It seems to me that we should stop raising the debt ceiling so much or we will end up like Greece. Below is some great information from Reason Magazine:
Some say the world will end in fire and some say in ice.
But in Washington, a lot of people say it will end if we don’t continually raise the debt ceiling.
The statutory debt limit, or debt ceiling, represents the maximum amount of debt the federal government can carry at any given time. The limit was created in 1917 so that Congress wouldn’t have to vote every time the government wanted to increase the amount of debt (which was becoming a more and more frequent occasion). Since then, the Treasury Department has had the authority to issue new debt up to whatever the limit is to fund government needs. Last year, the limit was raised to $14.3 trillion, an amount that is about to reached.
As it approaches, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said failing to raise the limit would likely mean the U.S. would default on its debt, creating “real chaos” in place of the fake chaos that’s out there now. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that failing to raise the limit would be “deeply irresponsible” and and Austan Goolsbee, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, has said that not raising the limit would create “the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”
Eh, maybe.
As Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, has pointed out, we’ve maxed out the nation’s credit card in the past without such dire results. In the mid-1980s, the mid-1990s, and in 2002, for instance, the debt limit wasn’t raised for months at a time and the government got along just swell. The government has a big bag of tools it can use, ranging from playing around with the amount of spending that is liable to the limit to prioritizing interest and debt payments over other outlays. Interest on the debt for this year is projected to be about $225 billion and government revenue is expected to be around $2.2 trillion, so the government can easily pay the vig and avoid defaulting.
What it shouldn’t do is simply keep piling on the debt. The limit has been raised no fewer than 10 times in the past decade. When Republicans ran the White House and the Congress, they voted overwhelmingly to charge it and Democrats, including Sen. Obama, hollered bloody murder. In 2006, he called the need to yet again increase the debt limit “a sign of leadership failure.” Now that Dems run the show, the GOP has suddenly rediscovered its inner cheapskate.
So it goes.
The boldest plan to rein in spending and debt comes from newcomer Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a Tea Party favorite who dispatched Republican incumbent Bob Bennett in the primaries before coasting to victory in the general election last fall. Lee has vowed to block passage of a debt-limit increase unless Congress signs on to his balanced-budget amendment which would cap annual federal spending at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The amendment would require a super-majority of two-thirds in the Senate and House of Representatives. Lee’s bill is competing with another Republican proposal from Sens. Hatch (Utah) and Cornyn (Texas) to cap spending at 20 percent of GDP. The Hatch-Cornyn bill has weaker rules on its higher cap as well.
In 2010, spending came to about 24 percent of GDP and it’s expected to come in around 25 percent of GDP in 2011. Since 1950, total federal revenues have averaged 17.8 percent and have reached higher than 20 percent exactly once. Spending over the same time has averaged just under 20 percent.
Whether Lee’s proposal carries the day — and there’s a strong case that its passage would do more to calm financial markets than simply bumping up the federal credit line — neither the Democratic nor the Republican leadership has yet to advance a serious proposal to cut spending and reduce outstanding debt. Indeed, both the president’s budget proposal for 2012 and the generally non-existent Republican response are not only deeply irresponsible but clear signs of insanity.
That ain’t right. But it does help explain why a government that has increased spending over 62 percent in real dollars can no longer get by on a $14 trillion debt ceiling.
____________
If we keep raising the debt ceiling it seems to me we are not tackling the problem which is excessive spending. Are we going to end up where Greece is?
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
Every conference has their football rivalries and the SEC is no different. The rivalry games are the best games of the season. Win against your biggest rival and even a bad season becomes good. Lose and the season is lost, even if that was your only loss.
The best rivalries have two things: A name and a trophy. In this slide show I have three things: A name, a trophy and at least one SEC Team.
This is how we do it in the SEC!
The Battle For The Beer Barrel (aka The Border War)
The prize: The Beer Barrel
The original Battle for the Beer Barrel was conceived in 1925 by a Kentucky booster club for the football rivalry with Tennessee, so that the series would have a trophy similar to Purdue’s Old Oaken Bucket and Michigan’s Little Brown Jug.
