Monthly Archives: September 2011

Two amazing actresses: Sisters Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Haviland

September 18, 2011 – 10:44 pm

Last night I watched the movie “Suspicion” with Joan Fontaine. 

 

 

‘

Feuding Sisters: Olivia de Havilland & Joan Fontaine

Over the years, the Academy has recognized acting families, with awards bestowed upon siblings, parents and children, and even cousins.  The Huston’s, the Fonda’s, the Coppola’s, and the Redgrave’s, are among the acting families, who have multiple awards amongst them.  But perhaps the most interesting, would be that duo of feuding sisters, who’s private infighting, became Hollywood gossip, and who would butt heads at the Oscar ceremonies on more than one occasion! 

Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine were both army brats, two sisters born one year apart in Tokyo , where their father was stationed, back in 1916-17.  The girls suffered from ill-health, forcing the parents to move to California when they were young.  During that time, their parents divorced, and their father returned to Tokyo.

The sisters admit that growing up together, that they fought constantly.  According to Fontaine, elder sister, Olivia never got used to the idea of a younger sister, and thus a jealous rivalry was begun.  Their fighting was so bitter as children, that it often resulted in fist fighting, as much as it did petty squabbling.

Olivia was the first to venture into acting, taking the stage in the early thirties.  Sister Joan followed suit a few years later.  

As they were both being courted for contracts with movie studios, Joan changed her name to Fontaine,  supposedly on the advice of a fortune teller.  While Joan started to work her way up the ranks of RKO, playing smaller roles to Katherine Hepburn and Joan Crawford, Olivia was signed with Warner’s, playing high profile roles in Robin Hood and in several Bette Davis films.  

By 1939, Olivia had made a name for herself, so much so, that she was a popular choice with fans, and with casting agents, to play Melanie, in the classic, Gone With the Wind. Olivia earned her first nomination for Best Supporting Actress, playing the ultra-pure wife of the man that Scarlett O’Hara is hot-to-trot for.

Of course, the award would ultimately be handed out to her co-star, Hattie McDaniel, the first black actress to ever win the award, but that fact didn’t console de Havilland.  She later admitted, that for at least two weeks after her defeat, she was convinced that ‘there was no God.’  She admitted that on the night that McDaniel won,  she ‘couldn’t stay at that table another minute.  I had to be alone, so I wandered out into the kitchen and cried.’  She said that it took a few days before she could finally be ‘proud’ that she “belonged to a profession which honored a black woman who merited this, in a time when other groups had neither the honesty, nor the courage to do the same sort of thing.”

The very next year, David Selznick was looking for a vehicle to follow up his success on Gone With the Wind.  He chose Rebecca, and gave newcomer, Alfred Hitchcock free reign to direct.  Hitchcock cast the other sister, Joan, in the lead role of the meek and mild, second Mrs. de Winter.  The film was a success, garnering yet another Best Picture win for Selznick’s camp.  Meanwhile, Joan was suddenly a big star, and found herself nominated for her first Best Actress Award.

Despite raving reviews by the critics, and a huge fan base that was gunning for her, Joan didn’t win that year.  Instead, the award went to Ginger Rogers, who was perhaps being honored for a decade worth of fine work in classic musicals and comedies, rather than for the second grade weepy, Kitty Foyle, for which she was nominated.  Fontaine was gracious about losing, stating that ‘to have won for my first good role, would have been precipitous.’ 

The 1941 Oscar’s marked the first round in the battle of the feuding sisters, when both of them were nominated for the Best Actress Oscar.  Joan received the nod for Suspicion, her second film with Alfred Hitchcock directing her, while Olivia was recognized for Hold Back the Dawn.  

Joan actually didn’t plan on attending the ceremony, stating that she had to be up early the next morning, however, older sister, Olivia twisted her arm, stating, “You have to be there.  Your absence would look odd.”

Gingers Rogers presented the Best Actress award, while the two sisters sat next to each other at the Selznick table.  When she called out Joan’s name, Joan remembers how she just froze.  “Get up there,” her sister nudged.  Joan remembers bursting into tears at that very moment.  “All the animus we felt toward each other as children,” she recalled.  “The hair pulling, the savage wrestling matches, the time Olivia fractured my collar bone, all came rushing back in kaleidoscopic imagery.  My paralysis was total … I felt age four, being confronted by my older sister.  Damn it!  I incurred her wrath again.”

Here is a picture of her in Suspicion above.


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

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 1)

September 18, 2011 – 9:36 pm

 

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 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.

In fact, since America’s first inauguration in 1789 included seven distinct religious activities, that original inauguration is worthy of review. Every inauguration since 1789 has included numerous of those activities.

The First Inauguration

Constitutional experts abounded at America’s first inauguration. Not only was the first inauguree (George Washington) a signer of the Constitution but numerous drafters of the Constitution were serving in the Congress that organized and directed that first inauguration. In fact, just under one fourth of the members of the first Congress had been delegates to the Convention that wrote the Constitution. 3 Furthermore, the identical Congress that directed and oversaw these inaugural activities also penned the First Amendment. Having therefore produced both the Constitution and all of its clauses on religion, they clearly knew what types of religious activities were and were not constitutional. Clearly, then, the religious activities that occurred at the first inauguration may well be said to have the approval and imprimatur of the greatest collection of constitutional experts America has ever known. Therefore, a review of the religious activities acceptable in that first inauguration will provide guidance for citizens in general and critics in particular.

The first inauguration occurred in New York City. (New York City served as the nation’s capital for the first year of the new federal government; for the next ten, Philadelphia was the capital city; in 1800, the federal government moved to Washington, D. C. for its permanent home). George Washington had been at home at Mt. Vernon when Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress, notified him that he had been unanimously elected as the nation’s first president.

