I wish Romney had reworded his comment on the 47%. It is true that our country is getting too dependent on the government, but it could have been handled differently. I don’t think he meant it like you said he did either!!!
Mitt Romney is catching a lot of flak for his surreptitiously recorded remarks about 47 percent of voters automatically being in the Obama column because they don’t pay federal income tax and thus see themselves as beneficiaries of big government.
To augment on those remarks, here’s where Romney was wrong.
Yes, we have almost half of households not paying federal income tax, and I recognize that there’s a risk on an unhealthy political dynamic if people begin to think they get government for free, but those people are not necessarily looking for freebies from government. Far from it. Many of them have private sector jobs and believe in self reliance and individual responsibility. Or they’re students, retirees, or others who don’t happen to have enough income to pay taxes, but definitely don’t see themselves as wards of the state.
If Romney wanted to be more accurate, he should have cited the share of households receiving goodies from the government. That number also is approaching 50 percent and it probably is much more correlated with the group of people in the country who see the state as a means of living off their fellow citizens. But even that correlation is likely to be very imprecise since some government beneficiaries – such as Social Security recipients – spent their lives in the private sector and are taking benefits simply because they had no choice but to participate in the system.
Moreover, there are some people who pay tax and don’t receive programmatic benefits, yet are part of the proverbial moocher class. Many government bureaucrats obviously would be on that list, as would some union members, trial lawyers, etc.
However, even though Romney picked the wrong statistic and overstated the implications, he indirectly stumbled on a key issue. As seen in both BIS and OECD data, the U.S. is at risk of Greek-style fiscal chaos at some point in the not-too-distant future because of a rising burden of government spending.
I have no idea what share of the population today actually is part of the dependency class that Mitt Romney inarticulately described, but I don’t think I’m going out on limb to say that it has grown during the Bush-Obama years and it will continue to expand.
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
The on-going debate over raising the debt ceiling has focused on many areas of disagreement between Democrats and Republicans but none bigger than the Republican determination not to raise taxes. Many pundits credit this to the political power of Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform who have spent years collecting “No Tax Increase” pledges from Republican candidates. Others attribute Republican intransigence on taxes to a near religious belief in supply side economics, a school of thought founded by economist Arthur Laffer and journalist Jude Wanniski in the late 1970s.
The true seeds of this attitude toward tax increases, in my view, actually go back farther and can be traced to an even nobler pedigree. The real inspiration for this conviction comes from the late Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. It is only by understanding Friedman’s reasoning and his values that one can fully understand why Republican refuse to see spending cuts and tax increases as simply two sides of the same budget-balancing coin.
This was not always the Republican, or even the conservative, position. During the 1950s, it was Democrats who advocated tax cuts to stimulate the economy and President Eisenhower who insisted “we can never justify going further into debt to give ourselves a tax cut at the expense of our children.”
In 1964, the eventual Republican nominee for president, Senator Barry Goldwater, voted against the so-called Kennedy tax cuts (actually passed after Kennedy’s assassination the previous year) because he was convinced the resulting deficits would be inflationary. Even after losing the presidential election to President Lyndon Johnson in a landslide later that year, Goldwater predicted a Republican comeback, telling U.S. News & World Report that a no-win war in Vietnam and high inflation would prompt a backlash against the Democrats two years later (he was right on both counts).
So if Eisenhower and Goldwater represented Republican orthodoxy in the 1950s and ‘60s, what happened? In large part, it was an intellectual revolution in conservative/libertarian thought prompted by economist Milton Friedman. While Friedman rejected the simplistic Keynesian (and later supply-side) notion that tax cuts automatically stimulate the economy, he believed that higher taxes were bad because they led to more and bigger government, which he was convinced at best led to waste and at worse to greater government control over our economy, our lives and our freedoms.
In 1967, three year’s after the Kennedy tax cuts, the Johnson Administration was already running huge deficits thanks to the a combination of Great Society social programs and the Vietnam War. Writing in his regular Newsweek column on August 7, 1967, Friedman expresseded his concern that this would soon lead to higher taxes, using an analysis that would become familiar to his readers over the years:
“.If we adopt such programs, does not fiscal responsibility at least call for imposing taxes to pay for them? The answer is that postwar experience has demonstrated two things. First, that Congress will spend whatever the tax system will raise—plus a little (and recently, a lot) more. Second, that, surprising as it seems, it has proved difficult to get taxes down once they are raised. The special interests created by government spending have proved more potent than the general interest in tax reduction.
“If taxes are raised in order to keep down the deficit, the result is likely to be a higher norm for government spending. Deficits will again mount and the process will be repeated.”
Sure enough, a year later a 10% income tax surcharge was enacted by Congress to cut the deficit and fight inflation. His prediction having been confirmed, Friedman returned to the subject in another Newsweek column dated July 15, 1968. He now described a familiar pattern of how Democrats used the traditional view of fiscal conservatism to convince Republicans to help pay for the Democrats’ own profligate spending:
“The standard scenario has been that the Democrats—in the name of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, or the Great Society—push through large spending programs . . . generally against the opposition of the Republican leadership. The spending programs not only absorb the increased tax yield generated by the ‘fiscal drag,’ they go farther and produce deficits.
“The Democrats then appeal to the Republicans’ sense of fiscal responsibility to refrain from cutting tax rates or, as in this case, to raise them. The Republicans cooperate, thereby establishing a new higher revenue base for further spending. The Democrats get the ‘credit’ for the spending; the Republicans, the ‘blame’ for the taxes; and you and I pay the bill.”
