Monthly Archives: June 2011

Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part 29)

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

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

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

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

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

I got a lot out of the story below. Today is the first part of the story:

He Led a Double Lifeby Mary May Larmoyeux
Scott Jennings never dreamed he would cross the line. But somehow it happened.He was unhappy at home. He loved Sherry, but … well, she was the boss at her work, and she acted like the boss at home. When things needed to be done, she would tell Scott what to do. And he got tired of it.He wasn’t one to talk about his emotions. So he turned inward. He would escape to the fire station—where he was a volunteer fire fighter—and start drinking.Things got worse after the Jennings’ son, Steven, was born in 1995. Sherry wanted to be supermom and Scott was happy to let her do it. Soon he avoided being around Sherry and Steven altogether. If Sherry went to bed early with Steven, Scott stayed up late and watched TV.He often pretended that a call had come in from the volunteer fire department, but when he left the house he would head to a local bar instead. That’s where he became friends with people who seemed to really understand him.Scott also turned to a woman at work for a listening ear. Eventually they went to a motel together. He never thought he would be the type of person to cheat on his wife. But he did.

He had stepped into a world of repeated lies, affairs, and deceit. Scott Jennings was living a double life.

An unfamiliar phone number

In 2002 Sherry grew tired of waiting up at nights for Scott. She was weary of the crying, the arguing, the making up, and then repeating the cycle again. She knew there was more to life than this. She started attending a local church and, at times, Scott reluctantly joined her.

Over the course of several months Sherry came to know Jesus as her Lord and Savior. She begged Him to heal her marriage.

For years Sherry had believed her husband’s lies about working late and answering alarms for the fire department. But in 2004 she could no longer avoid the truth. She knew something was terribly wrong in her marriage.

She found an unfamiliar phone number on her husband’s cell phone and drove to the local address that matched it. Sure enough, Scott’s truck was parked outside an apartment complex. With the remote to his truck in her hand, she set the horn off, which brought him outside to silence it.

And that’s when Scott’s double life fell apart.

When he saw Sherry, he claimed he was just visiting a friend before he came home. Sherry didn’t believe it. She knew that Scott was trying to cover up the fact that she had caught him with another woman. She told him that it was time to go, that she was his wife and they needed to talk.

Scott followed Sherry to their house. They talked in the backyard for about an hour. He told her that he was depressed. He had it all—a loving wife, child, and house—and yet he didn’t want it. He seemed confused and told Sherry that he felt trapped by her and their son, Steven. He said that he wanted his freedom.

Sherry decided to give her husband space. She hoped and prayed that things would somehow work out in their marriage. Scott, on the other hand, went on several trips with his girlfriend and spent large amounts of time drunk or under the influence of prescription drugs.

End of a marriage

One night, when Scott was leaving his girlfriend’s apartment, he discovered that his truck was gone. “I hoped that it had been towed or stolen,” Scott says, “but in my gut I knew that I had been caught again.”

His girlfriend drove him home, where he found the truck. As soon as he walked into the house, he says, “I started in on Sherry and was very verbally abusive and angry.” She told him he could no longer live in the house since he was not living as part of the family.

Scott was stunned by his wife’s words. He packed a bag and left in anger, tearing up part of the yard as he drove away from the house.

Sherry reluctantly filed for divorce and eventually followed through with it. The final divorce proceeding was on September 21, 2005—their fourteenth wedding anniversary.

Scott and Sherry drove to the courthouse together, and he played a CD with teachings about marriage. He hoped this might lead Sherry to change her mind, but it did not. “I angrily went through the proceedings and spent the rest of the day drunk and stoned,” Scott says. “I think I was in a state of shock.”

After the divorce

Two days later, when Scott called to say goodnight to his son, he also talked to Sherry. His girlfriend complained that he spent too much time on the phone with his ex-wife. Even he was surprised by his response. “The fact was that I still did love Sherry.”

Scott’s girlfriend was livid. She punched him in the eye and told him to leave. He gathered all of his belongings, meekly called Sherry, and asked if he could store them in the garage. When he arrived at the house after midnight with his meager belongings, he wanted to see Steven. Sherry refused, and Scott became belligerent. He threatened Sherry with a lawsuit and left.

With just a few items of clothing and a six-pack of beer, he checked into a cheap motel. As soon as he got into his room, he called Sherry and berated her. He didn’t know what to do or where to go. “Everything that I had held dear was gone,” he says.

“When he called me for the second or third time,” Sherry says, “I tried to honor him and not yell at him.” Finally, she contacted Scott’s sister, Nancy, a pastor’s wife, thinking she might be able to talk some sense into her brother.

Nancy convinced Scott to open the Gideon Bible in the room’s nightstand drawer. As she read from the book of Isaiah, he followed along. Tears filled his eyes when he recited Isaiah 55:7: “Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, for He will freely pardon.”

A changed man

Wanting to get away from reminders of his failures, Scott decided to drive to his mother’s condo in North Carolina. He knew she was visiting family, and he could be alone for a while. He called his boss and said he was quitting his job and moving out of state. His boss was empathetic and wished him well. “I didn’t see how things could possibly work out,” Scott says.

On the road, he hit the radio’s scan button and heard a preacher ask if anyone was listening who didn’t know which way to turn next. “It sounded like he was speaking directly to me.”

The preacher asked the listeners, “Do you want to climb out of the pit of darkness towards the light?” He explained how to repent and give Jesus Christ control, and Scott felt a deep sense of remorse for his wrongdoing. He repeated a simple “sinner’s prayer” to indicate his decision to receive Christ as his Savior and Lord. “I said the prayer and I literally felt different right afterward,” he says. “I felt like I had been carrying so much anger.”

Scott realized that his struggles with drugs and alcohol could be traced to his anger at God for allowing his father to die—just three years after he and Sherry got married. “Somewhere along the line I made the decision that I wasn’t going to talk about it [his father’s death] anymore.”

At the same time, as a volunteer fireman he had learned how to keep things to himself. He wouldn’t talk to anyone about the horrendous things that he often witnessed. “There was one particularly horrible wreck, and for a long time I would look at people’s faces and see one of the victims.”

He drank to avoid the pain. And when his alcohol use became obvious to co-workers, he started to abuse prescription drugs.

The sights, the smells, and the sounds of death haunted Scott until the day his life changed on his way to North Carolina. God doesn’t do this for everyone, Scott says, “but I physically let it [the anger and pain] go. All of those things were gone.”

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

image
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver and family – “The Longest Yard” Los Angeles premiere, May 19, 2005

Weekend To Remember Conference Testimony

Here’s a couple who went to a FamilyLife

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 51)

photo

Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s veil

Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s bridal veil at the altar of Westminster Abbey, 29 April 2011

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

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Researcher Scott Stanley’s case is this: Women living unmarried with guys and expecting a lasting, committed marriage down the line had better review their options. His research finds that men who cohabit with the women they eventually marry are less committed to the union than men who never lived with their spouses ahead of time. Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, says the evidence from his research is so strong that cohabiting women “should be very careful about how aligned they are with a particular man if he does not show any strong sense of marriage and a future together.” Men who either drift into marriage “through inertia” following a cohabiting arrangement or who are “dragged down the aisle” by women who finally put their feet down aren’t good marriage risks, he says. (Cohabiting Is Not The Same As Commitment – by Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY July 8, 2002)

Weekend to Remember “Getaway” Half Price Discount

Is Mark Pryor serious about wanting to cut federal spending? (Part 1)

 

About two months ago Mark Pryor asked for specific ideas concerning where to cut federal spending. I have provided several dozen to him. However, my question now is DOES MARK PRYOR REALLY WANT TO PUT FORTH THESE SPENDING IDEAS I HAVE PRESENTED TO HIM? Recently he was asked about the exploding federal deficit and Paul Greenberg wrote about his response.

