Monthly Archives: December 2011

Hanukkah celebrates Maccabean Revolt: Was the Book of Daniel written then or when the Bible claims?

December 23, 2011 – 3:08 pm

Bible Prophecy vs. History (Daniel 11:1-19)

_____________________________

Wikipedia notes:

Hanukkah (Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה‎, Tiberian: Ḥănukkāh, usually spelled חנוכה pronounced [χanuˈka] in Modern Hebrew, also romanized as Chanukah, Chanukkah, or Chanuka), also known as the Festival of Lights, is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple (the Second Temple) in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt of the 2nd century BCE. Hanukkah is observed for eight nights and days, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at any time from late November to late December in the Gregorian calendar.

_____________

Conservative Bible scholars hold the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century B.C as the Bible claims. However, liberal scholars and skeptics hold it to be written around 165 B.C.

Take a look at what J.P.Holding had to say:

Outside of the Pentateuch, no book of the OT has been subjected to as much scrutiny as the Book of Daniel. The detailed and accurate prophecies contained in that book have motivated many, Skeptic and professed believer alike, to subscribe to the theory of a late date of composition for Daniel in the time of the Maccabees.

Generally, the Maccabeean theory holds that the Book of Daniel was written around 168-165 BC. Most modern radical critics hold that the book was completed in its final form at that time, but some allow for parts of Daniel (mainly chapters 1-6) to have an earlier date prior to 168-165. Some say the editor in the 2nd century used certain traditions to compose the final form of Daniel.

Others have said that the book has many authors (one scholar says that there were six authors). All of them agree, however, that the final form of the book was completed around 165 BC. We will show that such late date hypotheses are NOT indicated by the evidence.

Let me suggest some good articles on this subject. One is by Charles Ray and most of his article is based the research of my good friend Dr. Stephen R. Miller, professor of Old Testament, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Germantown, Tennessee. Dr. Miller is the author of Daniel (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994; New American Commentary Series). IVOR C. FLETCHER wrote another fine article too.

Here is my input on the matter:

 

Traditional Church View v. Critic’s View
The time Daniel lived was 620 BC approx to 530 BC approx which would make him somewhere in his eighties when he died. If he died in 539 then he would be in his early 80’s but in 530 then he would be almost 90. Now Daniel Chapter 11 gives exact details of what happened from 330 BC to 160 BC and Chapter 2 and 7 and 8 give  details about the four world empires and that is why critics have always said the Book of Daniel was written in the time of the Maccabean rebellion around 160 BC. The traditional view of the church has been that Daniel was written in the 6th century BC around 530 BC at the latest by Daniel himself who actually saw these 6th century events with his own eyes.

How would a Maccabean author know these details? [1] Belshazzar was ruling during the last few years of the Babylonian Empire. [2] The Babylonians executed individuals by casting them into fire, but the Persians threw the condemned to the lions. [3] The practice in the 6th Century was to mention first the Medes, then the Persians. [4] Laws made by Persian kings could not be revoked. [5] In the sixth century B.C., Susa was in the province of Elam (Dan. 8:2). [6] Nebuchadnezzar had a pride problem (Dan. 4:30) and often boasted about his great building projects. These claims by Daniel have all been supported by tablets and historical records found in Babylon. J.P. Holding rightly notes that the existence of the Book of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls dated in the 2nd century indicates that they were written previously.

Let me just take a few of these 6 examples mentioned above and show how amazing these facts are. Lets look at [4] Laws made by Persian kings could not be revoked.The critic Lacocque observes: “Diodorus of Sicily (XVII, 30) in fact, reports the case of a man put to death under Darius III (336-330) even though he was known to be perfectly innocent. (Darius III) immediately repented and blamed himself for having committed such a great error, but it was impossible to have undone what had been done by royal authority” (Andre Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, Atlanta: John Knox, 1979, p. 113). Of course, this is the same thing that happened to Daniel when he got thrown in the lions den in chapter 6!!!!! The king regretted that he had signed the law that condemned Daniel but he could not revoke the law. The same thing happened in the Book of Esther where the Persian King could not change a law after it had been signed (Esther chapters 7 and 8).

Now when I call someone a critic then they have late dated the Book of Daniel to the 2nd century BC around 160 AD and Andre Lacocque is a critic but he gives Daniel credit on this point.

Again, Daniel was correct when he placed Susa in the province of Elam (Dan. 8:2). Dr. Gleason Archer, Jr., notes: “From the Greek and Roman historians, we learn that from Persian times Susa, or Sushan, was the capital of the province of Susiana; and Elam was restricted to the territory east of the Eulaeus River. Nevertheless, we know from cuneiform records that Sushan was part of the territory of Elam back in Chaldean times and before. It is very striking that Daniel 8:2 refers to ‘Susa in the province of Elam’­ an item of information scarcely accessible to a second-century B.C. author” (Archer, p. 19).

Since Daniel was an eyewitness to 6th-century events, he could accurately record historical details. The conservative scholar Dr. Stephen R. Miller (Dr Miller is a friend of mine from Memphis and has written the foremost respected Southern Baptist Commentary on Daniel released in 1994) notes: “In fact, the author of Daniel exhibited a more extensive knowledge of Sixth Century events than would seem possible for a second-century writer.”

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

Immigration views of Ron Paul and Milton Friedman

December 23, 2011 – 1:59 pm

Two very wise men below:

View Image

Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 1

(1 of 2) Professor Friedman looks at the dynamics of illegal immigration. See part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4 http://Libertypen.com

_______________________________________

Back in 1980 I read the book “Free to Choose” by Milton and Rose Friedman. I noticed that Milton made it clear both in the book and in the film series of the same name that immigration was good for America in the past. However, since the USA changed to a welfare state, we could no longer have a tremendous amount of legal immigration because it was overload the welfare state!!!!

Milton Friedman in a lecture at Stanford asserted:

 “I’ve always been amused by a kind of a paradox. Suppose you go around and ask people: ‘The United States before 1914, as you know, had completely free immigration. Anybody could get in a boat and come to these shores and if landed at Ellis Island he was an immigrant. Was that a good thing or a bad thing?”

