Monthly Archives: February 2012

Got to cut spending

Spending has always been the problem.

The Problem Is Spending, not Deficits

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Reckless spending increases under both Bush and Obama have resulted in unprecedented deficits. Congress will soon be forced to increase the nation’s debt limit by an astounding $1.8 trillion. Government borrowing has become such a big issue that some politicians are proposing a deficit reduction commission, which may mean they are like alcoholics trying for a self-imposed intervention.

But all this fretting about deficits and debt is misplaced. Government borrowing is a bad thing, of course, but this video explains that the real problem is excessive government spending.

Fixating on the deficit allows politicians to pull a bait and switch, since they can raise taxes, claim they are solving the problem, when all they are doing is replacing debt-financed spending with tax-financed spending. At best, that’s merely taking a different route to the wrong destination. The more likely result is that the tax increases will weaken the economy, further exacerbating America’s fiscal position.

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2 of 7)

 

Aside from its harbor, the only other important resource of Hong Kong is people __ over 4_ million of them.

Like America a century ago, Hong Kong in the past few decades has been a haven for people who sought the freedom to make the most of their own abilities. Many of them are refugees from countries that don’t allow the economic and political freedom that is taken for granted in Hong Kong.

Despite rapid population growth, despite the lack of natural resources, the standard of living is one of the highest in all of Asia. People work hard, but Hong Kong’s success is not based on the exploitation of workers. Wages in Hong Kong have gone up fourfold since the War, and that’s after allowing for inflation. The workers are free. Free to work what hours they choose, free to move to other jobs if they wish. The market gives them that choice. It also determines what they make. You can be sure that somebody somewhere is willing to pay for these cheap, plastic toys. Otherwise they simply wouldn’t be made.

Competition from places like South Korea and Taiwan has made cheap products less profitable, so Hong Kong businessmen have been adapting. They have been developing more sophisticated products and new technology that can match anything in the West or East and their employees have been developing new skills.

Hong Kong never stops. There’s always some business to be done, some opportunity to be seized. Its long been a tourist center and a shoppers paradise and it’s now one of the business centers of the East. It’s the ordinary people of Hong Kong who benefit from all this effort and enterprise.

This thriving, bustling, dynamic city, has been made possible by the free market __ indeed the freest market in the world. The free market enables people to go into any industry that they want; to trade with whomever they want; to buy in the cheapest market around the world; to sell in the dearest around the world. But most important of all, if they fail, they bear the cost. If they succeed, they get the benefit and it’s that atmosphere of incentive that has induced them to work, to adjust, to save, to produce a miracle. This miracle hasn’t been achieved by government action __ by someone sitting in one of those tall buildings and telling people what to do. It’s been achieved by allowing the market to work. Walk down any street in Hong Kong and you will see the impersonal forces of the market in operation.

Mr. Chung makes metal containers. Nobody has ordered him to. He does it because he has found that he can do better for himself that way than by making anything else. But if demand for metal containers went down, or somebody found a way of making them cheaper, Mr. Chung would soon get that message.

A few doors away, Mr. Yu’s firm has been making traditional Cantonese wedding gowns for 42 years. But the demand for these elaborate garments is falling. The firm has already gotten that message and is now looking for another product. The market tells producers not only what to produce, but how best to produce it through another set of prices __ the cost of materials, the wages of labor, and so on. For example, if these workers could earn more doing something else, Mr. Ho would soon find a way to mechanize his picture frame production.

Inside this Chinese medicine shop, a market transaction is going on. The customer’s confidence that this painful looking ordeal will help him doesn’t rest on any official certification of the bone doctor’s qualifications __ it comes from experience __ his own or his friends. In his turn, the doctor treats him not because he has been ordered to, but because he gets paid. The transaction is voluntary so both parties must expect to benefit or it will not take place.

Believe it or not, this backyard is an entrance to a factory. The workers here are some of the best paid in Hong Kong. It’s hot, sticky, and extremely noisy. The workers are highly skilled so they can command high wages. They could induce their employer to improve working conditions by offering to work for less, but they would rather accept the conditions, take the high wages, and spend them as they wish. That’s their choice. The best known statement of the principles of a free market, the kind of free market that operates in Hong Kong, was written on the other side of the world. Two hundred years ago in Scotland, Adam Smith taught at the University of Glasgow. His brilliant book, The Wealth Of Nations, was based on the lectures he gave here.

The basic principles underlying the free market, as Adam Smith taught them to his students in this University, are really very simple. Look at this lead pencil, there is not a single person in the world who could make this pencil. Remarkable statement? Not at all. The wood from which it’s made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the State of Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make the steel, it took iron ore. This black center, we call it lead but it’s really compressed graphite, I am not sure where it comes from but I think it comes from some mines in South America. This red top up here, the eraser, a bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn’t even native. It was imported from South America by some businessman with the help of the British government. This brass feral __ I haven’t the slightest idea where it came from or the yellow paint or the paint that made the black lines __ or the glue that holds it together. Literally thousands of people cooperated to make this pencil. People who don’t speak the same language; who practice different religions; who might hate one another if they ever met. When you go down to the store and buy this pencil, you are, in effect, trading a few minutes of your time for a few seconds of the time of all of those thousands of people. What brought them together and induced them to cooperate to make this pencil? There was no Commissar sending out orders from some central office. It was the magic of the price system __ the impersonal operation of prices that brought them together and got them to cooperate to make this pencil so that you could have it for a trifling sum.

That is why the operation of the free market is so essential. Not only to promote productive efficiency, but even more, to foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world.

These people are crossing between two very different societies. This is Lo Wool, the official border crossing point between China and Hong Kong.

1 out of 5 Americans depend on Federal Government for assistance

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed

Uploaded by on Jun 29, 2010

If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable.

__________________________

It has come to this and even liberals like Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog are starting to realize that too many middle class are depending on the government in “the safety net.”

Patrick Tyrrell

February 8, 2012 at 9:07 am

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, released today, should be a wake-up call for America. Published by The Heritage Foundation for the past 10 years, the Index tracks the growth in government dependence dating back to the early 1960s. This year’s edition shows an alarming trend. Among the most troubling facts:

  • One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.
  • Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.
  • The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).
  • At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.
  • In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.
  • As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.

This much dependence on government has not been seen before in our nation, and it spells grave danger for the republic. A dose of reality would inform politicians that federal handouts, while politically expedient, will doom the republic if they are not curtailed.

A plan exists that would reverse the yearly rise in government dependency. It’s called The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan

President Obama trampling our religious liberties?

