Monthly Archives: June 2012

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

June 7, 2012 – 6:42 am

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.

Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from History

July 14, 2011

 

Abstract: Attempts at passing a balanced budget amendment (BBA) date back to the 1930s, and all have been unsuccessful. Both parties carry some of the blame: The GOP too often has been neglectful of the issue, and the Democratic Left, recognizing a threat to big government, has stalled and obfuscated, attempting to water down any proposals to mandate balanced budgets. On the occasion of the July 2011 vote on a new proposed BBA, former Representative from Oklahoma Ernest Istook presents lessons from history.

A proposed balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution is set to be considered by Congress this July—the first such vote since 1997.

The BBA is a powerful proposal that attracts great vitriol from the American Left, which recognizes it as an enormous threat to its big-government ways—perhaps the greatest threat. For that reason, the history of Congress’s work on a BBA is full of frustrations, high-profile defections, reversals, and betrayals.

This paper discusses that history. It also describes some of the milktoast versions and amendments that have been offered to gut the BBA while providing political cover for those who are unwilling to support a robust version.

Brief History

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.”[1] Yet according to the Congressional Research Service,[2] the first balanced budget amendment was not proposed until 1936, when Representative Harold Knutson (R–MN) introduced House Joint Resolution 579, proposing a per capita limit on federal debt.

No BBA measure passed either body of Congress until 1982, when the Senate took 11 days to consider it and mustered the necessary two-thirds majority on the version crafted by Senator Strom Thurmond (R–SC).[3] A companion measure received a vote of 236 to 187 in the House—short of the required two-thirds. Despite opposition from Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill (D–MA), the floor vote was obtained by means of a discharge petition led by Representatives Barber Conable (R–NY) and Ed Jenkins (D–GA).[4]

Subsequently, continuing opposition from Speaker O’Neill and his successor, Jim Wright (D–TX), prompted creative use of discharge petitions to circumvent leadership opposition. Several House votes were held in the early 1990s, when Representative Charles Stenholm (D–TX) led bipartisan coalitions to force Democratic leaders to permit (unsuccessful) floor votes. At the time, even prominent Democrats such as Representative Joseph Kennedy (MA) openly supported the BBA and voted for it. There were multiple House and Senate votes, but all were unsuccessful.[5]

The first and only time the House gave two-thirds approval to a balanced budget amendment was in 1995, when Members voted for the “Contract with America” that helped Republicans win major congressional majorities. That was the last time the House held a floor or committee vote. Since then, the Senate has failed twice—each time by a single vote—to gather the two-thirds needed.[6]

Defections Block BBA Approval

Three Senators were the key defectors who prevented Congress from approving a balanced budget amendment in the 1990s. One actually had never supported it and bucked his party to oppose it. The other two flip-flopped in order to go along with their party in opposing the BBA.

First, in 1995, Senator Mark Hatfield (R–OR) took the heat when he would not join his party in support of a BBA. But Hatfield’s vote would have been unnecessary had Senator Tom Daschle (D–SD) not reversed years of prior support to oppose the BBA at President Bill Clinton’s urging.

Then, in 1997, the measure again failed by a single vote in the Senate when newly elected Senator Robert Torricelli (D–NJ) broke his campaign pledge and refused to support the same BBA that he had supported as a House member.[7]

More recently, many House Democrats who voted for the BBA in 1995 are now saying they will vote no in 2011. Most notable among these is House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D–MD).

Senate Defections

Senator Hatfield called the BBA a “political gimmick,” and his high-profile defection broke GOP party unity. Less noticed was that his opposition could have been a moot point. Then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R–KS) told The New York Times that Hatfield offered to resign before the vote—a resignation that would have produced a 66-to-33 victory for the BBA—but Dole refused to accept the resignation offer.[8]

Still, with or without Hatfield’s vote or resignation, the BBA would have prevailed in the 1995 Senate vote were it not for Senator Daschle’s reversal. That flip-flop is described in a book about his later ousting from office by the voters:

Although the balanced budget amendment had not been a major issue nationally for several years, it provided a striking contrast between Daschle’s first campaign in 1978 and his early career in Congress, when he consistently promoted the amendment, and his later years in the Senate. During his last competitive Senate bid in 1986, Daschle ran a television ad saying that “in 1979, Tom Daschle saw the damage these deficits could do to our country. His first official act was to sponsor a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget.” In 1992, Daschle’s campaign literature touted the “Daschle Plan,” which included the balanced budget amendment: “In 1979, before it became popular, I was pushing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was my first official action, and I’ve authored or coauthored one every year.” In 1995, the amendment had the support of sixty-six of the sixty-seven senators needed for passage, but Daschle voted against it because of opposition from the Clinton administration…. When pressed on the amendment in the last [2004] television debate, Daschle said that he had opposed the bill in the 1990s because there were no provisions in the amendment allowing for emergencies such as war. But the record showed that there was an emergency clause.[9]

In 2011, Daschle has penned several articles denouncing the BBA, complaining that it would make the country’s fiscal crisis even worse and would tie lawmakers’ hands.[10]

The 1997 effort to approve the BBA failed in the Senate by a single vote, just as it had in 1995. This time it was Senator Torricelli doing the political acrobatics. As the New York Daily News described it:

Sen. Robert Torricelli (D–N.J.) yesterday announced he will vote against the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution giving Democrats the one-vote margin they need to kill it. The freshman senator flipped on his campaign pledge to support the amendment and on his own past voting record in the House in favor of similar proposals. “I have struggled with this decision more than any I have ever made in my life,” Torricelli said…

Torricelli acknowledged that he had campaigned in support of the amendment to win his Senate seat last year and had voted three times in favor of similar amendments as a House member. But he said President Clinton’s efforts in bringing down annual budget deficits from $300 billion to $100 billion, and the President’s commitment to a balanced budget by 2002, had relieved the pressure for a constitutional amendment.[11]

Trying to give himself political cover, Torricelli tried but failed to get the Senate to support a loophole-riddled version.

House Reversals

Chief among Representatives who supported a BBA in 1995 but say they will actively oppose it in 2011 is Representative Hoyer. In 1995, he even helped to garner votes for the BBA. As the Baltimore Sun reported at the time, “‘The issue of a balanced budget is not a conservative one or a liberal one, and it is not an easy one,’ said Mr. Hoyer, who said he fears the consequences of a national debt that is headed toward $5 trillion. ‘But it is an essential one.’”[12] Arguing for the BBA on the House floor in 1995, Hoyer said:

[T]his country confronts a critical threat caused by the continuation of large annual deficits…. I am absolutely convinced that the long term consequences of refusing to come to grips with the necessity to balance our budget will be catastrophic…. [T]hose who will pay the highest price for our fiscal irresponsibility, should we fail, will be those least able to protect themselves, and the children of today and the generations of tomorrow.[13]

Hoyer reversed course after rising to high leadership within his party, as did Daschle. Daschle did a turnaround against the same language he previously had supported. Hoyer, however, argued that the latest 2011 version (with tax limitation and size-of-government limits) had gone beyond what he originally supported in 1995:

It would require drastic and harmful cuts to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, programs that form the heart of America’s social compact…. Unlike previous balanced budget amendments, this amendment would mean great pain for ordinary Americans, even as it shielded the most privileged from any comparable sacrifice. It is not a solution to our nation’s pressing fiscal challenges.[14]

It is an open question how other Democrats who supported the 1995 version of the BBA will vote on the tougher 2011 version.[15] They include another member of the current Democratic House leadership, James Clyburn (SC).

The GOP was also guilty of abandoning the BBA—by neglect. The BBA had been the number one item on its Contract with America legislative agenda in 1994, but after the single (and successful) 1995 House vote, House GOP leaders refused all entreaties to bring it up again. No House or Senate vote has been held since Torricelli’s dramatic about-face in 1997.

For part of the time while Republican leaders were dormant on a BBA, the budget was balanced. Rather than spotting an opportunity to cement that condition into a permanent requirement, however, some saw it as proving that a BBA is not needed.