Fast forward seven years, when Republican President Gerald Ford was proposing a tax cut to stimulate the economy during a brief recession. As an economist who believed monetary, not fiscal, policy was the best way to keep the economy on a stable path to growth, Friedman did not believe the proposed tax cut would have its intended stimulatory effect. He explained why in another Newseek column on July 15, 1975 but went on to say:
“Yet I must confess that I favor tax cuts—not as a cure for recession but for a very different reason. Our basic long-term need is to stop the explosive growth in government spending. I am persuaded that the only effective way to do so is by cutting taxes—at any time for any excuse in any way.
“The reason is that government will spend whatever the tax system raises plus a good deal more—but not an indefinite amount more. The most effective way to force each of us to economize is to reduce our income. The restraint is less rigid on government, but it is there and seems to be the only one we have.
“So hail the tax cut—but let’s do it for the right reason.”
Another six years went by and now it was the newly-elected president, Ronald Reagan, who was proposing a large, multi-year tax cut to get the economy moving. At the time, he was also proposing off-setting spending cuts (which we all know didn’t happen). Friedman wrote yet another Newsweek column dated July 27, 1981, refuting objections to the plan by liberal economists while also discounting many of the claims of supply-siders in the Reagan Administration. Friedman still supported the tax cuts, of course, and explained why liberals were suddenly worried about deficits:
“The analysis so far treats government spending and taxes as if they were two independent entities. They clearly are not. We know full well that Congress will spend every penny—and more—that is yielded by taxes. A cut in taxes will mean a cut in government spending. And there is no other way to get a cut in spending.
“That is the real reason why the big spenders and the big inflationists of the past have suddenly been converted to fiscal conservatism and to preaching the virtues of fighting inflation. They know that a multi-year tax cut will force multi-year spending reductions. They hope that a one-year tax cut will quiet public agitation and allow them to revert next year to their high-spending ways.”
Taken as a whole, these excerpts from columns written for a popular magazine by a Nobel laureate economist between 1967 and 1981—44 to 30 years ago—spell out precisely the philosophy that today motivates many Republicans in and out of Congress to firmly oppose any tax increase as part of a deficit reduction or budget-balancing plan proposed by Democrats.
Like Milton Friedman, they are firmly convinced that any taxes they raise will ultimately result in increased government spending. They believe government spending necessarily translates into more and bigger government. They believe the federal government is already too big, threatening not just the health of the economy but their freedom and way of life as well.
One can argue with Friedman’s assumptions as well as the conclusions he draws from them. But until those on the other side—including the President, Democratic congressional leaders and the media—understand the reasoning and motivations behind the anti-tax sentiments of Republicans from Capitol Hill to the Tea Party activists, it’s hard to imagine anything more than a temporary truce in the battle being waged over the budget.
Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine article below.
When I think of Edith Schaeffer then I think of L’Abri. Here is an article from Wikipedia on L’Abri:
L’Abri (French for “the Shelter”) is an evangelical Christian organization founded by Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith in Huémoz-sur-Ollon, Switzerland on June 5, 1955. They opened their alpine home as a ministry to curious travellers and as a forum to discuss philosophical and religious beliefs.
Development of L’Abri
Schaeffer became an evangelical Christian as a teenager. In 1947, Francis and Edith moved to Switzerland to work as missionaries for the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM) in Europe.[1][2] Following a spiritual crisis in 1951,[1] and disagreements with theologians such as Carl McIntire, Schaeffer and his wife left IBPFM in 1955, to pursue their dream of working with young people.[3] They moved to Huémoz, where they established L’Abri, without assurance that it would be successful.[4] Word-of-mouth soon led to an increasing stream of visitors, with one period in the summer of 1956 averaging 31 visitors per week.[5] International distribution of tapes of Schaeffer’s lectures also helped to raise awareness of Schaeffer’s work.[6]
As it grew, the L’Abri organization came to own and operate several buildings in Huémoz.[7] It came to include four kinds of people: short-term guests; students, who divided their time between study and communal work; workers, who participated in discussions and the work of hospitality; and members, who were part of the decision-making process.[7]
Schaeffer died in 1984,[8] but the ministry he founded has continued to grow. Now, L’Abri has operations in a number of different countries, each staffed by workers who encourage visitors to study and consider their religious and philosophical beliefs. As of 2011, L’Abri has residential “Study Centres” in the United States (Minnesota and Massachusetts), Canada, South Korea, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden, as well as the original centre in Switzerland. It also has non-residential “Resource Centres”, run by friends of the organisation, in Brazil and Germany.[8][9]
A L’Abri centre is not a retreat, a commune, or a seminary, although it incorporates elements of all of these. Visitors are referred to as students, and personal study remains central to L’Abri’s work, but there are no fixed “classes” or courses. Rather students (who may spend any time from one day to a whole “term,” usually 2–3 months, at L’Abri) meet regularly with a member of staff to discuss the issues they wish to study, and are recommended resources from L’Abri’s library of books and of recorded lectures and talks by L’Abri staff and others. A student’s day is divided into “study time” and “work time.” During “work time,” a student will help with the necessary activities of the community—-cooking meals, cleaning, maintenance etc. This division is based on Schaeffer’s constant emphasis that Christianity, and the work of L’Abri, were not only intellectual but had to incorporate all of life, and that a demonstration of “Christian Community” was as central to L’Abri’s work as the intellectual demonstration that he believed could be made of the reasonableness and truthfulness of Christian belief.[citation needed]
The importance of Schaeffer’s belief in the relevance of Christianity to all of life can be seen in many aspects of L’Abri. Even so, some articles have suggested there is less of an emphasis on serving philosophical skeptics and more of an emphasis on serving disaffected evangelicals. In a recent article on the group, Molly Worthen suggests that students today come with very different questions, and that they tend to look at the politicized evangelical faith that Schaeffer helped create with suspicion.[10]
The L’Abri day revolves around communal meals, often used as an opportunity for formal open discussion, and students are encouraged to pursue interests in art, music and literature.[11]
The L’Abri study center in Rochester, Minnesota also organizes bi-annual “L’Abri Conferences” in the USA and Canada at which L’Abri staff from across the world and other speakers supportive of the vision of L’Abri speak and lead seminars on a wide range of topics.[17]
In 2005, a conference was held in St. Louis, Missouri to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the organization, and over 1,000 attendees were present to hear speakers such as Os Guinness, Harold O. J. Brown, and Chuck Colson.[18]
(Francis did a great job in his film series “How Should we then live?” in looking at how humanism has affected art and culture in the Western World in the last 2000 years. My favorite episodes include his study of the Renaissance, the Revolutionary age, the age of Nonreason, and the age of Fragmentation.)