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog and his liberal friends believe “Cries of religious discrimination are drowning out the facts, law and reality…”, but that is not the way that I see it.

Al  Mohler’s excellent article takes on President Obama:

R. Albert Mohler Jr.

 
Posted on Feb 6, 2012

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP) — In 1808, President Thomas Jefferson stated the matter bluntly: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”

Fast forward 204 years and President Barack Obama has reversed that logic, ordering religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for employees that must include contraceptives, including those that may induce an abortion.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services made the announcement Jan. 20, stating: “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.”

The ruling had been much anticipated as a consequence of President Obama’s health care reform. The new law required the administration to determine what elements would be included in the mandated coverage. The administration first determined that the preventative care provision would include coverage of contraceptives. The second step was determining that this contraceptive coverage would include, as Secretary Sebelius restated it, “all FDA-approved forms of contraception.” These include drugs known as Plan B, which is taken after the possibility of fertilization, thus functioning as an inducer of abortion. The plans must also provide sterilization procedures for women without deductibles or co-payments.

The final step in the process was the decision to require all employers to provide this coverage, including church-affiliated institutions and organizations. The only exemption is offered to churches and religious bodies that neither employ nor serve any significant number of people who do not share their faith. As one church leader commented, this would not allow an exemption even for the ministry of Jesus and his disciples, who ministered to those outside the faith.

Nonetheless, Secretary Sebelius had the temerity to claim, in her statement: “This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good.”

In actuality, the Obama administration trampled religious liberty under the feet of the leviathan state, forcing religious employers to do what conscience will not allow. Religious organizations such as schools, colleges and hospitals will be required to pay for services that they believe to be immoral and disobedient to God.

In a final insult, the administration allowed that religious employers could, if qualified, have an extra year to comply with the decision. As Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah made clear, this intentionally evades the point. “The problem is not that religious institutions do not have time enough to comply,” he said, “It’s that they are forced to comply at all.”

Roman Catholic authorities were among the first to respond with outrage. Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York City, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who had personally made the case to President Obama for a broader exemption, said simply: “We are unable to live with this.”

This last Sunday, Catholics around the nation heard letters from their local bishops with the same message. The bishop of Marquette, for example, put the matter with severe simplicity: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

In other words, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have signaled their clear intention to defy the law rather than to violate their conscience. Will evangelical Christians demonstrate the same courage and conviction?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches against the use of any artificial birth control and considers these to be assaults upon the dignity of all human life. In more recent years, evangelicals have had to rethink the contraception issue. At the very least, the issue of abortion has required evangelicals to realize that any form of birth control is a matter of great moral significance and thus of moral conscience.

The inclusion of Plan B and other forms of “emergency contraception” raises the stakes considerably, since the issue of abortion is now unavoidable. Will evangelical colleges and institutions now comply with a law we know to be both unjust and unconscionable?

The National Association of Evangelicals made a statement that described the situation well, but promised no particular action: “Employers with religious objections to contraception will be forced to pay for services and procedures they believe are morally wrong.”

The Obama administration knew exactly what it was doing. It had received no shortage of advice on this question, and advocates for a broader exemption were vocal even within the administration. Members of the President’s own party shared the disappointment in the decision. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania lamented the administration’s “bad decision.”

Others wondered aloud why President Obama had, in the words of Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, thrown those with religious objections “under the bus.” The editors of that paper made their own disappointment clear as well:

“The best approach would have been for HHS to stick to its original conclusion that contraception coverage should generally be required but to expand the scope of its proposed exemption for religiously affiliated employers who claim covering contraception would violate their religious views. The administration’s feint at a compromise — giving such employers another year to figure out how to comply with the requirement — is unproductive can-kicking that fails to address the fundamental problem of requiring religiously affiliated entities to spend their own money in a way that contradicts the tenets of their faith.”

The one-year extension is indeed “unproductive can-kicking,” but the far larger issue is “the fundamental problem of requiring religiously affiliated entities to spend their own money in a way that contradicts the tenets of their faith.”

Every president faces decisions that test his character and principles. President Obama has failed this test, and the results will be tragic. He has trampled religious liberty underfoot and has announced his intention to force religious institutions to violate their consciences or go out of business.

This decision will lead to nothing less than the secularization of the good work undertaken by these religious institutions. Faith-based adoption agencies, hospitals and educational institutions are being forced to secularize or cease operations already. This decision will add tragic momentum to that process.

Religious organizations are being told to comply with the government’s order, or face the consequences. A Roman Catholic college in North Carolina has challenged the Obama administration in court, an action now also taken by Colorado Christian University, an evangelical college. Concerted calls for a legislative rescue from Congress are being made.

And yet, the decision of the Obama administration is clear. The edict from President Obama to religious institutions is this — violate conscience and bend the knee to the government, or face the consequences.

We will soon learn just how much faith is left in faith-based institutions.
–30–
R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at AlbertMohler.com. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email(baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).

Remembering Francis Schaeffer at 100 (Part 2)

schaeffer

This

THE FRANCIS SCHAEFFER CENTENNIAL – SCHAEFFER’S CULTURAL APOLOGETIC PT 1 – DONALD WILLAIMS

Uploaded by on Feb 6, 2012

Dr. Williams gives an introduction to Schaeffer’s life and work at the Francis Schaeffer Centennial, an event honoring Francis Schaeffer’s 100th birthday.

________________

This year Francis Schaeffer would have turned 100 on Jan 30, 2012. I remember like yesterday when I first was introduced to his books. I was even more amazed when I first saw his films. I was so influenced by them that I bought every one of his 30 something books and his two film series. Here is a tribute that I got off the internet from Chuck Colson’s website www.breakpoint.org :

Truth With Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer

Article by Bing Davis  January 2007

I cannot begin to express how many sympathetic back pats, mildly shaken heads and ever so slightly rolled eyes I have gotten at the news that I was reviewing a book on the apologetics of Francis Schaeffer. I must say that I have understood, at least partially, those reactions by Godly and loving people. After all, who can not have a bit of a smile, or a tug at one’s heart and maybe their intellect, at the thought of Francis Schaeffer? At the myriad explanations of him, the differing opinions on him, the disciples who revere him and the opponents who remain baffled by him even in their distaste for him?

Those of us of “a certain age” remember firsthand the differing schools of thought surrounding Schaeffer, the powerful way that he affected almost everyone who encountered him either personally or through his writings. What I found interesting even then was the way in which parishes and wide swaths of laymen were moved positively by Schaeffer to begin to study, yes STUDY, the doctrines of the faith that some had embraced uncritically since childhood. I remember the way these lifelong Christians say next to those still challenging the faith, those new to the faith and those just desirous of seeing what all the commotion was about. At the same time, I was moved by how many “educated” Christians, those with degrees, those who taught in seminaries and other institutions of higher learning, were frequently critical, even dismissive of this man that their unwashed counterparts in the pews embraced so fully.