Paul Greenberg takes on Mark Pryor in June 7, 2011 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

What, political games?

Our senator is shocked—shocked!
   MARK PRYOR came home last week to tour a school in Little Rock. It is good for U.S. senators to get out of Washington now and then. Maybe as often as possible. The country can breathe easier when Congress isn’t in session. Besides, leaving the nation’s capital can be good for the digestion, congestion, comprehension and general well-being. Also, getting your picture taken with kids at a local school isn’t bad politics. And never let it be said that Mark Pryor isn’t good at politicking.
   He’s very good.
   While he was touring Mabelvale Elementary, shaking hands with the little ’uns, and praising tutors at the school, some smarty-pants media type asked him about the federal debt ceiling and whether Congress should raise it. Good question. At last bodacious count, the feds need more than $14 trillion to get the country out of debt. But it’s not as if government needs to reduce expenses in hard times—like the rest of us ordinary mortals. The federal government just keeps raising its debt ceiling again and again, no matter what picky outfits like Moody’s may say about its credit rating.
   So what does the senior senator from Arkansas say about all this? Yes, No, even a definite Maybe? None of the above. Instead, he deplores all this partisan bickering in Washington. Smart move. Deploring is always a lot easier than actually saying what he thinks should be done about the national debt. We told you Mark Pryor was good at politicking.
   AH, GOOD old Congressional Bickering. Denouncing it is the first resort of any pol who’d rather dodge a question than respond to it. Congressional Bickering could be defined as: the default response when the other party has some questions about how your party is running things. Senator Pryor uses it a lot.
   This time it seems some of those troublesome Republicans in Congress are whining again about all this debt the feds keep putting on the national credit card. And the interest keeps growing. Just the debt service on that $14 trillion in the red now stands at $214 billion a year, and is expected to rise to $931 billion in 10 years. Take $931 billion here and $931 billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. The kind of debt that weighs down the whole national economy—a danger that’s only an abstract talking point until investment slows, jobs aren’t created or saved, and our own suddenly becomes iffy. Not a pleasant situation.
   But if you listen to Mark Pryor, not that we’d necessarily recommend it, for his conversation tends to be less than edifying, the only thing to be done about the national debt isn’t anything specific. Just be nice. Wave a word like Consensus over the whole, multiplying problem and presto! All will be well. For example:
   “This is one of the problems we face as a nation,” the senator told reporters. “In Washington, people just can’t agree on a bipartisan basis. We need to build consensus in Washington. It’s good for the country and for its future to do that.”
   Yes, yes, there are too many narrowminded partisans in Washington playing political games. It’s not good for the country. A very reasonable point. Very responsible. Very statesman. Very Mark Pryor—a platitude a minute.
__________________________
Will Mark Pryor truly be willing to cut federal spending or he is just playing games?
   

Top 10 most Controversial World Cup Games (W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher, Part 1)

Today is a discussion of the 10th most controversial game in World Cup History.

Everette Hatcher: I believe the game between Slovenia and the USA is my choice for number 10.

Bradley revisits controversial call in World Cup

The day after a controversial call annulled an apparent goal and left the United States in a 2-2 draw with Slovenia, American Coach Bob Bradley maintained his stance that Maurice Edu‘s volley should have counted and suggested that referee Koman Coulibaly might have been compensating for an earlier decision.

“I think it’s a good goal,” he said at USA headquarters in Irene, South Africa. “The only things that clearly could be called would be penalty kicks for us. You don’t expect any answer. … Typically out on the field, when things happen fast, it’s not like referees then explain every call they make.

“In my mind, this isn’t something that referees would talk about a lot, but there are times when a referee, for whatever reason, blows a foul and now thinks he either didn’t make the correct call on the foul from a previous play, and then literally as soon as the free kick is taken, he blows his whistle. So you can speculate all you want about which guy [was called for a foul], I think it’s a waste of time. There was nothing there. It’s a good goal, and that’s that.”

More…..

Bradley also addressed the nature of soccer, in which not everything is meticulously explained. In the World Cup, when a less sophisticated, mainstream audience back home is watching, such situations cause confusion.

“We’re all accustomed to the fact that, if it is an NFL playoff game and there is a call of some question, there will be a statement by the league from the referees,” he said. “But FIFA operates differently. Soccer is a different game. … There are some aspects of it that are not made 100 percent clear that seem to add to the discussion about the games. On our end, we get used to that.

“We all have friends and family who asked us the same questions most of you [in the media] asked us. You end up saying that that’s just how it is sometimes and then you move on and you get ready for the next game.”

By Steve Goff  |  June 19, 2010; 9:59 AM ET
Categories:  2010 World Cup , U.S. men’s national team  | Tags: American soccerBob BradleySouth AfricaWorld Cup

Wilson Picks the Argentina vs Peru in 78. (below I got this from the internet)

Argentina have been involved in numerous World Cup controversies over the years – some going for them, and others against. In their own edition of 1978, they were involved in a hugely notorious affair that saw them qualify for the final where they would beat the Netherlands 3-1.

In the second group stage, Argentina needed to beat Copa America holders Peru by four clear goals to reach the final ahead of bitter rivals Brazil. They won 6-0 but there were dark rumors that Peru, who had an Argentine-born goalkeeper, had thrown the game. Certainly the ease in which the Peruvians capitulated raised eyebrows, especially as this was a fine team that contained stars such as Teofilo Cubillas.

I got this list below off the internet.

__________________________

Top 10 Most Controversial World Cup Games

Following the ‘Hand of Henry’ on Wednesday night that prevented Ireland from traveling to South Africa, Carlo Garganese counts down the 10 most controversial World Cup games.

10) Fabio Grosso’s Fall – Italy vs Australia 2006

Ask your average Australian football fan (those without Italian heritage) who their most hated individual is, and Fabio Grosso will be high up on the list.
This all revolves around a controversial incident during the 2006 World Cup second round clash in Kaiserslautern. The Azzurri were in a very precarious position as they were down to 10 men, had used their three substitutes, and were starting to tire as the game moved towards inevitable extra time.

Then, deep into injury time, left back Grosso pounced on a mistake, cut into the area before going down under the challenge of Lucas Neill. The referee pointed to the spot, and Francesco Totti buried his penalty with the last kick. Italy would go on to win their first World Cup in 24 years, but Australia still argue to this day that Grosso dived. While Neill was naive in going to ground, and there was definitely contact – at the same time it is clear that Grosso was looking for the penalty. Nevertheless, Italy fans often point out that they had been dominating the game until the 50th minute when defender Marco Materazzi was straight red carded for an offense that wasn’t worth any more than a yellow.

9) Schande von Gijón (The Shame of Gijón) – West Germany vs Austria 1982

Next summer Algeria will make their first World Cup appearance for 24 years, and if there is one team they will be dying to face it will be Germany. Back in 1982, the North Africans caused a sensation when they defeated the European Champions West Germany 2-1 in the opening game of Group 2 thanks to goals from the legendary Rabah Madjer and Lakhdar Belloumi.

Algeria attained four points from their three games (two wins and a defeat), and would be guaranteed a place in the next round providing West Germany didn’t defeat Austria by one or two goals in the final game of the pool.

The West Germans launched wave after wave of early attacks, taking a 10th minute lead through Horst Hrubesch. For the following 80 minutes both sides, knowing that the current scoreline would qualify them both, made virtually no attempt to attack with the ball almost continuously being passed sideways.

The crowd in Gijón were disgusted by what they saw. Algerian fans waved banknotes and white handkerchiefs, while Spaniards chanted “Fuera, fuera” (“Out, out”). One German supporter was so ashamed that he burnt his national flag. Algeria complained to FIFA, but their protest was rejected. This game did result in one important change to the rules as from Euro ’84 onwards the last games of a group in international tournaments always took place at the same time so that teams didn’t know in advance what result they required.

