The city of Charlotte’s convention motto this week is “We make it possible.” And who is this “we”?
Here’s the host committee’s answer: “Government is the only thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state, and our nation.”
What a dreary outlook. Government as our most important association. Every other association in our lives—family, church, Boy Scouts—separates us. Only government unites us.
Intentionally or not, the line echoes President Obama’s off-the-prompter remarks during a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, in July.
“[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” the President said. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Commentators have bent over backward to cover for these comments by insisting the President couldn’t have meant what he said. They’ve said that, taken in context, his remarks amount to a statement that individual business owners didn’t build the “roads, bridges, infrastructure, education, emergency services and law and order” that make it possible to run a business. Yet no one is arguing for eliminating roads and bridges.
But here’s what is being argued, both by Obama and again by the host committee: Government makes things happen—it’s the mother’s milk of human flourishing.
The perfect case in point is the “Julia” campaign, which traces a fictional woman’s life and ascribes all good things in it to federal—specifically Obama Administration—initiatives. In this world, Julia’s good life wasn’t built by her, or her parents, or her community, but by the government.
The audacity of this argument is rare. It was first advanced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, drawing on the work of Herbert Croly. TR’s frankness aside, progressives usually prefer to advance their ideology under the cloak of non-ideological pragmatism—liberals say they’re just doing “what works.”
But the tagline and the video combined with President Obama’s comment—“We make it possible” because “you didn’t build that”—reveal how limitless the progressive vision of government is.
If we’re really incapable of ruling ourselves, then we need government to bless and subsidize every decision we make and provide us with meaning in our lives. But if we are indeed self-governing citizens, then we grant government limited power to perform certain tasks clearly articulated in our founding documents, tasks that we as citizens and members of civil society cannot perform.
____________
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
There is evidence pointing to the accuracy of the Bible. Here is some below.
For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible . (There are some great posts on this too at the bottom of this post.)
In the September/October 1999 issue of TSR, Farrell Till said I needed to argue logically and not just appeal to authorities. With that admonition in mind, I have included both linguistic and archaeological evidence in this paper. Plus, I have noted several of the assertions made by critics in TSR that have not been backed up by evidence.
Till pointed out that Chuck Missler had no evidence to back up his claim that Daniel was translated into Greek prior to 270 B.C. (TSR, September/October, 1999, p. 10), and I agree that Missler cannot come up with any hard evidence. However, there is plenty of linguistic evidence that indicates that Daniel was written hundreds of years before 270 B.C. For instance, when the Septuagint was translated, translators were completely unaware of the meaning of many terms in Daniel as evidenced by their mistranslations. Dr. Kenneth Kitchen notes the Septuagint rendering of four Persian loan words in Daniel “are hopelessly inexact mere guesswork,” which indicates that the terms were so ancient that “their meaning was already lost and forgotten (or, at the least, drastically changed) long before he [the translator] set to work” (Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 1970, p.43). Nevertheless, Till claims that all of Daniel was written in the 2nd Century (TSR, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 1, 16), but clearly the linguistic evidence points to a sixth-century date of authorship. In fact, the existence of these approximately twenty Persian expressions has forced a number of critics to admit that some of Daniel was written prior to 300 B.C.
I am going to focus on three issues in this article. First, plausible answers will be given to the eight toughest problems in Daniel presented by critics in The Skeptical Review, (Volume 9.2 through Volume 11.3). In fact, the evidence does not indicate there are errors in Daniel, but it points to possible misunderstandings of history by modern critics.
Second, six pieces of archaeological evidence concerning the book of Daniel will be examined. All of these support the conclusion that the writer of the book of Daniel was an eyewitness of 6th-century B. C. events. It is highly unlikely that a Maccabean author would know such specific details about 6th-century B. C. life in Babylon.
Third, it will be noted that at least three dilemmas exist for the critic who wants to apply the Maccabean theory to the details of the book of Daniel. Finally, I will summarize the evidence presented in this debate and contrast that with several of the grandiose pronouncements made by critics in TSR.
The Eight Toughest Problems in Daniel (TSR, Vol. 9.2 through Vol. 11.3): (1) Did “Darius the Mede” actually exist? Dave Matson stated dogmatically that he did not exist (TSR, Vol. 11.3, p., 13) and Farrell Till observed that modern critics “are in general agreement that this mistake was a major blunder that would not have been made by someone who had been an important official in 6th-century Babylon” (TSR, Vol. 9.4, p. 8 and Vol. 11.1, p. 5). Earlier, I admitted that this argument is the most difficult problem remaining for the inerrantist to resolve (TSR, Vol. 10.2, p., 4, Column 1), and Till has correctly noted that the vast majority of critics regard the appearance of this name as an error (Paul L. Redditt, Daniel, New Century Bible Commentary, Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 1999, p. 2; D.S. Russell, Daniel, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981, p. 96). However, one critic this decade wrote a scholarly paper, which seems to resolve this matter. I found the evidence by Dr. Brian Colless of Massey University, New Zealand, compelling in his article “Cyrus the Persian as Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel”(Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. 56, 1992, pp. 113-126), and I sent Farrell Till a copy of this provocative paper. (Till published my letter to him in TSR, Vol. 10.5, p.12). Most of my material on this issue came directly from this fine work.
First, the book of Daniel has many cases of double identity. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) is the little horn and the King of the north. Alexander the Great (331-332 B.C.) is the big horn and the warrior king. Daniel’s three friends have second names, and their Hebrew names are used in Jewish contexts (1:6; 2:17) and their Akkadian names appear in Babylonian situations (1:7; 2:49; 3:14) in their involvements with King Nebuchadnezzar (Colless, p. 113).
Second, Daniel 6:28 indicates that “Darius the Mede” and Cyrus reigned at the same time, and “the reader is expected to understand, by the author’s principle of dual nomenclature for many of the characters in his book that Darius and Cyrus are one and the same person” (Colless, p. 116). Colless translates Daniel 6:28 as follows: “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius [‘and simultaneously,’ ‘that is’ or ‘even’] in the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (Colless, pp. 114-115). Colless stated, “It must be emphasized that ‘explicative and’ (‘that is, namely’) is a widely attested phenomenon in Semitic languages: cf. D.W. Baker, “Further Examples of the Waw Explicativum,” Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 30 (1980), pp. 129-136″ (Colless, p.115, Note #3). I Chronicles 5:26 demonstrates this because Tiglathpileser and Pul were not two different individuals (TSR, Vol. 10.2, p.4, Column 1).
