Monthly Archives: September 2012

Videos by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute found here on

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has some great videos and I have posted lots of them on my blog. I like to go to Dan’s blog too. Take a look at some of them below and then the links to my blog.

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Uploaded by on Oct 4, 2010

Politicians and interest groups claim higher taxes are necessary because it would be impossible to cut spending by enough to get rid of red ink. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity video shows that these assertions are nonsense. The budget can be balanced very quickly by simply limiting the annual growth of federal spending.


Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Uploaded by on May 3, 2010

The correct capital gains tax rate is zero because there should be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. This is why all pro-growth tax reform plans, such as the flat tax and national sales tax, eliminate the capital gains tax. Unfortunately, the President wants to boost the official capital gains tax rate to 20 percent, and that is in addition to the higher tax rate on capital gains included in the government-run healthcare legislation.



Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Uploaded by on Dec 15, 2008

Based on a theory known as Keynesianism, politicians are resuscitating the notion that more government spending can stimulate an economy. This mini-documentary produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation examines both theory and evidence and finds that allowing politicians to spend more money is not a recipe for better economic performance.


Obama’s So-Called Stimulus: Good For Government, Bad For the Economy

Uploaded by on Jan 26, 2009

President Obama wants Congress to dramatically expand the burden of government spending. This CF&P Foundation mini-documentary explains why such a policy, based on the discredited Keynesian theory of economics, will not be successful. Indeed, the video demonstrates that Obama is proposing – for all intents and purposes – to repeat Bush’s mistakes. Government will be bigger, even though global evidence shows that nations with small governments are more prosperous.


Big Government Is Not Stimulus: Why Keynes Was Wrong (The Condensed Version)

Uploaded by on Jan 13, 2009

The CF&P Foundation has released a condensed version of our successful mini-documentary explaining why so-called stimulus schemes do not work. Based on a theory known as Keynesianism, politicians are resuscitating the notion that more government spending can stimulate an economy. This mini-documentary produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation examines both theory and evidence and finds that allowing politicians to spend more money is not a recipe for better economic performance.


Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded by on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.


Now that I have been critical of the Democrat President, I wanted to show that I am not concerned about taking up for Republicans but looking at the facts. President Clinton did increase government spending at a slower rate than many other presidents. Here are two  videos that praise both Reagan and Clinton for both accomplished this feat.

Spending Restraint, Part I: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

Uploaded by on Feb 14, 2011

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.


Spending Restraint, Part II: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand

Uploaded by on Feb 22, 2011

Nations can make remarkable fiscal progress if policy makers simply limit the growth of government spending. This video, which is Part II of a series, uses examples from recent history in Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand to demonstrate how it is possible to achieve rapid improvements in fiscal policy by restraining the burden of government spending. Part I of the series examined how Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were successful in controlling government outlays — particularly the burden of domestic spending programs.

Here are some posts that include videos from Dan Mitchell:

Videos by Cato Institute on failed stimulus plans

In this post I have gathered several videos from the Cato Institute concerning the subject of failed stimulus plans. _____ Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: Tweet it: In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no, Part 28 (Input from Norm Coleman, former Republican Senator from MN)

  It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted: The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a […]

Obama’s plan is not too smart on taxes

Dan Mitchell did a great article concerning the affect of raising taxes in these two areas and horrible results: How Can Obama Look at these Two Charts and Conclude that America Should Have Higher Double Taxation of Dividends and Capital Gains? Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell As discussed yesterday, the most important number in Obama’s […]


Francis Schaeffer affected pro-life movement (Part 5) “Schaeffer Sunday”

Part 1

Part 2

Below is a summary of “A Christian Manifesto” which is a very important book written by Francis Schaeffer just a couple of years before his death in 1984.

A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer

This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.

The abortion ruling is a very clear one. The abortion ruling, of course, is also a natural result of this other world view because with this other world view, human life — your individual life — has no intrinsic value. You are a wart upon the face of an absolutely impersonal universe. Your aspirations have no fulfillment in the “what-isness” of what is. Your aspirations damn you. Many of the young people who come to us understand this very well because their aspirations as Humanists have no fulfillment, if indeed the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance.

The universe cannot fulfill anything that you say when you say, “It is beautiful”; “I love”; “It is right”; “It is wrong.” These words are meaningless words against the backdrop of this other world view. So what we find is that the abortion case should not have been a surprise because it boiled up out of, quite naturally, (I would use the word again) mathematically, this other world view. In this case, human life has no distinct value whatsoever, and we find this Supreme Court in one ruling overthrew the abortion laws of all 50 states, and they made this form of killing human life (because that’s what it is) the law. The law declared that this form of killing human life was to be accepted, and for many people, because they had no set ethic, when the Supreme Court said that it was legal, in the intervening years, it has become ethical.