You will find that hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’

What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not?

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

(For a more full discussion check this out)

I was perplexed at the time that Friedman’s ideology had to take a backseat to the real world that liberals had taken over!!! That is exactly the case here.

Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 2

(2 of 2) Professor Friedman fields a question on the dynamics of illegal immigration. http://LibertyPen.com

According to Wikipedia here are Ron Paul’s views on Borders and immigration:

Paul considers it a “boondoggle” for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries’ borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled;[32] he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[52] During the Cold War, he supported Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative,[53] intended to replace the “strategic offense” doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense.

Paul believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[54]

Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an “unfair advantage” under law.[55] He has advocated for a “coherent immigration policy”, and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[56] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[57] Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty, not because he supported the construction of a border fence.[58]

Paul believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens.[58]

Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship.[59] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and “end automatic birthright citizenship”,[60] and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.[61]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (1)

Tom Brady , Coldplay, Kansas, Solomon and the search for satisfaction (part 3)

December 23, 2011 – 11:12 am

Tom Brady “More than this…”

Uploaded by on Jan 22, 2008

EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview.

_______________________

Tom Brady ESPN Interview

Tom Brady has famous wife earned over 76 million dollars last year. However, has Brady found lasting satifaction in his life? It does not seem so.

Many times when two very successful people marry they discover that they have a lot in common. One of the striking problems that successful people have is struggling with an overall worldview to share with their kids when they know the secret that riches and fame does not bring true satisfaction. Tom and his wife now are parents will possibly look at life differently and Tom will continue to look for what can give him peace.

This has been demonstrated in the writings of King Solomon and in the songs of Chris Martin of Coldplay.

Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin (CP)

I wrote this article a couple of years ago.

Are Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin looking for Spiritual Answers?

Just like King Solomon’s predicament in the Book of Ecclesiastes, both of these individuals are very wealthy, famous, and successful, but they still are seeking satisfying answers to life’s greatest questions even though it seems they have experienced all the best the world has to offer.

Gwyneth Paltrow is an Academy Award winning actress and in 2003 she married Chris Martin who is the leader of the musical group Coldplay (currently one the most successful bands in the world today).

On July 9th it was revealed that the Rupert Murdoch owned paper The Guardian in London had secretly paid more than 1.6 million dollars to cover up legal cases involving celebrities (including Gwyneth Paltrow) who had their phones bugged. It is ironic to me that the press wants to find pieces of information about what Paltrow and Martin are doing with their spare time when to me what they are saying in their music and art is so much more interesting.

It is a little known fact that Gwyneth Paltrow is an descendant of Rabbi David HaLevi Segal of Krakow through the Russian rabbinical family Paltrowitch, which produced 33 rabbis over several generations. Even more surprising are the lyrics that Chris Martin wrote for his latest album.

Unlike many the past grammy winners of “Best Rock Album,” this year’s winner Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends by Coldplay is filled with songs that deal with spiritual themes such as death, the meaning of life and searching for an afterlife. In the song “Strawberry Swing,” Martin sings the words “Every moment was so precious…Now my feet won’t touch the ground…It’s such a perfect day.” It seems he wants to get his feet off this earth and probe spiritual heights if possible with the songs released by Coldplay in 2008 especially.

Lead singer Chris Martin notes, “…because we’ve had some people close to us we’ve lost, but some miracles — we’ve got kids. So, life has been very extreme recently, and so both death and life pop up quite often” (MTV News interview, June 9, 2008).  In 2005 the song “Fix You” was written by Martin to help his wife deal with the death of her father Bruce Paltrow, and it has become one of Coldplay’s most popular songs of all time.

The subject of death is prominent in the songs “Death and All His Friends,” 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.

The song “Glass of Water” sheds some more light on where we could possibly go: “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 in the song “Lost” Martin sings these words: “Every river that I tried to cross, Every door I ever tried was locked..”
Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for this “something more” that Coldplay is talking about, but he found riches (2:8-11), pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), fame (2:9) and his work (2:4) all “meaningless” and “vanity” and “a chasing of the wind.” Every door he tried was locked.

Overshadowing it all was  Solomon’s upcoming death which depressed him because both people and animals alike “go to the same place — they came from dust and they return to dust” (3:20).
In 1978 I heard the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas when it rose to #6 on the charts. That song told me that Kerry Livgren the writer of that song and a member of Kansas had come to the same conclusion that Solomon had. I remember mentioning to my friends at church that we may soon see some members of Kansas become Christians because their search for the meaning of life had obviously come up empty even though they had risen from being an unknown band to the top of the music business and had all the wealth and fame that came with that. But just like Solomon  before him and Coldplay after him, Kerry Livgren realized death comes to everyone and “there must be something more” than just these material possessions of this world.

Livgren wrote:

“All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”

I am glad to report that both Kerry Livgren and Dave Hope of Kansas found the answers they needed eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. In 1981 I saw both gentlemen on The 700 Club in a clip (available now on youtube) that can be summed up by Blaise Pascal’s quote: ” There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man that cannot be filled by any created thing but only by the Creator made known through Jesus Christ.”

Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class atTopeka Bible Church. Hope is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.

Are Paltrow and Martin looking for spiritual answers? Clearly the facts indicate that they are, but they have not found them quite yet.  Russ Briermeier of Christianity Today observes that the latest work by Martin’s musical group Coldplay is “often provocative, spiritual, and seemingly on the verge of identifying a greater truth, asking and inspiring many questions without providing the answers.”Solomon’s experiment in the Book of Ecclesiastes was a search for meaning in life “under the sun”(1:3). Then in last few words in Ecclesiastes he looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.”

You can hear Kerry Livgren’s story from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Coldplay – Cemeteries of London ( FULL VIDEO)

The brilliant video for Cemeteries of London. It’s the perfect mix between music and image, Coldplay sold around 8 million albums with Viva La Vida.

Ecclesiastes 1

Published on Sep 4, 2012

Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider

_____________________

Ecclesiastes 2-3

Published on Sep 19, 2012

Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider

_____________________________

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

Sad for Hog and Tiger fans but Jarnell Stokes signs with Vols

December 23, 2011 – 9:32 am
Jarnell's mother Shunta Stokes said his college decision was 'solely up to him. I support his decision wholeheartedly, he's the one that has to attend the school, not me. His dad and I are behind him 100%.'