8) Peru Pummelling – Argentina vs Peru 1978

Argentina have been involved in numerous World Cup controversies over the years – some going for them, and others against. In their own edition of 1978, they were involved in a hugely notorious affair that saw them qualify for the final where they would beat the Netherlands 3-1.

In the second group stage, Argentina needed to beat Copa America holders Peru by four clear goals to reach the final ahead of bitter rivals Brazil. They won 6-0 but there were dark rumors that Peru, who had an Argentine-born goalkeeper, had thrown the game. Certainly the ease in which the Peruvians capitulated raised eyebrows, especially as this was a fine team that contained stars such as Teofilo Cubillas.

7) Spain vs Yugoslavia 1982

Spain’s performance at their own World Cup in 1982 was a really miserable one. They won just once in five games, scoring only four goals – of which two were controversial penalties.

Indeed the Spaniards wouldn’t have even made it out of the groups but for refereeing favors. They trailed 1-0 to outsiders Honduras in their opening match and only earned a 1-1 draw thanks to a disputed Roberto Ufarte penalty, while they were humiliatingly defeated 1-0 by Northern Ireland in their final match of Group 5.

Only a 2-1 win over Yugoslavia saw them qualify for the second group phase, but this was secured in infamous fashion. Trailing 1-0, Spain were awarded a penalty for a Yugoslavian foul that occurred clearly two yards outside the area. Ufarte struck his penalty wide, but the referee then demanded a retake which Juanito made no mistake from. Spain went on to win 2-1, while Yugoslavia would eventually be eliminated despite going into the tournament as one of the favorites.

Yugoslavia would earn their revenge eight years later at Italia ’90 when they defeated Spain 2-1 in the second phase, thanks to two brilliant goals from the legendary Dragan Stojkovic.

6) From Russia With Two Offsides – USSR vs Belgium 1986

Believe it or not, there are some people who believe that Argentina vs England was not the most controversial game of the 1986 World Cup. The alternative is the round of 16 clash between the USSR and Belgium in Leon.

The match ended in a thrilling 4-3 extra time win for the Belgians, but it would not be unfair to declare that the USSR were cheated out of the tournament. The Soviets, who contained many of the exceptional Dynamo Kiev team that had won the Cup Winners’ Cup just a month earlier (including star man Igor Belanov below who scored a hat-trick and won the Ballon d’Or that year), were clearly the superior team and created chance after chance throughout the 120 minutes.

But they were denied by a referee and two linesmen seemingly wearing Belgian shirts. The USSR twice led in normal time, but twice Belgium equalized through clearly offside goals, the second from Jan Ceulemans on 77 minutes in which he was an incredible five yards ahead of play.

5) Antonio Rattin’s ‘Violence of the tongue’ – Argentina vs England 1966

For many people in Argentina, Diego Maradona’s ‘Hand of God’ in 1986 was revenge on England for another World Cup quarter final between the two countries twenty years earlier where the South Americans felt they were cheated.

Hosts England won the game 1-0 through a 78th minute Geoff Hurst goal, but not before Argentina had had captain Antonio Rattin controversially sent off in the 35th minute for arguing with the referee. Rattin initially refused to leave the field, believing that the ref wanted England to win, and when he did finally walk the 29-year-old insulted the Queen.

Three Lions manager Sir Alf Ramsey let rip at the opposition with comments that were viewed as racist in Argentina. “We have still to produce our best, and this is not possible until we meet the right sort of opponents, and that is a team that comes out to play football and not act as animals,” sniped Ramsey.

Post match statistics showed that Argentina had committed only 19 fouls in the game, to England’s 33, while the referee spoke no Spanish so could not have understood what Rattin said to him. Back in Argentina, it was pointed out that the referee in the England game was German, while the official in Germany’s quarter final was English.

4) Rudi Voller’s dive – West Germany vs Argentina 1990

For many it was poetic justice after a painfully negative Argentina side had somehow scraped through all the way to the final, winning two penalty shootouts along the way.

In the Rome showpiece against West Germany, the holders had again ridden their luck in arguably the dullest final of all time. But they were then undone by the referee in the closing stages. First Pedro Monzon became the first player in history to be red carded in a World Cup final after a clear dive by Jurgen Klinsmann on his challenge. Then, with five minutes remaining, the Germans were awarded a penalty when Rudi Voller went down far too easily in the box. Andreas Brehme converted the spot-kick and Germany were champions. Argentina cried foul, claiming that no one wanted them to win after they had knocked out hosts Italy in the semis.

3) Korea 2002 – Italy, Spain & Portugal cry conspiracy

The 2002 World Cup has gone down in infamy due to the huge number of refereeing mistakes that helped eliminate a string of top nations, and also ensured that co-hosts Korea made it all the way to the semi-finals.

During their final two group games against Croatia and Mexico, Italy had four perfectly good goals disallowed, but somehow managed to scrape through to the second round where they met South Korea. Against Guus Hiddink’s men, Italy again had a valid goal chalked off, a golden goal from Damiano Tomassi which would have taken them to the next round. Francesco Totti was sent off for diving when replays showed he had lost his footing, while the Koreans were awarded a controversial penalty for a Christian Panucci tugging offense. Italy eventually lost after Ahn Jung-Hwan’s golden winner, but the match and Ecuadorian referee Byron Moreno have gone down in Italian football notoriety.

The Italian nation cried that there had been a conspiracy against them, and they were soon joined by the Spanish, who in the very next game against Korea had two perfectly good goals disallowed as they were eliminated on penalties. At the end of the game, Ivan Helguera had to be held back by team-mates as he attempted to attack the referee.

Italy and Spain were not the only team to be apparently wronged by Korea during the 2002 World Cup. In their final group game against Portugal, the co-hosts continually appeared to win favors from the referee as they won 1-0, thus eliminating the Europeans. Portugal had both Joao Pinto and Beto red carded, the latter after a clear dive from a Korean player, while the former was suspended for six months by FIFA after he hit official Angel Sanchez as he made his way off the pitch. Luis Figo also booted the ball straight into the crowd from the kick-off following Park Ji Sung’s winner to signal his disgust.

2) ‘Phantom Goal’ – Geoff Hurst vs West Germany 1966

Was it over the line or not? This is a question that raged for years around the world following England’s controversial third goal against West Germany in the 1966 World Cup Final at Wembley. With the scores tied at 2-2 eight minutes into extra time, Geoff Hurst span in the area only to see his shot crash off the underside of the crossbar, bounce down on or over the line, before being cleared.

England players appealed for a goal, West Germans wagged their fingers, but the goal was eventually given after Swiss referee Gottfried Dienst had consulted with USSR linesman Tofik Bakhramov. England went onto win the game 4-2 and lift their one World Cup to date.

However, improvements in technology have recently proved that the ball did not cross the line. When asked on his deathbed why he told the referee that Hurst had scored, linesman Bakhramov is alleged to have replied, “Stalingrad”, referring to the infamous battle between the Soviets and the Nazis in World War II where more than two million people were killed or wounded – the bloodiest in the history of warfare.

1) ‘Hand of God’ – Diego Maradona vs England 1986

The most infamous goal in World Cup history occurred during the quarter final of the 1986 World Cup in Mexico between Argentina and England. With the score locked at 0-0 six minutes into the second half, Maradona chased a miss-hit clearance by England midfielder Steve Hodge, jumped above goalkeeper Peter Shilton before flicking it past the veteran with the outside of his left fist. The referee failed to spot the infringement and Argentina took a one-goal lead. Minutes later, Maradona would score the ‘Goal of the Century’ after dribbling past half of the England team – Argentina would win 2-1 and go on to lift the World Cup.

