Yearly Archives: 2012

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American

Heritage Series / David Barton

There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes:

Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

independence The Faith of Our FathersWas the faith of the Founding Fathers deism or Christianity? What does the answer mean for us today? Both the secularists and the Christians have missed the mark. By: Gregory Koukl

There’s been a lot of rustle in the press lately–and in many Christian publications–about the faith of the Founding Fathers and the status of the United States as a “Christian nation.” Home schooling texts abound with references to our religious heritage, and entire organizations are dedicated to returning America to its spiritual roots. On the other side, secularists cry “foul” and parade their own list of notables among our country’s patriarchs. They rally around the cry of “separation of church and state.” Which side is right? Oddly both, after a fashion.

Who Were the Founding Fathers?
Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn’t arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.As for others–George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson–their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.The Constitutional ConventionIt’s not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder’s guiding light. There’s an easier way to settle the issue.The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Benjamin Franklin

Even Franklin the deist is equivocal. He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin’s emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin’s appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.

And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.[2]

Three of the four cornerstones of the Constitution–Franklin, Washington, and Madison–were firmly rooted in Christianity. But what about Thomas Jefferson? His signature cannot be found at the end of the Constitution, but his voice permeates the entire document.

Thomas Jefferson

Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him.

Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel’s God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.

It’s clear that Thomas Jefferson was no evangelical, but neither was he an Enlightenment deist. He was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian.[3]

This analysis, though, misses the point. The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson–or any of our Founding Fathers–isn’t whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.

Even today there are legions of born-again Christians who have absolutely no skill at integrating their beliefs about Christ with the details of their daily life, especially their views of government. They may be “saved,” but they are completely ineffectual as salt and light.

By contrast, some of the Fathers may not have been believers in the narrowest sense of the term, yet in the broader sense–the sense that influences culture–their thinking was thoroughly Christian. Unlike many evangelicals who live lives of practical atheism, these men had political ideals that were deeply informed by a robust Christian world view. They didn’t always believe biblically, having a faith leading to salvation, but almost all thoughtbiblically, resulting in a particular type of government.

Thomas Jefferson was this kind of man. In Defending the Declaration, legal historian Gary Amos observes, “Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense.”[4]

What Did the Founding Fathers Believe and Value?
When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:

  • Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
  • The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
  • The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
  • Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
  • Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.

However…

  • The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
  • They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity–or any other faith–as the religion of our nation.

A Two-Sided Coin

We can safely draw two conclusions from these facts, which serve to inform our understanding of the relationship between religion and government in the United States.

First, Christianity was the prevailing moral and intellectual influence shaping the nation from its outset. The Christian influence pervaded all aspects of life, from education to politics. Therefore, the present concept of a rigid wall of separation hardly seems historically justified.

Virtually every one of the Founders saw a vital link between civil religion and civil government. George Washington’s admonitions in his Farewell Speech, September 19, 1796, were characteristic of the general sentiment:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.[5]

Second, the Founders stopped short of giving their Christian religion a position of legal privilege. In the tradition of the early church, believers were to be salt and light. The First Amendment insured the liberty needed for Christianity to be a preserving influence and a moral beacon, but it also insured Christianity would never be the law of the land.

This ought to call into serious question a common tactic of the so-called Religious Right. “We were here first,” their apologists proclaim. “Our country was stolen from us, and we demand it back.” Author John Seel calls this “priority as entitlement.”

The sad fact of the matter is that cultural authority was not stolen from us; we surrendered it through neglect. Os Guinness pointed out that Christians have not been out-thought. Rather, they have not been around when the thinking was being done.

Choosing cultural monasticism rather than hard-thinking advocacy, Christians abandoned the public square to the secularists. When the disciples of Jesus Christ retreated, the disciples of Dewey, Marx, Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Skinner, and a host of others replaced them.

Seel warns of the liability of an “appeal to history as a basis of Christian grounds to authority.”[6]Playing the victim will not restore our influence, nor will political strong-arm tactics. Shouldn’t our appeal rather be on the basis of truth rather than on the patterns of the past?

The faith of our Founding Fathers was Christianity, not deism. In this regard, many secularists–and even some Christians–have been wrong in their assessment of our history. On the other hand, many Christians have also been mistaken in their application of the past to the present.

Christians have no special privileges simply because Christianity was America’s first faith. “If America ever was or ever will be a ‘Christian nation,'” Seel observes, “it is not by conscious design or written law, but by free conviction.”[7]

Success for the Christian cannot be measured in numbers or political muscle, but only in faithfulness. Our most important weapon is not our voting power, but the power of the truth freely spoken and freely heard.

Recommended Reading:

Let Freedom Ring–A Basic Outline of American History, available through the Family Research Council, 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington D.C. 20005, 1-800-225-4008

The Light and the Glory, Peter Marshall and David Manuel (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1977)

Christianity and the Constitution–The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, John Eidsmoe (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987)

Defending the Declaration–How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, Gary T. Amos (Brentwood, TN: Wogelmuth & Hyatt, 1989)

Positive Neutrality: Letting Religious Freedom Ring, Stephen T. Monsma, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993)

[1] John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.[2] Benjamin Franklin, quoted by James Madison in Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787(Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 1985), p. 209.[3]Eidsmoe has a very thorough and even-handed section on Jefferson.[4] Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration, (Brentwood, TN: Wogelmuth & Hyatt, 1989), p. 9.[5] The Annals of America, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976), vol. 3, p. 612.

[6] John Seel, No God But God–Breaking with the Idols of Our Age, Os Guinness and John Seel, eds., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), p. 64.