On receiving this news, Washington departed from Mt. Vernon and began his trek toward New York City, stopping first at Fredericksburg, Virginia, to visit his mother, Mary¬ – the last time the two would see each other. Mary was eighty-two and suffering from incurable breast cancer. Mary parted with her son, giving him her blessings and offering him her prayers, telling him: “You will see me no more; my great age and the disease which is rapidly approaching my vitals, warn me that I shall not be long in this world. Go, George; fulfill the high destinies which Heaven appears to assign to you; go, my son, and may that Heaven’s and your mother’s blessing be with you always.” 4Washington did go, and he did indeed fulfill the high destinies assigned him by Heaven. A moving painting was made of her giving him her final charge; his mother passed away a few months after that final meeting.

Leaving his mother, Washington continued northward toward New York City. In town after town along the way, special dinners and celebrations were held – including in Alexandria, Georgetown, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Trenton, and other locations. Finally reaching Elizabethtown, New Jersey, Washington boarded a barge that carried him the rest of the way, where another celebration awaited him upon entering New York Harbor.

On April 30th, 1789, George Washington was to be inaugurated on the balcony outside Federal Hall. (Federal Hall was originally named Old Hall, but New York City – in an effort to convince the new federal government that the City was serious about becoming the national capital – remodeled the structure, renaming it Federal Hall. The House and Senate met in two chambers inside that Hall, and the inauguration took place on the remodeled building’s balcony.) Incidentally, religious activities had been planned to precede the inauguration, with the people of New York City being called to a time of prayer. The papers in the Capital City reported on that scheduled activity:

[O]n the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o’clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the Most high. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and . . . is designed wholly for prayer. 5

The preparations for the inauguration had been extensive; everything had been well planned; the event seemed to be proceeding smoothly. The parade carrying Washington by horse-drawn carriage to the swearing-in was nearing Federal Hall when it was realized that no Bible had been obtained for administering the oath. Parade Marshal Jacob Morton hurried to the nearby Masonic Lodge and grabbed its large 1767 King James Bible.

The Bible was laid upon a crimson velvet cushion (held by Samuel Otis, Secretary of the Senate) and, with a huge crowd gathered below watching the ceremony on the balcony, New York Chancellor Robert Livingston was to administer the oath of office. (Robert Livingston had been one of the five Founders who had drafted the Declaration of Independence; however, he was called back to New York to help his State through the Revolution before he could affix his signature to the very document he had helped write. As Chancellor, Livingston was the highest ranking judicial official in New York.) Beside Livingston and Washington stood several distinguished officials, including Vice President John Adams, original Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, Generals Henry Knox and Philip Schuyler, and a number of others. The Bible was opened at random to the latter part of Genesis; Washington placed his left hand upon the open Bible, raised his right, and then took the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution. Washington then bent over and kissed the Bible, reverently closed his eyes, and said, “So help me God!” Chancellor Livingston then proclaimed, “It is done!” Turning to the crowd assembled below, he shouted, “Long live George Washington – the first President of the United States!” That shout was echoed and re-echoed by the crowd below.

Critics today claim that George Washington never added “So help me God!” to his oath 6 – that associating religious intent with the oath is of recent origins. After all, the presidential oath of office as prescribed in Article II of the Constitution simply states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

But overlooked by many today is the fact that the Framers of our government considered an oath to be inherently religious – something George Washington affirmed when he appended the phrase “So help me God” to the end of the oath. In fact, it was universally acknowledged by every American legal scholar of that day that any legally-binding oath was overtly religious in nature. As signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon succinctly explained:

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [a calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow. 7  

1. A number of legal authorities, university professors, and news writers have criticized inaugural religious activities. See, for example, Alan M. Dershowitz, “Bush Starts Off by Defying the Constitution,” Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Metro section, Part B, p. 9; Larry Judkins, Religion Page Editor, Sacramento Valley Mirror, “Dershowitz Piece Misleading: All Presidents Flaunt Constitution,” in Positive Atheism Magazine, Thursday, January 25, 2001 (at: http://www.positiveatheism.org); “President Bush Announces Religious Agenda on Inauguration Day,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, January 20, 2001 (at:http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=6095); et. Al.(Return)

2. Noted atheist Michael Newdow filed suit in federal court to have prayers barred from the Presidential Inauguration of 2001, 2005, and in 2009 to have inaugural prayers halted and to prevent the Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court from saying “So help me God” when administering the oath of office to the president. (Return)

3. Significantly, many of the U. S. Senators at the first Inauguration had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention that framed the Constitution including William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, George Read, Richard Bassett, William Few, Caleb Strong, John Langdon, William Paterson, Robert Morris, and Pierce Butler; and many members of the House had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Hugh Williamson, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, and James Madison.(Return)

4. Benson J. Lossing, Our Country: A Household History for All Readers (New York: Henry J. Johnson, 1877), Vol. IV, p. 1121. (Return)

5. The Daily Advertiser, New York, Thursday, April 23, 1789, p. 2. (Return)

6. See, for example, Newdow v. Roberts, complaint filed by Newdow on December 29, 2008, pp. 20-21, par. 103-104 of the complaint. See also Cathy Lynn Grossman, “No proof Washington said ‘so help me God’ – will Obama,”USA Today, January 9, 2009 (at:http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm). (Return)

7. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, pp. 139-140, 142, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows. (Return)

 

 
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Comments (0)

The two games I saw this week (Tenn at Florida, Troy at Arkansas) jh21

September 18, 2011 – 4:00 pm

This weekend I got to see two games on TV. I wanted to make a few comments about both games. Arkansas finally put away Troy 38-28 and Florida finally put away Tennessee 33-23.

I told my kids that Arkansas was going to be facing a tough opponent this week in Troy. Harry King agreed evidently:

Well-informed Razorback fans, here’s a trivia question: What four opposing quarterbacks are on the Davey O’Brien watch list?

Thinking cap on, I came up with Texas A&M’s Ryan Tannehill, Tennessee’s Tyler Bray and Mississippi State’s Chris Relf. Knowing the watch list was released in mid-July, Alabama, Auburn and LSU were eliminated because the quarterback situation at those schools was unsettled at the time.

South Carolina’s oft-suspended Stephen Garcia was the red herring.

The final member of the quartet is Troy’s Corey Robinson, who will have an opportunity to show off this evening in Fayetteville. Two-thirds of the 38 on the watch list are from the six BCS conferences and five are from Conference USA where pass defense is prohibited, so Robinson had to have some credentials to be recognized from the Sun Belt Conference.

