Monthly Archives: September 2011

Houston Nutt raked over coals by various newspapers over Vandy loss

September 19, 2011 – 9:45 am

Houston Nutt Mississippi v Tulane

 

Personally I think that Houston Nutt will survive this year and will do better in the next few years since he has done such a good job of keeping some of the best athletes in Mississippi. However, time will tell. It appears he is in for a tough year. After reading these articles I may be wrong about Nutt surviving the year. Notice the way the Vol fans tried to comfort themselves after losing to Florida.

Mike Strange: Vols fans might feel bad, but these folks feel plenty worse

Staff Reports

Sunday, September 18, 2011

There’s no known remedy, at least not one that brings immediate relief.

Post-Florida Syndrome is an affliction that only time can heal. Beating Georgia on Oct. 8 would induce dramatic improvement, but that’s still 19 days out.

Every year, the week before Tennessee plays Florida is an emotional binge. Vol fans know better but they relent and start drinking the orange Kool-Aid. The hangover — PFS — is nasty.

Tennessee lost to the Gators again Saturday, 33-23. Adding injury to insult, the Vols lost one of their best players, too, Justin Hunter.

That’s seven in a row. Seven years of PFS. An epidemic for the books. Even Steve Spurrier never got past five.

It also ranks fourth in terms of Tennessee losing streaks. Alabama holds the trump card, 11 straight from 1971-81. Vanderbilt won nine straight before World War I, from 1901-1913. Ole Miss claimed eight in a row during its heyday, 1959-66.

But enough forlorn history. Today, in a sense of community spirit, I offer a rationalization placebo for PFS.

Here, Tennessee fans, are a bunch of folks that just might feel worse than you do this week.

Ole Miss. The Rebels didn’t just lose to Vanderbilt, they got dominated by the Commodores, 30-7.

That’s two in a row and four out of five. The ‘Dores own Ole Miss. And it’s not before World War I anymore.

“I know we’re better than that,” said Ole Miss coach Houston Nutt.

Maybe not.

Kentucky. The ‘Cats lost the Governor’s Cup to Louisville 24-17 before the home fans in Commonwealth Stadium.

Quarterback Morgan Newton passed for 255 yards, but that’s little consolation. Kentucky allowed six sacks and lost the rushing battle, 181 yards to 35.

“I’d much rather run the ball for 255 yards and throw for 35,” said Kentucky coach Joker Phillips. “Much rather. You have to run the ball to win games.”

Hmm. I wonder if Derek Dooley would rather have run for 288 yards and passed for minus-9 at Florida.

Auburn. A 38-24 loss at Clemson isn’t cause to jump off a bridge. Still, when your defense is ranked 117th out of 120 teams in the nation after giving up 624 yards, that’s depressing.

Besides, Auburn had forgotten what losing feels like. It had been since Nov. 27, 2009. The nation’s longest winning streak is dead at 17 games.

Ohio State. The scandal-plagued Buckeyes got drilled 24-6 by the only team in the nation facing more egregious NCAA allegations, Miami.

The Ohio State University passed for a whopping 35 yards against the ‘Canes, an embarrassing stat to everyone other than possibly the ghost of Woody Hayes.

Cincinnati and Louisville. You won Saturday but learned Pitt and Syracuse are bailing out of the Big East.

Which might be the death knell to your hard-won BCS status. Could it possibly be back to Conference USA? English soccer has a word for it: relegation.

Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor. With the growing likelihood of Texas and Oklahoma headed to the Pac-Whatever, the Big 12 is probably deader than the Big East.

Anybody feeling better yet?

Mike Strange may be reached at strangem@knoxnews.com. Follow him at http://twitter.com/strangemike44 and http://blogs.knoxnews.com/strange.

Below is how the NEMS Daily Journal Nems360.Com saw it out of Mississippi:

REWIND: Vanderbilt 30, Ole Miss 7
by Parrish Alford/NEMS Daily Journal Nems360.Com
3 hrs 11 mins ago | 351 views | 0 0 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Vanderbilt defensive tackle T. J. Greenstone (74) brings down Ole Miss quarterback Randall Mackey (1) during the fourth quarter of an NCAA college football game on Saturday, Sept. 17, 2011, in Nashville, Tenn. Vanderbilt won 30-7. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

Vanderbilt defensive tackle T. J. Greenstone (74) brings down Ole Miss quarterback Randall Mackey (1) during the fourth quarter of an NCAA college football game on Saturday, Sept. 17, 2011, in Nashville, Tenn. Vanderbilt won 30-7. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

slideshow

 
 

Thumbs Up

Freshman Nick Brassell moved to defense during the week and played as the extra defensive back. He finished with one tackle, a forced fumble, fumble recovery and two pass break-ups.

Running back Brandon Bolden, in his first game back from a hairline ankle fracture, averaged 4.9 yards per attempt with 39 yards on eight carries.

Tyler Campbell dropped three of his six punts inside the 20 and averaged 44.5 yards on six kicks with a long of 62.

Thumbs Down

A 77-yard run allowed by the defense, penalties and poor play along the offensive line, questionable throws by the quarterback.

The Rebels could muster only 234 yards of offense, while allowing Vanderbilt 387 yards total, 281 on the ground.

The Ole Miss offense didn’t score its first touchdown against an FBS team this season until 2 minutes, 15 seconds remained. That’s when Zack Stoudt passed 47 yards to Donte Moncrief, but the game had been in hand for quite some time.

Ole Miss is 1-9 in its last 10 SEC games.

Keys To Victory

Evaluating the keys to victory in Thursday’s GameDay section.

1. Clamp down in the run game: In a carbon copy of the 2010 loss to Vanderbilt, Ole Miss was very good on many plays but bad enough on enough plays to make a huge difference.