Photo by Justin A. Shaw, Special to the News Sentinel

Jarnell’s mother Shunta Stokes said his college decision was “solely up to him. I support his decision wholeheartedly, he’s the one that has to attend the school, not me. His dad and I are behind him 100%.”

Yesterday when I got in the car at 6pm I turned the radio to 103.7 the buzz in Little Rock to listen to Drive Time Sports with Randy Rainwater and his guest was Ron Crawford the basketball expert from Arkansas AAU fame. Ron knows a lot of people and I respect his views tremendously. If there is any piece of information concerning breaking news then Ron Crawford will be on top of it.

Many of the razorback faithful were calling in and asking who Jarnell Stokes will sign with at 6:30pm and Ron said, “All of my sources tell me he is going to Tennessee.”

I read yesterday that Stokes has a brother currently a student at Tennessee and I knew that Bruce Pearl had Stokes locked up earlier. However, after Pearl’s firing I wondered if the other schools had a chance. I read that both Mike Anderson of Arkansas and Josh Pastner of Memphis had made great impressions on Stokes, and  of course, it was just assumed that John Calipari with his personality would make an impression.

Below you can read from the Knoxville Newspaper the result:

Jarnell Stokes picks Vols says ‘I’m going to be pushing to play’

No. 11 player in nation

  • By John Varlas, Memphis Commercial Appeal
  • govolsxtra.com
  • Posted December 22, 2011 at 8 p.m., updated December 22, 2011 at 10:53 p.m.

COLLIERVILLE — Jarnell Stokes’ roller-coaster senior season officially ended Thursday when he completed the schoolwork that allowed him to graduate early.

Next stop: Knoxville.

Stokes, the would-be Southwind High School basketball standout, announced his decision to play for Tennessee on Thursday during a press conference at Fino Villa restaurant.

He said he chose UT over Memphis, Arkansas, Kentucky and Florida and will be eligible to play immediately, pending his enrollment for the spring semester and clearance from the NCAA.

“Honestly, the decision was so back-and-forth,” Stokes said. “(Memphis) coach (Josh) Pastner called me on the first day he got the job. It’s going to be hard to leave the city that I love best but it’s time to grow up and be a man.

“I walk by faith and not by sight. And with prayer comes answers.”

Playing time was almost certainly a key factor for the 6-foot-8, 255-pounder, who was regarded as the nation’s No. 11 prospect when he was still in the class of 2011. Stokes would have had to sit out the remainder of the season had he chosen Memphis because the Tigers don’t have a scholarship to offer.

“I’m ready to play,” he said. “I’m not gonna lie. I’m going to be pushing to play.”

Stokes, who transferred to Southwind from Central last summer, was ruled athletically ineligible at Southwind by Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association executive director Bernard Childress in August because of transfer rules.

His hardship appeal to the TSSAA Board of Control was denied last month, leaving him ineligible to play his senior season at Southwind.

“I don’t regret anything about sitting out,” Stokes said. “If anything, it just showed me how much I really love basketball.”

Stokes drew plenty of laughs in his opening remarks, talking about how he grew from a “goofy kid with an Afro” who excelled in chess into one of the nation’s top prospects.

“It’s surreal for me to be standing here,” he said.

He also drew chuckles with his thoughts on Kentucky coach John Calipari.

“I know a lot of people around here don’t think highly of him, but he’s actually a very engaging guy,” Stokes said.

At UT, Stokes will be reunited with former Central teammate Cameron Clear, who played in all 12 games for the football team this past season as a freshman tight end.

© 2011 govolsxtra.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

 

I love Memphis, Memphis is my home, but it's time for me to become a man', Jarnell Stokes. Stokes said he'll be majoring in finance once a UT student.

Photo by Justin A. Shaw, Special to the News Sentinel

I love Memphis, Memphis is my home, but it’s time for me to become a man”, Jarnell Stokes. Stokes said he’ll be majoring in finance once a UT student.

Jarnell Stokes has a brother already going to Tennessee

It seems like a done deal to me now that I have found out that Jarnell Stokes has a brother that is currently a student at the University of Tennesse that he will follow his brother and be a Vol tonight when he announces his decision. Jarnell Stokes Class of 2012 power forward Jarnell Stokes (#17) is one […]

'I prayed heavily on this decision and God answered me. I liked the coaching staff at UT, their faith in God appealed to me. I feel like being a volunteer will be the next best step for me. To me, my hard work and work ethic, wherever I go I see success', Jarnell StokesPhoto by Justin A. Shaw, Special to the News Sentinel

“I prayed heavily on this decision and God answered me. I liked the coaching staff at UT, their faith in God appealed to me. I feel like being a volunteer will be the next best step for me. To me, my hard work and work ethic, wherever I go I see success”, Jarnell Stokes

Word on the street is that Jarnell Stokes will be a Vol

I live in Arkansas and I know that on Little Rock’s top radio station for sports, 103.7 the buzz, the constant question is about who Jarnell Stokes will be signing with tonight. My friends in Memphis tell me that the Memphis Tigers do not have a scholarship this year for Stokes but Arkansas and Tennessee […]

Southwind High School senior Jarnell Stokes stood before family, friends, and media as he told them he prepared to continue higher education and basketball at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.Photo by Justin A. Shaw, Special to the News Sentinel

Southwind High School senior Jarnell Stokes stood before family, friends, and media as he told them he prepared to continue higher education and basketball at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

Jarnell Stokes reveals college choice on Thursday, Arkansas in the mix

The Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Knoxville newspaper revealed yesterday: MEMPHIS – Highly-rated power forward prospect Jarnell Stokes will announce his college plans Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at Fino Villa in Collierville. The 6-8, 255-pound Stokes graduated from Southwind High last week, and plans to enroll in January at either Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee […]

Will Arkansas get Stokes to sign? CBS predicts the answer is no

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported today that Arkansas is after a top high school basketball player named Jarnell Stokes. My sources tell me he is leaning to signing with Kentucky. Below are the predictions of a sports writer from CBS. By Jeff Borzello Over the past few years, the early signing period in college basketball […]