During that time when the federal budget was balanced without a BBA requirement (fiscal years 1998–2001),[16] Congress had political incentives to maintain that balance. However, after 9/11, Washington not only ramped up national security spending, but also let other spending rise significantly. The prevailing notion seemed to be that if the budget was not balanced, then it mattered little just how far out of balance it was.

That experience illustrates not only the need for a proper BBA, but also the need for any national security exceptions to be drafted narrowly, to permit deficits only to the extent necessary to provide for non-routine defense circumstances and not to justify unrelated deficit spending.

Watering Down the BBA

The versions of the BBA to be voted on in 2011 are improvements over the Contract with America. Because of this strengthening, the current versions are described herein as “BBA-plus.”[17]

Simply put, the additional features require a supermajority to raise taxes; create limits on the level of federal spending (as a percentage of the national economy); tighten the permitted and limited exceptions to a balanced budget; and limit the potential for judicially imposed tax increases as a means of enforcement.

According to their strictness, different variations in proposed texts could be considered good, better, and best, with a full-featured BBA-plus being the best. But the greater the strictures, the more difficult passage becomes. Many pro-BBA lawmakers have therefore introduced and supported versions that were not as strong as they prefer but have greater likelihood of adoption.

These variations also create potential for mischief. Because they recognize the huge popular support for the BBA, many opponents have attempted to offer amendments and variations that would water down or emasculate the provisions of the BBA so that they could posture as supporters while justifying their “no” votes. The following is a historical synopsis of those tactics.

Taking Social Security Off-Budget. The most prominently advanced effort to weaken a BBA is a provision to separate Social Security payments and receipts from the requirements for a balanced budget. Amendments to do so were offered in both the House and Senate from 1995 to 1997. Senator Harry Reid (D–NV) was a principal leader of that effort in 1997.

Reid and others argued that removing Social Security from a BBA would protect the program from spending cuts. They argued that its funds do not actually constitute government spending since the program involves a trust fund. This ignored the fact that the entirety of the trust fund has been invested in federal bonds and that all of the borrowed money has been spent. Furthermore, during the 1990s, the Social Security program was producing annual surpluses ranging from $60 billion to $65 billion, which disguised deficit spending elsewhere. Today, Social Security runs an annual deficit.

If Social Security were removed from a BBA’s requirements, Congress would be approving major deficit spending while not counting it as a deficit. Politicians would only be pretending to have balanced the budget. As the Congressional Budget Office reported this past January, “Excluding interest, surpluses for Social Security become deficits of $45 billion in 2011 and $547 billion over the 2012–2021 period.”[18]

The Torricelli Ploy. As previously mentioned, the most transparent ploy to create an excuse for opposing the BBA came in 1997 from newly elected Senator Robert Torricelli. As a House member, he had voted for a substitute version and also voted “yea” on final passage of the Contract with America BBA in 1995. He campaigned for the Senate in 1996 as a BBA supporter.

As heads were counted for the 1997 Senate vote, it was apparent that Torricelli and Senator Mary Landrieu (D–LA), both previous BBA supporters, were the swing votes. If both voted “yea,” the necessary two-thirds would be achieved in the Senate. President Clinton lobbied both Senators to vote “nay.” Landrieu announced that she would vote yes, and Torricelli announced that he would vote no. Reporters openly asked him whether “he drew the short straw.”

In a move that was publicly derided, Torricelli offered an amendment to the BBA on the Senate floor and then announced he would vote no because the amendment failed. Then, minutes later in a news conference, he undercut his own explanation by stating that in the future, he would vote no on all Republican versions of a BBA and yes on all Democratic versions.

Torricelli’s unsuccessful amendment would have waived the balanced budget requirement whenever a simple majority in Congress declared “an imminent and serious military threat” or “a period of economic recession or significant economic hardship” or when Congress chose to approve deficit spending for “investments in major public physical capital that provides long-term economic benefits.”[19] The three-pronged nature of Torricelli’s effort was a lumping together of provisions that were also offered separately in both the House and Senate by others.

Other Diluting Amendments. The following is a sampling of other proposals offered on the House or Senate floors during the 1995–1997 considerations:[20]

  • Representative Robert Wise (D–WV) offered a multifaceted substitute that would have provided for separate federal capital and operating budgets; would have required that only the operating budget be balanced; would have exempted Social Security from balanced budget calculations; and would have permitted Congress to waive the balanced budget provisions in times of war, military conflict, or recession.
  • Senator Richard Durbin (D–IL) tried to insert the following language into the BBA: “The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which there is an economic recession or serious economic emergency in the United States as declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.”
  • Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA) proposed, “The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which there is a declaration made by the President (and a designation by the Congress) that a major disaster or emergency exists, adopted by a majority vote in each House of those present and voting.”
  • Representative Major Owens (D–NY) wanted “to allow a majority of Congress to waive the balanced budget provisions contained in the joint resolution in any fiscal year that the national unemployment rate exceeds 4 percent.”
  • Representative John Conyers (D–MI) wanted to require a detailed plan of spending cuts before balance could be required, proposing “to exempt Social Security from balanced budget calculations; and provide that before the constitutional amendment could take effect, Congress would be required to pass legislation showing what the budget will be for the fiscal years 1996 through 2002, containing aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, reserves, and the deficit and surplus, as well as new budget authority and outlays on an account-by-account basis.”
  • Representative David Bonior (D–MI) tried not only to exempt Social Security from the calculations, but also to require only a simple constitutional majority vote (218 in the House, 51 in the Senate) to allow deficit spending.
  • Additional amendments were more straightforward, such as whether a supermajority would or would not be required to raise taxes under the BBA. The House Rules Committee screened out 38 proposed floor amendments; only six were permitted.

Conclusion

History shows that the potency of a balanced budget amendment attracts fervent efforts to confuse the issues, especially by creating counterfeit versions and exceptions to provide political cover. Proponents of a BBA should prepare accordingly.

If not for high-profile political defections in the mid-1990s, the BBA would have been approved by Congress. Had it then been ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states, today’s debates over borrowing limits, entitlements, and spending levels would be greatly different, if not absent.

However, the versions considered in the ’90s were notably weaker than both the House and Senate versions of the BBA-plus now being considered. Had an earlier version been adopted, today’s debate might be about efforts by Congress to evade the spirit of the BBA by exploiting loopholes in that earlier version. This is why vigilance is necessary to prevent the insertion of loopholes into the language of a BBA-plus.

Those who do not learn from the failures of history are doomed to repeat them.

— The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr., a former Member of Congress, is Distinguished Fellow in Government Studies in the Department of Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

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

Dred Scott case wrongly took away human rights just as we take them away from our unborn children today

June 7, 2012 – 5:48 am

Answering Those Who Are Only “Personally Pro-Life” – Quick Thought

Uploaded by on Apr 28, 2010

Ana Benderas of Live Action addresses those who are personally against abortion but believe that others should be able to take the life on unborn children. Learn more about Live Action at: http://LiveAction.org

_____________

When you look back at history in the USA and see court cases like the Dred Scott case then you will realize that humans must be given their rights. Blacks deserve them and so do the unborn children in their mother’s body. There is no way to say these cases are different.

abortion_baby Abortion and Human RightsGreg convincingly describes how the issue of abortion is truly no different than the issue of slavery. The issue to be considered is the issue of human rights.  By: Gregory Koukl
Let me ask you a question. Are you against slavery? Do you believe that the issue of slavery is a moral position? Are laws legislating that particular moral position appropriate? What you’ve said is that it’s appropriate to legislate certain moral issues and that you’d be in favor of that. The economic issue would actually be on the side of the South because slavery is what propped up the economic system of the South. When slaves were emancipated it gutted them of their economic force. Let’s remove the economic argument.Based solely on morality, are you willing to say that the moral issue of slavery should be enforced simply as a moral issue? This is a very important point. Many people have offered the objection that we should not force a particular morality in the issue of abortion. My questions are very pointed and leading, and they were simply to make the point that virtually everybody who makes that kind of objection actually does believe that there are cases in which morality should be legislated. We talked about the obvious issue of slavery because there is the human rights issue that is at stake.

divider

The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights.

divider

My encouragement to you and anyone else who would espouse the same position is to understand that the pro-life side is arguing this issue on the basis of human rights. The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights. If that is the case, it is just as appropriate for us to legislate on the abortion issue as it is in the slavery issue. It’s not just a casual parallel because in 1859 Judge Taney on the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision that declared that black people were not human beings and did not deserve protection under the law. That was a Supreme Court decision that was later overturned by The Emancipation Proclamation.The point I’m making is that if you don’t address this issue on a human rights basis then you’re not addressing it on the basis that pro-lifers are addressing it. The questions should be asked about the appropriateness of abortion or about laws against abortion based on a human rights issue. To be honest with you, I and virtually every other pro-lifer will abandon the fight if the unborn child is not a human being worthy of being protected. We’re not interested in getting into people’s bedrooms and telling them how to have sex and how to live. We’re not interested in restricting choices because we are bigoted and want to make people’s lives miserable. We’re interested in human rights just like those who argued against slavery.

