Monthly Archives: October 2012

Open letter to President Obama (Part 158B)(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part F)

October 22, 2012 – 7:57 am

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

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. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched on 10-18-12, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do.

Ryan: No, Obama didn’t tell America in the Rose Garden that Benghazi attack was terrorism; Update: Carney admitted it nine days later

posted at 10:41 am on October 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Even the debate moderator who claimed otherwise has since changed her tune, which leaves a pretty big opening for Republicans to address on Barack Obama’s response to the Benghazi attack — both in real terms and in the debate last night.  After Candy Crowley cut off Mitt Romney by erroneously claiming that Obama had declared the act terrorism — which she recanted after the debate — most other fact checkers reached the opposite conclusion.  Here’s Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, for instance:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,”  he said.

But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.

Politico’s Mike Allen also said that Obama’s reference to “terror” wasn’t related to the Benghazi attack, but a general statement:

There’s going to be a bunch of fact checks, but just to do a fact check here. … And I’m looking at the transcript of that White House event the day after and he started by referring to them as selfless acts, which is casted very differently than the sort of very planned action that we now have. Later toward the end, he makes a reference to 9/11 and he says, very generally, we will not let acts of terror go unpunished. So that’s going to be an arguable point.

Arguable point?  Four days later, the Obama administration sent Susan Rice to five Sunday talk shows to argue that the attack was a “spontaneous demonstration” that “spun out of control.”  Obama himself went on the David Letterman Show to say the same thing two days later, and then blamed the attack on the YouTube video at the UN.  He explicitly said that “the future should not belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam.”

Today, Paul Ryan proceeded to argue that “arguable point,” and claim that Obama fibbed a bit last night:

GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) on Wednesday defended Mitt Romney’s debate attacks on Libya, repeating charges that President Obama had waited two weeks to dub the violence at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an act of terrorism.

“It was a passing comment about acts of terror in general, it was not a claim that this was a terrorist attack,” Ryan said on ABC’s “Good Morning America. “Nobody believes that that Rose Garden speech from the president was suggesting that that [individual act] was an act of terror.” …

Ryan doubled down in three separate appearances on broadcast morning shows. He went over the timeline distributed by the Romney campaign that documents statements by the White House and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for two weeks following the incident, where it was called spontaneous and the violence was blamed on an anti-Islam YouTube video. The administration has since acknowledged it was a terrorist attack.

Ironically, the President’s reaction to Romney’s criticism on Libya provided Obama with his best optics of the night.  However, his false claim will likely revive this story once again in the media, which will hurt more than the optics will help, writes Stephen Hayes, and even more ironically, that will happen because it was perceived as a stumble on Romney’s part:

The second 2012 presidential debate featured a sharper Barack Obama, a series of tough exchanges, and one memorable back-and-forth on Libya. And just as Joe Biden’s answers on Libya in the vice presidential debate drove several days of news, the discussion of Libya Tuesday night will be central to the presidential contest over the next week.

There are several reasons for this: Obama’s answer on Libya was highly misleading; Romney stumbled in his response; the debate moderator fact-checked Romney during the debate but later acknowledged his broader point was correct; the administration hasn’t even begun to answer the questions at the center of the controversy; and the debate next Monday will focus on foreign policy.

Here’s the irony: Mitt Romney flubbed his response to the Libya question, and to average voters it probably seemed as though President Obama handled the exchange well. But the persistence of Libya as an issue, and the inability of the Obama administration to reconcile its early narrative with, well, reality—means that the issue is certain to help Romney and hurt Obama. And the fact that Romney’s answer was inartful virtually ensures the exchange will get more attention than it would have if the only mistake had been Obama’s.

Indeed.  I’d expect Romney to have these fact-check citations memorized for next Monday’s debate on foreign policy — and the extra attention this will receive might produce even more inconvenient truths about what State, the intelligence community, and the White House knew, and when they knew it.

Update: American Crossroads dug up an admission by Jay Carney on September 20th that the administration had not called it an act of terror up to that point, emphases mine:

Q    Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before?  Have you said that?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy.  It’s an act of terror by definition.

Q    Yes, I just hadn’t heard you –

MR. CARNEY:  It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.

Q    No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack.  And I just –

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area.  We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

That seems pretty conclusive.

________

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

Why can’t we get an apology from the President concerning Libya?

I have emailed and written the President over 200 times in the last year and I have received over 20 emails and 5 letters back from the White House. However, I have been most urgent in my emails and letter writing concerning this issue about the youtube video being blamed for the attack in Libya. […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 158))(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part C)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157B)(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part B)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157) (Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part A)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

President now tells us the truth about Libya

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya Published on Oct 7, 2012 by HeritageFoundation New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend […]

Lybia timeline

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya Published on Oct 7, 2012 by HeritageFoundation An Incriminating Timeline: http://herit.ag/WMfTr6 | New evidence shows there were security threats in Benghazi, Libya, in the months prior to the deadly September 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the Obama […]

 

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

Election result predictions on Romney vs. Obama

October 22, 2012 – 7:19 am

I came on here on Friday and predicted that Romney would win 301 to 237. My view was skewed by something I read on Jason Tolbert’s blog recently:

Our neighbors in Tennessee started casting ballots this week. Jim Geraghty with National Review notes a dramatic swing in what looks like good news for Republicans.

His blog notes…

While Tennessee is not competitive in 2012, these results show a complete shift in voter enthusiasm from 2008 to 2012. Total voter turnout statewide on day one of early voting was up about 10 percent compared to four years ago, but voter turnout increased 31 percent in McCain counties while it dropped 30 percent in Obama counties.

Here is the view from John Brummett of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on Oct 21, 2012:

Here’s how I score it today: Romney will win Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

That’s 235 electoral votes, 35 short.