In his book on the apologetics of this much-misunderstood thinker, Bryan Follis has done a grand job of untangling the knot that was the apologetic of Francis Schaeffer, without succumbing to the Alexandrian need to simply cut the knot and declare it untied. Follis has broken his book down into an Introduction, 4 simple chapters and a stirring Conclusion. He has shown a willingness to interact with major critics of a man he clearly loves, while at the same time seeking to use Schaeffer’s words, and not Follis’ own, to make his case for his understanding of Schaeffer’s apologetic. The chapter titles, “Calvin and the Reformed Tradition,” “Arguments and Approach,” “Rationality and Spirituality” and “Academic or Apologist” describe the path Follis treads in giving us a clear view of Schaeffer in light of the major influences on him and questions concerning him.

To oversimplify, Schaeffer received criticism from several different and differing viewpoints. The Warfieldian evidentialists dismissed him as a presuppositionalist. The Van Tilan presuppositionlists dismissed him as a rationalist with evidentialist leanings, and all looked with great disfavor on his extensive use of rational arguments with non-believers. Follis eventually places Schaeffer as leaning more toward the “verificationalist” method described by Edward Carnell in his “An Introduction to Christian Apologetics” published in 1948. While describing Schaeffer as being most like this method of apologetics, Follis shows that Schaeffer defies pigeon-holing, which is what seems to have driven his rejection, in large part, by the academy in his day.

Follis says this in setting the framework for understanding Schaeffer, “…it is impossible to understand Schaeffer, never mind properly evaluate his apologetics, unless we grasp that he was a practitioner and not a theoretician, and so interpret him in the context of what he sought to do.” Follis does an admirable job of keeping the focus on Schaeffer’s heart for the lost, and his willingness to understand the language and context of his conversation partner so that he could most effectively relate the Gospel message to that person in the way most relevant to their understanding and situation in life. What caused such consternation in academic circles, it seems in retrospect, is that while Schaeffer defied strict definition in philosophical/apologetical terms, he happily embraced the only definition he sought, Evangelist.

One of the areas in which Schaeffer was most roundly criticized was that of his lightly regarded scholarship, particularly as it relates to his formulation and interpretation of the flow of human history and how it related to the Modern and post-Modern thought so prevalent then and now. Follis makes a telling point when he shows that while some of Schaeffer’s critics might have had their say in his day, Schaeffer is most assuredly having his say now, as we see almost precisely the progression of thought and deterioration of values, language and morality that he predicted and against which he warned in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

In describing Schaeffer’s methodology, Follis continues to return to Schaeffer’s idea that we must lovingly “take the roof off of” the inconsistent logic, denial of reality and false psychological props that most unbelievers use to give themselves “a false sense of meaning or a fleeting feeling of satisfaction.” Schaeffer contended that we should never be cruel in exposing the unbeliever’s shortcomings, but rather learn his language and move into his story in order to solve the “problem of how to communicate the Gospel so that it is understood.”

The highlight of the read for this reviewer was the Conclusion, entitled “Love as the Final Apologetic.” In this section, Follis takes what he has given us in the previous four chapters and contextualizes it to the local church today. Follis asks the questions that are already coursing through the mind of his reader, “Do we see compassion and love like this (Schaeffer in his work) today in many churches? Can the outsider visit your church and experience the reality of Christ’s love and truth both being taught and lived? And what of our individual lives – do they reflect the love of Christ, and do we, in an age of doubt, commend His truth?” As the beginnings of an answer to these questions, this book will be a valuable addition to any bookshelf.

In the final analysis we can ask “Should we seek to teach Schaeffer’s apologetic?” The answer is “Probably not,” because Schaeffer’s apologetic seems uniquely fitted to who Schaeffer was. But if we ask, “Should we seek to instill Schaeffer’s heart for the lost in our own lives and apologetic, as well as the lives of all we teach, lead or among whom we live?” who among us could possibly answer “no?”

Bryan A. Follis / Illinois: Crossway, 2006
Review by Bing Davis, Pastor of Grace Fellowship, Spring Hill, TN

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer would be 100 years old this year (Schaeffer Sunday)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Fellow admirer of Francis Schaeffer, Michele Bachmann quits presidential race

What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go.  DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Francis Schaeffer would be 100 years old this year (Schaeffer Sunday)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]

Andy Rooney was an atheist

How Now Shall We LiveClick here to purchase Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey’s How Now Shall We Live?, dedicated to Francis Schaeffer.


Click here for a list of Francis Schaeffer’s greatest works, from the Colson Center store!

When are the Razorbacks going to get road victory, maybe in Knoxville?

Arkansas must get a couple of road wins if we hope to make it to the NCAA Tournament this year. By reading the comments on Arkansas Sports 360 it appears the fans are anxious for one.  Looking at the schedule and there remains games at Tennessee, Auburn and Mississippi State. The Miss St game would be a tough game to win but the game in Knoxville and Auburn are realistic wins for the razorbacks.

Tennessee will have a big crowd on hand though. Take a look at this article below that talks about the Vols’ past attendance from www.knoxnews.com:

Tennessee guard Tyler Summitt (14) and fellow teammates don 'I back Pat' t-shirts as they enter the playing floor before the game against Connecticut at Thompson-Boling Arena Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012.  Tennessee won 60-57 over Connecticut.  (ADAM BRIMER/NEWS SENTINEL)

Photo by Adam Brimer, Adam Brimer // Buy this photo

Tennessee guard Tyler Summitt (14) and fellow teammates don “I back Pat” t-shirts as they enter the playing floor before the game against Connecticut at Thompson-Boling Arena Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012. Tennessee won 60-57 over Connecticut. (ADAM BRIMER/NEWS SENTINEL)

Vols rank fifth in nation in basketball attendance

Martin, Pearl agree on importance of UT fan base

By Mike Griffith

 

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

 

Cuonzo Martin and Bruce Pearl don’t have much in common in terms of their basketball coaching styles on the court, but both the former and current Tennessee coach are alike in their appreciation for the Vols’ big home crowds.

“Absolutely, our crowd has really made a difference and gotten us over the hump,” Martin said Monday. “It really helps push the guys, and I think it’s a major reason we’ve been successful at home.”

The Vols are 10-3 in Thompson-Boling Arena this season with marquee wins over nationally ranked and recent NCAA tournament champions Florida and Connecticut.