If you are to reject my position on abortion, that’s your prerogative. I respect your right to do that. But I would encourage you to engage intellectually the real critical issue: is the unborn child a human being? If you can answer for yourself with some rationality that there is no reason to believe that this is a human being, then I think you’ve justified your position. But I don’t think the simple objection that it’s not appropriate for one person to force their morality on someone else is ultimately legitimate. When questioned a little bit you acknowledge that that’s not a valid way of approaching human rights issues.

What about cases of rape and incest?

divider

During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn’t be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn’t tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue.

divider

I don’t say that it’s permissible in those cases. I think you’re pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue. If we don’t do that we are not doing the issue justice.But what I don’t want anybody to do is to mistakenly frame this issue as one of choice. It is not an issue of choice any more than slavery was an issue of choice. It’s not an issue of what a woman can do with her body. Frankly, a woman can’t do what she wants with her own body and neither can men. Laws restrict those freedoms given the right set of circumstances.

The issue to be considered here is the issue of human rights. It’s unfortunate that the press and certain people arguing for one position have framed the question differently because they have missed the entire point. During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn’t be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn’t tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue. Even then when you had a living, breathing human being standing there staring back, they still could argue that way. I’m not a bit surprised that it could be done with an unseen infant that is growing out of sight in the womb of its mother.

Anyway that’s my personal challenge to you to rethink this issue in a different fashion.

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. ©1992 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

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

Should the 10 Commandments be banned from public life?(Part 6, David Barton’s Affidavit in support on 10 Commandments)

June 7, 2012 – 1:09 am

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 God’s name.

33. Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing:

Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.

34. In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:

The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.

The court then noted that its State’s laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:

The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . “ He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.

35. The Decalogue’s influence on profanity and blasphemy laws was reaffirmed by subsequent courts, such as the 1921 Supreme Court of Maine, the 1944 Supreme Court of Florida, and others.

36. Many additional sources may be cited, but it is clear that the civil laws against both profanity and blasphemy-many of which are still in force today-were originally derived from the divine law and the Ten Commandments. These examples unquestionably demonstrate that the third commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Comments (0)

Charles Murray: Do we need the Dept of Education? (Part 3)

June 7, 2012 – 12:34 am

Another great article from Hillsdale College. Today we look at the Dept of Education. This is a three part series from Charles Murray. Here is part three:

January 2012

Charles Murray
American Enterprise Institute

Do We Need the Department of Education?

Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He received his B.A. in history at Harvard University and his Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has written for numerous newspapers and journals, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and National Review. His books include Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, What It Means to Be a Libertarian, and Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality. His new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, will be published at the end of January.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2011, at a conference on “Markets, Government, and the Common Good,” sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.

THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.

(The last two parts were covered earlier.)

(3) So what is the federal government’s track record in education?

The most obvious way to look at the track record is the long-term trend data of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Consider, for instance, the results for the math test for students in fourth, eighth and twelfth grades from 1978 through 2004. The good news is that the scores for fourth graders showed significant improvement in both reading and math—although those gains diminished slightly as the children got older. The bad news is that the baseline year of 1978 represents the nadir of the test score decline from the mid-1960s through the 1970s. Probably we are today about where we were in math achievement in the 1960s. For reading, the story is even bleaker. The small gains among fourth graders diminish by eighth grade and vanish by the twelfth grade. And once again, the baseline tests in the 1970s represent a nadir.

From 1942 through the 1990s, the state of Iowa administered a consistent and comprehensive test to all of its public school students in grade school, middle school, and high school—making it, to my knowledge, the only state in the union to have good longitudinal data that go back that far. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills offers not a sample, but an entire state population of students. What can we learn from a single state? Not much, if we are mainly interested in the education of minorities—Iowa from 1942 through 1970 was 97 percent white, and even in the 2010 census was 91 percent white. But, paradoxically, that racial homogeneity is also an advantage, because it sidesteps all the complications associated with changing ethnic populations.

Since retention through high school has changed greatly over the last 70 years, I will consider here only the data for ninth graders. What the data show is that when the federal government decided to get involved on a large scale in K-12 education in 1965, Iowa’s education had been improving substantially since the first test was administered in 1942. There is reason to think that the same thing had been happening throughout the country. As I documented in my book, Real Education, collateral data from other sources are not as detailed, nor do they go back to the 1940s, but they tell a consistent story. American education had been improving since World War II. Then, when the federal government began to get involved, it got worse.

I will not try to make the case that federal involvement caused the downturn. The effort that went into programs associated with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the early years was not enough to have changed American education, and the more likely causes for the downturn are the spirit of the 1960s—do your own thing—and the rise of progressive education to dominance over American public education. But this much can certainly be said: The overall data on the performance of American K-12 students give no reason to think that federal involvement, which took the form of the Department of Education after 1979, has been an engine of improvement.

What about the education of the disadvantaged, especially minorities? After all, this was arguably the main reason that the federal government began to get involved in education—to reduce the achievement gap separating poor children and rich children, and especially the gap separating poor black children and the rest of the country.

The most famous part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was Title I, initially authorizing more than a billion dollars annually (equivalent to more than $7 billion today) to upgrade the schools attended by children from low-income families. The program has continued to grow ever since, disposing of about $19 billion in 2010 (No Child Left Behind has also been part of Title I).

Supporters of Title I confidently expected to see progress, and so formal evaluation of Title I was built into the legislation from the beginning. Over the years, the evaluations became progressively more ambitious and more methodologically sophisticated. But while the evaluations have improved, the story they tell has not changed. Despite being conducted by people who wished the program well, no evaluation of Title I from the 1970s onward has found credible evidence of a significant positive impact on student achievement. If one steps back from the formal evaluations and looks at the NAEP test score gap between high-poverty schools (the ones that qualify for Title I support) and low-poverty schools, the implications are worse. A study by the Department of Education published in 2001 revealed that the gap grew rather than diminished from 1986—the earliest year such comparisons have been made—through 1999.

That brings us to No Child Left Behind. Have you noticed that no one talks about No Child Left Behind any more? The explanation is that its one-time advocates are no longer willing to defend it. The nearly-flat NAEP trendlines since 2002 make that much-ballyhooed legislative mandate—a mandate to bring all children to proficiency in math and reading by 2014—too embarrassing to mention.

In summary: the long, intrusive, expensive role of the federal government in K-12 education does not have any credible evidence for a positive effect on American education.

* * *

I have chosen to focus on K-12 because everyone agrees that K-12 education leaves much to be desired in this country and that it is reasonable to hold the government’s feet to the fire when there is no evidence that K-12 education has improved. When we turn to post-secondary education, there is much less agreement on first principles.

The bachelor of arts degree as it has evolved over the last half-century has become the work of the devil. It is now a substantively meaningless piece of paper—genuinely meaningless, if you don’t know where the degree was obtained and what courses were taken. It is expensive, too, as documented by the College Board: Public four-year colleges average about $7,000 per year in tuition, not including transportation, housing, and food. Tuition at the average private four-year college is more than $27,000 per year. And yet the B.A. has become the minimum requirement for getting a job interview for millions of jobs, a cost-free way for employers to screen for a certain amount of IQ and perseverance. Employers seldom even bother to check grades or courses, being able to tell enough about a graduate just by knowing the institution that he or she got into as an 18-year-old.