Of the six states truly in play—Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia—Romney probably will win Colorado with nine electoral votes. Let’s go ahead and give him Virginia, with 13 electoral votes, and New Hampshire, with four, though I’m not at all sure of either.

That brings him to 261 electors, nine short.

Let’s give him one more elector for a congressional-district victory in Maine, putting him at 262, eight short.

Obama will win California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

That’s 247 electoral votes, 23 short.

Of those six truly swing states, heavy Democratic early voting in Ohio and Iowa ought to deliver those to him—with 18 electors in Ohio and six in Iowa—and he probably will take Harry Reid’s Nevada, with six.

That gets him to 277 electors, seven over the top.

Let’s give him Omaha, Warren Buffett’s hometown, and thus one congressional-district victory in Nebraska. That offsets the single elector he lost to a congressional district In Maine, leaving him at 277.

It costs Romney one, dropping him back to 261.

There you have it: More people’s votes would be cast for Romney, but Obama would be heading back to the White House from the Electoral College, where, with 270 votes needed, Obama would have 277 and Romney 261.

In the U.S. Senate, the Democratic caucus lead of 53-47 would lose seats in Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana, but take over Republican seats in Massachusetts and Maine.

The latter is where Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe’s seat is likely to be won by the two-term independent governor, Angus King. He has endorsed Obama and is likely to caucus with Democrats.

So the Democrats’ usually hapless 53-47 advantage in the Senate would become a tad more hapless at 52-48.

The Republicans are likely to hold their workable membership lead in the U.S. House, but lose maybe four seats.

Party discipline and right-wing theology would pass a bevy of conservative bills in the House that would languish ad infinitum in the U.S. Senate and never get remotely near the minority occupant of the White House.

Despair will be mitigated by assurances on each side that the other side also despairs.

—–––––

John Brummett’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.

com. Read his blog at brummett.arkansasonline.com.

Editorial, Pages 81 on 10/21/2012

I predict that President Obama will lose to Mitt Romney because so many of the battleground states will go for Romney because of the horrible economies in their states.

Real Clear Politics as of 11:14 am on 10-19-12 had President Obama with 201 electorial votes locked up and Mitt Romney with 206. I think that President Obama has a good chance of getting Pennsylvania and Michigan to go his way which would bring his total up to 237. Romney should get all the rest which bring his total to 301.

Here is what Real Clear Politics website has to say:

Toss Up (131)
Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
Iowa (6)
Michigan (16)
Nevada (6)
New Hampshire (4)
Ohio (18)
Pennsylvania (20)
Virginia (13)
Wisconsin (10)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Jason Tolbert | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman on controlling spending Part 2

October 22, 2012 – 7:17 am

Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.”

Uploaded by on Mar 26, 2011

Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.” Mark is excited by the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. He states that this would be a great thing for America to pass. He believes the Balanced Budget Amendment will help bring the nation back to it’s Constitutional roots. Mark explains what the amendment is and how it will work. In his February 1983 classic essay, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman gives his opinion on a balanced budget amendment that requires a super majority to raise taxes. Friedman states, “The purpose of the balanced-budget-and-tax-limitation amendment is to limit the government in order to free the people—this time from excessive taxation. Its passage would go a long way to remedy the defect that has developed in our budgetary process.” Part #1 3-25-2011

___________________

The best article I have ever read on the Balanced Budget Amendment was written by my favorite economist Milton Friedman. Here is the second portion below:

Washington: Less Red Ink

I have been much more surprised, and dismayed, by the criticism that has been expressed by persons who share my basic outlook about the importance of limiting government in order to preserve and expand individual freedom—for example, the editors of The Wall Street Journal and a former editor and current columnist, Vermont Royster. They do not question the objectives of the amendment, but they doubt its necessity and potential effectiveness.

Those doubts are presumably shared by many other thoughtful citizens of all shades of political opinion who are united by concern about the growth of government spending and deficits. Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government:

1. The amendment is unnecessary. Congress and the President have the power to limit spending and balance the budget.

Taken seriously, this is an argument for scrapping most of the Constitution. Congress and the President have the power to preserve freedom of the press and of speech without the First Amendment. Does that make the First Amendment unnecessary? Not surprisingly, I know of no one who has criticized the balanced-budget amendment as unnecessary—however caustic his comments on congressional hypocrisy—who would draw the conclusion that the First Amendment should be scrapped.

It is essential to look not only at the power of Congress but at the incentives of its members—to act in such a way as to be re-elected. As Phil Gramm, a Democratic congressman from Texas, has said: Every time you vote on every issue, all the people who want the program are looking over your right shoulder and nobody’s looking over your left shoulder….In being fiscally responsible under such circumstances, we’re asking more of people than the Lord asks.”

Under present arrangements, Congress will not in fact balance the budget. Similarly, a President will not produce a balanced budget by using the kind of vetoes that would be required. The function of the amendment is to remedy the defect in our legislative procedure that distorts the will of the people as it is filtered through their representatives. The amendment process is the only effective way the public can treat the budget as a whole. That is the function of the First Amendment, as well—it treats free speech as a bundle. In its absence, Congress would consider each case “on its merits.” It is not hard to envisage the way unpopular groups and views would fare.

2. The President and Congress are guilty of hypocrisy in voting simultaneously for a large current deficit and for a constitutional amendment to prevent future deficits.

Of course, I have long believed that congressional hypocrisy and shortsightedness are the only reasons there is a ghost of a chance of getting Congress to pass an amendment limiting itself. Most members of Congress will do anything to postpone the problems they face by a couple of years—only Wall Street has a shorter perspective. If the hypocrisy did not exist, if Congress behaved “responsibly,” there would be no need for the amendment. Congress’s irresponsibility is the reason we need an amendment and at the same time the reason that there is a chance of getting one.