 
Southwind High School senior Jarnell Stokes stood before family, friends, and media as he told them he prepared to continue higher education and basketball at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.Photo by Justin A. Shaw, Special to the News Sentinel

Southwind High School senior Jarnell Stokes stood before family, friends, and media as he told them he prepared to continue higher education and basketball at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

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

Post on SNL skit of Tim Tebow draws reaction from Mormons and Skeptics

December 23, 2011 – 8:49 am

[SB10001424052970203501304577088612669534918]

Recently I posted that I was saddened by the Saturday Night Live reckless skit on Tim Tebow that among other things  endorsed Mormonism. In response, I gave several evidences from archaeology that disproved the Book of Mormon. Then I included a five part video series that showed the archaeological evidence that supported the historical accuracy of  the Bible. (Archaeological evidence evidence against the Book of Mormon is abundant i.e., the lack of horses and iron swords in North America 2000 years ago), but arhaeological evidence supports the accuracy of the Bible.)

Here are the responses that I got and my responses to them: 

Comments

Patrick
obrainghaile@gmail.com
216.0.97.11

Why were you saddened? I doubt Jason Sudeikis’ proclamation of the truth of Mormonism is going to be that one missionary tool the LDS church was missing to really get things going. It was pretty clear to me the joke was meant to be absurd. South Park did the same thing when in one episode the director of Hell tells some newcomers the Mormons are the ones who get into heaven.

What is really confusing is why so many people who are of Evangelical and Baptist faiths (to name a few) spend so much time and energy trying to debunk Mormonism. Why do they care so much? I would think there are many who need help far more than a group of people who appear to believe in Jesus Christ and try to emulate Him by living honest, moral lives. I would rather devote my time and energy making sure I understand and live my own faith.

   
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology, Current Events | Tagged , , , | Comments (2)

James Robinson on Tim Tebow

December 23, 2011 – 8:11 am

 

[SB10001424052970203501304577088612669534918]

I have heard James Robinson preach many times before. I thought you might enjoy these insights on Tebow on 12-16-11:

Tim Tebow’s Witness

I remember clearly the first time I heard the name “Tebow.” Some of our family were watching a football game and I asked who was playing. Someone answered, “The University of Florida and some other team.” Neither were from our area. Curious, I asked why the interest in that game. Our son-in-law Terry Redmon answered, “I like Tim Tebow the quarterback. He is good and he is a very dedicated Christian and a great example.” Thinking of our six grandsons and five granddaughters, I was grateful to hear Terry’s reasoning, but not at all surprised. It was easy to understand his admiration for a talented athlete who was unashamed of his faith. He made it clear that he could declare boldly, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.” (Romans 1:16) Those words were true when Paul spoke them, and just as true with Tim Tebow in the 21stcentury. The salvation freely offered by God through Christ is available to those who believe. Obviously Tebow believes, and as a result of his witness, many others have and will trust Christ.

Do you find it amazing that there is so much interest and attention focused on this young man, and such diversity of opinion? Some like him, some despise him. There is love, hate, admiration, criticism, and even mockery. His very existence often reveals the true heart and attitude of people.

Dr. Linda Mintle points out in her blog “10 Reasons for Tim Tebow Hate” that public arrests of college and pro athletes averaged one every other day in 2010. Tebow doesn’t have an arrest record, yet there is an “I HATE TIM TEBOW” Facebook page.

Chap Clark, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school based in California, said Tebow’s unorthodox route to success, after so many predicted he would fail as a quarterback, has set him and his faith apart, even from the many other athletes who talk about their religious principles. “Tim has this ferocity as a competitor, but it’s still a game to him. He is consistently saying that football is not the center of life,” Clark says. “His great strength is that even people who don’t agree with his faith at all play their best around him.”

Tebow recently told the Associated Press that he knows his openness about his religion can be divisive but he feels compelled to share his story of salvation regardless of the sensitivity of the subject, and he relayed one of his favorite quotes: “I don’t know what my future holds, but I know who holds my future.” Tebow said, “The thing about my faith: it’s not just something that happens when you’re at church or happens when you’re praying or reading the Scripture. It’s part of who you are, as a person, as a player, in your life and everything.”

Tebow was the first college sophomore to win the Heisman trophy, college football’s most prestigious award. The Florida Gators won the national championship when Tebow was a junior. Tebow continued to excel throughout his college career. Some commentators, however, said he would not make it as a pro in the NFL. A few speculated that he might not be drafted, and if he was, he would be drafted low. They were wrong! They said he could not start – wrong! That he could not effectively quarterback a team – wrong! Could not be a winner – wrong! In the mile-high city of Denver he has the Broncos and their fans living two miles high. The buzz has become a roar.

This weekend he faces the three-time Super Bowl champion quarterback Tom Brady – two players with totally different styles in the same sport. This has the media pundits predicting one of the largest television audiences ever for a non-championship contest. While the world watches, will they witness Tebow help pull off another amazing victory? If Denver should win, will it be because of divine intervention? If they lose, what will Tebow do?

I predict either way he will point to God. If he loses, he will still give praise to God and to the Patriots, Brady, their coaches, and everyone involved. Whether he wins or loses the game, he will consistently encourage his team. Should they lose, he will perhaps accept personal responsibility for the loss, but will follow by declaring, “We will get better. We will never, never give up!”

Raised by missionary parents, Tebow wore Bible verses on his eye-black at Florida and still preaches to villagers in the Philippines and inspires inmates during jailhouse talks. And he’s sharing his religious beliefs with his teammates as enthusiastically as he yells the cadence at the line of scrimmage on Sundays. Coach John Fox asked Tebow to give the weekly address to the team on the eve of a game at San Diego last month, and nobody was surprised when Tebow shared Proverbs 27:17, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another,” something Tebow deemed appropriate as offense, defense and special teams feed off one another .