So what happens when a paper credential is essential for securing a job interview, but that credential can be obtained by taking the easiest courses and doing the minimum amount of work? The result is hundreds of thousands of college students who go to college not to get an education, but to get a piece of paper. When the dean of one East Coast college is asked how many students are in his institution, he likes to answer, “Oh, maybe six or seven.” The situation at his college is not unusual. The degradation of American college education is not a matter of a few parents horrified at stories of silly courses, trivial study requirements, and campus binge drinking. It has been documented in detail, affects a large proportion of the students in colleges, and is a disgrace.

The Department of Education, with decades of student loans and scholarships for university education, has not just been complicit in this evolution of the B.A. It has been its enabler. The size of these programs is immense. In 2010, the federal government issued new loans totaling $125 billion. It handed out more than eight million Pell Grants totaling more than $32 billion dollars. Absent this level of intervention, the last three decades would have seen a much healthier evolution of post-secondary education that focused on concrete job credentials and courses of studies not constricted by the traditional model of the four-year residential college. The absence of this artificial subsidy would also have let market forces hold down costs. Defenders of the Department of Education can unquestionably make the case that its policies have increased the number of people going to four-year residential colleges. But I view that as part of the Department of Education’s indictment, not its defense.

* * *

What other case might be made for federal involvement in education? Its contributions to good educational practice? Think of the good things that have happened to education in the last 30 years—the growth of homeschooling and the invention and spread of charter schools. The Department of Education had nothing to do with either development. Both happened because of the initiatives taken by parents who were disgusted with standard public education and took matters into their own hands. To watch the process by which charter schools are created, against the resistance of school boards and administrators, is to watch the best of American traditions in operation. Government has had nothing to do with it, except as a drag on what citizens are trying to do for their children.

Think of the best books on educational practice, such as Howard Gardner’s many innovative writings and E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Curriculum, developed after his landmark book, Cultural Literacy, was published in 1987. None of this came out of the Department of Education. The Department of Education spends about $200 million a year on research intended to improve educational practice. No evidence exists that these expenditures have done any significant good.

As far as I can determine, the Department of Education has no track record of positive accomplishment—nothing in the national numbers on educational achievement, nothing in the improvement of educational outcomes for the disadvantaged, nothing in the advancement of educational practice. It just spends a lot of money. This brings us to the practical question: If the Department of Education disappeared from next year’s budget, would anyone notice? The only reason that anyone would notice is the money. The nation’s public schools have developed a dependence on the federal infusion of funds. As a practical matter, actually doing away with the Department of Education would involve creating block grants so that school district budgets throughout the nation wouldn’t crater.

Sadly, even that isn’t practical. The education lobby will prevent any serious inroads on the Department of Education for the foreseeable future. But the answer to the question posed in the title of this talk—“Do we need the Department of Education?”—is to me unambiguous: No.

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

What was D Day really like for those soldiers who took the beach?

June 6, 2012 – 7:22 am

Saving Private Ryan Omaha Beach Full Scene HD Part 1

I have no idea what it was like to take the beach at Omaha. However, of all the movies and films I have seen and history books I have read, the opening clips from the movie “Saving Private Ryan” come closest to the horrible conditions our allied soldiers went up against on that day 68 years ago.

Saving Private Ryan opens with a 30-minute cinematic tour de force that is without a doubt one of the finest half-hours ever committed to film. This sequence, a soldier’s-eye view of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, is brilliant not only in terms of technique but in the depth of viewer reaction it generates. It is certainly the most violent, gory, visceral depiction of war that I have ever witnessed on screen. Spielberg spares the viewer nothing of the horrors of battle, using every tactic at his disposal to convey the chaos and senseless waste that lies at the core of any engagement. We are presented with unforgettable, bloody images of bodies being cut to pieces by bullets, limbs blown off, entrails spilling out, and a variety of other assorted examples of carnage. And, when the tide comes in with the waves breaking on the body-strewn beach, the water is crimson. Those who are at all squeamish will find the opening of Saving Private Ryan unbearable. This aspect of the film almost earned it an NC-17 rating; only the fact that Spielberg rigorously avoids even a hint of exploitation convinced the MPAA to award an R.

In addition to showing what happens when projectiles rip into the soft flesh of the human body, the director employs other methods to capture the essence of battle – hand-held cameras, a slight speeding up of the images, muted colors, and several different kinds of film stock. Put it all together, and it adds up to a dizzying, exhausting assault on the senses. As good as the rest of Saving Private Ryan is, and it’s very good, the D-Day attack on Omaha Beach is the sequence that everyone will remember most clearly.

D-Day Landings: June 6, 1944

By dawn on June 6, thousands of paratroopers and glider troops were already on the ground behind enemy lines, securing bridges and exit roads. The amphibious invasions began at 6:30 a.m. The British and Canadians overcame light opposition to capture beaches codenamed Gold, Juno and Sword, as did the Americans at Utah Beach. U.S. forces faced heavy resistance at Omaha Beach, where there were over 2,000 American casualties. However, by day’s end, approximately 156,000 Allied troops had successfully stormed Normandy’s beaches. According to some estimates, more than 4,000 Allied troops lost their lives in the D-Day invasion, with thousands more wounded or missing.

Less than a week later, on June 11, the beaches were fully secured and over 326,000 troops, more than 50,000 vehicles and some 100,000 tons of equipment had landed at Normandy.

For their part, the Germans suffered from confusion in the ranks and the absence of celebrated commander Rommel, who was away on leave. At first, Hitler, believing the invasion was a feint designed to distract the Germans from a coming attack north of the Seine River, refused to release nearby divisions to join the counterattack. Reinforcements had to be called from further afield, causing delays. He also hesitated in calling for armored divisions to help in the defense. Moreover, the Germans were hampered by effective Allied air support, which took out many key bridges and forced the Germans to take long detours, as well as efficient Allied naval support, which helped protect advancing Allied troops.

In the ensuing weeks, the Allies fought their way across the Normandy countryside in the face of determined German resistance, as well as a dense landscape of marshes and hedgerows. By the end of June, the Allies had seized the vital port of Cherbourg, landed approximately 850,000 men and 150,000 vehicles in Normandy, and were poised to continue their march across France.

Victory in Normandy

By the end of August 1944, the Allies had reached the Seine River, Paris was liberated and the Germans had been removed from northwestern France, effectively concluding the Battle of Normandy. The Allied forces then prepared to enter Germany, where they would meet up with Soviet troops moving in from the east.

The Normandy invasion began to turn the tide against the Nazis. A significant psychological blow, it also prevented Hitler from sending troops from France to build up his Eastern Front against the advancing Soviets. The following spring, on May 8, 1945, the Allies formally accepted the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. Hitler had committed suicide a week earlier, on April 30.

An American soldier wades through water under heavy artillery and machine-gun fire to reach the beach on the Normandy coast of France, June 6, 1944. It turned out to be the biggest and most important Allied amphibious operation of World War II. (AP Photo/Files-Wartime Pool/Robert Capa)

Photo by ROBERT CAPA

An American soldier wades through water under heavy artillery and machine-gun fire to reach the beach on the Normandy coast of France, June 6, 1944. It turned out to be the biggest and most important Allied amphibious operation of World War II. (AP Photo/Files-Wartime Pool/Robert Capa)

Related posts:

War Heroes from Arkansas can be found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

January 5, 2013 – 4:17 am

Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in War Heroes | Comments (0)

War Heroes from Arkansas can be found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

November 27, 2012 – 12:31 pm

Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in War Heroes | Comments (0)

War Heroes from Arkansas can be found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

August 9, 2012 – 4:17 am

Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in War Heroes | Comments (0)

Louis Zamperini: Great American War Hero gave good interview to Jay Leno on Tonight Show last night

June 8, 2012 – 6:39 am

Last night on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno I saw this amazing interview of Louis Zamperini. He is truly a great American war hero. Book review: ‘Devil at My Heels’ by Louis Zamperini and David Rensin The author, who spent two years during World War II in Japanese POW camps, tells his life story […]

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

War Hero Joe Speaks and D Day pictures

June 8, 2011 – 1:53 pm

 Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in War Heroes | Comments (0)

