyers and his own father: “we’re also not going to get elected president.”
Meyers also took a few digs at Obama.
“Who knows if they can beat you in 2012?” Meyers said of the potential GOP field. “But I’ll tell you who can definitely beat you, Mr. President–2008 Barack Obama,” he said, standing feet from the commander-in-chief as the audience roared with laughter. “You would have loved him–so charismatic, so charming. Was he a little too idealistic? Maybe. But you would have loved him.”
And Meyers also took note of the toll the presidency has apparently taken on the president’s appearance. Meyers said the First Lady looked even more beautiful at Saturday’s dinner than she did on Inauguration Day 2009. “But you, Mr. President have aged a little,” Meyers said. “What happened to you? When you were sworn in you looked like the guy from the Old Spice commercials. Now you look like Louis Gossett Sr.,” he said, referencing 74-year-old actor Louis Gossett Jr.
“Maybe you should start smoking again,” Meyers said. “If your hair gets any whiter, the tea party is going to endorse it.”
Jason Tolbert reported that Mike Huckabee is coming to Arkansas for a big fundraiser. If it goes well there be a great chance that Huckabee may throw his hat into the ring. Just think about the fact that Huckabee just might be in the same seat President Obama was in this year where he hosted the dinner. I wonder if he could take getting hit by all those jokes or not.
Donald Trump took the jokes leveled at him in stride. I personally think Donald Trump himself is a joke. I think most conservative republicans think the same. Take a look at what Tolbert wrote on the subject.
Over the last decade, we have become a society obsessed with reality shows. That culture seems to be bleeding over to presidential politics.
How so?
Well, three of the top contenders — at least to some degree — are already reality show stars. Donald Trump of NBC’s “The Apprentice,” Mike Huckabee of Fox News’ “Huckabee,” and Sarah Palin of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” all are mentioned in the same breath as Republican Primary 2012.
In fairness, unlike the winners of Big Brother or Survivor, these three were well-known pre-primetime TV.
Donald Trump’s fame was mostly based on being filthy rich. A real estate developer and owner of hotels and casinos across the country, Trump’s net wealth is somewhere in the millions, although no one really knows for sure. He has practiced a tradition of putting his name “Trump” on virtually everything he owns, increasing the public perception of him as a mega-rich guy.
After weeks of keeping his thoughts about Donald Trump largely to himself, President Obama on Saturday night ridiculed the real estate magnate in front of a live televised audience at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, D.C.
As Trump and wife Melania sat among the guests gathered at the Washington Hilton, Obama poked fun at Trump’s reality show, said Trump lacked the “credentials” to be president, and mocked the businessman’s recent crusade to get Obama to release his long-form birth certificate.
“I know that he’s taken some flack lately,” Obama said of Trump. “But no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.”
But then the president quickly changed gears. “And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like–did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” Obama said, referencing rap icons Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur.
You can watch Obama’s 19-minute speech in its entirety below:
But Obama didn’t stop at making light of the mutual infatuation of Trump and the birther movement.
The president next mocked Trump’s background, saying, “All kidding aside. Obviously we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience,” a dig at Trump’s political background that evoked laughter from the audience of journalists, politicians and celebrities.
Obama then chose to reference a recent episode of “Celebrity Apprentice” that featured Trump, the star of the program, firing actor Gary Busey instead of singer Meatloaf and rapper Lil Jon in an Omaha Steak challenge. “And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night,” Obama said as the audience roared with laughter and applause. “Well handled, sir. Well handled.”
It’s typical for the speeches at the annual dinner to play out as a roast, poking fun at the self-importance of the national political scene. But Obama’s lampooning of Trump and the birther crusade held special significance, since the Correspondents Dinner festivities marked the first time the president and Trump were in the same room since Trump began his highly publicized campaign to get Obama to release his birth certificate.
The president made fun of the controversy, saying that he was prepared to “go a step further.”
“Tonight, for the first time, I am releasing my official birth video,” he told the audience. But then he played a clip of lion Simba’s birth in Disney’s cartoon movie The Lion King.
“I want to make clear to the Fox News table–that was a joke,” the president said of the Disney clip.
Obama also made some jokes at his own expense, noting how his “honeymoon” as president was over and referencing the perception that he’s too professorial and arrogant. At the star-studded gala, he also paused to note that he’s even losing support from Hollywood—a mainstay of fundraising for the president’s 2008 campaign. (Though he dinged actor Matt Damon for the celebrity’s recent criticism, saying “Matt, I just saw ‘The Adjustment Bureau,’ so right back at you, buddy.”)
Obama also joked about starting conspiracy theories about his potential 2012 opponents: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was born in Canada; Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has the middle name “Hosni”; Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman is Chinese; and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney passed universal health care. (The last allegation, of course, falls into the “funny because it’s true” category, since Romney had presided over the passage of a state-level version of the same individual-mandate plan that Obama signed into law in 2010.)