[7] John Seel, No God But God–Breaking with the Idols of Our Age, Os Guinness and John Seel, eds., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), p. 69.

 

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show“Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2002 Gregory Koukl

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 84.1)

May 23, 2012 – 7:03 am

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.

It seems that government was in control of the desert then we would have a shortage of sand as Milton Friedman used to quip and that is why I am so against Obamacare.

There is another issue that concerns me very much about this fight at the Supreme Court over Obamacare. I know that many people feel strongly that we live in a democracy and because the people want Obamacare then they should be able to get it. However, that is not exactly true that we live in a pure democracy.

My daily email containing the editorials and opinion columns from the Washington Post included an item written by E.J. Dionne entitled “Supreme Court activists: Conservative justices forget we’re a democracy.”

Surely this was a mistake.

I suspect he does understand, at least with regard to the first question. For instance, I’d bet a lot of money that he was correctly in favor of the Court’s decision to protect flag burning as a form of political speech, notwithstanding public opinion and congressional approval.

But he seems to join with other leftists in treating the interstate commerce clause as some sort of blank check for federal intervention into every aspect of our lives. And it shows up in various ways in his column.

…conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature…discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell… Sotomayor asked what was wrong with leaving as much discretion as possible “in the hands of the people who should be fixing this, not us.” It was nice to be reminded that we’re a democracy, not a judicial dictatorship. …This is what conservative justices will do if they strike down or cripple the health-care law. …a court that…sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws.

At the risk of being blunt, the conservative justices are doing exactly what they should be doing. They’re deciding if a law enacted by Congress is consistent with the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

America has a democratic form of government, but we are not a democracy. At least not in the sense that 51 percent of the people have the unlimited right to rape and pillage 49 percent of the people.

I have no idea of the Supreme Court will make the right decision, but I am overwhelmingly confident that the Founding Fathers didn’t envision mandated health insurance as a function of the federal government.

But maybe I’m just too old fashioned, because when I peruse the enumerated powers, I don’t see any authority for a Department of Energy either. Or a Department of Agriculture. Or a Department of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the idea.

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

Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty

Uploaded by on Feb 22, 2012

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/ | The controversy over the Obama Administration’s anti-conscience mandate and the fight for religious liberty only serves to highlight the inherent flaws in Obamacare. This conflict is a natural result of the centralization laid out under Obamacare and will only continue until the law is repealed in full.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Healthcare | Comments (0)

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 13)

May 23, 2012 – 6:37 am

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

SENATOR MARK PRYOR WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SAME DEMOCRATIC STATE THAT RE-ELECTED HIS FATHER OVER AND OVER, BUT ARKANSAS NOW IS A REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLD. HECK, THE ONLY REASON PRYOR GOT RE-ELECTED IN 2008 WAS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS THOUGHT FOR SURE HILLARY WOULD BE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL TICKET AND WOULD HAVE COAT TAILS.

Back in 2009 there were 3 Democratic Congressman and 2 Democratic Senators from Arkansas. Now there are 3 Republican Congressman and 1 Republican Senator and the other two seats are held currently by Pryor who is not up for re-election till 2014 and Mike Ross who is vacated his seat at the end of 2012. Could it be that will no longer have any Democrats in Washington representing Arkansas in a couple of years?

I believe that Pryor has miscalculated by opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment and I think that Mike Ross is very popular because of his support of it.

Below is a piece I wrote a while back about Mike Ross.

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today:

U.S. Mike Ross photo

  • U.S. REP. MIKE ROSS

U.S. Mike Rossof Prescott surprised everyone by scheduling an announcement this morning in Little Rock to say he would not seek a seventh term in Congress in 2012.His statement is on the jump. He said he hadn’t decided yet on a race for governor in 2014, which he’s long been expected to make. But his reference to the race indicates it is very much in his sights.

ROSS NEWS RELEASE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott on Monday announced he will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Ross, who won re-election in 2010 by 18 points and has no announced opponent, has represented Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District in Congress since 2001. A fifth generation Arkansan, Ross is a former state senator and former small business owner.

Statement from U.S. Congressman Mike Ross:

Representing my home state of Arkansas in the U.S. Congress for the past eleven years has been a real privilege and honor. It is a job that I take very seriously and one that I love. However, as I reflect on turning 50 this year, I believe it is time for me to begin a new chapter in my life by spending more time with my family and exploring new opportunities here at home in Arkansas.

That’s why I have decided not to seek a seventh term to the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District. This was not an easy decision and one that I carefully made after a lot of reflection, thought and prayer.

Last year was a tough political environment to seek re-election. Yet, I won by 18 points—one of the largest margins of any member of Congress in a swing district. The trust and confidence the folks here at home have continually placed in me is something I will never forget. The people of Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District are good, decent, hard working people and I am proud to serve and represent them in the U.S. Congress.

A lot has changed since I was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2000. Congressional campaigns have gone from several months in length to never-ending, costing millions of dollars every two years. As a result, fundraising never ends nor do the political attacks. While I have worked hard to bring folks to the middle to craft commonsense solutions to the many problems that confront our nation, Washington is mired in gridlock, gamesmanship and constant partisan bickering. Too many issues and votes are based on partisan politics rather than good public policy. Despite our many challenges, I remain optimistic that America’s best days are still ahead of us.

I never believed that my service in the U.S. Congress should become a permanent career. This seat never belonged to me—it belongs to the people of Arkansas. And I know there are many bright people in Arkansas ready to step up, go to Washington and offer a new generation of leadership. Simply put, it is someone else’s turn to represent our state in the U.S. Congress.