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
A Comparison of Two Book Titles and the Thirty Years that Separate Them
by John Fischer
I have always considered myself fortunate to have been in the formative years of my life when Francis Schaeffer was having his greatest impact on evangelical Christianity. His visits to Wheaton College, two of which I witnessed as a student there during the last half of the sixties, became the watermarks of my college experience. It was during those visits that Schaeffer presented the material that was to later become his most comprehensive philosophical work, The God Who Is There.
Almost 30 years later, in an issue of Christianity Today that celebrated Schaeffer’s influence in an article by Michael Hamilton, I noticed a coincidental ad for a book by Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, titled,The God You’re Looking For. The similarity of these titles made their key differences stand out. Something about these two titles speaks volumes about the way thinking has changed over the years that separate their respective releases.
The God Who Is There Francis Schaeffer spoke to a generation that cared enough about the concept of God to despair over its loss. In Schaeffer’s analysis, drug use, pornography, existentialism and even madness were not merely sin and debauchery for the fun of it, they were the logical conclusions of philosophical ideas that had been crossing the ocean from Europe for decades and surfacing in the works of American artists, writers and film makers. Piece by piece, the old ways of thinking were being stripped away by philosophers and theologians until God was nothing but a memory. And yet a memory was more than nothing, and it was that memory of God and propositional truth that Schaeffer was always seeking to retrieve.
Francis Schaeffer spoke to young people from families that still prayed to God, in a nation that still pledged its allegiance under Him. Many of these students made the long trek to L’Abri, Switzerland, to find if there was any validity to their childhood beliefs about God and the meaning of human existence. So when Schaeffer gave credibility to both, and even a historical context as to why they had doubted God in the first place, many were persuaded to believe.
Thirty years ago, it was enough to prove the existence of God and the reliability of the scriptures. Belief would follow the evidence. The God Who Is There assumes that people care enough to do something about God should it prove to be a rational thing to believe in him.
Reading Schaeffer again today makes one long for such a mind-set. It also makes despair seem almost attractive when compared to the moral relativism and self-absorption that characterizes most of western culture in the nineties. Would that people cared enough today to actually despair. Would that truth meant enough for people to lament its absence. Would that proving the rationality of the existence of God would assume the embracing of that God as its logical consequence.
The God You’re Looking For We now live in a generation that lies beyond the rational boundaries of Schaeffer’s day–even beyond despair. Hope is fantasy. Truth is whatever anyone wants to make it. God is a concept to be used only when useful. Religion is a preference. There is nothing beyond self to appeal to; only the subjective desires and felt needs of human existence are left. The God Who is There is about as relevant to today’s thought processes as Francis Schaeffer’s knickers. Not that the truth is no longer true, it is just that the postmodern mind does not possess the thought-forms necessary to grasp truth as absolute. Announce the God “who is there” today, and people will want to know which God you are talking about. On which channel? Representing which ethnic group? Which religion? And if he is “there”, just where is he? Is he out on video? And before anything else, people would want to know what this God could do for them, for whether God is or is not there, the operative question is, what can belief in God do for me?
In this context, The God You’re Looking For is a fitting title. There is simply no other way to address a postmodern mind except by way of the expressed needs, longings and desires of people. And the churches who are adopting this approach are currently finding much success. But in doing so, are we not now facing a new dilemma for ministry?
Schaeffer himself has stated that each generation of the church “has the responsibility of communicating the gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought-forms of that setting.” [Escape from Reason, p.94] But what if the language and thought-forms of a generation are inept at holding the kind of belief systems necessary to sustain a relationship with God over the long haul? Then we will have to teach people to think in thought-forms that are foreign to them‹that are outside their cultural experience. To some degree then, in teaching people how to follow God, we must now teach them how to think all over again.
For instance, we keep hearing how the postmodern mind cannot grasp the idea of absolutes. Well then, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the postmodern mind is incapable of grasping the idea of God. Something has to give here: either the postmodern mind, or the God we preach, and I don’t think God is very interested in making too many adjustments in his nature or his character in deference to our inadequate minds. People, in order to grow in their understanding and relationship with God, are going to have to somehow graduate from a God they once met on one level, to a God who demands they stretch their minds in order to meet him in ways they have never thought of before.
Actually, this process is not unlike one common to all believers. We all begin a relationship with God on a subjective level through our own personal salvation. But our growth (or sanctification) is the process of discovering that God does not exist for us; we exist for him. “True worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth (John 4:23)”–speaking not of my truth, but of his truth to which I adjust myself and my thought processes. New believers have come to God because he has met their need; mature believers come to God regardless of their need. They come because he is God and he is worthy of their worship and allegiance.
The Current Task If I am right about this, then the current task that faces the church is a difficult one that poses some rather ticklish questions. Having convinced people to embrace a God who is relevant and contemporary, will Christians still love God when they find he can also be irrelevant and old and sometimes difficult to follow? What do we do when the God who is there is not the God anyone wants? Do we still preach him? Will we be tempted to continue giving people a God they are looking for when the God who is there no longer holds their interest?