Hypocrisy may eventually lead to the passing of the amendment. But hypocrisy will not prevent the amendment from having important effects three or four years down the line—and from casting its shadow on events even earlier. Congress will not violate the Constitution lightly. Members of Congress will wriggle and squirm; they will seek, and no doubt find, subterfuges and evasions. But their actions will be significantly affected by the existence of the amendment. The experience of several states that have passed similar tax-limitation amendments provides ample evidence of that.

3. The amendment is substantive, not procedural and the Constitution should be limited to procedural matters. The fate of the Prohibition amendment is a cautionary tale that should give us pause in enacting substantive amendments.

If this amendment is substantive, so is the income-tax (sixteenth) amendment and so are many specific provisions of the Constitution. The income-tax amendment does not specify the rate of tax. It leaves that to Congress. Similarly, this amendment does not specify the size of the budget. It simply outlines a procedure for approving it: the same as now exists if total legislated outlays do not exceed an amount determined by prior events (the prior budget and the prior growth in national income); and by a majority of 60 percent if total legislated outlays do exceed that amount. The requirement of a supernormal majority is neither substantive nor undemocratic nor unprecedented. Witness the two-thirds majority necessary to override a presidential veto or to approve a treaty.

The prohibition amendment was incompatible with the basic aim of the Constitution, because it was not directed at limiting government. On the contrary, it limited the people and freed government to control them. The balanced-budget-tax-limitation amendment is thoroughly compatible with the basic role of the Constitution, because it seeks to improve the ability of the public to limit government.

4. The amendment is unduly rigid because it requires an annually balanced budget.

This is a misconception. Section 1 of the amendment prohibits a planned budget deficit unless it is explicitly approved by three fifths of the members of the House and Senate. It further requires the Congress and the President to “ensure that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in [the budget] statement.” But it does not require that actual receipts equal or exceed statement receipts. A deficit that emerged because a recession produced a reduction in tax receipts would not be in violation of the amendment, provided that outlays were no greater than statement outlays. This is a sensible arrangement: outlays can be controlled more readily over short periods than receipts.

I have never been willing to support an amendment calling for an annually balanced budget. I do support this one, because it has the necessary flexibility.

5. The amendment will be ineffective because (a) it requires estimates of receipts and outlays which can be fudged; (b) its language is fuzzy; (c) the Congress can find loopholes to evade it; (d) it contains no specific provisions for enforcement.

(a) It will be possible to evade the amendment by overestimating receipts—but only once, for the first year the amendment is effective. Thereafter, section 2 of the amendment limits each year’s statement receipts to the prior year’s statement receipts plus the prior rate of increase of national income. No further estimates of budget receipts are called for. This is one of the overlooked subtleties in the amendment.

Any further fudging would have to be of the national-income estimates. That is possible but both unlikely and not easy. What matters is not the level of national income but the percentage change in national income. Alterations of the definition of national income that affect levels are likely to have far less effect on percentage changes. Moreover, making the change in income artificially high in one year will tend to make it artificially low the next. All in all, I do not believe that this is a serious problem.

(b) The language is not fuzzy. The only undefined technical term is “national income.” The amendment also refers to “receipts” and “outlays,” terms of long-standing usage in government accounting; in section 4, total receipts and total outlays are defined explicitly.

Nor is the amendment a hastily drawn gimmick designed to provide a fig leaf to hide Congress’s sins. On the contrary, it is a sophisticated product, developed over a period of years, that reflects the combined wisdom of the many persons who participated in its development.

(c) Loopholes are a more serious problem. One obvious loophole—off-budget outlays—has been closed by phrasing the amendment in terms of total outlays and defining them to include “all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.” But other, less obvious, loopholes have not been closed. Two are particularly worrisome: government credit guarantees, and mandating private expenditures for public purposes (e. g., antipollution devices on automobiles). These loopholes now exist and are now being resorted to. I wish there were some way to close them. No doubt the amendment would provide an incentive to make greater use of them. Yet I find it hard to believe that they are such attractive alternatives to direct government spending that they would render the amendment useless.

(d) No constitutional provision will be enforced unless it has widespread public support. That has certainly been demonstrated. However, if a provision does have widespread support—as public-opinion polls have clearly shown that this one does—legislators are not likely to flout it, which brings us back to the loopholes.

Equally important, legislators will find it in their own interest to confer an aura of inviolability on the amendment. This point has been impressed on me by the experience of legislators in states that have adopted amendments limiting state spending. Prior to the amendments, they had no effective defense against lobbyists urging spending programs—all of them, of course, for good purposes. Now they do. They can say: Your program is an excellent one; I would like to support it, but the total amount we can spend is fixed. To get funds for your program, we shall have to cut elsewhere. Where should we cut?” The effect is to force lobbyists to compete against one another rather than form a coalition against the general taxpayer.

That is the purpose of constitutional rules: to establish arrangements under which private interest coincides with the public interest. This amendment passes that test with flying colors.

6. The key problem is not deficits but the size of government spending.

My sentiments exactly. Which is why I have never supported an amendment directed solely at a balanced budget. I have written repeatedly that while I would prefer that the budget be balanced, I would rather have government spend $500 billion and run a deficit of $100 billion than have it spend $800 billion with a balanced budget. It matters greatly how the budget is balanced, whether by cutting spending or by raising taxes.

In my eyes, the chief merit of the amendment recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee is precisely that it does limit spending. Section 1 requires that statement outlays be no greater than statement receipts; section 2 limits the maximum increase in statement receipts; the two together effectively limit statement outlays. Moreover, if in any year Congress manages to keep statement receipts and outlays below the maximum level, the effect is to lower the maximum level for future years, thus fostering a gradual ratcheting down of spending relative to national income.