Concerning Daniel 6:28, Farrell Till has argued that there are no translators currently willing to translate “waw” as “even.” Till noted: “Hatcher continues to skate on thin ice by sticking to his premise that Darius and Cyrus were just different names for the same person. This premise is based on a very flimsy possibility that the waw conjunction in Daniel 6:28 meant even instead of and, so the verse could have been saying that ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ What I wonder is why so many translators have failed to realize this, because an extensive check of translations will show that they consistently rendered the verse as quoted above” (TSR, Vol. 10.4, p.3, Column 3).
I doubt seriously that there are any translations that don’t at least once translate the waw conjunction as “even” somewhere in the Bible. Before archaeological studies confirmed that Tiglathpileser and Pul were the same individuals, the KJV translated waw as “and” in 1 Chronicles 5:26. However, the discovery was made and translations began to change. (Check out these translations: New Jerusalem, New Revised Standard Version, New International and New Living Translation. In fact, the New Living translates waw into “also known as.”) The same will happen to Daniel 6:28 if archaeology uncovers evidence that links Cyrus to the nickname “Darius the Mede.” Until then, all we have is a good, working hypothesis, and some modern scholars have noted this as a possibility (J.M. Bulman, “The Identification of Darius the Mede,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 35 [1973], pp. 247-267; J.G. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Intervarsity, 1978, pp. 26-28, 127; Colless, p. 115, note #3; Baker, p. 134). In fact, Dr. David W. Baker of Cambridge noted, “There is one apparent double name in Ugaritic which is of special relevance to Dan. [6:28]. In CTA [corpus de tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques, A. Herdner, editor] Vol. 14, IV: 201-202, Keret makes a vow by athirat of the Tyrians and ilat (or ‘goddess’) of the Sidonians. In CTA 6:40, athirat and ilat are shown, by their poetic parallelism, to refer to the same person. This would thus allow the translation ‘athirat of the Tyrians, that is, ilat of the Sidonians.’ This is parallel in form to Dan. [6:28], and supports Wiseman’s reading of that verse as ‘in the reign of Darius, that is, in the reign of Cyrus the Persian'(D. J. Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, [London, 1965], p. 12 and n. 21). In both tests, one person has different names in association with two different locales (cf. Dan. 6:1 where Darius is ‘the Mede’)” (Baker, p. 134).
Third, the writer of Daniel must have known that Cyrus was the conqueror of Babylon (Colless, p. 115; TSR, Vol. 9.2, p.2, Column 3; Vol. 10.2, p.3, Column 2). The Bible mentions this (Isaiah 45:1; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23), and this fact was recorded by Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossos (Colless, p. 115).
Fourth, Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” has apparently stolen many of the imperial roles that belong to Cyrus. Darius took over Babylon when he was 62 years old in 539 B.C. (Dan. 5:31), and he organized the new empires (Dan. 6:1). He issued decrees that applied to the whole kingdom (Dan. 6:9, 26) and administered “the laws of the Medes and Persians” (Dan. 6:8, 12). However, Cyrus was only mentioned in passing (Dan. 1:21; 6:28; 10:1; Colless, pp., 115-116).
Dr. Brian Colless concluded that the evidence “seems to point to the same conclusion: Darius the Mede is synonymous with Cyrus the Persian in the Book of Daniel” (p.124). Some evangelical scholars (e. g., Whitcomb, Keil, Boutflower, Wilson, Archer) agree with Michael Bradford’s suggestion that Darius the Mede was probably a general who ruled in the temporary absence of Cyrus (TSR, Vol. 11.1, p.3), but I disagree with this view because of several of the same reasons Dave Matson does (TSR, Vol. 11.3, p.,13). Matson rightly noted that generals don’t “reign,” and only the “top dog gets mentioned.” Furthermore, Matson observed that Darius “was listed chronologically with the other kings of Babylon…” and the book of Daniel “treats Darius the Mede as a full-fledged king…” (TSR, Vol. 11.3, p.13).
(2.) Was it erroneous for the book of Daniel to refer to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son? I covered this in my earlier reply (TSR, Vol. 10.2, pp. 4-5), but I wanted to respond to some criticisms from David Mooney and Farrell Till. Mooney asserted, “Hatcher referred to an Assyrian inscription that refers to Jehu as a ‘son of Omri.’ He seems to claim this sets a precedent for Daniel’s use of ‘father’ in his book, but this proves at best, only an Assyrian custom, not a Jewish custom, and at worst it proves only the Assyrian scribe made a mistake. He fails to establish with certainty his case that ‘in the near East the word son could also mean successor,’ unless, of course, there are more examples from that era” (TSR, Vol. 10.3, pp. 12-13). Farrell Till repeated these same concerns in the next issue (TSR, Vol. 10.4, pp. 2-3). First, I did cite two examples from the Bible (2 Kings 2:12; 1 Kings 20:35). These indicate it was also a Jewish custom. Now, it is true that Farrell Till would like me to come up with a longer passage in the Bible where “father” is used in the sense of “predecessor” and “son” as “successor,” but I don’t see why the verses I have already cited are insufficient. Elijah was Elisha’s predecessor, and in 2 Kings 2:12 Elisha called Elijah “My father!” Likewise, in 1 Kings 20:35, the Bible refers to the apprentice of a prophet as a “son.” Second, I also referred to a similar usage in ancient Egypt. I noted, “In the Westcar Papyrus (dating from the Hyksos period), King Keb-ka of the Third Dynasty is referred to as the father of King Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty, a full century later” (TSR, Vol. 10.2, p. 5, Column 1). Therefore, Daniel was only following the custom of the day when he referred to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s “father” (predecessor). Nebuchadnezzar had ruled Babylon for over forty years and brought Babylon to its greatest point in history. Why is it strange that a later king would wish to emphasize that Nebuchadnezzar was his predecessor? Even though it is a secondary use of the word “father,” King Belshazzar probably chose to use it for public relation reasons.