The courts of this country have forced this view and its results on the total population. What we find is that as the courts have done this, without any longer that which the founding fathers comprehended of law (A man like Blackstone, with his Commentaries, understood, and the other lawgivers in this country in the beginning): That there is a law of God which gives foundation. It becomes quite natural then, that they would also cut themselves loose from a strict constructionism concerning the Constitution.

Everything is relative. So as you cut yourself loose from the Law of God, in any concept whatsoever, you also soon are cutting yourself loose from a strict constructionism and each ruling is to be seen as an arbitrary choice by a group of people as to what they may honestly think is for the sociological good of the community, of the country, for the given moment.

Now, along with that is the fact that the courts are increasingly making law and thus we find that the legislatures’ powers are increasingly diminished in relationship to the power of the courts. Now the pro-abortion people have been very wise about this in the last, say, 10 years, and Christians very silly. I wonder sometimes where we’ve been because the pro-abortion people have used the courts for their end rather than the legislatures — because the courts are not subject to the people’s thinking, nor their will, either by election nor by a re-election. Consequently, the courts have been the vehicle used to bring this whole view and to force it on our total population. It has not been largely the legislatures. It has been rather, the courts.

The result is a relativistic value system. A lack of a final meaning to life — that’s first. Why does human life have any value at all, if that is all that reality is? Not only are you going to die individually, but the whole human race is going to die, someday. It may not take the falling of the atom bombs, but someday the world will grow too hot, too cold. That’s what we are told on this other final reality, and someday all you people not only will be individually dead, but the whole conscious life on this world will be dead, and nobody will see the birds fly. And there’s no meaning to life.

As you know, I don’t speak academically, shut off in some scholastic cubicle, as it were. I have lots of young people and older ones come to us from the ends of the earth. And as they come to us, they have gone to the end of this logically and they are not living in a romantic setting. They realize what the situation is. They can’t find any meaning to life. It’s the meaning to the black poetry. It’s the meaning of the black plays. It’s the meaning of all this. It’s the meaning of the words “punk rock.” And I must say, that on the basis of what they are being taught in school, that the final reality is only this material thing, they are not wrong. They’re right! On this other basis there is no meaning to life and not only is there no meaning to life, but there is no value system that is fixed, and we find that the law is based then only on a relativistic basis and that law becomes purely arbitrary.

And this is brought to bear, specifically, and perhaps most clearly, in the public schools (I’ll come to that now) in this country. In the courts of this country, they are saying that it’s absolutely illegal, from the lowest grades up through university, for the public schools of this country to teach any other world view except this world view of final material or energy. Now this is done, no matter what the parents may wish. This is done regardless of what those who pay the taxes for their schools may wish. I’m giving you an illustration, as well as making a point. The way the courts force their view, and this false view of reality on the total population, no matter what the total population wants.

We find that in the January 18 — just recently — Time magazine, there was an article that said there was a poll that pointed out that about 76% of the people in this country thought it would be a good idea to have both creation and evolution taught in the public schools. I don’t know if the poll was accurate, but assuming that the poll was accurate, what does it mean? It means that your public schools are told by the courts that they cannot teach this, even though 76% of the people in the United States want it taught. I’ll give you a word. It’s TYRANNY. There is no other word that fits at such a point.

And at the same time we find the medical profession has radically changed. Dr. Koop, in our seminars for Whatever Happened to the Human Race, often said that (speaking for himself), “When I graduated from medical school, the idea was ‘how can I save this life?’ But for a great number of the medical students now, it’s not, ‘How can I save this life?’, but ‘Should I save this life?'”

Believe me, it’s everywhere. It isn’t just abortion. It’s infanticide. It’s allowing the babies to starve to death after they are born. If they do not come up to some doctor’s concept of a quality of life worth living. I’ll just say in passing — and never forget it – it takes about 15 days, often, for these babies to starve to death. And I’d say something else that we haven’t stressed enough. In abortion itself, there is no abortion method that is not painful to the child — just as painful that month before birth as the baby you see a month after birth in one of these cribs down here that I passed — just as painful.

So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views. The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”

I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession… The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.