A further strength of the amendment is the provision for approving an exceptional increase in statement receipts (hence in statement outlays). The spending-limitation amendment that was drafted by the National Tax Limitation Committee required a two-thirds majority of both houses in order to justify an exceptional increase in outlays. The amendment passed by the Senate requires only “a majority of the whole number of both houses of Congress.” However, the majority must vote for an explicit tax increase. I submit that it is far easier to get a two-thirds majority of Congress to approve an exceptional increase in spending than to get a simple majority to approve an explicit increase in taxes. So this is a stronger, not a weaker, amendment.

Section 6 proposed by Senator Armstrong in the course of Senate debate, makes the debt ceiling permanent and requires a supermajority vote to raise it. That provision was approved by a narrow majority composed of a coalition of right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats—the one group demonstrating its hardcore conservatism, the other seeking to reduce the chances of adoption of the basic amendment.

I do not favor the debt-limit provision. Its objective—to strengthen pressure on Congress to balance the budget—is fine, and it may be that it would do little harm. But it seems to me both unnecessary and potentially harmful. I trust that it will be eliminated if and when the amendment is finally approved by Congress. I shall favor the amendment even if the debt-limit provision is left in, but less enthusiastically.

7. The amendment introduces a near economic theory into the Constitution.

It does nothing of the kind—unless the idea that there should be some connection between receipts and outlays is a new economic theory. The amendment does not even change the present budget process, if Congress enacts a balanced budget that rises by no greater a percentage than does national income. But it does significantly stiffen the requirement for passing a budget that is in deficit or for raising the fraction of our income spent on our behalf by the government.

The amendment recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves the wholehearted backing of every believer in a limited government and maximum freedom for the individual.

Milton Friedman received the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976. He is the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago and a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

We have to resist class warfare and lower taxes for everyone in order to grow our economy

October 22, 2012 – 6:49 am

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy

Uploaded by on Jun 15, 2009

President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.

_________

We got to lower tax rates so we can grow our economy and if the tax rates are raised on the wealthy then punishing the job creators in our country will hurt economic growth. We have to resist class warfare and lower taxes for everyone in order to grow our economy.

Every so often, I come across some statement by President Obama that is either jaw-droppingly misguided or unintentionally revealing, and I place it in my is-this-the-worst-thing-he-ever-said file.

His “spread the wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber is the most famous example, but that was before I started this blog. Previous entries on my list include.

But our Secretary of State also likes saying odd things.

Now we have another Hillary Clinton quote, as reported by the Guardian.

There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to their growth of their own countries.

Wow, that’s remarkable. She’s actually claiming that rich people somehow get a lot of money without boosting growth, even though they obviously provided some value and benefit in order get people to voluntarily pay money for whatever it is that made the person wealthy.

But that’s not the most offensive part of her statement. What really stuns me is the assertion that growth will be enhanced if these successful people give a greater share of their money to a corrupt and venal political class.

For all intents and purposes, she is asserting that government in these nations is too small, even though the evidence from western nations shows that small governments were very conducive to growth. Moreover, we’re supposed to believe that high tax rates won’t discourage productive economic behavior.

Which leads me to ask a simple question: Can anybody show me a poor nation that became a rich nation while imposing high tax rates and having a bloated public sector?

P.S. Even though Mrs. Clinton wasn’t making any distinction, allow me to stipulate that there are some rich people who got money dishonestly. I addressed this issue in a post last year and I suspect that some politicians think rich people are sleazy crooks because the rich people they hang out with are sleazy crooks.

P.P.S. Click here to get the answer to the question about nations that became rich with high tax rates and big government.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Current Events, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Taxes | Tagged | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 158B)(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part E)

October 22, 2012 – 6:40 am

 

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

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. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched last night, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do.

Politifact.com reported:

Says President Obama waited two weeks to call the attack in Libya “terror.”

Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 16th, 2012 in the second presidential debate

Romney says Obama waited 14 days to call Libya attack terror

For weeks, Republicans have been hammering the Obama administration for allegedly concealing the true nature of the attack in Libya that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. During the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney charged that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama had bristled at the idea that his administration had played politics with the attack. He called the suggestion “offensive”.

Obama: “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened — that this was an act of terror — and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”

Romney: “I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”

Obama: “That’s what I said.”

Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?”

Obama: “Please proceed, governor.”

Romney: “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama: “Get the transcript.”

We went to the transcript, and the president has a point. On September 12, the day after the attack, in the Rose Garden, Obama condemned the attack and said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.”

In the days since, some have parsed Obama’s remarks and argued he didn’t say the Benghazi attack was specifically an act of terror. However, given the overall context of his comments, it seems a fair conclusion that he was including the attack in the “acts of terror” that he said would never shake American resolve.

In the days that followed, the White House spokesman and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations suggested that the attack seemed to have taken advantage of a demonstration over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.

On Sept. 13, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, “The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”

The next day, a State Department spokeswoman said, “We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated.” But she ended with this: “Obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.”

On Sept. 16, five days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

On Sept. 20, Carney told reporters, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that everyone in the administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group.

Our ruling

Romney said it took the president 14 days before he called the Libya attack terror.

In fact, Obama described it in those terms the day after the attack. But in the days that followed, neither he nor all the members of his administration spoke consistently on the subject. There were many suggestions that the attack was part of demonstrations over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.

We rate the statement Half True.

____________

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

Why can’t we get an apology from the President concerning Libya?