(3.) Does the Book of Daniel picture an intermediate Median Empire? Till and I have discussed this issue at length in previous issues of TSR. Therefore, I will keep my responses short and refer back to my earlier arguments.Till interprets Daniel 5:28 to mean that “Daniel’s interpretation of the writing was that part of Babylonia would be given to the Medes, and part of it would be given to the Persians, and so the interpretation indicated that the writer thought that Media and Persia were separate kingdoms that would divide the territory of Babylonia between them” (Till, TSR, Vol. 11.2, p. 2). There are three pieces of evidence that contradict this view. Linguistic experts even from the critical view have asserted that Daniel 5:28 indicates that the Persians would conquer Babylon (TSR, Vol. 10.2, p. 5). Also, Till correctly anticipated my reference to Daniel 8:3, 20 where Daniel tells us the ram is representing the Kingdom of the Medes and the Persians just as the goat symbolized the Kingdom of Greece in Daniel 8:21 (TSR, Vol. 11.2, p. 4; TSR, Vol. 10.2, p. 5). How can Till claim that these two horns are not closely related? It seems that the ram represents one kingdom, and the two horns represent two distinct parts of that empire. Furthermore, we know from secular historical sources that this is exactly what happened. However, there is a third problem for those who hold to the critical interpretation: How can the new government in Daniel chapter six be an intermediate Median Empire if it operated under “the laws of the Medes and Persians” as verses 8, 12 and 15 indicate? Instead of addressing this, Till spent a lot of time talking down to one of the top scholars in the field of biblical history. Till stated, “If [William] Shea would consult just about any general biblical reference book, he would see that Media was a separate empire in the 7th century B. C., which allied itself with Babylon to capture the Assyrian strongholds of Nineveh in 612 and Haran in 610, but in 550 B. C., Cyrus conquered Media and absorbed it into his empire” (TSR, Vol. 10.2, p. 8, Column 2). Of course, Dr. Shea knows all about this. He never claimed that Media was not at one time a separate kingdom. Till left the impression that Dr. Shea is ignorant of near Eastern ancient history, but nothing can be further from the truth. Dr. Shea earned his Ph.D. in ancient near eastern studies from the University of Michigan in 1976, and he taught biblical languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) in the Theological Seminary at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, for many years. In 1996, his commentary on Daniel was published by Pacific Press, and his numerous articles have appeared in respected journals such as Biblical Archaeologist, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vetus Testamentum, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Israel Exploration Journal, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, and Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. In fact, Dr. Shea’s article “Jerusalem Under Siege: Did Sennacherib Attack Twice?” was the cover story for the November/ December 1999 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, pp. 36-44, 64).
(4.) Did King Nebuchadnezzar take Daniel captive in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Daniel 1:1)? Till asserted that it “seems rather strange that this man, who possessed all of the great wisdom claimed in his book, did not even know what year he was taken captive to Babylon” (TSR, Vol. 9.4, p. 8, Column 1). However, Till’s criticisms are based on a misunderstanding of the historical facts. The critic D.R.G. Beattie holds the view that the author of Daniel erred in Daniel 1:1. Nevertheless, Beattie admits that this problem has a possible solution (D.R.G. Beattie, First Steps in Biblical Criticism, Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1988, pp. 59-60). Most of my points come from Beattie’s book. First, there were two calendars used back then (Beattie, p.59). Daniel went by the Judean system, and Jehoiakim’s third year was from Tishri (September-October) 606 B.C. to Tishri 605 B.C. Jeremiah employed the Babylonian Nisan system (spring to spring) in Jeremiah 25:1, and both systems used the accession year dating method. Therefore, according to the Babylonian system, the late spring or summer of 605 B.C. would have been the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Jer. 25:1), but it would have fallen in the 3rd year according to the Judean system (Daniel 1:1). Nebuchadnezzar led Babylon to victory over Egypt in May/June 605 B.C., approximately a couple of months before he took over as king. It was during this period that Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel captive.
Second, we know from archaeology that Nebuchadnezzar did attack Syria and Palestine at this time. Beattie notes, “Nebuchadnezzar was in that general area at the time…” (Beattie, p. 59; J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980], p. 408). Babylonian texts state that after his victory over the Egyptians, Nebuchadnezzar “conquered the whole area of the Hatti-country” (Donald J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings, London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1961, p.69). Wiseman observed that the Assyrian King Tiglath- Pileser also reported going to the land of Hatti to put down an uprising instigated by “Azriau of Yaudi” (Azariah of Judah, p. 25).
Third, the Bible did not err in this story when it referred to “King Nebuchadnezzar”even though Nebuchadnezzar was not king at this time. I have heard people say, “In the childhood of President Clinton….” However, Bill Clinton was never president while in his childhood years. Those critics who consider this a mistake are grasping at straws (Till, TSR, Vol. 9.4, p. 8; Philip R. Davies, Daniel, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985, pp. 29-30; Arthur Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel,” Interpreter’s Bible, Nashville: Abingdon, 1956, p. 361; John Joseph Owens, “Daniel,” Broadman Bible Commentary, Broadman, Nashville, TN, 971, p. 381). For more discussion,consult Edwin Thiele’s excellent book, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, p. 183. At the 1994 national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Schools of Oriental Research, the critic Anson F. Rainey roundly rebuked scholars who did not accept Thiele’s chronology. I suggest that skeptics should get this book through an interlibrary loan and examine the evidence for themselves. The subscribers of TSR may discover that the chronology given by Daniel 1:1 is not so erroneous after all.
(Everette Hatcher III, P. O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221)
_________________
Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject:
This clay tablet is a Babylonian chronicle recording events from 605-594BC. It was first translated in 1956 and is now in the British Museum. The cuneiform text on this clay tablet tells, among other things, 3 main events: 1. The Battle of Carchemish (famous battle for world supremacy where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Pharoah Necho of Egypt, 605 BC.), 2. The accession to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar II, the Chaldean, and 3. The capture of Jerusalem on the 16th of March, 598 BC.
King Hezekiah of Judah ruled from 721 to 686 BC. Fearing a siege by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, Hezekiah preserved Jerusalem’s water supply by cutting a tunnel through 1,750 feet of solid rock from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city walls (2 Kings 20; 2 Chron. 32). At the Siloam end of the tunnel, an inscription, presently in the archaeological museum at Istanbul, Turkey, celebrates this remarkable accomplishment.
It contains the victories of Sennacherib himself, the Assyrian king who had besieged Jerusalem in 701 BC during the reign of king Hezekiah, it never mentions any defeats. On the prism Sennacherib boasts that he shut up “Hezekiah the Judahite” within Jerusalem his own royal city “like a caged bird.” This prism is among the three accounts discovered so far which have been left by the Assyrian king Sennacherib of his campaign against Israel and Judah.