After the quarter final Maradona said that the goal had been scored “a little with the head of Maradona and a little with the hand of God,” also saying it was revenge for the Falklands War between England and Argentina four years earlier. The current Albiceleste boss became enemy No.1 on English shores following this incident and 23 years on he is still very much a hated figure.

What are your views on this topic? What do you believe to be the most controversial game in World Cup history? Goal.com wants to know what YOU think…

Carlo Garganese, Goal.com

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 26)

The Bible and Archaeology (5/5)

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, wheels and chariots did not exist in North America when they said they did.

Rick Deem wrote the article, “Archaeology/Anthropolocical Problems in the Book of Mormon,” and in it he asserted:

The Book of Mormon claims to be a record of the inhabitants of the Americas during the period from 2000 B.C. to 400 A.D. It makes many claims about the history and anthropology of pre-Columbian American cultures. Unfortunately, the author of the book, Joseph Smith, had little or no knowledge of pre-Columbian American civilizations. Borrowing and adapting many stories from the Old and New Testaments, Joseph Smith was unaware that the earlier Native American peoples were part of stone-age civilizations that were significantly less advanced than Hebrew and other Middle Eastern cultures of biblical times.

 

Use of metals by pre-Columbian cultures

Metallurgy (the use of metals) did not appear in the Americas until about the 9th century A.D. However, the

Book of Mormon describes the use of iron,1 steel,2 brass,3 copper,4 silver5 and gold6

before the birth of Christ. These metals were said to be used for coins, weapons, and in buildings. LDS apologists claim that these items would not survive in the tropical climates found in much of the Americas. However, both gold and silver coins are very resistant to decay, and would be expected to survive certainly for thousands of years, even in a tropical environment. Much more condemning is the fact that the art of the period (which is abundant) does not portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity until at least 1000 A.D.

See Robson Bonnichsen and D. Gentry Steele,

 

 

Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas

(Corvallis, OR: Center for the Study of the First Americans, 1994)

The Old and New Testaments present a rich description of biblical peoples, places and cultures. Archeology of the Middle East has revealed the cities, weapons, crops, animals, coins, writings, and references to biblical characters found in the Bible. However, none of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon have ever been identified by qualified archeologists. In addition, many Book of Mormon references to metals, weapons, crops, animals, articles of clothing are known to have not been present in the Americas during the time period claimed in the Book of Mormon.

by Matt Slick

There is very little doubt in anyone’s mind about the reality of so many of the Old and New Testament cities mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, it is hardly necessary to document their existence. Nevertheless, following is a partial list of some of the cities mentioned in the Bible that have been found and excavated by archaeologists. This is simply more evidence that the Bible describes actual locations that can be verified. This means that at the very least, the Bible accurately reflects the locations and cities of ancient times.

Remember, this is only a partial list. There are hundreds of biblical cities that have been verified in archaeological digs.

  1. Arad
    1. Num. 21:1, “When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, then he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive.”
    2. Num. 33:40, “Now the Canaanite, the king of Arad who lived in the Negev in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the sons of Israel.”
      1. “Arad 30 km NE of Beersheba, excavated from 1962 to 1974 by Y. Aharoni and R. B. K. Amiran.”1
      2. “The site consists of an upper mound or acropolis, where excavation has revealed an Iron Age (post thirteenth century B.C.).”2
      3. The remains of a Hebrew temple were uncovered at Arad.3
  2. Bethel
    1. Amos 7:12-13, “Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Go, you seer, flee away to the land of Judah, and there eat bread and there do your prophesying! 13 “But no longer prophesy at Bethel, for it is a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence.”
      1. “W. F. Albright made a trial excavation at Bethel in 1927. Albright then mounted a full excavation in 1934. His assistant that year, J. L. Kelso, continued the excavation in 1954, 1957, and 1960.”4
  3. Capernaum
    1. Matt. 17:24, “And when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter, and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?”
      1. “Identified since 1856 with Tell Hum, Capernaum has been sporadically excavated for the past 130 years.”5

Brantley claims Barton is wrong about Founding Fathers rejecting Darwinism (Part 1)

On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted:

On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published until 1859. Barton declared, “As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!” Paine died in 1809, the same year Darwin was born.

Here is the first part of the series that I am starting today about the founding fathers’ views on the origin of man. Below is an portion of an article by David Barton, “The Founding Fathers on Creation and Evolution.” 

While uninformed laymen erroneously believe the theory of evolution to be a product of Charles Darwin in his first major work of 1859 (The Origin of Species), the historical records are exceedingly clear that the evolution-creation-intelligent design debate was largely formulated well before the birth of Christ. Numerous famous writings have appeared on the topic for almost two thousand years; in fact, our Founding Fathers were well-acquainted with these writings and therefore the principle theories and teachings of evolution – as well as the science and philosophy both for and against that thesis – well before Darwin synthesized those centuries-old teachings in his writings.

Nobel-Prize winner Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) explains: “The general idea of evolution is very old; it is already to be found in Anaximander (sixth century B.C.). . . . [and] Descartes [1596-1650], Kant [1724-1804], and Laplace [1749-1827] had advocated a gradual origin for the solar system in place of sudden creation.” 1  ( Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948), pp. 33-34.)

Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935), a zoologist and paleontologist, agrees, declaring that there are “ancient pedigrees for all that we are apt to consider modern. Evolution has reached its present fullness by slow additions in twenty-four centuries.” 2 He continues, “Evolution as a natural explanation of the origin of the higher forms of life . . . developed from the teaching of Thales [624-546 B.C.] and Anaximander [610-546 B.C.] into those of Aristotle [384-322 B.C.]. . . . and it is startling to find him, over two thousand years ago, clearly stating, and then rejecting, the theory of the survival of the fittest as an explanation of the evolution of adaptive structures.” 3 And British anthropologist Edward Clodd (1840-1930) similarly affirms that, “The pioneers of evolution – the first on record to doubt the truth of the theory of special creation, whether as the work of departmental gods or of one Supreme Deity, matters not – lived in Greece about the time already mentioned: six centuries before Christ.” 4

For example, Anaximander (610-546 B.C.) introduced the theory of spontaneous generation; Diogenes (412-323 B.C.) introduced the concept of the primordial slime; Empedocles (495-455 B.C.) introduced the theory of the survival of the fittest and of natural selection; Deomocritus (460-370 B.C.) advocated the mutability and adaptation of species; the writings of Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) announced that all life sprang from “mother earth” rather than from any specific deity; Bruno (1548-1600) published works arguing against creation and for evolution in 1584-85; Leibnitz (1646-1716) taught the theory of intermedial species; Buffon (1707-1788) taught that man was a quadruped ascended from the apes, about which Helvetius also wrote in 1758; Swedenborg (1688-1772) advocated and wrote on the nebular hypothesis (the early “big bang”) in 1734, as did Kant in 1755; etc. It is a simple fact that countless works for (and against) evolution had been written for over two millennia prior to the drafting of our governing documents and that much of today’s current phraseology surrounding the evolution debate was familiar rhetoric at the time our documents were framed.