Recently an article on FOXNews stated:

Tim Tebow is not a religious symbol. He’s a shrine to the power of a strong, committed, passionate two-parent upbringing. Tebow’s birth — a product of his mother’s faith and refusal to listen to doctors advising her to abort — might very well have been a religious miracle. Tebow’s performance on the football field is testament to Bob and Pam Tebow and what they instilled in their youngest child…

What should be dawning on us — especially those of us who greeted Tebow’s Broncos career with skepticism — is that, thanks to a rock-solid, two-parent upbringing, Tebow is quite different from Young and Vick in terms of mental and emotional makeup. NFL quarterback is a 24/7-365-day job that Vick and Young were unprepared for coming out of college. NFL quarterback is a position best played by young men who were raised by strong fathers. Quarterback is the ultimate leadership position. You have to be taught how to lead. You have to be taught how to prepare.

Vick and Young, athletic freaks on par with Tebow, do not have Tebow’s nuclear-family foundation. Vick and Young entered the league emotionally immature and with a set of values inconsistent with the values that lead to consistent, strong QB play. You can wing it in college and get by on sheer athleticism and talent. You can’t do that at the quarterback position in the NFL. (This writer clearly recognizes and again illustrates the importance of strong marriages and families and the example in our homes, which is missing in so many.)

Rick Sams, a pastor in Alliance, Ohio, and friend of LIFE Outreach, wrote in his local newspaper, “Before Tim was born doctors begged his mother, Pam, to abort him. She had been given drugs to counter her amoebic dysentery not knowing she was pregnant, drugs known to almost universally cause irreversible damage to fetuses. She refused, trusting God for the outcome. All the while Tim’s father prayed, not only for a healthy son, but that God would make him a preacher. God answered those prayers. But the ‘Mile-High Messiah’ won’t be seen wearing robes, only pads and a jersey with his congregation numbering in the millions.”

Most Christians don’t believe that God determines the outcome of sporting events by releasing miraculous power in behalf of either team (even though fans sometimes wonder!) Most of the time, the best team wins and the best competitor finishes first. God leaves it in our hearts and hands to compete and perform, to give our best. Surely He must watch sometimes, don’t you think? We do know for certain He is interested in the lives of all who participate. And if He ever should decide to pick a team, woe to the opponent! Don’t expect it though this week when the Broncos play the Patriots. Be assured, players on both teams and fans on both sides of the field will be cheering and some will even be praying.

Tim Tebow loves Jesus and cares about people. He carries the heart of his missionary parents for the people of the Philippines, where he was born, and he is building a hospital in that country. He consistently assists people here at home and faithfully shares his testimony and witness whenever the occasion arises. He is, in my opinion, a wonderful role model. May I ask what’s wrong with that when we have so many terrible examples being lifted up? Many athletes, entertainers, and leaders have failed, so I am so glad our children and grandchildren admire someone like Tim Tebow. He “walks the talk.” They appreciate his athletic ability and success, but not nearly as much as his consistent Christian life. I personally wish I had always had the same steadfast, consistent walk that this highly-visible competitor has exhibited. On occasions, I did not and the fact that I did not have dedicated missionary-minded parents is no excuse for any inconsistency on my part or anyone else’s because Tebow’s Jesus offers everyone an opportunity to experience abundant life.

This is why every one of us needs the perfect example of the One who has captured Tim Tebow’s heart and the One he has chosen to follow: Jesus Christ. He alone can lift us beyond our weaknesses and hold us in the loving, forgiving arms we all need. Tim Tebow is lifting Jesus up so high that I am convinced He will draw others unto Himself. I thank God for his consistent witness. No matter what happens when the Broncos play the Patriots, I know who will win regardless of the outcome because Tim Tebow will still kneel down, look up, stand up, and point unashamedly to the gospel of Jesus Christ even if the NFL won’t allow him to print Scripture verses under his eyes during the games. There is no way the witness of this young man can be silenced. May God grant all of us the courage and consistency we see on public display through Tim Tebow because the testimony he gives is written on the hearts of all observers and brings glory to God.

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

Johnny Cash (Part 3)

December 23, 2011 – 12:57 am

I got to hear Johnny Cash sing in person back in 1978.  Here is a portion of an article about his Christian Testimony.

 
A Walking Contradiction
Cash’s daughter, singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash, once pointed out that “my father was raised a Baptist, but he has the soul of a mystic. He’s a profoundly spiritual man, but he readily admits to a continual attraction for all seven deadly sins.””There’s nothing hypocritical about it,” Johnny Cash told Rolling Stonescribe Anthony DeCurtis. “There is a spiritual side to me that goes real deep, but I confess right up front that I’m the biggest sinner of them all.” To Cash, even his near deadly bout with drug addiction contained a crucial spiritual element. “I used drugs to escape, and they worked pretty well when I was younger. But they devastated me physically and emotionally—and spiritually … [they put me] in such a low state that I couldn’t communicate with God. There’s no lonelier place to be. I was separated from God, and I wasn’t even trying to call on him. I knew that there was no line of communication. But he came back. And I came back.”Years after his return to the land of the living, Cash once got a visit from U2 members Bono and Adam Clayton who were driving across the U.S., taking in the local colors. The three of them sat around a table before their meal, and Cash floored the two Irishmen with an incredible prayer of thanksgiving to God. Then, without skipping a beat, he raised his head and quipped, “Sure miss the drugs, though.”Cash sums up his soul’s murky landscape—if that’s possible—better than anybody else: “I’m still a Christian, as I have been all my life. Beyond that I get complicated. I endorse Kris Kristofferson’s line about me: ‘He’s a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction.’ I also like Rosanne’s line: ‘He believes what he says, but that don’t make him a saint.’ I dobelieve what I say. There are levels of honesty, though.”Sigh.At this juncture, you may be asking why the book you’re holding is attempting to figure out the spiritual nature of this man. A puzzling personality who once implored, “Please don’t tell anybody how I feel about anything … unless I told you in the last few days.”

The answer? It’s attempting nothing of the sort. The sole purpose of this book is to focus on the wild, incredible ups and downs of Cash’s spiritual journey. It’s a chronicle of his highs and lows, a record of the ebb and flow of his soul’s story.

And like many such journeys, Cash’s was a roller coaster experience—though his twists and turns and plunges have been more intense than the average person’s … and, well, there were a lot more of them.