I have many good memories of my service in the U.S. Congress, and we have helped thousands of people. None of this would have been possible without the support of the people here in Arkansas, and for that, my family and I will always be grateful to them.

I look forward to serving out the remainder of my term in the U.S. Congress, which doesn’t end until January 2013. I will continue to work each and every day on behalf of the people I represent, just as I have faithfully tried to do from the beginning.

I have received a lot of encouragement to run for Governor of Arkansas when Governor Beebe’s term ends in 2014. I’ve always been very upfront and honest in the fact that, as a fifth generation Arkansan, I love our state and would like very much to help lead it at some point in the future. Whether I run for Governor in 2014 is a decision I have not yet made and won’t make until sometime after my term in this Congress ends.

__________________________________

Ross will tough to beat in the governor race in 2014. However, I do think that the Republicans will have an excellent chance to capture a fourth Congressional seat in 2012. Will there ever be another Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Arkansas? (In fact if you check out some of the information at the Red Arkansas Blog and you will see that most people view this district as a Republican pick up.)

John Brummett in his article “Ross is running, but I repeat myself,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 26, 2011 noted:

To win, a Democrat will need to be as good a politician as Ross. I can’t identify such a Democrat at present.

At this point I’d give tea party pageanteer Beth Anne Rankin, the Sarah Palin wannabe of Arkansas, a decent shot.

Jason Tolbert reported:
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge.  However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.

Republican Tom Cotton from Dardanelle confirms to the Tolbert Report this morning that he will seek the open seat and is already putting together his team.  Potential donors have confirmed that Cotton is lining up support and may already have over six figures in commitments.  In addition, Cotton has been seen meeting recently with Second District Congressman Tim Griffin who could lend support to Cotton’s campaign.

Cotton was one of the many names considering a run for Senate in 2010 against former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but ultimately decided against it. Cotton currently works for international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company. A veteran, he also serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. Cotton lives in Yell County, which was part of the Second Congressional District represented by Congressman Griffin. It was moved to the Fourth Congressional Disctrict in the last redistricting process.

In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well.  Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration.  She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years.  Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.

In addition, sources close to State Rep. Lane Jean of Magnolia confirm that he is “strongly considering” getting into the race as well.  Jean was elected to his first term in the Arkansas House in 2010.

Other potential Republicans names mentioned are: State Rep. Matthew Shepherd, former Congressional candidate Glenn Gallas, and Will Rockfeller – the son of the late Lt. Gov. Win Rockfeller.

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

Sweden reaps benefits of tax cuts

May 23, 2012 – 5:50 am

We need to cut taxes and not raise them if we want the economy to grow. Sweden is a good example of that lately.

David Weinberger

May 11, 2012 at 10:00 am

Since the beginning of the recession, academics, authoritative international institutions, and most government officials pushed for massive stimulus spending. Sweden bucked the trend, focusing instead on slashing marginal tax rates and peeling government back. How did it fare?

The Spectator reports:

While most countries in Europeborrowed massively, Borg did not. Since becoming Sweden’s finance minister, his mission has been to pare back government. His ‘stimulus’ was a permanent tax cut. To critics, this was fiscal lunacy — the so-called ‘punk tax cutting’ agenda. Borg, on the other hand, thought lunacy meant repeating the economics of the 1970s and expecting a different result.

Three years on, it’s pretty clear who was right. ‘Look atSpain,Portugalor theUK, whose governments were arguing for large temporary stimulus,’ he says. ‘Well, we can see that very little of the stimulus went to the economy. But they are stuck with the debt.’ Tax-cuttingSweden, by contrast, had the fastest growth inEuropelast year, when it also celebrated the abolition of its deficit.

Too bad the U.S. decided against Sweden’s advice. Still, missing one opportunity doesn’t mean we have to miss another: Tax reform is calling.   

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

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

May 23, 2012 – 1:43 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6

Uploaded by  on Aug 30, 2010

http://www.icr.org/
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASG
http://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog

______________________________________

I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution:

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”

I was really enjoyed this review of Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot.”

Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot

by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. *

On December 6, 1994, Carl Sagan, author of Cosmos, well-known astronomer and speaker, appeared before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco to introduce his new book, Pale Blue Dot.1

Earlier in the day I had the opportunity to briefly talk with him during a break in presentations at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. I introduced myself and found him very cordial but extremely animated and energetic in attempting to convince me that the Bible is not a valid source of truth and that science has proven it wrong.

I was puzzled at his enthusiasm until I purchased and read his book. In it he presents the case that the earth and man are not at the center of the universe or God’s attention. In fact, he stresses that science has disproved the Bible and that man is an insignificant species on a remote planet whirling through the vast reaches of space. He suggests space exploration and colonization as a vision for developing anew meaning in life to replace that given historically by religion.

Since Carl Sagan is such an effective spokesman for the naturalistic world view which prevails in the modern scientific community, and for his concept that a creator God is an outdated “geocentrist conceit” concocted by our less enlightened forefathers and foisted upon the human culture, I felt a review and rebuttal of his new book was in order.

REVIEWAt the heart of Dr. Sagan’s argument for a universe without a creator is the progressive disillusionment he believes science has handed those who believe in religion. This he calls “The Great Demotions.” He suggests that observation of the night-time sky by our ancestors led to a misplaced sense of importance of man:

And if the lights in the sky rise and set around us, isn’t it evident that we’re at the center of the Universe? These celestial bodies—so clearly reveals that we are special. The Universe seems designed for human beings. It’s difficult to contemplate these circumstances without experiencing stirrings of pride and reassurance. The entire Universe, made for us! We must really be something.