Subtract a 26-yard misdirection run and a 77-yard touchdown by Zac Stacy and a 19-yard keeper for a touchdown Larry Smith, and the Commodores averaged 3.4 yards per attempt.

But you can’t subtract those plays, and Vanderbilt rushed for almost 300 yards, 281 total.

2. Take care of the football: In the first two games, Zack Stoudt lost fumbles that led to touchdowns. Troubling as those were, the Rebels would have been ahead of the curve if he’d have done that and no more against Vanderbilt.

The Rebels gained two fumbles and an interception but lost five interceptions – Stoudt was under heat much of the time – to finish minus-2 in turnover ratio.

3. Win third downs: Four-for-14 on third downs is not a winning ratio.

MVP Nick Brassell – The freshman showed up in the big-play categories with a forced fumble, recovered fumble and two pass break-ups. He’ll be in defensive meetings this week and will likely see his playing time increase.

Bottom Line

As bad as it was it wasn’t the largest margin of defeat for a Houston Nutt Ole Miss team. That was last year at Tennessee 52-14.

That being said, this game was worse because of the perception of the Vanderbilt program. It will be a difficult week for Nutt to keep his players focused and get them prepared to face a Georgia team in search of a convincing SEC win for its coach, Mark Richt, who has also come under fire.

Here is another view from the Daily Mississippian:

Disappointment — Ole Miss falls 30-7 to Vanderbilt

 
 

 

Article | September 17, 2011 – 4:12pm| By Austin Miller

 

 

 

 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Outplayed. Outcoached. Outmatched. The Ole Miss football team and coaching staff are looking for answers after a 30-7 loss at Vanderbilt in Saturday afternoon’s Southeastern Conference opener.

“Everything is disappointing,” head coach Houston Nutt said of the game. “I have never felt that way on a sideline. It was just not right. We didn’t have that confidence.”

The offense gained only 234 yards of total offense, while junior quarterback Zack Stoudt threw five interceptions in his first SEC start.

“We were pressing too hard, trying to make too much happen,” Stoudt said.

Ole Miss and Vanderbilt played a scoreless first quarter. Midway through the second quarter, junior running back Zac Stacy moved the Commodores into the red zone with a 26-yard gain on a statue-of-liberty run. Two plays later, senior quarterback Larry Smith scored on a 19-yard touchdown run.

Things went from bad to worse later in the second quarter. Vanderbilt pressured Stoudt and he threw his second interception of the game, which junior cornerback Trey Wilson returned 52 yards for a Vanderbilt touchdown.

Just before the half, a broken play on a backwards pass to Stacy went for 34 yards to move the ball inside the Rebels’ 10-yard line. Two plays later, freshman Jerron Seymour powered his way nine yards through the Ole Miss defense for another score. The first half came to a close on Stoudt’s third interception of the game.

Coming out of halftime, on the third play from scrimmage, junior center A.J. Hawkins snapped the ball over Stoudt’s head and sophomore running back Jeff Scott kicked the ball out of the back of the end zone for a safety.

After the ensuing kickoff, the Commodores drove down the field and converted a 3rd-and-long on a 33-yard screen pass to Seymour. The Ole Miss defense stopped the bleeding and got off the field with senior cornerback Marcus Temple’s interception in the end zone for a touchback.

Stacy added to his career-high 167 rushing yards when he ran untouched down the Ole Miss sideline for a 77-yard touchdown run to put Vanderbilt up 30-0. In the closing minutes of the game, Stoudt connected with freshman wide receiver Donte Moncrief for a 47-yard touchdown pass to bring the final score to 30-7.

“I’ve got to let (the players) know I still believe in them,” Nutt said. “I got to do a much better job of getting them ready to go.”

About the Author

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Rick Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented

September 19, 2011 – 8:53 am

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney went after each other at the debate over this term “Ponzi scheme.”

Janet M. LaRue

Janet M. LaRue  

Romney’s Ponzi Phobia

9/19/2011

When it comes to Social Security, Republicans should stop treating seniors like the feeble-minded demographic portrayed in commercials written by 13-year-olds on Madison Avenue.

It’s like the home security commercial targeting seniors for a medical alert pendant to be worn around the neck. White-haired “Mom” didn’t want one because “it was for “some old person.” But daughter, seen patting Mom’s hand, “talked Mom into it.” Next we see “Mom” carrying a basket of laundry down a flight of uncarpeted stairs without holding the handrail. Sure enough, Mom’s lying at the bottom of the staircase pressing her alert button because she’s fallen, broken her hip and can’t get up because “the pain was terrible.” “Mom” and daughter are so glad that she was wearing her alert and could summon help.

You expect to see a disclaimer at the end: “Don’t try this at home. These are actors who are paid to behave stupidly. You could hurt yourself.”

Madison Avenue convinced the marketing geniuses at the security company that they can sell more medical alerts by scaring seniors even if it insults them. I don’t patronize a company run by upstarts who think senior is synonymous with senile. I doubt that many seniors do.

Gov. Mitt Romney and political commentators, such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris, are treating seniors as condescendingly as the commercial. To hear them tell it, if Gov. Rick Perry calls Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme,” seniors will have a seizure, and press a political alert hanging around our neck, which will connect us to the Obama campaign.

Not likely, unless we fall down the stairs and land on our head.

Seniors didn’t put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House. Those of us 65 and over are the only voting bloc who chose McCain over Obama—and by eight percentage points.

Obama’s disapproval rating is at 55 percent and his approval rating is 44 percent. It means that other voting blocs are beginning to wise up to what seniors knew in 2008. Seniors are the least likely group to vote for Obama in 2012.