Cash began life close to church, close to the earth, and close to gospel music; but his earliest singles for Sun Records hit the secular path rather than the gospel road he hoped Sam Phillips would let him follow; Phillips’ preference for the former led to big hits from Cash right from the start, and he immediately became a slave to the road, soon making millions of dollars and winning over millions of fans; he battled through a lot of death through the years—including his big brother Jack’s, his parents’, his longtime guitarist Luther Perkins’, and especially his wife of 35 years, June Carter Cash’s—but Cash somehow eluded the Grim Reaper’s snares despite feeding his frame with truckloads of uppers and downers over the better part of the 1960s; he enjoyed a creative and spiritual renaissance in the late ’60s and early ’70s, a run that not only sealed his status as the father of American music but proved a blueprint for what would soon become contemporary Christian music; and then, just when it appeared his career was sputtering to a halt in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Cash confounded everyone by becoming the “it” artist once again, boldly interpreting eclectic song mixtures that mined alternative rock and bygone standards.

And while his body suffered recently under the strain wrought by years of abuse, Cash’s mind stayed strong … and his spirit stayed stronger.

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

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 2)

December 23, 2011 – 12:24 am

Collision (The Movie) – Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson 2-9

INTRODUCTION

Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity itself has benefited the world. Below is their exchange, one in a series that will appear on our website over the course of this month.

Douglas Wilson is author of Letter from a Christian Citizen, senior fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College, and minister at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking . His  Blog and Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.

Christopher Hitchens wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Twelve Books). Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man,” Letters to a Young Contrarian , and Why Orwell Matters. He was named, to his own amusement, number five on a list of the “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” by Foreign Policy and Britain’s Prospect.

Related posts:

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]

Christopher Hitchens discusses Ron Paul in 3-2-11 inteview

Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 3)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death:   Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust   DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 2)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 1)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]

 

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

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 6)

December 23, 2011 – 12:08 am

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

Pure and simple Senator Mark Pryor WILL BE DEFEATED IN 2014 BECAUSE HE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT AND HAS OFFERED SILLY REASONS WHY IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA.

Earlier I mentioned briefly that it was silly for Senator Pryor to say the Balanced Budget Amendment is “a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases..” 

Actually Ed Meese has answered this in a fully way than I did with the article below.  

Balanced Budget Amendment: Instrument to Force Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes

By Edwin Meese, III
July 21, 2011

 

As Congress considers what to do about federal overspending and overborrowing, conservatives must maintain focus. We must pursue the path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget, while preserving our ability to protect America and without raising taxes. An important part of that conservative agenda is adoption of a sound—repeat, a sound—Balanced Budget Amendment.[1] A Balanced Budget Amendment is not sound if it leads to balancing the federal budget by tax hikes instead of spending cuts. Thus, a sound Balanced Budget Amendment must prohibit raising taxes unless a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress votes to raise them. Without the two-thirds majority requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes the means for big spenders to raise taxes.

Supporters of the Balanced Budget Amendment rightly want to force the federal government to live within its means—to spend no more than it takes in. Because the government has failed for decades to follow that balanced budget principle, America is now $14.294 trillion in debt, a debt of more than $45,000 for every person in the United States.[2]

President Obama is making things worse. In discussions with congressional leaders, he has pushed hard to get authority to borrow yet more trillions of dollars and hike taxes. And the White House reiterated this week that President Obama opposes amending the Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget.[3]

A Sound Balanced Budget Amendment Must Require Two-Thirds Majorities to Raise Federal Taxes

Like 72 percent of the American people, The Heritage Foundation favors passage by the requisite two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and ratification by the requisite 38 states of an effective Balanced Budget Amendment to become part of our Constitution.[4] Heritage has made clear that an effective Balanced Budget Amendment must control spending, taxation, and borrowing; ensure the defense of America; and enforce, through the legislative process and without interference by the judicial branch, the requirement to balance the budget.[5] A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will drive down federal spending and end federal borrowing.

To date, Congress has proposed one largely sound Balanced Budget Amendment for consideration—Senate Joint Resolution 10, often called the Hatch-Lee Amendment after its main proponents.[6] It has a number of important features, such as an annual federal spending cap of not to exceed 18 percent of the economy’s annual output of goods and services (called the gross domestic product, or GDP) that Congress cannot exceed, except by a law passed with two-thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress or in specified circumstances involving military necessity.

A crucial feature is included in section 4 of the Balanced Budget Amendment proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 10: “Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.” The requirement that no tax hikes occur without the approval of 290 Representatives and 67 Senators is essential in a sound Balanced Budget Amendment. Without the requirement for two-thirds majorities for any tax increase, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes a sword for big spenders to use to raise taxes, instead of a shield to protect Americans from tax hikes. Those who seek to anchor into our Constitution a requirement to balance the budget must always remember that, if the only requirement is “balance,” that can be achieved two ways—cut spending or hike taxes. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will balance the budget by driving down federal spending and not by driving up federal taxes.

Balanced-Budget States That Allow Simple Majorities for Tax Hikes Face Situations Very Different from That of the Federal Government

Some look at the experience of states that have requirements in their constitutions for a balanced state budget and draw the wrong conclusion about the need for two-thirds majorities for taxation. They mistakenly conclude that a requirement merely for simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes suffices to keep state taxation under control and therefore that a federal Balanced Budget Amendment should require only simple majorities in Congress to raise taxes. But the balanced budget requirement at the state level occurs in a very different context from such a requirement at the federal level.

As a practical matter, state legislators regularly work and live among the people they represent, often do their legislative work face-to-face with their constituents, and often depend upon direct contact with voters to persuade voters to keep the legislators in office. As a result, state legislators tend to be closely attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation. In contrast, U.S. Senators and Representatives spend much of their time distant from the people they represent, often deal with their constituents through the insulation of large staffs, and amass large campaign funds through political fundraising that allow them to depend more upon expensive mass communications than upon direct contact with voters to persuade the voters to keep them in office. As a result, U.S. Senators and Representatives tend to be less directly attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation than state legislators are. Accordingly, while a requirement for merely simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes may suffice to keep taxes under control in that state, simple majorities are not likely to keep taxes under control at the federal level—as the experience of federal tax increases in the last 50 years proves.