Tennessee held a 60-23-9 edge in the series with Kentucky when the Beer Barrel trophy game was discontinued due to the tragic deaths of several Kentucky football players in 1997 in an alcohol-related car crash.
In addition to the schools’ rivalry, blood banks in the home cities of each university (Lexington, Kentucky and Knoxville, Tennessee) compete to see who can raise the most units of blood. This is known informally as the Blue-Orange Crush.
Tennessee leads the series 72-23-9
_________________
Kentucky finally broke the streak this year in a hard fought game with the Vols.
The following is a list of the all-time leading NCAADivision I FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision)college football single-opponent winning streaks. Teams are ranked by the number of consecutive wins they’ve posted against a specific opponent. All streaks of at least 20 games are in the list.
No, the games have been played over a 28-year period.
Texas A&M won 23 consecutive times from 1973 to 1995, then beat TCU in the Galleryfurniture.com bowl in 2001. The two teams have not played since but A&M still holds the active streak.[8]
I was so happy a few months ago with the Razorbacks’ football future firmly in Bobby Petrino’s hands. Things were going so well. I mentioned to a friend that I was 16 back in 1977 when Lou Holtz led the Razorbacks that season to a 11-1 record and a third place finish in the 1978 January final poll for the 1977 season. Think about the fact that it took the Razorbacks 34 seasons later to get back into the top 5 (2011 finished ranked 5th) and I am now 50 years old. IF HISTORY REPEATED ITSELF I WOULD BE 84 BEFORE WE FINISHED IN THE TOP 5 AGAIN. We both laughed at that silly suggestion.
However, since then we have lost Petrino as our coach. That thought of not returning to the top 5 is not as silly as I first thought. (Now 6 players are off the team for now Arkansas Sports 360 has reported.) Petrino was respected nationally. Take a look at this article below that mentions Petrino as possibly returning as one of the nations best coaches.
No games, no spring practice. Recruiting in a lull. What’s a collegefootball fan to do?
How about reading all these lists that are proliferating because the college football media folks don’t have much to do, either?
We’ve got hot-seat lists (seeDerek Dooley), lists of the freakiest athletes (see Justin Hunter) and top pass-catch combos (see Tyler Bray-Da’Rick Rogers).
The big talker this week was the ranking of FBS coaches, from 1 to 124, by The Sporting News. Nick Saban was No. 1. Charlie Molnar of UMass was No. 124. Poor guy’s never coached a game.
Dooley, Tennessee’s coach, checked in at No. 99, right behind 66-year-old Norm Chow, who finally landed his first head-coaching gig at Hawaii, and 74 spots below Vanderbilt’s James Franklin.
Hats off to Franklin for shaking up the status quo at Vandy in his first year as a head coach. But how that justifies shooting him up the chart to No. 25 is beyond me.
We can debate the rankings — which, of course, is why they’re there — from now until the Poinsettia Bowl. But here’s my wrinkle:
What will the rankings look like in 10 years? Who’s in the top 20 in 2022?
We can eliminate Saban, Steve Spurrier and Frank Beamer. Saban isn’t going to be coaching at 70. Bill Snyder’s the only guy doing so now.
I was surprised to find 21 coaches 60 or older at FBS jobs. For the record, there are 15 older thanPhillip Fulmer, who turns 62 and qualifies for Social Security on Sept. 1.
I’m going to further rule out the AARP guys who are at least 55. Cross off Les Miles, Kirk Ferentz, Tommy Tuberville and June Jones.
The guys in the 50-54 age group are borderline. The good ones are banking a ridiculous amount of money. Will they have the drive to stay at it? Based on the examples of Beamer and Spurrier, some will.
Some won’t. I can’t see No. 14 Mark Richt coaching at 62. Can Mike Leach carry on as a 61-year-old pirate? Probably.
Perhaps the biggest enigma is the guy who could be No. 1 in 2022. Or, he could be long gone.
Urban Meyer is 47. He’s chalked up two national titles at Florida and won big at Bowling Green and Utah. He’s also burned out once already.
After a one-year sabbatical, Meyer is back in the game at Ohio State. There’s no reason to think he won’t win big again.
His kids will be out of the nest. No reason to spend more time with the family. The hunch here is Meyer will be going strong in 2022.