As a freshman last year, he completed almost 64 percent of his 505 passes for 3,726 yards with 28 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

Don’t assume Robinson feasted on Sun Belt opposition. He was 28-of-38 in a 41-38 loss to Oklahoma State, 58 percent or better against three other non-conference foes and 32-of-42 for 387 in a New Orleans Bowl victory over Ohio.

Two weeks ago, in Troy’s only game of the year, he was 24-of-42 against Clemson. Troy led the Tigers 16-13 at the half.

___________________________

The Tennessee game showed me that Bray is the real deal. I actually think that Tennesse may be the toughest game that Arkansas has at home this year. Some people would argue it is South Carolina, but I am picking Vandy to beat them this week. Miss St is very good but will they be able to recover from starting 0-2 in the SEC?

The other SEC home game for Arkansas is Auburn and with the defeat this week at Clemson it proves that Auburn will lucky to finish 4-4 in the SEC conference play this year. I think Tennessee will be a surprising dark horse in the East and probably the toughest team Arkansas will face this year at home. We will have to wait and see.

Below is a negative view of Tennessee’s game yesterday from Knoxnews.com:

Quarterbacks: B-

Tyler Bray had one of his first mistakes of the season, and it proved to be a big one. The sophomore’s interception to start the second half led directly to points and put UT in a hole it couldn’t climb out of without Justin Hunter at receiver.

Running backs: C-

Tauren Poole was a non-factor, and Marlin Lane didn’t provide much more on the ground. Lane did add another touchdown to his growing resume and was productive out of the backfield as a receiver.

Wide receivers/ tight ends: B

Losing Hunter early was a critical blow to the offense, but it did give Vincent Dallas and DeAnthony Arnett a chance to make an impact. Both got involved in the passing game and showed signs of being able to help moving forward.

Offensive line: D

There were no running lanes to be found, and James Stone struggled mightily to get the ball to Bray with his shotgun snaps. The sophomore hadn’t really shown any signs of problems through two weeks, but Bray was frequently scooping balls off the ground.

Defensive line: C-

The Vols didn’t have much time to generate much pressure on Florida quarterback John Brantley because he was so quick to dish it to his running backs. There were plenty of opportunities to wrap Chris Rainey and Jeff Demps in the backfield, but the Vols missed far too many times.

Linebackers: C-

A lot of the blame has to be placed on this group for the success of Florida’s short passing game. Rainey’s 83-yard catch-and-run came clearly as a result of busted coverage. Nevertheless, there were some highlights for this group, as both freshmen A.J. Johnson, who ran back a fumble in the third quarter, and Curt Maggitt looked very good at times.

Secondary: C

The Vols didn’t have to worry much about Brantley or Florida’s underwhelming group of wide receivers burning them for big plays, but they also share some of the blame for Rainey’s and Demps’ short catches going for long gains. There should have been someone around to slow down Rainey on his long touchdown catch. Senior Art Evans, back in the starting lineup, and Marsalis Teague were mostly reliable at cornerback, but they weren’t tested very often.

Special teams: F

What could go wrong did go wrong, and to make matters worse, there were penalties on top of that. Michael Palardy missed a short field goal in the first quarter, had a punt blocked and was woeful on kickoffs. The only facet that wasn’t a mess was the typically awful punt return team. Of course, with the way Florida was scoring, there weren’t many opportunities.

Coaching: C-

Dooley questioned his decision to go for a two-point conversion midway through the third quarter, but collectively the Vols seemed to make some adjustments on both sides of the ball that allowed them to stay competitive in a game that looked like it could get out of hand at times.

Overall: C-

The Vols were dealt some adversity early with Hunter going down, and they didn’t handle it well and struggled to get an early foothold in the game. That might not be surprising for a young team, but it showed some signs of maturing in the way it battled back late.

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

Brummett wrong on Capital Punishment

September 18, 2011 – 1:58 am

John Brummett on Sept 18, 2011 commented :

…that the debate audience had cheered and whistled the week before at the Reagan library. It happened when a questioner related that 234 death row inmates had been executed in Rick Perry’s gubernatorial tenure in Texas, far more than in any other state.

The question to Perry, after the death glee subsided, was whether he agonized about any of that. He said no, not at all.

How could he have dared to say otherwise? This is no time for a Republican presidential hopeful to stand before a contemporary conservative audience in America and go all wobbly on death and killing.

_____________________

I am a Christian. It is my view that capital punishment is clearly taught in the Bible. I think if Brummett got his way then possibly more prison guards would be killed because capital punishment woujld be banned. Or we would get a crazy society like Norway that allows mass murderers out in 7 years. Below is an article that makes this clear. Also I do believe it is a deterrent. Greg Koukl rightly noted, “I was listening a couple of years ago to KABC and talk show host Michael Jackson. He was making the point that capital punishment never works. And of course, he’s thinking of it as a deterrent. My response is, capital punishment works every time. Every time it’s used, the prisoner dies.”

Also I agree with Koukl that in the case of the Oklahoma City Bombing the murderer deserved to die. The same should be said about this case in Norway!!!

Reasons for Capital Punishment

Gregory Koukl

There’s a reason both the Old and the New Testaments promote capital punishment. That reason was applicable then and still applies today.divider

Apparently, Jesse Jackson made some comments on “Meet the Press” this morning referring to the possibility of capital punishment for Timothy McVeigh. He said, allegedly, that executing McVeigh would just be a trophy that the people of Oklahoma City would like to get in their trophy case to make them feel better.Jackson should have been ashamed of his comment. To refer the punishment of a man who is a convicted killer of 168 citizens of Oklahoma City by those who are deeply interested in justice as simply a quest for trophies is an insult to every person who lost a loved one in that explosion.It’s an absolute insult, and it should be an insult to every clear-thinking American.Capital punishment is not about getting trophies in any trophy case, any more than life imprisonment is about putting man in a cage as a trophy in a human zoo. It’s about justice. What the people in Oklahoma City want– and all Americans who are in favor of capital punishment for a man who violently snuffed out the lives of 168 people– is not a trophy. They want justice.I’m actually stunned, to be honest with you, that there are so many Christians who oppose capital punishment on biblical grounds. It ought to be clear to anyone familiar with the biblical record that God is not against capital punishment. It was His idea. He started it.Go back to Genesis 9:6 and you’ll find this: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”

You see, the crime of murder is not principally based on the idea that you robbed a person of his life. That confuses the Fifth Commandment with the Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s wrong to take someone else’s possessions, including his life.