One can readily see how addressing this generation with the truth about God is a more formidable task than it was thirty years ago. If people no longer have the thought-forms to grasp absolute truth, then we have to teach and challenge them until God forms in them a new mind. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2)” takes on new significance in this regard. It will take a new mind to even believe.
In reality, both these titles are true and necessary. The God You’re Looking For is a good way to start people thinking about God today, but at some point, the God you are looking for has to become The God Who Is There–the God who was there all along, and the God who will be there forever. He is the absolute we will all eventually bump into, regardless of our ability or inability to conceive of him. This is the God who deserves our praise whether or not he fits our description or meets our needs. Somewhere in me, I hear God saying to us all today, “If you are looking for God, I am the God you get, because I am that I am.”
The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story Pt.1 – Today’s Christian Videos The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story – Part 3 of 3 Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the […]
THE MARK OF A CHRISTIAN – CLASS 1 – Introduction Published on Mar 7, 2012 This is the introductory class on “The Mark Of A Christian” by Francis Schaeffer. The class was originally taught at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS by Dan Guinn from FrancisSchaefferStudies.org as part of the adult Sunday School hour […]
The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story Pt.1 – Today’s Christian Videos The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story – Part 3 of 3 Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the […]
The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story Pt.1 – Today’s Christian Videos The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story – Part 3 of 3 Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the […]
The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story Pt.1 – Today’s Christian Videos The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story – Part 3 of 3 Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the […]
The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story Pt.1 – Today’s Christian Videos The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story – Part 3 of 3 Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the […]
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 […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE 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 […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 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 abortion, […]
When I was became interested in public policy, I thought Jimmy Carter was the epitome of a bad President. But as I began to learn economics, I realized that Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson also were terrible and belong in the Hall of Fame of bad Presidents.
Or I guess we should call it a Hall of Shame (you can click on the image to see my selections).
Whatever we call it, I’m now at the point where I realize that Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt are the charter members. Why? Well, because they were the first Presidents to reflect the progressive ideology.
More specifically, they shared the ideology of the progressive movement, which saw a powerful and activist central government as a force for good – a radical departure from the views of America’s Founding Fathers, who hoped that the Constitution would protect people by keeping government very small.
Not surprisingly, Barack Obama is in that “progressive” tradition, even to the point of attacking the views of the Founding Fathers in a recent speech at Ohio State University.
I commented on this issue in this Fox News segment.
Dan Mitchell Commenting on Why Citizens Should Distrust Washington
That short clip only scratches the surface.
For more detail, here are some excerpts from a column by Andrew Napolitano. Like me, he isn’t impressed by the President’s statolatry.
It should come as no surprise that President Obama told Ohio State students at graduation ceremonies last week that they should not question authority… And he blasted those who incessantly warn of government tyranny. Yet, mistrust of government is as old as America itself. America was born out of mistrust of government. …Thomas Jefferson…warned that it is the nature of government over time to increase and of liberty to decrease. And that’s why we should not trust government. In the same era, James Madison himself agreed when he wrote, “All men having power should be distrusted to a certain degree.” …The reason Obama likes government and the reason it is “a dangerous fire,” as George Washington warned, and the reason I have been warning against government tyranny in my public work is all the same: The government rejects the natural law because it is an obstacle to its control over us. …Because the tyranny of the majority can be as dangerous to freedom as the tyranny of a madman, all use of governmental power should be challenged and questioned. Government is essentially the negation of liberty.
Napolitano also warns against majoritarianism in his column, which is music to my ears.
Though I’m not sure our battle today is with majoritarianism or the progressive ideology.
Our real challenge is redistributionism. Far too many people think it is okay to use the coercive power of government to obtain unearned benefits. And that’s true whether the benefits are food stamps or bailouts.
Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 16, 2010http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/16/new-video-pork-filled-spending-bill-just-… Despite promises from President Obama last year and again last month that he opposed reckless omnibus spending bills and earmarks, the White House and members of Congress are now supporting a reckless $1.1 trillion spending bill reportedly stuffed with roughly 6,500 earmarks. ________________________ Below you see an […]
Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 16, 2010http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/16/new-video-pork-filled-spending-bill-just-… Despite promises from President Obama last year and again last month that he opposed reckless omnibus spending bills and earmarks, the White House and members of Congress are now supporting a reckless $1.1 trillion spending bill reportedly stuffed with roughly 6,500 earmarks. ________________________ Below you see an […]
President Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton attending the Dinner Honoring the Nation’s Governors. 2/22/87. ronald reagan debates walter mondale in 1984 Presidential race second clip Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent article on Ronald Reagan and the events that transpired during the Reagan administration, and I wanted to share it […]
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN trailer Uploaded on Dec 27, 2007 The Orpheum Film Series will present a special laughs-and-scares double-feature for Halloween, featuring both James Whale’s original 1931 “FRANKENSTEIN” and Mel Brooks’ 1974 send-up, “YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN”. The fun starts at 7pm on Halloween night, October 31! ________________________________ Authentic Frontier Gibberish young frankenstein – deleted scene 4 – […]
Barack Obama would lose badly to Ronald Reagan!!! The Spirit of Reagan Is Still With Us: The Gipper Crushes Obama in Hypothetical Matchup April 13, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Barack Obama has stated that he wants to be like Reagan, at least in the sense of wanting to be a transformational figure. But almost certainly he has […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline Republican.The abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson left the abortion business because he realized that unborn babies could feel pain. It is truly a dirty business.On 3-5-13 on the Arkansas Times Blog I posted:I am glad to see more people on this blog are taking the pro-life view. The other day I read these words on here:
“It is a great poverty to kill an unborn child so you may live as you wish.” ~ Mother Teresa of Calcutta, India
People have to decide if their selfishness is worth taking a life.Is there any consideration of these unborn babies? I have put an editorial cartoon that shows 9/11 and compares it to what is happening to the unborn.