Still Paying for the Civil War by Michael M. Phillips

June 3, 2014 – 7:36 am

In 1968 I saw the unranked Ole Miss Rebels defeat the #3 ranked Tennessee Vols in Jackson Mississippi at a highly anticipated game where Archie Manning stole the day as the Rebel quarterback. Little did I know that Lester McClain who was the Vols’ first black player in 1968 was on the field and that […]

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

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 17 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part C (Feature on artist David Hockney plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

April 18, 2014 – 7:37 am

________________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason   Francis Schaeffer- How Should We Then Live? -8- The Age of Fragmentation Joseph Rozak· https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEmwy_dI2j0   ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________ Miles Davis and Andy below: ______________________ Dali and Warhol below: ________- __________________ Francis Schaeffer with his son Franky pictured below. Francis and Edith (who passed away in 2013) opened L’ Abri in 1955 in Switzerland. How Should […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  | Comments (0)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 16 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part B (Feature on artist James Rosenquist plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

April 11, 2014 – 6:14 am

_________ John, Yoko and Warhol pictured below: ________________________ The Clash meets Warhol: ______________________ ________________ ________ Andy Warhol and members of The Factory: Gerard Malanga, poet; Viva, actress; Paul Morrissey, director; Taylor Mead, actor; Brigid Polk, actress; Joe Dallesandro, actor; Andy Warhol, artist, New York, October 9, 1969 (picture below)   _____________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  | Comments (0)

The Death of a (Former) Atheist — Antony Flew, 1923-2010 Antony Flew’s rejection of atheism is an encouragement, but his rejection of Christianity is a warning. Rejecting atheism is simply not enough, by Al Mohler

January 10, 2014 – 3:47 pm

Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 ______________________ Making Sense of Faith and Science Uploaded on May 16, 2008 Dr. H. Fritz Schaefer confronts the assertion that one cannot believe […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged  | Comments (0)

One of my biggest pro-life heroes in Little Rock is my good friend Dr. Orman Simmons.

October 29, 2013 – 6:47 am

One of my biggest pro-life heroes in Little Rock is my good friend Dr. Orman Simmons. Dr. Orman Winfield Simmons An obstetrician/gynecologist whose faith guides his practice, Simmons says he has brought several thousand people into this world. By Linda Haymes This article was published June 23, 2013 at 2:55 a.m. There has been one steadfast […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Comments (0)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, War Heroes | Comments (0)

D Day was 68 years ago, Joe Speaks of Arkansas was captured twice during the European battles

June 6, 2012 – 7:15 am

—

File:117th Infantry North Carolina NG at St. Vith 1945.jpg

American soldiers of the 117th Infantry Regiment, Tennessee National Guard, part of the 30th Infantry Division, move past a destroyed American M5A1 “Stuart” tank on their march to recapture the town of St. Vith during the Battle of the Bulge, January 1945

—
I have so much respect for war heroes and I wanted to remember them today which 68 years after D Day. Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans.

American GI's clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France's Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied D-Day invasion to chase German forces out of France. An armada of landing vessels sits in the background under barrage balloons. (AP Photo/Wartime Pool)

Photo by Associated Press

American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied D-Day invasion to chase German forces out of France. An armada of landing vessels sits in the background under barrage balloons. (AP Photo/Wartime Pool)

If you would like to read some great stories about some fine soldiers who fought to defend our country then click on the links below. All the soldiers are from Arkansas and I have been writing their stories for a local paper called “The Benton Courier” (now known as “The Saline Courier”).

A U.S. Coast Guard landing barge, tightly packed with helmeted soldiers, approaches the shore at Normandy, France, during initial Allied landing operations, June 6, 1944. These barges ride back and forth across the English Channel, bringing wave after wave of reinforcement troops to the Allied beachheads. (AP Photo)

Photo by Associated Press

A U.S. Coast Guard landing barge, tightly packed with helmeted soldiers, approaches the shore at Normandy, France, during initial Allied landing operations, June 6, 1944. These barges ride back and forth across the English Channel, bringing wave after wave of reinforcement troops to the Allied beachheads. (AP Photo)

Story of Joe Speaks:

On Sunday June 27th, 2010 in the article “Heroes among us,” Benton Courier, there was a story about Larry’s father Joe. Here is a portion of that article:

Larry Joe Speaks of Cabot is my wife’s cousin, and recently he told me about his father’s time in World War II. Joe Speaks (originally from Waldron , Ark. ) arrived in Normandy six days after D-Day (June 6, 1944), and he was involved in the Battle of the Bulge and he fought at Bastogne . The Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest of the battles that U.S. forces experienced in World War II; the 19,000 American dead were unsurpassed by those of any other engagement. 

During one day of intense fighting, Speaks was so focused on shooting and reloading during the heat of the action that he did not realize that his leg had been struck by shrapnel during the battle. As soon as the battle was over, a fellow soldier pointed out that his boot was filled with blood. Speaks said he had not felt a thing.  

In another battle, Speaks was on the second floor of a building involved in a machine gun battle with the Germans. Then in the middle of the battle, the soldier in charge of getting the ammunition from downstairs did not return. So Speaks went downstairs to get the ammunition and discovered the Germans were holding everyone at gunpoint. Speaks asked the lieutenant upstairs to come down because the situation was hopeless, but the lieutenant refused.  

Then the Germans took their prisoners and backed off some and bombed the building. For the next two weeks, the American prisoners were forced to march back and forth next to that building with the lieutenant’s boot still sticking out of the rumble.  

When the Germans were not looking, Speaks and another soldier took off running and escaped. They made it to a farm owned by a German lady, and they made up a story that Hitler had been killed and the lady broke down and cried. She allowed them to stay in the barn until the end of the war.  

Joe Speaks passed away on March 1, 1999, at age 73 and was buried in Sheridan . He had received two Purple Hearts, a Silver Cross and a Silver Eagle.

In this June 6, 1944 file photo, while under attack of heavy machine gun fire from the German coastal defense forces, American soldiers wade ashore off the ramp of a U.S. Coast Guard landing craft during the Allied landing operations at the Normandy. (AP Photo)

Photo by Associated Press

In this June 6, 1944 file photo, while under attack of heavy machine gun fire from the German coastal defense forces, American soldiers wade ashore off the ramp of a U.S. Coast Guard landing craft during the Allied landing operations at the Normandy. (AP Photo)

Related posts:

Veterans Day 2011 Part 9:Roy “Roxy” Oxenrider survived Korean War’s Toughest Battle

Picture of Roy after he had recovered at the hospital. Picture of Roy below in the hospital recovering from his injuries followed by a picture of Roy encouraging another soldier who was in the hospital:  Below is an article that was published in November of 2010 in the Saline Courier: Saline County War Hero Bryant […]

Veterans Day 2011 Part 8 Leon McDaniel of World War II (second post)

Okinawa – At the Emperor’s Doorstep” episode from “WWII: GI Diary”….. This old 1978 TV docu-drama was narrated by Lloyd Bridges and told the stories of real soldiers/sailors/pilots and their first-hand experiences in battle. Archival footage and good background music really made the stories come alive…..about 25 episodes were made. Video converted from really old […]

Veterans Day 2011 Part 7:You have heard of Jimmy Doolittle, but what about Leon A. McDaniel?