So will Chris Peterson. Also 47, Peterson is 73-6 at Boise State. That’s no misprint.
Sporting News ranks him No. 2 now and Peterson might still be there in 2022. The question whether he’ll still be at Boise State.
Bob Stoops (51), Oregon’s Chip Kelly (48) and TCU’s Gary Patterson (52) could easily still be coaching in 10 years. What about Brady Hoke (53)?
He was an instant fit at Michigan last year. Maybe Hoke and Meyer settle in for a Woody-Bo rivalry that brews for a decade.
Mike Gundy is a man. He’s 44. Oklahoma State’s coach is 59-30, ranks No. 10 and could be even higher in 2022.
Bret Bielema is in the same category. At 42 with a 60-19 record at Wisconsin, Bielema has excellent long-term prospects.
The Sporting News likes Lane Kiffin. I agree Kiffin’s a heckuva coach and Southern Cal is a place to win a ton of games. But I’ll bet Kiffin’s back in the NFL before 2022.
Some other relatively new head coaches will enjoy a prosperous decade. I’d bet on Jimbo Fisher at Florida State.
Maybe Franklin will be one of them. Maybe Will Muschamp, too. But one season is too little evidence for me to make that projection.
Keep an eye on Troy Calhoun, Chip Kelly, Kevin Sumlin and Al Golden. Don’t count out 48-year-old Rich Rodriguez, who starts fresh at Arizona.
Here’s a wild card: Bobby Petrino. He’s 51, banished from the current rankings but there’s still time to get back in the hunt.
And what, you’re probably wondering, about Dooley? At 43 he faces a make-or-break season. The jury is very much out.
If he’s still at Tennessee in 2022, he will have vaulted way up the rankings.
And if he is still No. 99, he won’t be at Tennessee.
If Bobby thinks he is bruised now, then he needs to read about the guy in Proverbs 7:10-27 and what happened to him. I really am hoping that Bobby Petrino can put his marriage back together. He has a clear choice between two paths. In the sermon at Fellowship Bible Church at July 24, 2011, […]
When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in college football, and some teams have it way more than others.
There are 124 FBS college football teams, and when it comes to the stadiums they play in, they are obviously not all created equal.
There is a monumental difference from the top teams on the list to the bottom teams on the list. Either way, here it is: a complete ranking of the college football stadiums 1-124.
___________
Tennessee takes on the Akron Zips this year in Knoxville on September 22, 2012. They are in the list below and so are the Arkansas St Redwolves. I have been to Jonesboro many times and the last time I went the Memphis Tigers won on a last second field goal. With Gus Malzahn as the head coach I will be back again soon. I remember well when Malzahn was a high school coach and beat my Arkansas Baptist Eagles when Josh Floyd led the Saints to their first State Championship in 1998. A lot of things have happened since then.
Many were confused when Gus Malzahn left Auburn where he had a 1.3 million contract to come to Arkansas State where he makes around 800,000, but Gus pointed out that a few years ago he was making 70,000. I really respect the staff he has put together. John Thompson is an excellent defensive coordinator.
116. InfoCision Stadium: Akron Zips
When it comes to college football in Akron, everything would have to be rated slightly below-average.
Also known as Summa Field, this stadium is one of the newest in the country, having just been built in 2009. It has a seating capacity of 30,000, making it slightly on the larger side when it comes to teams in the MAC.
115. Scheumann Stadium: Ball State Cardinals
Located in Muncie, Indiana, Ball State University is a nice college town with a slightly below-average MAC Stadium.
The stadium seats 25,400 people and was built in 1967.
There is not much immediately surrounding the stadium as far as tailgating or other pregame activities go.
114. Huskie Stadium: Northern Illinois Huskies
Built in 1965 with a capacity of 24,000, Huskie Stadium has a unique college feel to it, but is extremely outdated and could use a little bit of a makeover.
While there is not much in and around the stadium, what it does offer is a solid fanbase that comes out to support their team, which is usually competitive in the MAC.
Now if the fans here just had an updated version of the place to cheer on their team.
113. Spartan Stadium: San Jose State Spartans
Spartan Stadium is the next in a long line of old, outdated stadiums that could use a little help.