I wanted to pass along a portion of the excellent article “Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by the Truth about Abortion.” (Feb 11, 2011)
LifeNews.com Note: Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. This article previously appeared in Public Discourse:
Within a year after Roe v. Wade, however, Nathanson began to have moral doubts about the cause to which he had been so single-mindedly devoted. In a widely noticed 1974 essay in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, he revealed his growing doubts about the “pro-choice” dogma that abortion was merely the removal of an “undifferentiated mass of cells,” and not the killing of a developing human being. Referring to abortions that he had supervised or performed, he confessed to an “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”
Still, he was not ready to abandon support for legal abortion. It was, he continued to insist, necessary to prevent the bad consequences of illegal abortions. But he was moving from viewing abortion itself as a legitimate solution to a woman’s personal problem, to seeing it as an evil that should be discouraged, even if for practical reasons it had to be tolerated. Over the next several years, while continuing to perform abortions for what he regarded as legitimate “health” reasons, Nathanson would be moved still further toward the pro-life position by the emergence of new technologies, especially fetoscopy and ultrasound, that made it increasingly difficult, and finally impossible, to deny that abortion is the deliberate killing of a unique human being–a child in the womb.
Don’t you all worry your beautiful minds. Somewhere in this house I have a recipe Ma gave me for my birthday years ago. It’s handwritten in pencil on a yellowing scrap of paper. I assume it came from one of our old whore houses down by the river here in Fort Baptist.
It’s a recipe for a toxic douche designed to kill all those wiggling spermies in hopes of not ever having to have a coat hanger shoved up tender working va-jay-jays and remember….back then coat hangers were made of wood. Splinters! Ack!
I’m still thinking about the old movie Spartacus…..if we all opened abortion clinics in our kitchens ain’t no one could put us all out of business and trying to police the whole state…__________
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 video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.___________
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY
The reader may wonder why I would write an article about the “last great modern theologian” in a publication that so proudly dedicates itself to post-modern thought and inquiry. In truth, we should not be so arrogant about what the modern legacy has left to us.
The contributions of faithful disciples and scholars from previous generations can be of great worth.
I would go so far to say even a book review of Augustine?s The City of God or Aquinas?s Summa Theologica would fit nicely into what we are trying to accomplish at Next-Wave. The goal is to re-communicate the worth of our Christian tradition and experience to a postmodern culture. However, the work of Francis Schaeffer is so recent; it is questionably whether his thoughts even need to be re-communicated to a new culture.
I would like to persuade that Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) stands at the melting point of the modern and postmodern discussion. In some ways, every “modern” theologian after him is increasingly out of date. And any “postmodern” theologian ahead of him was unfortunately out of place in discussing issues of spiritual importance. Why? Schaeffer was deeply concerned with a shift in epistemology (how we know what we know). He observed the shift during the 1960s. While he never labeled it as such, this shift is what we now call postmodernism. (Note: This term was already in existence when discussing art, architecture, philosophy, and literature; theology really didn?t jump into the discussion until postmodern thought proliferated in the 1980s, 3 years after Jean-Francois Lyotard?s The Postmodern Condition.)
Francis Schaeffer is the last of the modern theologians, but not the first of the postmodern theologians. He still strongly argued for rationalism in apologetics. By this, I mean Francis Schaeffer believed one had to be converted to the appropriate set of presuppositions, namely the law of non-contradiction (“A” cannot be “non-A”), first, in order to believe and experience the God of Christianity. The Bible is viewed as a propositional argument from God to His people, which can only be accepted by the correct presuppositional vantage point. Francis Schaeffer also was skeptical of the increase of Platonism in culture (identified with mysticism) and leaned more towards an Aristotelian view of reality (identified with rationalism). These ideas mark a clear modern thought pattern.
Despite his modern view, Schaeffer offers us many insights in ministering to any culture of believers. And a thorough study of his work would benefit any believer greatly.
How I met Francis SchaefferWhen I first came to college, I experienced a massive faith crisis. Raised in a consumer friendly, experience crazed society, I doubted the reasonableness of the Christian system. My understanding of God did not find a home in rationality. I could not give my life to a system, just because someone told me if I say a prayer– God would come down from distant Heaven and have coffee with me (metaphorically speaking, of course).