No, murder is not a crime of theft, but of destruction. We have destroyed the life of one made in the image of God . God says such a crime deserves the most extreme punishment. You take a life, you surrender your own life.

By the way, read through the Old Testament and you’ll find 21 different offenses that called for the death penalty. Only three include an actual or potential capital offense by our current definition. Six are for religious offenses, ten are for various moral issues, and two relate to ceremonial issues.

So if you’re going to call anybody frivolous about using capital punishment, you can start with God. God instituted it for a wide range of offenses, not just murder. But it included murder, and would certainly be justified, in God’s eyes, for someone who murdered 168 people.

I’m not suggesting we reinstate capital punishment for the offenses of the Old Testament or even that capital punishment is obligatory. I am saying that it’s a moral alternative that is, at least in principle, totally approved by God.

Some feel that even though capital punishment was approved in the Old Testament, the New Testament has changed all of that. I will tell you why that is not a good way to argue. They say Jesus, or some teaching in the New Testament, has somehow changed that. My response is, “Where?”

Actually, capital punishment is strongly assumed in the New Testament. In Romans 13, Paul argues that governing authorities are set there by God. He says, “If you do what is evil, be afraid, for the government does not bear the sword for nothing, for it is minister of God and avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” God ordains the governing authorities, and those governing authorities have a God-ordained responsibility to execute justice with the sword.

Peter says in 1 Peter 2:13-14 that these authorities were sent by God for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do right.

People say, “Well capital punishment is just revenge.” My response is they’re right in a sense. It is revenge. In fact, it’s justrevenge. It’s God’s vengeance based on justice, executed through the machinery of government that God ordained.

Paul uses the word “sword” here. I don’t think he had in mind paddling people with the broad side of the sword. No, capital punishment is in view here as a proper tool government would use to express the vengeance of God in a just fashion against gratuitous evil. That’s the biblical teaching.

What about Jesus? Some say Jesus’ ethic of love and forgiveness requires us to end the death penalty. This was the appeal Mother Theresa made when Robert Alton Harris was facing the gas chamber here in California. She appealed to the governor saying Jesus would forgive.

With no disrespect towards Mother Theresa, I think her comments were mistaken because her view simply proves too much. What should be done instead with capital criminals? Should we put them in prison for the rest of their lives? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put them in prison for ten years? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put a murderer in prison for one day? But Jesus would forgive.

You see, if this argument works it becomes justification for the abolishment of any kind of punishment whatsoever. This argument proves too much.

Further, that Jesus would forgive is a different issue from whether the governmentshould forgive. God can forgive evil. That doesn’t mean the government should forgive it in terms of its exercise of justice.

In fact, Jesus never challenged the validity of the death penalty when He had perfect opportunity to do so. Even in John 8, with the woman caught in adultery, he never challenged the death penalty itself. He didn’t enforce it under what seemed to be an unjust situation because all the witnesses fled. Remember, Jesus said, “Is there no one here to condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” The Law required witnesses to convict someone.

Jesus did not speak against the death penalty here. It was required by law. Jesus upheld the law. He just realized there was a nasty situation of injustice that was going on and so He found some other way to get around it.

And when Jesus was on the cross He asked God to forgive, not Caesar. He never suggested that capital punishment was inappropriate.

I think that we have to argue for the coherence and consistency of both Testaments on this issue. The question is not, “Was Jesus right or was Moses right?” The question is trying to find a way to bring them all together. Clearly, there was no abrogation of capital punishment in the New Testament.

In fact, if you recall Paul in the book of Acts (25:11) made this appeal for his life: “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Paul didn’t take exception with capital punishment, even for himself. His point was that he wasn’t guilty, not that capital punishment was wrong.

Which, by the way, brings us to another point that Mr. Jackson raised this morning on TV. He said Jesus was crucified. Jesus died at capital punishment. To which I respond, “So? What follows from that is…what? The significance of that is…what?” The answer is: nothing. The issue regarding Jesus was not capital punishment, but his innocence. In Acts 2, Peter condemns the act of handing over the innocentJesus to godless executioners.

Now, God’s mercy is always available in God’s court. But man’s court is another matter, ladies and gentlemen. It is governed by different biblical responsibilities. So one can’t say that capital punishment is patently immoral on biblical grounds. It just isn’t. There’s a good reason why. It has to do with something I explained very carefully to the man who interviewed me for US New and World Report on this very issue.

Capital punishment is important. The Bible–Old and New Testament–is for it, not against it. There is nothing in the New Testament that would give us any reason to think otherwise. In fact, it presumes capital punishment in many places.

I was listening a couple of years ago to KABC and talk show host Michael Jackson. He was making the point that capital punishment never works. And of course, he’s thinking of it as a deterrent.

My response is, capital punishment works every time. Every time it’s used, the prisoner dies.

You see, the reason for capital punishment is obviously not to rehabilitate somebody. The deterrent may be a secondary factor. But that isn’t why we use capital punishment. We use capital punishment to punishsomeone (pardon me for stating the obvious).

You see, all of this relates to your view of what human beings are. If human beings are machines determined either by genetics or by environment, then what do you do when a machine goes bad? You fix it. And if you can’t fix it, you throw it away. That’s the basis behind the rehabilitation idea. And of course, the throwaway mentality we see in a lot of other ethical areas.

however, if you think that human beings are personal creatures capable of choosing and, therefore, have moral responsibilities–when they do good we praise them, (which everybody wants), and when they do bad we punish them–then punishment makes sense. Punishment of all kinds. Even capital punishment.