It was originally opened in 1933 with a seating capacity of 30,456.
There are a lot of positives that go along with this stadium, as it is slightly above-average in nearly everything, but could use a little update sometime soon.
112. Houchens-Smith Stadium: Western Kentucky Hiltoppers
Houchens-Smith Stadium is rather small and may not be the best place to watch a college football game, but it still has some benefits.
The stadium only seats 22,000 and was built in 1968. It does not always sell out, but the team can usually get a decent crowd no matter what their record is.
One unique aspect of the stadium is the grassy area in the north end zone, where fans can enjoy the game from a different perspective.
111. ASU Stadium: Arkansas State Red Wolves
Arkansas State is one of the better teams in the Sun Belt Conference and has a slightly below-average stadium with a capacity of 30,964.
It was opened in 1974 and is middle-aged compared to other stadiums.
There is nothing really special about the stadium or the area around it.
4 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton
A relative sent me this email that has been going around the internet about what Charles Stanley and David Barton had to say about President Obama:
Should Christians Support President Obama?
This man was on Dr. Charles Stanley’s program “In Touch” as a guest speaker.
I almost shouted “HALLELUJAH” when I finished reading. Forward or discard….it’s your choice…but PLEASE read before you do!
[]
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton – on Obama
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this ?
It is because: – I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America ;
– I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
– I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;
– I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make$150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
– I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
– I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
– I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
– I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
– I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
– I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
– I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
– I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
– I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
– I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran .
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America …”
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree. If you don’t agree, just delete it.)
Thanks for your time, may you and yours be safe.
“In GOD We Trust”
“There is no right way to do the wrong thing.”
____________________________
5 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton
Vice President Biden didn’t get the story quite straight.
As the Obama Administration reels from the backlash for Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate that forces religious employers to provide coverage and pay for abortion-inducing drugs, Biden yesterday set out to convince America that the Administration has a “new” version of the mandate that respects religion. The only problem is, the version is neither new nor respectful of religious liberty.
To set the record straight, we’ve put together a point-counterpoint response to the Vice President’s remarks. Simply put, the federal government should not be meddling with religious freedom, and the American people need to know the truth about Obamacare’s liberty-trampling dictates.
Setting Biden Straight on Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate
Vice President Biden didn’t get the story quite straight.
As the Obama Administration reels from the backlash for Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate that forces religious employers to provide coverage and pay for abortion-inducing drugs, Biden yesterday set out to convince America that the Administration has a “new” version of the mandate that respects religion. The only problem is, the version is neither new nor respectful of religious liberty.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
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):
For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t had a job. Each week he collects what’s known in Britain as Social Security. The government looks after him, his wife and their children. But accepting welfare payments means accepting the rules of those who hand them out.
Mrs. Ramsey: My opinion, anyway you feel as they own you. You know, there is no other way of putting it. Say I got a job tomorrow, because I needed something, well I know that means I’ve got to go down there and report it. Because I couldn’t go into the job because you’d be looking over your shoulder thinking well the Social Security is coming in. And I’m going to be done for it. It’s just hopeless, you can’t fight against that.
Mr. Ramsey: The jobs are out there you only come up with about 45 pounds a week. And you need a doctors stamp over there. You see, you finish up with about 29 pound. So what good is it working? You still get the same thing, you know what I mean? I can’t make any sense of it.
Friedman: Of course, he’s quite right. It may not pay to get a job now. That’s not his fault and I don’t blame him. He’s acting sensibly and intelligently for his own interest and the interest of his family. It’s the fault of the system which takes away the incentive from him to get a job.
But suppose you were cruel and simply took away the welfare overnight. Cut it off. What would happen? He would find a job. What kind of a job? I don’t know. It might not be a very nice job. It might not be a very attractive job. But at some wage, at some level of pay, there will always be a job which he could get for himself. It might be also that he would be driven to rely on some private charity. He might have to get soup kitchen help or the equivalent. Again, I’m not saying that’s desirable or nice or a good thing it isn’t, but as a matter of actual fact as to what would happen, there is little doubt that he would find some way to earn a living.
The American government is trying to break the welfare trend. These people were unemployed. They are now being trained at the taxpayers expense. It may or may not lead to a real job.
