Monthly Archives: June 2012

Should the 10 Commandments be banned from public life?(Part 9, David Barton’s Affidavit in support on 10 Commandments)

 

I read back on Dec 8, 2011 that Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, a social conservative advocacy organization, said in 2011 that President Obama has been “hostile” and “disdainful” toward Christianity. Rick Perry actually said President Obama had a war on religion. One of the most basic things that our founding fathers did is base our laws on the ten commandments. At the Supreme Court there is one depiction showing Moses sitting, holding two blank stone tablets. There is one depiction showing Moses standing holding one stone tablet. There are two stone tablets depicted with Roman Numbers I-X carved in the oak doors. 

David Barton has studied the history of the founding of our country for many years and I wanted to share a portion of adocument he wrote concerning the 10 Commandments:

 

David Barton – 01/03/2001
(View the footnoted version on Liberty Council’s website)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LONDON DIVISION

SARAH DOE and THOMAS DOE, on behalf

of themselves and their minor child, JAN DOE

Plaintiffs,

v Civil Action No. 99-508

HARLAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT;

DON MUSSELMAN, in his official capacity

as Superintendent of the Harlan Country

School District,

Defendents.

______________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID BARTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF PARKER

HOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE EXPRESSED

IN CIVIL LAW IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Honor your parents.

52. This fifth command begins the so-called second “tablet” of the Decalogue-the section addressing “civil” behavior that even critics acknowledge to be appropriate for public display. This portion of the Decalogue formed the basis of many of our current criminal laws and modern courts are not reticent to acknowledge and enforce these commandments. As the Supreme Court of Indiana declared in 1974:

Virtually all criminal laws are in one way or another the progeny of Judeo-Christian ethics. We have no intention to overrule the Ten Commandments.

53. Yet the mandates of the Decalogue currently embodied in our criminal laws are no less religiously-based than were the first four commandments. For example, a 1642 Connecticut law addressing the fifth commandment specifically cited both the Decalogue and additional Bible verses as the basis for its civil laws related to honoring parents:

If any child or children above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding shall curse or smite their normal father or mother, he or they shall be put to death; unless it can be sufficiently testified that the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of such children, or so provoke them by extreme and cruel correction that they have been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from death [or] maiming. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20, Ex. 20:15

This law also appears in other State codes as well.

54. Even three centuries after these early legal codes, this commandment was still influencing civil laws-as confirmed in 1934 by a Louisiana appeals court that cited the fifth commandment of the Decalogue as the basis of civil policy between parents and children:

” ˜Honor thy father and thy mother,’ is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. ˜A child,” says the code, ˜whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.’ “

55. Other courts have made similar declarations, all confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.

Too many riding in the wagon and not enough pulling

Too many riding in the wagon and not enough pulling the wagon. Is the USA heading down the same path as Greece?

U.S. Should Learn from Europe’s Welfare State Mistakes

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on November 8, 2011

This article appeared in US News and World Report on November 7, 2011.

Our long-run outlook is grim, but at least we still have time to reform the entitlement programs and save America from Greek-style fiscal collapse.

The conventional wisdom among economists is that a nation gets in deep trouble when government debt reaches 90 percent of GDP. That’s generally true, but it would be much more accurate to say that a nation gets in deep trouble when debt approaches 90 percent of GDP and the fiscal outlook shows even more red ink.

But this distinction doesn’t really matter much for the United States and Europe. Thanks to a combination of entitlement programs and aging populations, both face a bleak fiscal future. A 2010 study from the Bank for International Settlement shows that government debt in most industrialized nations will soar above 200 percent of GDP (in some cases, much higher) within the next few decades.

At some point, investors are going to realize that the United States is on an unsustainable path.

The only major difference is that European nations are farther down the path to fiscal collapse. The welfare state was adopted earlier in Europe and government spending among euro nations now consumes a staggering 49 percent of economic output. This heavy fiscal burden, especially when combined with onerous tax systems, helps explain why growth is anemic.

But the United States is only a couple of decades behind. According to long-run forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office, the burden of federal spending will reach European levels as the baby boom generation retires.

At some point, investors are going to realize that the United States is on an unsustainable path. Whether that’s 10 years from now or 20 years from now is anybody’s guess.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

More by Daniel J. Mitchell

What we do know, however, is that Greece, Portugal, and Ireland already have stuck their snouts in the bailout trough, and it’s probably just a matter of time before Italy, Spain, and Belgium are in the same category. Heck, they’re already receiving indirect bailouts from the European Central Bank, which is buying up their dodgy debt in hopes of postponing the day of reckoning.

The one silver lining to this dark cloud is that the United States still can turn things around. Greece, Italy, and other welfare states have probably passed the point of no return, but it’s still possible for American lawmakers to fix the entitlement crisis by turning Medicaid over to the states , modernizing Medicare into a premium-support system, and transitioning to a system of personal retirement accounts for younger workers.

If those reforms don’t take place, the consequences won’t be pleasant. To be blunt, there won’t be an IMF to bail out the United States.

25 years ago on June 12, 1987 Reagan made his famous speech in Berlin

The Heritage Foundation ran a fine article on Ronald Reagan today.

June 12 marks the 25th anniversary of President Reagan’s historic speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate. Over the objections of advisors who thought the lines were too provocative, President Reagan made a dramatic demand:

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev—Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

In his speech, Reagan talked about the need to tear down more than just this physical barrier to freedom:

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty—that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

For over a decade, The Heritage Foundation, in partnership with The Wall Street Journal, has tracked the march of economic freedom around the world with the influential Index of Economic Freedom. The data vindicate President Reagan’s 1987 declaration: “After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.”

_____________

My sons Wilson and Hunter got to see  all the sites of California and Sherwood Haisty Jr. took them to Reagan’s presidential library in March of 2011 after Sherwood finished his seminary work in the morning at the Masters Seminary. Wilson told me that Sherwood actually bought him a McArthur Study Bible that he wanted.  

Below you will see a part of the Berlin wall and my two sons standing in front of it.

“If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”  

Arguably one of Reagan’s best television moments, he urged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to stop the communist hold over East Berlin and allow the country to unify under a democracy. Two years later, it happened in the dark of night.

I remember walking in Austria in 1981 with an elderly man who did not know English but when I told him I was from the USA, he responded, “Jimmy Carter is no good, but Reagan is strong and will stand up to Russia.” He did not say those words in English but another student that was with me was able to interpret at least those words.

Also on the same trip, I got to visit 4  Communist countries and while in Hungry, I heard one of the saddest stories I had ever heard. Our tour guide (who knew 6 languages) spoke to a gentleman who met all of us. This poor man said (in German) that he was married in 1944 to a lady from Hungary who wanted to live by her relatives. He left his homeland of Austria and moved to Hungary. He said that he regretted moving to what would later become a communist country. His relatives in Austria had done really well but he was stuck in a communist country that basically caused everyone to live in poverty.
Related posts:

Berlin Wall” Speech – President Reagan’s Address at the Brandenburg Gate – 6/12/87

Berlin Wall” Speech – President Reagan’s Address at the Brandenburg Gate – 6/12/87 Uploaded by ReaganFoundation on Apr 15, 2009 President Reagan’s remarks on East-West relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, Germany on June 12, 1987. ___________________ My favorite president Ronald Reagan made a great speech 25 years ago today. Mr. Gorbachev, Tear […]

25 years ago on June 12, 1987 Reagan made his famous speech in Berlin

The Heritage Foundation ran a fine article on Ronald Reagan today. June 12 marks the 25th anniversary of President Reagan’s historic speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate. Over the objections of advisors who thought the lines were too provocative, President Reagan made a dramatic demand: There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be […]

Ronald Wilson Reagan Part 11 (Cold War won by Reagan)

President Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday anniversary In his earliest movies, many of his roles emphasized Reagan’s physical prowess. This is a publicity photo of Ronald Reagan from Warner Brothers/First National Studios. HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com A :30 commercial for the Ronald Reagan Centennial Celebration. I remember walking in Austria in 1981 with an elderly man who did not know English but when […]

 

1-7 SEC record was worst ever for Vols, Dooley on hot seat?