“Soccer Saturdays” can be seen on the

Cristiano Ronaldo; Real Madrid vs LA Galaxy Game

My son was at this game in LA when Ronaldo got this goal. Wilson said it was unreal. You can access more video clips and articles by checking out these links below:


Top 10 most Controversial World Cup Games (W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher, Part 5)

Italy Four Time World Cup Winner 1934 – 1938 – 1982 – 2006 AP Photo With Europe on the brink of war, Mussolini’s Italian team, defending champions, reveled in their role as tournament heel. Their fixtures in France drew boisterous mobs of exiled Italian anti-fascists, up to 10,000 strong, who came to jeer their country’s […]


Goalkeeper is lucky sometimes (Soccer Saturday)

Vegalta Sendai were up 1-0 in the first half of their J-League match against defending champions Nagoya Grampus Eight when the losing home side’s keeper, Yoshinari Takagi, came out of his area to collect the ball. He took too long to clear it., allowing Atsushi Yanagisawa to take the ball off him for a seemingly […]

“Soccer Saturday” Top Ten Best Players of all time by E. Hatcher

My 10th best player is Brian McBride and I think this video clip says it all. Brian McBride – US soccer legend Brian McBride From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   Jump to: navigation, search For other people of the same name, see Brian McBride (disambiguation). Brian McBride Personal information Full name Brian Robert McBride[1] Date […]

“Soccer Saturday” Best Soccer teams ever (Part 1)

World Cup 2010 – Spain – All Goals Wilson’s 10th pick for the greatest soccer team ever! Every other player is a superstar!!! Everette Hatcher says that Italy in 2006 had the 10th best team. By the way, the USA tied them!! Italy – 2006 World Cup Highlights _______________________________________ World Cup 1958 Final – Sweden […]

SOCCER SATURDAY: W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher top ten soccer videos (Part 4)

I thought about this one to be number one but I changed my mind. George Best- ‘The Best Tribute’! George Best _______________________________ Wilson’s 1st pick is both Young Lionel Messi – Rare Clips HD shows rare clips of the best player ever, Messi!!! Lionel Messi 2011 – This is my life story I love this […]

David and Hope Solo

Hope Solo: ‘I will be a better sister’ By BOB PADECKY PRESS DEMOCRAT COLUMNIST Published: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. The text sent to U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo, the day before America was to play Japan for the Women’s World Cup championship, contained encouragement and affection from her half-brother, David, CEO and president […]

USA wins 3-1 over France to get in World Cup Final

United States’ Abby Wambach celebrates scoring her side’s 2nd goal during the semifinal match between France and the United States at the Women’s Soccer World Cup in Moenchengladbach, Germany, Wednesday, July 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner) MOENCHENGLADBACH, Germany (AP) — The United States is in the World Cup final for the first time since it […]

Open letters to President Obama displayed here on

I have been writing letters to President Obama almost all of 2012. I have received several responses from the White House but none of the responses have been personal responses from the President.

Below is a letter I wrote to the President and a form letter response that I got followed by links to other letters I have written him.


Science Matters #2: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science books have to say.

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

I wanted to talk to you today about your views on abortion. Everyone remembers Kathy Ireland from her Sports Illustrated days and actually she has became a very successful business person.  However, I wanted to talk about her pro-life views.


Back on April 27, 2009 Fox News ran a story by Hollie McKay(Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against Pro Choice,”) on  Ireland.

It’s no secret that the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, however former “Sports Illustrated” supermodel-turned-entrepreneur-turned-author Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.

“My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science,” Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book “Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity.”

“What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there.”

However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life.

“I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time,” Ireland argued. “I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue.”

My good friend Dr. Kevin R. Henke is a scientist and also an atheistic evolutionist. I had a lot of discussions with Kevin over religious views. I remember going over John 7:17 with him one day. It says:

John 7:17 (Amplified Bible)

17If any man desires to do His will (God’s pleasure), he will know (have the needed illumination to recognize, and can tell for himself) whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking from Myself and of My own accord and on My own authority.

I challenged Kevin to read a chapter a day of the Book of John and pray to God and ask God, “Dear God, if you are there then reveal yourself to me, and I pledge to serve you the rest of my life.”

Kevin did that and he even wrote down the thoughts that came to his mind and sent it to me and these thoughts filled a notebook.

Kevin did not become a Christian, but I am still praying for him. I do respect Kevin because he is an honest man. Interestingly enough he  told me that he was pro-life because the unborn baby has all the genetic code at  the time of conception that they will have for the rest of their life. Below are some other comments by other scientists:

Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”


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


Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,


I actually mailed this to President Obama about a week ago and got this email back:

The White House, Washington

April 16, 2012

Dear Everette:

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on abortion.  This is a heart-wrenching issue, and I appreciate your input and thoughts.

I am committed to making my Administration the most open and transparent in history, and part of delivering on that promise is hearing from people like you.  I take seriously your opinions and respect your point of view on this issue.  Please know that your concerns will be on my mind in the days ahead.

Thank you, again, for writing.  I encourage you to visit to learn more about my Administration or to contact me in the future.