Lawrence Davenport: Here we have a vast national welfare system which is diametrically opposed to everything that America believes in. Because America was founded on a work ethic, has practiced a work ethic, and it’s said this is what we want everybody to do. An opportunity to hold a job in America.
Friedman: Everyone here has to clock in and do a full days work. It’s an attempt to make it seem like a real job.
Lawrence Davenport: We’re saying a job is a part of the American way of life and we’re going to help you find a job. So that you can get a piece of the pie. You can pay taxes, you can become a part of that American dream.
Friedman: But the dream isn’t working. Schemes like this run under the government’s Comprehensive Education and Training Act (CETA) have a high drop out rate and many trainees end up back where they began, on welfare.
The men and women who administer CETA and similar programs, the officials of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare are dedicated people. Their motives are good. Their achievements are not.
The results of these programs have been disappointing. Why? I believe that the basic reason is because it is very hard to achieve good objectives through bad means. And the means we have been using are bad in two very different respects.
In the first place, all of these programs involve some people spending other people’s money for objectives that are determined by still a third group of people. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody has the same dedication to achieving somebody else’s objectives that he displays when he pursues his own.
Beyond this, the programs have a insidious effect on the moral fiber of both the people who administer the programs and the people who are supposedly benefiting from it. For the people who administer it, it instills in them a feeling of almost Godlike power. For the people who are supposedly benefiting it instills a feeling of childlike dependence. Their capacity for personal decision making atrophies. The result is that the programs involved are misuse of money, they do not achieve the objectives which it was their intention to achieve. But far more important than this, they tend to rot away the very fabric that holds a decent society together.
If you think that’s overstating the case, look what ATW found when it made a special investigation into the spending of the vast funds it administers.
Public Health Service worker: We just got the plan from the Public Health Service on reducing unnecessary beds.
Friedman: In these reels of tape that record every payment made, every recipient, they found evidence that a staggering $7.5 billion had been lost by fraud, waste and abuse in one year.
Doctors, building contractors, hospitals, schools, welfare recipients, everyone had been fraudulently dipping into the pot. And the investigation isn’t over yet.
The inevitable consequence of having a huge pot of taxpayers money is that all of us want to get our hands in it. You can be sure that we’ll all be able to find very good reasons why we should be the ones to spend somebody else’s money.
Somebody or other put up a good case for spending taxpayers money to subsidize rents in New York City, including the rents of these apartments. The people who occupy these apartments pay something like $200 a month less than the market rent. And that subsidy comes out of the taxes of people, most of whom are much poorer than the people who live here. It’s not unusual for this sort of thing to happen when government tries to do good with our money.
Look at what happened in Chicago. For most visitors, the immediate impression is of a rich, prosperous, bustling city. But like every large city in America, it has its problem areas. Over crowded slums breeding poverty and crime.
After WWII, one such area developed in Hyde Park. In the 50’s, plans were drawn up to pull down large areas of slum buildings and to rebuild using government funds under an urban renewal program. It was to be a show project replacing a blighted area with an integrated community. Who controlled the spending of that government money? It was in fact, my own University of Chicago which felt it’s very existence threatened by the spread of urban blight and crime. Government money was used to tear down an area that contained many small shops as well as families of low income. Once the area was cleared, private money rebuilt it with middle class apartments, townhouses and shopping complexes. The blight had been cleared here, but only to be shifted elsewhere.
Joe Gardner: In may instances, when government administers large grants, a lot of those funds don’t wind up directly serving the people and achieving the objectives that were the intent of the programs. Because the grant has too feed that large government bureaucracy.
1 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton
Evangelical leader Ken Ham rightly has noted, “Most of the founding fathers of this nation … built the worldview of this nation on the authority of the Word of God.” I strongly agree with this statement by Ham.
Dr. Michael Davis of California has asserted that he has no doubts that our President is a professing Christian, but his policies are those of a secular humanist. I share these same views. However, our founding fathers were anything but secular humanists in their views. John Adams actually wrote in a letter, “There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost.”
In June of 2011 David Barton of Wallbuilders wrote the article, “John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians?Addressing Modern Academic Shallowness,” and I wanted to share portions of that article with you.
