Monthly Archives: September 2012

Listing of transcripts and videos of “Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave on www.theDailyHatch.org

In the last few years the number of people receiving Food Stamps has skyrocketed. President Obama has not cut any federal welfare programs but has increased them, and he  has used class warfare over and over the last few months and according to him equality at the finish line is the equality that we should all be talking about. However, socialism has never worked and it has always killed incentive to produce more. Milton Friedman shows in this film series below how so many people get caught in the “Welfare Trap.” Friedman also gives a great solution to this problem in the “negative income tax.” I am glad that I had the chance to be studying his work for over 30 years now.

In 1980 when I first sat down and read the book “Free to Choose” I was involved in Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president and excited about the race. Milton Friedman’s books and film series really helped form my conservative views. Take a look at one of my favorite films of his:

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Abstract:

Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. Travelling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Transcript:
Friedman: After the 2nd World War, New York City authorities retained rent control supposedly to help their poorer citizens. The intentions were good. This in the Bronx was one result.
By the 50’s the same authorities were taxing their citizens. Including those who lived in the Bronx and other devastated areas beyond the East River to subsidize public housing. Another idea with good intentions yet poor people are paying for this, subsidized apartments for the well-to-do. When government at city or federal level spends our money to help us, strange things happen.
The idea that government had to protect us came to be accepted during the terrible years of the Depression. Capitalism was said to have failed. And politicians were looking for a new approach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a candidate for the presidency. He was governor of New York State. At the governor’s mansion in Albany, he met repeatedly with friends and colleagues to try to find some way out of the Depression. The problems of the day were to be solved by government action and government spending. The measures that FDR and his associates discussed here derived from a long line of past experience. Some of the roots of these measures go back to Bismark’s Germany at the end of the 19th Century. The first modern state to institute old age pensions and other similar measures on the part of government. In the early 20th Century Great Britain followed suit under Lloyd George and Churchill. It too instituted old age pensions and similar plans.
These precursors of the modern welfare state had little effect on practice in the United States. But they did have a very great effect on the intellectuals on the campus like those who gathered here with FDR. The people who met here had little personal experience of the horrors of the Depression but they were confident that they had the solution. In their long discussions as they sat around this fireplace trying to design programs to meet the problems raised by the worst Depression in the history of the United States, they quite naturally drew upon the ideas that were prevalent at the time. The intellectual climate had become one in which it was taken for granted that government had to play a major role in solving the problems in providing what came later to be called Security from Cradle to Grave.
Roosevelt’s first priority after his election was to deal with massive unemployment. A Public Works program was started. The government financed projects to build highways, bridges and dams. The National Recovery Administration was set up to revitalize industry. Roosevelt wanted to see America move into a new era. The Social Security Act was passed and other measures followed. Unemployment benefits, welfare payments, distribution of surplus food. With these measures, of course, came rules, regulations and red tape as familiar today as they were novel then. The government bureaucracy began to grow and it’s been growing ever since.
This is just a small part of the Social Security empire today. Their headquarters in Baltimore has 16 rooms this size. All these people are dispensing our money with the best possible intentions. But at what cost?
In the 50 years since the Albany meetings, we have given government more and more control over our lives and our income. In New York State alone, these government buildings house 11,000 bureaucrats. Administering government programs that cost New York taxpayers 22 billion dollars. At the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has a budget larger than any government in the world except only Russia and the United States.
Yet these government measures often do not help the people they are supposed to. Richard Brown’s daughter, Helema, needs constant medical attention. She has a throat defect and has to be connected to a breathing machine so that she’ll survive the nights. It’s expensive treatment and you might expect the family to qualify for a Medicaid grant.
Richard Brown: No, I don’t get it, cause I’m not eligible for it. I make a few dollars too much and the salary that I make I can’t afford to really live and to save anything is out of the question. And I mean, I live, we live from payday to payday. I mean literally from payday to payday.
Friedman: His struggle isn’t made any easier by the fact that Mr. Brown knows that if he gave up his job as an orderly at the Harlem Hospital, he would qualify for a government handout. And he’d be better off financially.
Hospital Worker: Mr. Brown, do me a favor please? There is a section patient.
Friedman: It’s a terrible pressure on him. But he is proud of the work that he does here and he’s strong enough to resist the pressure.
Richard Brown: I’m Mr. Brown. Your fully dilated and I’m here to take you to the delivery. Try not to push, please. We want to have a nice sterile delivery.
Friedman: Mr. Brown has found out the hard way that welfare programs destroy an individual’s independence.
Richard Brown: We’ve considered welfare. We went to see, to apply for welfare but, we were told that we were only eligible for $5.00 a month. And, to receive this $5.00 we would have to cash in our son’s savings bonds. And that’s not even worth it. I don’t believe in something for nothing anyway.
Mrs. Brown: I think a lot of people are capable of working and are willing to work, but it’s just the way it is set up. It, the mother and the children are better off if the husband isn’t working or if the husband isn’t there. And this breaks up so many poor families.
Friedman: One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up. In this public housing project in the Bronx, New York, 3/4’s of the families are now receiving welfare payments.
Well Mr. Brown wanted to keep away from this kind of thing for a very good reason. The people who get on welfare lose their human independence and feeling of dignity. They become subject to the dictates and whims of their welfare supervisor who can tell them whether they can live here or there, whether they may put in a telephone, what they may do with their lives. They are treated like children, not like responsible adults and they are trapped in the system. Maybe a job comes up which looks better than welfare but they are afraid to take it because if they lose it after a few months it maybe six months or nine months before they can get back onto welfare. And as a result, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle rather than simply a temporary state of affairs.
Things have gone even further elsewhere. This is a huge mistake. A public housing project in Manchester, England.
Well we’re 3,000 miles away from the Bronx here but you’d never know it just by looking around. It looks as if we are at the same place. It’s the same kind of flats, the same kind of massive housing units, decrepit even though they were only built 7 or 8 years ago. Vandalism, graffiti, the same feeling about the place. Of people who don’t have a great deal of drive and energy because somebody else is taking care of their day to day needs because the state has deprived them of an incentive to find jobs to become responsible people to be the real support for themselves and their families.

Other segments:

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 7 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did? VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 6 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 5 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 5 of 7 MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter) VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not? MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having […]

War on poverty is a failure in USA

Milton Friedman’s solution to limiting poverty Liberals just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 4 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 4 of 7 The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

 

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

John L. Smith speaks to Little Rock Touchdown Club (part1)

 

I enjoyed the speech today. It was extremely short then he took questions. Here is a rundown from Arkansas Sports 360.

<!–

51

–>

9/24/2012 at 1:04pm

Image by Trent Ogle

John L. Smith is apparently being John L. Smith today at the Little Rock Touchdown Club.

From Jim Harris’ twitter feed:

•”exhorting fans not to give up on program, John L Smith just said ‘It’s a state of Alabama program.'”

UPDATE: Here’s the qoute:

“I’m asking you as fans, don’t giv eup on those players, don’t give up on us. It’s our program, it’s a state of Alabama program. It’s not one individual’s program, so hang in there, we’re all part of it.”

•Asked where he thought Bobby Petrino would end up next year, Kentucky or Auburn, Smith laughed, then said “a better guess would be Auburn.”

We’re told the room is getting very uncomfortable.

Jim Harris will have a column and Trent Ogle is providing video from today’s appearance.

ArkansasSports360.com will update this post.

Famous Arkansan Bill Clinton (1946–) biography and video

Capitol Tour with Senator Mark Pryor

Published on Jun 13, 2012 by

Episode 1: Arkansans in the Capitol

__________

I have posted a lot in the past about Mark Pryor and most of the posts have been critical. (“THIRSTY THURSDAY” open letters to Senator Pryor displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org).  However, I must give him credit for this excellent video above about famous Arkansans who are recognized in Washington.

Fortieth and Forty-second Governor (1979–1981, 1983–1992)
Forty-second President of the United States (1993–2001)
aka: William Jefferson Clinton

William Jefferson Clinton, a native of Hope (Hempstead County), was the fortieth and forty-second governor of Arkansas and the forty-second president of the United States. Clinton’s tenure as governor of Arkansas, eleven years and eleven months total, was the second longest in the state’s history. Only Orval E. Faubus served longer, with twelve years. Clinton was the second youngest governor in the state’s history, after John Selden Roane, and the third youngest person to become president, after Theodore Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Clinton’s years as governor were marked by extensive efforts to reform the public school system and to spur economic growth. He persuaded lawmakers to enact numerous educational reforms, levy substantial taxes to improve education, and enact an array of laws to invite industrial development and spur business investment.

His election as president in 1992 was followed by the longest period of sustained economic growth in U.S. history. A controversial package of spending reductions and tax increases early in his first year in office and further budget changes in 1997 led to the elimination of deficits in the federal budget and to four successive budget surpluses. It had been fifty years since the government ran three or more surpluses in a row (1947–1949) .

