Yearly Archives: 2011

I love Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

June 12, 2011 – 11:52 pm

I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” was so good that I will be doing a series on it. My favorite Woody Allen movie is Crimes and Misdemeanors and I will provide links to my earlier posts on that great movie.

Movie Guide the Christian website had the following review:

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is the latest Woody Allen comedy. As such, it contains some of the fantasy elements of some of his older movies, like THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, where a man from a 1930s movie steps out of the frame and enters the life of a woman neglected and emotionally abused by her husband.

The movie stars Owen Wilson as Gil, a successful yet unfulfilled screenwriter who hopes to become an acclaimed literary novelist. He and his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) are visiting Paris with her parents, a city Gil finds fascinating because of its rich history from the 1920s literary scene of Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Picasso, and other acclaimed writers and artists. Gil is uncomfortable with the modern-day changes in Paris, and dislikes a couple who are friends with Inez, so he opts to walk alone late one night through the city while Inez and her friends go dancing.

At the stroke of midnight, a luxurious 1920s-era car pulls up and tells him to climb inside. Once he does, he finds himself surrounded by people like Hemingway and Fitzgerald and his wife. They take him to a series of parties that seem real, but when he leaves each morning, the neighborhood around him transforms into modern-day drabness and he can’t find the car and the party the next night when he tries to prove what happened to Inez.

As Inez starts to thinks he’s crazy and starts spending more time alone with the male from her friend, Gil keeps going out at midnight and getting drawn further into a delight-filled social circle of the greatest writers and artists of the 20th Century. He also gets emotionally drawn to a woman named Adriana (Marion Cotillard), who bounces from relationship to relationship among the artists and starts winning Gil’s heart. [SPOILERS FOLLOW] Eventually, he has to confess he no longer feels Inez and he have anything in common, and she reveals she’s had an affair the whole trip with her male friend. Gil and Inez split up, with Gil staying in the city of his dreams but with a new romance brewing with a modern-day bookseller who loves the past as much as he does.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is a refreshing soufflé of a comedy that will appeal mainly to older bohemians, rather than mass audiences and younger viewers. It has fun with famous literary and artistic figures. Even the few sexual innuendos and references in the movie are relatively innocent, especially compared to other movies in the same genre, but the storyline does involve some promiscuity that is condoned. With only brief foul language, all the actors involved have a blast with their roles, especially the ones playing famous figures. The frequent casual drinking and smoking fit the setting of the 1920s era.

There are, however, a couple jokes made against “right-wing Republicans” and the Tea Party, but they are met with funny reactions in return by the Republican characters. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS has a Romantic worldview that features brief foul language, innuendo, promiscuity, and plenty of social drinking.

_________________________

I have decided to start a series of posts on the characters referenced in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Right now I have plans to look at William Faulkner,Cole Porter, Fitzgerald, Heminingway, Juan Belmonte,Gertrude Stein, Gauguin, Lautrec, Geores Brague, Dali, Rodin,Coco Chanel, Modigliani, Matisse, Luis Bunuel, Josephine Baker, Van Gogh, Picasso, Man Ray, T.S. Elliot and several more.

Below are other posts about Woody Allen:

Was Hitler Right in 1919 letter about Jews? (Humanists have no answer!!)

In an earlier post I went into great detail about this. Today I am only going to show that the atheist and humanist has no intellectual basis for saying that one group of humans versus another group should survive at all. Of course, Christians have the Bible which teaches that all are created in God’s […]

Humanist asserts: “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (Hitler’s letter from 1919 revealed)

  The Associated Press reported today:   The signature under the typewritten words on yellowing sheets of nearly century-old paper is unmistakable: Adolf Hitler, with the last few scribbled letters drooping downward. The date is 1919 and, decades before the Holocaust, the 30-year-old German soldier — born in Austria — penned what are believed to be […]

Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas (Coldplay’s spiritual search Part 6)

Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago: Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas What does King Solomon, the movie director Woody Allen and the modern rock bands Coldplay and Kansas have in common? All four took on the issues surrounding death, the meaning of life and a possible afterlife, although they all came up with their own conclusions on […]