At WallBuilders, we are truly blessed by God, owning tens of thousands of original documents from the American Founding – documents clearly demonstrating the Christian and Biblical foundations both of America and of so many of her Founding Fathers and early statesmen. We frequently postoriginal documents on our website so that others may enjoy them and learn more about many important aspects of America’s rich moral, religious, and constitutional heritage that are widely unknown or misportrayed today.
______________________________________-
American Founding Fathers and leaders (including John Adams) made a clear distinction between America’s Period III Christianity and Europe’s Period II Christianity. For example, Noah Webster emphatically declared:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion, but abuses and corruptions of it. 23
Daniel Webster agreed, rejoicing that American Christianity was . . .
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [bundles of wood for burning individuals at the stake] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! 24
Other Founding Fathers made similar distinctions, including John Jay (the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court and a co-author of theFederalist Papers), who declared that the Period III Christianity practiced in America was “wise and virtuous,” 25 and John Quincy Adams described it as “civilized” 26 – terms certainly not associated with Period II Christianity.
Significantly, the six phrases identified above from Adams’ letter all refer to specific Period II perversions of orthodox Biblical teachings regarding the Holy Spirit; but Pinto, in his practice of Modernism and Minimalism, ignored allof Adams’ references to this. Consider what Pinto missed by disregarding Adams’ first three aforementioned phrases: “monarch to monarch,” “the holy oil in the vial at Rheims,” and “brought down from Heaven by a dove.”
In 496 AD in the city of Reims, Clovis was converted to Christianity and anointed King of France. Four centuries later, the Archbishop of Reims, attempting to convince the people that kings were the sovereign choice of God to rule the nation, claimed that when Clovis was about to be made king, the anointing oil could not be found. Perplexed as to what to do, the Archbishop claimed that God Himself miraculously sent from Heaven a dove (which church leaders believed to be the Holy Spirit) that carried down to earth a vial of special anointing oil.
This oil was kept in the Cathedral of Reims, and over the next millennia was used to anoint every French king (except one). Whenever the oil was moved or utilized in a coronation, it was accompanied by fifty guards, led by a high priest adorned in golden garb and jewels – reminiscent of the high priest in the Bible moving the Ark of the Covenant.
French tyrants in Church and State used this so-called “doctrine” that holy oil was carried from Heaven by the Holy Spirit to keep the people subjugated to the deplorable heresy of the Divine Right of Kings – a doctrine hated by every Reformation follower and student of the Bible. Thus Adams’ statement that “the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove” is a direct reference to very specific and corrupt church doctrines of Period II.
Given the power that the oil of Reims exercised over the minds of the people, it is not surprising that monarchs in other nations, including England, wanted something similar for their own use. English king Edward II (1284-1327 AD) therefore claimed that the anointing oil he used for his coronation was given by the Virgin Mary directly to St. Thomas of Canterbury, who performed the ceremony. This vial of oil was kept safely sequestered under lock and key, to be used only for anointing new kings. This is what Adams described as “that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London.” Adams had been America’s diplomat to France and to England, and he had first-hand knowledge of how their “holy” oil and its accompanying doctrine was used in both countries to subjugate the people under the influence of “kingcraft” and “priestcraft” – two more key phrases that Pinto also disregarded.
Adams despised the claim that either the French and British vials of oil had been brought from Heaven by the Holy Spirit. He believed that this false doctrine had caused incomparable suffering in the world. The French people finally came to the same conclusion, for following the French Revolution, they entered the Cathedral at Reims and broke the vial of oil so that it could never again be used to anoint another French tyrant to rule their nation.
Now having a general grasp of this period of both church and world history to which Adams specifically refers in his letter, reexamine his words with this background in mind.