Clinton was president during a period of intense partisanship. Throughout his political career, he demonstrated an ability to bounce back from defeats and scandal. His presidency was beset by numerous investigations, one of which resulted in his becoming the first elected American president to be impeached. Still, he left office in 2001 enjoying high popularity.

Early Life
Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV on August 19, 1946, in Hope, the son of William Jefferson Blythe III and Virginia Cassidy Blythe. His father, a traveling salesman, was killed in an automobile accident before Clinton was born. After he became president, Clinton learned that his father had been married at least three times and that he had a half-brother and a half-sister whom he had never met. He changed his name to Clinton after his mother married Roger Clinton, a car dealer. The family moved to Hot Springs (Garland County), where he graduated from high school. After he became president of the United States, he and his mother revealed that Roger Clinton had been an alcoholic who abused Clinton, Clinton’s mother, and Clinton’s younger half-brother, Roger.

Clinton was a precocious student, musically talented and popular. He graduated from Georgetown University in Washington DC, attended Oxford University in Oxford, England, on a Rhodes Scholarship, and received a law degree from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, where he met his future wife, Hillary Rodham of Park Ridge, Illinois. After receiving a law degree in 1973, he returned to Arkansas to teach law at the University of Arkansas (UA) in Fayetteville (Washington County). Rodham joined him on the faculty in 1974, and they were married on October 11, 1975.

Early Political Career
Intent on a political career since he was a child, Clinton was selected to offices throughout his student career. While a student at Georgetown, he worked on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was chaired by Arkansas senator J. William Fulbright, a Democrat. In 1972, he coordinated the presidential campaign of Senator George S. McGovern in Texas. He also handled the Arkansas delegation at the Democratic National Convention.

In 1974, only months after joining the faculty at the University of Arkansas, he ran for United States representative in the state’s Third Congressional District (northwest Arkansas). He won the Democratic nomination but lost—fifty-two percent to forty-eight percent—to Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt, a Republican running for his fifth term. Clinton easily won a race for attorney general in 1976 against Democratic opponents George O. Jernigan Jr. and Clarence Cash. He was unopposed in the general election. He gained popularity when his office opposed rate increases for utilities and fought, on environmental grounds, Arkansas Power and Light’s plans to build a coal-fired plant in Independence County to generate electricity. In 1978, he easily defeated four candidates for the Democratic nomination for governor and then just as handily defeated the Republican candidate, Lynn Lowe of Texarkana (Miller County), compiling 63.4 percent of the votes. He was sworn in as governor in January 1979 at the age of thirty-two.

Governor of Arkansas
In his first term, Clinton proposed modest reforms in education and commercial regulation, particularly to control pollution, but his biggest initiative, a highway program, was expensive fiscally and politically. He persuaded the legislature to increase taxes on motor fuels and to raise other fees on vehicles. Increases in the annual registration fees of automobiles and trucks were particularly unpopular. Clinton would always say that the license fees cost him re-election in 1980, although other initiatives he undertook angered large interests. The trucking industry was irked by his efforts to raise taxes on big rigs and also by his opposition to raising the weight limits for Arkansas highways; poultry interests were irked by the highway weight issue, the wood-products industry by his office’s harsh criticism of clear-cutting forests, and bankers by his suggestion that idle state funds be distributed among banks based on their lending policies. Utility interests, which were particularly powerful, were angry over Clinton’s efforts to stiffen the regulation of rate increases, and he also battled the state’s largest electric utility, Arkansas Power and Light, over the parent company’s successful effort to make Arkansas ratepayers bear a large share of the costs of a big nuclear power plant at Port Gibson, Mississippi. Those interests tended to support his Republican opponent in 1980.

Clinton was also hurt politically by the presence of Cuban refugees at Fort Chaffee, sent there by Clinton’s friend, President Jimmy Carter. Cuba had temporarily lifted its exit restrictions and permitted 120,000 Cubans to go to the United States by boat. Carter sent 18,000 of them to Fort Chaffee. About 300 of the Cubans broke out of the compound in May and rampaged down nearby roads. During the day’s melee, sixty-two people were injured, none seriously, and three buildings at Fort Chaffee were destroyed. A video of the marauding Cubans turned up in an effective campaign ad for Clinton’s opponent in the election. In August, Carter broke a promise to Clinton and the state when he sent all the refugees from northern military posts to Fort Chaffee because the northern posts were not well equipped for winter. Frank D. White, a former banker and state industrial-development official, switched parties to run for governor in 1980. He blamed Clinton for the threat to public safety that the Cubans represented and for higher vehicle license fees. He defeated Clinton in the election with almost fifty-two percent of the vote.

Clinton began practicing law in Little Rock (Pulaski County) and prepared for the 1982 governor’s race. He defeated former Attorney General Joe Purcell and former U.S. Representative Jim Guy Tucker for the Democratic nomination and easily defeated White to regain the office. He was re-elected in 1984, 1986, and 1990 (Arkansas adopted a four-year term for governors starting in 1986).

During the campaign of 1982, Clinton promised to make major strides in education, including a large investment of public money, but he avoided saying he would raise taxes. He was handed the opportunity to raise taxes when the Arkansas Supreme Court in the spring of 1983 ruled that the system of financing the public schools was unconstitutional because it provided unequal resources for school districts. Clinton called a special session of the legislature and proposed higher taxes and a large package of school laws, including a new formula for distributing the state’s dollars among school districts more equitably and a controversial law requiring all teachers and school administrators to pass a test of basic skills. The legislature raised the sales tax from three to four percent and approved most of his other legislation. The Arkansas Board of Education adopted tougher accreditation standards for schools, which were proposed by a study commission headed by the governor’s wife.

The regular legislative session of 1985 was devoted to economic development. The legislature approved almost all of Clinton’s program, which included changes in banking laws, start-up money for technology-oriented businesses, and large tax incentives for Arkansas industries that expanded their production and jobs. Arkansas was one of the best states in new job creation in the next six years, but most of the jobs did not pay high wages, and it remained one of the worst states in average income.

Clinton tried, rather unsuccessfully, in 1987 and 1989 to raise new taxes for education, but after a resounding victory in the 1990 election over a well-financed Republican opponent, Sheffield Nelson, and the defeat of several key legislative opponents, he had major success in 1991. He had called a news conference in 1988 to announce plans to run for president but changed his mind at the last minute, explaining that the campaign and the job would be too hard on his wife and daughter, Chelsea Victoria, who was eight. Although he had promised during the 1990 campaign that he would complete his four-year term, he decided to run for president in 1992. His education reforms and his leadership of several national organizations, including the National Governors’ Conference and the Democratic Leadership Council—a group of moderate Democratic officeholders and businesspeople who sought to alter the liberal bent of the national Democratic Party—strengthened his national stature and gave him important connections.

Presidential Elections
On October 3, 1991, Clinton announced that he would run for president in 1992. He had five Democratic opponents: Senator Robert Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, former senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, Governor L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, and former California governor Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown. Although he quickly established himself as the frontrunner, his campaign was nearly derailed by accusations of marital infidelity—including a charge by a Little Rock woman named Gennifer Flowers that she had had a long-running affair with Clinton when he was attorney general and governor—and by revelations that he had taken unusual steps to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. He deflected those controversies and regained momentum. He easily won the Democratic nomination and chose Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee as his vice presidential running mate.

Having successfully led a war against Iraq a year earlier, President George H. W. Bush enjoyed high poll ratings when the campaign began, but a sluggish economy and high unemployment diminished his popularity. Clinton concentrated on the economy, promising to secure health insurance coverage for every American, reform the welfare system, enact a tax cut for the middle class, begin a national service program, reform the system of financing federal campaigns, and invest heavily in the nation’s infrastructure, which he said was deteriorating. H. Ross Perot, a wealthy Texas businessman, ran as an independent and promised to eliminate the federal budget deficit by raising taxes and cutting government spending. Clinton was helped by the weak economy and a perception that President Bush had put little emphasis on improving it, but Clinton also proved a far better campaigner, particularly in the three debates. The contrast between the aging and stiff president and the young and agile governor was especially sharp in the second debate, a town-hall arrangement where Clinton engaged questioners personally. Bush counted on his vast experience in foreign policy and the successful war to liberate Kuwait to give him an edge against the governor of what he described as a small and poor state. He called Clinton a “tax-and-spend liberal.” Clinton received forty-three percent of the popular vote to Bush’s thirty-eight percent and Perot’s nineteen percent and won even more decisively in the Electoral College, 370 to 168.