Tennessee (11-12, 3-5 SEC), which has won eight of its last nine home games, is averaging 17,378 per home date, which through last weekend’s games ranked fifth in the nation.

UT finished in the top five nationally in attendance each of Pearl’s six seasons coaching the Vols after ranking 20th in the nation in attendance in 2005 under former coach Buzz Peterson (12,225).

“What separates the great basketball programs from the good ones is a home-court advantage, and our program has received tremendous passion and support from the fan base,” Pearl said Monday. “It’s great to see this year’s team playing so hard and so solidly defensively, and I think our fans appreciate that.”

The Vols have four remaining home games starting with Wednesday against South Carolina, followed by Arkansas on Feb. 15, Ole Miss on Feb. 22 and Vanderbilt on March 3.

Kentucky leads the nation in home attendance with 23,541 per game through last weekend, followed by Syracuse (21,931), Louisville (21,291), North Carolina (19,794), UT (17,378), and Wisconsin is sixth (17,171).

Memphis ranks second in the state with 16,650 per home game.

Mike Griffith covers Tennessee men’s basketball. Follow him at http://twitter.com/MikeGriffith32

 

Related posts:

Vols still crying about losing two 4 star linebackers on signing day

 

 

Briefs on all the SEC football recruiting hauls

I am glad that Petrino got more defensive players than offensive players but time will tell if he can develop these three star players like he did in 2008 when that class later turned the hogs into a national contender in 2011. Below is an article from http://www.ajc.com Alabama (26): The national champs added to their […]

 

Tennessee is upset at Peters for switching to the Hogs

It is nice to be feared by the Vols. They rejoiced when it was announced that they would not have to play the Hogs in 2012. Amy Smotherman Burgess, ©KNS/2011 In the article below you can see that the player who lived in Texas that switched to Texas could be explained away and the one […]

 

Articles on SEC football recruiting results

 

 

Arkansas gets help on defense in this class

I know that many of us are disappointed that Dorial Green-Beckham did not sign with the Razorbacks but we just have to move on. I am not interested in reliving the whole thing and going through all the negative things said about the Hogs during the process. That always happens in every recruiting case and […]

 

Last minute pick up from Vols helps Hogs finish strong in recruiting

I was disappointed that Vandy had a better class than Arkansas but I was glad that we got a chance to get a quality linebacker to switch to the Hogs at the last moment. Otis Kirk’s Recruiting 360: Arkansas’ Peoples Key In Landing Otha Peters by Otis Kirk, Hawgs247.com 2/2/2012 at 1:06pm Arkansas struck late in […]

 

Arkansas can learn from Vols’ mistake in football recruiting

I have noticed that Arkansas never seems to have great recruiting years like Tennessee and Florida and Alabama do. However, the 2008 class that will graduate in 2012 for Arkansas included some great players like Joe Adams and has been re-ranked as the 5th best performing class. That class led Arkansas to a final ranking […]

 

Barrett Jones and Tim Tebow are very similar

For   Barrett Jones is a Tim Tebow type of person and I am glad that people like Jones and Tebow are not ashamed of their Savior Jesus Christ. They don’t try to live two lives, one in church and one that is different in the lockerroom. Barrett Jones is the 2011 Outland Trophy winner […]

 

Nice to be feared: Knoxville news paper glad Vols don’t play hogs in 2012

Photo by Amy Smotherman Burgess, ©KNS/2011 Arkansas wide receiver Joe Adams runs back a punt for a touchdown against Tennessee at Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville on Nov. 12, 2011. (AMY SMOTHERMAN BURGESS/NEWS SENTINEL) Photo by Amy Smotherman Burgess, ©KNS/2011 Arkansas wide receiver Joe Adams breaks past Tennessee defensive back Brian Randolph to […]

 

Barrett Jones wins Outland Trophy

Knoxnews.com reports: LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) — Alabama’s Barrett Jones has won the Outland Trophy as the nation’s most outstanding interior lineman. The announcement was made during the College Football Awards show at Disney World. Stanford’s David DeCastro and Penn State’s Devon Still were the other finalists. Jones is the third Alabama player to […]

Harry Potter and the Bible

Uploaded by on Jul 27, 2011

Prof. Jerram Barrs shares why he is a fan of Harry Potter and the redemptive themes that come from Book 7: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

___________________

Great article by Christianity Today:

Harry Potter 7 Is Matthew 6
The young wizard may not have read the Bible, but someone else certainly did.
Dave Bruno | posted 8/02/2007 08:47AM

Yes, this article talks about all of the important final moments of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, so those not wanting to know what happens should disapparate now.

In fact, you might want to go before I mention one of the more remarkable revelations in the book: The great Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Albus Dumbledore, read the Bible.

Albus Dumbledore quotes the Bible word-for-word in placing an inscription on the tomb of his mother and sister, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

Here’s the full passage, Matthew 6:19-24:

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

Some readers point out that Harry and Hermione do not seem to know that the epitaph comes from the Bible. Rowling only makes it clear that Harry “did not understand what these words meant.” At this point in Deathly Hallows, neither do readers. But I think Dumbledore knew the meaning of that verse quite well and put it there for a reason.

What would cause Dumbledore to choose this verse from the Sermon on the Mount for his family’s grave? The circumstances surrounding the death of his sister help us understand. Dumbledore’s greed (though cloaked with good intentions) for the most powerful of earthly treasures, the Deathly Hallows, ultimately led to his sister’s death. Suffice it to say that Dumbledore’s sister Ariana was one of the most tragic characters in the whole Harry Potter series. Her life was one of immeasurable hurt. And her need was the most basic need of those who are in pain. She needed love. Sacrificial love. Dumbledore failed her. He was incapable of fulfilling his duties to care for her while pursuing his ambitions for power. His failure which led to his sister’s death helped Dumbledore to comprehend one of the other truths of Matthew 6, “No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24). The pursuit of possessions of power, even for benevolent reasons, can ultimately only lead to death and ruin. As he puts it in his own words, Dumbledore understood that he, the most powerful wizard of his day, “Was not to be trusted with power.”

Considering the Lily

It was that very conflict that ruined Severus Snape. He attempted to serve two masters, his love for Harry Potter’s mother, Lily Evans, and his pursuit of the possession of earthly power. Snape lived out the rest of that verse in Matthew 6, perhaps as tragically as any character in literature, “He will be devoted to one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). Near the end of Dumbledore’s life Snape reveals to the Headmaster his Patronus, a doe. It is the same doe as Lily Evans’s Patronus. When he sees Snape’s Patronus, Dumbledore’s eyes fill with tears, realizing that for all these years Snape has remained devoted to Lily. His love for her was his master. But so too was Snape mastered by his desire to possess power. Snape could not serve both masters. In the end, to his credit and ruin, he remained devoted to his love for Lily and despised his opportunity for power.