Adams begins by first establishing the accepted doctrine of the Holy Spirit according to Period III Reformation Christianity, telling Rush:
But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, Who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the bishop on the heads of candidates for the ministry. 27
This statement is sound, solid, orthodox Christian doctrine. But Adams then contrasts that positive statement about the Holy Spirit with the perverted doctrine from Period II:
In the same manner, as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. 28
Notice his use of the very important phrase: “In the same manner, as . . .” That is, having stated the right doctrine of the Holy Ghost, he now looks at the distortion of it – at how it was presented falsely “in the same manner,” but this time not in regards to “candidates for the ministry” (i.e., the Church, which is the proper use), but rather by wrongly teaching that the Holy Ghost is transferred from king to king (i.e., the State, which is not the proper use) by way of the oil brought from Heaven. Concerning this perverted view of the Holy Spirit from Period II, Adams laments:
Although this is all artifice and cunning in the sacred original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagot [bundle of wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe, human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemens craft, peoples craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmens craft, laborers craft, and Devils craft in the world that it seems a desperate [hopeless] and impractical project to undeceive it. 29
Adams clearly is not condemning Christianity or Biblical doctrine regarding the Holy Ghost, but is rather reproaching its twisting during Period II, noting that those who follow the Divine Right of Kings maldoctrine are willing to die for their belief “under the ax or the fiery fagots,” and thus suffer from that “poor weak ignorant dupe, human nature” – that is, human depravity is on full display, and so thoroughly convinced of the truth of this maldoctrine were its followers that it even seemed a waste of time to Adams to try to convince them otherwise.
By the way, many today do not understand the historical use of the term “priestcraft”; it is not a derogatory term used against ministers of the Gospel. As explained by one of the most famous evangelical Christian preachers of the Founding Era, Baptist minister John Leland:
By Priest-Craft, no contempt is designed to be cast upon any of the Lord’s priest’s, from Melchizedeck to Zecharias, nor upon any of the ministers of Christ, either those who have been remarkably endowed with power from on high to work miracles, &c. or those of ordinary endowments, who have been governed by supreme love to the Savior and benevolence to mankind. These, to the world, have been like the stars of night. But by priest-craft is intended the rushing into the sacred work for the sake of ease, wealth, honor, and ecclesiastical dignity. Whether they plead lineal succession or Divine impulse, their course is directed for self-advantage. By good words and fair speeches, they deceive the simple; and [use] solemn threatening of fines, gibbets [the gallows], or the flames of hell to those who do not adhere to their institutes. 30
But to Americans such as John Leland and John Adams, the possibility of government officials placing church officials over America (i.e., “kingcraft” and “priestcraft”) was not something of the ancient past – it was still a potential imminent danger to be feared and fiercely repelled. In fact, John Adams repeatedly avowed that one of the principal causes behind the American Revolution had been the possibility of having the king appoint a bishop over America. 31
21. John Wise, A Vindication of the Government of New-England Churches (Boston: John Boyles, 1772), p. 6. (Return)
22. J. M. Mathews, The Bible and Civil Government, in a Course of Lectures (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), p. 231. (Return)
23. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339. (Return)
24. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defense of the Christian Ministry and In favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 52. (Return)
25. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York:J. &J. Harper, 1833), p. 80, from his “Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County” on September 9,1777.(Return)
26. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.(Return)
30. John Leland, The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Including Some Events in His Life (New York: G. W. Wood, 1845), p. 484. (Return)
31. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, p. 185, to Dr. Jedediah Morse on December 2, 1815. See also letter from John Adams to Jonathan Mason on August 31, 1820 (at:http://www.natedsanders.com/ItemInfo.asp?ItemID=33275). (Return)
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.
____________________
Over and over Senator Mark Pryor has told us that is an empty solution BUT HE WILL GET BEAT IN 2014 BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT HE JUST DOENS’T WANT A BALANCED BUDGET BECAUSE HE LIKES GIVING OUT PRIZES TO HIS VOTING BLOCKS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM. FURTHERMORE, THE STATE OF ARKANSAS HAS BALANCED THE BUDGET EVERY YEAR BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT!!!
Bruce Bialosky puts it in a simple wayand Senator Pryor should tell the people this too:
The jig is up and we need to reverse course. You cannot have everything you want. You can have Social Security, but you should expect less and start saving for yourself more. Medicare will help with your retirement healthcare, but you should have something saved for that as well.
No objective is more important for the new Congress than putting America on course toward a balanced federal budget. We used to balance our budget regularly but, except for a short period during the late 1990’s, Congress has been unable to accomplish what should be a clear-cut mission. Americans understand that deficit spending may be unavoidable in wartime or in a Katrina-like emergency, but we also believe that in the absence of these events, there is no excuse for irresponsibly increasing our national debt.