Although he had been battered by controversy during his first term and his party had lost control of both houses of Congress in 1994, Clinton had an easier election for a second term in 1996. Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, a longtime veteran of Congress and a moderate, won the Republican nomination. Perot ran again, this time as the candidate of the Reform Party, which he organized. Dole attacked Clinton’s character and pointed to his own long service in the military in World War II and in Congress. Dole’s age, seventy-three, was a subtle issue. Clinton was re-elected with forty-nine percent of the popular vote to Dole’s forty-one percent and Perot’s nine percent. Clinton won the electoral vote with 379 votes to Dole’s 159.

Domestic Record
Bitter controversy dogged Clinton from his election until he left office. He had said during his first campaign that he would lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, and soon after the election, he indicated that he would move quickly. Protests in Congress and from military leaders dominated the periods before and after his inauguration until he reached a compromise with service leaders: homosexuals could serve if they did not disclose their sexual orientation and did not engage in homosexual conduct. Still, the issue crippled him politically. In his first two years, he did succeed in passing a law that required companies with more than fifty workers to give workers up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave each year to cope with family problems, in addition to another law that established a national service program called AmeriCorps in which young people perform public service work for a period of time.

Two congressional battles in the first two years decided the course of his presidency. Even before he took office, Clinton was persuaded by his new economic team—including Robert E. Rubin (chairman of the National Economic Council), Laura D’Andrea Tyson (chair of the Council of Economic Advisers), Leon Panetta (director of the Office of Management and Budget), Lawrence H. Summers (undersecretary of treasury for international affairs) and Alan S. Blinder (an economic adviser)—that the nation’s critical economic need was to lower the huge federal budget deficit, which had reached $290 billion in President Bush’s last fiscal year (1992–93). Lowering or eliminating the deficit would reassure the bond markets, reduce long-term interest rates, and encourage greater business investment and more jobs. His budget package—which passed both houses of Congress without a vote to spare and without a single Republican vote—reduced spending over five years by $255 billion and increased taxes, mainly on high incomes, by $241 billion. The legislation also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided extra income for millions of families earning less than $30,000 a year. The deficit declined sharply over the next two years and disappeared in 1998.

The other congressional battle was over national health insurance. Clinton appointed his wife to chair a task force to study insurance problems and recommend a plan for guaranteeing coverage for everyone. Under that plan, people would join an alliance in each state that would contract with insurance companies and other groups to offer insurance to members. The long, complicated legislation was opposed by many insurance companies and other healthcare groups and by every Republican in Congress. Clinton failed to work out a compromise with moderate Republicans who wanted an expanded insurance system, and the initiative died. That failure and the unpopularity of tax increases cost a number of Democrats their seats in the 1994 congressional elections, and Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, making it difficult for Clinton to get any of his proposals through Congress in his last six years.

After Republicans gained control of Congress, Clinton spent the next six years battling conservatives over the federal budget and social issues such as abortion. The Republican majority, led by the new speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, sought to cut federal spending on education, environmental protection, and Medicare and Medicaid. Clinton used his power of veto and the threat of a veto to thwart most of the cuts. Years later, he said halting all the Republican initiatives that he considered so harmful was one of his greatest achievements. When Clinton and the congressional majority could not agree on a budget in 1995 and 1996, the Republicans forced a temporary shutdown of the government. Public opinion seemed to side with the president, and Congress eventually capitulated, which greatly strengthened Clinton’s standing in the presidential election year of 1996.

Despite the stalemate with Republicans on most issues, Clinton succeeded on two major initiatives after 1994. Since 1985, when he was governor, Clinton had advocated a major overhaul of the welfare system to encourage work, and in his 1992 campaign, he had promised to “end welfare as we know it.” When Congress approved a harsher version of his proposal in 1996, he signed it into law over the objections of many in his own administration and in Congress. He had vetoed two earlier measures that were even harsher. The law limited lifetime welfare benefits to five years and required adult recipients to work after two years on welfare. In 1997, he worked out a compromise budget package with Congress that included tax cuts and spending cuts aimed at hastening a balanced budget, which was balanced the next year for the first time since 1969. The legislation also began a new children’s health insurance program, which expanded Medicaid coverage to millions more children from low- and middle-income families. Clinton also signed into law bipartisan measures to combat terrorism, allowing more spending to fight terrorism and making it easier to deport foreigners suspected of terrorism.

Foreign affairs
World communism was no longer the nation’s principal adversary when Clinton took office. Instead, he was confronted with religious and ethnic strife, genocide, and suffering in smaller and weaker countries where the interests of the United States were not clear. He was at first reluctant to commit military forces to such regions, but he developed an expansive view of the country’s strategic interest in protecting human rights and promoting stability. He sent forces to end fighting and protect civilians in Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo in the former republic of Yugoslavia. He would later state his regret that he had not done the same in 1994 when two million people were displaced and hundreds of thousands were slain in the African nation of Rwanda.

Clinton tried to arrange peace between religious and ethnic rivals in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland. His intervention brought an end to religious strife in Northern Ireland, a declaration of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and an agreement between Israel and Jordan to end their state of war.

In most foreign interventions, he was opposed by leaders of the Republican Party and sometimes, according to polls, by the public. When the Mexican peso collapsed in 1995, threatening the failure of the Mexican economy, Clinton proposed a loan package to Mexico to ease the crisis. Congress balked when polls showed public opposition to the bailout. Clinton then devised a $20 billion loan package to restore world confidence in Mexico and executed it alone. Mexico rallied and paid off the loans with interest in 1997, three years ahead of schedule.

But the major instrument of Clinton’s foreign policy was not military intervention or diplomacy but trade and economic leverage. He believed that lower tariffs and freer trade with other nations would raise the standard of living in poor nations, increase U.S. exports, and improve the American economy. Over the opposition of many in his own party who thought it would cost too many American jobs, he completed negotiations and won ratification in late 1993 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which reduced tariffs and created a free-trading bloc among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. He also finished work on a comprehensive world trade agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which Congress ratified in 1994.

Investigations and Impeachment
For his entire presidency, Clinton, his wife, and members of his administration were hounded by accusations of wrongdoing. When Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate after the 1994 elections, congressional committees conducted investigations and lengthy hearings on accusations of misconduct. Also, an unprecedented seven independent counsels (special prosecutors) were appointed to investigate allegations of misconduct. A law enacted during the Watergate scandals relating to the administration of President Richard Nixon provided for the appointment of independent counsels when there were suspicions of misconduct involving the president, vice president, or other major administration officials. Most of the investigations did not involve the president. Allegations included the following: a White House aide had improperly raised funds through a private group while he ran Clinton’s national service corps, Clinton’s first agriculture secretary had accepted improper gifts from companies that his department regulated (including Arkansas-based Tyson Foods), Clinton’s commerce secretary had engaged in improper financial deals, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development had lied to FBI agents during a background check about the size of payments that he had made to a former mistress while he was a Texas mayor, Clinton’s interior secretary had lied to Congress about his role in granting a federal license for a gambling casino, and Clinton’s labor secretary had taken part in an influence-peddling scheme in a former job as a White House aide. None of those investigations produced evidence of illegal activities, although the Housing and Urban Development secretary admitted that he had not been completely truthful about payments to the mistress.

The most troublesome and damaging investigation involved a real estate deal that Clinton and his wife undertook in 1978, while he was attorney general of Arkansas. The investigation became known as “Whitewater,” after the name of the land development company, Whitewater Development Corp., which the Clintons formed with James D. and Susan McDougal of Little Rock. The four had purchased 230 acres of wilderness near the White River and Crooked Creek in Marion County and had lost money when they could not develop and sell the lots. The principal accusation was that the McDougals, and perhaps the Clintons and their real estate project, had benefited from the operations of a Little Rock savings and loan association that James McDougal formed in Little Rock in the 1980s, which eventually went bankrupt. Business deals between the McDougals and a small business lending company in Little Rock run by David Hale, a Little Rock municipal judge, also became a focus of the investigation. The probe was expanded to look into the 1993 suicide of Vincent Foster Jr.—a Little Rock lawyer who became deputy White House counsel—as well as the firing of the White House travel staff and other activities at the White House.

Yielding to Republican criticism, Clinton asked Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994 to appoint an independent counsel on Whitewater. Her appointee, a Republican lawyer named Robert B. Fiske, was later removed by a panel of judges in Washington and replaced with Kenneth W. Starr, who had been solicitor general under President George H. W. Bush.

Starr continued the investigation through the rest of the Clinton presidency. While several Arkansans were indicted in various property dealings in Arkansas, including Governor Jim Guy Tucker, neither the Clintons nor others in his administration were ever implicated in any wrongdoing in the Whitewater-related activities. The investigations concluded that Foster had committed suicide and that the firing of travel staff involved no wrongdoing.