In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives;
Most doubting scholars back then said that the Hittites were just a “mythical people that are only mentioned in the Bible.” Some skeptics pointed to the fact that the Bible pictures the Hittites as a very big nation that was worthy of being coalition partners with Egypt (II Kings 7:6), and these bible critics would assert that surely we would have found records of this great nation of Hittites. The ironic thing is that when the Hittite nation was discovered, a vast amount of Hittite documents were found. Among those documents was the treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite King.
The Bible mentions that Shishak marched his troops into the land of Judah and plundered a host of cities including Jerusalem, this has been confirmed by archaeologists. Shishak’s own record of his campaign is inscribed on the south wall of the Great Temple of Amon at Karnak in Egypt. In his campaign he presents 156 cities of Judea to his god Amon.
The Moabite Stone also known as the Mesha Stele is an interesting story. The Bible says in 2 Kings 3:5 that Mesha the king of Moab stopped paying tribute to Israel and rebelled and fought against Israel and later he recorded this event. This record from Mesha has been discovered.
The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri, silver, gold, bowls of gold, chalices of gold, cups of gold, vases of gold, lead, a sceptre for the king, and spear-shafts, I have received.”
Sir William Ramsay, famed archaeologist, began a study of Asia Minor with little regard for the book of Acts. He later wrote:
I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.
9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. When I think of discoveries like the Ebla Tablets that verify names like Adam, Eve, Ishmael, David and Saul were in common usage when the Bible said they were, it makes me think of what amazing confirmation that is of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
This cube is inscribed with the name and titles of Yahali and a prayer: “In his year assigned to him by lot (puru) may the harvest of the land of Assyria prosper and thrive, in front of the gods Assur and Adad may his lot (puru) fall.” It provides a prototype (the only one ever recovered) for the lots (purim) cast by Haman to fix a date for the destruction of the Jews of the Persian Empire, ostensibly in the fifth century B.C.E. (Esther 3:7; cf. 9:26).
The Bible mentions Uzziah or Azariah as the king of the southern kingdom of Judah in 2 Kings 15. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription is a stone tablet (35 cm high x 34 cm wide x 6 cm deep) with letters inscribed in ancient Hebrew text with an Aramaic style of writing, which dates to around 30-70 AD. The text reveals the burial site of Uzziah of Judah, who died in 747 BC.
The Pilate Inscription is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. Visitors to the Caesarea theater today see a replica, the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. There have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate
This beautifully decorated ossuary found in the ruins of Jerusalem, contained the bones of Caiaphas, the first century AD. high priest during the time of Jesus.
In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”
Despite their liberal training, it was archaeological research that bolstered their confidence in the biblical text:Albright said of himself, “I must admit that I tried to be rational and empirical in my approach [but] we all have presuppositions of a philosophical order.” The same statement could be applied as easily to Gleuck and Wright, for all three were deeply imbued with the theological perceptions which infused their work.
Calipari thought things looked pretty bad after the Tennessee 30 point loss but then the Wildcats came out and played good since then, but then at Fayetteville, Arkansas on March 2, 2013 things did not look so good.
John Calipari said that Arkansas went with a small line-up like Tennessee did a few weeks ago and that caused Kentucky lots of problems. Calipari noted that Tennessee had gone on a 6 game win streak after doing that and that Arkansas also was much more dangerous when they are small and quick.
Now the NCAA tournament will be looking at letting Florida in but beyond that it is a complete guess on my part on who gets in. Kentucky has two games left, Georgia on the road and Florida in Lexington. If they drop both of them will they get in?
If Arkansas wins both of their last two games and wins two in the SEC tournament then I think they are in. The same is probably true about Tennessee and some other teams in the SEC. Is Missouri already in? I think they are but if they lose their next three games then they probably are not.
He’s been in scream mode since the season’s first day. That’s not fair. Calipari hasn’t just screamed. He’s cajoled, pleaded, talked, yelled, coaxed, chattered, heart-monitored, instructed, lectured, dodge-balled — anything and everything.”We’re a brand new team,” he said again Saturday after UK lost 73-60 to Arkansas.If so, it’s a brand new team with the same old problem.It remains young.Just when you think it has gained some hard-earned confidence, it comes up soft.Rephrase that: Just when it foolishly thinks it has done something, it learns it hasn’t really done anything at all.”They embrace success and this is what happens,” Calipari said with a knowing glance. “Especially when you think the other team is going to play like it’s an AAU game, that they’re not going to play hard.”‘(It’s like) why are you playing so hard? Why are you all over me?’ Because they want to win. Because they have a desire to win.”Arkansas played as hard Saturday as it always seems to play at home, where Mike Anderson’s club has now won 13 straight, where the Hogs are 16-1 this season and 33-4 since Anderson became head coach.But Kentucky’s 13-point loss wasn’t just about being outscored 30-2 off turnovers, or getting off 26 fewer shots, or allowing Arkansas to grab 20 offensive rebounds.No, the seeds of this performance were sown after the Cats foolishly thought a three-game win streak — all three coming in the friendly confines of Rupp Arena, two over teams in the bottom quarter of the SEC standings — meant they had “turned the corner” and experienced “a breakthrough.”Uh, not so fast.Calipari is old enough to know better. Asked Friday about his team’s so-called “breakthrough,” the coach gave a “we’ll see”-type answer.So we did.”I wake up every day and don’t know how the team will play,” said Calipari, who has been bothered by a dental problem of late. “I hoped that (we were past this) but … “Just as Kentucky fans hoped the win over Missouri had punched the team’s NCAA dance card, the loss to Arkansas might not hurt the Cats’ standing in the eyes of the committee — even Florida lost at Arkansas — but it surely didn’t help, either.”We’ve got a couple of guys who are overwhelmed by stuff, and that’s typical freshmen,” Calipari said. “When you get overwhelmed, you get anxiety and you back up.”The past three years, UK has enjoyed atypical freshmen. Some were already mature. Others matured quickly. Calipari has pretty much known what he was going to get game after game, and most of it was good. Really good.It hasn’t been that way this season. His first three seasons at UK, Calipari lost one game by double digits. This year, he’s lost five. Three of those came with Nerlens Noel in the lineup.Calipari has tried to speed up the growing up. (This is not a guy who lacks ideas or is unwilling to try new things.) Sometimes, that just can’t be done, no matter how many different methods you try, no matter how loud your voice.If you coach a young team that insists on staying young, your eyes are going to open most mornings to the thought that you don’t know what to expect, and that may just make you want to scream.”We could go out next game and play out of our minds,” said Calipari, giving it a who-knows shrug. “And I’ll be happy.”That’s just it with this team, you never know.And, if you’re young, that’s one lesson right there: Just when you think you know, that’s when you really don’t. John Clay: (859) 231-3226. Email: jclay@herald-leader.com. Twitter: @johnclayiv. Blog: Johnclay.bloginky.com.