Insight into what Coldplay meant by “St. Peter won’t call my name” (Series on Coldplay’s spiritual search, Part 3)

Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]

Is God responsible for evil, many Arkansas Times bloggers say yes!!(Part 3)

Below is a post from the Arkansas Times Blog that I am responding to: Who is a better person? The one who helps their fellow man and does what is right because they it’s the right thing to do, or one who treats people well only because they are threatened with an eternal punishment? Posted […]

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 8)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes & Misdemeanors (pictured is Judah and his criminal brother, ultimately his brother hires a hitman to take out Judah’s girlfriend who threatens to turn Judah over to the cops) Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 9/13 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 4 crimes & misdemeanors Best scene of the movie!!!! _________________________________ John Brummett in […]

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 7)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 7/13 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 3 Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 8/13 John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official […]

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 6)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]

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

Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part 31)

June 12, 2011 – 3:13 pm
Governor Schwarzenegger goes to cast his vote on election day with his wife Maria Shriver and their daughters Christina and Katherine (her first time voting), at the Kenter Canyon elementary school in Brentwood.
The Schwarzenegger Family Voting

Governor Schwarzenegger goes to cast his vote on election day with his wife Maria Shriver and their daughters Christina and Katherine (her first time voting), at the Kenter Canyon elementary school in Brentwood.

Schwarzenegger fathers a love child

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

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

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

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

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

John MacArthur had some helpful comments below:

Should I Confess My Unfaithfulness to My Wife, Even If Telling Her About It May Hurt Her More Than Keeping It a Secret Would?

There is no doubt that in some cases confessing a sin may cause as much hurt as the offense itself. Nonetheless, I believe that in all cases the unfaithful party in a marriage relationship broken by adultery should confess the sin to his or her spouse.

Why? For one thing, it takes two people to commit adultery. The other party in the sin already knows about the offense. It compounds your unfaithfulness to share a secret with your cohort in sin but keep your spouse in the dark. The lack of total openness–the need to hide things and keep secrets–will continue to be a barrier to the proper unity of the marriage. Something as serious as a breach in the marital union cannot be repaired if the truth must be kept from your marriage partner. Failure to confess simply compounds lying and cover-ups. That sort of thing will eventually destroy the relationship, whether or not theadultery is repeated.

As difficult as it may be for both you and your spouse, you must deal honestly with a sin like this. If the offended spouse discovers the sin through other means, the hurt that is then caused will be drastically increased. You owe it to him or her to confess.

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

Chip Ingram – Two Biblical Requirements to Resolve Conflict (pt 4)

To resolve conflict effectively and Biblically there are two absolutes that both parties must agree on – do you know what they are? Without this framework, you can try all kinds of things to avoid or resolve conflict in your marriage and relationships, but you probably won’t be successful. Listen and discover the common ground that can literally transform even the most challenging points of conflict. Want to learn more? Download the full message from guest speaker Tim Lundy for free at: http://www.venturechristian.org/files/sermons2/t032011.mp3

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

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 91)

June 12, 2011 – 5:41 am

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/C38364-20.jpg

President Reagan meeting with Anatoly Shcharansky, released dissident from the Soviet Union USSR, in the Oval Office. 12/10/86.

the first presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale in 1984

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent article on Ronald Reagan and the events that transpired during the Reagan administration,  and I wanted to share it with you. Here is the fourth portion:

The measure cut all income tax rates by twenty-five percent, with a 5 percent cut coming that October, the next 10 percent in July 1982, and the final 10 percent in July 1983. The law also reduced the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, indexed tax rates to offset the impact of inflation, and increased the tax exemption on estates and gifts. Conservatives have consistently argued that ERTA was a prime factor in the economic growth that prevailed throughout the 1980s.