In fact, Dr. Henry Osborn (1857-1935), curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, identifies four periods of evolution: I. Greek Evolution – 640 B.C. to 1600 A.D.; II. Modern Evolution – 1600-1800 A.D.; III. Modern Inductive Evolution – 1730-1850 A.D.; and IV. Modern Inductive Evolution – 1858 to the present.5 He describes the third period in the history of evolution – the period in which our Framers lived – as a period which produced the pro-evolution writings of “Linnaeus, Buffon, E[rasmus] Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Treviranus, Geof. St. Hilaire, St. Vincent, Is. St. Hilaire. Miscellaneous writers: Grant, Rafinesque, Virey, Dujardin, d’Halloy, Chevreul, Godron, Leidy, Unger, Carus, Lecoq, Schaafhausen, Wolff, Meckel, Von Baer, Serres, Herbert, Buch, Wells, Matthew, Naudin, Haldeman, Spencer, Chambers, Owen.” 6

The debate over the origins of man has always been between a theistic and a non-theistic approach; and among those who embrace the theistic approach have been found (and still are found) three distinct sub-approaches: (1) intelligent-design (that which exists came into being by divine guidance, but the period of time required or the specifics of the process are unsettled, possibly unprovable, and therefore remain debatable); (2) theistic evolution (that which exists came into being over a long, slow passing of time through natural laws and processes but under divine guidance); and (3) special creation (that which exists came into being in six literal days). This, then, makes four separate historic approaches to the origins of man: three theistic, and one non-theistic.

In the non-theistic camp, Empedocles (495-435 B.C.) was the father and original proponent of the evolution theory, followed by advocates such as Democritus (460-370 B.C. ), Epicurus (342-270 B.C.), Lucretius (98-55 B.C.), Abubacer (1107-1185 A.D.), Bruno (1548-1600), Buffon (1707-1788), Helvetius (1715-1771), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), Lamarck (1744-1829), Goethe (1749-1832), Lyell (1797-1875), etc.

In the theistic camp, Anaxigoras (500-428 B.C.) was the father of intelligent design; that same belief was also expounded by such distinguished scientists and philosophers Descartes (1596-1650), Harvey (1578-1657), Newton (1642-1727), Kant (1729-1804), Mendel (1822-1884), Cuvier (1769-1827), Agassiz (1807-1873), etc. Significantly, even Charles Darwin (1809-1882), strongly influenced by the writings of Paley (1743- 1805), 7embraced the intelligent design position at the time that he wrote his celebrated word, explaining:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species. 8                                                                                                                                                                                         

Here are some other posts about David Barton’s word on the unconfirmed quotes that have been attributed to the Founding Father and Barton’s effort to stop the Righteous Right for using these quotes in the future:

 

 

 

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 6 David Barton:Were the Founding Fathers Deists? In 1988 only 25% of Christians voted but that doubled in 1994. Christians are the salt of the world. The last few days I have been  looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence […]

 

Two Unconfirmed quotes attributed to Noah Webster

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 5 David Barton: Were the Founding Fathers Deists? First Bible printed in USA was printed by our founding fathers for use in the public schools. 20,000 Bibles. 10 commandments hanging in our courthouses. The last few days I have been  looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding […]

 

Unconfirmed Quote attibuted to Patrick Henry

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 4 David Barton: Were Founding Fathers Deists? Only 5% of the original 250 founding fathers were not Christians (Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Joe Barlow, Charles Lee, Henry Dearborn, ect) In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think […]

 

Samuel Adams Unconfirmed Quote was Confirmed Eventually

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 3 David Barton: Were Founding Fathers Deists? American Bible Society filled with Founding Fathers Here is another in the series of  unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David Barton has collected these quotes and tried to confirm them over the last 20 […]

 

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Ben Franklin

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 2 David Barton on Founding Fathers were they deists? Not James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David Barton has collected these quotes and […]

 

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville

HALT: HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 1 David Barton: Were the Founding Fathers Deists? Religious holidays, Court cases, punishing kids in school for praying in Jesus name In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

 

Supreme Court never said It.

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth David Barton goes through American History and looks at some of the obscure names in our history and how prayer and Bible Study affected some of our founding fathers In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

 

Lots of Fake Quotes of Founding Fathers in Circulation

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth   ___ I wanted to thank Gene Lyons for bringing this issue of fake quotes of the Founding Fathers to our attention because it should be addressed. In April 8, 2010 article “Facts Drowning in Disinformation,” he rightly notes that Thomas Jefferson never said, “The democracy will cease to [

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 87) (1981 Orsini McArthur murder case Part 11)

C310-25A, President Reagan eating lunch at his desk in the oval office.1/26/81.

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c310-25A.jpg

From Oct. 28, 1980, in Cleveland, here is part 7 of the Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate, as taped from WJKW, CBS. Amazing how things have changed…and yet stayed the same…in almost 30 years!!!

Oct 21, 1984 Presidential Debate President Reagan v Walter Mondale

Nuclear Freeze

MR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, in this general area, sir, of arms control, President Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, “A nuclear freeze is a hoax.” Yet the basis of your arms proposals, as I understand them, is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. In your view, which specific weapons systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze, and which could not?

MR. MONDALE: Every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations for an agreement. I would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the Soviet Union that we couldn’t verify every day. I would not agree to any agreement in which the United States security interest was not fully recognized and supported. That’s why we say mutual and verifiable freezes.

Now, why do I support the freeze? Because this ever-rising arms race madness makes both nations less secure. It’s more difficult to defend this nation. It’s putting a hair-trigger on nuclear war. This administration, by going into the Star Wars system, is going to add a dangerous new escalation. We have to be tough on the Soviet Union, but I think the American people — —

MR. NEWMAN: Your time is up, Mr. Mondale.

MR. MONDALE: — — and the people of the Soviet Union want it to stop.

MR. NEWMAN: President Reagan, your rebuttal?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, my rebuttal, once again, is that this invention that has just been created here of how I would go about rolling over for the Soviet Union — no, Mr. Mondale, my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then say, “Now, are you willing to join us? Here’s what we” — give them a demonstration and then say — “Here’s what we can do. Now, if you’re willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world, then we’ll give you this one, so that we would both know that no one can cheat; that we’re both got something that if anyone tries to cheat . . . .”

But when you keep star-warring it — I never suggested where the weapons should be or what kind; I’m not a scientist. I said, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed with me, that it was time for us to turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of defensive weapon. And suddenly somebody says, “Oh, it’s got to be up there, and it’s Star Wars,” and so forth. I don’t know what it would be, but if we can come up with one, I think the world will be better off.

MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.

MR. MONDALE: Well, that’s what a President’s supposed to know — where those weapons are going to be. If they’re space weapons, I assume they’ll be in space. [Laughter] If they’re antisatellite weapons, I assume they’re going to be aimed against satellites.

Now, this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. The Soviets try to spy on us, steal this stuff. And to give them technology of this kind, I disagree with. You haven’t just accepted research, Mr. President. You’ve set up a Strategic Defense Initiative, an agency, you’re beginning to test, you’re talking about deploying, you’re asking for a budget of some $30 billion for this purpose. This is an arms escalation. And we will be better off, far better off, if we stop right now, because we have more to lose in space then they do. If someday, somebody comes along with an answer, that’s something else. But that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable.

Why do we start things that we know the Soviets will match and make us all less secure? That’s what a President’s for.

MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale.
Strategic Weapons

MR. KONDRACKE: Mr. Mondale, you say that with respect to the Soviet Union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze, yet you would unilaterally give up the MX missile and the B – 1 bomber before the talks have even begun. And you have announced, in advance, that reaching an agreement with the Soviets is the most important thing in the world to you. Now, aren’t you giving away half the store before you even sit down to talk?

MR. MONDALE: No. As a matter of fact, we have a vast range of technology and weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we need. And I support the air launch cruise missile, the ground launch cruise missile, the Pershing missile, the Trident submarine, the D – 5 submarine, Stealth technology, the Midgetman — we have a whole range of technology. Why I disagree with the MX is that it’s a sitting duck. It’ll draw an attack. It puts a hair-trigger, and it is a dangerous, destabilizing weapon. And the B – 1 is similarly to be opposed, because for 15 years the Soviet Union has been preparing to meet the B – 1. The Secretary of Defense himself said it would be a suicide mission if it were built.