Some who recognize the need for taxpayer protection by requiring supermajorities, rather than just simple majorities, of the two Houses of Congress to raise taxes think a supermajority of three-fifths of both Houses would suffice. While three-fifths would add a modicum of taxpayer protection in the House, three-fifths would add little if anything in the way of taxpayer protection in the Senate, which already often requires a three-fifths majority to proceed to consideration of legislation. The existing three-fifths rule in the Senate has often failed to protect taxpayers from federal tax increases in the past. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment would add protection for taxpayers in both Houses of Congress by a requirement for two-thirds majorities of the membership of both Houses to raise taxes.

Conclusion: Adopt the Two-Thirds Majority Requirement for Tax Hikes, to Make the Balanced Budget Amendment the Instrument of Spending Cuts and Not Tax Hikes

America’s soon-to-be New Minority—people who pay federal income tax—need protection from unreasonable taxation.[7] When all Americans have the right to vote, but only a minority has the duty to pay the federal income taxes from which all Americans benefit, the risk is high that a non-taxpaying majority will elect a Congress pledged to adopt taxation that oppresses the taxpaying minority. The impulse to seek something for nothing has regrettably taken root in the American body politic in the past century. The requirement in the Balanced Budget Amendment of a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress to raise taxes will protect a taxpaying minority against oppressive taxation.

As Congress continues on the path toward adopting a joint resolution to recommend a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification, Congress should ensure that the Amendment includes a requirement for approval by two-thirds of the membership of the two Houses of Congress for tax hikes. Absent such a requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment will encourage tax hikes instead of spending cuts as the means to balance the budget, making the Amendment the friend of the tax, spend and borrow crowd, instead of the friend of those who believe in limited government, free enterprise, and individual freedom.

Edwin Meese III is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Edwin Meese, III

  • Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Edwin Meese III is a prominent leader, thinker and elder statesman in the conservative movement – and America itself.

Meese holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he is responsible for keeping the late president’s legacy of conservative principles alive in public debate and discourse.

He also is Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, founded in 2001 to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution, legal principles and how they affect public policy.

These two Heritage “hats” keep Meese, a trusted counselor to Reagan before becoming Attorney General, among the major conservative voices in national policy debates at an age when most men and women enjoy quiet retirements.

In 2006, for example, Meese was named to the Iraq Study Group, a special presidential commission dedicated to examining the best resolutions for America’s involvement in Iraq.

Immediately after Reagan’s death in 2004, and in the years since, Meese appeared on the major cable and broadcast news programs to discuss the lasting impact of his old friend, mentor and boss. He often summarizes the Reagan legacy in three accomplishments: 1) Reagan cut taxes and kept them low. 2) He worked to defeat and end the Soviet Union and its worldwide push for communism. 3) He restored America’s faith in itself after years of failure and “malaise.”

“I admired him as a leader and cherish his friendship,” Meese wrote in a 2004 essay for Heritage members and supporters. “Ronald Reagan had strong convictions. He was committed to the principles that had led to the founding of our nation. And he had the courage to follow his convictions against all odds.”

Meese spent much of his adult life working for Reagan, first after the former actor, sports announcer and athlete was elected Governor of California in 1966 and then when he sought and won the presidency in 1980.

Meese served as the 75th Attorney General of the United States from February 1985 to August 1988. As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, he directed the Justice Department and led international efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime.

From January 1981 to February 1985, Meese held the position of Counsellor to the President – the senior job on the White House staff – and functioned as Reagan’s chief policy adviser. In 1985, he received Government Executive magazine’s annual award for excellence in management.

Meese joined Heritage in 1988 as the think tank’s first Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow – the only policy chair in the country to be officially named for the 40th president.

His relationship with Heritage began eight years earlier, however, when Meese met with senior management to discuss the think tank’s landmark policy guide, Mandate for Leadership, prepared for the incoming administration. Meese later recalled that Reagan personally handed out copies of the 1,093-page book to members of his Cabinet and asked them to read it. Nearly two-thirds of Mandate’s 2,000 recommendations would be adopted or attempted by the Reagan Administration.

Meese took on a new role as Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies more than a decade after joining the think tank. Under his guidance, the center has counseled White House staffers, Justice Department officials and Senate Judiciary Committee members on the importance of filling judicial vacancies with qualified men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to the founding document’s original meaning.

The center also became known for hosting “moot court” practice sessions to sharpen the arguments of attorneys slated to bring important cases before the Supreme Court. Those cases addressed constitutional issues ranging from property rights to racial preferences in primary and secondary schools to restrictions on free speech in campaign finance law.

Meese headed the center’s Advisory Board for the writing and editing of the best-selling book, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Regnery, 2005). The book assembles 109 experts to walk readers through a clause-by-clause analysis of the Constitution. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was among those keeping the reference work handy during Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominees.

Meese’s other books include Leadership, Ethics and Policing (Prentice Hall, 2004); Making America Safer (Heritage, 1997); and With Reagan: The Inside Story (Regnery Gateway, 1992).

He also is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California and lectures, writes and consults throughout the United States on a variety of subjects.

As both Attorney General and Counsellor to President Reagan, Meese was a member of the Cabinet and the National Security Council. He also served as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Council and the National Drug Policy Board.

After Reagan won the White House in the 1980 election, Meese headed the transition team. In the campaign, he was the Reagan-Bush Committee’s senior official.

During the Reagan governorship, Meese served as Executive Assistant and Chief of Staff from 1969 through 1974 and as Legal Affairs Secretary from 1967 through 1968. He previously was Deputy District Attorney in Alameda County, Calif.

Reagan never forgot Meese’s loyalty and hard work over the years. During a press conference at which reporters questioned Meese’s actions at the Justice Department, Reagan replied: “If Ed Meese is not a good man, there are no good men.”

Meese had a career outside government and politics. From 1977 to 1981, he was a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also directed the Center for Criminal Justice Policy and Management.