There followed sixty straight months of economic growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since the government began keeping such statistics in 1854. Nearly fifteen million new jobs were created — a total of eighteen million by the time Reagan left office. Just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services, measured in actual dollars, were produced from 1982 to 1987. To give some notion of how much that is, by the end of 1987 America was producing about seven and a one-half times more every year than it produced in John Kennedy’s last year as president.[viii]

The expansion was felt everywhere, as conservative economists had predicted, including in the government’s own income. Total federal receipts in 1982 were $618 billion. Five years later, federal receipts were just over $1 trillion, an increase of $398 billion. More than enough, one would have thought, to satisfy all but the most eager advocate of the welfare state.

And as Reagan had promised, the military benefited the most from the economic growth. In President Carter’s last budget, America spent just under $160 billion on national defense. In 1987, the Reagan administration spent $282 billion, more than twice as much on the military. During Reagan’s first seven years, he was able to expend over $1.5 trillion on national defense, “a staggering amount by anyone’s standards.”[ix]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Ronald Reagan | Comments (0)

Top 10 most Controversial World Cup Games (W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher, Part 3)

June 12, 2011 – 12:24 am

Today we are discussing the 8th most controversial game.

Everette Hatcher picks the Germany v. USA game in 2002.

2002 World Cup Quarter Finals: Germany vs United States

Close call on hand-ball: In the 49th minute of Friday’s Germany-United States World Cup quarterfinal, a shot by American Gregg Berhalter bounced off German goalkeeper Oliver Kahn and hit the left arm of German defender Torsten Frings, who was standing on the goal line.

Scottish referee Hugh Dallas did not call a hand-ball on Frings. While Dallas might not have seen Frings touch the ball, even if the referee had, he would not be obligated to issue the United States a penalty kick.

According to Law 12 of the International Football Association Board’s Laws of the Game, the rulebook for soccer:

“A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player … handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area). … A penalty kick is awarded if the above offense is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.”

However, if in the referee’s opinion the ball hit Frings’ arm inadvertently, then he need not make a call, as a later note explains:

“If the ball strikes the defender accidentally, no offense is committed.”

Wilson picks the  West Germany v Austria in 1982. Here is some info off the internet below. 

West Germany 1 Austria 0 (1982)

West Germany had lost to Algeria (England beware)  but needed just a 1-0 win to go through at the Africans’ expense along with Austria. A 2-0 win would see Austria go home.

So happened the Nichtangriffspakt von Gijón (non-aggression pact of Gijon)…Horst Hrubesch put Germany 1-0 after ten minutes and after this neither side even tried to score a goal, resulting in 80 minutes of ‘after you’ football.

Tears were shed by Algeria and FIFA ruled after this that all final group matches must always be played at the same time to avoid a repeat.

Video: Even the Germans were unimpressed

__________________________________

1 Geoff Hurst’s third goal in World Cup final (1966)

Of course it crossed the line. End of debate. Apart from the bits of the ball that might not have done.Possibly.  When I met Geoff Hurst he told me the ball WAS over the line. When I met Franz Beckenbauer he told me it wasn’t. I know who I believe. A clear case of getting it right – well done lino…

Video: The whole ball enters the designated net area with malice aforethought

Bonus feature: how Brian Moore described it on the radio

2 Diego Maradona’s Hand of God (1986)

The fact the referee’s suspicions were not aroused by the fact that 5ft 2in Maradona was able to outjump man mountain Peter Shilton says more about him than the Argentinian wizard. He got away with it. Big time.

Cheating on a biblical scale will never be condoned anyone in this country – unless of course, Wayne Rooney does if for England this year to win the final.

Video: ‘Major controversy…’

3 Harald Schumacher v Patrick Battiston (1982)

We all adopted the French after England bowed out without losing a game in Spain. Their semi-final against West Germany was one of the best World Cup matches ever.

France let a 3-1 extra time lead slip before losing on penalties but the only talking point was how German keeper Harald Schumacher managed to avoid a booking/red card/prison sentence for his disgraceful charge into the clean-though Battiston who lost teeth, consciousness and broke ribs and spinal bones having shot wide. France didn’t even get a free-kick.

Video: Ooh la-la! C’est GBH ou ABH…

4 Kuwait v France (1982)

There was a whistle in the crowd just before Alain Giresse scored for France.