Instead, I want to build the Midgetman, which is mobile and thus less vulnerable, contributing to stability, and a weapon that will give us security and contribute to an incentive for arms control. That’s why I’m for Stealth technology, to build a Stealth bomber — which I’ve supported for years — that can penetrate the Soviet air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. In other words, a President has to make choices. This makes us stronger.

The final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. Our conventional strength in Europe is under strength. We need to strengthen that in order to assure our Western allies of our presence there, a strong defense, but also to diminish and reduce the likelihood of a commencement of a war and the use of nuclear weapons. It’s in this way, by making wise choices, that we’re stronger, we enhance the chances of arms control. Every President until this one has been able to do it, and this nation — or the world is more dangerous as a result.
Nuclear Freeze

MR. KONDRACKE: I want to follow up on Mr. Kalb’s question. It seems to me on the question of verifiability, that you do have some problems with the extent of the freeze. It seems to me, for example, that testing would be very difficult to verify because the Soviets encode their telemetry. Research would be impossible to verify. Numbers of warheads would be impossible to verify by satellite, except for with onsite inspection, and production of any weapon would be impossible to verify. Now, in view of that, what is going to be frozen?

MR. MONDALE: I will not agree to any arms control agreement, including a freeze, that’s not verifiable. Let’s take your warhead principle. The warhead principle — there have been counting rules for years. Whenever a weapon is tested we count the number of warheads on it, and whenever that warhead is used we count that number of warheads, whether they have that number or less on it, or not. These are standard rules. I will not agree to any production restrictions — or agreements, unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. I don’t trust the Russians. I believe that every agreement we reach must be verifiable, and I will not agree to anything that we cannot tell every day. In other words, we’ve got to be tough. But in order to stop this arms madness, we’ve got to push ahead with tough negotiations that are verifiable so that we know the Soviets are agreeing and living up to their agreement.

It has been 150 years since the beginning of the Civil War that started in April of 1861 at Ft Sumter.

Federal troops guarding the Chain Bridge which connects Arlington, VA and Washington, D.C.

Federal troops guarding the Chain Bridge which connects Arlington, VA and Washington, D.C.

Shelby Foote clip

__________________________________________________

Excerpts from Mary Lee Orsini transcript

The following is a series of excerpts from a July 17 interview between Mary Lee Orsini and Sgt. Jim Dixon and Major Jackie Goodson of the Pulaski County sheriff’s office. The transcript was edited only for basic spelling.

Goodson: Here’s the thing, that Mary Lee Orsini knows that nobody else knows is where the gun is.
Orsini: Exactly, Yeah exactly, I know…
Goodson: Okay.
Orsini: No one’s ever been told. I never even told my mother that.
Goodson: Right. So we’re gonna go and see if we can locate that. If-if that’s possible then we can say that there’s no other motive for her telling the truth on this except what she says that she wants it all cleared up.
Orsini: Exactly.
Goodson: Because we got the gun where she says it happened.
Orsini: It’s a possibility that it will still be there, after all this time.
. . .
Goodson: Let me ask you one more time; because I think this is going to be a big thing. I mean I know you don’t want to get into a lot of details of it, but the motive of your reason behind that. And I’d like for you to explain that again to me. Cause I think that’s going to be a point where they’re either going to have to accept your response or they’re going to go out here and look for all the things. So I want to make it clear.
Orsini: There was nothing else that essentially. It was just that uh there was some misguidance by some people that directed me in the path of finances; I got in over my head and…
Goodson: What are some examples of what they would be?
Orsini: Uh, agreeing to uh, to doing different types of mortgages, that this would be paid off and I was in over my head I didn’t understand what they were really doing and then my husband was at a point with his business. He was saying take care of it, take care of it. He wasn’t really-really involved in all of and he expected me to just come home with the bill of sale. You know what I’m saying. He wanted it out of his hair. You know how you men are he didn’t like a lot of details you just want the woman to go clean up the mess, give it to me, I see policemen are different, y’all wanna hear all the details.
Goodson: I like details.
Dixon: (Laughs)
Orsini: Most men they wanna-they wanna know right here. At home, I bet you’re not detailed oriented you want to know two or three words. So that’s the way men are and that’s the way he operated one or two words it was clear it was over with it was solved. And I listened to some advice and had a convoluted, tangled up real estate mess. That I-that I ended up being messed up over.

Update
Mary Lee Orsini died at age 55

 
Posted by Traciy Curry-Reyes at 4:25 PM

 
 
 

Brantley is right about Republicans’ fraud attempts in elections, but…

John Fund on Voter Fraud by Katy’s Conservative Corner at CPAC11.MP4

Max Brantley pointed out that the Republicans were trying to get away with some phony signatures. The article Brantley referenced noted, “Most notoriously, the Dems found the purported signature of a man who had been dead for 20 years, but whose name was still in the phonebook …”

This kind of fraud makes it just seem best to tighten the election laws. However, the funny thing is that Republicans want to do that and Democrats don’t. Why is that?

I found an interesting article from SoundPolitics.com that presents the other side of the story. Many quotes from John Fund of the Wall Street Journal who I heard speak in Little Rock recently. I have listed other posts about Mr. Fund below.

Are Democrats More Likely To Commit Vote Fraud Than Republicans?Nearly all informed political observers would say yes.  In his book on vote fraud, John Fund is apologetic about mentioning that, because he wants to make a general argument.  Here’s how he begins the discussion:

A note about partisanship: Since Democrats figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in this book, some readers will jump to the conclusion that this is a one-sided attack on a single party.  I do not believe Republicans are inherently more virtuous or honest than anyone else in politics, and I myself often vote Libertarian or independent.

He then notes that Republicans have had less chance to commit vote fraud because they controlled fewer “local and administrative offices”.  (Though Republicans have, as recently as the 1980s, sometimes used intimidation tactics that are certainly unethical, though perhaps not illegal.)   Fund then makes a more general argument:

In their book, Dirty Little Secrets, Larry Sabato and co-author Glenn Simpson of the Wall Street Journal noted another factor in why Republican election fraud is less common.   Republican base voters are middle-class and not easily induced to commit fraud, while “the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic.”  Some liberal activists that Sabato and Simpson interviewed even partly justified fraudulent electoral behavior on the grounds that because the poor and dispossessed have so little political clout, “extraordinary measures (for example, stretching the absentee ballot or registration rules) are required to compensate.”  Paul Herrnson, director of the Center for American Politics at the University of Maryland, agrees that “most incidents of wide-scale vote fraud reportedly occur in inner cities, which are largely populated by minority groups.”

Democrats are far more skilled at encouraging poor people — who need money — to participate in shady vote-buying schemes.  “I had no choice.  I was hungry that day,” Thomas Felder told the Miami Herald in explaining why he illegally voted in the Suarez-Carollo mayoral election.  “You wanted money, you were told who to vote for.”  A former Democratic congressman gave me this explanation of why voting irregularities more often crop up in his party’s back yard.  “When many Republicans lose an election, they go back into what they call the private sector.  When many Democrats lose an election, they lose power and money.  They need to eat, and people will do an awful lot in order to eat.”

(Sabato is a Democrat; I don’t know about Simpson or Herrnson.)

So Democrats are more likely to commit vote fraud because more of their adherents are poor enough to be bribable, because some activists will cross the line to help the poor, and because many Democratic politicians have no good alternative to public office.

These points are, as I said at the beginning, not something most informed observers would quarrel with.  But I think, before going farther, that I should make it clear how far my argument goes.  That more Democrats commit vote fraud than Republicans does not mean that most Democrats commit vote fraud.  I am sure that very few Democrats commit vote fraud in fact — but even fewer Republicans.