For one thing, we rejected Obama’s outrageous and vague promise to fundamentally transform the greatest nation in history. And certainly not by a community organizer with a resume thinner than our hair who thinks voting “absent” is leadership and that America should repent for its greatness.

Our sight and hearing may be diminished, but we still know bovine scatology when we smell it.

Seniors deal with hard truth every day. Many of us handle it without our beloved spouse at our side. Health and financial concerns are more pressing. We live on a fixed income and still know the checkbook has to balance. We’re not the demographic maxing out credit cards and living beyond our means. Many dear old friends reside only in our memories. We know that our days dwindle down to a precious few. But it doesn’t mean that our minds have departed.

We certainly can handle the truth that Social Security isn’t sustainable for our children and grandchildren. We know that without a major restructuring, it will remain a pyramid scheme deficient of funds and contributors, a sham promise of retirement security for future generations.

The Social Security trustees released a 244-page report on Monday revealing the gravity of the situation. Page 13 states that payroll tax contributions for 2010 were $544.8 billion; total expenditures were $584.9 billion. That’s a $40 billion deficit. The Department of Labor released a report on Monday stating that there are only 1.5 workers supporting Social Security for every one recipient.

During the Republican debate on Monday night, Romney again accused Perry of scaring seniors by calling Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme.” Where does Romney get the idea that we were clueless until Perry mentioned it?

What is over the top is Romney’s pretense or delusion that Perry coined the term. Stanley Kurtz of National Review cites scores of uses of the term by Republicans and Democrats, academics, and journalists, long enough for Romney to have heard it long before Perry said it. Kurtz concludes in “Perry and the Ponzis”:

Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perry’s remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades.

So the question today is not simply whether Rick Perry will be punished or rewarded for showing the honesty even many liberal commentators once pined for. The more interesting issue raised by this historical investigation may be the fate of the Democratic Party and the media. Where today are the liberal and centrist Democrats who only yesterday called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and supported bold reforms? Where now are the columnists and editors at Newsweek and the New York Times willing to reward truth-tellers and to criticize reporters who cover for cowardly politicians? The fate of Rick Perry’s blunt talk may tell us more than we want to know, not only about Social Security, but also about who we are and what we have become.

What scares most seniors is that our country will be lying at the bottom of the stairs, broken and unable to get up if it remains in the hands of Barack Obama.

Related posts:

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2) John Stossel – Government’s Ponzi Scheme Uploaded by LibertyPen on Apr 21, 2010 A look at the Social Security system. By contrast, Bernie Madoff seems like a shoplifter. http://www.LibertyPen.com Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security ______________________________ Governor Rick […]

Only difference between Ponzi scheme and Social Security is you can say no to Ponzi Scheme jh2d

Is Social Security  a Ponzi Scheme? I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System. Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! 9/14/2011 | Email John Stossel | Columnist’s Archive Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I […]

Despite Brantley’s view,Social Security really is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) (jh1d)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. Max Brantley wants to keep insisting that this will be Perry’s downfall but  think that truth will win out this time around. This is a series of articles […]

My philosophy and my favorite blog posts

I have got several comments during the last 35 weeks that my blog has been in existence and the reaction as been positive and negative. My evangelical and conservative political views have generated the most vocal response. Here are some of my favorite blog posts: 27 Club How should we then live? Series by Francis […]

Video of Republican Debate of Sept 7, 2011

I got this off the internet. I don’t agree with the comments below. For instance, I do think that Security is a Ponzi scheme. Uploaded by PostingsPlus on Sep 8, 2011 Who do you think stood out the most as a leader in this debate? Share you thoughts on http://www.postingsplus.com, a new political social network. […]

Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security Dan Mitchell on Social Security I have said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and sometimes you will hear someone in the public say the same thing. Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner […]

Social Security need a few tweaks or is it a ponzi scheme?

On the Arkansas Times Blog the person using the username “the outlier” noted: Saline, leave SS out of the mix. It is solvent through 2037, and can be made solvent indefinitely with minor tweaks. So many people think that the Social Security is a great investment plan and it may only need a few tweaks. […]

Milton Friedman called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, but liberals keep praising it

On the Arkansas Times Blog on June 11, 2011 the person going by the username Jake de Snake noted,”Current empirical evidence indicates that the American welfare is successful in reducing poverty, inequality and mortality considerably. Public pensions, for instance, are estimated to keep 40% of American seniors above the poverty line.” If Social Security was […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Social Security | Tagged , , , | Comments (1)

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

September 19, 2011 – 8:19 am

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark.

CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It is such a nightmare of complexity that even Democrats routinely have supported “patches” and “band-aids” to protect millions of additional households from getting trapped in this surreal parallel tax universe – one that requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes two different ways, with the IRS getting the maximum amount of money from the two returns. (Hong Kong, by contrast, give taxpayers the option of calculating their taxes two different ways, but they’re allowed to pay the smaller of the two amounts.)

Notwithstanding the AMT’s status as arguably the worst feature of the internal revenue code, President Obama apparently wants to double down on this horrific policy by creating a new version of this nightmarish provision.

Here are some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal‘s coverage, including a key observation that Obama’s scheme is just another version of the AMT.

The administration’s principle resembles the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was first adopted in 1969 and was intended to hit the superwealthy. The AMT has been hitting an increasing number of the middle class because it wasn’t indexed for inflation, and Congress has continually wrestled with how to get rid of it.

The WSJ article also notes that a glaring inconsistency in the White House’s rhetoric. the plan is supposed to be a “very significant” tax hike, but doubling the tax burden on millionaires would only raise $19 billion per year. In other words, the Administration’s class-warfare rhetoric is probably just cover for a tax hike that actually will hit a lot of people with far more modest incomes.