This satisfying demonstration of our importance, buttressed by daily observations of the heavens, made the geocentrist conceit a transcultural truth—taught in the schools, built into the language, part and parcel of great literature and sacred scripture. Dissenters were discouraged, sometimes with torture and death. It is no wonder that for the vast bulk of human history, no one questioned it.

Over the past 300 years, Sagan says, science began to strip away this “geocentrist conceit” starting with Copernicus’ finding that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the sun around the earth. Next it was determined that our earth is only one of a myriad of worlds, the sun is only one of our galaxy, and our galaxy is only one of a myriad of galaxies in the universe. Apparently, there is nothing special about our position in the universe. Einstein’s theory of relativity then discredited the view held by Newton and all other great classical physicists that the velocity of the earth in space constituted a “privileged frame of reference.” Next, the age of the solar system was calculated to be about 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 15 billion. The final demotion was the conclusion by Darwin that man is not a special creation but, rather, evolved in the primordial ooze from simple, single-celled organisms. Man is simply the end-product in a long chain of evolutionary change.

These “great demotions” lead to the conclusion that there is no meaning or purpose in our existence. Sagan bemoans this loss of meaning by lampooning the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden:

There was a particular tree of which we were not to partake, a tree of knowledge. Knowledge and understanding and wisdom were forbidden to us in this story. We were to be kept ignorant. But we couldn’t help ourselves. We were starving forknowledge—created hungry, you might say. This was the origin of all our troubles. In particular, it is why we no longer live in a garden: We found out too much. So long as we were incurious and obedient, I imagine, we could console ourselves with our importance and centrality, and tell ourselves that we were the reason the Universe was made. As we began to indulge our curiosity, though, to explore, to learn how the Universe really is, we expelled ourselves from Eden. Angels with a flaming sword were set as sentries at the gates of Paradise to bar our return. The gardeners became exiles and wanderers. Occasionally we mourn that lost world, but that, it seems to me, is maudlin and sentimental. We could not happily have remained ignorant forever.

Sagan admits several times in his book that “there is in this Universe much of what seems to be design.” Yet, he can not bring himself to attribute this design to a Designer. He does go so far as to say in one place that, “Maybe there is one [a designer] hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed.” However, he finally concludes that the evidence does not require a Designer. He also admits that without a Designer there is no purpose and without purpose man cannot survive. Sagan has been building a justification for the remainder of his book. He now states in egotistical terms his agenda for the human race:

The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. On behalf of Earthlife, I urge that, with full knowledge of our limitations, we vastly increase our knowledge of the Solar System and then begin to settle other worlds.

REBUTTALThe crux of Sagan’s arguments is the validity of his “great demotions.” Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant random combinations of molecules near a remote star in a vast, uncaring universe? I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God’s care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.

The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, “look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them….”Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, “there must be something unique about the earth.” Einstein’s theories of relativity and the great ages of our solar system and universe both have yet to be proven. If relativity can be shown to be true, some believe the effect could possibly explain the apparent great times of light traveling from distant stars.2

The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be supported by the fossil record, violates common sense in the development of complex systems, and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

These “great demotions” then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God’s statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

God has declared our standing as follows:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

It is evident from only these few selected Scripture passages that God created the universe and cares for us to the point of providing His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. In our finiteness we don’t fully understand an infinite God, but how dare we arrogantly deny such a God.

REACTIONSDr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

This point of view among so many scientists today is described in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Dr. Sagan has rejected out of hand the evidences he has clearly seen for design in the universe. Although he has expressed a reluctant need to find a Designer, he has given up on the search and has constructed his own “Tower of Babel.”

A recurrent theme throughout the book is his allegorizing of the Biblical account and an assumption that it is a transcription of man’s uninformed experiences. No place is given to the possibility that Scripture is inspired by the Creator. Dr. Sagan’s goal in Pale Blue Dot is to substitute his “creation myth” and purpose for “Earthlife” for the creation account and dominion mandate found in Genesis. Sagan even raises the specter of “becoming like the Most High.” I fear for men who would place themselves in such opposition to God and His Word.

CONCLUSIONSBecause of the kinship I feel toward scientists like Carl Sagan, I am saddened greatly by their actions. Scientists have the greatest opportunities of all to see the evidence of God’s marvelous provision for man in His creation. Those who can’t see God’s hand in the universe around them should be encouraged to ask God to reveal Himself to them. God is not hiding. He is waiting for us to see Him. Please pray for Carl Sagan and others like him who, in their conceit declare, “There is no God!” (Psalm 14:1).

REFERENCES

1. C. Sagan. Pale Blue Dot (Random House, 1994), 429 pp.
2. R. Humphries. Starlight and Time (Master Books, 1994), 133 pp.

* Dr. Vardiman is Administrative Vice President and Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Department at ICR.

Other posts that relate to Carl Sagan:

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

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 […]

Ancient Sea Monsters (A Creationist point of view Part 3)

Leviathan: the Fire-Breathing Dragon: Kent Hovind [6 of 7] Everybody is trying to get info on this subject. Here is what the Bible has to say about it. Mace Baker wrote the aritcle, “Sea Dragons – The Institute for Creation Research,” and here is the third portion of that article:  Pterosaurs were the flying reptiles of the ancient world. Why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)Other posts concerning Carl Sagan:

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

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

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 12)

May 23, 2012 – 12:36 am

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

One of the biggest reasons that Senator Mark Pryor will not be re-elected in 2014 to the Senate is because EVEN THOUGH HE ASKS FOR SPENDING CUT IDEAS, HE REALLY DOESN’T WANT TO EMBRACE THEM. FOR INSTANCE, IN THIS ARTICLE BELOW BY JOHN STOSSEL THERE ARE PLENTY OF GREAT SUGGESTIONS BUT PRYOR HAS HEARD THEM ALL AND DOES NOT LIKE THEM BECAUSE HE LIKES SPENDING MORE!!!!

