Yearly Archives: 2011

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

September 19, 2011 – 8:19 am

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

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

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

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celebrating the Constitution with Heritage Foundation

September 19, 2011 – 6:51 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brandon Stewart

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

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

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

September 19, 2011 – 6:38 am

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

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

Signer of the Constitution Rufus King similarly affirmed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama wants to help liberal states

September 19, 2011 – 6:35 am

Obama wants to help liberal states

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

One Reason Obama Wants Another State Bailout

Posted by Tad DeHaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 19, 2011 – 12:48 am

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

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

Ernest Istook

Ernest Istook

  • Distinguished Fellow

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the article that Istook referenced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________

Other posts about Heritage Foundation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 19, 2011 – 12:17 am

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

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

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

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

JONES VOTES AGAINST LARGEST DEBT LIMIT INCREASE IN HISTORY

 
 

Washington, Aug 3 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 19, 2011 – 12:17 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Here are a few more I  emailed to him myself.

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

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

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

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

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

September 19, 2011 – 12:14 am
Coldplay

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

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

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

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

The Best Coldplay Songs Of All Time – And Why?

By

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

Expert Author Vincent Friend

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

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

Trouble

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

Speed of Sound

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

In My Place

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

Clocks

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

The Scientist

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

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

Related posts:

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

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

Documentary on Coldplay (Part 2)

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

Review of New Coldplay song with video clip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of New Coldplay songs (video clip too)

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

 

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

Two amazing actresses: Sisters Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Haviland

September 18, 2011 – 10:44 pm

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

 

 

‘

Feuding Sisters: Olivia de Havilland & Joan Fontaine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a picture of her in Suspicion above.


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

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

September 18, 2011 – 9:36 pm

 

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

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

___________

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

David Barton – 01/2009

America’s Religious Heritage

As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations

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

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

The First Inauguration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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