But one part of Starr’s investigation paid off. Agents conducted lengthy inquiries into reports of marital infidelities by Clinton. A former employee of the Arkansas Industrial Development Department, Paula Corbin Jones, filed a lawsuit in 1994 alleging that Clinton had made unwanted sexual advances toward her in a Little Rock hotel room in 1991, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trying the suit would not distract Clinton from his duties as president. In 1998, Linda Tripp, a confidante of Monica Lewinsky, an intern at the White House, gave Starr recordings in which Lewinsky talked about having oral sex with the president. Although the Lewinsky affair was unrelated to any of the Whitewater issues, Starr justified this investigation by saying it was part of a pattern of obstructing justice at the Clinton White House. On September 9, 1998, Starr gave the House of Representatives a lengthy report on Clinton’s indiscretions with Lewinsky, including his efforts to cover them up during testimony before Starr’s grand jury and during a deposition that he gave in the civil case of Paula Jones.

The House Judiciary Committee accused Clinton of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the grounds for impeaching and removing a president, and brought four articles of impeachment against him. On December 19, voting largely along party lines, the House adopted two of the articles—perjury before the grand jury and obstruction of justice—by votes of 228 to 206 and 221 to 212. Democrats charged that the impeachment proceedings were a Republican vendetta to destroy a popular president. But only the Senate can remove a president, by a two-thirds vote. On February 12, 1999, after hearing lengthy arguments presented by Republican members of the House and by defenders of the president, including a passionate closing argument by former Arkansas senator Dale Bumpers, the Senate defeated the perjury article, forty-five for and fifty-five against, and the obstruction of justice article, fifty to fifty. Starr said he would seek criminal charges against Clinton for the Lewinsky affair after the president left office, but on the day before he left office in January 2001, Clinton issued a statement apologizing for giving erroneous testimony to the grand jury, and Starr closed the investigation. Starr’s independent counsel office did not close until May 2004. Owing to the admission of giving false testimony and proceedings instituted by the Professional Ethics Committee, Clinton surrendered his license to practice law in Arkansas.

Post-presidency
Clinton’s wife decided early in 1999 to run for the U.S. Senate seat in New York being vacated by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. She and Clinton bought a house in Chappaqua, New York, to establish residency in New York, and she was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2000. Clinton retired there after leaving office on January 20, opened an office in the Harlem neighborhood, and began to write his autobiography. The book, My Life, was published in 2004 and became a bestseller. Clinton’s presidential library opened in November 2004 on the Little Rock riverfront. He traveled extensively throughout the world, particularly in Africa and Asia, where he instituted efforts to import medicine to combat the AIDS epidemic. In 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Clinton and the elder President Bush to direct humanitarian relief efforts for the victims of a tsunami that killed more than 200,000 people along the coasts of the Indian Ocean on December 26, 2004. Both were also involved in the relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In 2010, Clinton and George W. Bush created the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund to assist the people of Haiti after an earthquake there in January.

Summary
Clinton was among Arkansas’s most productive governors and brought about extensive reforms in public education. His long tenure ended with an extended period of job creation and moderate economic growth. He was even more ambitious as president but not as successful, partly because he dealt with a largely hostile Congress for the last six years of his presidency. He steered the Democratic Party gently away from its modern liberal tradition that traced back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, but he still succeeded in improving the economic well-being of low-income working families by $20 billion a year, with a combination of health insurance for their children, refundable tax credits for work, and tax credits for college expenses. While economists debated the extent to which his policies were responsible, his presidency marked the longest period of sustained economic growth in the nation’s history and yielded four consecutive years of federal budget surpluses. Clinton was president at the peak of U.S. supremacy in the world, and he personally basked in unprecedented global admiration.

For additional information:
Clinton, Bill. Between Hope and History: Meeting America’s Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: Random House, 1996.

———. My Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Clinton Presidential Collection. Old State House Museum Online Collections. Clinton Collection (accessed May 18, 2011).

Conason, Joe, and Gene Lyons. The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.

Dumas, Ernest C., ed. The Clintons of Arkansas: An Introduction by Those Who Know Them Best. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1992.

Fallows, James, et. al. “Bill Clinton and His Consequences.” The Atlantic Monthly 287 (February 2001): 45–69.

Hamilton, Nigel. Bill Clinton, An American Journey. New York: Random House, 2003.

Kalb, Marvin. One Scandalous Story: Clinton, Lewinsky & 13 Days that Tarnished American Journalism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001.

Klein, Joe. “Eight Years.” The New Yorker 76 (October 16 and 23, 2000): 188-217.

Levin, Robert E. Bill Clinton, The Inside Story. New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 1992.

Levy, Peter B. Encyclopedia of the Clinton Presidency. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.

Maraniss, David. First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.

Marcus, Alan. “Bill Clinton in Arkansas: Generational Politics, the Technology of Political Communication and the Permanent Campaign.” Historian 72 (June 2010): 354–385.

Root, Paul, ed. To the Grassroots with Bill Clinton. Arkadelphia, AR: The Pete Parks Center for Regional Studies, Ouachita Baptist University, 2002.

Shields, Todd G., Jeannie M. Whayne, and Donald R. Kelley, eds. The Clinton Riddle: Perspectives on the Forty-second President. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2004.

Smith, Stephen A., ed. Preface to the Presidency: Selected Speeches of Bill Clinton, 1974–1992. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1996.

Takiff, Michael. A Complicated Man: The Life of Bill Clinton as Told by Those Who Know Him. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.

Related posts:

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor,  Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

 

John L. Smith to speak today at Little Rock Touchdown Club

John L. Smith is to speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club on Monday Sept 24, 2011. I am proud of him for showing up.

Bill Vickery had some comments on the debacle on Saturday. Vickery said it totally removed the earlier nightmare he had since he was 7 years old when he witnessed his uncle Jimmy have a seizure   and his father had to grab his tongue while Jimmy was the ground and in the process had kicked over the potato salad.

Here is a rundown of John L. Smith’s career from Wikipedia.

John L. Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other people named John Smith, see John Smith (disambiguation).
For other people named John L. Smith, see John L. Smith (disambiguation).
John L. Smith
Sport(s) Football
Current position
Title Head coach
Team Arkansas
Conference SEC
Record 1-3
Biographical details
Born November 15, 1948 (age 63)
Idaho Falls, Idaho, U.S.
Playing career
1968–1970 Weber State
Position(s) Linebacker, quarterback
Coaching career (HC unless noted)
1971
1972–1976
1977–1981
1982–1985
1986
1987–1988
1989–1994
1995–1997
1998–2002
2003–2006
2009–2011
2012–present
Weber State (GA)
Montana (assistant)
Nevada (DC)
Idaho (DC)
Wyoming (DC)
Washington State (DC)
Idaho
Utah State
Louisville
Michigan State
Arkansas (ST)
Arkansas
Head coaching record
Overall 133–88 .602
Bowls 1–6
Tournaments 3–5 (I-AA playoffs)
Statistics
College Football Data Warehouse
Accomplishments and honors
Championships
2 Big Sky (1989, 1992)
2 Big West (1996–1997)
2 Conference USA (2000–2001)
Awards
Idaho Athletics Hall of Fame (2001)
Big Ten Coach of the Year (2003)

John L. Smith (born November 15, 1948) is an American college football coach who is currently the head coach of the University of Arkansas. He had been named as head coach of his alma mater, Weber State University, after the 2011 season, but left without ever coaching a regular season game (he did coach the Weber State Spring football game) to take over at Arkansas following the firing of Bobby Petrino in April 2012.[1] He was previously the head coach at the University of Idaho (1989–1994), Utah State University (1995–1997), the University of Louisville (1998–2002), and Michigan State University (2003–2006). Smith had also been an assistant at multiple programs, most recently at Arkansas under Petrino, where he was in charge of special teams from 2009 to 2011.[1] Entering the 2012 season, Smith has a career head coaching record of 132–86. (.606)

Contents

Early years and playing career

Born in Idaho Falls in eastern Idaho and raised in nearby Iona, Smith lettered in football, basketball, and track at Bonneville High School, and graduated in 1967. He played college football at Weber State College in Ogden, Utah, as both a linebacker and quarterback in the Big Sky, then a Division II conference. He graduated in 1971 with a bachelor’s degree in physical education.