I needed answers. I read Josh McDowell?s More than a Carpenter and C.S. Lewis?s Mere Christianity. Both of these inspirational works satisfied my craving for common sense soundness? until I became a student of philosophy. Anyone who has studied philosophy knows that “common sense soundness” does not go very far. I needed more. I needed philosophical answers. Sorry, but Lewis and McDowell just do not cut it against thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre, Schopenhauer, Russell, Husserl, and Heidegger. These philosophic heavy weights are playing different games and speaking a different language. Francis Schaeffer, however, knew the language; and I am convinced he could stand toe to toe with any of them.My campus minister Keith Boone introduced me to the work of Francis Schaeffer. He encouraged me to read the trilogy: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. These three books outline the basic premise of any arguments he would develop in later books. Schaeffer was culturally, philosophically, and scripturally informed. He wrote with compassion and fire. I often stayed up late in the night reading and pondering his ideas. Each sentence blowing my mind and causing me to re-evaluate my own hidden agendas for Christianity. He moved me to understand a deeper and truer Gospel than what I had known before.And in my own postmodern superficiality, I will admit, I also liked him because he just looked cool.Francis Schaeffer has the image of an eccentric academic freak. I really resonated with that– call it my personal image goal. Yes, he is the reason why I grew a goatee. (I can hear my friends, who know me too well, laughing out loud.)All of his writings exist to prove a basic, and yet radical point, God is really there. He?s not just a concept or an idea. He really exists. But not only that, God is speaking to us. Schaeffer believed humankind was created with dignity and is still formed in the “image of God.” We all have worth and value which is innate with our standing in the universe. We are not just specks of dust on a larger speck of dust circling the sun. From this point, true restoration can take place in the souls of men and women.Francis Schaeffer wrote to provide intellectual healing to a world in transition. He realized the old models were fading. There are some points we should observe in communicating Schaeffer?s timeless message to postmodernism.Francis Schaeffer was concerned with being relevant to his timeFrancis Schaeffer wrote because he saw the ideas of logical positivism and existentialism being introduced into popular culture in dangerous ways, displacing God from our understanding. Schaeffer noted in his article “How I Have Come to Write My Books” (Inter-Varsity Press 1974): “In my reading of philosophy, I saw that there were innumerable problems that nobody was giving answers for? the Bible, it struck me, dealt with man?s problems in a sweeping, all-encompassing thrust.” Schaeffer knew these philosophic problems affect the everyday life of believers. These ideas have a flow of influence from philosophy to art to music to general culture. Schaeffer wrote to get ahead of the ideas to positively affect general culture, replacing deceptive philosophy with the answers of scripture.Schaeffer?s goal was not to become “modern,” but to minister to the modern person. Likewise, in an ever-changing society, we should be careful not to adopt postmodernism, but instead, give eternal hope to those people lost in the disparity of postmodernism. “Relevancy” has become a popular sell-word for churches nowadays. But this word has to imply more than just using movie clips in a sermon. Relevancy strikes to the heart of how we think and live.Francis Schaeffer addresses the issue of a shift in epistemologyEpistemology may not be everyone?s favorite topic of discussion, but for Schaeffer this issue was of utmost importance. He recognized if our thinking is off, everything else will surely to follow. Schaeffer observed a shift in epistemology which involved a false belief that God is simply a concept or theory. We take an unfortunate existential “leap of faith” which is not rooted in the direct experience of God. We do not see God working in daily life. Schaeffer cited Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) as the initial cause of this trend. According to Schaeffer, Aquinas separated nature from grace in theology. The spiritual world and the earthly world became separated. The earthly world became what was “real” and the spiritual world was the “hypothetical.”Today we still encounter in the consequences of this shift, especially when referring to a secular versus spiritual society. We create a Christian sub-world that was never meant to exist. Instead of being in the world, we live the hypothetical faith world. We fail to realize that everything is spiritual. Everything is bathed in God?s touch and presence. “For you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” (Revelation 4:11, quoted at the beginning of Schaeffer?s The God Who Is There.) Schaeffer hoped to give his readers understanding of a world in direct connection with a God who is really present.
Art and culture mattered to Francis Schaeffer
Francis Schaeffer was deeply concerned with how art impacted our thoughts and actions. In the trilogy, Schaeffer displays a thorough knowledge of art history. He shows how art has developed along a theme of separation between nature and grace. Schaeffer also is well versed on the contemporary arts, musicians, and filmmakers. He carefully analyzes these influences. Interesting footnote: He was quite possibly the first theologian to intelligently evaluate the punk revolution in Europe.
Schaeffer wrote passionately about the Christian?s ability to worship God through art. In the day of the great evangelical preachers, when such a strong emphasis was placed on teaching, Schaeffer ideas of art as worship reflected the wisdom of the ancients and were simultaneously revolutionary. Schaeffer?s book How Should We Then Live gives a good overview on his ideas about art.
Among postmodern pilgrims everywhere, the subject of art and worship is a very popular topic of conversation. Francis Schaeffer introduces this idea to a new generation of disciples, an invaluable resource to any community interested in created art with meaning and transcendence.
L?Abri: An example of the “community apologetic”
When Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith moved to Switzerland, they decided to open their house to any believers traveling through. These travelers could come for healing, conversation, instruction, and service. They re-named their home L?Abri, French for “the Shelter.” People from all over came to be part of this transit community. Remember my campus minister Keith Boone?
L?Abri expanded to a number of branches throughout the world. Even today, L?Abri receives people. His wife Edith wrote the book L?Abri telling of this community?s development.
Francis Schaeffer did not just live as a hermit scholar. He worked daily with people, and frequently strangers, sharing with them God?s message of peace at L?Abri. He believed strongly that community is the place where God speaks. Not only that, but community is its own apologetic for the Gospel. People can live together in meaningful relationships, sharing, working together with the Spirit?s power.
What is community? How do we “get” it? Schaeffer?s L?Abri was a Christian response to the hippy communes that sought desperately to have community and meaning. L?Abri can also illustrate our own need to re-define church and the gathering of the saints. L?Abri was not just a Sunday morning institution. We need to carefully evaluate the condition of our own local churches from a programmatic institution to a community of believers.
The lasting impact of “The Last Great Modern Theologian”
In my opinion, Francis Schaeffer is the last of the relevant and the truly great modern theologians. He stood at the melting point between modern and postmodern. While he never addresses postmodernism, Schaeffer?s influence will be long lasting in the postmodern culture we minister in. A culture that looks longingly for heroes and role models, beyond the celebrities and pop stars.
This past summer I worked at a camp in Glen Rose, Texas. On the first day, I met a boy named “Schaeffer.” He wore a Cowboys cap to cover his blonde matted hair and his big grin revealed two missing teeth. As he was making his bunk, trying to smooth out the sheets while standing on the bed (a difficult task no doubt), I commented to his mother about Francis Schaeffer. She smiled and said, “I know about Francis, we named our son after him. Francis really influenced my husband and me, when we first met.” Imagine that? Schaeffer was my favorite camper for that week. Maybe it was his grin, maybe there is just something in a name.