How do we know all this for sure? It’s in their eyes. And again, it is in Matthew 6. If there is one thing we know for sure about Harry, it is that he has his mother’s eyes. Her green eyes. How many times are we told how Harry’s green eyes are the same as his mother’s? Contrast them with Snape’s eyes. His dark eyes. How many times do we see Snape look into Harry’s eyes? Always, we think, he looks with hatred. But really Snape looks into Harry’s eyes feeling conflicted. Snape sees the eyes of Lily Evans, whom he has always loved with devotion. Also Snape sees Harry Potter, whom he despises. For Snape, Harry personifies all that he cannot possess, the love of Lily and a position of earthly power. Harry reminds Snape what his choice to serve himself and Dark Magic has cost him. In Deathly Hallows we see the two sets of eyes face off one last time as Snape dies while looking at Harry. “The green eyes found the black, but after a second, something in the depths of the dark pair seemed to vanish.” And so we must again turn to the Gospel of Saint Matthew, “If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” (Matthew 6:24). Dumbledore had pitied Snape, his best quality — his love for Lily Evans — was his most hidden secret. “My word, Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you?” Love is no possession. Love cannot be hidden as a dark secret, a possession for oneself alone. If love is hidden behind darkness, how great is the darkness indeed.

Though Snape’s eyes go forever dark, Harry’s eyes remain bright, perhaps even shine more than at any time before. “Slowly, very slowly, he sat up, and as he did so he felt more alive and more aware of his own living body than ever before,” and for the first time he “appreciated what a miracle he was.” In the culmination of knowledge he gains after Snape’s death, Harry knows that he must die as a sacrifice. Harry must walk willingly, eyes wide open, to his death at the hands of Voldemort. He must choose to love his friends above himself and sacrifice himself to save them. He leaves for the Forbidden Forest where Voldemort is waiting. As he walks he discovers the last of the Deathly Hallows, the Resurrection Stone. And by its power those close to him who have died return and walk with him for a while. Harry’s mother joins him. “She pushed her long hair back as she drew close to him, and her green eyes, so like his, searched his face hungrily, as though she would never be able to look at him enough … His eyes feasted on her, and he thought that he would like to stand and look at her forever, and that would be enough.” Why is it enough for both of them to look into each others’ eyes forever? Is it just the love of a mother and a son that they see? I contend it is more.

Lily and Harry see not only each others’ eyes and the love they have for each other, but also the profound place of loving sacrifice to which each of them have come. It is not enough that they are mother and son. It is “enough” that they both give the truest love, sacrificial love. And their eyes tell them so. “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light” (Matthew 6:22). That light, the light of Lily’s and Harry’s eyes, comes only from one source, sacrificial love. And their sacrificial love, like all sacrificial love, comes only after everything else – possessions and self-interest and temptations, everything – is set aside for love’s sake.

So is that it? Is Rowling’s Harry Potter a narrative exposition of the Gospel of Saint Matthew 6:19-24? I have not argued and do not contend it is only that. But, is Dumbledore a metaphor of “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also?” Is Snape a metaphor of “he will be devoted to the one and despise the other?” Is Harry a metaphor of the “eye is the lamp of the body?” Is Rowling’s tale as didactic as it is delightful? We ought to seek lasting treasure. We cannot attempt to serve two masters. We are full of light only when we live out sacrificial love. “Nutters” as it sounds, I think Harry Potter 7 is Matthew 6.

Dumbledore quotes a second verse

All us Harry Potter fans must have our theories and explanations. I have shared with you one of mine. And with a genuine smile on my face, I will not begrudge you if you think me, in the words of Ron Weasley, “mental.” Since you have made it this far, however, I will briefly mention the second verse Rowling quotes from the Bible, since it might help shed light on that annoying and insatiable evangelical question, “But is she really a Christian?”

After Harry and Hermione discover the grave of Dumbledore’s mother and sister, they come upon the grave of Harry’s parents. On that tombstone too is an epitaph, another word-for-word quote from the Bible. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). I think it most likely that Dumbledore is responsible for this inscription also, as there seems to be no other person in the Potters’ lives who would take precedence over him in this decision. Now in the context of that Scripture passage it is the crucifixion and literal resurrection of Jesus that conquers death. Rowling and Dumbledore could have put anything on the Potters’ tombstone. They did not have to quote the Bible. They did not have to reference the New Testament passage that most explicitly connects Jesus’ death and resurrection with a genuine faith. But they did quote that very passage. She seems to me too careful a writer to make this reference without its fullest meaning in mind.

One last thing. Quite a few Christian critics of Rowling suggest she is not so careful a writer when it comes to her understanding of the afterlife. Interestingly, this judgment often comes from Christian readers who enjoy Harry Potter but feel Rowling has an underdeveloped view of Eternity. Sure, there are ghosts. Yes, wizards live on a bit in their pictures. There is a Resurrection Stone that sort of brings dead people back to life. That chapter “King’s Cross” in Deathly Hallows is kind of heaven-like. But let’s face it, the glimpses Harry Potter gives us into the afterlife are hardly Aslan’s Country or the Grey Havens.

Those observations are true. And they could uncover Rowling’s primitive theology of Eternity. But I really don’t think so. If Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is, as I have argued, informed by Matthew 6:19-24, then it seems to me that Rowling, like Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, is concerned more with the earthly side of Eternity.

Dave Bruno is cofounder of ChristianAudio.com. He blogs regularly at StuckInStuff.com, where an earlier version of this article appeared.

 

An open letter to President Obama (Part 3 of State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Sen. Paul Delivers State of the Union Response – Jan. 24, 2012

Uploaded by on Jan 24, 2012

Sen. Rand Paul delivered the following Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address this evening

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama  (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

Cordray On the Job? Not So Fast, Mr. President Todd Gaziano

Obama:  “Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.”

But Cordray is not legitimately on the job, because he was never legally appointed.  What’s more, the President should not to play games with the appointment if the position is so important to fill.  The President’s purported appointment of Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three others to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the Senate was in periodic pro forma sessions cannot be justified by any supposed emergency or any other legal argument.  (The nominations to the NLRB had only been submitted to the Senate in late December and had not even filled out their Senate confirmation questionnaires.)