I have emailed and written the President over 200 times in the last year and I have received over 20 emails and 5 letters back from the White House. However, I have been most urgent in my emails and letter writing concerning this issue about the youtube video being blamed for the attack in Libya. […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 158))(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part C)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157B)(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part B)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157) (Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part A)

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy Published on Oct 16, 2012 by AussieNews1 With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. ________________________ President Obama c/o The […]

President now tells us the truth about Libya

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya Published on Oct 7, 2012 by HeritageFoundation New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend […]

Lybia timeline

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya Published on Oct 7, 2012 by HeritageFoundation An Incriminating Timeline: http://herit.ag/WMfTr6 | New evidence shows there were security threats in Benghazi, Libya, in the months prior to the deadly September 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the Obama […]

 

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

Music Monday: Chris Martin and Religion Part 8

October 22, 2012 – 6:24 am

Coldplay 6-22-12 Dallas, TX Best Opening.MOV

Published on Jun 23, 2012 by

1 of Don’t miss the second song of this clip!! It was incredible! (One eye watching you song was great.)

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

 

 8/11
 

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 8th part of a series I am starting on this subject. Today we look at how Chris Martin talks which reflects his belief in God.

On June 23, 2012 my son Wilson and I got to attend a Coldplay Concert in Dallas. It was great.

Below you will see a clip of an interview that Chris Martin did in 2012 in California.

Coldplay KROQ Weenie Roast 2012 Interview

Published on May 9, 2012 by

http://www.coldplayism.com – Chris Martin and Will Champion of Coldplay interviewed backstage at KROQ Weenie Roast 2012, Los Angeles, California

__________

In this interview above Chris Martin commented, “We are working hard. We are having such a great time at the moment and we are so blessed and feel grateful and we really want to keep making music together while we like each other so much.”

Christians in the USA started the Thanksgiving holiday because they wanted to thank God for their blessings. If Chris wants to leave his childhood biblical teachings behind then he doesn’t talk that way. Maybe he really does realize that it is God who gave him his talents and he is truly thankful to God for the blessings he is experiencing in his life today.

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

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 162)

October 22, 2012 – 6:16 am

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 162)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:

Here are some great suggestions from the Heritage Foundation.  Alison Acosta Fraser Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Nowhere to Cut?

  • In 2011, the federal government wasted $115.3 billion of taxpayers’ money in improper payments: money paid in the wrong amount, to the wrong person, or for the wrong reason. Most of these excess payments—$107 billion, or 93 percent—were in just 10 programs, including Medicare fee-for-service ($28.8 billion), Medicaid ($21.9 billion), the Earned Income Tax Credit ($15.2 billion), and Unemployment Insurance ($13.7 billion). Implementation of updated computer systems and fraud detection methods and stricter documentation requirements would reduce payment errors.
  • Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011, and $833.8 million over the past 10 years. It has never broken even on these services.
  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 34 areasin which federal agencies or initiatives have overlapping goals or duplicative services, which cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. There are:
    • More than 80 economic development programs operating out of four different agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Small Business Administration;
    • More than 100 economic development programs spread across five agencies within the Department of Transportation;
    • Seven federal agencies, including the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, which have more than 20 programs addressing homelessness;
    • 44 employment and training programs in the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor; and
    • 82 programs on teacher quality run through the Departments of Defense, Education, and Energy, as well as NASA and the National Science Foundation.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman on controlling spending

October 22, 2012 – 6:09 am

Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.”

Uploaded by on Mar 26, 2011

Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.” Mark is excited by the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. He states that this would be a great thing for America to pass. He believes the Balanced Budget Amendment will help bring the nation back to it’s Constitutional roots. Mark explains what the amendment is and how it will work. In his February 1983 classic essay, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman gives his opinion on a balanced budget amendment that requires a super majority to raise taxes. Friedman states, “The purpose of the balanced-budget-and-tax-limitation amendment is to limit the government in order to free the people—this time from excessive taxation. Its passage would go a long way to remedy the defect that has developed in our budgetary process.” Part #1 3-25-2011

The best article I have ever read on the Balanced Budget Amendment was written by my favorite economist Milton Friedman. Here is the first portion below:

Washington: Less Red Ink

An argument that the balanced-budget amendment would be a rare merging of public and private interests.

Our elected representatives in Congress have been voting larger expenditures year after year—larger not only in dollars but as a fraction of the national income. Tax revenue has been rising as well, but nothing like so rapidly. As a result, deficits have grown and grown.

At the same time, the public has demonstrated increasing resistance to higher spending, higher taxes, and higher deficits. Every survey of public opinion shows a large majority that believes that government is spending too much money, and that the government budget should be balanced.

How is it that a government of the majority produces results that the majority opposes?

The paradox reflects a defect in our political structure. We are ruled by a majority—but it is a majority composed of a coalition of minorities representing special interests. A particular minority may lose more from programs benefiting other minorities than it gains from programs benefiting itself. It might be willing to give up its own programs as part of a package deal eliminating all programs—but, currently, there is no way it can express that preference.

Similarly, it is not in the interest of a legislator to vote against a particular appropriation bill if that vote would create strong enemies while a vote in its favor would alienate few supporters. That is why simply electing the right people is not a solution. Each of us will be favorably inclined toward a legislator who has voted for a bill that confers a large benefit on us, as we perceive it. Yet who among us will oppose a legislator because he has voted for a measure that, while requiring a large expenditure, will increase the taxes on each of us by a few cents or a few dollars? When we are among the few who benefit, it pays us to keep track of the vote. When we are among the many who bear the cost, it does not pay us even to read about it.

The result is a major defect in the legislative procedure whereby a budget is enacted: each measure is considered separately, and the final budget is the sum of the separate items, limited by no effective, overriding total. That defect will not be remedied by Congress itself—as the failure of one attempt after another at reforming the budget process has demonstrated. It simply is not in the self-interest of legislators to remedy it—at least not as they have perceived their self-interest.