President Reagan and Senator Barry Goldwater present the fourth star to General Jimmy Doolittle during a White House ceremony in the Indian Treaty room, OEOB. 6/20/85. I love the movie “Pearl Harbor” with Ben Affleck and it tells the story of Jimmy Doolittle.  He was born in 1896 and died in 1993. He is pictured […]

Veterans Day 2011 Part 6 (A look back at Okinawa)

This portion below appeared in an article I did for the Saline Courier about 18 months ago: I went to the First Baptist Church in Little Rock from 1983 to 1997, and during that time I became friends with Walter Dickinson Sr. In fact, we used to attend a weekly luncheon together on Thursdays.  Just […]

Veterans Day 2011 Part 5 (A look back at the “Battle of the Bulge”)

The Lost Evidence: The Battle Of The Bulge (1/5) This article was published in the Saline Courier about 18 months ago: When we celebrate July 4th we are focusing on the freedoms that so many soldiers have fought for over the last 234 years. That focus has been highlighted for me since my son Hunter […]

Veterans Day 2011 Part 4

  This is taken from an article that appeared in the Saline Courier about a year ago: Bravery is not just limited to one generation, but Americans have had it in every generation. It makes me think about those who are currently serving in our military. Jon Chris Roberts who is graduate of Benton High […]

Veterans Day 2011 Part 3 (A look back at World War 1)

I was born in Tennessee and everyone in Tennessee knows the name of Alvin York. Above is a clip about his accomplishments in War World I. Cara Gist of Shannon Hills tells me that her grandfather Herbert S. Apple of Salado, Arkansas (near Batesville) fought in World War I. He served in France and fought […]

Veterans Day 2011 Part 2 (Bataan Death March)

My longtime friend Craig Carney is originally  from Jacksonville, and  he told me a couple of years ago about a friend of his parents from Jacksonville, Arkansas named Silas Legrow. Legrow  was going to speak at the Jacksonville Museum of Military History on April 17, 2008 about his experience in the March of 1942 when […]

Veterans Day 2011 (Black Hawk Down and North Little Rock’s Donavan “Bull” Briley)

The Background Facts of The Black Hawk Down (1/7) Uploaded by WarDocumentary on Feb 14, 2011 The movie Black Hawk Down was based on an actual event that took place in Mogadishu, Somalia. This documentary explains the event. _______________________________ On October 3, 2003 my son  played quarterback at the Arkansas Baptist High School Football game […]

War Hero Joe Speaks and D Day pictures

 Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

D-Day Landings,”Saving Private Ryan” most frightening and realistic 15 minutes ever

Saving Private Ryan – Omaha Beach Part 1 – HD Saving Private Ryan – Omaha Beach Scene Part 2 – Super High Quality Saving Private Ryan – Omaha Beach Scene Part 3 – Super High Quality Saving Private Ryan opens with a 30-minute cinematic tour de force that is without a doubt one of the […]

German prisoners of war are led away by Allied forces from Utah Beach, on June 6, 1944, during landing operations at the Normandy coast, France. (AP Photo)

Photo by Associated Press

German prisoners of war are led away by Allied forces from Utah Beach, on June 6, 1944, during landing operations at the Normandy coast, France. (AP Photo)

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower visits paratroopers, including Bill Hayes, at center behind Ike's right hand, in England on June 5, 1944, moments before the troops boarded transport planes bound for Normandy and the June 6 D-Day invasion. Hayes, who now lives in Fargo, N.D., recalls how he told Eisenhower that he was 'damned scared' before the mission, his first combat jump of the war. This photo became a pre-invasion classic and continues to bring Hayes a measure of celebrity. (AP Photo/File)

Photo by Associated Press

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower visits paratroopers, including Bill Hayes, at center behind Ike’s right hand, in England on June 5, 1944, moments before the troops boarded transport planes bound for Normandy and the June 6 D-Day invasion. Hayes, who now lives in Fargo, N.D., recalls how he told Eisenhower that he was “damned scared” before the mission, his first combat jump of the war. This photo became a pre-invasion classic and continues to bring Hayes a measure of celebrity. (AP Photo/File)

This was the scene along a section of Omaha Beach in June, 1944 during Operation Overlord, the code name for the Normandy invasion during World War II. Large landing craft put troops and supplies on shore at Omaha, one of five invasion beaches. In background is part of the fleet of 2,727 ships that brought the allied troops from Britain. In the air are barrage balloons, designed to entangle low-flying attack aircraft in their cables. (AP Photo/files)

Photo by Associated Press

This was the scene along a section of Omaha Beach in June, 1944 during Operation Overlord, the code name for the Normandy invasion during World War II. Large landing craft put troops and supplies on shore at Omaha, one of five invasion beaches. In background is part of the fleet of 2,727 ships that brought the allied troops from Britain. In the air are barrage balloons, designed to entangle low-flying attack aircraft in their cables. (AP Photo/files)

Members of an American landing unit help their exhausted comrades ashore during the Normandy invasion, June 6, 1944. The men reached the zone code-named Utah Beach, near Sainte Mere Eglise, on a life raft after their landing craft was hit and sunk by German coastal defenses. (AP Photo)

Photo by Associated Press

Members of an American landing unit help their exhausted comrades ashore during the Normandy invasion, June 6, 1944. The men reached the zone code-named Utah Beach, near Sainte Mere Eglise, on a life raft after their landing craft was hit and sunk by German coastal defenses. (AP Photo)

U.S. Air Force photograph of P-38's streaking towards France on D-Day.

Photo by U.S. Air Force

U.S. Air Force photograph of P-38′s streaking towards France on D-Day.

Men of the American assault troops of the 16th Infantry Regiment, injured while storming a coastal area code-named Omaha Beach during the Allied invasion of the Normandy, wait by the chalk cliffs at Collville-sur-Mer for evacuation to a field hospital for further treatment, June 6, 1944. (AP Photo)

Photo by Associated Press

Men of the American assault troops of the 16th Infantry Regiment, injured while storming a coastal area code-named Omaha Beach during the Allied invasion of the Normandy, wait by the chalk cliffs at Collville-sur-Mer for evacuation to a field hospital for further treatment, June 6, 1944. (AP Photo)

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

2006 Razorback Football Results (part 1)

June 6, 2012 – 6:55 am

In 2006 my son Hunter told me after the whipping we took against USC that Arkansas would not lose again the rest of the regular season. I laughed and told him that he was dreaming. Eleven games later we stood the whole game as the #6 Razorbacks lost a close game in Little Rock to the LSU Tigers to finish 10-2 on the year. The Hogs had a chance to stay in the national title hunt until they lost that second game the last day of the regular season. In fact, they only lost to top 5 teams that year. One of the biggest victories down the stretch was over the 13th ranked Tennesseee Vols in Fayetteville.  ESPN’s gameday was in town. Here is a recap of the games that year from Wikipedia:

Game notes

USC

  1 2 3 4 Total
USC 3 13 14 20 50
Arkansas 0 7 0 7 14

USC and Arkansas both came into the game with a number of question marks, as USC had lost stars Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart to the NFL, and Arkansas’s star running back Darren McFadden was injured in an off-field incident. Although the game was close until the latter minutes of the second quarter, a combination USC’s high-powered offense wearing out Arkansas’s defense, and running back Felix Jones’ three fumbles, stretched the margin in the second half to the final score.
Robert Johnson was removed as the starting quarterback this week, replaced by Mitch Mustain.

Utah State

  1 2 3 4 Total
Utah State 0 0 0 0 0
Arkansas 0 14 6 0 20

After the Razorback’s hard loss at home against the USC Trojans, the Hogs were looking to bounce back against Utah State. Mustain had replaced Johnson as the starting quarterback, but the Arkansas offense stalled early, losing a fumble at the Aggie 1-yard line. But under the shoulders of McFadden and Jones, Arkansas bounced back for 3 touchdowns. The Arkansas defense played valiantly in showing of revenge for the embarrassment of the previous game, and the offense, while not up to form, still played well.

Vanderbilt

  1 2 3 4 Total
Arkansas 7 7 7 0 21
Vanderbilt 7 6 0 6 19

In Week 3, Arkansas traveled to Vanderbilt University for its first away game of the season. This game proved to be a good early match against two teams not predicted to fare well in SEC play. The game began with alternating possessions, but neither team took a large lead. But at the end of the first half, a busted extra point attempt by the Commodores gave Arkansas a 14-13 lead. During the fourth quarter, Arkansas and Vanderbilt both scored, but because of Vanderbilt’s situation, they opted to go for a two point conversion, and failed. Although they got one last possession, a missed field goal ended Vanderbilt’s chance of victory.

Alabama

  1 2 3 4 OT 2OT Total
#22 Alabama 0 10 0 7 0 6 23
Arkansas 3 0 14 0 0 7 24

The Crimson Tide offense (white) backed up on their goalline.