Kentucky’s John Calipari on being a National Champion Uploaded by CBSSports on Apr 3, 2012 Kentucky Wildcats coach John Calipari talks to Tim Brando about what it feels like to finally win a national title ________ John Calipari and Darius Miller speak at UK championship celebration ____________ _____________ Related posts: If Calipari had stayed at […]
Enlarge John Calipari address the press on his first day as Kentucky basketball coach. John Calipari stuggled to recruit top players to Memphis the first 4 years he was there because the “one and done” rule had not been put into place yet and many of the talented recruits of his skipped college and […]
#1 Kansas vs #1 Memphis National Championship 2008 (Part 3) The paths of Self and Calipari cross for championship By Kory Carpenter Sunday, April 1, 2012 More New Orleans, La. — Bill Self’s start in coaching is probably well known by now. A guard on the Oklahoma State basketball team, he worked at a Kansas […]
Kansas vs. Memphis – 2008 NCAA Title Game Highlights (HD) Kentucky vs. Kansas: Bill Self a Fitting Final Obstacle to John Calipari’s Title By Josh Martin (Featured Columnist) on April 2, 2012 Stacy Revere/Getty Images The long and winding road to an NCAA Tournament title has led John Calipari back to Bill Self‘s door. […]
Memphis Tigers John Calipari Interview 2008 Basketball Final FOX Sports Exclusive Calipari, Self more than just recruiters NEW ORLEANS There is an inherent silliness to a profession like the one that has made rich men of John Calipari and Bill Self. They spend months, even years, burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel and […]
Kansas vs. Memphis – 2008 NCAA Title Game Highlights (HD) The same matchup as 2008 coming tonight. Is John Calipari truly the villain against Bill Self? Rob Dauster Apr 1, 2012, 3:20 PM EDT Leave a comment Over the coming two days, one of the story lines that will be the most intriguing to follow is […]
Memphis’ epic collapse at the end of the ’08 title game opened the door for a Kansas championship. (AP photo) Kansas vs. Memphis – 2008 NCAA Title Game Highlights (HD) #1 Kansas vs #1 Memphis National Championship 2008 (Part 1) After the collapse in the last 2 minutes of the game by Memphis, Kansas went […]
Memphis Tigers John Calipari Interview 2008 Basketball Final Kansas vs. Memphis – 2008 NCAA Title Game Highlights (HD) Knoxnews.com reported: Calipari (and Kentucky) get Kansas again for title NANCY ARMOUR – AP National Writer (AP) Posted April 1, 2012 at 12:18 a.m., updated April 1, 2012 at 3:04 a.m NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Well, this […]
_____ Kansas vs. Memphis – 2008 NCAA Title Game Highlights (HD) What happened last time Calipari and Self faced each other in a national championship game? KMBC reported: San Antonio, TX — (Sports Network) – Mario Chalmers hit the tying three-pointer with 2.1 seconds left in regulation and Kansas rallied from a nine-point deficit late […]
Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?
People say the government has a debt problem. Debt is caused by deficits, which is the difference between what the government collects in tax revenue and the amount of government spending. Every time the government runs a deficit, the government debt increases. So what’s to blame: too much spending, or too little tax revenue? Economics professor Antony Davies examines the data and concludes that the root cause of the debt is too much government spending.
____________
We got to starve the beast and not increase taxes.
The statist agenda of ever-growing government requires more money going to Washington, which is why I think that proponents of limited government should do everything they can to block tax increases.
He would never admit it, but Obama seems to agree, which is why he is dogmatically fixated on doing everything he can to seduce Republicans into supporting higher taxes.
But he miscalculated in thinking that the fiscal cliff tax hike somehow meant that he had permanently neutered the GOP, and he definitely goofed when he tried to use the sequester as a weapon to bully Republicans into another tax hike.
The first months of President Obama’s second term are being built around a simple premise: No caving. …Obama is in an ultra-assertive mood, practically daring Republicans to defy his wishes. …Obama’s attitude is more akin to that of a general leading his forces into battle, confident that he can decimate the enemy. …On the sequester, for instance, Obama did little more than pay lip-service to the idea of a last-minute compromise to avert the package of cuts.
Well, Republicans did “defy his wishes” and it’s the worst possible outcome for the President. The growth of spending is being slowed and taxes are not going up.
Democrats on Capitol Hill also thought that the fiscal cliff tax hike would be a precedent for lots of future tax hikes. As reported by Politico, their analysis was misguided.
Democrats toasted the New Year’s fiscal cliff deal with the belief that they had set a crucial new precedent: Tax hikes would be part of any future deficit reduction package. Two months later, the champagne buzz is wearing off. …the exuberance expressed by many Democrats at the beginning of the year was misplaced. Efforts to avert the sequester never achieved liftoff, and Democrats are realizing that new tax revenues are off the table for the immediate future. …“We’ve tried everything we can,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Thursday. “They will not budge on anything dealing with revenue.”
Nine months ago, Barack Obama likened his Republican opposition to an illness. If he could just defeat Mitt Romney, Obama said, then the illness might subside. “I believe that if we’re successful in this election — when we’re successful in this election — that the fever may break,” Obama told a fundraiser in Minneapolis last June. After Obama won re-election, there was extensive discussion among his supporters about whether the Republican “fever” would, in fact, break.
But this strategy appears to have boomeranged. Byron thinks that the White House is now in a weak position.
There was little speculation about whether something quite different might happen: Would determined GOP opposition break Obama’s fever? That is, could Republicans weaken the president’s resolve to defeat the GOP and further raise taxes? That appears to be what has occurred, at least for the moment. …Friday morning, Obama seemed resigned to the possibility that he cannot win the further tax increases he seeks, and that after enlisting his entire administration in a campaign to frighten Americans about sequestration, the cuts have become a reality that he has to acknowledge.
While I’m glad the President goofed, I’m not under any illusion that winning a battle is the same thing as winning a war.
It’s quite possible that the modest sequester savings will be undone as part of the “continuing resolution” legislation to fund the federal government between March 27 and the rest of the fiscal year.