For more information on Francis Schaeffer:
I believe “The Shelter” www.rationalpi/theshelter.comis the best Schaeffer site on the Internet. The site contains weekly quotes, a list of books and articles, biography, photos, and links. The Shelter also has an email list, which I am a part of. If you sign up, every week they send a Schaeffer quote, plus some links on web from all areas of interest.
DAVID HOPKINS is program director at the Wesleyan Campus Ministry in the small college town of Commerce, Texas. David attends the university there as an English/Philosophy major. After completing his undergraduate work, David plans to go to Fuller Theological Seminary. He eventually hopes to be involved in Church planting and development. David was raised in the Methodist tradition; however, he currently is part of the Axxess Community at Pantego Bible Church [www.axxess.org].
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE 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 […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once […]
The opening song at the beginning of this episode is very insightful. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
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 […]
This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of […]
Great article on Schaeffer. Who was Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer? By Francis Schaeffer The unique contribution of Dr. Francis Schaeffer on a whole generation was the ability to communicate the truth of historic Biblical Christianity in a way that combined intellectual integrity with practical, loving care. This grew out of his extensive understanding of the Bible […]
The Heritage Foundation has issued the following statement in response to Senator Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) comments about our new study on the cost of amnesty.
Senator Rubio’s family story is a testament to the American Dream. His parents’ ability to scrimp and save and sacrifice for their children is something in which we all take pride. The story of the Rubios, in fact, makes the point we make with our study. They represent the immigration model that worked for America for centuries and one we need to get back to.
Senator Rubio’s parents came here in 1956, almost a decade before the introduction of the Great Society programs that laid the foundation of the modern welfare state. Over the following four and a half decades, our government has added layer upon layer of government involvement in our lives, creating a dependency that undermines self-respect and self-reliance.
That dependency has been devastating to our society; it has shattered communities, families, and individuals. It is now threatening the American Dream. This is true for all—native and immigrant alike, lawful or unlawful. We do not blame immigrants for being entrapped by that system; we blame the people who created that system. We especially blame people who now seek to expand it.
This is why Heritage has been leading the fight on the need to recreate upward mobility for low-income and middle-income Americans. The current welfare and entitlement systems lower opportunity and make it all but impossible for people to climb the ladder of success.
Heritage has worked with Senator Rubio on numerous issues, and we admire him. He is right: Our study is “an argument for welfare reform and entitlement reform.” He cannot pretend, however, that this already herculean task will be made easier after we have added millions of new people to a failing entitlement system. The time to fix it is now. We are ready to work with him and any man and woman of either party who realizes the urgency of our plight.
As Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, once said:
It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. You cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which a resident is promised certain minimum level of income or a minimum subsistence regardless of whether he works or not produces it or not. Well then it really is an impossibility.
I like Milton Friedman’s comments on this issue of immigration and Ron Paul and Dan Mitchell do well on the issue too. Question of the Week: What’s Your Take on the Immigration Debate? April 7, 2013 by Dan Mitchell A reader from overseas wonders about my views on immigration, particularly amnesty. I confess that this is one of […]
Two very wise men below: Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 1 (1 of 2) Professor Friedman looks at the dynamics of illegal immigration. See part two:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4http://Libertypen.com_______________________________________ Back in 1980 I read the book “Free to Choose” by Milton and Rose Friedman. I noticed that Milton made it clear both in […]
Part 5 Milton Friedman: I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary […]
Where the USA’s economic success come from? An Amazing Story of Economic Success May 5, 2013 by Dan Mitchell I’ve written before about the remarkable vitality of Hong Kong and Singapore, two jurisdictions that deserve praise for small government and free markets. Pretending to be a jet-setter in Monaco I have also praised Switzerland because of policies such as genuine federalism […]
Why are despicable people sometimes subsidized by taxpayers? Are You Happy that Your Tax Dollars Subsidized the Tsarnaev Family? April 28, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The bad news is that there are despicable and evil people seeking to kill innocents. The worse news is that some of these pathetic excuses for protoplasm are subsidized by […]
Obama is up to his old tricks again and here comes the White House’s political motivated chicanery with the FAA Privatization Is the Best Response to the FAA’s Deliberate Attempt to Inconvenience Air Passengers April 24, 2013 by Dan Mitchell In an interview with Neil Cavuto earlier this month, I mocked proponents of big government for […]
Sad case indeed. Immigration, Terrorism, and Welfare Tourism April 24, 2013 by Dan Mitchell So we’ve now learned that the Boston Marathon terrorists were welfare bums. Why am I not surprised? “Thanks for the handouts, suckers!” Heck, it was only a couple of days ago that I announced the Moocher Hall of Fame and included terrorists from theUnited Kingdom and Australia (and […]
President Obama is from Illinois and he is running our nation like the politicians of Illinois run their state with lots of wasteful spending and too many high taxes. It’s Tax Freedom Day, So Congratulations (if You Don’t Live in New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, etc) April 18, 2013 by Dan Mitchell It’s time to celebrate. […]
The IRS agents are as well thought of as Zacchaeus who was the tax collector that only Jesus was nice to. Here is a fine article by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. Some Good Cartoons if You’re Suffering from Post-Tax Return Traumatic Stress Disorder April 16, 2013 by Dan Mitchell For the past 30 or so […]
Sad that the government wastes so much of our money and it wants more from us under President Obama. An Aggravating Reminder of Government Waste on Tax Day April 15, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Remember the Spending Quiz from 2010, which asked people to guess whether absurd examples of government waste were true or false? Well, […]
The videos published here are for pure enjoyment, these videos are very inferior quality to the quality of the original DVD, please let us bless and buy the original DVD. This video is only here on youtube to advertise the job. there’s the address for the official store. God bless:
God Fixation is the latest project from a band that has stood the test of time in Christian music. Produced again by master-crafters John and Dino Elefante, along with Petra founder Bob Hartman, the album releases slightly more than one year after the successful Petra Praise 2: We Need Jesus, which launched a popular title cut as the theme song for Calvary Chapel’s Harvest Crusades.