This game was well played by both teams playing evenly matched with Alabama leading at halftime 10-3. However Arkansas bounced back with a touchdown from Darren McFadden and a fumble return for a touchdown by Randy Kelly, making the score 17-10 at the end of the third quarter in favor of the Razorbacks. Alabama answered by scoring a touchdown in the fourth, tying the game and eventually sending it into overtime. During regulation, Alabama kicker Leigh Tiffin had missed two field goal attempts wide right. And after a scoreless first overtime, the Crimson Tide scored but again missed the extra point. On the next series quarterback Mitch Mustain threw a touchdown pass to tight end Ben Cleveland to tie the game, and the Razorbacks won it with a completed extra point by Jeremy Davis.

Auburn

  1 2 3 4 Total
Arkansas 10 7 7 3 27
#2 Auburn 0 10 0 0 10

In an SEC West bout, the Arkansas Razorbacks visited the #2 ranked Auburn Tigers at Jordan-Hare Stadium. The Hogs scored first with a 34 yard field goal by Jeremy Davis to make it 3-0 with 7:56 left in the first quarter. Arkansas scored again with a 50 yard pass from Mitch Mustain to Marcus Monk to make it a surprising 10-0 lead with 3:43 remaining in the first quarter. On the first play of the second quarter Auburn countered with a 24 yard TD strike from Brandon Cox to Rodgeriqus Smith to make the score 10-7. With 5:00 left to go in the first half, Arkansas came back with Darren McFadden running for a 63 yard TD making it 17-7. However, Auburn kicker John Vaughn kicked a 36 yard field goal to make the score 17-10 with 1:50 remaining in the first half. After the half, it was all Arkansas as their defense kept Auburn from scoring. With 4:54 left in the third quarter Felix Jones ran in a 1 yard TD. And with 3:34 left in the game, Arkansas sealed it with a 22 yard field goal from Jeremy Davis. With the win the Hogs had control of their own destiny in the SEC West.

Southeast Missouri State

  1 2 3 4 Total
Southeast Missouri State 0 0 7 0 7
#23 Arkansas 14 28 14 7 63

On Arkansas’ homecoming they faced the Redhawks from Southeast Missouri State. From the get-go, it was clear Arkansas was going to dominate this game. Darren McFadden scored the first two touchdowns making it 14-0 at the end of the first quarter. In the second quarter the Hogs burst wide open and scored four touchdowns; two coming from Felix Jones and one coming from Michael Smith, and an interception return by DT Keith Jackson. At the Half, the score was 42-0. The Hogs scored three times in the second half, with the Redhawks only score coming in the third quarter by a 8 yard run from John Radney. The final score was 63-7.

Ole Miss

  1 2 3 4 Total
Ole Miss 0 3 0 0 3
#18 Arkansas 14 7 7 10 38

In an SEC West match, #18 Arkansas Razorbacks squared off with the Ole Miss Rebels at Razorback Stadium. Felix Jones returned the opening kickoff 100 yards for a touchdown making the score 7-0. Darren McFadden ran in the next score from 4 yards to make the score 14-0 with 9:43 left in the first quarter. Peyton Hillis scored from 1 yard out to make it 21-0 with 8:27 left in the second quarter. Ole Miss scored a field goal by Joshua Shene from 27 yards out to make it 21-3. After the half, Darren McFadden scored with a 70 yard screen pass from Mitch Mustain making it 28-3. In the fourth, Arkansas scored on a Jeremy Davis field goal and a London Crawford touchdown catch making it 38-3 at the final. With this win, Arkansas became bowl eligible after a two year absence.

Louisiana-Monroe

  1 2 3 4 Total
#14 Arkansas 7 16 14 7 44
Louisiana-Monroe 7 0 0 3 10

The 14th ranked Arkansas Razorbacks returned to Little Rock to face the Sun Belt’s Louisiana Monroe Warhawks. The Warhawks struck first with a 17 yard pass from Kinsmon Lancaster to Lagregory Sapp for a TD. With the score 7-0, the warhawks were fired up. With 7:41 left in the first quarter, Felix Jones rushed in a 7 yard TD, however Jeremy Davis missed the extra point to make the score 7-6. Arkansas scored in the second quarter with a 12 yard TD pass from Mitch Mustain to Marcus Monk, and completed a two point conversion to make it 14-7. With 4:14 left in the first half, the Warhawks’ Calvin Dawson was tackled in their own endzone for a safety making it 16-7. Nearing the end of the first half, RB Darren McFadden threw a 10 yard TD pass to Wes Murphy. The score at the Half was 23-7. In the third quarter, Darren McFadden rushed 18 yards for a touchdown but was flagged for excessive celebration. The penalty was counted on the extra point and Jeremy Davis missed it and the score was 29-7. Later, Mitch Mustain threw a 12 yard TD pass to Marcus Monk, and a two point conversion made it 37-7. In the fourth, Michael Smith rushed for a 3 yard TD to make it 44-7. The Warhawks scored a field goal late in the game to make the final 44-10.

South Carolina

  1 2 3 4 Total
#12 Arkansas 7 16 3 0 26
South Carolina 3 3 7 7 20

The 12th ranked Arkansas Razorbacks went on the road to face a dangerous South Carolina Gamecocks team at Williams-Brice Stadium in Columbia, South Carolina. The Gamecocks scored on their second drive with a field goal from 3 yards by Ryan Succop after an interception gave South Carolina great field position. Arkansas countered with a 43 yard TD run from Darren McFadden making the score 7-3 at the end of the first quarter. In the second quarter, Darren McFadden rushed for a 14 yard TD to make the score 14-3. With 9:19 remaining in the first half, the Gamecocks scored another field goal from Ryan Succop to make it 14-6. Arkansas then blocked a punt and the Gamecocks recovered it in their own endzone for a safety to make it 16-6. And with 0:02 left in the first half, Casey Dick through a 50 yard hail- mary that was tipped off two Gamecock defenders and into the hands of Marcus Monk to make it 23-6 going into the half. During the half, Steve Spurrier replaced Gamecock quarterback Syvelle Newton with Blake Mitchell who came out swingin’. After an Arkansas field goal, Mitchell threw 13 yard TD pass to Kevin McKinley to make it 26-13 at the end of the third. In the fourth, Mitchell threw a 10 yard TD pass to Sydney Rice to make it 26-20. After a missed field goal by Arkansas, Mitchell drove the field in an attempt to win the game but was intercepted by Darius Vinnet to make the final 26-20. In this game Houston Nutt switched quarterback Mitch Mustain with Casey Dick.

Tennessee

  1 2 3 4 Total
#13 Tennessee 0 7 0 7 14
#11 Arkansas 7 21 0 3 31

ESPN’s College Game Day came to Fayetteville this week to host the matchup between the 11th ranked Arkansas Razorbacks and the 13th ranked Tennessee Volunteers. In the first quarter, Casey Dick through a 10 yard TD pass to Marcus Monk for a 7-0 lead. In the second quarter, Darren McFadden ran 17 yards for a TD to make it 14-0. Tennessee bounced back with a 27 yard TD pass from Jonathan Crompton to Robert Meachem to make the score 14-7. With 6:51 remaining in the half, Darren McFadden threw a 12 TD pass to Marcus Monk to make it 21-7. Darren McFadden also ran in a 5 yard TD score to end the half with a score of 28-7. After a scoreless third quarter Arkansas hit a 28 yard field goal while Jonathan Crompton hit Bret Smith for a 39 yard TD pass late in the game to make the final 31-14.

University of tennessee football Coach Phillip Fulmer signals for a time out during an October 9, 1993 game against Arkansas.

Photo by HEATHER STONE/KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL

University of tennessee football Coach Phillip Fulmer signals for a time out during an October 9, 1993 game against Arkansas.

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

Planned Parenthood up to some more tricks

June 6, 2012 – 6:53 am

It is really sad to me that abortion is so easy to get in the USA.

Ericka Andersen

May 30, 2012 at 3:03 pm

The War on Baby Girls: Part 1 – Undercover in Texas

Think sex-selective abortions—known as gendercide—happen only in China? Wrong. This week, Live Action films produced an undercover video of a Texas Planned Parenthood employee explaining to a patient how to easily obtain an abortion if her unborn child were a girl and not a boy. The employee also gave the patient guidance on committing Medicaid fraud while she waited to find out the baby’s sex—but that point deserves a separate discussion altogether.