On August 4, 2011 John Brummett wrote:

The point is that we don’t need to choke our government — or, more to the point, ourselves — with such simplistic devices as balanced budget amendments. The point is that we need to make our often-essential deficit and debt more sustainable, more manageable, more responsible and less massive, and that we should do that by addressing both income and outgo.

You’re right, my tea party friend, about how government must change its ways. You’re not right, though, in the over-simplicity of your assessment or in the impractical, even drastic, nature of your remedies.

Brummett’s view used to be the majority view, but  in a recent poll by CNN over 70% now favor a Balanced Budget Amendment. I am starting a series today on the Balanced Budget Amendment!!!

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

You are right to ask for ideas to cut spending because that is the real cause of the deficit. John Stossel rightly noted, “Milton Friedman always said taxes don’t tell the whole story. What counts is how much of our resources government spends, however it acquires them. The doubling of spending under Bush and Obama hasn’t gotten enough attention.”

Senator Pryor, you asked for spending cut advice. Here is some from John Stossel:

It’s not hard to balance the budget. On my show, we made enough cuts to create a $237 billion surplus. I cut whole departments, like Education and Commerce. I cut two-thirds of the Defense Department (which still leaves it much bigger than China’s). I indexed Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to inflation, raised the retirement age, and took away benefits for rich people. But I don’t have to run for office. Congressmen do, and they can’t even manage to cut ridiculous tax breaks like those for ethanol.

Thank you again for your time.

Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Balancing the Budget

By John Stossel

8/3/2011

The political class predicted “disaster” if Congress didn’t raise its debt limit.

I think that was a scam to get more money. See, the poor politicians don’t have enough, and they need to borrow more. We taxpayers are cheap. This year we’ll give them only $2.2 trillion. They want to spend $3.8 trillion.

The president said if he didn’t get more money, Social Security checks wouldn’t go out. Why not?

With $2 trillion, they can pay Social Security, Medicare, the interest on the debt and still have billions left. It’s billions more than the government spent when President George W. Bush took office. What’s the problem?

The problem is that Republicans and Democrats under Bush and President Obama doubled spending. Now, Obama wants more taxes.

Taxes shouldn’t be the answer when spending is the problem.

Grover Norquist, who heads Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), leads the charge to keep the focus on spending. Norquist and ATR are famous for asking officeholders and candidates to sign a pledge not to raise taxes. Some say he is the reason the debt-ceiling debate was so drawn out.

“I think the reason there isn’t a tax increase on the table,” he told me, “is that 235 members of the House of Representatives signed a pledge never to raise taxes, a pledge to their voters, and 41 senators did. …

“Only if you take tax increases off the table do you even begin to … focus on spending, and that’s what Obama wants to keep our focus off of. He wants us to talk about the deficit, not spending.”

I pointed out that Obama might have scored points with the public because new revenues he sought — even though they wouldn’t do much to shrink the deficit — would come from closing unpopular tax “loopholes.”

Norquist said he favors that — if tax rates are lowered at the same time.

“(We) want to simplify the code,” he said. “(We) want to take a lot of the goodies that politicians have laced into that code … as long as you reduce tax rates and it’s not a hidden tax increase.”

Milton Friedman always said taxes don’t tell the whole story. What counts is how much of our resources government spends, however it acquires them. The doubling of spending under Bush and Obama hasn’t gotten enough attention.

“We need to ask what it is government should do,” Norquist said. “But it’s going to be knockdown, drag-out. All government overspending creates the constituency for its own perpetuation. … Weaning people off, that is very difficult.”

He’s right. When politicians make little cuts in the rate of spending growth, every interest group mobilizes to protect its little piece of the pie. That’s why you must cut government like you take off a Band-Aid: quickly and all at once.

It’s not hard to balance the budget. On my show, we made enough cuts to create a $237 billion surplus. I cut whole departments, like Education and Commerce. I cut two-thirds of the Defense Department (which still leaves it much bigger than China’s). I indexed Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to inflation, raised the retirement age, and took away benefits for rich people. But I don’t have to run for office. Congressmen do, and they can’t even manage to cut ridiculous tax breaks like those for ethanol.

Obama predicted disaster if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised. Some predict disaster if the ratings agencies downgrade Treasury bonds. I’m dubious. In 1995, President Clinton and Republican Congress couldn’t agree on a budget, so the government shut down twice, the second time for three weeks.

Did the economy grind to a halt? No. During the first shutdown, the stock market went up. During the second, it dropped then recovered.

The alarmists screamed that the fight over the debt ceiling would discourage lenders. Wrong. Ten-year Treasury bonds sold for a measly 3 percent interest (versus 15 percent in 1981).

I wasn’t worried that Congress would fail to raise the debt ceiling. But I am worried that Congress will keep spending.

John Stossel

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

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

SEC football national championships through the years

May 22, 2012 – 7:54 am

Tennessee's head coach Phil Fulmer celebrates on stage with Tee Martin behind him and the Sears National Championship trophy after winning the 1998 National Championship game.