Human beings are moral creatures who either deserve praise or blame depending on the circumstances–when they choose well, we praise them and when they violate a serious moral mandate, we punish them. (When we praise and blame, by the way, in both cases we’re expressing respect for the dignity of man in virtue of the fact that human beings are made in the image of God and have the capability of choosing.)

Punishment may range from a parking ticket to death. What determines which punishment? An ancient principle called lex taliones , “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”–the point being that the punishment must fit the crime. If somebody steals a loaf of bread, we don’t whack their arm off.

By the same token, if somebody kills 168 people, we don’t just put him in a cage for the rest of his life. He took 168 human lives! He should be punished in a way that fits his crime. He should sacrifice his own life.

That’s the basic question: What is a human being? I think he’s a free moral agent. If he is, then we should praise him when he does well. But if he doesn’t, then he deserves to be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show“Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1997 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Related post:

Max Brantley and Betsey Wright on Death Penalty

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com (2 min Mike Huckabee on Death Penalty in Republican Primary) Max Brantley rightly noted that “no one has been executed in Arkansas since 2005″ (Death Penalty in Decline, Arkansas Times Blog, Dec 27, 2010). However, the debate is clearly not over. In the July 13, 2006 article “Waiting for Death” by Max Brantley and […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Capital Punishment | Comments (0)

Gambling can lead to ruining your life jh22

September 18, 2011 – 1:14 am

I remember Lou Hardin when he took over at the University of Central Arkansas and practically doubled the size of that university. He was the toast of the town and he could do no wrong. However, he started gambling and the result was that he lost everything. The Arkansas Times reported on September 17, 2011:

THE HARDINS: Mary Hardin wrote court about her husband Lu: “I also hope you’ll see the other side of what you’ve been told about Lu. He is remorseful, contrite, and completely humbled.

  • THE HARDINS: Mary Hardin wrote court about her husband Lu: “I also hope you’ll see the other side of what you’ve been told about Lu. He is remorseful, contrite, and completely humbled.” (Photo by Brian Chilson)

Chuck Banks, the attorney for Lu Hardin, filed his pleading yesterday in federal court asking for leniency in sentencing Sept. 26 for Hardin, the former University of Central Arkansas president who has pleaded guilty to wire fraud in a bonus scheme he worked out in part to cover gambling debts.

Here’s the complete filing. From it:

The following factors are presented for the Court’s consideration in granting a probationary or alternative sentence, not as an excuse for Hardin’s behavior, but so that the Court can see the true man. These factors include: (1) Hardin’s acceptance of responsibility, extreme remorse and post-offense rehabilitation; (2) Hardin’s lifetime of service to the public and charitable organizations; (3) Hardin’s almost immediate payment of full restitution; (4) Hardin’s cooperation and other punishments already suffered because of the offense; and (5) Hardin’s recovering gambling addition.

So the question for readers: Has Hardin been punished enough by the public embarrassment and job and professional losses he’s experienced?

The complete filing is worth reading. It contains a biography (left fielder on a championship American Legion baseball team); has excerpts from many of the letters written in his behalf (son Scott Hardin: ” … the most honest man I have ever met. He has always been quick to call penalties on himself on the golf course, teaching me it is the only way to play the game….”), and it addresses the gambling that helped land him in court.

As explained in several of the letters of support provided to the Court, Lu Hardin has lived a life that has been a positive influence on others. He has been in an unquestioned faithful marriage for more than thirty years and he does not drink, smoke, or curse.

Approximately twelve years ago while on vacation, Hardin and his wife first played legal slot machines. He has never participated in any illegal gambling and in fact did not participate in any other form of legal gambling such as wagering on cards, dice, horses, or sporting events. His sole endeavor was slot machines which are known to be one of the most addictive forms of gambling. Although he was very financially stable when he began playing slot machines, what began as small stakes entertainment elevated to playing high stakes slot machines resulting in significant losses.

Hardin’s prior financial responsibility had him debt free at age 39 including owning a home in Russellville, Arkansas that was completely paid for. However, Hardin progressed from solid financial responsibility to deep debt. Lu Hardin took great pains accompanied with significant personal anguish to keep his legal wagering and the accompanying losses from his church, his friends, his board, other professionals, and any associated with the public except his wife.

Last year Hardin recognized he truly had an issue and has been attending Gamblers Anonymous since that date. He has been working the program, has a sponsor, and has not gambled in any shape, form, or fashion. Hardin has been proactive in his rehabilitation from gambling addiction and is ready to move forward with his life never entering a casino again.

__________________________________

John Brummett revisited the issue after Lu Hardin was sentenced in  a very good article.

Here is an excellent article from Crosswalk.com:

  • Michael Vlach, Author
  • Friday, October 15, 2004

An old joke asks: How can you tell when a gambler is lying? Answer: When his lips are moving. Unfortunately, this is often true for people who are addicted to gambling.

In his book Chance to Change, Michael Vlach explains that gambling and lying go hand in hand. “Problem gamblers usually do not have to think about lying and deception-it comes naturally,” he says. “To whom do problem gamblers lie? Everyone. This includes his or her spouse, parents, children, other relatives, friends, neighbors, employers, and coworkers. Gamblers also lie to themselves and to God.”

For a problem gambler, lying takes many forms. It may be saying you “broke even” at the casino, when really you lost $400. Or, it may mean telling your spouse you had to work late, when in reality you were at the racetrack. Or saying you lost a nice piece of jewelry that you really sold to the local pawnshop so you would have money to gamble.

Reflecting on her days as a problem gambler, Jane says, “I was beginning to lie to my own parents. Even to my own husband. I was beginning to believe my own lies; that’s the saddest thing.”

The same was true for Andy. “I lied to bill collectors about why I wasn’t getting my bills paid on time. ‘Oh, I’ve sent the check today,’ or, ‘I just got injured.’ I’d give them the sob story,” he states.

Lying can involve living a secret life, deception, manipulation, and even blaming others. Lying also involves rationalizations A gambler might think, everyone has his or her own form of recreation, mine just happens to be gambling. Or, I don’t have a gambling problem. You should see Joe; he loses a lot more money than I do.