Dissatisfaction with ever-increasing spending and taxes first took the form of pressure on legislators to discipline themselves. When it became clear that they could not or would not do so, the dissatisfaction took the form of a drive for constitutional amendments at both the state and the federal levels. The drive captured national attention when Proposition 13, reducing property taxes, was passed in California; it has held public attention since, scoring successes in state after state. The constitutional route remains the only one by which the general interest of the public can be expressed, by which package deals, as it were, can be realized.

Two national organizations have led this drive: the National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC), founded in 1975 as a single-issue, nonpartisan organization to serve as a clearinghouse for information on attempts to limit taxes at a local, state, or federal level, and to assist such attempts; and the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), which led the drive to persuade state legislatures to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to enact an amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget. Thirty-one states have already passed resolutions calling for a convention. If three more pass similar resolutions, the Constitution requires Congress to call such a convention—a major reason Congress has been active in producing its own amendment.

The amendment that was passed by the Senate last August 4, by a vote of 69 to 31 (two more than the two thirds required for approval of a constitutional amendment), had its origin in 1973 in a California proposition that failed at the time but passed in 1979 in improved form (not Proposition 13). A drafting committee organized by the NTLC produced a draft amendment applicable to the federal government in late 1978. The NTU contributed its own version. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a final version on May 19, 1981, after lengthy hearings and with the cooperation of all the major contributors to the earlier work. In my opinion, the committee’s final version was better than any earlier draft. That version was adopted by the Senate except for the addition of section 6, proposed by Senator William Armstrong, of Colorado, a Republican. Approval by the Senate, like the sponsorship of the amendment, was bipartisan: forty-seven Republicans, twenty-one Democrats, and one Independent voted for the amendment.

The House Democratic leadership tried to prevent a vote on the amendment in the House before last November’s elections. However, a discharge petition forced a vote on it on October 1, the last full day of the regular session. The amendment was approved by a majority (236 to 187), but not by the necessary two thirds. Again, the majority was bipartisan: 167 Republicans, 69 Democrats. In view of its near passage and the widespread public support for it, the amendment is sure to be reintroduced in the current session of Congress. Hence it remains a very live issue.

The amendment as adopted by the Senate would achieve two related objectives: first, it would increase the likelihood that the federal budget would be brought into balance, not by prohibiting an unbalanced budget but by making it more difficult to enact a budget calling for a deficit; second, it would check the growth of government spending—again, not by prohibiting such growth but by making it more difficult.

The amendment is very much in the spirit of the first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights. Their purpose was to limit the government in order to free the people. Similarly, the purpose of the balanced-budget-and-tax-limitation amendment is to limit the government in order to free the people—this time from excessive taxation. Its passage would go a long way to remedy the defect that has developed in our budgetary process. By the same token, it would make it more difficult for supporters of ever-bigger government to attain their goals.

It is no surprise, therefore, that a torrent of criticism has been loosed against the proposed amendment by people who believe that our problems arise not from excessive government but from our failure to give government enough power, enough control over us as individuals. It is no surprise that Tip O’Neill and his fellow advocates of big government tried to prevent a vote in the House on the amendment, and used all the pressure at their command to prevent its receiving a two-thirds majority.

It is no surprise, either, that when the amendment did come to a vote in the House, a substantial majority voted for it. After all, in repeated opinion polls, more than three quarters of the public have favored such an amendment. Their representatives do not find it easy to disregard that sentiment in an open vote—which is why Democratic leaders tried to prevent the amendment from coming to a vote. When their hand was forced, they quickly introduced a meaningless substitute that was overwhelmingly defeated (346 to 77) but gave some representatives an opportunity to cast a recorded vote for a token budget-balancing amendment while at the same time voting against the real thing.

Milton Friedman received the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976. He is the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago and a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

Evidence can be found in Archaeology that supports the historical accuracy of the Bible and here are some links posted here at www.thedailyhatch.org

October 21, 2012 – 1:38 am

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5)

The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy.

_________________________-

Many people have questioned the accuracy of the Bible, but I have posted many videos and articles with evidence pointing out that the Bible has many pieces of evidence from archaeology supporting the view that the Bible is historically accurate. Take a look at the video above and below.

The Bible and Archaeology (2/5)

There are some unbelievable stories in the Bible that have evidence backing them up too. Take at the evidence given by John MacArthur concerning the city of Tyre.  At the end of this post I have several links to other posts concerning Biblical Archaeology.

Photo of John MacArthur

Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4

Uploaded by on Dec 5, 2010

A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo

________________

John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled by historical events.

LESSON

I. BIBLICAL PROPHECY CONCERNING TYRE (Ezekiel 26:1–28:19)

A. The Forecast

1. The specifics

a) That King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:7-8).

b) That many nations would rise up against Tyre. These nations would come like waves of the sea, one after another (26:3- 4).

c) That Tyre will be made like a flat rock (26:4, 14).

d) That fisherman will dry their nets there (26:5, 14).

e) That the rubble of the city would be cast into the sea (26:12).

f) That Tyre would never be rebuilt (26:14).

2. The setting

Tyre was a great city. It was one of the largest and most powerful cities of Phoenicia, which is modern day Lebanon.

It was well fortified. A great wall protected the city from land attacks while their world-renowned fleet protected them from attack by sea.

Tyre was a flourishing city during the time when Joshua led Israel into the Promised Land. King Hiram, who began his reign during the rule of David, offered David cedars from Tyre to build his palace. He also loaned David his artisans to craft parts of the great palace (1 Chron. 14:1). Hiram also helped Solomon build the Temple by floating cedars down the shoreline to be picked up and hauled to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 2:16). So Tyre was a great city, and both David and Solomon looked to it for aid.