Tenn Football Coach Derek Dooley’s Mom on the Radio

Uploaded by on Oct 7, 2011

I really enjoyed hearing Vince Dooley speak a couple of years ago at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and he said that his son Derek would do a good job at Tennessee if given enough time. Evidently Derek’s mom feels he should get enough time too. Mother of Tennessee Football Coach Derek Dooley Calls Radio Show: “Let me say this,” Barbara Dooley said. “Derek Dooley walked into kind of a mess. Florida (coach Will Muschamp) walks into talent just oozing out of their ears. Jimbo Fisher walks into FSU with talent. And y’all are telling me that Derek Dooley is on the damn hot seat? Are you crazy?”

The wife of former Georgia coach and athletic director Vince Dooley went on: “You’ve got Mama’s rile up now, buddy. Did you know (Derek) played 17 freshmen against Florida?”

My son Wilson and I went to the Tennessee Vols at Arkansas Razorback game in Fayetteville last year. During a restroom stop in Ozark, Arkansas I got to hear a lot of Tennessee fans talking. One said that Dooley will be gone at the end of 2011 and the other said that they have to give him time. The first gentleman argued that they had never had such a bad SEC conference record in 50 years.

Derek Dooley: On the Hot Seat at Tennessee?

The Vols have a losing record in his two seasons at the helm.

The Tennessee football program will be watching bowl season from home, and Vols fans are already contemplating if head coach Derek Dooley can lead them back to prominence. Tennessee is historically a top ten football program, but that has been nowhere near the case for the last four years. Phil Fulmer had an amazing run from 1992-2004 before letting the program slip severely, missing the postseason in both 2005 and 2008. Enter the scorched-earth policy of Lane Kiffin, who cost the program massive personnel losses between running off players and recruiting others who were not fits in an academic or proper-behavior setting. Consequently, Derek Dooley inherited low scholarship numbers and was asked to clean things up from Kiffin’s recruiting “style”. Dooley seems to be everything that Tennessee wants as a leader, but the results on the field have been horrible. The Vols have dealt with extensive youth and injuries — including losing quarterback Tyler Bray and top receiver Justin Hunter for major parts of this season — over the last two years, but that does not explain his 11-14 Rocky Top record to many fans and college football observers.

Is Dooley already in trouble in Knoxville?

Patrick Snow (@AthlonSnowman
I think Dooley is in trouble, although I do not expect Tennessee to make a move this offseason and deal with the attrition of four coaches in five seasons. Dooley is a very likeable leader who does things the right way, but there are no indications that things will improve on The Hill. The Vols were young this season and did suffer key injuries, but those are reasons why you don’t compete with the SEC elite — not excuses for going 5-7 and playing lethargic, uninspired ball against Kentucky with your season on the line. There are some scary stats from Dooley’s second campaign — 117th in the country in rushing, 70th nationally in rushing defense, dead last in SEC games in scoring, rushing yards per carry (2.3) and rushing yards per game (63.5) — but the fact the Vols program seems much closer to Vanderbilt and Kentucky than it does to Alabama, LSU, Georgia, etc. is disconcerting on Rocky Top. This is not the first time in Tennessee’s storied history that it has faced the obstacles of youth and injuries, but it is the first time in a century (1910-11) that the Vols have had two consecutive losing seasons. Dooley is the type of coach you want to back, and he does compete in America’s toughest league. Maybe he can win eight or nine games next season and surprise us all, but there is no current reason to believe that will happen.

Mitch Light (@AthlonMitch
I believe it’s fair to say that Derek Dooley will be on the hot seat in 2012, his third season in Knoxville. He didn’t inherit an ideal situation at Tennessee, but he has done nothing in his two seasons to prove that he is the long term answer for the Vols. In five years as a head coach (three at Louisiana Tech and two at UT), Dooley has a 16–24 record in conference play. In his two seasons at Tennessee, he is 4¬–12 in the SEC, with two wins over Vanderbilt and one win over Ole Miss and Kentucky. That simply isn’t good enough. His 2011 team was hit hard by injuries, losing star wideout Justin Hunter to a torn ACL in Week 3 and quarterback Tyler Bray to a broken thumb for five games. That can explain some of this team’s struggles, but there is no reason that Tennessee should have had so much difficulty running the ball. The Vols ranked 117th in the nation in rushing, averaging a paltry 90.1 yards per game. That is inexcusable.

It’s always dangerous to throw out a number of wins required for a coach to keep his job, but Dooley will probably need to win at least eight games in 2012. Regardless, though, his team needs to look like it has improved — something that can’t be said for each of the last two seasons.

Steven Lassan (@AthlonSteven
I think it’s too early to judge Dooley at Tennessee. Yes, back-to-back losing seasons are a disappointment and Saturday’s loss to Kentucky isn’t sitting well in Knoxville, but the cupboard wasn’t exactly full when he took the job. Had quarterback Tyler Bray and receiver Justin Hunter stayed healthy for the full year, it’s likely the Volunteers could have gotten to at least 6-6 or pulled off an upset to get to 7-5. One alarming trend developing for Tennessee is the losses in SEC play over the last two years. Out of the seven defeats in conference games this season, four of those were by more than 10 points. The schedule has been brutal the last two years, with South Carolina improving, along with catching SEC West games against LSU and Arkansas in 2011. If the Volunteers go 6-6 or 5-7 next year, then it’s time to put Dooley on the hot seat. However, Tennessee is recruiting well and there’s a lot of young talent that should help this team get back into a bowl game next year.

Braden Gall (@AthlonBraden
In theory, every single coach in America is on the “hot seat.” It is a vague term that represents a portion of every fan base that is unhappy with the current performance of its head coach. At times, that portion of the fan base is more passionate and more justified. No matter the verbiage used, Derek Dooley will be facing THE make or break season in Knoxville next fall. He has unquestionably had terrible luck: Losing the team’s top three players for the better part of the season, the tumultuous way in which he landed the gig and the lack of talent when he got to campus have all been a part of the 14 losses Tennessee has experienced over the last two seasons. That said, the offensive line was young and talented entering this season and showed very little growth and development — try last in the SEC in rushing and 117th nationally. And there was a clear divide within the locker room between the veterans and the younger players and it cost them a bowl game. The team chemistry issues in particular give pause, as uniting a locker room is one aspect of coaching that can be not only controlled, but maximized by a strong, positive leader. If this team is healthy and develops on offense, Tennessee should be poised for eight wins (and Dooley will have proven he belongs). But if the Vols play like they did against Kentucky ever again, his time on Rocky Top will come to an abrupt end.

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 3)

A few years ago the movie “Che” was released and it praised the communist killer Che Guevara. Here is what Movie Guide had to say about it:

“Armed Struggle” is the rallying cry of CHE, Steven Soderbergh’s four-hour tribute to the violent Communist tactics of guerrilla warrior Ernesto “Che” Guevaro. Divided into two parts, the movie tells how Che came to Cuba with Fidel Castro to overthrow the government by fomenting Communist revolution. Led by Fidel, Che and Castro’s men start with the isolated rural sections of the eastern section of Cuba and work their way to the middle section of the island to cut it in half. After achieving violent victory and working for Communism in Cuba and Africa, Castro orders Che to Bolivia, where the American government advises the Bolivian army, which finally captures and kills Che.CHE is a left-wing, anti-American primer on how to wage violent Communist revolution and destroy Western Civilization. The movie’s leftist worldview is more Romantic and fascist rather than atheist humanist. Che’s violent methods, though slightly watered down, have finally been successful in Bolivia recently, as well as Venezuela. Leaving politics aside, this movie is amazingly photographed but rather unemotional and subdued, and sometimes disjointed. The acting is not as impressive as advertised, though it is good.