Barack Obama

An open letter to President Obama (Part 65)

Leader Cantor On CNN Responding To President Obama’s State of the Union Address Uploaded by EricCantor on Jan 25, 2012 ______________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response March 7, 2011 (part 3)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on March 7, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 58) “Our national debt threatens our security”

Liam Fox Issues a Warning to America Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 28, 2012 Britain’s Liam Fox has a warning for America: Fix the debt problem now or suffer the consequences of less power on the world stage. The former U.K. secretary of state for defense visited Heritage to explain why the America’s debt is […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response Jan 27, 2011 (part 2)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 27, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response Jan 25, 2011 (part 1)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 25, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 48 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 48 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12) Rep Michael Burgess response Uploaded by MichaelCBurgessMD on Jan 25, 2012 This week Dr. Burgess provides an update from Washington and responds to President Obama’s State of the Union address. President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012 […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 47, A response to your budget)

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending Uploaded by senatorcorker on Feb 14, 2011 In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced […]

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

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012 Feb 6, 2012 President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying […]

An open letter to President Obama

  January 25, 2012 President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on […]

Open letter to Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin concerning their choice to raise their kids in the Jewish Faith (part 1)

Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin (CP)

The Birth Of Israel (2008) – Part 1/8

I have posted before about the religious views of Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin. Now it appears they have rejected their agnostic statements of the past and have decided to raise their children in the Jewish faith.

Here is a post from the Huffington Post:

After appearing on the television program, “Who Do You Think You Are,” Gwyneth Paltrow has decided to raise children Apple, 7, and Moses, 5, as Jewish.

According to The Daily Mail, the NBC ancestry show sparked the discovery that the actress descended from a notable line of Eastern European rabbis. Though she’s long practiced Kabbalah, Gwyneth had previously stayed neutral about a formal religion upbringing in her household, which includes crooner husband Chris Martin, who is of Christian background.

“I don’t believe in religion. I believe in spirituality. Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world,” the actress once told The Daily Mail.


Below is a letter I mailed to Chris and Gwyneth recently:

To Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow, c/o Go Go Pictures, 12 Cleveland Row, London, SW1A 1DH, United Kingdom, , From Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, USA:

I have been a huge fan of both of you and have posted many times on my blog about your religious views which have seemed to have changed over the years. I know that Chris was brought up as an evangelical Christian, but has long ago left the faith behind although he did revisit many biblical themes in his 2008 and 2011 cds.

In fact, on June 3, 2011 on my blog ( I wrote:

I have shown what thought processes Solomon went through in Ecclesiastes and then compared them to the evident changes that are occurring with Coldplay. By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. My prediction: I am hoping that Coldplay’s next album will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

I have also written before about Gwyneth’s famous Jewish relatives which includes a famous Rabbi (David HaLevi Segal) and I have wondered if she would decide to return to those roots. Actually that is what has happened. I salute you for rejecting your earlier statements against organized religion and for making the decision to teach your children the Bible and to have faith in God. 

I know that you will spending lots of time in the scriptures and I wanted to share with you some key scriptures that talk about the Messiah.

Jesus Is the Messiah

Article ID: DJ630

By: Ron Rhodes

As one reads through the Bible, we find progressively detailed prophecies about the identity of the Messiah. Obviously, as the prophecies become increasingly detailed, the field of qualified “candidates” becomes increasingly narrow.

In showing a Jewish person that Jesus is the Messiah, one effective approach is to begin with broad prophecies and then narrow the field to include increasingly specific and detailed prophecies. You might use circles to graphically illustrate your points as you share these prophecies.

As suggested by Stuart Dauermann, 1 seven increasingly detailed “circles of certainty” include:

1. Messiah’s humanity (Genesis 3:15).

2. Messiah’s Jewishness (Genesis 12:1-3; 28:10-15).

3. Messiah’s tribe (Genesis 49:10).

4. Messiah’s family (2 Samuel 7:16; Jeremiah 23:5-6).

5. Messiah’s birthplace (Micah 5:2).

6. Messiah’s life, reception, and death (Isaiah 52:13; 53).

7. Chronology of Messiah’s appearing (Daniel 9:24-26).

Let us look at these in a little more detail.

Circle 1: The Circle of the Messiah’s Humanity

Scripture says that the Messiah had to become a human being. This circle is obviously a very large circle.

The Messiah’s humanity is prophetically spoken of in Genesis 3:15, when God is pronouncing judgment against the serpent following the fall of Adam and Eve:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.2

The word “offspring” refers to descendants. The Messiah would be a descendant of the woman — that is, He would be a human being. We find this fulfilled in Galatians 4:4-5:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Circle 2: The Circle of the Messiah’s Jewishness

Scripture says that the Messiah had to be Jewish — that is, He had to be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This narrows the circle considerably. Of all human beings who have ever lived, only Jewish human beings would qualify.