The proposal also could apply to a broader selection of taxpayers—all households with incomes of more than $1 million. Those earners are expected to pay an average of $845,000 this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Assuming the households in the group of 22,000 pay that amount, even doubling their tax burden would raise just $19 billion a year at a time when deficit reduction is being measured in trillions of dollars. That doesn’t take into effect any change in taxpayer behavior prompted by a new tax regime. A senior administration official said that depending on where the minimum rate is set, the plan could be a “very significant” revenue raiser. The official wouldn’t provide details. …Some conservative economists say such a proposal could put a drag on capital markets and ignores the fact that many companies have already paid tax on the income before it is distributed to owners as dividends or capital gains.

The New York Times, to its credit, provides a fair description of the issue (including a much-needed acknowledgement that Warren Buffett may not have been honest and/or accurate), and also suggests that Obama may be proposing to replace the existing AMT with this new version (though that presumably would negate its impact as a revenue-raiser).

Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday. Mr. Obama’s proposal is certain to draw opposition from Republicans, who have staunchly opposed raising taxes on the affluent because, they say, it would discourage investment. It could also invite scrutiny from some economists who have disputed Mr. Buffett’s assertion that the megarich pay a lower tax rate over all. Mr. Buffett’s critics say many of the rich actually make more from wages than from investments. …The administration wants such a tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now hits millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.

Actually, the AMT also hits lots of middle-class families since having kids is considered a “preference” for tax purposes.

But that’s just an insult layered on top of injury. What makes Obama’s new scheme so destructive is that it would (though the White House has not explained the details) somehow classify dividends and capital gains as “preference” items – even though everyone acknowledges that such income already is double taxed!

In other words, Obama claims to be concerned about jobs, but he is proposing a big tax hike on the saving and investment that is necessary to create jobs. Amazing.

Regular readers will recognize this video about Obama’s class-warfare tax policy. But if you haven’t seen it, five reasons are presented to explain why it will backfire.

But look at the bright side. At least accountants and tax lawyers (and don’t forget bankruptcy specialists) will get more business if Obama’s plan is implemented.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Celebrating the Constitution with Heritage Foundation

September 19, 2011 – 6:51 am

Brandon Stewart wrote an excellent article on the founding of the constitution:

This weekend America will celebrate Constitution Day, created to honor the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention. Earlier this week, former Attorney General Ed Meese reflected on the importance ordinary citizens can play in preserving our Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America has endured over two centuries. It remains the object of reverence for nearly all Americans and an object of admiration by peoples around the world. Unfortunately, the assault by 20th century liberal theorists and activist judges has seriously undermined respect for America’s core principles, denigrating some constitutional rights they disagree with and making up others. Fortunately, there has been a renewed interest in the Constitution in recent years, as Americans seek to understand the founding principles and enduring truths that form the bedrock of our chosen form of self-government. Clearly, the future of liberty depends on America reclaiming its constitutional first principles.

As Meese explains, this was something President Ronald Reagan keenly understood. In a 1981 proclamation, Reagan explained the paramount importance of an engaged public:

Daniel Webster once wrote, “We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land — nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” September 17, 1981, marks the 194th anniversary of our Constitution. Its Framers scarcely could have conceived of the timelessness of the document they so carefully drafted. They prepared a Constitution to meet the needs of a fledgling nation. Yet today, amid the complexities of the twentieth century, that same Constitution, with only several amendments, serves a nation whose territory spans a continent and whose population exceeds two hundred and twenty-five million. With the passing of each year, it becomes increasingly evident that, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, our Constitution will “endure for ages to come.”

The Constitution establishes the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary, and through a deliberate allocation of authority, it defines the limits of each upon the others. It particularizes the liberties which, as free men and women, we insist upon, and it constrains both Federal and State powers to ensure that those precious liberties are faithfully protected. It is our blueprint for freedom, our commitment to ourselves and to each other.

It is by choice, not by imposition, that the Constitution is the supreme law of our Land. As we approach the bicentennial of this charter, each of us has a personal obligation to acquaint ourselves with it and with its central role in guiding our Nation. While a constitution may set forth rights and liberties, only the citizens can maintain and guarantee those freedoms. Active and informed citizenship is not just a right; it is a duty.

So this weekend, take a moment to read the Constitution, watch and share our video, take our short quiz, and reflect on the ways we can all work to promote this amazing document.

Brandon Stewart

As digital communications associate, Brandon Stewart blogs for The Foundry, assists with social media efforts, and produces a wide variety of videos

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Ronald Reagan | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 2)

September 19, 2011 – 6:38 am

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 2)

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

David Barton did a great job with this article America’s Religious Heritage As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations :

David Barton – 01/2009
America’s Religious Heritage
As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations

Religious activities at presidential inaugurations have become the target of criticism in recent years, 1 with legal challenges being filed to halt activities as simple as inaugural prayers and the use of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. 2 These critics – evidently based on a deficient education – wrongly believe that the official governmental arena is to be aggressively secular and religion-free. The history of inaugurations provides some of the most authoritative proof of the fallacy of these modern arguments.