There will also be a debt limit fight later in the Spring, which will give proponents of bigger government another bite at the apple (though it’s a double-edged sword since advocates of limited government also can use the debt limit as a vehicle for reform).
And the President obviously won’t give up on his campaign for higher taxes. I worry that he’ll trick gullible GOPers into a tax hike at some point, either as part of a Trojan Horse tax reform or as part of a budget summit that produces something like Bowles-Simposon, a package of real tax hikes and illusory entitlement reforms.
But we can fight those battles down the road. Today, let’s enjoy the sweet smell of victory.
Cato Institute scholars Michael Tanner, Alex Nowrasteh, Julian Sanchez, Simon Lester, John Samples, Pat Michaels, Jagadeesh Gokhale, Michael F. Cannon, Jim Harper, Malou Innocent, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus and Neal McCluskey respond to President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address.
Video produced by Caleb O. Brown, Austin Bragg and Lester Romero.
Today I am taking a look at the response of the scholars of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute scholars to the 2013 State of the Union Address.
All Americans, no matter what our backgrounds or political perspectives, abhor the death of innocent human beings. We were shocked by the killings in Newtown and other recent mass shootings, and grieve with those who joined the First Lady at the State of the Union.
As we try to make society safer and stronger, constitutional and complex cultural factors must be taken into consideration. As we explain in a recent Heritage paper, policymakers should avoid a rush to judgment on prescriptions that violate first principles, ignore the real root of these complex problems, or disregard careful social science research. The most important solutions lie at the state and local levels, in the community and within the family.
The Second Amendment is an important safeguard of Americans’ security. Gun laws must be constitutional and should reflect the research on their effectiveness in preserving law and order. As to the President’s emphasis on background checks: The only way to enforce universal background checks for private sales is if law enforcement authorities know what firearms are held by private citizens. And the only way to know what firearms are held by private citizens is through the creation of a national firearms registry. Federal law currently prohibits authorities from using data in the background check system to create a national firearms registry, although there are avid gun control proponents who would like to change that—a real threat to the Second Amendment rights of legitimate gun owners.
– John Malcolm, senior legal fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Jennifer Marshall, director, Richard and HelenDeVosCenter for Religion and Civil Society
Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law? Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform Amy Payne August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful […]
Senator Blunt Vows to Keep Pressure on President Obama Over Contraceptive Mandate Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 13, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/13/sen-blunt-vows-to-keep-pressure-on-obama-… | Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced legislation to protect religious organizations from Obamacare’s overreach last summer. Now, as President Obama presses forward with his anti-conscience mandate, Blunt is prepared to keep the pressure on the […]
Max Brantley is wrong about Tom Cotton’s accusation concerning the rise of welfare spending under President Obama. Actually welfare spending has been increasing for the last 12 years and Obama did nothing during his first four years to slow down the rate of increase of welfare spending. Rachel Sheffield of the Heritage Foundation has noted: […]
Sen. Mitch McConnell: Americans Don’t Approve of Anything Obama Has Done Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 8, 2011 In an exclusive interview at The Heritage Foundation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sharply criticized President Obama for engaging in class warfare and accused him of shifting the focus away from his own failed policies in […]
Obamanomics: A Legacy of Wasteful Spending Published on Aug 12, 2012 by CFPEcon101 This mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation highlights egregious examples of wasteful spending from the so-called stimulus legislation and explains why government spending hurts economic performance. **Links to additional reading material** Thomas Sowell, “Stimulus or Sedative?” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/09/stimulus_or_sedative_104… Veronique de […]
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. Is […]
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. The […]
Thomas Sowell (This letter was mailed before September 1, 2012) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a […]
I have been writing letters to President Obama almost all of 2012. I have received several responses from the White House but none of the responses have been personal responses from the President. Below is a letter I wrote to the President and a form letter response that I got followed by links to other […]
Thomas Sowell, George Will, and Walter Williams have all explained that the Constitution imposes strict limits on the powers of the federal government. This means, for all intents and purposes, that it is a somewhat anti-democratic document.
And by anti-democratic, I mean the Constitution puts restrictions on democracy (not restrictions on the Democratic Party, though in this case…).
More specifically, it doesn’t matter if a majority of people want Obamacare or a Department of Education. We live in a constitutional republic, a system specifically designed to protect individual liberties from tyranny.
The Founding Fathers obviously didn’t want our freedoms to be subject to the whims of a king, but they also wanted to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
This is one of the reasons why I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can understand why it’s a good idea to protect economic liberty.
Under a democratic system of government, how is an individual protected from the tyranny of the majority? According to Professor Munger, democratic constitutions consist of two parts: one defining the limits within which decisions can be made democratically, and the other establishing the process by which decisions will be made. In the United States Constitution, the individual is protected from majority decisions. Professor Munger warns, however, that these protections are slowly being stripped away as American courts of law fail to recognize the limits of what can be decided by majority rule. Professor Munger uses the case of Kelo v. New London to illustrate the dangers of confusing majority rule with a democratic system.
P.P.P.S. There is at least one Republican who is against majoritarianism (and for the right reason). Click here for the answer.
______________
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
Dr. C. Everett Koop was active on getting the word out about how people could catch AIDS. Public Health officials during the second half of the 1980s became concerned about the spread of AIDS particularly among minorities, a disproportionate number of whom were intravenous drug users, had no health coverage, and were thus were an increased risk to contract the disease. A poster was developed and sent out across the country. Below in the post you will a copy of that poster.
On 2-25-13 we lost a great man when we lost Dr. C. Everett Koop. I have written over and over the last few years quoting Dr. C. Everett Koop and his good friend Francis Schaeffer. They both came together for the first time in 1973 when Dr. Koop operated on Schaeffer’s daughter and as a result they became close friends. That led to their involvement together in the book and film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” in 1979.
As we reflect on the passing of C. Everett Koop who passed away today (Feb. 25th, 2013), at the age of 96, it is probably best to remember him first as a gifted Christian physician who lovingly cared for so many children and was instrumental in the growth of pediatric surgery we know today. Long before he collaborated with Dr. Schaeffer on Whatever Happened to the Human Race? or became the Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan’s administration, Dr. Koop was on the front lines of care for children. His skill in this area is what providentially would bring him into contact with the Schaeffers.
In 1946 Koop established the pediatric surgical division at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. It was the first in Philadelphia and only the second of it’s type in America. It was also in Schaeffer’s home town.