Point the Jewish person to Genesis 12:1-3, where God makes a covenant with Abraham (the “father” of the Jews):

The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Then point the Jewish person to Genesis 28:10-15:

Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the LORD, and he said: “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

These Bible passages indicate that the promised seed (in Genesis 3:15) was to come through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Circle 3: The Circle of the Messiah’s Tribal Identity

The circle gets even narrower when one demonstrates that the Messiah had to come from the tribe of Judah. This is shown in Genesis 49:10:

The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Here Jacob is on his deathbed. Before he dies, he affirms that the sceptre (of the ruling Messiah) would be from the tribe of Judah.

Circle 4: The Circle of the Messiah’s Family

Scripture tells us that the Messiah had to be from David’s family. This narrows the circle still further. We see this affirmed in 2 Samuel 7:16:

Your [i.e., David’s] house and your kingdom shall endure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.

We also read in Jeremiah 23:5-6:

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

Clearly the ruling Messiah had to come from the family of David.

Circle 5: The Circle of the Messiah’s Birthplace

Scripture clearly prophesies that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This narrows the circle of possible candidates for the Messiah tremendously. Micah 5:2 tells us:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

So far we have seen that the Messiah had to become a human being, had to be a Jew, had to be from the tribe of Judah and the family of David, and He must be born in Bethlehem (a small, insignificant city in ancient times). Failure to fulfill any one of these conditions disqualifies a person as a possible candidate.

Circle 6: The Circle of the Messiah’s Manner of Life, Rejection, and Death

Regarding the Messiah’s manner of life, rejection, and death, point the Jewish person to Isaiah 53. Note the following excerpts:

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. (Isa. 53:1-4).

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isa. 53:7-9).

Note from these verses that: (1) The Messiah was to be despised and rejected by His fellow Jews. (2) He would be put to death following a judicial proceeding. (3) He would be guiltless. Obviously these facts about the Messiah narrow the circle still further.

Circle 7: The Circle of Chronology

Point the Jewish person to Daniel 9:24-26:

Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Regarding this passage, note the following facts: (1) The city would be rebuilt, as would the Temple. (2) The Messiah would come. (3) The Messiah would be “cut off” (die) but not for Himself. (4) The city and the Temple would be destroyed. Note especially that the Messiah had to come and die prior to the destruction of the second temple, which occurred in A.D. 70.

Clearly, this narrows the circle of potential candidates incredibly. Is there anyone who has fulfilled all these conditions? Is there anyone who was a human being, a Jew, from the tribe of Judah and the family of David, born in Bethlehem, was despised and rejected by the Jewish people, died as a result of a judicial proceeding, was guiltless, and came and died before the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70? Yes there was, and His name was Jesus!

To further demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, note the following facts, taken from Appendix B of my book Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ.3 These prophecies — taken together — narrow the field so much that there can be no doubt as to who the Messiah is.


From the Book of Genesis to the Book of Malachi, the Old Testament abounds with anticipations of the coming Messiah. Numerous predictions—fulfilled to the “crossing of the t” and the “dotting of the i” in the New Testament—relate to His birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and glory.

Some liberal scholars have attempted to argue that these prophecies were made after Jesus lived, not before. They have suggested that the books of the Old Testament were written close to the time of Christ and that the messianic prophecies were merely Christian inventions. But to make this type of claim is to completely ignore the historical evidence. Indeed, Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks point out:

Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the Book of Daniel by about 167 B.C. Though there is good evidence to date most of these books much earlier (some of the Psalms and earlier prophets were in the eighth and ninth centuries B.C.), what difference would it make? It is just as hard to predict an event 200 years in the future as it is to predict one that is 800 years in the future. Both feats would require nothing less than divine knowledge.4

God’s ability to foretell future events is one thing that separates Him from all the false gods. Addressing the polytheism of Isaiah’s time, God said:

• “Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come—yes, let him foretell what will come” (Isa. 44:7).

• “Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one” (Isa. 44:8).

• “…Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me…” (Isa. 45:21).

• “I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass…. Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, ‘My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them’” (Isa. 48:3, 5).

Of course, anyone can make predictions—that is easy. But having them fulfilled is another story altogether. “The more statements you make about the future and the greater the detail, the better the chances are that you will be proven wrong.”5 But God was never wrong; all the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled specifically and precisely in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus often indicated to listeners that He was the specific fulfillment of messianic prophecy. For example, He made the following comments on different occasions:

• “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).

• “But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled” (Matt. 26:56).

• “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).

• “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:39-40).

• “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:46-47).

• “Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, ‘Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’” (Luke 4:20-21).