Signer of the Constitution Rufus King similarly affirmed:

[B]y the oath which they [the laws] prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system – their morals were destitute of its powerful sanction while their oaths neither awakened the hopes nor fears which a belief in Christianity inspires. 8

James Iredell, a ratifier of the Constitution and a U. S. Supreme Court justice appointed by George Washington, also confirmed:

According to the modern definition [1788] of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which would bind his conscience most.” 9

The great Daniel Webster – considered the foremost lawyer of his time 10 – also declared:

“What is an oath?” . . . [I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices. . . . [O]ur system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property and all our rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a religious belief. 11

Clearly, at the time the Constitution was written, an oath was a religious obligation. George Washington understood this, and at the beginning of his presidency had prayed “So help me God” with his oath; at the end of his presidency eight years later in 1796 in his “Farewell Address,” he reaffirmed that an oath was religious when he pointedly queried:

[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths . . . ? 12

Numerous other authoritative sources affirm that oaths were inherently religious. 13

The evidence is clear: from a constitutional viewpoint, the administering of a presidential oath was the administering of a religious obligation – something that was often acknowledged during presidential inaugurations following Washington’s. For example, during his 1825 inauguration, John Quincy Adams declared:

I appear, my fellow-citizens, in your presence and in that of Heaven to bind myself by the solemnities of religious obligation to the faithful performance of the duties allotted to me in the station to which I have been called. 14  

8. Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), p. 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.(Return)

9. Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1836), Vol. IV, p. 196, James Iredell, July 30, 1788. (Return)

10. Dictionary of American Biography, s. v. “Webster, Daniel.” (Return)

11. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defense of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young, Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), pp. 43, 51. (Return)

12. George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), p. 23. (Return)

13. See, for example, James Coffield Mitchell, The Tennessee Justice’s Manual and Civil Officer’s Guide (Nashville: Mitchell and C. C. Norvell, 1834), pp. 457-458; see also City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 522-524 (Sup. Ct. S.C. 1846); and many other legal sources. (Return)

14. John Quincy Adams, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, D.C.: 1900), Vol. 2, p. 860, March 4th 1825.(Return)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Obama wants to help liberal states

September 19, 2011 – 6:35 am

Obama wants to help liberal states

It is clear now the agenda behind the recent jobs program President Obama has proposed. He wants to help liberal states with their budget problems.

One Reason Obama Wants Another State Bailout

Posted by Tad DeHaven

I recently discussed why the additional federal subsidies for state and local government that President Obama is proposing as part of his “job plan” are a bad idea. A new study from two Harvard economists suggests that the president’s affinity for these subsidies might have something to do with the fact that the aid would be particularly helpful to states with more left-leaning legislators and strong public sector unions.

The study from Daniel J. Nadler and Sounman Hong (see here) found that states with stronger public sector unions and a higher proportion of left-leaning state legislators face higher borrowing costs:

We find that, all things being equal, states with weaker unions, weaker collective bargaining rights, and fewer left-leaning state legislators pay less in borrowing costs at similar levels of debt and similar levels of unexpected budget deficits than do states with stronger unions and more left-leaning legislators. More practically, these findings suggest that the strength of public sector unions has become among the most important factors in bond market perceptions of a state’s risk of financial collapse.

Why do these states face higher borrowing costs? Nadler and Hong explain:

These “political” factors might signify to the bond market whether a state government has the willingness and capacity to initiate needed fiscal adjustments and austerity measures during the state fiscal crises that followed the financial crisis, and thus might provide some information to market participants about the likeliness that a given state government will choose to default on its debt instead of making politically difficult or undesirable budget cuts. Similarly, public sector labor environment variables, such as union strength, might signify to market participants the degree of organized political opposition state lawmakers would have to overcome to implement such austerity measures.

In a corresponding Wall Street Journal op-ed, Nadler and Paul E. Peterson, director of Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, do a nice job of explaining why the separation of responsibility between the federal government and the states has been crucial to the country’s economic rise:

Federal rescue of states is a dramatic departure from past practice. State bankruptcies date back to the 1840s when, amid a financial crisis, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and five other states discovered they had invested too heavily in infrastructure. The last state bankruptcy was in Arkansas during the 1930s. But overall the instances were few; in each case the federal government refused to come up with a fix.

Bankrupt states paid the price, but for the country as a whole, a system of fiscally sovereign states has proven incredibly beneficial to the nation’s economic well-being. Every state is responsible for its own police, fire, schools, transport and much more, and most of the time they do reasonably well. If they manage their affairs so as to attract business, commerce and talented workers, states prosper. If states make a mess of things, citizens and businesses vote with their feet, marching off to a part of the country that works better.

It is this exceptional federalist system that helped drive the rapid growth of the American economy throughout the first two centuries of the country’s history. Because state and local governments competed with one another for venture capital, entrepreneurial talent and skilled workers, governments generally had to be attentive to the needs of both citizens and commerce.

Unfortunately, the 20th century’s trend for the federal government to subsidize and manage more and more state and local affairs has worsened in the last 10 years as the chart in my blog post shows. If our bloated federal government is ever to be reined in, a return to fiscal federalism is a must. And if the states are to get their financial houses in order, state policymakers can’t be allowed to believe that a federal policy of “too big to fail” applies to them. (See this Cato essay for more on fiscal federalism.)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation speaks in Little Rock on 6-22-11 (Part 2)

September 19, 2011 – 12:48 am

The third monthly luncheon with featured speaker Ernest Istook was excellent. First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN   who came up with the idea of this luncheon, and then from Teresa Crossland of Americans for Prosperity.

Below is a portion of Istook’s biography from the Heritage Foundation:

Ernest Istook

Ernest Istook

  • Distinguished Fellow

Ernest J. Istook Jr. brings extensive congressional experience to bear on public policy issues as a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Istook served 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives before joining Heritage in 2007.

In Congress, representing Oklahoma’s 5th District, he engaged in a wide and robust range of issues as a member of the Appropriations Committee –where he chaired multiple subcommittees– and the Homeland Security Committee.

Istook delved into budget and spending issues in general as well as subjects such as transportation, trade, defense, health care, education, labor, financial services, homeland security and religious liberty. He was a founder of the re-established Republican Study Committee, the principal conservative caucus in the House.