The light-hearted evening was interspersed with more serious matters. The Correspondents Association issued awards students and journalists for their achievements, while also honoring journalists abroad who have lost their lives or faced grave physical hazards in the course of their work.
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. Take a look at this clip.
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 suggested to him that he seek to marry a virgin.
Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple?s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past Photo: PA.
The Archbishop of York backed Prince William and Kate Middleton’s decision to live together before marriage, saying that many modern couples want to “test the milk before they buy the cow”.
Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple’s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past.
But Anglican traditionalists criticised the Archbishop, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, for failing to reinforce Christian teaching which prohibits sex outside marriage.
The row came as Prince William and Kate Middleton unveiled their choices for the royal wedding service, which include classically British music and hymns, and an updated choice of marriage vows in which the bride omits the word “obey”.
In a television interview, Dr Sentamu was asked whether it was appropriate for the Prince, who is in line to become head of the Church of England as King, to have been living with his bride before marriage.
He said he had conducted wedding services for “many cohabiting couples” during his time as a vicar in south London.
“We are living at a time where some people, as my daughter used to say, they want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow,” he said. “For some people that’s where their journeys are.
“But what is important, actually, is not to simply look at the past because they are going to be standing in the Abbey taking these wonderful vows: ‘for better for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health; till death us do part.’”
However, the Rev David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, a conservative evangelical group, said the Archbishop had “missed an opportunity to set out Christian teaching”
“What he said wasn’t appropriate as he,” Mr Phillips said. “He gave the impression it doesn’t matter whether people live together before marriage. I thought he would have tried to get across Christian teaching on marriage that says it is not appropriate to have sex outside marriage.”
In another sign of their modern approach, the Prince and Miss Middleton published their order of service online for millions of people to join in at home.
The 28-page booklet confirms that Kate Middleton will follow the example of Diana, Princess of Wales by omitting the word “obey” from her vows.
Instead she will “love, comfort, honour and keep” him, mirroring the vows the Prince himself will make.
In the article below you will notice this sentence:
“People who cohabit are much more likely to come from broken homes. Among young adults, those who experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood are more likely to form cohabiting unions than children who grew up in families with married parents who got along.”
Prince William’s parents divorced when he was young. Could this observation above apply to him?
“Why has unmarried cohabitation become such a widespread practice throughout the modern world in such a short period of time? Demographic factors are surely involved. Puberty begins at an earlier age, as does the onset of sexual activity, and marriages take place at older ages mainly because of the longer time period spent getting educated and establishing careers. Thus there is an extended period of sexually active singlehood before first marriage. Also, our material affluence as well as welfare benefits enable many young people to live on their own for an extended time, apart from their parents. During those years of young adulthood nonmarital cohabitation can be a cost-saver, a source of companionship, and an assurance of relatively safe sexual fulfillment. For some, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage, for some, an alternative to it, and for yet others, simply an alternative to living alone.”36
“More broadly, the rise of cohabitation in the advanced nations has been attributed to the sexual revolution, which has virtually revoked the stigma against cohabitation.37 In the past thirty years, with the advent of effective contraceptive technologies and widespread sexual permissiveness promoted by advertising and the organized entertainment industry, premarital sex has become widely accepted. In large segments of the population cohabitation no longer is associated with sin or social impropriety or pathology, nor are cohabiting couples subject to much, if any, disapproval.”
“Another important reason for cohabitation’s growth is that the institution of marriage has changed dramatically, leading to an erosion of confidence in its stability. From a tradition strongly buttressed by economics, religion, and the law, marriage has become a more personalized relationship, what one wag has referred to as a mere “notarized date.” People used to marry not just for love but also for family and economic considerations, and if love died during the course of a marriage, this was not considered sufficient reason to break up an established union. A divorce was legally difficult if not impossible to get, and people who divorced faced enormous social stigma.”
“ In today’s marriages love is all, and it is a love tied to self-fulfillment. Divorce is available to everyone, with little stigma attached. If either love or a sense of self-fulfillment disappear, the marriage is considered to be over and divorce is the logical outcome.”
“Fully aware of this new fragility of marriage, people are taking cautionary actions. The attitude is either try it out first and make sure that it will work, or try to minimize the damage of breakup by settling for a weaker form of union, one that avoids a marriage license and, if need be, an eventual divorce.”
“The growth of cohabitation is also associated with the rise of feminism. Traditional marriage, both in law and in practice, typically involved male leadership. For some women, cohabitation seemingly avoids the legacy of patriarchy and at the same time provides more personal autonomy and equality in the relationship. Moreover, women’s shift into the labor force and their growing economic independence make marriage less necessary and, for some, less desirable.”