So incensed were the players that the goal was allowed to stand they complained. Then the head of the Kuwaiti FA took his players off in protest until the goal was wiped out. Which it was. Incredibly. But France still won 4-1.

Video: Referee rules out goal under Giresse

5 Argentina 6 Peru 0 (1978)

Argentina had to win by four goals to make the World Cup final in front of their own fans at the expense of bitter rivals Brazil. Peru missed a couple of early sitters. Cue another stunning evening. Accusations about this match have been rife since it finished but nothing has been proven.

Video: Noise, noise, goals and tickertape…

6  Zidane headbutt on Materazzi (2006)

Zinedine Zidane’s last-ever match ended in shame when he head-butted poor old Marco during the World Cup Final itself, the Italian left to rue that snide comment he made about the Leaning Tower of Pisa being far than Eiffel’s rubbish effort.

Video: Come here and say that…

7 Clive Thomas disallowing Brazil goal v Sweden (1978)

Clive always did it by the book and allowed just eight seconds of injury time during which time Nelinho’s corner was headed home by Zico. However, just a nanosecond before Zico’s curls made ball contact Thomas blew for full time, waving away protesting Brazilians with a flourish of his watch.

Don’t think Mr Thomas will ever be welcome in the bars of Rio but he’s a big hero in Stockholm.

Video: Who says referees don’t have a sense of humour?

8 Willie Johnston/Diego Maradona sent home for drugs

After Scotland lurched to a 3-1 defeat to Peru in 1978,  the team were rocked by scandal when West Brom’s Willie Johnston failed a drugs test and was sent home, never to play for his country again.

If his alleged drugs taking had had a de-enhancing effect, the ones Diego Maradona took at the 1994 Finals were the complete opposite.

The Argentinian legend scored against Greece then ran bug-eyed and screaming at the camera. He failed a drugs test soon afterwards and was sent home.

Video: What big eyes you’ve got Diego…

9. The Battle of Santiago (1962)

When 1962 hosts Chile took on the shrinking violets Italy, the BBC’s David Coleman described what happened as ‘the most stupid, appalling, disgusting and disgraceful exhibition of football, possibly in the history of the game.’

For the record, Chile won 2-0 but here’s a breakdown of events:-

  • In the lead-up to the match, two Italian journalists were misquoted to whip up Chilean fervour in a country still reeling from a massive earthquake two years. The journos had to leave the country for their own safety.
  • The first foul came after 12 seconds.
  • English referee Ken Aston sent off Italy’s Giorgio Ferrini after 12 minutes for a foul on Honorino Landa.
  • Ferrini refused to leave pitch and had to be dragged off by police
  • Ferrini was then punched by Landa but not sent off.
  • Chile’s Leonel Sanchez then punched Mario David but was not dismissed.
  • David got his own back by booting Sanchez in the head and getting sent off. Sanchez struck David again as he walked off but was not sent off.
  • In the resulting melee, 11 Chileans attempted to lay waste to nine Italians. Sanchez broke Humberto Maschio’s with a neat left hook but again was not sent off.
  • Police had to come and separate players who were by spitting at each other as well as punching and shoving.
  • Police were forced to break up fighting players two more times before the end.

Video: Seconds out, round one – complete with outraged Coleman

10 West Germany 1 Austria 0 (1982)

West Germany had lost to Algeria (England beware)  but needed just a 1-0 win to go through at the Africans’ expense along with Austria. A 2-0 win would see Austria go home.

So happened the Nichtangriffspakt von Gijón (non-aggression pact of Gijon)…Horst Hrubesch put Germany 1-0 after ten minutes and after this neither side even tried to score a goal, resulting in 80 minutes of ‘after you’ football.

Tears were shed by Algeria and FIFA ruled after this that all final group matches must always be played at the same time to avoid a repeat.

Video: Even the Germans were unimpressed

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

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 59)

June 12, 2011 – 12:01 am

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

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

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

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

Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself.