An in-depth study of the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament is beyond the scope of this article. However, the chart below lists some of the more important messianic prophecies that were directly fulfilled by Jesus Christ.


Topic Old Testament Prophecy New Testament Fulfillment in Christ

Seed of woman Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4

Line of Abraham Genesis 12:2 Matthew 1:1

Line of Jacob Numbers 24:17 Luke 3:23, 34

Line of Judah Genesis 49:10 Matthew 1:2

Line of Jesse Isaiah 11:1 Luke 3:23, 32

Line of David 2 Samuel 7:12-16 Matthew 1:1

Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23

Birthplace: Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:6

Forerunner: John Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1, Matthew 3:3

Escape into Egypt Hosea 11:1 Matthew 2:14

Herod kills children Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16

King Psalm 2:6 Matthew 21:5

Prophet Deut 18:15-18 Acts 3:22-23

Priest Psalm 110:4 Hebrews 5:6-10

Judge Isaiah 33:22 John 5:30

Called “Lord” Psalm 110:1 Luke 2:11

Called “Immanuel” Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23

Anointed by Holy Spirit Isaiah 11:2 Matthew 3:16-17

Zeal for God Psalm 69:9 John 2:15-17

Ministry in Galilee Isaiah 9:1-2 Matthew 4:12-16

Ministry of miracles Isaiah 35:5-6 Matthew 9:35

Bore world’s sins Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46

Ridiculed Psalm 22:7-8 Matthew 27:39, 43

Stumbling stone to Jew Psalm 118:22 1 Peter 2:7

Rejected by own people Isaiah 53:3 John 7:5, 48

Light to Gentiles Isaiah 60:3 Acts 13:47-48

Taught parables Psalm 78:2 Matthew 13:34

Cleansed the temple Malachi 3:1 Matthew 21:12

Sold for 30 shekels Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:15

Forsaken by disciples Zechariah 13:7 Mark 14:50

Silent before accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 27:12-19

Hands and feet pierced Psalm 22:16 John 20:25

Heart broken Psalm 22:14 John 19:34

Crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38

No bones broken Psalm 22:17 John 19:33-36

Soldiers gambled Psalm 22:18 John 19:24

Suffered thirst on cross Psalm 69:21 John 19:28

Vinegar offered Psalm 69:21 Matthew 27:34

Christ’s prayer Psalm 22:24 Matthew 26:39

Disfigured Isaiah 52:14 John 19:1

Scourging and death Isaiah 53:5 John 19:1, 18

His “forsaken” cry Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46

Committed self to God Psalm 31:5 Luke 23:46

Rich man’s tomb Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57-60

Resurrection Psalm 16:10; 22:22 Matthew 28:6

Ascension Psalm 68:18 Luke 24:50-53

Right hand of God Psalm 110:1 Hebrews 1:3

Any reasonable person who examines these Old Testament prophecies in an objective manner must conclude that Jesus was the promised Messiah. “If these messianic prophecies were written hundreds of years before they occurred, and if they could never have been foreseen and depended upon factors outside human control for their fulfillment, and if all of these prophecies perfectly fit the person and life of Jesus Christ, then Jesus had to be the Messiah.”6

Indeed, Christ on three different occasions directly claimed in so many words to be the “Christ.” (Note that the word Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah.) For example, in John 4:25 Jesus encountered a Samaritan woman who said to Him, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming….” To which Jesus replied, “I who speak to you am he” (v. 26). Later, Jesus referred to Himself in the third person, in His high priestly prayer to the Father, as “Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). In Mark 14:61-62, we find the high priest asking Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”—to which Jesus declared unequivocally, “I am….”

Others also recognized that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. In response to Jesus’ inquiry concerning His disciples’ understanding of Him, Peter confessed: “You are the Christ…” (Matt. 16:16). When Jesus said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” Martha answered, “Yes, Lord…. I believe that you are the Christ…” (John 11:25-27).

Some may ask why Jesus didn’t explicitly claim more often to be the prophesied Messiah. Bible scholar Robert L. Reymond offers us some keen insights in answering this question:

Jews of the first century regarded the Messiah primarily as Israel’s national deliverer from the yoke of Gentile oppression….Had Jesus employed uncritically the current popular term as a description of Himself and His mission before divesting it of its one-sided associations and infusing it with its richer, full-orbed Old Testament meaning, which included the work of the Messiah as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, His mission would have been gravely misunderstood and His efforts to instruct the people even more difficult. Consequently, the evidence suggests that He acknowledged He was the ‘Christ’ only where there was little or no danger of His claim being politicized — as in the case of the Samaritan woman, in private conversation with His disciples (at the same time, demanding that they tell no one that He was the Messiah), in semi-private prayer, or before the Sanhedrin when silence no longer mattered or served His purpose.7

Even if Jesus had never verbally claimed to be the prophesied Messiah, the very fact that He was the precise fulfillment of virtually hundreds of messianic prophecies cannot be dismissed, as some liberal critics have attempted. The odds against one person fulfilling all these prophecies are astronomical; indeed, it is impossible to calculate. But fulfill these prophecies, Jesus did—and then He added proof upon proof regarding His identity by the many astounding miracles He performed. Truly, Jesus is the Messiah.