Early coaching career

Smith began his coaching career as a graduate assistant at his alma mater, Weber State, in 1971. For the next 17 seasons, Smith was an assistant coach, first at Montana for five seasons (1972–76) and then at Nevada (1977–81) for five more as the defensive coordinator. He then joined Dennis Erickson as defensive coordinator and assistant head coach for seven seasons at three schools: Idaho (198285), Wyoming (1986), and Washington State (1987–88). The middle initial “L” became part of his public moniker in 1982, due to another John Smith on the athletic staff at Idaho, John G. Smith, the equipment manager and former head baseball coach.[2]

Head coach

After serving as an assistant head coach for Dennis Erickson for seven seasons, Smith began his head coaching career in 1989 at Idaho, where he posted a 53–21 record (.716) in six seasons. Under his leadership, the Idaho Vandals won two Big Sky championships and made the 16-team NCAA Division I-AA playoffs five times, advancing to the national semifinals in 1993. Smith’s 53 wins are the most in school history. His starting salary at Idaho was under $60,000, but in 1991 he became the first UI coach to be granted a multi-year contract.[3]

Smith inherited an 11–2 team from Keith Gilbertson that had made the I-AA semifinals in 1988, and returned All-American quarterback in John Friesz. Despite losing the first two games of the 1989 season to Washington State and Portland State, Idaho went undefeated (8–0) in conference play, the only time in school history. The Vandals lost in the first round of the I-AA playoffs, and finished at 9–3. Friesz won the Walter Payton Award and was drafted in 1990 by the San Diego Chargers and spent a decade in the NFL. Smith’s next quarterback at Idaho was southpaw Doug Nussmeier, who threw for over 10,000 yards and won the Walter Payton Award in 1993; he was drafted in the fourth round by the New Orleans Saints in 1994.

In January 1995, he left Moscow to move up to Division I-A at Utah State in the Big West, with a five-year contract exceeding $100,000 per year.[4] He stayed in Logan with the Aggies for three seasons (16–18, .470), then went east to Louisville, agreeing to a five-year deal at $375,000 per year.[5] He put together a 41–21 record (.661) in five seasons (1998–2002), including five straight bowl appearances and consecutive Conference USA titles in 2000 and 2001. Under Smith’s tutelage, quarterback Dave Ragone was a three-time Conference USA player of the year (2000–02).

Michigan State

After the 2002 season, Smith was hired as the head coach at Michigan State, which created controversy because Smith was hired before Louisville’s bowl game that season, and he did not inform his Louisville players of the decision until halftime of the bowl game, which they lost to Marshall.

2003

After opening his first season at Michigan State in 2003 with wins over Western Michigan and Rutgers, Smith’s team was unable to hold off a series of late game drives by WAC member Louisiana Tech, losing a 20–19 decision. The Spartans ended the regular season 8–4, and were then defeated by Nebraska, 17–3, in the 2003 Alamo Bowl, a game which also featured the injury of the Spartans’ anticipated star quarterback Drew Stanton while he was playing on special teams. Smith was named the Big Ten Conference Coach of the Year in 2003.

2004

The second game of the 2004 season was the second of a “home-and-home” series against Rutgers, which the Spartans lost in New Jersey, 19–14. The Spartans also lost to Notre Dame and dropped a three-overtime game against rival Michigan, but beat a top-10 ranked Wisconsin team, 49–14. The Spartans lost their final two games that season and did not receive a bowl invitation—the first time a Smith-coached team hadn’t gone to a bowl since 1997.

2005

Michigan State began the 2005 season with a 4–0 record in non-conference play including an overtime win against Notre Dame in South Bend. However, the team was only able win one game in the Big Ten and finished the year 5–7, losing several game by more than 28 points. The Spartans were again unable to beat Michigan, losing 34–31 in the second straight overtime game between the two schools.

One of the most significant games of the season was against Ohio State. The Spartans had a brief 17–7 lead in the second quarter. With 24 seconds and no time outs remaining in the first half, Michigan State faced a second down and 12 yards to go at the Ohio State 17 yard-line. Michigan State tried a running play resulting in no gain. Facing third down, Michigan State likely could have easily spiked the ball to stop the clock. However, with the clock running, it was perceived by many fans and sports commentators that chaos reigned on the MSU sideline. The confusion resulted in Michigan State lining up on the field with only ten players. A field goal attempt was blocked, and returned by Ohio State for a touchdown to cut the lead to 17–14. In half-time comments on ABC, Smith blamed the coaching staff remarking “That’s a dang coaching mistake…the kids are playing their tail off, and the coaches are screwing it up!”[6]

Michigan State finished the season 5–6, missing out on a bowl bid for the second straight year.

2006

Michigan State began 2006 with three wins and then suffered an infamous late-game loss against Notre Dame. The Spartans led 37–21 midway through the fourth quarter, but, despite a raging thunderstorm, the Irish rallied for a 40–37 victory.

The following week, Michigan State’s homecoming game, the Spartans were defeated 23–20 by an Illinois team that had not won a Big Ten game since 2004. After the game, players from both teams fought at midfield after several Illinois players tried to plant their flag at midfield of Spartan Stadium. In the post-game press conference, Smith admitted the coaches were having trouble motivating the players. Smith also slapped himself in the face as a reference to a claim by Notre Dame head coach Charlie Weis who stated that he had been hit in the face during a sideline scrum earlier that season when his Fighting Irish played Michigan State.

Following another defeat to Michigan, Michigan State hosted and lost 38–7 to top-ranked Ohio State. At halftime, Spartan Stadium had mostly emptied, with a large portion of the remaining attendees being Ohio State fans.

MSU followed up those losses with a 41–38 win at Northwestern. The Spartans, down 38–3 in the middle of the third quarter, rallied for 38 unanswered points for the largest comeback in NCAA history. The Spartans then fell to Indiana the following week.

On November 1, Michigan State decided not to retain John L. Smith, and the remainder of his contract was bought out for $1.5 million.[7] Smith and his coaching staff stayed on the job through the end of the 2006 season. Michigan State finished 4–8 (1–7 in the Big Ten). Smith was replaced by Mark Dantonio, previously the head coach of Cincinnati on November 27.[8] Smith had a record of 22–26 (.458) in his four seasons at Michigan State.

Smith has compiled a record of 132–86 (.605) in his 18 years as a college head coach. 12 of his 18 teams have participated in postseason play, including seven straight from 1997–2003. Smith is one of 18 head coaches in college football history to take three different teams to bowl games. A defensive coach for most of his career, Smith is also known as one of the disciples of the spread offense, learned from Dennis Erickson, which he introduced at Michigan State.

Return to Coaching: Arkansas & Weber State

After two years of broadcasting, Smith returned to the sidelines in 2009 as the special teams coach at the University of Arkansas under head coach Bobby Petrino, his former assistant.[9] Following his third year at Arkansas, Smith left to lead his fifth Division I program at his alma mater, Weber State, an FCS program in the Big Sky Conference.[10] Smith succeeded Ron McBride, who retired after seven seasons with the Wildcats.[9]

Prior to Smith’s first season at Weber State, the University of Arkansas fired its head coach, and Smith’s former colleague, Bobby Petrino. Almost immediately, there was considerable media speculation that Smith would return to Arkansas, and replace Petrino.[11] This was confirmed less than 2 weeks after the firing of Petrino, when multiple media outlets reported that Smith had agreed to take over the Arkansas Razorbacks football program. He was introduced as Arkansas’ 29th full-time head coach the next day.[1] The event was a reversal of roles as it was now Smith replacing Petrino as head coach (Petrino replaced Smith as head coach of Louisville following Smith’s departure in 2003). Smith signed a 10-month contract, leading to speculation that he was only taking the post on an interim basis for the 2012 season. The Razorbacks’ formal announcement described him as “head coach,” without any qualifiers; however, it also indicated that Smith’s hiring would allow Arkansas to hire “a head coach for the future of the program” in a more appropriate timeframe following the 2012 season.[12]

Personal life, family, and honors

Smith married the former Diana Flora on August 15, 1970, and they have three children: Nicholas, Kayse, and Sam. He is the uncle of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith.[13]

Smith has earned a reputation for his adventurous attitude and actions, including para-gliding with his children in Zermatt, Switzerland, climbing 19,340-foot Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, flying in a T-38 Talon jet trainer in Texas at Randolph Air Force Base, skydiving from 14,000 feet over Greensburg, Indiana, and running with the bulls in Pamplona, Spain.

In 2000 Sports Illustrated recognized Smith as one of Idaho‘s top 100 athletes of the 20th century. He was later inducted into the Idaho Athletics Hall of Fame in 2001.