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

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease
Misc ——- $43.481 B ——-
Collection of Delinquent Taxes: Saves $3 billion
Page 36 of 37
Every year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes the Federal Employee/Retiree Delinquency Initiative
(FERDI). This summary report shows the amount of civilian, military, and retired federal employees who are
delinquent in their federal income taxes.
In 2008, the FERDI showed $3.04 billion in back taxes owed. The amount has grown to $3.31 billion in 2009.
Federal Pay Freeze: Saves $2 billion
During this recession, while most Americans have been forced to cut back, the amount of spending by the federal
government has drastically increased. Many Americans are without jobs and many more are not receiving pay raises.
Federal employees already receive generous pay and benefits, and President Obama has recently endorsed this
proposal.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton is the new fashion icon

June 11, 2011 – 11:14 pm

By Andrea Reiher

June 11, 2011 10:17 AM ET

kate-middleton-fashion.jpgThere is no doubt about it – Kate Middleton is a new fashion icon. She appears in public with nary a hair out of place or a fashion faux pas happening. Of course, it helps that she’s incredibly pretty and very thin, but still – lots of actresses show up to red carpets in less-than-stellar ensembles.Since returning from the honeymoon, Kate has been spied out in public in the brown Reiss dress (above, left), which she wore to meet President and First Lady Obama on their trip to the United Kingdom.

Kate has also been seen in a sparkly frock (above, middle), a Jenny Packham creation decorated with Swarovski crystals. She donned this dress for the 10th Annual Absolute Return for Kids Gala Dinner at Kensington Palace. Simply smashing.

Finally, for the annual Trooping of the Colour Parade, Kate donned a white double-breasted jacket and black straw and feather hat (above, right). The Trooping of the Colour, which historians believe dates back to the reign of King Charles II in the 1600s, is used each June to celebrate the official birthday of the reigning Monarch, regardless of when the monarch’s actual birthday falls. The birthday tradition began in 1748.

Other posts with Kate Middleton:

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

Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s veil Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s bridal veil at the altar of Westminster Abbey, 29 April 2011 Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 50)

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge leave Clarence House for Buckingham Palace on April 29, 2011 in London, England. (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)   I watched the royal wedding with great interest, and I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to […]

Pippa Middleton small accident during triathlon

NBC reported today: Pippa Middleton runs triathlon, is bumped by sweaty goof Rick Chandler Jun 7, 2011, 2:24 PM EDT 4 Comments As you know, Pippa Middelton is the sister of the future Queen of England and by far the most interesting feature of the recent William-Kate royal nuptials. She ran in the Blenheim Triathlon in […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 49)

Bridesmaids and page boys Philippa Middleton arrives at Westminster Abbey with the bridesmaids and page boys ahead of the wedding service between Prince William and Catherine Middleton, 29 April 2011 Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 48)

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Charles, Prince of Wales leave Clarence House to travel to Buckingham Palace for the evening celebrations. (John Stillwell/WPA Pool/Getty Images) I watched the royal wedding with great interest, and I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 47)

[2011] The Royal Wedding – MARRIAGE part 2 The Official Royal Wedding photographs The Royal Wedding Group in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace on 29th April 2011 with the Bride and Groom, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the centre. Front row (left to right): Miss Grace van Cutsem, Miss Eliza Lopes, […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 46)

Britain’s Prince William, center left, and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, center right, pose for a photograph with, clockwise from bottom right, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Eliza Lopes, Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Tom Pettifer, and William Lowther-Pinkerton in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, following their wedding at Westminster Abbey, London, on Friday, April […]

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

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 30)

June 11, 2011 – 2:56 pm

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 4 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology

The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 4 of an indepth study

With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the Book of Mormon?

Tags: church false mormon christian bible book of mormon joseph smith cult LDS latter day saints

_____________________________________

From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, wheels and chariots did not exist in North America when they said they did.

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

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

The Book of Mormon describes the following animals as living in the pre-Columbian Americas: donkey, cattle, oxen, horse, pig, and elephants. Although horses and mammoths and mastodons (related to elephants) had existed tens of thousands of years ago in the Americas, they had all disappeared by 10,000 years ago. Horses did not reappear on the American continents until the Spanish brought them after the voyage of Columbus. None of these animals existed in North, Central or South America during Book of Mormon times.