Ron Rhodes


1. Stuart Dauermann, n.p., n.d.

2. Scripture quotations are from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

3. Ron Rhodes, Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 233-237.

4. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 115.

5. John Ankerberg, John Weldon, and Walter C. Kaiser, The Case for Jesus the Messiah (Chattanooga: The John Ankerberg Evangelistic Association, 1989), 16.

6. Ibid., 94.

7. Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990), 47.

Open letter to President Obama (Part 148)

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed

Uploaded by on Jun 29, 2010

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


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

Dear Mr. President,

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

If welfare increases as much as it has in the last decade then it will ruin our country soon. Not only does it hurt the incentive to work since many get caught in the welfare trap, but we can no longer pay for increases like this one for the food stamp budget (up 400% since 2000).

Rachel Sheffield

April 23, 2012 at 11:39 am

The number of Americans on food stamps (or, as it is now called, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) is higher than ever before, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. Since 2007, rolls have grown by 70 percent. And participation rates are expected to increase over the next two years.

While some of the growth can be attributed to the recession, participation rates were steadily climbing prior to the recession. Since 2000, the number of Americans on food stamps has jumped by roughly 260 percent, from 17.2 million to 44.7 million in 2011.

Naturally, government spending on food stamps has also jumped, from approximately $20 billion in 2000 to a whopping $78 billion last year, a nearly 400 percent increase.

The growth in participation rates seems to be part of the federal government’s goal, as a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture released just this month explains.

The food stamps program is just one part of an ever-expanding government welfare system that includes not only 12 food assistance welfare programs but a total of 79 federal welfare programs. These programs provide not only food assistance but cash, housing, energy and utility assistance, education services, child care, medical care, and so forth.

The total cost of these programs reached $927 billion last year. Welfare is now the fastest growing part of government spending, and despite welfare costs increasing 16-fold since the War on Poverty began in the 1960s—and total spending on cash, food, and housing assistance now twice the amount necessary to pull all Americans out of poverty—President Obama wants to spend more. Aggregate welfare costs are projected to reach over $1.5 trillion in 2022.

As Heritage senior fellow Robert Rector said last week at a House Budget Committee hearing, out of control welfare costs are contributing to “ruinous and unsustainable future budget deficits.”

To get spending under control, Congress can roll back current welfare spending to pre-recession levels (adjusted for inflation) once the current recession ends and then capping aggregate welfare spending at the rate of inflation going forward. Doing so would save American taxpayers more than $2.7 trillion during the first decade.

America’s growing welfare state is creating a system of increased dependence and contributing to a growing federal debt. Helping the poor should mean promoting individual freedom through self-reliance rather than creating dependence through an unsustainable government dole.


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


Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,

The Government should have limited power over us

I think the government should have limited power over us. However, the liberals are in love with the government.

Julia Shaw

September 6, 2012 at 12:15 pm

The city of Charlotte’s convention motto this week is “We make it possible.” And who is this “we”?

Here’s the host committee’s answer: “Government is the only thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state, and our nation.”

What a dreary outlook. Government as our most important association. Every other association in our lives—family, church, Boy Scouts—separates us. Only government unites us.

Intentionally or not, the line echoes President Obama’s off-the-prompter remarks during a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, in July.

“[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” the President said. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Commentators have bent over backward to cover for these comments by insisting the President couldn’t have meant what he said. They’ve said that, taken in context, his remarks amount to a statement that individual business owners didn’t build the “roads, bridges, infrastructure, education, emergency services and law and order” that make it possible to run a business. Yet no one is arguing for eliminating roads and bridges.

But here’s what is being argued, both by Obama and again by the host committee: Government makes things happen—it’s the mother’s milk of human flourishing.

The perfect case in point is the “Julia” campaign, which traces a fictional woman’s life and ascribes all good things in it to federal—specifically Obama Administration—initiatives. In this world, Julia’s good life wasn’t built by her, or her parents, or her community, but by the government.

The audacity of this argument is rare. It was first advanced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, drawing on the work of Herbert Croly. TR’s frankness aside, progressives usually prefer to advance their ideology under the cloak of non-ideological pragmatism—liberals say they’re just doing “what works.”