“Underlying all of these trends is the broad cultural shift from a more religious society where marriage was considered the bedrock of civilization and people were imbued with a strong sense of social conformity and tradition, to a more secular society focused on individual autonomy and self invention. This cultural rejection of traditional institutional and moral authority, evident in all of the advanced, Western societies, often has had ‘freedom of choice’ as its theme and the acceptance of ‘alternative lifestyles’ as its message.”
“In general, cohabitation is a phenomenon that began among the young in the lower classes and then moved up to the middle classes.38 Cohabitation in America-especially cohabitation as an alternative to marriage-is more common among Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and disadvantaged white women. One reason for this is that male income and employment are lower among minorities and the lower classes, and male economic status remains an important determinant as to whether or not a man feels ready to marry, and a woman wants to marry him.40 Cohabitation is also more common among those who are less religious than their peers. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the act of cohabitation actually diminishes religious participation, whereas marriage tends to increase it.”41
“People who cohabit are much more likely to come from broken homes. Among young adults, those who experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood are more likely to form cohabiting unions than children who grew up in families with married parents who got along. They are also more likely to enter living-together relationships at younger ages.42 For young people who have already suffered the losses associated with parental divorce, cohabitation may provide an early escape from family turmoil, although unfortunately it increases the likelihood of new losses and turmoil. For these people, cohabitation often recapitulates the childhood experience of coming together and splitting apart with the additional possibility of more violent conflict. Finally, cohabitation is a much more likely experience for those who themselves have been divorced.”
36. R. Rindfuss and A. VanDenHeuvel. 1990. “Cohabitation: A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?” Population and Development Review 16:703-726; Wendy D. Manning. 1993. “Marriage and Cohabitation Following Premarital Conception.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:839-850.
37. Larry L. Bumpass. 1990. “What’s Happening to the Family?” Demography 27-4:483-498.
38. Arland Thornton, William G. Axinn and Jay D. Treachman. 1995. “The Influence of School Enrollment and Accumulation on Cohabitation and Marriage in Early Adulthood.” American Sociological Review 60-5:762-774; Larry L. Bumpass, James A. Sweet, and Andrew Cherlin.1991. “The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:913-927.
39. Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J. Smock. 1995. “Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors.” Demography 32-4:509-520; Wendy D. Manning and Nancy S. Landale, 1996. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in Premarital Childbearing.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:63-77; Laura Spencer Loomis and Nancy S. Landale. 1994. “Nonmarital Cohabitation and Childbearing Among Black and White American Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:949-962; Robert Schoen and Dawn Owens. 1992. “A Further Look at First Unions and First Marriages.” in S. J. South and Stewart E. Tolnay, eds., The Changing American Family. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, p. 109-117.
40. Daniel T. Lichter, Diane K. McLaughlin, George Kephart, and David J. Landry. 1992. “Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?” American Sociological Review 57-6:781-789; Pamela J. Smock and Wendy D. Manning. 1997. “Cohabiting Partners’ Economic Circumstances and Marriage.” Demography 34-3:331-341; Valerie K. Oppenheimer, Matthijs Kalmijn and Nelson Lim. 1997. “Men’s Career Development and Marriage Timing During a Period of Rising Inequality.” Demography 34-3:311-330.
41. Arland Thornton, W. G. Axinn and D. H. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation and Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology 98-3:628-651.
42. Arland Thornton. 1991.”Influence of the Marital History of Parents on the Marital and Cohabitational Experiences of Children.” American Journal of Sociology 96-4:868-894; Kathleen E. Kiernan. 1992. “The Impact of Family Disruption in Childhood on Transitions Made in Young Adult Life.” Population Studies 46:213-234; Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. 1995. “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood.” Demography, 32-3:299-318.
“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
January, 1999
Exchanging Rings
In this image taken from video, Britain’s Prince William, left, places the ring on the finger of his bride, Kate Middleton, as they stand at the altar at Westminster Abbey. (AP Photo/APTN)
Prince William and Kate Middleton wed on April 29, 2011, in an hour-long ceremony at Westminster Abbey. We offer excerpts.
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
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 9am CST on May 1, 2011.
After Republicans swept into office in 1994, Bill Clinton famously said in his State of the Union address that the era of big government was over. Nearly $10 trillion of federal debt later, the era of big government is at its zenith…
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.
“The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each and to cause justice to reign over us all.”
–Frederic Bastiat
The court systems in the U.S. provide an important and necessary function of providing checks and balances, as well as providing a means of enforcing justice. Providing funding levels that are sufficient for the Judicial Branch to carry
out their important task is essential. However, since 2001 funding has increased nearly 30 percent faster than the rate of inflation. The integrity of our justice system becomes vulnerable if the integrity and strength of our government becomes weakened, a situation that is currently developing with the unsustainable amount of spending, deficit, and debt.