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

___________________________________

Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

  • Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon’s wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon’s prosperity was entirely feasible.
  • It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
  • Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

How does archaeology conclusively demonstrate the Bible to be reliable and unique among all the holy books of world religions? Answer

For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: Bryant Wood of Associates for Biblical Research

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Comments (0)

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

June 11, 2011 – 11:46 am

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

If Social Security was so great then why do we get critical of other ponzi schemes? Actually I wrote about this earlier.  

The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth

The conventional wisdom regarding Social Security is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system does—and does not—work. Nobel laureate and Hoover fellow Milton Friedman explains why it is time to end Social Security as we know it.

The journalist Michael Barone recently summed up the conventional wisdom about reforming Social Security: “The content of the reform is fairly clear—individual investment accounts to replace part of the government benefits financed by the payroll tax, later retirement ages, adjusted cost of living increases,” he wrote. And, he added, “suddenly the money to pay for the costs of transition is at hand, in the form of a budget surplus.”

I have italicized “part” and “costs of transition” because they epitomize key defects in conventional wisdom.

Social Security has become less and less attractive as the number of current recipients has grown relative to the number of workers paying taxes, an imbalance that will only get bigger. That explains the widespread support for individual investment accounts. Younger workers, in particular, are skeptical that they will get anything like their money’s worth for the Social Security taxes that they and their employers pay. They believe they would do much better if they could invest the money in their own 401(k) or the equivalent.

But if that is so, why replace only part and not all of government benefits? The standard explanation is that this is not feasible because payroll taxes—or part of them—are needed to pay benefits already committed to present and future retirees. That is how they are now being used, but there is nothing in the nature of things that requires a particular tax to be linked to a particular expenditure.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was much reviled for suggesting that participation in Social Security be voluntary. I thought it was a good idea then. I still think so.

The link between the payroll tax and benefit payments is part of a confidence game to convince the public that what the Social Security Administration calls a social insurance program is equivalent to private insurance, in that, in the Administration’s words, “the workers themselves contribute to their own future retirement benefit by making regular payments into a joint fund.”

Balderdash. Taxes paid by today’s workers are used to pay today’s retirees. If money is left over, it finances other government spending—though, to maintain the insurance fiction, paper entries are created in a “trust fund” that is simultaneously an asset and a liability of the government. When the benefits that are due exceed the proceeds from payroll taxes, as they will in the not very distant future, the difference will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing, creating money, or reducing other government spending. And that is true no matter how large the “trust fund.” The assurance that workers will receive benefits when they retire does not depend on the particular tax used to finance the benefits or on any “trust fund.” It depends solely on the expectation that future Congresses will honor promises made by earlier Congresses—what supporters call “a compact between the generations” and opponents call a Ponzi scheme.

The present discounted value of the promises embedded in the Social Security law greatly exceeds the present discounted value of the expected proceeds from the payroll tax. The difference is an unfunded liability variously estimated at from $4 trillion to $11 trillion—or from slightly larger than the funded federal debt that is in the hands of the public to three times as large. For perspective, the market value of all domestic corporations in the United States at the end of 1997 was roughly $13 trillion.

To see the phoniness of “transition costs” (the supposed net cost of privatizing the current Social Security system), consider the following thought experiment: As of January 1, 2000, the current Social Security system is repealed. To meet current commitments, every participant in the system will receive a government obligation equal to his or her actuarial share of the unfunded liability.

For those already retired, that would be an obligation—a Treasury bill or bond—with a market value equal to the present actuarial value of expected future benefits minus expected future payroll taxes, if any. For everyone else, it would be an obligation due when the individual would have been eligible to receive benefits under the current system. And the maturity value would equal the present value of the benefits the person would have been entitled to, less the present value of the person’s future tax liability, both adjusted for mortality.