The Schaeffers who likewise had an interest in children had founded their work called Children for Christ just three years earlier in 1943. In 1947 Schaeffer would be asked by the Independent Board of Presbyterian Foreign Missions to tour post-war Europe to determine the state of children and the condition of the church. The following year, in 1948, the Schaeffer’s were called to be missionaries to Europe. After accepting this call, Francis would travel for six months in the United States lecturing on his discoveries in regard to the state of the church in Europe. This time away from the family was a period of trial and hardship for Edith with various difficulties. One of which was that their daughter Priscilla had contracted a rare ailment that the doctor they were seeing was unable to diagnose. As the story goes, Priscilla was waiting to be x-rayed when a young pediatric surgeon “who had a specialist knowledge of mesenteric adenitis” happened to spot her and notice she had recognizable symptoms. He arranged to have her appendix removed the following day, which cured her ailment. That young surgeon was C. Everett Koop.
During Priscilla’s treatment Dr. Koop was impressed with the Schaeffers and their visible faith and he mentioned to Edith that he had just become a Christian. Edith at some point gave Dr. Koop a message from Priscilla from Francis, so as he wheeled Priscilla’s cart into the operating area he read aloud the telegram: “Dear Priscilla, Remember underneath are the everlasting arms. Love Daddy.” Now, this all might sound quite unusual for a surgeon to do such a thing, but it shows us two things. Firstly, that there was an immediate connection between Dr. Koop and the Schaeffers, but also that Dr. Koop had a true love for children and his work.
This seemingly chance meeting speaks of providence at work. The fact that the Schaeffer’s met Dr. Koop just months away from their move to Europe, and a short time after his conversion and that he had just the right knowledge of Priscilla’s ailment is cause for reflection. The fact that this providence would eventually unite two great minds in both friendship and significant subjects of life is very significant. Not surprisingly Dr. Schaeffer and Dr. Koop would become close and a long friendship would begin.
Uniting In The Cause of Life
Most notably and against perhaps Dr. Koop and Francis Schaeffer’s wishes the cause of life has been most often reduced to abortion alone. While abortion is no small matter and should not be in any way minimized, yet what both men were interested in was not a single issue of abortion alone, but life. The reality was that the secular humanistic worldview was challenging life itself on may fronts. This conception most definitely includes both abortion, euthanasia, but also the loss of the high view of man and human dignity.
“If man is not made in the image of God, nothing then stands in the way of inhumanity. There is no good reason why mankind should be perceived as special. Human life is cheapened. We can see this in many of the major issues being debated in our society today: abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, the increase of child abuse and violence of all kinds, pornography (and its particular kinds of violence as evidenced in sadomasochism), the routine torture of political prisoners in many parts of the world, the crime explosion, and the random violence which surrounds us.
In communist countries, where materialism and humanistic thinking have been dominant for over several generations, a low view of people has been standard for years. This is apparent not only in the early legislation about abortion but also in the thousands of political prisoners who have been systematically oppressed, tortured, and killed as part of the very fabric of communism. Now, however, as humanism dominates the West, we have a low view of mankind in the West as well. Let us consider some more of the direct and indirect results that this low view of people has brought into our society in the noncommunist world.” ~ Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?
Yet instead of acknowledging this, the culture attacked the person rather than the core argument, much to Schaeffer’s lament:
“For example, all you have to do is to consider the way the media treated Dr. C. Everett Koop. Dr. Koop is one of the foremost pediatric surgeons in the United States, and among other honors, he was given the highest honor of the French government for his pioneering work in pediatric surgery. But when he was nominated for the position of Surgeon General, he was attacked by the secular media with total disregard for objective reporting — and with total disregard for his brilliant humanitarian record as a surgeon. Those in the media holding the humanist world view could not tolerate Dr. Koop’s voice to be heard — they could not tolerate his articulate defense of the sanctity of human life to be expressed.” ~ Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto
Do we still value life?
Now is as good a time as any to remember what Dr. Koop and Dr. Schaeffer were striving for. For the church and culture to wake up and sees the cultural monolith that advances on every front… advancing a cause that will always be inhuman and always jeopardize life and human dignity. Today, we must ourselves find ways to speak around the political marginalization that has marginalized us much as those who are being put to death. Our compassion must be evident and our message must not fail to sound, as life depends upon it.
Dr. C. Everett Koop with Ronald Reagan. Dr. Koop was delayed in his confirmation by Ted Kennedy because of his film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? 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 […]
In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]
Dr. C. Everett Koop with Ronald Reagan. Dr. Koop was delayed in his confirmation by Ted Kennedy because of his film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Watch the film below starting at the 19 minute mark and that will lead into a powerful question from Dr. C. Everett Koop. This 1979 film is WHATEVER […]
Dr. Koop was delayed in his confirmation by Ted Kennedy because of his film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 1) Uploaded by DeBunker7 on Feb 21, 2008 READ THIS FIRST: In decline of all civilizations we first see a war against the freedom of ideas. Discussion is limited […]
Dr. C. Everett Koop was appointed to the Reagan administration but was held up in the Senate in his confirmation hearings by Ted Kennedy because of his work in pro-life causes. I was thinking about the March for Life that is coming up on Jan 20, 2013 and that is why I posted this today […]
High resolution version (11,426,583 Bytes) Description: The photograph is signed by President Ronald Reagan with the inscription “To Chick Koop, With Best Wishes.” Chick, from chicken coop, was the nickname Koop gained will attending Dartmouth College in the mid-1930s. Koop maintained a cordial relationship with President Reagan, despite his disappointment over Reagan’s refusal to address […]
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
Dr. C. Everett Koop I was thinking about the March for Life that is coming up on Jan 20, 2013 and that is why I posted this today Secular leaps of faith 39 Comments Written by Janie B. Cheaney August 15, 2011, 2:17 PM I’m willing to cut Ryan Lizza some slack. His profile […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning […]
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making […]
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again for one liberal blogger […]
Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again […]
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” On 1-24-13 I took on the child abuse argument put forth by Ark Times Blogger “Deathbyinches,” and the day before I pointed out that because the unborn baby has all the genetic code […]
PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL from Pro-life march in Little Rock on 1-20-13. Tim Tebow on pro-life super bowl commercial. Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. Here is another encounter below. On January 22, 2013 (on the 40th anniversary of the […]
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really […]
Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3 The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue […]
Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3 The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue […]
On January 20, 2013 I heard Paul Greenberg talk about the words of Thomas Jefferson that we are all “endowed with certain unalienable rights” and the most important one is the right to life. He mentioned this also in this speech below from 2011: Paul Greenberg Dinner Speech 2011 Fall 2011 Issue Some of you […]
It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer. I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]
Even though I don’t own that many guns, I’m an unyielding supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, I use gun control as a quick and simple of way of deciding whether politicians meet minimum standards of acceptability.