The attempted, unilateral appointments were unconstitutional regardless of the President’s rationale because the Senate had not adjourned its session and had not confirmed the nominees.  And the administration’s post-hoc attempt at a legal justification by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel is not only sweeping in its claim of tyrannical power, but it is an embarrassment to the Attorney General and Department’s lawyers who normally issue such advice.  In sum, the “I can’t wait” line would not work for a third-grader trying to justify his serial rule breaking.  It certainly is not a constitutional pass for a President who pledges to support and defend the Constitution.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6hwnApaoDM

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, 

Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

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

By Edwin Meese, III
July 21, 2011

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edwin Meese, III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of Tim Tebow’s favorite scriptures

Tim Tebow Interview: God’s role in Football

Published on Feb 3, 2012 by

Tim Tebow talks to Skip Bayless about religion, Tebowing and the role God plays on and off the field.

_______________________________

This is a story I got off Buster Wilson’s blog: 

The Gospel According to Tebow

A selection of the biblical verses that Tim Tebow wrote in his eyeblack during his college football days.

John 3:16
Jan. 8, 2009 vs. Oklahoma Sooners:

  • “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Ephesians 4:32
Oct. 24, 2009 vs. Mississippi State Bulldogs:

  • “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.”

Romans 1:16
Nov. 21, 2009 vs. Florida International Golden Panthers:

  • “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

But Mr. Tebow has never been content to leave his evangelical faith on the field. Well before he became the starting quarterback for Denver, he was a lightning rod in America’s intermittent culture war of believers vs. secularists.

In 2010, while still at the University of Florida (where he won the Heisman Trophy and helped the Gators to win two national championships), Mr. Tebow filmed a Super Bowl commercial for Focus on the Family, the mega-ministry known for its conservative political advocacy. The ad is about how Mr. Tebow’s mother was advised to abort her son following a placental abruption, but she refused and, well, now we have Tim Tebow.

The ad takes the softest possible approach to the subject and never uses the terms “abortion” or “pro-life,” but its intent was clear, and it generated controversy. Since then, feelings about Mr. Tebow have been a litmus test of political and social identity. If you think he’s destined to be a winner, you must be a naive evangelical. If you question his long-term chances as an NFL quarterback, you must hate people who love Jesus.

The intertwining of religion and sports is nothing new in American culture. Both basketball and volleyball were invented by men involved with chapters of the Young Men’s Christian Association in Massachusetts. Or consider the pioneering college coach Amos Alonzo Stagg (1862-1965), who created the batting cage in baseball, five-man teams for basketball and several of the standard aspects of football, from the man in motion, lateral pass and Statue of Liberty play to helmets, tackling dummies and names on uniforms.

The historian Clifford Putney has written that Stagg and his contemporaries combined faith with sports and competition because they believed that God wanted people to live healthy, vigorous lives. They believed that sports could help to make people good and thereby bring them closer to what God intended for them.

As Michael Lewis reports in his 2006 book “The Blind Side,” one of the standard problems of today’s top athletes—one of the main threats to long careers—is defective character. He offers a depressing list of high-school football standouts who came to ignoble ends because of selfishness and stupidity, including Eric Jefferson, a first-team all-American defensive end who was arrested for armed robbery, and Michael Burden, an NFL-bound defensive back who was charged with rape and then “vanished without a trace.”

More recently, we have seen the disrupted careers of star athletes like Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress and Tiger Woods—men whose lives in professional sports have been undermined by character faults. Such stories are more common than we realize. For every Michael Oher (Mr. Lewis’s subject in “The Blind Side”) who overcomes harsh beginnings and makes it, there are many other promising athletes who are overcome by their own worst impulses. They lose, the game loses and fans lose.

Alternatively, keeping the faith can mean keeping one’s best possible life. Josh Hamilton, the All-Star outfielder for the Texas Rangers, lost part of his career to drug and alcohol addiction before finding the support of a religious community. Tony Dungy, the former coach of the Indianapolis Colts, says that his reputation for “quiet strength” (also the title of his best-selling book) developed only after God changed him from an angry, testy man into a model of “Christian maturity.”

In the case of Mr. Tebow, what seems to fuel many of his fans—and to drive many of his critics crazy—is not so much his evangelical faith itself but the equanimity and generosity that his faith inspires in him. Can he really mean it when he says that football isn’t that important to him, that he cares more about transcendent things?

[TEBOWE1210jpg] NewscomMr. Tebow says that football is just a game—and that God doesn’t care who wins or loses. 

While at Florida, Mr. Tebow became well known for spending his summers helping the poor and needy in the Philippines. He also spoke in prisons and appeared to accept every opportunity to volunteer. He encouraged his teammates and classmates to follow his lead.

As Mr. Tebow recounts in his book “Through My Eyes” (written with Nathan Whitaker), after he won the Heisman Trophy in 2007, he had the idea to use his fame to raise money for the orphanage that his family runs and for other organizations. Since National Collegiate Athletic Association rules prevented him from raising money for his own causes, he worked with the university to found a student society that could be used for charity.

According to the former Florida coach Urban Meyer, Mr. Tebow’s philanthropic efforts reshaped campus culture, and for a time, volunteering became fashionable. In his senior year, the powder-puff football tournament that he launched, with the help of the university’s sororities and fraternities, raised $340,000 for charity.

Mr. Tebow’s acts of goodwill have often been more intimate. In December 2009, he attended a college-football awards ceremony in Lake Buena Vista, Fla. The night before, at another gala at Walt Disney World Resort, he met a 20-year-old college-football fan named Kelly Faughnan, a brain-tumor victim who suffers from hearing loss and visible, continual tremors. She was wearing a button that said “I love Timmy.” Someone noticed and made sure that the young woman had a chance to meet the player.
Mr. Tebow spent a long while with Ms. Faughnan and her family, and asked her if she’d like to be his date for the award ceremony the following night. She agreed, and the scene of Mr. Tebow escorting the trembling young woman down the red carpet led much of the reporting about the event.

As Mr. Tebow’s acts of goodwill merged with his achievements on the field for the Florida team, Tebow fandom morphed into Tebow piety. Students launched websites dedicated to the young man, and blogs and message boards lit up with tributes. The blogosphere and Twitterverse produced a flood of over-the-top jokes declaring Tebow’s greatness: “Tim Tebow has counted to infinity…twice.” “When Tim Tebow walks on water, his feet don’t get wet.”

In recent weeks, as Tebow mania has re-emerged alongside the unexpected success of the Broncos, it has become clear that the fever is not confined to the quarterback’s fellow evangelical Christians. Mr. Tebow’s habit of taking to one knee in prayer on the field has given rise to an Internet meme called “Tebowing.” Fans have posted pictures of themselves praying on one knee while doing everything from surfing and fighting fires to touring China and going into battle.