But the tagline and the video combined with President Obama’s comment—“We make it possible” because “you didn’t build that”—reveal how limitless the progressive vision of government is.

If we’re really incapable of ruling ourselves, then we need government to bless and subsidize every decision we make and provide us with meaning in our lives. But if we are indeed self-governing citizens, then we grant government limited power to perform certain tasks clearly articulated in our founding documents, tasks that we as citizens and members of civil society cannot perform.

Open letter to President Obama (Part 147B)

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

Published on Mar 19, 2012 by


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

Dear Mr. President,

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

Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. Also pay attention to the comments of Gary Becker who was one of Milton’s students.

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 . . .


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


Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,

“Friedman Friday” Quotes from Milton Friedman (part 2)

Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose” is excellent and I would recommend the book highly too. I read it and watched the series in 1980 and it had a huge impact on me. Back in 2004 I saw Milton Friedman give an interview in which he said something that I think really summed up most of views in simple statement and here it is:

  • There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
    • Fox News interview (May 2004)

Here are some quotes from Milton Friedman that I thought you would enjoy:

  • The unions might be good for the people who are in the unions but it doesn’t do a thing for the people who are unemployed. Because the union keeps down the number of jobs, it doesn’t do a thing for them.
    • Interview with Brian Lamb, In Depth Book TV (2000)
  • The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I’m not sure that I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.
    • Financial Times [UK] (7 June 2003)
  • I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.
  • There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
    • Fox News interview (May 2004)
  • I am a libertarian with a small “l” and a Republican with a capital “R”.And I am a Republican with a capital “R” on grounds of expediency, not on principle.
  • Keynes was a great economist. In every discipline, progress comes from people who make hypotheses, most of which turn out to be wrong, but all of which ultimately point to the right answer. Now Keynes, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,set forth a hypothesis which was a beautiful one, and it really altered the shape of economics. But it turned out that it was a wrong hypothesis. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a great man!
  • Thanks to economists, all of us, from the days of Adam Smith and before right down to the present, tariffs are perhaps one tenth of one percent lower than they otherwise would have been. … And because of our efforts, we have earned our salaries ten-thousand fold.
  • If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven’t cut taxes enough.
    • As quoted in “Milton Friedman’s Last Lunch” at (11 December 2006)
  • The true test of any scholar’s work is not what his contemporaries say, but what happens to his work in the next 25 or 50 years.And the thing that I will really be proud of is if some of the work I have done is still cited in the text books long after I am gone.
    • As quoted in The Power of Choice (January 2007)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 147)

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

If you lowered the spending of the federal government and lowered taxes then things would be better for families. Instead your big government views make it necessary for people to have two incomes in order to pay for all the oppressive taxes we have to pay now.

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog rightly noted that Hilary Rosen is not the Democratic Party, but she does voice some their views. Here is a good response to her view:

Valuing Mothers’ Work

Rachel Sheffield

April 12, 2012 at 4:12 pm

Yesterday, Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist and Democratic National Convention advisor, said that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.”

By Rosen’s standard, raising children—five boys, in Mrs. Romney’s case—apparently doesn’t count as work. The nation’s 85.4 million mothers would likely disagree.

Rosen has since apologized for her remarks, saying her words “were poorly chosen.”

Yet, as Carrie Lukas, managing director of Independent Women’s Forum notes:

It’s tempting, of course, to hold this remark up as evidence of the very low opinion that many on the Left hold of stay-at-home moms. Feminists like Linda Hirshman, author of Get to Work … and Get a Life Before It’s Too Late have helped create the sense that many on the Left consider women who take time out of the workforce as letting down the sisterhood, and failing to contribute to society in any meaningful way.

And as Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, asserts, Rosen’s remarks are evidence of “a deeper problem with the values of this administration and even sometimes society at large.” She went on:

We say raising kids is the hardest and most important work in the world. How does this administration not get how important stay-at-home moms are to our nation? Haven’t they heard the saying, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”?

And if women had it their way, they would spend more time at home with their children. A 2007 Pew Survey reveals that 70 percent of full-time working mothers with children under 18 would prefer to work either part-time or not at all. The number of women who prefer to stay at home has grown since the late 1990s. As the Pew report shows, today just 21 percent of all working mothers say that full-time work is the most ideal situation for them, compared to 32 percent who said that in 1997.

However, the Obama Administration’s big government policies make it more difficult for families to make ends meet, restricting mothers’ ability to choose their ideal work situations. Burdensome taxes along with a rising national debt not only mean that families have less economic freedom today and that future generations will be strapped with the debt created by their predecessors.

Mothers are a priceless resource to their children, families, and the nation. Policies should support mothers—and fathers—who work hard every day to nurture the next generation of Americans.


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


Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,