Tennessee’s head coach Phil Fulmer celebrates on stage with Tee Martin behind him and the Sears National Championship trophy after winning the 1998 National Championship game (Which was the first BCS championship.)

BCS Championship Highlight – LSU vs. Alabama

_____________

(Arkansas Sports 360 notes the large new stadium video board at Fayetteville for the Razorbacks. We seem to everything the biggest and the best in the SEC.)

Everyone knows the SEC is the best in football. Take a look at this article from the LA Times:

SEC is consistently better, with a little bit of luck

CHRIS DUFRESNE / ON COLLEGE FOOTBALL

With Louisiana State facing Alabama, the conference will win its eighth title of 14-year BCS era. The SEC cares more and draws from exceptionally talented base, and has pounced on missteps of others.

January 08, 2012|Chris Dufresne

Reporting from New Orleans — The malaise plaguing a football-viewing nation outside the four upcoming quarters near the French Quarter has been diagnosed as “SEC fatigue.”

The Southeastern Conference on Monday is guaranteed its sixth straight national title, and to lose its first, because the league is hoarding both spots of this year’s Bowl Championship Series game.

No.1 Louisiana State seeks its third BCS crown since 2002 against a No. 2 Alabama squad that hasn’t won it all since, um, 2009.

This is such an inside job that Nick Saban, coaching Alabama now, led LSU to the BCS title in 2003.

The SEC will win its eighth title of the 14-year BCS era. The SEC has had five different school champions: LSU, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee and Auburn.

“What makes our league very, very good is that there’s a lot of good teams and a lot of good competition,” Saban said Sunday at his final pregame news conference.

The SEC has been, inarguably, college football’s best conference for a long time.

Why?

“We do more to be good than other teams,” LSU center P.J. Longeran offered.

Has the SEC produced any of the greatest teams of the modern era?

Well, no.

You could not reasonably rank the best BCS champion from the SEC ahead of Miami of 2001, USC of 2004 or Florida State of 1999.

Alabama’s title team of 2009, arguably the best SEC team of the era, might not rank ahead of Texas’ 2005 team.

This year’s LSU squad, if it wins, would be in the conversation based on its top-tier performance and a killer non-conference schedule.

“The only team I’ve told them not to schedule was the Green Bay Packers,” LSU Coach Les Miles quipped.

Mostly, though, the SEC has just been consistently better than everyone else.

Part of it is caring more and paying more.

“The high school football is at a higher level,” Alabama defensive coordinator Kirby Smart said. “Coaches are paid more. So the more you pay the coaches, the better quality players you get, the better quality programs you get.”

Consider the caliber of SEC coaches who have won national titles: Steve Spurrier (pre-BCS), Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Les Miles. Think of the coach who has averaged 10 wins a year, Georgia’s Mark Richt, but hasn’t won.

“I feel like our coaches have a little bit more edge than other conferences,” Alabama middle linebacker Dont’a Hightower said. “I feel like the players are a little more versatile and athletic.”

No argument there. Monday’s game will be chock-full of future NFL talent.

And while the SEC might not have produced a truly dominant team, the league as a collective is always positioned to pounce on the missteps of others.

Alabama wouldn’t be in this game had Stanford, Oklahoma State and Boise State not dropped the ball with eliminating defeats.

Then, when the SEC gets in the title game, it doesn’t lose. The league’s first BCS defeat will come at its own hands.

The SEC, dare we say, also has been lucky.

Tennessee would not have advanced to the 1998 inaugural game had Arkansas quarterback Clint Stoerner not fumbled without being touched.

Remember that one?

Because of a five-alarm BCS fiasco in 2003, LSU didn’t even have to play the No.1 team in the nation. USC was first in both polls entering the postseason but finished third to Oklahoma and LSU in the final BCS standings. LSU should have played USC that year, not Oklahoma, coming off an embarrassing Big 12 title-game loss to Kansas State.

The SEC began its string of six straight BCS titles in 2006, the year Florida successfully campaigned against an Ohio State-Michigan rematch in the title game.

Hypocritically, this year, the SEC campaigned for a rematch between LSU and Alabama.

Florida, in 2006, sneaked ahead of Michigan in the final BCS standings and defeated Ohio State for the championship.

In 2007, two-loss LSU took advantage of a wild sequence of final weekend upsets and jumped from No. 7 to No. 2 in a span of 24 hours to earn the right to beat Ohio State for the BCS title.

In 2008, Florida recovered from a home loss to Mississippi, which inspired the now-famous Tim Tebow “never again” postgame speech. The Gators went on to beat Oklahoma for the title.

In 2009, Alabama narrowly escaped a road loss at Tennessee and caught a huge break in the title game when Texas quarterback Colt McCoy was knocked out of the game early with an arm injury.

Last season, Auburn survived several near misses, including a Clemson player dropping the game-winning touchdown in overtime.

Auburn defeated Oregon in the title game, 22-19, on a last-second field goal.

Most conferences would rather be lucky than good — the SEC has been both.

It will continue to dominate until somebody stops it.

The SEC’s elite teams play better defense, build from an inside-out foundation and probably spend more time thinking about football.

After all the crazy Alamo bowls scores settled, we get a rematch of teams that combined for five field goals in November.

Monday’s final tally won’t be 67-56. The winning team, unlike in the Orange Bowl, won’t score 70.

This is the SEC’s block (and tackle) party.

“I’d expect it to be big-boy football,” Miles said.

If you don’t like it, well, tough.