 
____________
Communism has never been tried is something I was told just a few months ago by a well meaning young person who was impressed with the ideas of Karl Marx. (Today many young people have shirts with the picture of Che on them.) I responded that there are only 5 communist countries in the world today and they lack political, economic and religious freedom.
Communism has always failed because of its materialist base.  Francis Schaeffer does a great job of showing that in this clip below. Also Schaeffer shows that there were lots of similar things about the basis for both the French and Russia revolutions and he exposes the materialist and humanist basis of both revolutions.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer examines the Revolutionary Age (part 2)

Similarities between French Revolution and Communist Revolution

Schaeffer compares communism with French Revolution and Napoleon.

1. Lenin took charge in Russia much as Napoleon took charge in France – when people get desperate enough, they’ll take a dictator.

Other examples: Hitler, Julius Caesar. It could happen again.

2. Communism is very repressive, stifling political and artistic freedom. Even allies have to be coerced. (Poland).

Communists say repression is temporary until utopia can be reached – yet there is no evidence of progress in that direction. Dictatorship appears to be permanent.

3. No ultimate basis for morality (right and wrong) – materialist base of communism is just as humanistic as French. Only have “arbitrary absolutes” no final basis for right and wrong.

How is Christianity different from both French Revolution and Communism?

Contrast N.T. Christianity – very positive government reform and great strides against injustice. (especially under Wesleyan revival).

Bible gives absolutes – standards of right and wrong. It shows the problems and why they exist (man’s fall and rebellion against God).

Is Christianity at all like Communism?

Sometimes Communism sounds very “Christian” – desirable goals of equality, justice, etc. Schaeffer elsewhere explains by saying Marxism is a Christian heresy – Karl Marx

borrowed some of the ideals of N.T.

Below is a great article. Free-lance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

This article was published January 30, 2011 at 2:28 a.m. Here is a portion of that article below:
A final advantage is the mutation of socialism into so many variants over the past century or so. Precisely because Karl Marx was unclear as to how it would work in practice, socialism has always been something of an empty vessel into which would be revolutionaries seeking personal meaning and utopian causes to support can pour pretty much anything.
A desire to increase state power, soak the rich and expand the welfare state is about all that is left of the original vision. Socialism for young lefties these days means “social justice” and compassion for the poor, not the gulag and the NKVD.
In the end, the one argument that will never wash is that communismcan’t be said to have failed because it was never actually tried. This is a transparent intellectual dodge that ignores the fact that “people’s democracies” were established all over the place in the first three decades after World War II.
Such sophistry is resorted to only because communism in all of those places produced hell on earth rather than heaven.
That the attempts to build communism in a remarkable variety of different geographical regions led to only tyranny and mass bloodshed tells us only that it was never feasible in the first place, and that societies built on the socialist principle ironically suffer from the kind of “inner contradictions” that Marx mistakenly predicted would destroy capitalism.
Yes, all economies are mixed in nature, and one could plausibly argue that the socialist impulse took the rough edges off of capitalism by sponsoring the creation of welfare-state programs that command considerable public support.
But the fact remains that no society in history has been able to achieve sustained prosperity without respect for private property and market forces of supply and demand. Nations, therefore, retain their economic dynamism only to the extent that they resist the temptation to travel too far down the socialist road.
———◊-
———
Related posts:

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 3)

A few years ago the movie “Che” was released and it praised the communist killer Che Guevara. Here is what Movie Guide had to say about it: “Armed Struggle” is the rallying cry of CHE, Steven Soderbergh’s four-hour tribute to the violent Communist tactics of guerrilla warrior Ernesto “Che” Guevaro. Divided into two parts, the […]

The real truth about Che Guevara from Nat Hentoff (Part 2)

Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Jun 9, 2011 Nat Hentoff is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/people/nat-hentoff In this clip, Hentoff describes the telling encounter he had when he met Ernesto “Che” Guevara in the late 1950s. Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg. View hi-res version Get the latest from Nat […]

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 1)

  Humberto Fontova on Che Guevara part 2 Francis Schaeffer said about Communism: Communism, you know, is not basically an economic theory. It’s materialistic communism, which means that at the very heart of the Marx, Engels, Lenin kind of communism (because you have to put all three together to really understand) is the materialistic concept […]

 


Was this country founded by Christians?

2 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

I really don’t think we need to be ashamed our Christian origins in this country. Abraham Lincoln wasn’t. In this discussion about the Christian origins of our country Greg Koukl quotes from President Lincoln:

After that you can reflect on Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1863. It begins this way: “It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions [By golly, how did that get in there?] in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.”

America’s Unchristian Beginnings?

 

Gregory Koukl

Greg responds to an L.A. Times Op-Ed article by this title (sans question mark), subtitled “Founding Fathers: Despite preachings of our pious Right, most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus.”divider

There has been a lot of confusion on the issue of whether or not we’ re a Christian nation, and I’m not exactly sure why. But it is hotly debated in our culture right now. The reason I say I’m not sure why is because the historical record is quite clear. I think that Christians, though, often make inappropriate, unfounded, or inaccurate applications of some of the information, and I want to speak to that in just a moment.As to the faith content of those who were our Founding Fathers, there can be absolutely no confusion about the fact that virtually every single one of them shared a Christian, biblical world view. There is some question as to whether every single one of them held to all the orthodox teachings of classical Christianity; but it seems to me that there is very little question as to what their religious persuasions and world views were.There was a piece in the L.A. Times on the third of this August on the Op-Ed page entitled “America’s Unchristian Beginnings.” It is subtitled “Founding Fathers: Despite preachings of our pious Right, most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus.” There are a couple things that trouble me about this article, the biggest thing is the word “most” in the subtitle. “Most of our Founding Fathers” apparently were deists, according to this person’s assessment. This is a canard that’s been tossed around even by some Christians who ought to know better. This piece was written by Steven Morris who is a professor of physics at L.A. Harbor College and he is also a member of the L.A.-based Atheists United.Some might say, what does a physicist know about history? Just because he is a physicist doesn’t mean that he can’t have an accurate opinion about this particular issue. I take issue with his research. It’ s simply bad.He goes on to reply to the Christian Right, who he says is trying to rewrite the history of the United States in its campaign to force its view of religion on others. His approach is to quote seven different people: Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and Ben Franklin. His point is to quote these individuals who he thinks apparently are, first of all, Founding Fathers, and secondly, characteristic of the lot of them in rejection of Christianity and in acceptance of deism.

I am frustrated by this because it is characteristic of the way a lot of people want to treat this issue. They think that they can take names that we associate with that period and are well known, sift through their writings and find some things that they think are hostile to Christianity, and therefore conclude that not only these people are anti-Christian, but all of the rest of them are anti-Christian, as well.

It’s an example of Steven Morris turning the exception into the rule. Since he can find what he thinks are seven different people that are important personalities during this period of time, who at some time in their lives may have written something that can be understood to be non-Christian, then that characterizes the whole group of them as deists, ergo the subtitle “Most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus.”

Morris’ sightings are simply specious. Thomas Payne and Ethan Allen, for example, were in no- wise intellectual architects of the Constitution. Rather, they were firebrands of the Revolution. Was that important? Sure, they made an important contribution, but they weren’t Founding Fathers. Period.

Now, as for Washington, Sam Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. If one looks at the literature of the time–the personal correspondence, the public statements, the biographies–he will find that this literature is replete with quotations by these people contrary to those that Mr. Morris very carefully selected for us. Apparently, he also very carefully ignored other important thinkers: John Witherspoon, for example, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry. All individuals who were significant contributors to the architectural framework of this country and who had political philosophies that were deeply influenced by Christianity, especially Calvinism.