He was an executive in the aerospace and transportation industry as Vice President for Administration of Rohr Industries Inc. in Chula Vista, Calif. He left Rohr to return to the practice of law, doing corporate and general work in San Diego County.

Edwin Meese III was born Dec. 2, 1931, to Edwin Jr. and Leone Meese in Oakland, Calif. He graduated from Yale University in 1953 and holds a law degree from the University of California-Berkeley. A retired Colonel in the Army Reserve, he remains active in numerous civic and educational organizations.

He and his wife, Ursula, have two grown children and reside in McLean, Va.

 

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

“Friedman Friday” (Part 16) (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 2 of 7)

December 23, 2011 – 12:07 am

 

George Eccles: Well, then we called all our employees together. And we told them to be at the bank at their place at 8:00 a.m. and just act as if nothing was happening, just have a smile on their face, if they could, and me too. And we have four savings windows and we said, never leave the window. Lunch hour, anything else, we must have every window open all day. But, the important things was we knew you would have a big line so there was no use trying to hurry, because the line was going to continue. So we said, now, when you get a withdraw slip and the passbook, go back and check the signature. Even though you know your friend John Jones, just to delay time, just to mark time and then when you pay the money out, we are not going to pay in $100 bills. We are going to pay in $5, $10 and $20. And count it twice and hand it out with a smile.
Friedman: The banks survived the morning. But they didn’t have enough cash left so in the afternoon they called for more from the Federal Reserve Bank.
George Eccles: So the Federal Reserve sent up the armored car, two big sacks full of currency were brought in by the guard crowded through the crowd and the assistant manager, Morgan Kraft, came in also. So Mariner and my brother grabbed Mr. Kraft and he says, now, get up on this marble counter and tell these people that you brought up a lot of money and there is more where that came from! And he did. And then Mariner got up and said now you’ve heard that story, were not going to close. We’re going to stay open as long as any of you people want your money. So don’t worry about it at all. Well, of course, you had one other bank in the city and we called him and told him he couldn’t close either. He said well I can’t I haven’t got any money to stay open. So we made him a temporary loan. Because if we had another bank close while this run was going on the psychology of the public would be such that they’d, we’d never break the run in our bank. Everybody would come until they got all of their money out. (END)
The bank survived the first day’s run. It was time to change psychology. The second day was to be very different.
George Eccles: So that evening we called our employees all together because we knew that the next day that people had been working during the day and would have heard about this and the next morning we’d have them with us. So we figured now we can’t let a crowd build up in the lobby. So we told our tellers, I say now, you pay out this money just as fast as you can. So when anybody comes in the front door they don’t see a line. You pay out in $100 bills and don’t let any line ever develop at your window. Well it never did. So along about noon time people were just coming and going in a normal fashion and the run was over.
Friedman: It was all a question of reassuring the public that they could get their money. The Federal Reserve System was there to insure that this happened by supplying cash to the banks.
Why didn’t this system prevent The Great Depression after 1929? Because from 1929 to 1930 after the stock market crashed, the Federal Reserve system allowed the quantity of money to decline slowly thereby throttling the monetary structure. By December 1930, the quantity of money had fallen by 3% which may not seem much, but a growing economy needs additional money in order to prevent deflation and problems. Given this throttling of the monetary system, what happened after that was more or less inevitable. If the Bank of United States had not happened to fail, some other bank would have been the victim. It would have failed and would’ve set off the runs. Once the runs started, the Federal Reserve could have prevented them from having the disastrous consequences they did by stepping in and providing the banking system in general through creating new money with the cash it needed to meet the demands of the depositors. After all, once depositors start trying to take their money out of the banks, there is a strong tendency for the quantity of money to fall. Each dollar of cash which is withdrawn from a bank had been backing several dollars of deposits. If the Federal Reserve had stepped in, bought government securities on a large scale, provided the cash, the depositors would have found that they could’ve got their money and they would have stopped asking for it.
Ironically, the people at the New York Reserve Bank knew that this was the right policy. No one had advocated it more forcefully than Benjamin Strong, the first head of the bank. Tragically for America, he died two years before the real crisis.
With the death of Benjamin Strong, a truly remarkable man who not only ran the New York bank but was also the key figure in the entire Federal Reserve system. A struggle for power broke out between New York, the other banks and the Board in Washington. New York lost, the other banks and even more, the Board in Washington, won. That was a little noticed event but it was the first step in that massive move of power to Washington that has dominated our lives ever since. Then and now, this building housed the U.S. Treasury Department. But at that time, the Federal Reserve Board also had its modest offices somewhere in the same building. The shift of power was sealed a few years later when the Board got its own magnificent temple a few blocks away from here on Constitution Avenue. Despite excellent advice from New York, the system refused to buy government bonds, something which would have provided cash to the commercial banks with which they could have met more easily the insisted demands of their depositors. Instead, believe it or not, the system stood idly by while banks crashed on all sides. As the head of one of the banks put it, the reserve system had to keep its powder dry for a real emergency.
But if this wasn’t an emergency, what was? As bank after bank closed a chain reaction was in process destroying money as it went. It’s a process that even today a few bankers understand.
If you ask an individual banker whether he creates money, he’ll look at you as if you are mad. Of course not, he’ll say. I don’t create money, all I do is I accept deposits from high customers, I put a little of that deposit in the vault as a reserve and I lend the rest out. I don’t create money. From the point of view of the economist, the situation is very different. As I explained earlier, most of the deposits on the books of banks were put there by an accountant’s pen. But that simple fact is concealed from the individual banker, because is doesn’t happen here, inside the bank, it happens as a result of the transactions between banks.
As the men who ran the Federal Reserve knew very well, it happens when money loaned by one bank is deposited into another bank, to be loaned out yet again. In the depression the process was working in reverse. The banks were destroying money. Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve let it happen.
The end result was that by the time the whole sorry episode was over, by 1933 the quantity of money in the United States had gone down by a third. The slow throttling had turned into strangulation. For every $3 of currency in deposits the people had in 1929, only $2 were left. For every three banks that were open in 1929, in 1933 only two were left.
The terrible depression that followed was a direct result of bungling by the Federal Reserve System. Their monetary policy starts with any hope of economic recovery.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Comments (0)