In 2010, Istook was selected as a Fellow for the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

________________________________________

In his talk on June 22, 2011 in Little Rock, he spent some time talking about how excited he was about the Tea Party. One person asked him what we should think about the Republicans that just want to make their total goal keeping the majority and not try to rock the boat. Istook said that the Tea Party was going to make sure that did not happen.

Here is another article by Istook that discusses some of these same issues:

The biggest foreclosure yet may begin on November 2nd, as voters start foreclosure proceedings against big government.  It’s run up more debt than we can afford to pay.

The paperwork has been validated.  It’s found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, duly approved and signed by our Founding Fathers.

Previous proceedings went awry.  President Bill Clinton’s 1996 pronouncement that “The era of big government is over” proved to be empty words, as demonstrated by the subsequent free spending of Congress and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

So what’s different about today?  The Tea Party movement, for one thing.  It’s here to stay, as noted in an approving op-ed by Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, and documented in the  new best-seller by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen

Below is the article that Istook referenced:

Tea partiers won’t go when fun ends
By: Ed Feulner and Sen. Jim DeMint
October 14, 2010 04:46 AM EDT
In only 21 months, the tea party has exploded from a handful of scattered, spontaneous rallies into a full-fledged national movement capable of throwing out incumbents. Challenging entrenched Washington habits, it is a force both parties must reckon with.Skeptics and opponents, however, continue to ask two basic questions. First, does the tea party have any real philosophical depth, a historical pedigree? Second, will its force dissipate after the elections?In short, critics accept that the tea party has a present — but they question whether it has a past and a future.Yes and yes. Yes, the tea party has a pedigree as old as our nation, and yes, we think it is likely to continue to play a significant role in politics after Nov. 2. People in both parties who hope to wish it away and continue business as usual had better think twice.Americans have been disappointed by leaders in both parties who campaigned to right past wrongs and then, after getting to Washington, cared more about power than promises. Tea party supporters care more about principle than party labels or politics.Tea party members voice the kinds of concerns that even some of President Barack Obama’s former supporters are beginning to raise. As one Obama voter asked the president at a recent town hall, “Is the American dream dead for me?”

These are the questions Americans are asking nationwide — in their kitchens, church halls and ballparks. These are the concerns expressed at tea party rallies everywhere.

The tea party seeks answers to such questions not in the dictates of Washington today but in our country’s founding principles. There, it finds a prescription for constitutional, limited government based on God-given rights — not a Utopian blueprint for bureaucratic-managed change.

The tea party, in other words, is that inner voice that speaks to us when things go wrong — the conscience of the nation at a crucial point in our history.

What has gone wrong is clear. The “stimulus” package has failed to get this country back on its feet. The latest unemployment figures show that we still have anemic growth and nearly 10 percent unemployment. As Americans suffered, Washington wasted its time on a gargantuan, unmanageable and unaffordable health care package. No wonder many Americans feel frustrated.

But underneath the frustration, the tea party has roots that are deeper and aim higher. Deeper because it is within the best tradition of popular movements in our history — from the Great Awakening that gave rise to the American Revolution to the conservative revival that helped elect Ronald Reagan. Higher because it aims to recover our moral compass, bequeathed by our Founders and preserved ever since.

The tea party also symbolizes Americans’ indomitable desire for a better life. It reminds us that we’re a country of free people who understand that liberty is fragile and must be vigilantly defended.

Some past grass-roots movements have succeeded, and others have failed. Success comes because the energy of the moment is translated into a lasting, governing philosophy consistent with the settled opinions of the American people.

On this score, prospects look good. The tea party isn’t about to go away after the November elections. Its powerful message of limited government is likely to remain a sharp thorn in the side of those in both parties who want to continue politics as usual.

Take Obama’s health care package, which tea partiers have labeled “Obamacare.” Obama and Democrats rammed this through Congress, against the wishes of a majority of the American people.

But the repealing legislation should not itself contain some new massive health care plan. Even if the legislation offers good policy, the tea party is here to remind Republicans that pushing large, unexamined bills through Congress is wrong. We need to repeal Obamacare immediately, then openly debate and pass conservative-drawn, sensible and broadly supported health care reform.

It’s no surprise that pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen found that more than “half of the electorate now say they favor the tea party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 [percent] to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement and 2 [percent] to 7 percent say they are activists.”

This means that all those protesters with their Constitutions at tea party rallies nationwide represent millions of fellow Americans. The answers they seek won’t be found in the thousands of pages of new legislation coming out of Washington.

They are in those documents that first defined this nation and provide the most just framework for a free people to work hard, play by the rules and succeed.

Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation. Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina.

____________________________________

Other posts about Heritage Foundation:

Brummett: We need to tax the rich more (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 12)

John Brummett asserts that liberals are right about the cause of the deficit. He asserts in his article “Harry let us down,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 4, 2011: He is right that the actual deficit is caused by direct government spending exceeding income, an imbalance mostly caused, he will tell you with some justification, by […]

Ernest Istook: “it’s time to put away childish things” and tackle deficit, will Senator Mark Pryor do it?