The result would be a complete transition to a strictly private system, with every participant receiving what the current law promises. Yet, aside from the cost of distributing the new obligations, the total funded and unfunded debt of the United States would not change by a dollar. There are no “costs of transition.” The unfunded liability would simply have become funded. The compact between the generations would have left as a legacy the newly funded debt.

How would that funded debt be paid when it comes due? By taxing, borrowing, creating money, or reducing other government spending. There are no other ways. There is no more reason to finance the repayment of this part of the funded debt by a payroll tax than any other part. Yet that is the implicit assumption of those who argue that the “costs of transition” mean there can be only partial privatization.

The payroll tax is a bad tax: a regressive tax on productive activity. It should long since have been repealed. Privatizing Social Security would be a good occasion to do so. Should a privatized system be mandatory? The present system is; it is therefore generally taken for granted that a privatized system must or should be as well.

The economist Martin Feldstein, in a 1995 article in the Public Interest, argued that contributions must be mandatory for two reasons: “First, some individuals are too shortsighted to provide for their own retirement,” he wrote. “Second, the alternative of a means-tested program for the aged might encourage some lower-income individuals to make no provision for their old age deliberately, knowing that they would receive the means-tested amount.”

The paternalism of the first reason and the reliance on extreme cases of the second are equally unattractive. More important, Professor Feldstein does not even refer to the clear injustice of a mandatory plan.

The most obvious example is a person with AIDS, who has a short life expectancy and limited financial means, yet would be required to use a significant fraction of his or her earnings to accumulate what is almost certain to prove a worthless asset.

More generally, the fraction of a person’s income that it is reasonable for her or him to set aside for retirement depends on that person’s circumstances and values. It makes no more sense to specify a minimum fraction for all people than to mandate a minimum fraction of income that must be spent on housing or transportation. Our general presumption is that individuals can best judge for themselves how to use their resources. Mr. Feldstein simply asserts that in this particular case the government knows better.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was much reviled for suggesting that participation in Social Security be voluntary. I thought that was a good idea then; I still think it is. I find it hard to justify requiring 100 percent of the people to adopt a government-prescribed straitjacket to avoid encouraging a few “lower-income individuals to make no provision for their old age deliberately, knowing that they would receive the means-tested amount.” I suspect that, in a voluntary system, many fewer elderly people would qualify for the means-tested amount from imprudence or deliberation than from misfortune.

I have no illusions about the political feasibility of moving to a strictly voluntary system. The tyranny of the status quo and the vested interests that have been created are too strong. I believe, however, that the ongoing discussion about privatizing Social Security would benefit from paying more attention to fundamentals rather than dwelling simply on the nuts and bolts of privatization.

Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science, was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution from 1977 to 2006. He passed away on Nov. 16, 2006. He was also the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946 to 1976, and a member of the research staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1937 to 1981.

Reprinted with minor editorial changes from the New York Times, January 11, 1999, from an article entitled “Social Security Chimeras.” Reprinted by permission.

Available from the Hoover Press is The Essence of Friedman, a volume of essays by the Nobel laureate economist. Also available is Facing the Age Wave, David Wise, editor. To order, call 800-935-2882.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, Social Security | Comments (0)

Brummett:Republicans hypocrites if they adapt to federal programs?

June 11, 2011 – 10:08 am

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

_______________________________________

John Brummett in his latest article (Arkansas News Bureau, June 11, 2011) attacks a Republican lawmaker for running a day care that accepts government money and a Republican activist whose husband won a construction project that originated because of President Obama’s stimulus program.  

John Brummett observed:

She said a person can’t simply decline to participate in the economy because he disagrees with some of the government policies affecting that economy. But I wasn’t asking her or her husband to do that. I only wanted her to think about moderating her rhetoric and her thinking in light of her experience.

Max Brantley, Arkansas Times Blog, June 11, 2011 went on to call both of these individuals Republican hypocrites.

This argument is easily destroyed. 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. I do not favor all the liberal federal spending programs that accounted for 24.7 percentage of GDP while only taking in 14.8% of GDP in taxes.