Some readers will prefer direct evidence to the conclusions of experts, however well informed.  I have that, too.  I do not know of a single major Republican vote fraud scandal in the last ten years.  But it is easy to find major Democratic scandals in such cities as Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Milwaukee, and New Orleans.  You may recall one example from Milwaukee; in 2000, a Democratic socialite was caught exchanging cigarettes for the votes of the homeless.  (She’s still an honored member of the Democratic party, by the way.)

(The 1998 Miami vote fraud scandal during the mayoralty race between Xavier Suarez and Joe Carollo is hard to classify by party.  Carrollo is and was a Republican.  At that time Suarez, who received many fraudulent votes, was an independent, though he has belonged to both parties.)

Democrats are the guilty in most of the smaller vote scandals, too.  I have started collecting these as they are reported.  Here are examples of vote fraud, or charges of vote fraud in San Francisco, East Chicago, Passaic, New Jersey, Orlando, Florida, South Dakota, New York and Florida, Cleveland, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania., Nevada, New Mexico, Orange County, California, and Kentucky.  Of these cases, only the Nevada case was purely Republican.  (A former employee of a Republican firm charged that some Democratic registrations collected by the firm had been discarded.  I don’t know whether the case has gone to trial.)  The Kentucky case appears to have been bipartisan, though I did not make that clear in my post.

When vote fraud is detected, those caught are nearly always Democrats.  Either Democrats are much less skillful at fraud, which seems implausible to me, or they commit far more of it, just as the experts say.

Some Democratic leaders have tolerated vote fraud fairly openly, including Bill Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas.   (Some believe that the rush by the Clinton administration to get new citizens in 2000 was part of an effort to stuff the ballot box, something I did not mention in the post.  It was certainly true that, under pressure for Clinton and Al Gore, the INS skipped many checks on would-be citizens in 2000.)

Finally, Democratic leaders behave as if they believe more Democrats commit vote fraud.   Nearly always, when the two parties split on election rules, the Republicans want more checks on fraud and the Democrats want fewer.  The infamous 1993 “Motor Voter” Act, which did so much to make fraud easier was opposed almost entirely by Republicans and had been vetoed by the first President Bush.  I don’t say that all supporters of the legislation (including Washington’s Maria Cantwell) even knew that it would make vote fraud easier, but some of them did.  Like the anonymous liberal activists, they see some fraud as a reasonable price for getting more representation for the victim groups they identify with.

It is telling, I think, that there is one group, military voters, for whom Democrats tend to prefer tougher rules and the Republicans easier rules.  Military voters generally back Republicans, at least in recent years.  That Democratic leaders prefer rules that make cheating easier (for everyone except military voters) is understandable if they think they gain from the cheating, but hard to explain otherwise.

(This is the promised follow-up to an earlier post outlining distributed vote fraud.   In that earlier post, I left for another time this explanation for my belief that Democrats are more likely to commit vote fraud.)

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics. Posted by Jim Miller at January 12, 2005 12:59 PM |

____________________________________

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

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund discusses the stimulus bill during Missouri Chamber Day at the Capitol Part 2 Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by  KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 4):Responding to liberals who criticize states like Texas that don’t have the red tape that California has

John Fund at Chamber Day, Part 1 Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by  KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund. John […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 3):

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 […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 2):Arkansas is a right to work state and gets new businesses because of it, Obama does not get that, but Milton Friedman does!!!(Royal Wedding Part 18)

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Speakers at the First Richmond Tea Party, October 8-9, 2010 John Fund   John Fund is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal and its OpinionJournal.com and an on-air contributor to 24-hour cable news networks CNBC and MSNBC. He is the […]

John Fund’s talk in Little Rock 4-27-11(Part 1):Carter, Clinton and Obama all governed from left when first elected (Royal Wedding Part 14)

Today I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by  KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund. John Fund writes the weekly “On the Trail” column […]

 

Elisabeth Hasselbeck says Palin taking attention away from Romney

Elizabeth Hasselbeck: Sarah Palin manipulates the media and takes attention away from Mitt Romney

The Huffington Post reported:

Elisabeth Hasselbeck says Sarah Palin is “manipulating” the media away from giving attention to Mitt Romney.

On Thursday’s “The View,” Hasslebeck argued that although the country is facing major economic problems — something she claims is Romney’s strength — Palin’s bus tour is dominating the headlines about the Republican presidential contenders.

“If I had termites in my house, I’d get someone in there who could deal with it,” Hasselbeck said. “Mitt Romney, right now, his specialty is the economy. I’d have him in there. Here’s why we’re not hearing it: because Sarah Palin’s on a bus, and right now she’s manipulating, in terms of media attention.”

Other posts about Sarah Palin:

Elisabeth Hasselbeck says Palin taking attention away from Romney

Elizabeth Hasselbeck: Sarah Palin manipulates the media and takes attention away from Mitt Romney The Huffington Post reported: Elisabeth Hasselbeck says Sarah Palin is “manipulating” the media away from giving attention to Mitt Romney. On Thursday’s “The View,” Hasslebeck argued that although the country is facing major economic problems — something she claims is Romney’s […]

Palin was right about Paul Revere and Brummett and NPR can’t believe it

Gov. Sarah Palin’s June 5, 2011 Chris Wallace interview pt 2 of 2 (Paul Revere story discussed)   John Brummett is his article, “The Midnight ride of Mike Huckabee,” Arkansas News Bureau, June 7, 2011, he asserts: On an American history bus tour through New England that looked like a campaign forerunner, Palin fielded a […]

Brummett is wrong about Paul Revere not Palin

Gov. Sarah Palin’s June 5, 2011 Chris Wallace interview pt 1 of 2 Gov. Sarah Palin’s June 5, 2011 Chris Wallace interview pt 2 of 2 (Paul Revere story discussed) John Brummett is his article, “The Midnight ride of Mike Huckabee,” Arkansas News Bureau, June 7, 2011, he asserts: On an American history bus tour […]

Sarah Palin right about Paul Revere?

How Sarah Palin Got it Right About Paul Revere ‘Warning the British’ Mark Whittington Mark Whittington Sun Jun 5, 3:38 pm ET /news/common/pages/generic/darla/md?en=utf-8 COMMENTARY | Sarah Palin stepped out of Paul Revere’s home in Boston and appeared to get her history wrong. The Internet then exploded in ridicule and astonishment at the ditz from Alaska once again uttering nonsense. […]

Documentary about Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin’s Movie Makeover in The Undefeated Shushannah Walshe – 2 hrs 25 mins ago NEW YORK – A forgotten Sarah Palin who worked with Democrats to pass landmark legislation emerges in the new documentary The Undefeated. Shushannah Walshe gets an early look and talks to director Stephen K. Bannon. The Undefeated, a glowing, dramatic documentary about Sarah Palin’s history from the former Alaska […]

Romney believes in global warming

Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real Bucking skeptics, he urges changes Mitt Romney, at UNH yesterday, said if elected, he would pursue more oil drilling, as well as natural gas and nuclear energy. (Stephan Savoia/Associated Press) By Matt Viser MANCHESTER, N.H. — In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt […]

Candidate #10,Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part C, )

Piper Palin By Claudine Zap, Yahoo! Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 3:14 pm PDT The bus has Sarah Palin’s name on it, but it’s Piper Palin who is stealing the show. The 10-year-old daughter has been at the former governor’s side during the family’s East Coast tour (shown here at Boston’s Old North Church) and even […]

Candidate #10,Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part B, Palin talks about her faith)

News on The 700 Club: November 19, 2009 – CBN.com As seen on Thursday’s “The 700 Club,” the top stories from CBN News include an exclusive interview Sarah Palin, Senate’s HC Bill More Than $849 Billion?, and more… The Christian Broadcasting Network CBN Below is the first part of the article. Sarah Palin Goes ‘Rogue’ […]

Candidate #10,Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part A)

  New York Daily News reported on May 27th: John Walker/AP Sarah Palin, the former GOP vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor, will kick off a “one Nation” bus tour in Washington D.C. over the holiday weekend. Sarah Palin is hopping aboard a national bus tour this weekend, and now the big mystery is whether […]

Top Ten List of greatest soccer players: E. Hatcher’s list v. W. Hatcher’s list (Part 10)

Today we are discussing the best player of all time.