This was an SEC invitation only, and you weren’t invited.

chris.dufresne@latimes.com

SEC Football History: National ChampionshipsSince 1920, SEC football teams have captured 30 National Championships (depending on which poll you rely on). They are:

    • Alabama — (10); 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992 and 2009;
    • Georgia – (2); 1942 and 1980;
    • Tennessee – (6); 1938, 1940, 1950, 1951, 1967, 1998;
    • Arkansas (1); 1964 (went 11-0; shared title with 1 loss Alabama — thanks to RM for this info);
    • Auburn (1); 1957; 2010
    • LSU (3); 1958, 2003, 2007;
    • Ole Miss (3); 1959, 1960, 1962; and,
    • Florida (3); 1996, 2006, 2008.

Read more from original site: http://www.secsportsfan.com/sec-football-history.html#ixzz1uwbEBz00

John Ward, former 'Voice of the Vols', left, and Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer hold the 1998 national championship trophy during a 10-year anniversary tribute at Saturday's Orange and White Game at Neyland Stadium.<br /><br /><br />

Photo by Clay Owen

John Ward, former ‘Voice of the Vols’, left, and Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer hold the 1998 national championship trophy during a 10-year anniversary tribute at Saturday’s Orange and White Game at Neyland Stadium.

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

Obama brags of progress in USA on economy to G-8 audience

May 22, 2012 – 7:33 am

1,000 Days Without A Budget

Uploaded by on Jan 24, 2012

http://blog.heritage.org | Today marks the 1,000th day since the United States Senate has passed a budget. While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has been, our new video highlights a few of impressive feats in history that have been accomplished in less time.

________________

It seems ironic to me that we have not had a budget passed by the Senate for over three years yet we have President Obama bragging to the G-8 audience that he has made a lot of progress getting measures passed that have helped the U.S. economy.

Mike Brownfield

May 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Europe is in bad shape, there’s no doubt about it. The sovereign debt crisis continues to roil the continent, Greece may leave the euro, Spain may have to revise its budget deficit upward for the second time because of bad loans, and France has a new socialist president pledging more spending instead of austerity. So when the G8 leaders met last week, President Obama had some words of advice to offer — “Look at me and learn from my stellar example!”

OK, that’s a paraphrase, but his actual words aren’t all that much different. No joke, the president who has presided over a downgraded credit rating, three years without a budget, an exploding deficit, an entitlement system desperately in need of reform, and an unemployment rate still over 8 percent has painted himself as a model for others to follow.

Quite remarkably, the president bragged that he has worked to “bring down our deficits and debt over the longer term” while staying “focused on growing the economy and creating jobs in the immediate term.” Though he acknowledges that “Of course, we still have a lot of work to do,” he says that now there’s “room to take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit and debt, while preserving our investments in the drivers of growth and job creation over the long term — education, innovation, and infrastructure for the 21st century.”

In other words, because of his supposed successes, America can afford to spend even more money on stimulus.

It’s hard to say whether the president’s intended audience was the leaders of the G8 or the American electorate, but regardless of who it was, there’s not much for Obama to brag about.

In the past four years, unemployment has gone up, more people are unemployed longer, gas prices are higher, the cost of health care insurance has increased, the national debt is higher, federal spending has increased, more Americans are on food stamps, regulatory costs are higher, home values have declined, America’s economic recovery is historically slow, and while federal spending on education has increased, results remain flat. You can see for yourself just how bad America’s fiscal outlook is in Heritage’s 2012 edition of the Federal Budget in Pictures.

Though Europe needs solutions, they certainly shouldn’t be looking at President Obama for the answers.

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

“The SEC is the best in football” is acknowledged but still causes hard feelings

May 22, 2012 – 7:20 am

For over 25 years now I have been attending a convention twice a year that has been held at major cities throughout the country. During these long hours in a booth I have the opportunity to make small talk with people from all across the country. Usually there are lots of shirts I see from major football schools and I have enjoyed asking this one simple question: “Which conference do you think has the best football?”

I used to get these responses:

In the west they would say, “The PAC 12.”

In Chicago they would say, “The Big 10.”

In Orlando they would say, “The SEC.”

In Washington D.C. they would say many different conferences (The Big 12, SEC, PAC 12) and sometimes they would say “The ACC or Big East,” but then they would usually laugh.

However, after Ohio State got beat twice in a row by SEC schools for the BCS championship, everyone has responded the same in the last 3 years!!!! They all say the SEC is the best!!! (Sometimes people will say their favorite conference but they will laugh and say it is really the SEC.)

None of the people I have visited have shown any hard feelings and resentment, but that is not true for the head man of the Big Ten Conference.

Big Ten’s Jim Delany needs to get over SEC obsession

11:46 PM, May. 13, 2012 

__________

Jim Delany

 
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany recently referred to Alabama as “that team.” / Paul Beaty / AP

I guess Jim Delany just can’t help himself.

It’s not enough that Delany continues to blurt out ideas for a college football playoff, each one geared to benefit the Big Ten. Can’t blame the guy for that. He’s trying to protect and promote the conference of which he is commissioner.

In the process, though, Delany keeps taking swipes at a certain team from a certain conference that won a certain championship last season.

Delany recently referred to Alabama as “that team” in an interview with the Associated Press. And the reference was not in a favorable vein.

Attempting to fortify the case for his plan that would give conference champions the inside track to berths in a four-team playoff, Delany said:

“I don’t have a lot of regard for that team. I certainly wouldn’t have as much regard for that team as I would for someone who played nine conference games in a tough conference and played a couple out-of-conference games on the road against really good opponents. If a poll doesn’t honor those teams and they’re conference champions, I do.”