I have been on record against the stimulus  (I have listed the posts below where I have discussed it), but I would gladly bid on any business that I can get. We have to live in the real world that many times the liberal policies have almost destroyed. Unfortunately the liberals have done a great job of running the national deficit up to 1.6 trillion a year because they really believe that stupid ideas like the federal stimulus would work. Actually Brantley loves to mention that the stimulus may not have been enough. Can you believe that? He failed royally the first time and he wants to do it again!!!

Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 2

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

Mark Pryor supported Failed Stimulus

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth (Paul Ryan outlines what has happened since the stimulus has been passed) Senator Mark Pryor voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. Both Pryor and Obama thought the economy could be jump started by […]

Dumas: Unemployment Benefits will help stimulate Economy

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth The Republicans have been made out to be the Grinch that stole Christmas because they did not want to extend unemployment benefits again. In fact, we have been told by the Democrats that unemployment benefits will help stimulate the economy, and we should not be trying to help the millionaires while the unemployed could […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)

Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part 30)

June 11, 2011 – 8:09 am

_______________________________________

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

Chip Ingram – Two Biblical Requirements to Resolve Conflict (pt 4)

To resolve conflict effectively and Biblically there are two absolutes that both parties must agree on – do you know what they are? Without this framework, you can try all kinds of things to avoid or resolve conflict in your marriage and relationships, but you probably won’t be successful. Listen and discover the common ground that can literally transform even the most challenging points of conflict. Want to learn more? Download the full message from guest speaker Tim Lundy for free at: http://www.venturechristian.org/files/sermons2/t032011.mp3

Media hunts mother of Arnies love child

File photo of Schwarzenegger

File photo of the Schwarzenegger family: (L-R) Maria Shriver, Christina, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Patrick(AFP/Getty Images/File/Jason Merritt)…

Arnold Schwarzenegger Fathers Love Child With Longtime Member Of Household Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

He Led a Double Lifeby Mary May Larmoyeux
Scott Jennings never dreamed he would cross the line. But somehow it happened.A Weekend to Remember®After Scott reached his mother’s house, his sister Nancy and brother-in-law Douglas (who lived nearby) came to see him. “I told them that I had come to accept Christ,” Scott says. He had started reading the Bible regularly, and they realized he was sincere. Over the next week, news of Scott’s faith reached Sherry. They began studying Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Lifetogether, discussing chapters every day by e-mail and then by phone. Scott told Sherry that he wanted to rebuild their relationship, but this time with God in control and at the center. Sherry said she wanted the same thing, realizing “This is the Christian husband that God has for me.” Sherry hoped that someday she and Scott would remarry “But we needed to do it God’s way.”Sherry had heard about FamilyLife’s marriage conference on the radio—how it helped couples understand and apply God’s blueprints for their marriage. She told Scott, “We aren’t going one more step until we find a Weekend to Remember.” A few days later, Scott registered them for one in Philadelphia.

When the Jennings began their conference weekend, Scott wanted to do everything that he could to deepen his relationship with Jesus Christ and his wife. He wanted to show Sherry that she and God were his main priorities.

The first session of the conference introduces the concept of isolation in marriage, and the common factors that contribute to it. “That session was difficult,” Sherry says, “as we listened to all the familiar ways we broke our marriage and built walls of isolation.”

During the remainder of the weekend, the Jennings heard about God’s plan for marriage, and learned about practical communication tools for improving their relationship. They saw that God had been working in their relationship in ways they didn’t dream of. “We left that weekend knowing that God was using all the trials, tribulations, and ugliness, all our bad decisions from the past 14 years,” Sherry says, “to bring us … to a place to accept each other.”

They prayed that God would lead them in reconciliation and restoration, and also that they would follow and honor Him. Eventually they remarried, on May 5, 2007.

Today, Scott and Sherry not only promote the Weekend to Remember in North Carolina as FamilyLife volunteers, but also lead a marriage ministry in their church.

Sherry says that she now knows the truth about marriage. It’s “about choosing each day, each minute, to honor God with our words and actions, and in turn, we honor our spouses.” She says that God created Scott specifically for her. “How can I not love, honor, treasure a perfect gift from my perfect God?”

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

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