But there is another thing that he completely overlooks in this analysis. Something that makes a mockery out of his analysis, and also answers the question quite simply and directly and in the affirmative for us about the Christian beginnings of our Republic.

This issue is actually very simple. The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. In other words, Founding Fathers refers directly to a very specific group of people (although I think you could be a little bit flexible and include a little wider group of people). Those who intellectually contributed to the Constitutional convention were the Founding Fathers. If we want to know whether our Founding Fathers were Christian or deists, one needs only to look at the individual religious convictions of those 55 delegates of the Constitutional convention.

How would we know that? We look at their church membership primarily, and also at their correspondence. Back then church membership was a big deal. In other words, to be a member of a church back then, it wasn’t just a matter of sitting in the pew or attending once in a while. This was a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith, adherence, and acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular church.

Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

To heap more fuel on the fire of my point, of the 55, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Dutch Reformed (which make up 45 of the 55) were Calvinists, for goodness sake! In other words, these weren’t just Christians, these were among the most extreme and doctrinally strict Christians around. Of the 55 delegates, virtually all of them were deeply committed Christians. Only three were deists. Even Franklin is equivocal because, though not an orthodox Christian, Franklin seems to have abandoned his deism early in life and moved back towards his Puritan roots. Indeed, it was 81 year old Franklin’s emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was actually the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Constitutional convention. We have his appeal on record thanks to James Madison who took copious notes of the whole proceeding. His appeal contained no less than four direct quotations from Scripture. This does not sound like a man who was hostile to the Christian religion.

But this assessment doesn’ t answer a more fundamental question: Are we a Christian nation? It seems clear that most of the Founders were Christians, not deists. But what about the question “Are we a Christian nation?” I think the answer depends entirely on what is meant by “Christian nation.”

Are the theological doctrines of the Bible explicitly woven into the fabric of government? The answer is no. The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely prohibits such a thing. However, was the Biblical view of the world–the existence of God who active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights–was that the philosophic foundation of the Constitution? The answer is, without question, yes. The American community presumed a common set of values which were principally biblical. Further, the founding principles of the Republic were clearly informed by biblical truth.

A question can be asked at this point. Given the fact that most of the Founding Fathers–either those who are among the 55 delegates to the Constitutional convention or those outside of that number who were significant architects to the Constitution–were in fact biblical Christians and had sworn to that, and those that weren’t were at least deeply moved and informed by a biblical moral view, one could ask the question, “So what? What does that have to do with anything today?”

I think that Christians may be a little out of line on this part of the issue, and I want to bring it into balance. Regarding the question, Is America a Christian nation?, if we mean by that that Christianity is the official, doctrinal religion of this country, the answer is of course not. That’s prohibited by the exclusion clause of the First Amendment. If we mean that we were founded on Biblical principles by Christian men who had a deep commitment to the Scriptures by and large, the answer is certainly yes.

But then the question is, So what? How does what happened 200 years ago influence what is going on now? I actually have two points to make.

This fact doesn’ t give Christians a trump card in the debate on public policy, in my view. Just because Christians were here first doesn’t mean that their views should continue to prevail. Within the limits of the Constitution, the majority rules. That’s the way this government works, ladies and gentlemen.

But let’s not rewrite history to relegate those with religious convictions to the sidelines. That is the other half of this. The privilege of citizenship remains the same for all despite their religious convictions. Everyone gets a voice and everyone gets a vote. Christians don’t have a leg up on everyone else because we were here first. Even the Christians who wrote the rules didn’t give us that liberty. They didn’t give us that leg up. They made the playing ground even for everyone, every ideology, every point of view.

Having said that, though, in writing the First Amendment and the non-establishment clause, they did not have in view this current idea of separation–that the state is thoroughly secular and not informed at all by religious values, especially Christian. This view that is popular now was completely foreign, not just to the Founders, but to the first 150 years of American political thought. It’s absolutely clear that the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life. In fact, they were friendly to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular, and encouraged its education and expression.

As to the durability of this tradition, I suggest that anyone who has any doubts about this simply read Lincoln’s second inaugural address, which is etched into the marble of the northern wall of the Lincoln Memorial. Go there and read it. Face Lincoln, turn right, and there it is. It contains no less than three or four biblical references.

After that you can reflect on Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1863. It begins this way: “It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions [By golly, how did that get in there?] in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.”

I think that pretty much settles it.

 

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show“Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1995 Gregory Koukl

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

The real truth about Che Guevara from Nat Hentoff (Part 2)

Uploaded by on Jun 9, 2011

Nat Hentoff is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/people/nat-hentoff

In this clip, Hentoff describes the telling encounter he had when he met Ernesto “Che” Guevara in the late 1950s. Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg.

Nat Hentoff
View hi-res version

Get the latest from Nat Hentoff:

Nat Hentoff is one of the foremost authorities on the First Amendment. While his books and articles regularly defend the rights of Americans to think and speak freely, he also explores our freedoms under the rest of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment by showing how Supreme Court and local legislative decisions affect the lives of ordinary Americans. Hentoff’s column, Sweet Land of Liberty, has been distributed by the United Feature Syndicate since 1992.

Hentoff has earned numerous awards and is a widely acknowledged defender of civil liberties. In 1980, he was awarded an American Bar Association Silver Gavel Award for his coverage of the law and criminal justice in his columns. In 1983, the American Library Association awarded him the Imroth Award for Intellectual Freedom. In 1995, he received the National Press Foundation Award for Distinguished Contributions to Journalism, and in 1999, he was a Pulitzer finalist for commentary.

Hentoff was a columnist and staff writer with The Village Voice for 51 years, from 1957 until 2008. A jazz expert, Hentoff writes on music for The Wall Street Journal and Jazz Times.

Hentoff has lectured at many colleges, universities, law schools, elementary, middle and high schools, and has taught courses in journalism and the Constitution at Princeton University and New York University. Mr. Hentoff serves on the Board of Advisors of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (F.I.R.E.) and is on the steering committee of the Reporters’ Committee for the Freedom of the Press. A native of Boston, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in education and was a Fulbright Fellow at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1950. He did graduate work at Harvard University, received his B.A. with highest honors from Northeastern University and was awarded an honorary doctorate of law from Northeastern in 1985.

Related posts:

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 3)

A few years ago the movie “Che” was released and it praised the communist killer Che Guevara. Here is what Movie Guide had to say about it: “Armed Struggle” is the rallying cry of CHE, Steven Soderbergh’s four-hour tribute to the violent Communist tactics of guerrilla warrior Ernesto “Che” Guevaro. Divided into two parts, the […]

The real truth about Che Guevara from Nat Hentoff (Part 2)

Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Jun 9, 2011 Nat Hentoff is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/people/nat-hentoff In this clip, Hentoff describes the telling encounter he had when he met Ernesto “Che” Guevara in the late 1950s. Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg. View hi-res version Get the latest from Nat […]

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 1)

  Humberto Fontova on Che Guevara part 2 Francis Schaeffer said about Communism: Communism, you know, is not basically an economic theory. It’s materialistic communism, which means that at the very heart of the Marx, Engels, Lenin kind of communism (because you have to put all three together to really understand) is the materialistic concept […]

Which metropolitan area has more population: Little Rock or Fayetteville?

The fast growing Fayetteville-Rogers- Springdale area may one day have more population than Little Rock but it is a far cry from that now. Fayetteville is ranked at #107 and Little Rock is ranked at 72.