U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 DPA J-J Dinner U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. (Did you notice that besides Mike Ross, EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT THAT PRYOR MENTIONS DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB IN WASHINGTON IS NO LONGER IN OFFICE, SNYDER, LINCOLN, and BERRY)

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 4)

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beach is one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but […]

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 3)

The problem with social security   David John, a Senior research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explains his position on Social Security as it relates to taxes and health care. He suggests it would be a good solution for the government to raise the age of retirement. “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to […]

Who was Milton Friedman and what did he say about Social Security Reform? (Part 4)

Arnold Schwarzenegger did  the opening introduction to the film series “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman, but then  Arnold abandoned the principles of Friedman!!!! Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect […]

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 1)

What is the future of Social Security and Medicare?  Congresswoman Virginia Foxx talks with Alison Fraser of the Heritage Foundation about the state of Social Security and Medicare. “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison […]

Max Brantley thinks there are three reasons we have huge debt: 1. Bush Tax cuts for rich 2. Bush’s wars 3. Recession (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 11)

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory The Laffer Curve charts a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. While the theory behind the Laffer Curve is widely accepted, the concept has become very controversial because politicians on both sides of the debate exaggerate. This video shows the middle ground between those who claim […]

Pat Lynch: We need to bring tax rates back up for Rich (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 10)(If you love Milton Friedman then you will love this post)

The liberal Pat Lynch in his article “Worry Inc.” Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, April 4, 2011 commented: While the budget cutters are busy going after programs that help mere citizens, any notion of bringing taxrates for the wealthy back to the levels of the Clinton era, when there was a federal surplus, is off the table. […]

John Brummett:Cause of deficit is we don’t tax rich enough (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 9)(Famous Arkansan Wayne Jackson)

John Brummett asserts that liberals are right about the cause of the deficit. He asserts in his article “Harry let us down,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 4, 2011: He is right that the actual deficit is caused by direct government spending exceeding income, an imbalance mostly caused, he will tell you with some justification, by […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47)

September 19, 2011 – 12:17 am

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

JONES VOTES AGAINST LARGEST DEBT LIMIT INCREASE IN HISTORY

 
 

Washington, Aug 3 –

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week Congressman Walter B. Jones voted against S. 365 – the bill negotiated between President Barack Obama and House and Senate Leadership which would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling by up to $2.4 trillion.  That increase in the debt limit would be the largest in U.S. history.   The bill is expected to pass the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama later today.  Congressman Jones is the only member of Congress to have voted against final passage of every single increase in the debt limit over the last seven years.   

While Congressman Jones was pleased that the Speaker of the House was able to overcome the President’s original request for a blank check to increase deficit spending without cuts, and then his insistence that a debt limit increase be paid for with tax increases and phantom spending reductions, the Congressman had serious concerns with the final deal. 

The bill allows the President to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion over the next 6 months, while the promised spending reductions would take place over the next 10 years – assuming no future Congress undoes those cuts.  Further – even if the reductions stay in effect – the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending will still go up each and every year of the ten year agreement, with the government adding at least another $4 trillion in deficit spending over those ten years.  

Congressman Jones is also troubled by the unbalanced reductions required by the bill, and the impact they could have on Eastern North Carolina.  While defense spending constitutes roughly 1/6th of current federal spending, the bill would require that half of future cuts come from defense.  That could have serious consequences for America’s ability to defend itself, and for Eastern North Carolina’s military bases.  The bill would also leave veterans funding open to cuts.  And while funding for Eastern North Carolina veterans and military bases would be on the chopping block, the bill protects overseas spending in Iraq and Afghanistan from cuts.  The bill also allows spending on optional “discretionary programs” to rise by over $200 billion dollars, yet subjects Eastern North Carolina hospitals, doctors and seniors to Medicare cuts. 

“Cutting funding for Eastern North Carolina bases and our veterans while expanding funding for overseas wars is an unacceptable proposition,” said Congressman Jones.  “Allowing increases in spending on discretionary programs at the same time you are cutting medical benefits just makes no common sense.  There is no doubt that federal spending must be cut dramatically if this nation hopes to get back on its feet.  But under this legislation total spending and debt continue to rise, and the cuts that actually are made are unbalanced.  This bill unfortunately missed the mark.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 113)

September 19, 2011 – 12:17 am

Alexis Garcia reports on America’s exploding debt. Experts blame entitlements like Social Security and government spending. But what is the solution? Can we raise taxes without crushing the economy and the middle class? Does Obama really want to lower the debt, or does he support continued deficit spending? See interviews with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Brian Riedl, Jason Peuquet and former Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK).

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.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:

 Here are a few more I  emailed to him myself.

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

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Office of Personnel Management
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease
OPM $2.924 B $9.070 B 12.3%
The Office of Personnel Management is notorious for its red tape. Responsible for hiring federal employees – who earn double the salaries of their private sector counterparts (USA Today, March 3, 2010) – the agency has a reputation of poor performance in hiring, which even President Obama has scolded and sought to reform. However, more has to be done to streamline the processes of this behemoth of an organization that is a perfect example of government growth and waste.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 2)

September 19, 2011 – 12:14 am
Coldplay

This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference:

My son Hunter is a coldplay nut and his 19th favorite song is “Glass of Water.”

The whole album is very interesting and I have written about it before. The subject of death is prominent in the songs “Poppyfields,” “Violet Hill,” “Death and All His Friends,” “42,” and the “Cemeteries of London.” Then the song “The Escapist” states, “And in the end, We lie awake and we dream, we’re makin our escape.” In the end we all die. Therefore, I assume this song is searching for an afterlife to escape to. The song “Glass of Water” sheds some more light on where we possibly escape to: “Oh he said you could see a future inside a glass of water, with riddles and the rhymes, He asked ‘Will I see heaven in mine?’

Coldplay is clearly searching for spiritual answers but it seems they have not found them quite yet. The song “42“: “Time is so short and I’m sure, There must be something more.” Then the song “Lost“: “Every river that I tried to cross, Every door I ever tried was locked, I’m just waiting til the shine wears off, You might be a big fish in a little pond, Doesn’t mean you’ve won, Because along may come a bigger one and you will be lost.”
Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for this “something more” that Coldplay is talking about, but he did not find any satisfaction in pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), work (2:4), wealth (2:8) or fame (2:9). All of his accomplishments would not be remembered (1:11) and who is to say that they had not already been done before by others (1:10)? This reminds me of the big fish in the little pond that Coldplay was talking about. Even if you think you are on top, are you really? Also Solomon’s upcoming death depressed him because both people and animals alike “go to the same place — they came from dust and they return to dust” (3:20).  The answer to this problem is given at the end of the Book of Ecclesiastes.