B. The Fulfillment

1. The prophetic call

a) To Nebuchadnezzar

Not long after the prophecy given by Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did exactly what had been predicted–he laid siege against the city in 585 B.C. For thirteen years Nebuchadnezzar cut off the flow of supplies into the city. In 537 B.C. he finally succeeded in breaking the gates down, but found the city almost empty.

During the thirteen-year siege, the people of Tyre moved all their possessions by ship to an island one-half mile offshore. So Nebuchadnezzar gained no plunder (Ezek. 29:17- 20). Although he destroyed the mainland city (Ezek. 26:8), the new city offshore continued to flourish for 250 years. The prophecy of Ezekiel 26:12–“they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water”–remained unfulfilled.

b) To Alexander the Great

At age twenty-two, Alexander the Great came east conquering the known world with an army of between thirty and forty thousand men. Having defeated the Persians under Darius III, Alexander was on the march toward Egypt.

(1) The dilemma

Alexander arrived in the Phoenician territory and demanded that the cities open their gates to him. The citizens of Tyre refused, feeling they were secure on their island with their superior fleet.

(2) The decision

Realizing he did not have a fleet that could match Tyre’s, Alexander decided to build a causeway to the island using the ruins from the mainland city. It was about two hundred feet wide. The prophet said that the city would be thrown into the water, and that’s exactly what happened.

(3) The details

Arrian, a Greek historian, wrote about the overthrow of Tyre and how it was accomplished (The Campaigns of Alexander [New York: Penquin, 1958], pp. 132-43). The fortification of Tyre resembled Alcatraz. The city sat offshore like a rock with walls that came down to the edge of the water. Alexander set out to build the only means to approach the city–a land peninsula. Soldiers started pitching rubble into the water, leveling it off as they went so they could march on it. The water got deeper as they approached the island, and to make their task even more difficult, the people of Tyre bombarded them with missiles.

Werner Keller in The Bible as History tells us that to safeguard the operation, Alexander built mobile shields called “tortoises” (New York: Bantam, 1956], p. 361). Knowing that when they reached the city they would have to scale the walls, Alexander built “Hele-poleis,” which were mobile siege towers 160 foot high. The idea was to roll these structures across the causeway and push them up against the walls. A drawbridge on the front of the towers enabled the soldiers to march across the top of the walls and into the city.

Alexander’s men were under constant attack from people within the city and from the Tyrian navy. Realizing that he needed ships to defend his flanks, Alexander returned to the cities he had conquered and demanded their assistance. That fulfilled the prophecy that God “will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up” (Ezek. 26:3).

(4) The destruction

Alexander’s plan succeeded. Eight thousand people were slain and thirty thousand were sold into slavery. It took Alexander seven months to conquer Tyre. The causeway he built can be seen to this day.

2. The prophetic result

How did Ezekiel know all those things would happen? The only explanation is he expressed the mind of God. Historian Philip Myers said, “Alexander the Great reduced it [Tyre] to ruins (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site … is now as bare as the top of a rock–a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry” (General History for Colleges and High Schools [Boston: Ginn and Co., 1889], p. 55). That fulfills the prophecies of Ezekiel 26:4-5, 14. The island city was repopulated, later to be destroyed by the Moslems in A.D. 1281. However, God said the mainland city would never be rebuilt–and it never has. Jerusalem has been rebuilt many times but Tyre will never be rebuilt because a prophet in Babylon said twenty-five centuries ago, “Thou shalt be built no more” (Ezek. 26:14).

Prophecy–Alexander The Great Siege of Tyre 6of6.flv

Uploaded by on Dec 5, 2010

This video by secular sources fulfills in amazing detail the prophecies made about Tyre by the Bible centuries in advance. Go here to see the Bible’s prophecies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K24uwdc-ato

Related posts:

Atheist says “It’s not about having a purpose in life..” (Arkansas Atheist, Part 1)jh69

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. _________________________- I want to make two points today. 1. There is no […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 32) (What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 6 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 6 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the Book […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 31)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 5 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 5 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 29)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 3 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 1 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 28)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 2 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 2 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the […]

Easter Morning April 24, 2011,List of posts on series: Is the Bible historically accurate? (Updated 1 through 14C)

“In Christ Alone” music video featuring scenes from “The Passion of the Christ”. It is sung by Lou Fellingham of Phatfish and the writer of the hymn is Stuart Townend. On this Easter Morning April 24, 2011 there is no other better time to take a look at the truth and accuracy of the Bible.  […]

Is the Bible historically accurate?(Part 14C)(The Conspirator Part 7)

Critics – Part 1 By Dr In my ongoing debate with other bloggers on the Arkansas Times Blog, I had an interesting response from Dobert: You can’t have it both ways. If the Gospel writers were allowed to adapt their message to a particular audience then it can’t be claimed that God literally took their […]

Is the Bible historically accurate?(Part 14B)(The Conspirator Part 5)

The Institute for Creation Research equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework. info@icr.org http://www.icr.org Last night I had the opportunity to go back and forth with a couple of bloggers on the Arkansas Times Blog and this […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 14)(The Conspirator part 3)

This is a quick summary of the Bible’s reliability by a famous and well-respected former atheist. Please check out his website (http://www.leestrobel.com) for hundreds of FREE high quality videos investigating the critical aspects of our faith. Todd Tyszka http://www.toddtyszka.com On April 19, 2011 on the Arkansas Blog an entry of mine got this response from […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 13)

Many Kings and important people in the Bible are also verified by secular documents. From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 12)(Johnny Cash, Famous Arkansan pt C)

Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the dead sea scrolls some 2,000 years ago, expertly guides you through the latest archaeological finds that have changed the way we understand the world of the bible. (Part 6 of 6 in the film series The Stones […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 11)

My sons Wilson  and Hunter  went to California and visited Yosemite National Park with our friend Sherwood Haisty Jr. (Sherwood on left) March 21-27. Here you can see all the snow they had to deal with. Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 10)

Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the dead sea scrolls some 2,000 years ago, expertly guides you through the latest archaeological finds that have changed the way we understand the world of the bible. (Part 4 of 6 in the film series The Stones […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer affected pro-life movement (Part 8) “Schaeffer Sunday”

October 20, 2012 – 9:58 pm

Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom.