“Tebowing” is the brainchild of Jared Kleinstein, 24, a real-estate marketer in New York City who was raised in Denver, where he grew into a devoted sports fan. Mr. Kleinstein, who is Jewish, just wanted to pay tribute to the inspirational quarterback of his favorite team. He launched Tebowing.com from Manhattan in October, on the night after Mr. Tebow led the Broncos to victory over the Miami Dolphins.

TEBOWjump 

TEBOWjump

Getty ImagesTim Tebow after a Florida win over Georgia in 2009. His eyeblack refers to Philippians 4:6- 7, which reads, in part: ‘And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.’

“We were at a bar watching the game,” he says, “and when he came back to win, everybody was cheering like we won the Super Bowl, even though we had just beat the last-place team in the league.” Mr. Kleinstein noticed that as the Bronco players were jumping up and down on the sidelines, Mr. Tebow took a knee in prayer. He snapped a picture of himself and his friends doing the same, called it “Tebowing,” then created the site and sent it to eight people.

Within 48 hours, Mr. Kleinstein had been interviewed by this paper, CBS, Fox, ABC and other media outlets. The site has received millions of visits and page views in its short life. Mr. Kleinstein receives pictures of people Tebowing all day long, and often posts new pictures every hour.

With his site, Mr. Kleinstein says, “people found hope through a gesture,” noting a much-discussed photo that he posted of a young boy with an IV attached to his arm who wrote that he was “Tebowing while chemoing.” Mr. Kleinstein adds that a lot of support for the trend has come from rabbis. “It has made prayer in public something to not be ashamed of,” he says. “I think that crosses all religious boundaries.”

In communities across America, whether religious or secular, fields of play are often seen as workshops of character. Parents and coaches get kids involved with sports because they care about encouraging them to be better people.

At the national level, however, big-time sports is big business, with billions of dollars at stake, and Americans tend to be cynical about the whole show. In this world, Mr. Tebow’s frequent professions of faith can come across as a discordant note, equal parts over-earnestness and naïveté. It’s hard to resist the thought that, eventually, a darker reality will show through.

Mr. Tebow may indeed turn out to be a hypocrite, like other high-profile Christians in recent memory. Some of us might even want that to happen, because moral failure is something we understand. We know how to deal with disappointed expectations, to turn our songs of praise into condemnation.

What we are far less sure how to do is to take seriously a public figure’s seemingly admirable character and professions of higher purpose. We don’t know how to trust goodness.

And who can blame us? We don’t want to be fooled again.

The one loss in Mr. Tebow’s record as Denver’s starting quarterback this season came in a 45-10 blowout against the Detroit Lions. Mr. Tebow completed just 46% of his passes. He suffered seven sacks, including one by Stephen Tulloch, after which Mr. Tulloch took a knee, “Tebowing” as Mr. Tebow struggled to rise.

When asked how he felt about Mr. Tulloch’s mockery, Mr. Tebow responded, “He was probably just having fun and was excited he made a good play and had a sack. And good for him.”

Last week, after the Broncos’ victory against Minnesota, Mr. Tebow was asked by a reporter to name something memorable that had been said to him in the wake of the extraordinary win.

“I’ll tell you one thing that happened during the week that I remember,” he said. Mr. Tebow proceeded to talk about spending time with a young leukemia patient from Florida who had just been transferred to hospice care and about how delighted Mr. Tebow was to say the kid’s name on television and to let him know that someone cared.

Mr. Tebow may or may not enjoy long-term success as an NFL quarterback. His current streak will run its course, and the Broncos might well move on to another quarterback, one who is more obviously suited to the pro game.

But win or lose, Tim Tebow will compete hard—and when he’s done, he will thank God and remind all of us that it’s just a game.

—Mr. Dodd is the managing editor of the website Patheos and a former senior editor at Beliefnet. This article is adapted from his e-book, “The Tebow Mystique: The Faith and Fans of Football’s Most Polarizing Player.”

Related posts:

Tim Tebow

Tim Tebow is the best. Take a look at this article below: I believe in Tim Tebow Email Print By Rick Reilly ESPN.com Archive   Tim Tebow FoundationTim Tebow with Jacob Rainey, one of the many people dealing with health problems Tebow hosted at Broncos games this season.   I’ve come to believe in Tim […]

The debate continues on Tim Tebow

Another good article I found on Tebow: JANUARY 12, 2012 Does God Care Who Wins Football Games? After a moment of devotion, our team would all shout in unison, ‘Now let’s go kill those S.O.B.’s!’ By FRAN TARKENTON On Sunday, when Denver Bronco wide receiver Demaryius Thomas caught a pass from Tim Tebow on the […]

Atheists discuss Tim Tebow and Rodin’s “The Thinker”

(In this clip above there is an argument concerning who Rodin married, but sorry it is in French.) Interesting article I wanted to pass on. I have written about Rodin’s “The Thinker” myself in the past. It’s official: Everyone on the planet has an opinion on Tim Tebow. By now we’ve heard from everyone from […]

“Tim Tebow’s Fire” by John Parr

With almost 300,000 hits on youtube: Uploaded by KDVRDenver on Jan 9, 2012 John Parr has updated his 1985 #1 hit “St. Elmo’s Fire (Man in Motion)” to honor Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. Download song at http://www.johnparramerica.com. Lyrics here: http://bit.ly/xHZqvW. Bill Maher is the one who brought Hitler into this. Related posts: Tim Tebow […]

Dr. William F. Harrison : “I would have advised her to have an abortion…Now, years later, that baby is grown and about to finish her doctorate..”

Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. I used to write letters to the editor a whole lot back in the 1990′s.  I am pro-life and many times my letters would discuss current political debates, and I got to know several names of people that would often write in response letters to my published letters. […]

 

Tim Tebow and John 3:16

Very interesting article below: The NFL bans eye-black messagers. Tebow’s numbers did the preaching on Sunday. (Lynn Sladky/AP)   You ever feel like there’s too much Tim Tebow news? Neither do I. Here’s a roundup of some of the most interesting Timbits from the aftermath of the Denver Broncos 29-23 overtime victory over the Pittsburgh […]

 

Barrett Jones and Tim Tebow are very similar

For   Barrett Jones is a Tim Tebow type of person and I am glad that people like Jones and Tebow are not ashamed of their Savior Jesus Christ. They don’t try to live two lives, one in church and one that is different in the lockerroom. Barrett Jones is the 2011 Outland Trophy winner […]

 

Tebow does it again

He did it again. Tebow does it again. It is simply amazing. With all the odds against him he comes through. I guess that will ruin Bill Maher’s jokes for the week. Can Tebow rally the team for another unlikely victory? The Steelers were 8 point favorites and I am sure the Patriots will be […]

 

Prolife quotes

Bill O’Reilly Interviews Jehmu Greene About Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad about Tim Tebow I got these quotes from someone off the internet that lives in England. The funny thing is the video is put to music and the song they picked won a grammy for an Arkansas band that lives in Little Rock. Here is […]

 

Max Brantley and Ark Times bloggers poke fun at Tebow after 3rd straight loss

Arkansas Times Blogger who goes by the name “Elwood” remarked (The New Year line | Arkansas Blog ): I tuned in late to the KC v Denver Bronco game, just the last few minutes to see CBS giving adequate coverage to Tebow on his knees at his team’s bench in deep prayer. He seemed so isolated. Other […]

Tim Tebow attacked by Bill Maher

  Tebow attacked by Bill Maher: Even in defeat, Tim Tebow creates controversy — this time in Tinseltown. HBO’s Bill Maher created a firestorm over the Christmas weekend with a scathing reaction to Tebow’s subpar performance in Buffalo. Shortly after Tebow threw four interceptions in the Broncos’ lopsided defeat to the Bills, Maher turned to […]

 

Why We Love Tim Tebow

I really enjoyed this article and wanted to share it with you. Why We Love Tim Tebow posted by Linda Mintle | 7:33am Wednesday December 14, 2011   Yesterday I was asked to do a TV interview on Tim Tebow. This time the focus was positive. Tebow is very polarizing. People either love or hate him […]

 

Tim Tebow: Bestselling religious author of 2011

Tim Tebow seems to win at everything he tries. The Good Book: Tim Tebow A No. 1 Author Monday, December 26, 2011 12:45 pm Written by: Ben Maller Sports experts go crazy debating whether Tim Tebow can win NFL games, but there’s no question he can win over readers. Tebow’s Christian life story, “Through My […]

 

10 Reasons for Tim Tebow Hate

I enjoyed this article below: 10 Reasons for Tim Tebow Hate posted by Linda Mintle | 7:25am Tuesday December 6, 2011   I walked in to a radio station focused on doing an interview totally unrelated to football and the producer starts ranting about how much he hates Tim Tebow. This was a day after Tebow […]

 

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

Recently I posted that I was saddened by the Saturday Night Live reckless skit on Tim Tebow that among other things  endorsed Mormonism. In response, I gave several evidences from archaeology that disproved the Book of Mormon. Then I included a five part video series that showed the archaeological evidence that supported the historical accuracy of  the Bible. (Archaeological […]

 

James Robinson on Tim Tebow

  I have heard James Robinson preach many times before. I thought you might enjoy these insights on Tebow on 12-16-11: Tim Tebow’s Witness By James Robison I remember clearly the first time I heard the name “Tebow.” Some of our family were watching a football game and I asked who was playing. Someone answered, […]

 

5 things you might not know about Tim Tebow from People Magazine

From People Magazine: By Gabrielle Olya and Rennie Dyball Sunday December 11, 2011 10:30 PM EST Tim Tebow Brian Dowling/PictureGroup Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow is the buzz of the NFL these days. The former University of Florida star has helped lead his NFL team to an 8-5 record with one incredible comeback after another, […]

 

Tom Brady, Coldplay, Solomon and the search for satisfaction (part 1)

Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. To Download this video copy the URL to http://www.vixy.net Tom Brady is still searching for satisfaction in his life. Over the years I wanted bands like Kansas and Coldplay […]

 

“True Satisfaction,” Tebow has it, Brady would like to have it

Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. To Download this video copy the URL to http://www.vixy.net Below you will see several video clips of both Tom Brady and Tim Tebow. Evidently despite all the super bowl […]

 

Sound off on Tebow

Denver quarterback Tim Tebow reacts after Broncos running back Lance Ball scored a touchdown against the New England Patriots on Sunday, Dec. 18, 2011. (Associated Press/Jack Dempsey) I think Tebow is fine Christian man who believes in telling others about Christ and he lives a morally pure life unlike many others in our society. Therefore, […]

SNL mocks Tebow and endorses Romney: Is Mormonism true?

I was saddened that SNL proclaimed Mormonism true in a skit Saturday. The archaeological record is obvious that Joseph Smith was wrong in many of the details he put in the  Book of Mormon and he assumed that the Indians in the North America had the same surroundings that the Jews did in the middle east 2000 years […]

 

Tebow’s team goes down to defeat, what next?

I knew this day would come soon. I was asked this morning if I thought God was pulling for the Broncos and I responded, “No I do not. Many think that and for them it will be said that that devil Tom Brady brings the Tebow winning streak to a halt.” Sure enough New England […]

 

Tim Tebow verses and interviews

Another good article I read on Tebow: By PATTON DODD On a brisk Thursday evening in mid-November, I sat high in the stands at a Denver Broncos home game, covering the ears of my 4-year-old son as the fans around us launched f-bombs at Tim Tebow, the Broncos’ struggling second-year quarterback. Mr. Tebow was ineffective […]

 

What is God doing with Tim Tebow? Fellowship Bible pastor of Little Rock ponders…

Everyone is wondering if this amazing fourth quarter comeback streak will end for the Denver Broncos and their quarterback Tim Tebow. At the December 11, 2011 early service at Fellowship Bible Church, pastor Mark Henry noted: How many of you have been watching the drama behind Tim Tebow. Tim Tebow is the starting quarterback for […]

 

Brummett wants Charter schools to show public schools how to do it

John Brummett (10-26-11, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette online edition) does not want charter schools to put public schools out of business but he wants them to show public schools how to do it. (Paywall) I seek in these matters a kind of Clintonian third-way finesse: I support charter schools only to the extent that they should be […]

 

Ron Paul’s Pro-life view

Ron Paul’s Pro-life view Ron Paul’s Pro-Life Speech in Ames, Iowa Uploaded by RonPaul2008dotcom on Aug 13, 2011 Free email updates: http://www.RonPaul.com/welcome.php Please like, share, subscribe & comment! http://www.RonPaul.com 08/13/2011– Ron Paul is America’s leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy. ___________________________________ Related posts: Crowd […]

 

Tim Tebow’s Christian faith not abandoned in locker room

I am thrilled to get the chance to share the following article with you today. I got a call from Tim Keown who is a writer for ESPN Magazine a few days ago. He had read a post from my blog on Tim Tebow and wanted to ask me some questions. One of my answers […]

 

Tim Tebow’s Faith (Part 3)