No matter what the excuse is, there is one form of lying that is especially prevalent among problem gamblers. Vlach says, “Most problem gamblers are in denial. They have a cancer called gambling addiction that is killing them, and they refuse to see it. Those closest to the gambler clearly see it, but the gambler says, ‘I don’t have a gambling problem.'”

Embracing the Truth

God is “the God of truth” (Psalm 31:5). And He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). In fact, God hates lying. So how does a person who has lived a life of lying change his ways? He must not only commit to putting away all forms of lying, he must also actively embrace the truth.

If you have had trouble with gambling, remember, the truth will set you free. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Take Andy’s advice: “Life is good when you don’t have to lie.”

8 Most Common Lies Gamblers Tell Themselves

Gambling addiction and lying go hand in hand. The following lists the 8 most common lies gamblers tell themselves.

1. “One more trip to gamble won’t hurt.”

2. “I need to go gamble to see my friends.”

3. “I’m a loser, so who cares if I gamble.”

4. “I deserve to gamble, because I have had a hard week.”

5. “Gambling is how I handle stress.”

6. “Nobody is perfect; everyone has problems; gambling just happens to be mine.”

7. “This is the last time I’m going to gamble.”

8. “Gambling isn’t my problem; other people are the real problem.”

Originally posted in CW Finances in Oct. 2004.

Adapted from Chance to Change: Help for Problem Gamblers by Michael Vlach. Used by permission of the author.

Church Initiative has created a 13-week video series for churches entitled Chance to Change: Christ-Centered Gambling Recovery. This resource empowers churches to reach problem gamblers in their communities. The videos feature instruction from forty Christian counselors, pastors, and financial experts. For more information, visit www.chancetochange.org. You can also view their other resources at www.churchinitiative.com.

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

A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer (Part 3) (Schaeffer Sundays)

September 18, 2011 – 12:33 am

Part 1

Part 2

Below is a summary of “A Christian Manifesto” which is a very important book written by Francis Schaeffer just a couple of years before his death in 1984.

A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer

This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.

The abortion ruling is a very clear one. The abortion ruling, of course, is also a natural result of this other world view because with this other world view, human life — your individual life — has no intrinsic value. You are a wart upon the face of an absolutely impersonal universe. Your aspirations have no fulfillment in the “what-isness” of what is. Your aspirations damn you. Many of the young people who come to us understand this very well because their aspirations as Humanists have no fulfillment, if indeed the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance.

The universe cannot fulfill anything that you say when you say, “It is beautiful”; “I love”; “It is right”; “It is wrong.” These words are meaningless words against the backdrop of this other world view. So what we find is that the abortion case should not have been a surprise because it boiled up out of, quite naturally, (I would use the word again) mathematically, this other world view. In this case, human life has no distinct value whatsoever, and we find this Supreme Court in one ruling overthrew the abortion laws of all 50 states, and they made this form of killing human life (because that’s what it is) the law. The law declared that this form of killing human life was to be accepted, and for many people, because they had no set ethic, when the Supreme Court said that it was legal, in the intervening years, it has become ethical.

____________________________________________

The courts of this country have forced this view and its results on the total population. What we find is that as the courts have done this, without any longer that which the founding fathers comprehended of law (A man like Blackstone, with his Commentaries, understood, and the other lawgivers in this country in the beginning): That there is a law of God which gives foundation. It becomes quite natural then, that they would also cut themselves loose from a strict constructionism concerning the Constitution.

Everything is relative. So as you cut yourself loose from the Law of God, in any concept whatsoever, you also soon are cutting yourself loose from a strict constructionism and each ruling is to be seen as an arbitrary choice by a group of people as to what they may honestly think is for the sociological good of the community, of the country, for the given moment.

Now, along with that is the fact that the courts are increasingly making law and thus we find that the legislatures’ powers are increasingly diminished in relationship to the power of the courts. Now the pro-abortion people have been very wise about this in the last, say, 10 years, and Christians very silly. I wonder sometimes where we’ve been because the pro-abortion people have used the courts for their end rather than the legislatures — because the courts are not subject to the people’s thinking, nor their will, either by election nor by a re-election. Consequently, the courts have been the vehicle used to bring this whole view and to force it on our total population. It has not been largely the legislatures. It has been rather, the courts.

The result is a relativistic value system. A lack of a final meaning to life — that’s first. Why does human life have any value at all, if that is all that reality is? Not only are you going to die individually, but the whole human race is going to die, someday. It may not take the falling of the atom bombs, but someday the world will grow too hot, too cold. That’s what we are told on this other final reality, and someday all you people not only will be individually dead, but the whole conscious life on this world will be dead, and nobody will see the birds fly. And there’s no meaning to life.

As you know, I don’t speak academically, shut off in some scholastic cubicle, as it were. I have lots of young people and older ones come to us from the ends of the earth. And as they come to us, they have gone to the end of this logically and they are not living in a romantic setting. They realize what the situation is. They can’t find any meaning to life. It’s the meaning to the black poetry. It’s the meaning of the black plays. It’s the meaning of all this. It’s the meaning of the words “punk rock.” And I must say, that on the basis of what they are being taught in school, that the final reality is only this material thing, they are not wrong. They’re right! On this other basis there is no meaning to life and not only is there no meaning to life, but there is no value system that is fixed, and we find that the law is based then only on a relativistic basis and that law becomes purely arbitrary.

And this is brought to bear, specifically, and perhaps most clearly, in the public schools (I’ll come to that now) in this country. In the courts of this country, they are saying that it’s absolutely illegal, from the lowest grades up through university, for the public schools of this country to teach any other world view except this world view of final material or energy. Now this is done, no matter what the parents may wish. This is done regardless of what those who pay the taxes for their schools may wish. I’m giving you an illustration, as well as making a point. The way the courts force their view, and this false view of reality on the total population, no matter what the total population wants.