Take a look at Wikipedia:

The 366 Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States of America
Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area 2011 Estimate 2010 Census Change Combined Statistical Area
!000001 New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ–PA MSA !B9832392139707 19,015,900 !B9832454804946 18,897,109 !D0050693985799 +0.63% New York–Newark–Bridgeport, NY–NJ–CT–PA CSA
!000002 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, CA MSA !B9836237952016 12,944,801 !B9836327939144 12,828,837 !D0047061710084 +0.90% Los Angeles–Long Beach–Riverside, CA CSA
!000003 Chicago–Joliet–Naperville, IL–IN–WI MSA !B9839326974527 9,504,753 !B9839373002581 9,461,105 !D0053787870006 +0.46% Chicago–Naperville–Michigan City, IL–IN–WI CSA
!000004 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX MSA !B9843086112755 6,526,548 !B9843326116752 6,371,773 !D0037176605963 +2.43% Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CSA
!000005 Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, TX MSA !B9843784099948 6,086,538 !B9844016361822 5,946,800 !D0037508392980 +2.35% Houston–Baytown–Huntsville, TX CSA
!000006 Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE–MD MSA !B9843939951060 5,992,414 !B9843985228860 5,965,343 !D0053952587907 +0.45% Philadelphia–Camden–Vineland, PA–NJ–DE–MD CSA
!000007 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV MSA !B9844433308753 5,703,948 !B9844649118523 5,582,170 !D0038251331536 +2.18% Washington–Baltimore–Northern Virginia, DC–MD–VA–WV CSA
!000008 Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach, FL MSA !B9844492782786 5,670,125 !B9844680580479 5,564,635 !D0039655705113 +1.90% ~primary census statistical area
!000009 Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, GA MSA !B9845056737988 5,359,205 !B9845226754216 5,268,860 !D0040659336241 +1.71% Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Gainesville, GA–AL CSA
!000010 Boston–Cambridge–Quincy, MA–NH MSA !B9846603671815 4,591,112 !B9846688344362 4,552,402 !D0047673123201 +0.85% Boston–Worcester–Manchester, MA–RI–NH CSA
!000011 San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA !B9847049240241 4,391,037 !B9847176776397 4,335,391 !D0043555568838 +1.28% San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA CSA
!000012 Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA MSA !B9847247130010 4,304,997 !B9847435054481 4,224,851 !D0039648893015 +1.90% Los Angeles–Long Beach–Riverside, CA CSA
!000013 Detroit–Warren–Livonia, MI MSA !B9847291747431 4,285,832 !B9847267468928 4,296,250 !H9939780372511 −0.24% Detroit–Warren–Flint, MI CSA
!000014 Phoenix–Mesa–Glendale, AZ MSA !B9847346955368 4,262,236 !B9847510999238 4,192,887 !D0041019930700 +1.65% ~primary census statistical area
!000015 Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA MSA !B9849317190449 3,500,026 !B9849490734954 3,439,809 !D0040452165210 +1.75% Seattle–Tacoma–Olympia, WA CSA
!000016 Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN–WI MSA !B9849849807872 3,318,486 !B9849966969355 3,279,833 !D0044409233937 +1.18% Minneapolis–St. Paul–St. Cloud, MN–WI CSA
!000017 San Diego–Carlsbad–San Marcos, CA MSA !B9850402446678 3,140,069 !B9850546004101 3,095,313 !D0042364187969 +1.45% ~primary census statistical area
!000018 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA !B9851460787813 2,824,724 !B9851608726474 2,783,243 !D0042061365824 +1.49% ~primary census statistical area
!000019 St. Louis, MO–IL MSA !B9851486909404 2,817,355 !B9851502748844 2,812,896 !D0064470453109 +0.16% St. Louis–St. Charles–Farmington, MO–IL CSA
!000020 Baltimore–Towson, MD MSA !B9851805138933 2,729,110 !B9851873603806 2,710,489 !D0049805943643 +0.69% Washington–Baltimore–Northern Virginia, DC–MD–VA–WV CSA
!000021 Denver–Aurora–Broomfield, CO MSA !B9852291687844 2,599,504 !B9852509554336 2,543,482 !D0038155448166 +2.20% Denver–Aurora–Boulder, CO CSA
!000022 Pittsburgh, PA MSA !B9853259354559 2,359,746 !B9853274032158 2,356,285 !D0065232839405 +0.15% Pittsburgh–New Castle, PA CSA
!000023 Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WA MSA !B9853679726376 2,262,605 !B9853842791460 2,226,009 !D0041080266301 +1.64% ~primary census statistical area
!000024 San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX MSA !B9853983406534 2,194,927 !B9854225123365 2,142,508 !D0037104632633 +2.45% ~primary census statistical area
!000025 Sacramento–Arden–Arcade–Roseville, CA MSA !B9854068931225 2,176,235 !B9854194277288 2,149,127 !D0043729881048 +1.26% Sacramento–Arden–Arcade–Yuba City, CA–NV CSA
!000026 Orlando–Kissimmee–Sanford, FL MSA !B9854091357426 2,171,360 !B9854262987116 2,134,411 !D0040564074259 +1.73% Orlando–Deltona–Daytona Beach, FL CSA
!000027 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA !B9854246008559 2,138,038 !B9854282965728 2,130,151 !D0055987323137 +0.37% Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN CSA
!000028 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA !B9854577706475 2,068,283 !B9854534493525 2,077,240 !H9945536399810 −0.43% Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH CSA
!000029 Kansas City, MO-KS MSA !B9854653451342 2,052,676 !B9854738295088 2,035,334 !D0047652839072 +0.85% Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA
!000030 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA !B9855064685897 1,969,975 !B9855160095118 1,951,269 !D0046473908811 +0.96% Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV CSA
!000031 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA !B9855609871311 1,865,450 !B9855764040855 1,836,911 !D0041645690625 +1.55% San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
!000032 Columbus, OH MSA !B9855647391019 1,858,464 !B9855766082534 1,836,536 !D0044278721085 +1.19% Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH CSA
!000033 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA !B9855992215020 1,795,472 !B9856202910275 1,758,038 !D0038493743111 +2.13% Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC CSA
!000034 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX MSA !B9856059010630 1,783,519 !B9856443250402 1,716,289 !D0032398001043 +3.92% Austin-Round Rock-Marble Falls, TX CSA
!000035 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN MSA !B9856086808958 1,778,568 !B9856213137125 1,756,241 !D0043651343000 +1.27% Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN CSA
!000036 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA !B9856657587458 1,679,894 !B9856706585386 1,671,683 !D0053161114636 +0.49% ~primary census statistical area
!000037 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN MSA !B9857038290483 1,617,142 !B9857207969360 1,589,934 !D0040679367372 +1.71% Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Columbia, TN CSA
!000038 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA !B9857143458225 1,600,224 !B9857139534545 1,600,852 !H9921564936209 −0.04% Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA
!000039 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA !B9857383841159 1,562,216 !B9857424301439 1,555,908 !D0055079959079 +0.41% Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA
!000040 Jacksonville, FL MSA !B9858768202004 1,360,251 !B9858876524044 1,345,596 !D0045198107423 +1.09% ~primary census statistical area
!000041 Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA !B9859026204830 1,325,605 !B9859098166241 1,316,100 !D0049306101208 +0.72% ~primary census statistical area
!000042 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN MSA !B9859260953559 1,294,849 !B9859348473001 1,283,566 !D0047341002527 +0.88% Louisville/Jefferson County–Elizabethtown–Scottsburg, KY-IN CSA
!000043 Oklahoma City, OK MSA !B9859391516158 1,278,053 !B9859589591412 1,252,987 !D0039117732335 +2.00% Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK CSA
!000044 Richmond, VA MSA !B9859459608497 1,269,380 !B9859547667806 1,258,251 !D0047279236264 +0.88% ~primary census statistical area
!000045 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT MSA !B9859911826115 1,213,255 !B9859919032473 1,212,381 !D0072350163769 +0.07% Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT CSA
!000046 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MSA !B9860096214273 1,191,089 !B9860293986328 1,167,764 !D0039133203414 +2.00% New Orleans-Metairie-Bogalusa, LA CSA
!000047 Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA !B9860330438462 1,163,515 !B9860618382749 1,130,490 !D0035331415956 +2.92% Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC CSA
!000048 Salt Lake City, UT MSA !B9860482947242 1,145,905 !B9860674204390 1,124,197 !D0039471434257 +1.93% Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, UT CSA
!000049 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA !B9860587038457 1,134,039 !B9860574084334 1,135,509 !H9933504261132 −0.13% Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY CSA
!000050 Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA !B9860602702738 1,132,264 !B9860640016231 1,128,047 !D0055891191230 +0.37% Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL CSA