Smith filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on September 6, 2012. Smith said he began land investments when he was coach at Louisville from 1998-2002 and that he and other investors lost money when the real estate market softened.[14][15]

Head coaching record

Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches# AP°
Idaho Vandals (Big Sky Conference) (1989–1994)
1989 Idaho 9–3 8–0 1st L NCAA Division I-AA First Round
1990 Idaho 9–4 6–2 2nd L NCAA Division I-AA Quarterfinal
1991 Idaho 6–5 4–4 T–4th
1992 Idaho 9–2 6–1 1st L NCAA Division I-AA First Round
1993 Idaho 11–3 5–2 T–2nd L NCAA Division I-AA Semifinal
1994 Idaho 9–3 5–2 T–2nd L NCAA Division I-AA First Round
Idaho: 53–20 34–11
Utah State Aggies (Big West Conference) (1995–1997)
1995 Utah State 4–7 4–2 T–2nd
1996 Utah State 6–5 4–1 T–1st
1997 Utah State 6–6 4–1 T–1st L Humanitarian
Utah State: 16–18 12–4
Louisville Cardinals (Conference USA) (1998–2002)
1998 Louisville 7–5 4–2 3rd L Motor City
1999 Louisville 7–5 4–2 T–2nd L Humanitarian
2000 Louisville 9–3 6–1 1st L Liberty
2001 Louisville 11–2 6–1 1st W Liberty 16 17
2002 Louisville 7–6 5–3 3rd L GMAC
Louisville: 41–21 25–9
Michigan State Spartans (Big Ten Conference) (2003–2006)
2003 Michigan State 8–5 5–3 T–4th L Alamo
2004 Michigan State 5–7 4–4 T–5th
2005 Michigan State 5–6 2–6 9th
2006 Michigan State 4–8 1–7 T–10th
Michigan State: 22–26 12–20
Arkansas Razorbacks (Southeastern Conference) (2012–present)
2012 Arkansas 1–3 0–1 (West)
Arkansas: 1–3 0–1
Total: 133–88
      National championship         Conference title         Conference division title
#Rankings from final Coaches’ Poll.
°Rankings from final AP Poll.

Related posts:

Randy White speaks to Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

Randy White spoke at the Little Rock Touchdown Club yesterday. He did a great job. I have always been a big Dallas Cowboy fan. Here is a story from Arkansas Sports 360: HOW ‘BOUT THEM COWBOYS: The Touchdown Club welcomed Randy White to town this Monday. The former Dallas Cowboy defensive tackle is one of […]

Randy White speaks to Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 1

I have written a lot about the Dallas Cowboys in the past. One of my favorite stories is getting to ask Pat Summerall a question about Tom Landry and his answer was a classic one.  I simply asked him if he had a chance to interact with any Christian Coaches like Tony Dungy or Tom […]

Kiffin’s boasting comes back on him again

What should we make from USC’s shocking 21-14 loss to Stanford? Lou Holtz rightly said concerning USC, “They were not number 2 in the  country.The writers voted them there and they made a mistake. They were not the number two team.” Earlier I mentioned that Kiffin looked silly for implying that USC had overcome the […]

Lane Kiffin a great coach? I doubt it but he will stretch the rules!!!

Will Derek Dooley’s hot seat cool down?

Matt Jones speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

I got to see Matt Jones speak on 9-10-12 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and I was proud of him for opening up concerning what brought his career to an end. Drugs can derail a great career. Take a look at what happened to Matt Jones: Taken in the first round by the Jacksonville […]

Matt Jones speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 1

My son Hunter and I got to hear Matt Jones speak on 9-10-12 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. When asked about what to do when you are up against a wall like this team is, he responded that he remembers how it felt to lose in the 6 overtime game in Knoxville and to […]

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 4

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger speak on Sept 4, 2012 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. I did not know that he played football for the University of Kentucky. In fact, just last year Kentucky ended a long losing streak to Tennessee by winning in Lexington. Schnellenberger was responsible for catching the winning touchdown […]

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 3

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club on Tuesday Sept 4, 2012. Schnellenberger was good at building programs. Ex-coach enjoyed building programs By Jeff Halpern Posted: September 5, 2012 at 5:10 a.m. Staton Breidenthal Howard Schnellenberger speaks Tuesday at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. LITTLE ROCK — Howard Schnellenberger […]

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger talk on Sept 4, 2012 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Schnellenberger said that Bear Bryant had the greatest ability to both instruct a player with criticism but then build him up also. He made a point of making sure he did both during a practice. Under Schnellenburger direction […]

GOP want to eliminate several Depts of Federal Government to get back to vision of founders?

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Uploaded by on Apr 20, 2010

Be first to receive our videos and other timely info about economic policy. Subscribe at http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
————————-
According to a recent poll, 74 percent of likely voters are extremely or very concerned about the current level of government spending. And 58 percent think the level of spending is unsustainable.

Is the public right? Is Washington bankrupting America? Some facts from the video:

Spending per household has risen over 40 percent in the last 10 years and is set to do so again in the next 10 pushing debt (and interest on the debt) to unprecedented levels. But that’s just a result of PAST spending…

Our government owes $106 trillion in FUTURE spending commitments – that cannot be paid for.

We can solve it, but politicians will have to make tough choices. Increasing taxes can’t do the trick ($106 trillion is equivalent to taking all of the taxable income from every American nine times over), nor is it fair to saddle taxpayers with a problem created by government irresponsibility.

We need real spending reform. Merely returning to the spending per household levels of the 1990s would balance the budget in three years.

___________

I wish we would eliminate several departments of the federal government  and in the process get back to vision of founders. That is what the GOP Platform has done in 2012. Take a look at this article below by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute.

I wish the Republican Platform was binding.

Too bad it’s meaningless fluff

Why? Because the GOP, for all intents and purposes, has just proposed to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, agencies, and departments.

More specifically, they endorsed the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means they put themselves on record in favor of getting rid of all federal spending and intervention that is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited central government.

Here’s some of the story, as reported by The Hill,

All federal spending should be reviewed to ensure powers reserved for the states are not given to the federal government, according to the GOP platform approved Tuesday. The platform language is meant to ensure all federal spending meets the requirements of the 10th amendment, which prohibits state powers from being given to the feds. “We support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine whether they are performing functions that are better performed by the States,” the platform reads. “These functions, as appropriate, should be returned to the States in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

For those of you who don’t have your Cato Institute pocket Constitutions handy, here’s what the 10th Amendment says.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section VIII.

And if you look at those enumerated powers, that pretty much invalidates much of what happens in Washington.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the Republican platform will have less impact on a potential Romney presidency than this blog.  In other words, Republicans don’t intend to live up to this promise. Heck, they don’t even know that they have such a position. That’s why I included the asterisk in the title and must draw your attention to this fine print.

*Offer not good when GOP holds power.

But I suppose it’s good that they included this language in the platform, even if it’s merely empty political rhetoric

P.S. If they did abide by the 10th Amendment, it means that Obamacare also would be repealed.

P.P.S. Yes, this implies limits on democracy. Our Founding Fathers, contrary to E.J. Dionne’s superficial analysis, were opposed to untrammeled majoritarianism and wanted to make sure 51 percent of the people couldn’t vote to rape and pillage 49 percent of the people.

Open letter to President Obama (Part 145)

Milton Friedman – Poverty and Equality

Uploaded by on Feb 18, 2011

In response to questions, Professor Friedman explains how capitalism is a more effective approach to the alleviation of poverty than is socialism.

_________________

Milton Friedman had to put up with someone yelling during his speech in the clip above but he handles it great.

____________

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.

So many times the “do-gooders” tell us that the government should take from the rich and give to the poor in order to make every equal at the finish line. However, is it the government’s job to do such thing. Look at the final conclusion of the article below:

“Free markets may yield odd results and certainly unequal outcomes, but the greater opportunities and prosperity have made the tradeoff worthwhile for American society.”

Our Economic Past | Burton W. Folsom Jr.

Equality, Markets, and Morality

September 2008 • Volume: 58 • Issue: 7

Burton Folsom, Jr. is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of New Deal or Raw Deal?, to be published by Simon & Schuster this year.

The subject of “equality” is the source of much political debate. Ever since the founding era, free-market thinkers have argued for equality of opportunity in the economic order. Equality, in other words, is a framework, not a result. In modern terms the goal is a level playing field. Government is a referee that enforces property rights, laws, and contracts equally for all individuals.

What the free-market view means in policy terms is no (or few) tariffs for business, no subsidies for farmers, and no racism written into law. Also, successful businessmen will not be subject to special taxes or the seizure of property.

In America this view of equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”) and the Constitution (“imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” and “equal protection of the laws”). Much of America’s first century as a nation was devoted to ending slavery, extending voting rights, and securing property and inheritance rights for women—fulfilling the Founders’ goal of equal opportunity for all citizens.

Progressives and modern critics of equality of opportunity have launched two significant criticisms against the Founders’ view. First, that equality of opportunity is impossible to achieve. Second, to the extent that equality of opportunity has been tried, it has resulted in a gigantic inequality of outcomes. Equality of outcome, in the Progressive view, is desirable and can only be achieved by massive government intervention. Let’s study both of these objections.

To some extent, of course, the Progressives have a valid point—equality of opportunity is, at an individual level (as opposed to an institutional level) hard to achieve. We are all born with different family advantages (or disadvantages), with different abilities, and in different neighborhoods with varying levels of opportunity. As socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw said on the subject, “Give your son a fountain pen and a ream of paper and tell him that he now has an equal opportunity with me of writing plays and see what he says to you.”