Never mind that Alabama played four SEC opponents that were ranked in the Top 25 at the time of the game. Or that the Crimson Tide played at Penn State — a Big Ten team — and won 27-11.

In Delany’s world, Alabama didn’t amount to much because the Tide did not even win its division. The part he left out is that half of the teams in the SEC West — Alabama, LSU and Arkansas — ranked in the top five in the final AP poll last season.

I suppose Delany doesn’t pay much attention to polls. Can’t say I blame him since Big Ten champ Wisconsin checked in no better than No. 10 — behind four SEC teams.

Delany is suffering from SEC fatigue. The conference he loves to hate has won the past six football national championships. The Big Ten has not scratched since Ohio State won it all in 2002.

He’s showed his bias before. In January 2007, after Florida blitzed favored Ohio State 41-14 in the championship game, Delany dashed off a dispatch on the Big Ten’s website that suggested his league was more ethical and had stronger academic standards in recruiting, focusing his attention on the defensive line.

“I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line,” Delany wrote, “but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics.”

And I suppose there are balances when mixing a lying football coach at Ohio State and covering up for an alleged pedophile at Penn State. But I digress.

Delany wasn’t always so misguided and bitter. When he was commissioner of the Ohio Valley Conference in 1979-89, he oversaw a period of impressive growth for both men’s and women’s sports. His move from the commissionership of the OVC to the Big Ten is one of the most extraordinary leaps in recent college sports history.

These days, though, Delany seems preoccupied with finding ways to undermine the SEC in order to elevate the Big Ten. In his world, Alabama (you know, that team) isn’t worthy.

The guy needs to get out more often.

David Climer’s columns appear on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Contact him at 615-259-8020 or dclimer@tennessean.com.

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

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 7)

May 22, 2012 – 7:06 am

Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse.

The first step is to remove all welfare programs and replace them with the negative income tax program that Milton Friedman first suggested.

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. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. 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.

Here is a  portion of the trancript of the “Free to Choose” program called “From Cradle to Grave” (program #4 in the 10 part series):

DISCUSSION

Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Milton Friedman; James R. Dumpson, Chief Administrator, Human Resources Admin., NYC; Thomas Sowell, Professor of Economics, UCLA; Robert Lampman, Professor of Economics, Institute of Poverty; Helen Bohen O’Bannon, Secretary of Welfare, State of Pennsylvania

FRIEDMAN: __ but political reality changes and that’s the important thing. I want to say one more thing about this, this whole problem that we’ve been talking about. And that is, going back to Bob Lampman’s comment, there is one thing that can be said in favor on the welfare program. Unaccustomed as I am to saying anything in favor of it; and that is, that it is the only social program I know of which at least, on the average, give money to people who are in lower income classes than those who pay the taxes. Every other welfare program, not only does a lot of money go to the people who are well off, but on the average the poor are taxed and the well-to-do are subsidized. We in the upper income classes have been very clever at conning the poor suckers at the bottom to pay us nice salaries as bureaucrats and to provide us with nice benefits at their expense, and at least the welfare program doesn’t do that.

MCKENZIE: And you stated with great confidence that it will come, the negative income tax, even though you recognize the hurdles. Why are you so sure it will come?

FRIEDMAN: Because the present system has within it the seeds of its own destruction. There is no way in which a system constructed like the present, in my opinion, can avoid creating more and more social problems, and something is going to have to be done. Nobody has proposed any alternative, so far as I know, there is no effective alternative to the negative income tax and so it gets knocked down and it keeps rising, it gets knocked down and it keeps rising.

MCKENZIE: He finally raised the question though whether in any modern industrial democracy like this one it’s conceivable system to be run without fairly elaborate welfare underpinning of some kind. What do you feel?

O’BANNON: I don’t think it can be because I think essentially the welfare __ set of welfare programs reflect the values of this society that if it didn’t there would have been revolt long before now. Yes, there are rumblings about its cost, and I think that’s primarily a function of rapid rates of inflation eroding real income earning power of the middle-class taxpayer, but I think on one level we wanted to give up the responsibility of caring, the responsibility of day-to-day actual caring and in a technical, modern, industrial society like we have the tax system and the government system is probably __ is a viable alternative. I don’t think we’re going to get out of it. I don’t think you’re going to see private charities who can take my money that I’m free to give, or not give, and essentially make a difference in people’s lives of any substance on any level.

SOWELL: I don’t think it has anything to do with the society being modern, technological or industrial, it has to do with an ideology and particularly an ideology that is very strong among academic intellectuals or in the media, and I think that as time goes on and more and more intelligent ideas replace the kinds of vague visions that dominate today, that the political climate will change and that’s the only thing that stands in the way of reform right now.

MCKENZIE: Jim Dumpson.

DUMPSON: I don’t think you’re going to get rid of the system but I’m interested __ welfare system, I’m interested in Tom’s last statement about academicians and theories and so forth, we forgot that we’re talking about people and we may sit in the ivory tower and talk about whether this system will work and either logically or illogically why it won’t work, at the same time there are masses of people outside who are locked out of the system that you and I are part of and somehow we’ve got to make sure those people are taken care of and the short of not doing it, of course, means that your safety and my safety and the vitality of this government and of our country is at stake. The Mayor of the city of New York asked me, when we had a strike, what would I do if I couldn’t get checks out to people when our workers were on strike and I said to him, “After the first month _ chaos.” And he said, “What do you mean?” I said, “No man or woman in this city of New York, you included Mr. Mayor, will be safe if we cannot take care of people…”

MCKENZIE: We leave this discussion and hope you’ll join us for the next episode of Free To Choose

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