Strengthening our fiscal situation and promoting smaller government will require the need for every agency at every level of government to make sacrifices, but ultimately, a more accountable and fiscally responsible government will increase our liberty and the rule of law. This proposal suggests taking the Judicial Branch back to FY2008 spending levels.
Thomas P. “Boston” Corbett (1832 – presumed dead 1894) was the Union Army soldier who shot and killed Abraham Lincoln‘s assassin, John Wilkes Booth. He disappeared after 1888, but circumstantial evidence suggests that he died in the Great Hinckley Fire in 1894, although this remains impossible to substantiate.
Corbett was born in London, England. His family emigrated to New York City. He became a hatter in Troy, New York. It has been suggested that the fumes of mercury used in the hatter’s trade caused Corbett’s later mental problems.[1]
Corbett married, but his wife died in childbirth. Following her death, he moved to Boston, and continued working as a hatter. He joined the Methodist Episcopal Church and changed his name to Boston, the name of the city where he was converted.[2] In an attempt to imitate Jesus, he began to wear his hair very long.[3] On July 16, 1858, in order to avoid the temptation of prostitutes, Corbett castrated himself with a pair of scissors. He then ate a meal and went to a prayer meeting, before going for medical treatment.[4]
In April 1861, early in the American Civil War, Corbett enlisted as a private in Company I of the 12 Regiment New York Militia. He was discharged in August, at the end of the regiment’s 3 month enlistment. Corbett re-enlisted in September 1863 as a private in Company L, 16th New York Cavalry Regiment. Captured byConfederate Colonel John S. Mosby‘s men at Culpeper, Virginia on June 24, 1864, Corbett was held prisoner at Andersonville prison for five months, when he was exchanged.[2] On his return to his company, he was promoted to sergeant. Corbett would later testify for the prosecution in the trial of the commandant of Andersonville, Captain Henry Wirz.[5][6]
Corbett was a member of the 16th New York Cavalry Regiment sent, on April 24, 1865, to apprehend John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln, who was still at large. Two days later the regiment surrounded Booth and his accomplice, David Herold, in a tobacco barn on the Virginia farm of Richard Garrett. The barn was set on fire in an attempt to force them out into the open. Herold surrendered, but Booth remained inside. Corbett was positioned near a large crack in the barn wall. He saw Booth moving about inside and shot him with his Colt revolver despiteSecretary of WarEdwin M. Stanton‘s orders that Booth should be taken alive. Booth was struck in the neck, the bullet severing his spinal cord, and he died a little more than three hours later.
Boston Corbett
Corbett was immediately arrested for violation of his orders, but Stanton later had the charges dropped. Stanton remarked, “The rebel is dead. The patriot lives.” Corbett received his share of the reward money, amounting to $1,653.84.[7]
In his official statement, Corbett claimed he shot Booth because he thought Lincoln’s assassin was preparing to use his weapons. This was contradicted by the other witnesses. When asked later why he did it, Corbett answered that “Providence directed me”.[8]
After his discharge from the army in August 1865, Corbett went back to work as a hatter, first in Boston, later in Connecticut, and by 1870 in New Jersey. His life was marked by increasingly erratic behavior. In 1875, he threatened several men with a pistol at a soldier’s reunion in Caldwell, Ohio. In 1878, he moved to Concordia, Kansas.
In 1887, because of his fame as Booth’s killer, Corbett was appointed assistant doorkeeper of the Kansas House of Representatives in Topeka. One day he overheard a conversation in which the legislature’s opening prayer was mocked. He jumped to his feet and brandished a revolver. No one was hurt, but Corbett was arrested and sent to the Topeka Asylum for the Insane. On May 26, 1888, he escaped from the asylum. He went to Neodesha, Kansas, and stayed briefly with Richard Thatcher, whom he had met when they were both prisoners of war. When he left, he told Thatcher he was going to Mexico.[9] His “madness” may have been the result of exposure to mercury, an element commonly used in hat manufacturing. It is so well known for this side effect that it has given rise to the expression “mad as a hatter“.
Rather than going to Mexico, Corbett is believed to have settled in a cabin he built in the forests near Hinckley, Minnesota. He is thought to have died in the Great Hinckley Fire of September 1, 1894. Although there is no proof, the name “Thomas Corbett” does appear on the list of dead and missing.[10][11]
In 1958, Boy Scout Troop 31 of Concordia, Kansas built a roadside monument to Boston Corbett. It is on Key Road in Concordia. A small sign also was placed to mark the dug hole where Corbett for a time had lived.[12]
-Christ is outside the life
-Interests are directed by self, often
.jpg)
The Daily Hatch 