!000051 Rochester, NY MSA !B9861306852027 1,055,278 !B9861315905872 1,054,323 !D0070066980722 +0.09% Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY CSA
!000052 Tucson, AZ MSA !B9861949752262 989,569 !B9862044238180 980,263 !D0046571615495 +0.95% ~ primary census statistical area
!000053 Honolulu, HI MSA !B9862215611858 963,607 !B9862324126321 953,207 !D0045180262827 +1.09% ~primary census statistical area
!000054 Tulsa, OK MSA !B9862389857553 946,962 !B9862490514301 937,478 !D0045935871226 +1.01% Tulsa-Bartlesville, OK CSA
!000055 Fresno, CA MSA !B9862432802463 942,904 !B9862565763809 930,450 !D0043136264836 +1.34% Fresno-Madera, CA CSA
!000056 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA !B9862614795635 925,899 !B9862713237437 916,829 !D0046159487130 +0.99% New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
!000057 Albuquerque, NM MSA !B9862913599861 898,642 !B9863043129330 887,077 !D0043399484923 +1.30% ~primary census statistical area
!000058 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA MSA !B9863156123089 877,110 !B9863291106716 865,350 !D0042984301069 +1.36% Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA
!000059 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA !B9863220541002 871,478 !B9863229288593 870,716 !D0070411245849 +0.09% Albany-Schenectady-Amsterdam, NY CSA
!000060 New Haven-Milford, CT MSA !B9863340189824 861,113 !B9863324362391 862,477 !H9935506130775 −0.16% New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
!000061 Bakersfield-Delano, CA MSA !B9863449986277 851,710 !B9863592822114 839,631 !D0042414941019 +1.44% ~primary census statistical area
!000062 Dayton, OH MSA !B9863524490274 845,388 !B9863570563306 841,502 !D0053778080393 +0.46% Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH CSA
!000063 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA !B9863686875584 831,771 !B9863789022037 823,318 !D0045788211093 +1.03% Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA
!000064 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ MSA !B9863769631580 824,916 !B9863815109151 821,173 !D0053908463769 +0.46% ~primary census statistical area
!000065 El Paso, TX MSA !B9863817581530 820,970 !B9864068245702 800,647 !D0036736669011 +2.54% ~primary census statistical area
!000066 Baton Rouge, LA MSA !B9863973832023 808,242 !B9864045328039 802,484 !D0049371217249 +0.72% Baton Rouge-Pierre Part, LA CSA
!000067 Worcester, MA MSA !B9864061004183 801,227 !B9864094446333 798,552 !D0056988507072 +0.33% Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA
!000068 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA !B9864103742471 797,810 !B9864396798006 774,769 !D0035152896827 +2.97% ~primary census statistical area
!000069 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI MSA !B9864334586225 779,604 !B9864404661504 774,160 !D0049572644857 +0.70% Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI CSA
!000070 Columbia, SC MSA !B9864366550896 777,116 !B9864489785624 767,598 !D0043900814159 +1.24% Columbia-Newberry, SC CSA
!000071 Greensboro-High Point, NC MSA !B9864978777739 730,966 !B9865077282282 723,801 !D0046153084314 +0.99% Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point, NC CSA
!000072 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR MSA !B9865271191973 709,901 !B9865415115890 699,757 !D0042338507342 +1.45% Little Rock-North Little Rock-Pine Bluff, AR CSA
!000073 North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL MSA !B9865278886145 709,355 !B9865379111121 702,281 !D0045979075180 +1.01% Sarasota-Bradenton-Punta Gorda, FL CSA
!000074 Knoxville, TN MSA !B9865347563896 704,500 !B9865439826392 698,030 !D0046810859732 +0.93% Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN CSA
!000075 Akron, OH MSA !B9865390865461 701,456 !B9865366033746 703,200 !H9940005399791 −0.25% Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH CSA
!000076 Stockton, CA MSA !B9865465876366 696,214 !B9865623792671 685,306 !D0041403689888 +1.59% ~primary census statistical area
!000077 Springfield, MA MSA !B9865509203928 693,204 !B9865512984194 692,942 !D0078803570768 +0.04% ~primary census statistical area
!000078 Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC MSA !B9865670376595 682,121 !B9865930488325 664,607 !D0036361953274 +2.64% ~primary census statistical area
!000079 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY MSA !B9865806910887 672,871 !B9865845178557 670,301 !D0055638209663 +0.38% New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
!000080 Syracuse, NY MSA !B9865961441663 662,553 !B9865961079434 662,577 !H9897741617738 0.00% Syracuse-Auburn, NY CSA
!000081 Colorado Springs, CO MSA !B9865995216694 660,319 !B9866220444679 645,613 !D0037819446792 +2.28% ~primary census statistical area
!000082 Toledo, OH MSA !B9866148632110 650,266 !B9866130763096 651,429 !H9936718344621 −0.18% Toledo-Fremont, OH CSA
!000083 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC MSA !B9866192788348 647,401 !B9866354970437 636,986 !D0041135006025 +1.64% Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC CSA
!000084 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA !B9866444160157 631,330 !B9866645369425 618,754 !D0038959175428 +2.03% ~primary census statistical area
!000085 Boise City-Nampa, ID MSA !B9866502397295 627,664 !B9866680874576 616,561 !D0040169419212 +1.80% ~primary census statistical area
!000086 Wichita, KS MSA !B9866536518252 625,526 !B9866576002937 623,061 !D0055324526198 +0.40% Wichita-Winfield, KS CSA
!000087 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA !B9866796188976 609,492 !B9866918294808 602,095 !D0043993407275 +1.23% ~primary census statistical area
!000088 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA MSA !B9867287770589 580,255 !B9867472524272 569,633 !D0039820649718 +1.86% Des Moines-Newton-Pella, IA CSA
!000089 Madison, WI MSA !B9867353266249 576,467 !B9867490798328 568,593 !D0042795986956 +1.38% Madison-Baraboo, WI CSA
!000090 Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA !B9867585690789 563,223 !B9867578449389 563,631 !H9927691121133 −0.07% ~primary census statistical area
!000091 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA MSA !B9867594287882 562,739 !B9867540517833 565,773 !H9947716889432 −0.54% Youngstown-Warren-East Liverpool, OH-PA CSA
!000092 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA !B9867609955720 561,858 !B9867699003313 556,877 !D0047167137155 +0.89% ~primary census statistical area
!000093 Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA !B9867716275173 555,916 !B9867874595949 547,184 !D0041377906874 +1.60% Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, UT CSA
!000094 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA MSA !B9867770476727 552,911 !B9867832814441 549,475 !D0050746552727 +0.63% Harrisburg-Carlisle-Lebanon, PA CSA
!000095 Jackson, MS MSA !B9867907362517 545,394 !B9868024234043 539,057 !D0044434158463 +1.18% Jackson-Yazoo City, MS CSA
!000096 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA !B9867940935866 543,566 !B9867944431913 543,376 !D0079585327364 +0.03% ~primary census statistical area
!000097 Provo-Orem, UT MSA !B9867991323284 540,834 !B9868254047687 526,810 !D0036260698046 +2.66% ~primary census statistical area
!000098 Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA !B9868130256040 533,372 !B9868228776406 528,143 !D0046151470251 +0.99% Chattanooga-Cleveland-Athens, TN-GA CSA
!000099 Lancaster, PA MSA !B9868315281461 523,594 !B9868394837871 519,445 !D0048298935925 +0.80% ~primary census statistical area
!000100 Modesto, CA MSA !B9868412622641 518,522 !B9868491405207 514,453 !D0048397069312 +0.79% ~primary census statistical area
!000101 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME MSA !B9868465120565 515,807 !B9868498308122 514,098 !D0057065055046 +0.33% Portland-Lewiston-South Portland, ME CSA
!000102 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA !B9868520098123 512,979 !B9868689603703 504,357 !D0040689672743 +1.71% Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC CSA
!000103 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL MSA !B9868880829964 494,804 !B9868885095188 494,593 !D0077596323476 +0.04% Orlando-Deltona-Daytona Beach, FL CSA
!000104 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA !B9869016916384 488,116 !B9869104119121 483,878 !D0047377413489 +0.88% San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
!000105 Winston-Salem, NC MSA !B9869142487410 482,025 !B9869232262140 477,717 !D0047085447476 +0.90% Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point, NC CSA
!000106 Lexington-Fayette, KY MSA !B9869200348587 479,244 !B9869350560116 472,099 !D0041907758979 +1.51% Lexington-Fayette–Frankfort–Richmond, KY CSA
!000107 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO MSA !B9869313961134 473,830 !B9869540771592 463,204 !D0037748637337 +2.29% ~primary census statistical area