The Best Coldplay Songs Of All Time – And Why?

By

Continental OnePass® Card Earn Miles on Your Daily Purchases Exclusive OnePass® Plus Benefits. CHASECreditCards.com/Continental
Find A Record Label Natl. TV campaign for new artists. Submit your music today. www.TateMusicGroup.com
Download Google Chrome A free browser that lets you do more of what you like on the web www.google.com/chrome

Expert Author Vincent Friend

No one can argue that Coldplay is one of the best bands of today. Their music has been spread across the globe from the US to Canada, Australia to New Zealand, England to France and many more. Personally, I’m a huge Coldplay fan and when the question of “what are the best Coldplay songs of all time” came up amongst a few friends of mine while playing Rock Band it got the cogs in mind thinking…

I decided that there were too many great Coldplay songs so I narrowed it down to just five. Here’s what I came up with…

Trouble

Trouble is the song that made me fall in love with the band. A great starting piano tune that not only delivers an excellent chorus but then tops that with a remarkable ending. Not too many songs these days change total direction at the end and give their listeners something more at the finale. A gorgeous video combining stop-motion and digital effects. If you’re unfamiliar with Coldplay’s music then this is a great place to start.

Speed of Sound

Great beat. Great lyrics. Again, you have a beautiful piano part starting the song off. Where “Trouble” is a steady horse from start to end, Speed of Sound is more like a gallop that increases as the song progresses. Just when you think they’ve drawn you in with the ultimate hook they continue to deliver hook after hook in this song. And not just in the vocals. The guitars and piano are all throwing in their cool little hooky riffs. Its kinda like one of those russian dolls that you keep opening up to more and more cute little dolls. This song is guaranteed to fill your musical palette over and over again.

In My Place

In My Place starts with a rockin drum line with kick, snare and hi-hat by the ever-talented “Will Champion”. Then a beautiful guitar line comes in with Jonny Buckland leading us through the whole song. This is the first hook we hear in the song, played in the upper registers of the guitar with a combination of arpeggios and melodic note choices. I always find it funny to hear instruments in a song that don’t show up in the video. If you listen closely you’ll hear a gentle organ playing its way through the verse but in the video it’s not featured. And once again Chris does an amazing job coming up with the best hooks in the chorus providing not only a great Pop/Rock tune but a memorable song that will last through the times.

Clocks

I don’t think any piano line has been played more than the one from Clocks. You’ll not only hear this song in every romantic movie out there but the piano hook itself has been dissected from the song just to be featured by itself in many movies and tv shows. The song is a basic 4/4 form but what’s great is how they divide the meter. A constant division of 3-3-2 driving you throughout the entirety of the song. It provides not only a great rock feel but with such a rhythm it’s guaranteed you’ll find yourself alone in your room dancing like a freak until your mum walks in on you embarrassing you in the process.

The Scientist

No other song by Coldplay gives me goosebumps like The Scientist. A sweet and nostalgic tune that enjoys a long intro with Chris Martin on vocals and piano. It’s not until the 1:38 mark does the full band finally come in. That’s a big no no in the Pop world. You see, by Pop standards you’re supposed to hit the full chorus by at least the first 30 seconds. But that’s perhaps what I love about this song. They manage to go outside that box and provide a moving a wonderful musical tale. In the July 14th, 2005 edition of Rolling Stone magazine, Chris Martin is quoted as saying:”On the second album I was thinking there was something missing. I was in this really dark room in Liverpool, and there was a piano so old and out of tune. I really wanted to try and work out the George Harrison song ‘Isn’t It A Pity,’ but I couldn’t. Then this song came out at once. I said, ‘Can you turn on the recorder?’ The first time I sung it is what’s out there.”

Whether you agree with my choice for the best Coldplay songs of all time or not, there’s no disputing that they are one of the greatest bands of all time.

Related posts:

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 4)

Dave Hogan/ Getty Images This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: For the 17th best Coldplay song of all-time, Hunter picks “42.” He notes, “You thought you might […]

Documentary on Coldplay (Part 2)

The best band in the world. Below I have linked some articles I have earlier about the search for meaning in life the band seems to involved in. Chris Martin, Jonny Buckland, Guy Berryman, and Will Champion formed Coldplay in 1996 while going to University in London. The young band quickly established themselves in the […]

Review of New Coldplay song with video clip

I am presently involved in the counting down of the best Coldplay songs of all time, but I am also in a series here reviewing the upcoming songs on Coldplay’s new cd that will be released soon. Here is a review from Rolling Stone: Coldplay Debut new song ‘Charlie Brown’ June 6, 2011 Coldplay debuted […]

Documentary on Coldplay (Part 1, the song “Yellow” featured)

Great documentary on Coldplay. I have written a lot on Coldplay the last few years and I see something spiritually happening with the group as they continue to search for a deeping meaning in life. Coldplay Max Masters – Part 1 of 7 Uploaded by thepostbox on May 6, 2009 The ASTRA Award winning music documentary […]

“Woody Wednesday” Will Allen and Martin follow same path as Kansas to Christ?

Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 3)

 This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference:   Hunter has chosen the song “Viva La Vida” as his number 18 pick. Hunter noted, “The violin synth is a […]

Review of New Coldplay songs (video clip too)

Coldplay – Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall Published on Jun 28, 2011 by ColdplayVEVO The new single, taken from Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall EP (featuring two more new tracks). Download it from http://cldp.ly/itunescp Music video by Coldplay performing Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall. (P) 2011 The copyright in this audiovisual recording is owned by […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)