We find that in the January 18 — just recently — Time magazine, there was an article that said there was a poll that pointed out that about 76% of the people in this country thought it would be a good idea to have both creation and evolution taught in the public schools. I don’t know if the poll was accurate, but assuming that the poll was accurate, what does it mean? It means that your public schools are told by the courts that they cannot teach this, even though 76% of the people in the United States want it taught. I’ll give you a word. It’s TYRANNY. There is no other word that fits at such a point.

And at the same time we find the medical profession has radically changed. Dr. Koop, in our seminars for Whatever Happened to the Human Race, often said that (speaking for himself), “When I graduated from medical school, the idea was ‘how can I save this life?’ But for a great number of the medical students now, it’s not, ‘How can I save this life?’, but ‘Should I save this life?'”

Believe me, it’s everywhere. It isn’t just abortion. It’s infanticide. It’s allowing the babies to starve to death after they are born. If they do not come up to some doctor’s concept of a quality of life worth living. I’ll just say in passing — and never forget it – it takes about 15 days, often, for these babies to starve to death. And I’d say something else that we haven’t stressed enough. In abortion itself, there is no abortion method that is not painful to the child — just as painful that month before birth as the baby you see a month after birth in one of these cribs down here that I passed — just as painful.

So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views. The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”

I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession… The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46)

September 18, 2011 – 12:14 am

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46)

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.

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle votes against debt-limit increase; Hanna and Owens help avoid default

Published: Monday, August 01, 2011, 7:43 PM     Updated: Tuesday, August 02, 2011, 6:38 AM

Washington — Two of Central New York’s representatives in Congress — a Republican and Democrat – voted Monday to increase the national debt limit and avoid an unprecedented financial default by the U.S. government.

But a third local member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-Onondaga Hill, voted against the bill, which easily passed the House of Representatives 269 to 161.

Buerkle reviewed the legislation throughout the day, and remained undecided on her vote even as she left her office to vote on the House floor, aides said.

She was the only Republican in New York’s House delegation to vote against the compromise bill. The congresswoman said she made her decision after “careful consideration and reflection.”

“There were some good aspects to the bill, but this version also creates several new problems,” Buerkle said in a statement. “At the end of the day, I was not satisfied that all my questions and concerns had been answered as to potential negative affects of this bill on the people in my district.” She did not elaborate.

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

Jay Leno’s discussion with Michele Bachmann on Tonight Show

September 17, 2011 – 10:11 am

The LA Times reported:

Michele Bachmann chatting with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show 9-16-11

As usual, there was nothing confrontational about Jay Leno’s interview with his political guest, in this case, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

She was on the West Coast on Friday to speak in Orange County and at the state Republican Convention in L.A. and, who knows? Maybe to schmooze some money from the people who give California its Golden State name too. Watch out. President Obama is on his way to California too in a few days. Although, the story is, some Hollywood folks are kinda unhappy with him.

Bachmann’s star soared last summer. She won the Ames Straw Poll, which means nothing in reality but sounds good in the media for a while. But that same day, Rick Perry entered the Republican presidential sweepstakes. He’s a big-shot GOP governor from Texas and began sucking the air, the money and the media attention away from the only female in the contest so far.

Late-night American TV is a special breed. Some jokes. A little music. Some chatter. Maybe a movie starlet swears she got locked out of her Paris hotel room with nothing to wear but a hand towel. Nothing too complicated or controversial because regardless of the time zone, Americans are in their beds beginning to drift off to zzzzzz…

Not all Americans realize that these late-night interviews, especially with politicians, are …

… negotiated and effectively outlined in advance between the show’s and politician’s staffs. (How do you think Leno has those quips so readily at hand?) Generally, the topics to be discussed — and the ones to be left out — are predetermined.This can be tricky because both sides want the exposure. The show wouldn’t mind a spontaneous gaffe; remember Barack Obama’s “joke” about not being as bad an athlete as a Special Olympian? Ooops, he had to apologize from the plane on that one.Buttons on sale at the california republican convention, 9-16-11Leno is very good at touching touchy subjects without seeming prosecutorial. Bachmann clearly wanted to talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry attempting to order girls to get immunized against HPV, which can cause cervical cancer.

This has been Bachmann’s main attack on an allegedly authoritarian Perry to stem her drop in the polls. Watch Leno’s language in this exchange. As per agreement, he sets up Bachmann to say what she wants, as he already knows, and then gently questions the validity and gets her off the predictable “crony capitalism” talking point. And she doesn’t return to it.

LENO: You and Perry went over this HPV vaccine topic. Explain this whole deal.

BACHMANN: Well, there was a situation where it was an abuse of executive power. And that’s something that the governor admitted, that it was an abuse of executive power. It was an action by the governor to write an executive order to order all 12‑year‑old girls to have an injection before they could go into school.

LENO:  But it was never implemented; right? He signed it, but it was never implemented.

BACHMANN:  Right, right, right.

LENO:  OK.

BACHMANN: But it was highly controversial, and the Legislature in Texas was so angry, that they were going to — they passed a law to overturn it because they didn’t want to have the children go through that.

LENO:  OK.  I mean, is that bad?  I mean —

BACHMANN:  Well, I think so.

Michele Bachmann California Republican Convention Keynote speaker 9-16-11

LENO:  It’s a vaccine to prevent — what is it? Cervical cancer?

BACHMANN: Well, it’s HPV. And the concern is that there’s, you know, potentially side effects that can come with something like that. But it gives a false sense of assurance to a young woman when she has that that if she’s sexually active that she doesn’t have to worry about sexually transmitted diseases. And that’s not necessarily true.

LENO: Well, I don’t know if it gives assurance. It can prevent cervical cancer; correct?

BACHMANN: But it’s the — again, it’s something that potentially could have dangerous side effects. But it’s also the fact that — of crony capitalism. People were worried that potentially —

LENO:  But parents can opt out of it; right?  A parent can say, “I don’t want my daughter” — 

BACHMANN: You can opt out, but the way that these work is the fact that when you have to opt out, you have to be very proactive. And people just assume that the government does what’s best for you. And my experience has been that’s not always necessarily the case.

LENO: Yeah. OK. All right.