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 1)

 

Humberto Fontova on Che Guevara part 2

Francis Schaeffer said about Communism:

Communism, you know, is not basically an economic theory. It’s materialistic communism, which means that at the very heart of the Marx, Engels, Lenin kind of communism (because you have to put all three together to really understand) is the materialistic concept of the final reality. That is the base for all that occurs in the communist countries.

But all the oppression you have ever heard of in Mao’s China, Stalin’s day, Poland, Czechoslovakia — any place that you can name it – all the oppression is the automatic, the mechanical certainty, that comes from having this other world view of the final reality only being material or energy shaped by pure chance. That’s where it comes from.

That quote from Schaeffer comes from a 1982 speech. Poland was cracking down on the dissenters in Poland at the time. Young people get attracted to Communism and Socialism because they talk of dignity of the individual. However, what they will get from people like Che Guevara and Cuba will be much different.

Che Guevara is celebrated all of the world as a great liberator. A major film was released about his life recently starring academy award winner Benicio Del Toro. In fact in an interview about the film, Del Toro commented, “His objective was to take care of the people ultimately through communism. We have seen that Communism limps. It does not completely work, but there is something about his dream..” Is that all we are left with? This is a perfect example of what I am trying to say here. It may happen on paper, but it does not work in real life. Communism always has failed and it always is guilty of taking away rights!!!!

Guevara played a major part in the Communist take-over in Cuba. Then why do Cubans do anything they can to travel to the USA?

As luck would have it, this very month GQ magazine modestly crowned itself the crowner of the “25 Most Stylish Men in the World.” Based on their cover, the top contender for the top spot seems like cheeky free-spirit Johnny Depp, who appears shirtless–all the better to display his Che Guevara pendant.
On top of jailing political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin’s and murdering more people in its first three years than Hitler’s in its first six, here’s an (abbreviated) list of the things prohibited under penalty of jail and/or forced labor by the regime co-founded by the gentleman cheeky free-spirit Johnny Depp flaunts on his t-shirts, kerchiefs and pendants:
1. To say “Down with Fidel!” or “Che Sucks!” Cuba’s constitution” mandates 18 months in prison for anyone overheard cracking a joke against Castro or Che. If the neighborhood CDR (Committee for the Defense of the Revolution, imported to Cuba by the East German STASI, who grandfathered it from Hitler’s Gestapo) overhears any such deviation from “ideological purity” the regime “will want a word with you.”
2. Travel abroad without permission from the government. (which is granted mostly to regime toadies and hacks.
3. Switch jobs without regime permission.
4. Switch homes without regime permission…
5. Publish anything without regime permission.
6. Own a personal computer, a fax machine or a satellite antenna.
7. Access the Internet. Cuba’s Internet is under constant regime “surveillance.” By the secret police. Only 1.7% of the population has access to the web, a lower percentage than in Papua New Guinea. This is a nation that pre-Castro/Che had more telephones and TV’s per-capita than most European countries
8. Send your children to a private or religious school. All schools belong to the Communist party.
9. Tune in to any free radio or television station. In Cuba all media is property of the Stalinist regime.
12. Read books, magazines, or newspapers, not approved by the regime. All books, magazines, and newspapers in Cuba are published by the Stalinist regime.
13. Receive publications from abroad or from visitors. This is punishable by jail pursuant to Law 88.
14. Openly communicate with foreign journalists.
15. Visit or stay in hotels, restaurants, beaches or resorts for tourists. (regime permission is granted to a tiny number of regime hacks and toadies)
16. Accept gifts or donations from foreign visitors.
17. Seek employment with foreign companies allowed to do business in Cuba. (regime permission is required for employment with these accomplices with Stalinism.)
18. Own your own home or business.
19. Earn more than the wages established by the regime for all employees: $7-12 monthly for most jobs, $15-20 monthly for professionals, such as doctors and government officials.
20. Sell any personal belongings, services, homemade foods or crafts without regime permission…
21. Fish along the coastline or board a boat without regime permission.
22. Belong to any independent trade union. The regime controls all unions and no individual or collective bargaining is permitted; neither are strikes or protests.
23. Organize any artistic performance without regime permission. (Don’t look for this announced at the Sundance Film Festival but before Robert Redford released the Motorcycle Diaries he was mandated to travel to Cuba and give a special screening for approval to one of the film’s co/producers: Fidel Castro. So in effect, this Castroite provision can actually extend beyond Cuba’s borders.)
24. Select a doctor or hospital. The regime assigns them all.
25. Seek medical help outside of Cuba.
26. Hire an attorney. All are assigned by the regime.
28. Refuse to participate in an event or mass demonstration organized by the Communist Party. (Turn down such an “offer” and watch your food rations shrink and employment status crumble.)
29. Refuse to participate in “voluntary” work for adults and children. (see above)
30. Refuse to vote in a single party election featuring only Stalinist candidates nominated by the Stalinist regime.
31. Transport any food products for either personal or family consumption between provinces.
32. Slaughter a cow. This “felony” is sanctioned by five years imprisonment.
33. Purchase or sell real estate or land.
34. Select a career. In the selection process for universities (all of which belong to the Stalinist regime), regime apparatchiks select it for you, closely reviewing your record of “ideological purity,” as reported to them by regime snitches.
35. Invite a foreigner to spend the night at your home.
36. Buy milk in a regime outlet for any child older than seven years. Only Cuban children up to seven years of age have the right to pay a quota for milk. After that, parents can only obtain milk in the black market—if caught and their “ideological purity” (as reported by regime snitches) is in question, jail time is usually in the offing for the hapless Castro subject.
Today the world’s largest Che Guevara image adorns Cuba’s headquarters and torture chambers for its KGB and STASI-trained secret police. And cheeky free-spirit Johnny Depp seems delighted to flaunt this emblem from his pendants, shirts and kerchiefs. In a Vibe Magazine interview a few years back, Johnny Depp boasted of “digging” Che Guevara.
On the other hand, Venezuela’s youth see what’s coming with “Mission Che Guevara.” And as we saw in harrowing detail above—want no part of it.
“I bet you were expecting a Hollywood putz,” boasted Depp to his obsequious Vibe magazine interviewer who seemed dazzled by Depp’s penetrating sagacity. “Bet you expected some  commodity without a brain in his head!”
Nothing of the sort, Mr Depp. In such as Hollywood and Cannes, you tower as an exceptional intellectual commodity.
Related posts:

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 3)

A few years ago the movie “Che” was released and it praised the communist killer Che Guevara. Here is what Movie Guide had to say about it: “Armed Struggle” is the rallying cry of CHE, Steven Soderbergh’s four-hour tribute to the violent Communist tactics of guerrilla warrior Ernesto “Che” Guevaro. Divided into two parts, the […]

The real truth about Che Guevara from Nat Hentoff (Part 2)

Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Jun 9, 2011 Nat Hentoff is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/people/nat-hentoff In this clip, Hentoff describes the telling encounter he had when he met Ernesto “Che” Guevara in the late 1950s. Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg. View hi-res version Get the latest from Nat […]

The real truth about Che Guevara (Part 1)

  Humberto Fontova on Che Guevara part 2 Francis Schaeffer said about Communism: Communism, you know, is not basically an economic theory. It’s materialistic communism, which means that at the very heart of the Marx, Engels, Lenin kind of communism (because you have to put all three together to really understand) is the materialistic concept […]

“The Failure of Socialism” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 3)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full)

Published on Mar 19, 2012 by

Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you.

Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
 
 
 DISCUSSIONHello, I am Linda Chavez and welcome to Free to Choose. Joining Dr. Friedman for a discussion of the failure of socialism are Gary Becker from the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Bowles, I think we can all agree that socialism has failed Eastern Europe. Dr. Friedman believes that the path out of that is the free market and I think he thinks there are lessons for the United States. What do you think?Chavez: I would like to bring this discussion back to the United States for a moment. What about socialism in the United States. There has been one area where we have tried to redistribute wealth. We have done that through our welfare policies and social security. Has that worked?

Bowles: Well, there is much to celebrate in Eastern Europe __ not only the elimination of dictatorial rule. I go back on that a long time. I was in the Soviet Union in the late 50’s (1958 and 1959) as a musician and I met many Russian musicians and made friends with a lot of Russian people who found themselves harassed and victimized by the police. In fact, my own musical group was prevented from singing a couple of times by the police. That is all on the way out and I hope it is gone for good. Equally welcome is the end of this myth of a centrally planned society. That is gone too and I hope that basically the lesson is learned. But Milton seems to think that we have to choose between either a centrally planned society or a society in which we have markets which are basically unregulated. So the choice is really between all or nothing.

I don’t think that is the choice. I think what Milton is posing for us is a model which is as unrealistic as a centrally planned model. It is outdated, it won’t work, it is extreme, and I think it is undemocratic. I think that we have choices in between, what Milton called the third way, a way that he said wouldn’t work, has been shown to work around the world. I think that Eastern Europe would be very ill-advised to take Milton’s advise on this. Yet, the last time anybody took Milton’s advise on economic policy was Ronald Reagan and Ronald Reagan has put the U.S. economy into a situation where it can’t pay its bills and is facing mounting economic instability and difficulties.

Chavez: Dr. Friedman, what about this midway path?

Friedman: First of all, I utterly reject what Sam says about the results of Ronald Reagan’s changes. We had a decade of extraordinary growth, increased employment in which inflation was brought down sharply. Ronald Reagan came into office at a period of very high inflation, and so on. But this program is not about the Reagan administration. This program is about Eastern Europe and I want to go to Eastern Europe.

I believe Sam is completely wrong in saying that the model I propose is outdated. I believe that what he calls obsolete is something very different. You have had the third way __ you have had it in the United States; you have had it in Sweden; you have had it in Britain; you’ve had it elsewhere. In every case it has been built on the foundation of a long period of what I call the first way. The United States had 150 years of essentially a free private market before it launched on this period of the welfare state. The same thing was true in Britain, the same thing was true in Sweden. I believe he will find it very difficult to site any example of a country which started from a very low level and immediately adopted that combination of policies.

Becker: Let me add something on that. I think the lesson that we learned from what happened in Eastern Europe goes beyond simply that central planning doesn’t work. I think we all agree that it doesn’t work. But it is more than that __ it is the role of private property in the system and the incentives provided by private property.

I don’t know what socialism means anymore, but I remember when I was in Poland I asked the head of the ideology department is private property consistent with socialism? He said, it may be. Then I asked him, well what is the difference between socialism and capitalism. His answer was, we are still working on that. I think what we have seen is a rejection of the ideas associated with traditional socialism which are suppression of private property, government ownership of property, and so on.

Now, how far should we move in the other direction? I think that is question you are asking Sam, and is there a middle way. I think the middle ways that have been successful have all been largely reliant on private property, private ownership, private incentives. The difficult question is one that Milton raised in the documentary. How far can you redistribute income and make it consistent with effective incentives?

I don’t think we know the boundary point, whether 30% of the income being redistributed is too much, 40%, 50% __ my own feeling is that we have gone much too far in Sweden and some of the other Scandinavian countries, and they are beginning to step back from this. They are lowering maximum tax rates to 50% now __ they were up to 80%. So I think there is a third way, but that third way is going to be a lot closer to unregulated market than toward a socialist organization of resources and a suppression of private property.

Bowles: Let’s get back to the particulars though. You talk about Sweden and you talk about the third way failing, and Milton says nobody has ever really gotten rich on the third way __ they have only benefited from that. Let’s talk about the United States. The period you described included a very long period in which the United States was a highly protectionist country in which our industrial base was developed from Alexander Hamilton on for some time, and then during the late 19th and early 20th century. To call that a free market solution would be against everything you have taught. Or, if one wants to go back into the 19th century, the huge subsidies of the railroads were, of course, an intervention in the market.

In the case of England that you talk about, the same is true. The role of the British Navy and for example the Parliament in actually establishing the private property which is what you favor. This was done by a government intervention. We talk about the other cases. Talk about Sweden or about Korea. These are two countries which I think are justly admired for their economic performance. Both countries have income distributions far more equal than the United States.

In Sweden, over the half the GNP is taxed. Now, people in this country would say that obviously they have gone too far. But let’s look at the test of the market. Sweden and Korea have been defeating the United States in world markets. Exports have grown five percent per year during the Reagan/Bush years in Sweden. In the United States, they have grown one percent per year. In Korea we know they have grown much better. If you want to go on to Norway, where much of the investing is done by the government, they have grown their exports even faster than Sweden. Meanwhile, we can’t compete in world markets.

So the lesson of these countries is if you look at the facts Milton, a combination of government regulation and the market works. I agree with Gary. I think private property is extremely important because the incentives associated with owning the results of your work is essential. But private property does not mean that we have to let the market go unregulated and all the evidence says that the countries that are beating us in the world market today don’t do it. They are not that dumb. Japan doesn’t do it; Korea doesn’t do it; Sweden doesn’t do it.

Friedman: Let’s not throw straw men around. Obviously I am not in favor of no government. Government has some very important roles to play. Those are very limited. You take the case of the United States during the 19th century and of Britain in the 19th century. At the time of Queen Victoria’s jubilee in 1899, total government spending in Britain was 10% of the national income. Up until 1929 in the United States, except for periods of great war, total government spending in the United States was about 10% of national income. Now that is a very far cry from a government which spends over half of the national income . . . . and a little less than half in the United States.

Bowles: You are opposed to capital controls. You are opposed to telling people they can’t move their money internationally. That is what Korea does. You are opposed to . . .

Friedman: I think Korea makes a mistake by doing it.

Bowles: Korea has beaten us by exactly the policies you are posing.

Friedman: So has Hong Kong. Hong Kong has beaten us by the policies I am proposing.

Bowles: . . . if Korea is not a middle way and if Sweden is not a middle way, then I would like to know what you call it.

Becker: Korea is a lot closer to a market-oriented economy than any of the economies we have been talking about.

Bowles: The government approves the heads of the banks in Korea. They have nationalized their steel industry and have one of the most efficient plants in the world at Palhang. If you call that a private economy . . .

Becker: What fraction of resources in Korea goes through the government?

Bowles: A tremendous fraction if you take account of the fact that the banks are centrally run and they control the credit allocations there and they don’t let people take their money out of the . . .