I have often wondered why we got to this point in our country’s life and we allow abortion. The answer is found in the words of Schaeffer.
Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.

The Arkansas Times article, “Putting the fetus first: Pro-lifers keep up attack on access, but pro-choice advocates fend off the end to abortion right” by Leslie Newell Peacock is very lengthy but I want to deal with all of it in this new series.

click to enlarge ROSE MIMMS: Arkansas Right to Life director unswayed by fears of return of illegal abortion.
  • ROSE MIMMS: Arkansas Right to Life director unswayed by fears of return of illegal abortion.

Rita Sklar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said,”Women’s bodies are used as a political football and it’s time that stopped.”

___________________________

Is this debate really about the woman’s body? Does the woman even have the same blood type as the unborn baby? Or is this about a life being snuffed out? Take a look at this moving story that Arkansas abortionist Dr. William Harrison told below about the lady that will soon “finish her doctorate at the University of California at San Francisco.”

I used to write letters to the editor a whole lot back in the 1990’s.  I am pro-life and many times my letters would discuss current political debates, and I got to know several names of people that would often write in response letters to my published letters. One of those individuals was a Dr. William F. Harrison from Fayetteville. Later I found out from reading an article by David Sanders that Dr. Harrison was an abortionist. Dr Harrison died from leukemia on September 24, 2010. Here is a post from Jason Tolbert from July of 2010:

KFSM in Fayetteville is reporting that abortist William Harrison is closing the doors to his abortion clinic in nothwest Arkansas for health reasons. In an ABC News story a few year ago, Harrison said he had performed over 10,000 abortions and was comfortable with the taking of life.

I now write a column for Stephen Media in a spot once held by conservative David J. Sanders who is currently running for the Arkansas House of Representatives.  Sanders shadowed Harrison in his abortion clinic and wrote of series of columns on the experience.  I think these are prehaps Sanders’ best work…

Harrison is sure that what he does is right, but he confessed to the enormous costs that come in his line of work. There were threats against his wife and children and staff. He commented that if he “had known” everything – the threats, the risks – that would take place over the years, he might not have decided to provide abortions.

Some years ago, a 16-year-old daughter of a close friend of the family had gotten pregnant. “Their Baptist minister had advised her parents that she shouldn’t have an abortion and that (if she did) she would regret it the rest of her life. But had I had the choice, at the time, I would have advised (the mother of the teenager) to have that child aborted,” he said as he stared at his desktop.

“Well, she had her baby. She’s as smart as a whip,” he said. Now, years later, that baby is grown and about to finish her doctorate at the University of California at San Francisco.

I asked him if that sent chills up his spine. His response: “Absolutely.”

If you would like to know my the #1 abortionist in the world changed to a pro-life advocate then check out these posts:

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 10)

Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, a leading pro-life advocate and convert to Catholicism, died at the age of 84 on Monday a week ago in his New York home, after a long struggle with cancer. The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Chapter 12 is titled To The Thanatoriums, an allusion the Walker […]

On eve of Shutdown Republicans cave on demand concerning eliminating Planned Parenthood Funding

The pro-life position is very important to a great many of the freshmen members of the House of Representatives. As you can see above in the clip from the film series Whatever Happened to the Human Race? by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, the unborn baby is a child, but we are treating many […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 9)(Donald Trump changes to pro-life view)

When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 8)

My sons Wilson (on left) and Hunter (on right) went to California and visited Yosemite National Park with our friend Sherwood Haisty Jr. March 21-27. Here they are standing in front of the tallest waterfall in North America. The only surviving founding member of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson gives his testimony of NARAL’s foundation of […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 7) Have you wondered why we have abortion in the USA?

“Jane Roe” or Roe v Wade is now a prolife Christian. She’s recently has done a commercial about it.   _______________________________ I have often wondered why we got to this point in our country’s life and we allow abortion. The answer is found in the words of Schaffer. Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 6)

Modern man’s humanist thought has brought us to the point now that many people realize that they could not find final answers and that would lead to despair. Many people then took leaps into the area of non-reason to find some kind of meaning in life. Some people actually tried to look at communism and […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 5)

Modern man’s humanist thought has brought us to the point now that many people realize that they could not find final answers and that would lead to despair. Many people then turned to trying to find answers in the area of non-reason. There were no fixed values and they just held on to the two […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 4)

Richard Land on Abortion part 3 On the Arkansas Times Blog this morning I posted a short pro-life piece and it received this response: We have been over this time and again SalineRepublican, and I think we all know the issue: when does the right of a woman to control her own body yield to […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 3)

Vice Admiral C. Everett Koop, USPHS Surgeon General of the United States Francis Schaeffer Main page Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop put together this wonderful film series “Whatever happened to the human race?” and my senior class teacher Mark Brink taught us a semester long course on it in 1979. I was so

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 2)

This is such a great video series “The Silent Scream.” I have never seen it until now and I wish I had seen it 30 years ago.  Take a look at the video clip below. I wanted to pass along a portion of the excellent article “Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by the Truth about […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 1)

Sherwood Haisty is taking my sons Hunter and Wilson to Grace Community Church in the Los Angeles area this morning where Dr. John MacArthur is pastor. They will be attending both Sunday School and Worship. I wanted to pass along a portion of the excellent article “Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by the Truth about

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