I’m not a single-issue voter, though, since politicians have to pass a number of tests (unwavering opposition to tax hikes, support for entitlement reform, etc) before receiving the Dan Mitchell Seal of Approval. I guess this is why 99 percent of them fail.
But I’m digressing. Back to the topic at hand, my support for private gun ownership and constitutional freedoms has motivated me to post several videos in the past few years.
Here’s another video to add to the collection. It’s a bit snarky and not exactly subtle, but I’ve dealt with almost every one of the arguments you’ll hear from the “liberal.” Enjoy.
This message in my interview is particularly appropriate since I just gave a speech earlier today to the European Resource Bank conference and cited this OECD and BIS data to explain why it is just a matter of time before most nations in Europe descend into Greek-style fiscal crisis and social chaos. When that happens, it’s preferable to be one of the people with guns (unlike the unfortunate Brits when the riots struck the U.K.).
P.S. For those of you who appreciate humor, these gun control posters that have been very popular (here, here, here, here, and here). I’ve also posted amusing images of t-shirts and bumper stickers on gun control (here, here, and here).
P.P.S. If you want something that defends the 2nd Amendment in a simple, but inspirational, fashion, you’ll really like this powerpoint presentation.
____________
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
It may have been “twenty years ago today, Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play,” as the Beatles sang about in their 1967 album “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” but I in fact wish to go back one more decade. Old folks like me will well know what I am talking about here.
Exactly thirty years ago today, ex-Beatle John Lennon was shot to death outside of his New York apartment. It is always a great tragedy when anyone’s life is cut short prematurely. Undoubtedly his worldwide legion of fans will be especially saddened today.
He of course is not the only rock celebrity to die young. On occasion I give a talk on popular music. I point out just how many of these lives have been cut short. Indeed, it is incredible just how many rock stars and pop stars have died young. Here are just a few of the more well known cases:
Brian Jones (Rolling Stones), died July 1969, age 27, drug related
Jimi Hendrix, died September 1970, age 27, drug overdose
Jim Morrison (Doors), died July 1971, age 27, drug overdose
Janis Joplin, died October 1970, age 27, drug overdose
Duane Allman (Allman Brothers Band), died October 1971, age 25, motorcycle accident
Elvis Presley, died August 1977, age 42, drug related
Bon Scott (AC/DC), died February 1980, age 33, alcohol related
Stevie Ray Vaughan, died August 1990, age 35, helicopter crash, but drug and alcohol problems
Freddy Mercury (Queen), died November 1991, age 45, AIDS related
Kurt Cobain (Nirvana), died April 1994, age 27, suicide
Michael Hutchence (INXS), died November 1997, aged 37, drug and alcohol related suicide
Michael Jackson, died June 2009, age 50, drug related
There are in fact many hundreds of other such examples. One can ask just what it is about the rock scene that results in so many premature deaths. But let me get back to John Lennon. He was clearly a colourful figure, as well as part of one of the great pop song-writing teams of all time (Lennon and McCartney).
He certainly caused major waves back in 1966 when he said in an interview, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink … We’re more popular than Jesus now – I don’t know which will go first, rock and roll or Christianity.” Well, he did not quite get that right. Christianity is still here, while he and the Beatles are not.
It seems that he never did come to know the one true God who created him, and the Redeemer who died to save him. Indeed, he is also noted for his rather silly atheist anthem, “Imagine”. It begins this way:
Republicans are jumping on the news that participation in the food stamps program hit a new record of 46.7 million individuals in June (about one in seven Americans). In a sluggish economy, an increase in food stamps participation is to be expected. Thus, it’s fair to hold up the increase in food stamps usage as being emblematic of the Obama administration’s failed economic policies. In addition, the president’s 2009 “stimulus” bill increased benefits and eligibility.
What Republicans don’t want to acknowledge is the role they played in expanding the food stamps program before President Obama ever took office. The 2002 farm bill—passed by a Republican-controlled House and signed by Republican President George W. Bush—expanded the food stamps program. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page correctly noted yesterday, “The food-stamp boom began with the George W. Bush Republicans, who expanded benefits in the appalling 2002 farm bill.”
The 2008 farm bill further expanded the program. However, on this the Journal lets the GOP off the hook when it says “But the supercharger was a 2008 bill out of the Pelosi Congress that goosed eligibility and rebranded the program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to reduce the stigma of being on the dole.” Although Bush vetoed that farm bill (he didn’t cite the increase for food stamps in his veto message), congressional Republicans were instrumental in enabling the “Pelosi Congress” to override it. In the House, 99 (out of 195) Republicans joined most Democrats in voting to override the veto. In the Senate, only 12 Republicans voted to sustain Bush’s veto.
One of those Republicans who voted to override Bush’s veto—and who also voted for the 2002 farm bill—is Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, has been a chief critic of the growth in food stamps under President Obama. Sessions has been particularly critical of the administration’s efforts to “recruit” new food stamps recipients. For example, a “Community Outreach Partner Toolkit” produced by the USDA in 2011 that suggests throwing a “great party”:
Host social events where people mix and mingle. Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a “true/false” quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.
It’s probable, however, that the food stamps outreach is being driven by the bureaucrats at the USDA. To Sessions’s credit, he acknowledges as much in a press release on the USDA’s recent cessation of radio ads designed to attract Spanish-speaking individuals to the program. It’s important to note that these “radio novellas” were produced during the Bush administration. Similarly, a partnership with the Mexican government to make Mexican nationals more aware of U.S. welfare programs—including food stamps—was signed by Bush’s agriculture secretary Ann Veneman in 2004.
The Obama administration certainly deserves to be heavily criticized for the growth in government dependency. But attacks from Republicans (e.g., Newt Gingrich calling President Obama the “food stamps president”) have been too disingenuous. Yes, Republicans are now calling for the food stamps program to be cut, but given their culpability in its growth—and the fact that it’s an election year—it’s hard to view their sudden discovery of religion as anything more than standard politics.
Addendum: Here’s Chris Edwards’ recent chart showing the growth in food stamps spending under presidents Bush and Obama:
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
High resolution version (17,798,002 Bytes)
The Daily Hatch 