Sex-selective abortions have been publicly debated recently due to forced abortion opponent and Chinese dissident Chen Guangchang. Guangcheng found himself in danger because of his opposition to China’s one-child policy that often perpetuates gendercide. It has caused a heated and necessary discussion of the issue worldwide.

Americans aren’t taking sex-selective abortion lightly. Tomorrow, a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions in the U.S. is up for a vote in the House. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would also punish doctors if they perform gendercide, which usually occurs in the second or third trimester, when the baby’s sex is clearly determined.

The option may seem rare, but the facts speak for themselves. For Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents having families and raising children in the U.S., researchers found that a firstborn girl often skews the sex ratio of the following children. For second births, the male-female ratio was 117 to 100, and for third births, it was 151 to 100 if the couple already had two girls.

Girls receive the brunt of gendercide due to cultural stigma, and that’s not going to change. Unless sex-selective abortion is outlawed, the human rights of unborn children, especially girls, will continue to be violated in the United States.

Earlier this year, Heritage reported a sobering statement from Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. In a congressional hearing, Mosher said that until recent negative publicity, “It was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in newspapers such as The New York Times.”

Thankfully, such publicity surfaced, and now America can debate this horrific practice in the light of day. Today, the world is missing more than 160 million women because of gendercide. While the U.S. can’t end the practice worldwide, it can restore human rights to unborn children in America.

The PRENDA bill is sponsored by Representative Trent Franks (R–AZ), who said, “As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because…she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong, and represents a betrayal of the precious truth that all human beings are created equal.”

Pro-abortion feminist organizations like NARAL are claiming that PRENDA discriminates against women by interfering with their “choice” to abort female babies. It is hard to imagine a position more retrograde toward women than one that allows for their systematic elimination.

As Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall and Sarah Torre wrote recently, “If there is equality between women and men, it’s rooted in our nature and purpose as human beings. Denying that fundamental dignity inherent in all human life destroys the very basis of equality.”

On behalf of the millions of girls whose lives have been taken, let’s finally unite behind the clear and uncontroversial principle that gendercide is wrong and that America should do something to stop it.

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

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 8)

June 6, 2012 – 6:52 am

Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 1)

Uploaded by on Feb 21, 2008

READ THIS FIRST: In decline of all civilizations we first see a war against the freedom of ideas. Discussion is limited or prohibited. Speakers at universities are shouted down. Corruption takes over city governments and towns as dishonesty and corruption expands. Small stores have to shut down because none are honest enough to run a cash register. The stock of stores is looted by employees and pilfered and shop owners flee. Stock markets are rife with manipulation and the plague of dishonesty. We have learned that sound and lasting civilized ideas are built upon very rare and special foundations. Frances Schaeffer is one guy who has sparked my own thinking and study. He has influenced my writing and prison ministry greatly. Humans must be convinced intellectually, historically and reasonably as well as through the Biblical teachings. Francis Shaeffer has helped all of us wade through this vast propaganda sewer to approach fundamental questions, one of which is: “Why do nations and empires decline?”

_______________

Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 2)

Francis Schaeffer rightly identified abortion as the key issue.

Have We Given Up on the Issue of Abortion?

By: Hank Hanegraaff

Imagine living in a country in which members of Congress would mandate researchers ‘either destroy embryos or risk imprisonment.’ Imagine a nation that not only permits the killing of the most vulnerable among us but mandates such mayhem for the purposes of research. Imagine no further—the day has arrived. As the former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has well said, we have began inexorably “slouching toward Gomorrah.”[1]I’ll never forgot the words of George Will, when he said, “we are experiencing the slow motion barbarization of America.”

The founders of our Republic could only in their darkest nightmares have imagined relativism trumping objective moral standards in a free society. The rise of technology and the fall of ethical consensus have brought us to a society full of moral dilemmas. This stark reality was born out in 1973 when Christians quietly passed in a battle in the war against abortion.

The far reaching impact of that abdication is felt in the raging battle over embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of the current moral and ethical tsunami, it is incumbent upon Christians to not only provide relief but bring the rebuilding process. Nothing less than Western Civilization is at stake.

I’ll never forget what Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer said many years ago: abortion would be the watershed issue of our era. “Of all the subjects related to the erosion of the sanctity of human life abortion is the keystone.”[2] Of course, his warning tragically fell on deaf ears.

Consider the statements of some of the leading spiritual and secular leaders of our age. Beverly Harrison, a professor of Christian Ethics at Union Theological Seminary, “Infanticide is not a great wrong. I do not want to be construed as condemning women who under certain circumstances quietly put their infants to death.”[3]Esther Langston, Professor of Social Work at the University of Nevada, “What we are saying is that abortion becomes one of the choices and the person has the right to choose whatever it is that is… best for them in the situation in which they find themselves: be it abortion, keep the baby, adopt the baby, sell the baby, leave the baby in a dumpster, put it on your porch, whatever. It’s the person’s right to choose.”[4] Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who famously remarked “that the most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.”[5]

Where does this slippery slope lead? Think only to the words of James Watson, the Nobel prize winner and the co-discover of the structure of DNA, “Because of the limitations of present detection methods most birth defects are not discovered until birth; however, if a child was not declared alive until three days after birth the doctor would allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”[6]

This is the epoch in which we find ourselves. In view of this reality, we should go back to the words of Scripture. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13). A song was written with those words in mind. It was haunting, not only to hear the music but to see the images. It was the first pro-life song by Cindee Martin Morgan, who is the daughter of the late Dr. Walter Martin, the founder and former president of CRI. It was recorded by her daughter Sharon at the tender age of seven. We featured that song on the Bible Answer Man broadcast and we lauded the fact that Cindee Martin Morgan and her husband Rick Morgan were vigilant in the battle against abortion.

The reason we did that is because the reality is today there are very few Christians who will put their lives on the line for this issue. Christians have become apathetic. There was a recent Pew Research Poll that found that among all respondents to the poll concern about the abortion issues has dropped. Only 15% of respondents said that abortion was a critical issue.[7] It’s an issue to which we have been anesthetized to. This does not mean that we shouldn’t be involved in the debate or the discussion. It’s a watershed issue of our era; we should be involved.

So Cindee and Rick have continued the battle, recognizing it’s not about whether we win or lose. It’s about being faithful with the platform that God gives us. They have now come out with a new pro-life song called, “Who will Save the Little Ones?” It’s a call to lawful action on behalf of the unborn. You can hear this at our Website (http://www.equip.org/site/savethelittleones). I also did an hour long interview with Cindee and Rick on October 6, 2009; this can be heard also at our Website (http://www.equip.org/broadcasts/who-will-save-the-little-ones-20090610). To visit their Website go to (http://www.MtMoriahMusic.com) Also to equip you in defending the Pro-Life position we recommend the book Whose Ethics? Whose Morals? available at our Website or by calling 1-888-7000-0274.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Comments (0)

“Woody Wednesdays” Woody Allen on God and Death

June 6, 2012 – 6:00 am

Good website on Woody Allen

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?

If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he’d never stop throwing up.

If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank.

As the poet said, ‘Only God can make a tree’ — probably because it’s so hard to figure out how to get the bark on.

Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends.

To you I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the Loyal Opposition.

______________________

Good website on Woody Allen quotes on death:

I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work… I want to achieve it through not dying.

Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen to be dressed for it.

It is impossible to experience one’s death objectively and still carry a tune.

Woody Allen on DeathDeath is an acquired trait.

Death is one of the few things that can be done as easily lying down.

Death should not be seen as the end, but as a very effective way to cut down expenses.

I do not believe in an after life, although I am bringing a change of underwear.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman?

It’s not that I’m afraid to die, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.

Woody Allen on Death On the plus side, death is one of the few things that can be done just as easily lying down.

Thought: Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage.

If there is reincarnation, I’d like to come back as Warren Beatty’s fingertips.

Dying is one of the few things that can be done as easily lying down.

He was so depressed, he tried to commit suicide by inhaling next to an Armenian.

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