What the Progressives miss is that their cure is worse than the illness. Any attempt to correct imbalances in family, ability, and neighborhood will produce other inequalities that may be worse than the original ones. Thomas Sowell writes, “[A]ttempts to equalize economic results lead to greater—and more dangerous—inequality in political power.” Or, as Milton Friedman concluded, “A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

Failure During the New Deal

Sowell’s and Friedman’s point is illuminated by the failed efforts of the federal government to reduce inequalities during the New Deal. In the early 1930s the United States had massive unemployment (sometimes over 20 percent). In 1932 President Herbert Hoover supported the nation’s first relief program: $300 million was distributed to states. This was not a transfer from richer states to poorer states but a political grab by most state governors to secure all they could. Illinois played this game well and secured over $55 million, more than New York, California, and Texas combined.

Massachusetts, with almost as many people as Illinois, received zero federal money. Massachusetts had much poverty and distress, but Governor Joseph Ely believed states should try to supply their own needs and not rush to Washington to gain funds at someone else’s expense. Ely therefore promoted a variety of fundraising events throughout his state to help those in need. “Whatever the justification for [federal] relief,” Ely noted, “the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by any administration.”

In 1935 President Franklin Roosevelt confirmed Ely’s beliefs by turning the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which he had established, into a gigantic political machine to transfer money to key states and congressional districts to secure votes. Roosevelt and his cohorts used the rhetoric of removing inequalities as a political cover to gain power. Reporter Thomas Stokes won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigative research that exposed the WPA for using federal funds to buy votes.

The use of tax dollars, then, to mitigate inequality failed because—whatever the good intentions—the funds quickly became politicized.

Presidential (and congressional) authority to tax and to transfer funds from one group to another also proved to be a dangerous centralization of power. Taxation increased both in size and complexity. The IRS thus became a weapon a president could use against those who resisted him. “My father,” Elliott Roosevelt observed of his famous parent, “may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.”

Sowell and Friedman indeed recognized that efforts to remove inequalities would create new inequalities, perhaps just as severe, and would also dangerously concentrate power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. But Sowell and Friedman have readily conceded that when markets are left free, the inequality of outcomes is not necessarily morally justified. In other words, some people—through luck or inheritance—become incredibly rich and others, who may have worked harder and more diligently, end up barely earning a living. Rewards, as F. A. Hayek, among others, has noted, are “based only partly on achievements and partly on mere chance.” Societies are more prosperous under free markets, but individual success and failure can occur independently of ability and hard work.

Progressive Claims in Light of History

What the historical record does seem to demonstrate is that the richest men in American history have been creative entrepreneurs who have improved the lives of millions of Americans and have achieved remarkable upward mobility doing so. For example, the first American to be worth $10 million was John Jacob Astor, a German immigrant and a son of a butcher. Astor founded the largest fur company in the United States, transforming tastes and lowering costs in clothing for people all over the world.

John D. Rockefeller, the first American to be worth $1 billion, was the son of an itinerant peddler. Yet Rockefeller, with little education or training, went into the business of refining oil and did it better than anyone in the world. As a result, he sold the affordable kerosene that lit up most homes in the world. (He had a 60 percent world market share in the late 1800s.)

Henry Ford, the son of a struggling farmer, was the second American billionaire. He used the cheap oil sold by Rockefeller and cheap steel that was introduced by immigrant Andrew Carnegie to make cars affordable for most American families. The most recent wealthiest men in the United States—Sam Walton and Bill Gates—both came from middle-class households and both added much value for most American consumers.

Free markets may yield odd results and certainly unequal outcomes, but the greater opportunities and prosperity have made the tradeoff worthwhile for American society.

______________

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.

Sincerely,

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

Music Monday:Religion and Chris Martin part 4

Coldplay – In My Place (Live in Dallas) June 22 2012

Published on Jun 24, 2012 by

Coldplay performing at American Airlines Center in Dallas, TX

Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show

 

7/11

Chris Martin was brought up as an evangelical Christian but he left the faith once he left his childhood home. However, there are been some actions in his life in the last few years that demonstrate that he still is grappling with his childhood Chistian beliefs. This is the fourth part of a series I am starting on this subject and today we will see how a few verses in the Book of Romans chapter one are relevant to a song written by Coldplay.

On June 23, 2012 my son Wilson and I got to attend a Coldplay Concert in Dallas. It was great. I wish they had played “Cemeteries of London” at the Dallas concert since I like that song a lot. Let me show you two points from the Book of Romans:

God reveals Himself in two Ways 

Lets take a look at the lyrics from the song “Cemeteries of London:”

God is in the houses
And God is in my head
And all the cemeteries of London
I see God come in my garden
But I don’t know what He said
For my heart, it wasn’t open
Not open

Romans chapter one clearly points out that God has revealed Himself through both the created world around us  and also in a God-given conscience that testifies to each person that God exists.
Notice in this song that the song writer notes, “I see God come in my garden” and “God is in my head.” These are the exact two places mentioned by the scripture.  Romans 1:18-20 (Amplified version)

18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)

Concerning these verses Francis Schaeffer said:

The world is guilty of suppressing God’s truth and living accordingly. The universe and its form and the mannishness of Man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail.

This is what Chris Martin is having to deal with and he  is clearly searching for spiritual answers but it seems he have not found them quite yet. The song “42“: “Time is so short and I’m sure, There must be something more.” Then in the song “Lost” Martin sings these words: “Every river that I tried to cross, Every door I ever tried was locked..”
Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for this “something more” that Coldplay is talking about, but he found riches (2:8-11), pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), fame (2:9) and his work (2:4) all “meaningless” and “vanity” and “a chasing of the wind.” Every door he tried was locked.

Solomon is searching for the meaning of life in the Book of Ecclesiastes and that reminds me a lot of the search that Chris Martin is currently in.  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.

Kerry Livgren of Kansas found Christ eventually after first trying some Eastern Religions. I remember telling my friends in 1978 when “Dust in the Wind” was the number 6 song in the USA that Kansas had written a philosophical song that came to the same conclusion about humanistic man as Solomon did so long ago and I predicted that some members of that band would come to know the Christ of the Bible in a personal way. You can hear Kerry Livgren’s story from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Coldplay – Cemeteries of London ( FULL VIDEO)

The brilliant video for Cemeteries of London. It’s the perfect mix between music and image, Coldplay sold around 8 million albums with Viva La Vida.

_________________________________________

Open letter to President Obama (Part 144 B)

Jane Roe’s prolife commercial

Uploaded by on Jun 18, 2008

“Jane Roe” or Roe v Wade is now a prolife Christian. She’s recently done a commercial about it.

___________

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.

Let me start out by saying thank you for bringing Chen Guangcheng to the USA. That was a great thing that you did!!!!

I sincerely hope that the world will continue to look upon Chen as the hero that he is. He has taken up for the ladies of China and their right to have their children.

Did you know that many in China when given the chance would abort unborn girls in order to have boys. This has created a huge problem.

Fox News reported, “Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women,” said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. “The young men emigrate overseas to find brides.”

Of course, the real problem is the one child restriction that started this to begin with. I wish you would join me speak out in favor of China’s women’s rights.

Sarah Torre

May 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm

Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng called into a congressional hearing again yesterday, detailing reported abuse of his relatives and friends in the wake of his escape.

When lauded for his courage and tireless advocacy for victims of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization, Chen simply remarked, through translation: “I am not a hero. I’m just doing what my conscience asks me to do. I cannot be silent when facing these evils against women and children.”

Chen described to the committee how, shortly after his escape from house arrest last month, local government officials allegedly stormed a family member’s house, beating relatives and arresting Chen’s brother. When Chen’s nephew attempted to defend himself and his family, officials arrested him on what Chen calls “trumped up” charges of “homicide with intent.”

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, testified on the status of He Peirong, the woman who drove the rescue car for Chen. He, also known as “Pearl,” endured a week of confinement and interrogation in a hotel room by Chinese officials because of her involvement in Chen’s escape. Likewise, Jiang Tianyong, a human rights lawyer in China, was beaten to the point of possibly losing hearing in one ear after attempting to see Chen at the Beijing hospital, according to Littlejohn.

The actions reportedly taken against Chen’s supporters and family are just an extension of the coercive tactics used to enforce the country’s one-child policy. As panelists at yesterday’s hearing detailed, forced abortions, coerced sterilizations, and fines or physical abuse for neighbors and family members of women with unauthorized pregnancies remain a daily reality in China.

Mei Shunping, a victim of five forced abortions, described her time as a factory worker in China, where routine checkups for women were used to guard against unlawful pregnancy: “When discovered, pregnant women would be dragged to undergo forced abortions—there was no other choice. We had no dignity as potential child-bearers.”

Chai Ling, founder of All Girls Allowed, detailed just a few horrific stories of child abandonment, bride trafficking and prostitution, and forced abortions that have occurred because of the one-child policy. Just this past October, explained Ling, a woman reportedly died after a late-term, forced abortion procedure when she was discovered to be pregnant with an unauthorized child. Similar atrocities have been documented in U.S. congressional reports as well.