Unfortunately, our national agenda no longer seems to include a balanced budget. President Obama established a national debt commission (whose report I will address in a future column), but that was only after cranking up federal expenditures and deficits to previously unseen levels.
We all know that the big enchiladas in the Federal budget are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and national defense. That still leaves a lot of money to be saved elsewhere, yet even these opportunities are far too often belittled by elitists. For example, Jackie Calmes, a New York Times reporter, wrote that while there is general agreement on an earmark ban, “… [it] would hardly dent the projected annual deficits.” Paul Krugman, her colleague at the Times and the current economic guru of the left, routinely dismisses any savings at all, his most recent tantrum being Obama’s proposal for a two-year freeze on pay raises. He states “The actual savings, about $5 billion over two years, are chump change given the scale of the deficit.” These are two examples that occurred within days – and I could probably cite hundreds more, from both sides of the aisle.
The United States has a budget crisis that should be met by expenditure reductions, but our government has acted only with foolishness and cowardice. Let’s say your employer came to you and said “Look, the company is struggling, but I can keep you on if we reduce your annual salary from $80,000 to $70,000.” You would go home, sit down with your spouse, and figure out where you can start saving money. You could skip the Saturday night movies and join Netflix. You could learn to live without HBO. You could stop getting water delivered to the house. The bottom line is that you would adjust your expenditures because you have no choice; after all, you can’t print money or sell bonds to your neighbors. Not even to China.
What our government is doing has been going on for hundreds of years, ever since the Rothschilds made their fortune lending monies to the monarchies of Europe, and it has become an international problem of gargantuan proportions. Political leaders all over the world are making fiscal promises that they cannot keep, and this irresponsible practice has exploded in the past seventy-five years with the advent of left-wing, socialist governments. Overspending has become so pervasive that our society makes fun of it. In his recent HBO special, Dennis Miller spoke about not understanding the deficit. Miller said that he asked his son if he was upset that his generation would be saddled with the national debt. His son replied “Christ no Dad, I’m just going to saddle my kids with it.” It was good for a laugh – but Miller would never force his own kids to pay his credit card bills.
Virtually every parent I have ever met worries about what will be left for their children or grandchildren when they die. These people understand that it is immoral and sinful to leave their kids a pile of debt. Yet when it comes to the government – for which we are all responsible – people perceive it as some amorphous entity that can merrily spend more each year than it takes in without any consequences. They believe government, apparently, can pay for everything.
And unfortunately we do. Prodded by spineless and corrupt politicians who consider power far more important than responsibility, government has become the fixer of all our problems. People can live in a flood plain without insurance and then get paid by the government to rebuild in that same flood plain only to be wiped out again in the next flood. Every challenge that we have in this country is being discussed by a commission that lasts forever without ever solving the problem. Responsible Americans put their hand out when they hear of a government program because they rationalize they want their share, and if they don’t get it now someone else will. The sense of communal cost has disappeared.
The numbers are staggering. If the U.S. government had to employ the same accounting standards used by major corporations, it would report an annual deficit between $4 and $5 trillion. 41% of our current federal expenditures are paid for by borrowing money, and by 2015, America will be about $20 trillion in debt.
Our elected officials must face these facts, along with the immoral and pathetic aspects of their reckless behavior. Polls that say that taxpayers demand certain things need to be disregarded, and responsible leaders with some backbone must instead broadcast the simple truth: The jig is up and we need to reverse course. You cannot have everything you want. You can have Social Security, but you should expect less and start saving for yourself more. Medicare will help with your retirement healthcare, but you should have something saved for that as well. If you have a catastrophe, you’d better have an insurance policy because we cannot guarantee every one of your risks. And if your parents get ill in their old age, you’d better be prepared to take care of them just as they took care of you.
Saddling our kids with more and more debt is just plain wrong. The debt is bad enough now and we need to stop it from getting worse. The time is now and this Congress was elected to do just that thing.
Bruce Bialosky
Bruce Bialosky is the founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California and a former Presidential appointee.
The Daily Hatch 