Everette Hatcher picks Pele.

Pele The Great

videosport.jumptv.com – A tribute to history’s greatest soccer player of all time.

Wilson Hatcher’s pick: Lionel Messi

Lionel Messi 2009 – Top 10 Goals *NEW*

This list is based on talent not influence. For Pele would easily be number 1. But when it comes to talent, Messi is the best.

He is only 23 and he has won the FIFA player of the year award twice and he came in second for another one. He is very quick and he is great with his feet. The speed, the dribbling, the assist, the goals, this guy has it all. Teamwork is what leads to victory, with players like Messi, all of that increases.

This video is about lionel Messi and a little about his life story. I love it!!!

__________________________________

Here is another top 10 list I got off the internet:

1Pele (Edson Arantes do Nascimento)

“This is a century old question that will impact future generations, some say that he won everything with the best team, but in that same thought, remember this is a team game. Pele was terror to any goalie, he only presence in the area shuke fear in their very core. But beyond that a player goes beyond the field, sets standards of living for other players and fans, the only one to positively do this is not but Edson Arantes Do Nascimento, any more questions check his numbers.

“Just look at his goals on You Tube, he could whack the from a mile out or dribble them into the back of the net, he was the most complete player the game has ever seen and unlike modern players didn’t have the comfort of referees protection… opposing players tried to kick him off the park. I remember seeing him in the early 70’s and frankly it was a time to really watch football rather than spoilt brats thinking they are a lot better than they really are.

“When you see this guy play, it’s like everything else around you doesn’t matter. The ringing phone doesn’t disturb you. The chatter of the people makes no impact on you at all. It’s just him, him and his game. Pele wasn’t just another amazing football player, he was an excellent one, a prodigy, incomparable, and probably, someone this world will never see again in the next 100 years. He simply is, a football legend.

kusanagi_sanasara

More comments about Pele (Edson Arantes do Nascimento)

2Cristiano Ronaldo

“He is the best that is, that was and that will be. Better than Lionnel Messi or Rooney. His free kicks, his dribbles, his shots and his high class on the pitch. May be he has another skills that we don’t know. Remember, before Messi he was the winner of the fifa golden ball. Don’t be stupid and vote the best player.

“yes he is the best… I literally worship him… he should be the no.1.. he is the most skilled player in the world

“Ronaldo is simply amazing. He make soccer a show and entertains. He shows up and shows what he is mad of good or bad. Pele is the only one that can beat him.

More comments about Cristiano Ronaldo

3Ronaldo (Ronaldo Luiz Nazario da Lima)

ronaldo is the greatest striker ever played football with that speed an skill he’s the best ever may i call him the phonomonen, the king , the number 9,the best ever rooooooooooooooooooonaldo

Deserves the 2nd place. Definintely better than Cristiano Ronaldo.

SIMPLY THE BEST, NOT ONLY FOR HIS SKILLS BUT HE JUST CHANGED THE WAY THAT FOOTBALL WAS PLAYED… THERE WILL NEVER BE A PLAYER LIKE HIM. GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME. GREAT GOALSCORER

More comments about Ronaldo (Ronaldo Luiz Nazario da Lima)

4Diego Maradona

“Maradona is the best player ever, and the second one is Messi. His playing skills were simply marvelous, amazing just like maradona. They have perfect ball controlling ^^ dribbler ability.

“ronaldo = fake of soccer
messi = genius of soccer
pele = king of soccer
maradona = god of soccer

ONLY MARADONA!

“maradona lived in a more modern day soccer while pele was great but he played in a time where the game was so slow. and I’m not talking about physical side I’m talking about the mental and tactical part of the game. even maradona’s time was slow compared to today. I give pele huge props but maradona was just better.

More comments about Diego Maradona

5Zinedine Zidane

“Put France back onto the worldwide football map.

His playing skills were simply marvelous, amazing, punctuated in my opinion by his incredible performance against Brazil in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. At that point of his career he was more Brazilian than any Brazilian at the time.

Always present when needed, he led France to back-to-back major championships in 1998 and 2002.
Came back in 2006 and almost won it for France in overtime with another amazing headshot (his specialty in the Finals) blocked by a certain Gianluigi Buffon, at the top of his craft.

Zidane’s name should be well ahead of the two Ronaldo’s. Cristiano is a great player but he hasn’t won anyhting worthy now and probably won’t.

“Zindane is higher than Ronaldhino.
Ronaldhino cant play big games. He can never use his tricks when he play. The fake u-tube video(gitting the post several times) does not make him great.
Pele …dont know about hi. Looking at the videos, i dont think he can be compared to Zidane.
Football was different then. It was not competetive.
Pele is better than general but not great because he did not face great opposition and he didnt have magic touches like zidane or other players have these days. he was just a mere shooter like Trazeguet….he got lucky. But zico is better in Brazilian player.

“zidane is first period. there is no question he may not have been the shooter or scored the most goals. but he lead his teams they did not even need there coach they could just follow there amazing player who’s passing and way of looking at the game surpasess any player.

More comments about Zinedine Zidane

6Ronaldinho

“just incredible by far the best could have rivalled pele in his day
FANTASTIC PICMENT OF BRAZILLIAN AND FOOTBALL OVERALL

“He is unarguably the best player I have ever Seen. His dribbling abilities are mesmerizing his passes n free kicks are awesome, bust most important of all,… he is a team player unlike C. Ronaldo… I simply love him…

“RONALDINHO… NIGHTMARE OF ANY DEFENDER
perfest tricks, speed and preciseness… shame he had to leabve FCB

More comments about Ronaldinho

7Lio Messi

he is the B E S T…
just amazing
wonderful crazy
and he plays as someone play on a x-box or PlayStation
go Messi go
totally incredible
out of word to say

Best player in the world
Messi=The best
5th best in history and 3rd best of the dacade
he is just the best!

messei is genius no one can be better then him and I wish he play good ever as he is now doing it he can dribble ronado ronaldino and anyone that think he can cheat messie he nithing to messie

More comments about Lio Messi

8Jari Litmanen

+2He is the best player the world has ever witnessed. He can see the whole pitch better than anyone else. TIMO JUTILA once said that Jari is also really good at making fantastic barbecue. That said, he is without a doubt the greatest player of all time.

+2The last of the Mohicans of “total football”. While at Ajax he taught everything to Zlatan except those dirty stuff which Zlatan learnt from violent movies when he was kid.

+1Was an outstanding player, and according to my Finnish mates, he is still very good when he plays. An absolute genius. Legend.

More comments about Jari Litmanen

9Zico

“he is the best turkey footballer over i’m love it

he’s the best; )

“his free kick could kill any goalkeeper…

Mpafoklaniaris

“He is a coach of FENERBAHÇE…

Fenerbahçe was played quarter final match with chelsea in CL.

Fenerbahçe will be most valuable football clup with Arthur ZİCO

WE LOVE WHİTE PELE ‘ZİCO’

MAWENSY

More comments about Zico

10Gheorghe Hagi

“truly one of the greatest players what the world had, only a miracle had held back Romania to reach the World Cup 1994 Semi Finals with him

MatrixGuy

“The BEST player in Turkey and one of the best in the world.. Turkey and Galatasaray will never forget him!..

LEO75

“The current romanian football needs NOW a football player like Hagi! (or more players better than Ghorghe Hagi, like me:) )