“I wish I could tell you that these stories were rare, but they are not,” remarked Ling. “They are mere glimpses into the dark environment that the One-Child Policy creates for women. This is the darkness into which Chen Guangcheng tried to shine a light.”

That light of respect for human dignity and individual liberty should be supported by the U.S. and other international leaders who claim to defend human rights. As Heritage’s director of domestic policy Jennifer Marshall writes in commentary this week:

U.S. policymakers have long expressed concern over China’s security and economic challenges to global stability. They ought to be equally concerned about the chilling long-term consequences of gross abuse of human dignity and the destruction of civil society. It’s time for China to end the barbarism of its One-Child Policy.

Denouncing the unjust treatment of Chen Guangcheng, his family, and fellow activists is important. But so too is condemning the coercive population control policies that strip women and men of fundamental rights and prohibit China from becoming a truly free and flourishing society.

____________

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.

Sincerely,

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

Francis Schaeffer affected pro-life movement (Part 4) “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. Schaeffer had a great impact on the pro-life movement.

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 January 11 Newsweek has an article about the baby in the womb. The first 5 or 6 pages are marvelous. If you haven’t seen it, you should see if you can get that issue. It’s January 11 and about the first 5 or 6 pages show conclusively what every biologist has known all along, and that is that human life begins at conception. There is no other time for human life to begin, except at conception. Monkey life begins at conception. Donkey life begins at conception. And human life begins at conception. Biologically, there is no discussion — never should have been — from a scientific viewpoint. I am not speaking of religion now. And this 5 or 6 pages very carefully goes into the fact that human life begins at conception. But you flip the page and there is this big black headline, “But is it a person?” And I’ll read the last sentence, “The problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations, such as the health or even the happiness of the mother.”

We are not just talking about the health of the mother (it’s a propaganda line), or even the happiness of the mother. Listen! Spell that out! It means that the mother, for her own hedonistic happiness — selfish happiness — can take human life by her choice, by law. Do you understand what I have said? By law, on the basis of her individual choice of what makes her happy. She can take what has been declared to be, in the first five pages [of the article], without any question, human life. In other words, they acknowledge that human life is there, but it is an open question as to whether it is not right to kill that human life if it makes the mother happy.

And basically that is no different than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler, killing who they killed for what they conceived to be the good of society. There is absolutely no line between the two statements — no absolute line, whatsoever. One follows along: Once that it is acknowledged that it is human life that is involved (and as I said, this issue of Newsweek shows conclusively that it is) the acceptance of death of human life in babies born or unborn, opens the door to the arbitrary taking of any human life. From then on, it’s purely arbitrary.

It was this view that opened the door to all that followed in Germany prior to Hitler. It’s an interesting fact here that the only Supreme Court in the Western World that has ruled against easy abortion is the West German Court. The reason they did it is because they knew, and it’s clear history, that this view of human life in the medical profession and the legal profession combined, before Hitler came on the scene, is what opened the way for everything that happened in Hitler’s Germany. And so, the German Supreme Court has voted against easy abortion because they know — they know very well where it leads.

I want to say something tonight. Not many of you are black in this audience. I can’t tell if you are Puerto Rican. But if I were in the minority group in this country, tonight, I would be afraid. I’ve had big gorgeous blacks stand up in our seminars and ask, “Sir, do you think there is a racial twist to all this?” And I have to say, “Right on! You’ve hit it right on the head!” Once this door is opened, there is something to be afraid of. Christians should be deeply concerned, and I cannot understand why the liberal lawyer of the Civil Liberties Union is not scared to death by this open door towards human life. Everyone ought to be frightened who knows anything about history — anything about the history of law, anything about the history of medicine. This is a terrifying door that is open.

Abortion itself would be worth spending much of our lifetimes to fight against, because it is the killing of human life, but it’s only a symptom of the total. What we are facing is Humanism: Man, the measure of all things — viewing final reality being only material or energy shaped by chance — therefore, human life having no intrinsic value — therefore, the keeping of any individual life or any groups of human life, being purely an arbitrary choice by society at the given moment.

The flood doors are wide open. I fear both they, and too often the Christians, do not have just relativistic values (because, unhappily, Christians can live with relativistic values) but, I fear, that often such people as the liberal lawyers of the Civil Liberties Union and Christians, are just plain stupid in regard to the lessons of history. Nobody who knows his history could fail to be shaken at the corner we have turned in our culture. Remember why: because of the shift in the concept of the basic reality!

Now, we cannot be at all surprised when the liberal theologians support these things, because liberal theology is only Humanism using theological terms, and that’s all it ever was, all the way back into Germany right after the Enlightenment. So when they come down on the side of easy abortion and infanticide, as some of these liberal denominations as well as theologians are doing, we shouldn’t be surprised. It follows as night after day.

I have a question to ask you, and that is: Where have the Bible-believing Christians been in the last 40 years? All of this that I am talking about has only come in the last 80 years (I’m 70… I just had my birthday, so just 10 years older than I am). None of this was true in the United States. None of it! And the climax has all come within the last 40 years, which falls within the intelligent scope of many of you sitting in this room. Where have the Bible-believing Christians been? We shouldn’t be surprised the liberal theologians have been no help — but where have we been as we have changed to this other consensus and all the horrors and stupidity of the present moment has come down on out culture? We must recognize that this country is close to being lost. Not, first of all , because of the Humanist conspiracy — I believe that there are those who conspire, but that is not the reason this country is almost lost. This country is almost lost because the Bible-believing Christians, in the last 40 years, who have said that they know that the final reality is this infinite-personal God who is the Creator and all the rest, have done nothing about it as the consensus has changed. There has been a vast silence!

Christians of this country have simply been silent. Much of the Evangelical leadership has not raised a voice. As a matter of fact, it was almost like sticking pins into the Evangelical constituency in most places to get them interested in the issue of human life while Dr. Koop and Franky and I worked on Whatever Happened to the Human Race, a vast, vast silence.

I wonder what God has to say to us? All these freedoms we have. All the secondary blessings we’ve had out of the preaching of the Gospel and we have let it slip through our fingers in the lifetime of most of you here. Not a hundred years ago — it has been in our lifetime in the last 40 years that these things have happened.

It’s not only the Christian leaders. Where have the Christian lawyers been? Why haven’t they been challenging this change in the view of what the First Amendment means, which I’ll deal with in a second. Where have the Christian doctors been — speaking out against the rise of the abortion clinics and all the other things? Where have the Christian businessmen been — to put their lives and their work on the line concerning these things which they would say as Christians are central to them? Where have the Christian educators been — as we have lost our educational system? Where have we been? Where have each of you been? What’s happened in the last 40 years?

We must change the upward trend of spending in our country now or entitlement debt will bankrupt us

Federal Spending by the Numbers

Uploaded by on Jun 10, 2010

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/10/new-video-federal-spending-by-the-numbers The Federal Government is addicted to spending. Watch this video from the Heritage Foundation to learn about the trouble we are in and where to find solutions.

_______

We must change the upward trend of spending in our country now or entitlement debt will bankrupt us.

Back in 2010, I posted a fascinating map from the Economist website, showing debt burdens (as a share of GDP) for nations around the world. This data showed lots of red ink, with Western Europe generally being more indebted than the United States.

In 2011, I posted some charts from a study by the Bank for International Settlements, revealing that the long-run fiscal outlook for the United States is worse than the outlook for European nations.

In other words, our politicians to date haven’t over-spent as much as their counterparts in Europe, but it appears that – if government is left on auto-pilot – America will suffer more from excessive government than European nations in the future.

Here’s some new evidence about the perilous long-term state of public finances in America. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has to do more than almost every other nation to avoid becoming another Greece.

If this data is correct, the United States isn’t just in danger of becoming Greece. It’s actually in worse shape than Greece. Not just Greece, but every other European welfare state as well. That doesn’t bode well.

But time for some caveats. The OECD research mistakenly focuses on debt levels and what needs to happen to reduce red ink to a certain level. This isn’t a meaningless issue, but it puts the cart before the horse. What matters most is the size of government and the total burden of government spending – not whether it is financed with borrowing rather than taxes.

This doesn’t mean the long-run estimates are wrong. But if the focus is on the real problem of government spending, then it is much more apparent that the only feasible solution is to restrain the growth of government spending.

If the burden of government spending grows slower than the economy’s productive sector (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule), then deficits and debt fall. To be blunt, if you cure the disease, the symptoms automatically disappear.

Which helps explain why I’m a fan of the Ryan budget, particularly his reforms to Medicare and Medicaid.

P.S. Regular readers know I’m not a fan of the OECD (for many reasons), but the economists at the Paris-based bureaucracy generally are competent at putting together good data. It goes without saying, of course, that this doesn’t justify raping taxpayers to subsidize economists.