Leno did the same thing on the “tea party” movement’s debt-ceiling-increase opposition.

LENO: Do you think you would have been this strident if it was Bush-Cheney?

BACHMANN: Absolutely.

LENO:  Yeah?

On her family’s gay therapy clinic. And on gay marriage:

LENO: If two gay people want to get married, that’s their business; that doesn’t concern us. I mean, why is that — why is that even an issue?

BACHMANN: Well, because the family is foundational, and marriage between a man and a woman has been what the law has been for years and years.

LENO: I know. I tried it myself. It works great for me.

Bachmann got her national exposure with a cultural icon. Leno likely lived up to his bargain. That’s the only way he can get guests such as her to return. But he also made clear some expressed doubts about what the candidate was dishing out.

Other posts related to Michele Bachmann:

Video and Transcript of Bachmann rebuttal to Obama speech

Outstanding rebuttal by Michele Bachmann to President Obama’s speech of September 8, 2011: Unfortunately, it seems, every time the President speaks, his policies have cost the American people jobs and future prosperity. Tonight the President under the veil of one of the most sacred deliberative forums, a joint session of Congress, delivered another political speech […]

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 9)

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?” This is a series of posts […]

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 8)

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?” This is a series of posts […]

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 7)

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?” This is a series of posts […]

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 6)

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?” This is a series of posts […]

Brummett: Obama would defeat Rick Perry (Part 1)

Cato Institute Scholars Analyze the 2010 State of the Union Address Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Jan 28, 2010 Cato Institute scholars address several items in President Obama’s first official State of the Union Address. Scholars include Daniel J. Mitchell, Mark A. Calabria, Neal McCluskey, Michael D. Tanner, John Samples, Jim Harper and Malou Innocent. http://www.cato.org […]

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.9

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.9 JOHN PODHORETZ comments on the Republican debate below: Republican debate: Time to get real By JOHN PODHORETZ Last Updated: 8:28 AM, August 12, 2011 Posted: 1:55 AM, August 12, 2011 Last night’s Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Iowa was the most sheerly entertaining political event in decades — a […]

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

President Obama’s job speech reacted to by Heritage Foundation scholars (Part 6)

September 17, 2011 – 9:05 am

President Obama’s job speech reacted to by Heritage Foundation scholars (Part 6)

I love going to the Heritage Foundation website because of articles like this:

Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s jobs speech delivered to a joint session of Congress. Here are some of their immediate reactions:

Obama Calls for Reviving Failed Hiring Tax Credit

What to make of President Obama’s plan in his speech tonight to revive a tax credit for businesses hiring new workers? In March 2010, the President signed into law an almost identical credit.

It was a credit he pushed for Congress to pass. The credit lasted from March through the end of December. It had no beneficial impact on job creation and added billions to the national debt. There is absolutely no good reason for trying it again.

As we argued before the first hiring credit became law, such a policy won’t spur permanent hiring because it only temporarily reduces the costs of employing new workers. Businesses only hire new workers when they anticipate those new workers will increase their profitability over the long haul.

A credit of a few thousand dollars, a mere fraction of the cost of hiring a worker, does nothing to change that calculation. The only positive effect on hiring the credit could have would be on temporary positions if it makes adding a few new temps profitable in the short term. But once the credit expires businesses will let those workers go.

To get the true picture of the credit’s effectiveness, however, you can’t just look at the few temporary jobs it might create. You also need to subtract the jobs foregone because the government took the money for the credit out of the hands of the private sector by taxing or borrowing to give it to the businesses that qualify. In the end it is more likely the hiring credit will actually destroy jobs on net.

– Curtis Dubay

Extending Unemployment Benefits

Today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quoted Albert Einstein who he said once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that measure President Obama’s plan to boost the economy by spending more on unemployment benefits is insane. Unfortunately, the President isn’t joking.

Congress has expanded unemployment insurance (UI) dramatically since the recession began. Laid off workers can now collect up to 99 weeks of benefits in some states. It isn’t hard to see why Congress did so. Normally workers can collect benefits for to up to six months. But the average unemployed worker has now been out of a job for nine months.

For welfare reasons Congress wants to help workers who cannot find jobs. This is understandable. That doesn’t mean it will help the economy, no matter how much the President wants it to.

The stimulus bill extended UI benefits. Congress has kept them in place several times since then. All told the government has spent over $300 billion on unemployment benefits since Obama took office. All that spending has done nothing to boost the economy. Unemployment is higher than the Administration projected if Congress did nothing. This failure was predictable.

The studies that show that UI spending stimulates the economy are based on macroeconomic models programmed to show large “multiplier effects” from government spending. These models assume that each dollar of government spending creates more than a dollar of economic growth. They essentially assume their conclusion. Actual empirical research shows that UI payments do not boost GDP. This is exactly what economic theory predicts.

One of the most thoroughly established findings of labor economics is the fact that extended unemployment benefits cause workers to remain unemployed longer. Even Alan Krueger, President Obama’s nominee to chair the Council of Economic Advisors, agrees. Studies show that raising benefits to 99 weeks during the recession has increased the unemployment rate by 0.5 to 1.5 percentage points. Extended benefits come at an economic cost.

There are understandable reasons for wanting to extend UI benefits despite this cost. But as much as it would be wonderful if doing so also boosted the economy, it does not. It would be similarly wonderful if an all you can eat bacon and ice-cream diet helped shed pounds. Wishing does not make it so.

If Congress thinks that keeping extended benefits is good policy then Congress should pay for it by reducing spending on less important programs. But spending tens of billions more on unemployment insurance will not stimulate the economy any more than the last extensions did.

– James Sherk

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

“Soccer Saturday” Best Goals 2010 World Cup Part 1

September 17, 2011 – 8:59 am

“Soccer Saturday” Best Goals 2010 World Cup Part 1

2010 FIFA World Cup – Best Goals So Far…. Pt 1

Uploaded by on Jun 15, 2010

These are all the best goals scored in the 2010 FIFA World Cup in the first 5 days. Please rate, leave a comment, and Subscribe!!!

2010 FIFA World Cup – Best Goals So Far…. Pt 3

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