The new album’s title, named after one of its songs, expresses a statement that Petra lead singer John Schlitt says rings through to the heart of where the band stands. “It says that we are fanatics over Jesus,” Schlitt says. “We are hooked on Him. In these times where that isn’t necessarily the cool thing to say or the cool way to say it. I don’t know any other way to put it. When we realize who Jesus really is, our eyes become fixated on him, and it changes our whole way of living.”
Petra is Christian music’s top selling group, with more than six million albums sold, two of those projects having been certified gold. It has earned three Grammy Awards, nine Dove Awards and more than two dozen CCM Christian Reader’s Poll Awards. And after 26 years of music ministry, God speaks through Petra the same way He did at the band’s inception, according to Schlitt: “That Jesus Christ is Lord, and He has a plan for your life. Why try it without Him?” Hartman, who retired from touring in 1995 and now spends his time as the band’s executive producer and songwriter, founded Petra in 1973. In addition to Schlitt, Petra includes drummer, Louie Weaver and guitarist/keyboard player, Kevin Brandow, guitarist Pete Orta and bassist, Lonnie Chapin. Schlitt and Weaver have been with the band for 12 and 16 years, respectively, while the other three members joined in 1997.
Despite numerous membership changes in the band’s lineup across more than a quarter of a century, Petra has maintained an uncompromising stance in its music and point of view. “We knew where we were suppose to go and we’ve kept in that direction,” says Schlitt. “We’ve always tried very hard to not be so staunch in our musical style that we were only going to do it one way and if people didn’t like it, tough. We’ve tried to be very open to what musical styles are popular at the time. Our music is a tool to get across the messages we believe in.”
Until just two years ago, Petra was an “older band” that might not have connected as well with younger audiences as it does today. Then came the addition of Brandow, Orta and Chapin, which Schlitt sees as the unfolding of God’s plan for Petra in the late 1990’s and beyond. “It added some fresh blood to Petra, and kind of a new mindset. And with Louie and myself, there’s a certain maturity here – so it’s almost the better of two worlds. I think anybody that’s seen us live can see that we’re very entertaining to the younger generation.” The evolution in band membership illustrates the power of the Lord’s ministry. Notes Schlitt, “Ministry has lasted longer than any band Petra has put together. The Christian band has changed for the ministry, whereas if it was another scenario if the ministry changed for the Christian band – then you’d start depending on man, and you’d start depending on yourself, and there will come a time when you’d fail. God never fails; He knows what He wants to do.”
VISITOR COMMENTS
When I first got into PETRA I liked to listen to AC DC, Pink Floyd, and stuff like that. I remember thinking to myself, why don’t they have any christian artists like that? Someone told me about PETRA so I blindly bought their THIS MEANS WAR! album. When I got it and listened to the first track, I knew God had answered my prayer.
Paul
* * *
Petra, they are really neat! My dad says he grew up listening to them. I like their song “Beyond Belief” best. I also like them because I can turn the volume up really loud & my mom goes crazy! But I mostly like them for the words. Tamara
* * *
I grew up with Petra ever since I was adopted from Colombia. I love Petra, they inspire me and they also helped me in my bad times. My mom and my brother enjoy them. I always have to listen to their music almost everyday. I don’t know why but there old song the original “This Means War” song is the best! It hypes me up! Their newer songs are the best too! So if you are checking out other christian bands, then check out Petra, you’ll like them forever and you will become a long time fan, like me! ~~Big Petra Fan, Angelina!!~~
* * *
To all the members of Petra, I just want to let you know that you guys are great. God uses you to get to us the teenagers in a very special but new way. P.S. I have 3 of your CDs and hope to have more.
BY: A friend you do not know.
* * *
I OWE MY LIFE TO CHRIST JESUS, BUT I OWE MY NEW LIFE TO PETRA. I WAS SAVED AT THERE CONCERT IN ANIHEM CA IN OCT OF 1997. SINCE THEN MY LIFE HAS BEEN SO FULL. I MET A WONDERFUL CHRISTIAN MAN WE MARRIED AND NOW HAVE A WONDERFUL DAUGHTER SAVANNAH. PETRA REACHED DOWN INTO MY SOUL AND PULLED ME FROM MY DEPRESSED, AND CHRISTLESS WAY OF LIFE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WONDERFUL MINISTRY. I CAN NOT WAIT TELL THE NEXT CONCERT. I PROMISE TO BRING 20 PEOPLE WITH ME. GOD BLESS YOU ALL FOR THE THINGS YOU DO FOR US AND THE LORD.
LISA
* * *
I have to say that Petra is my favorite group. Their music has touched my heart for years. I am 43 years old and my young daughters 12 and 10 love their music as well. Thank you, Petra, for staying true to your calling. Thank you, God, for the anointing you have placed on them. Keep them true to what you called them out to be. In Jesus’ name, Darlene
* * *
I think that it is great that Petra has used their talents for the Lord and I think that they are the greatest christian rock band…and I don’t even really like rock music, but everytime I hear them, I turn the radio up and jam to it! I was at their concert that they played in Augusta, GA at the greenjackets game and I loved it!
Now I am going to their concert in Sandersville, GA for 2 reasons…1) because I absolutely love their music 2) my dad’s band (Safe Haven) is opening for them.
God Bless you, Petra. keep up the good and hard work!
all my love in the name of Jesus,
Brytt, 18, North Augusta, SC
* * *
Petra is awesome – their Praise Songs record was my first real intro to praise music and contemporary Christian music- I didnt know Christian music could sound like that –it was and is one of my favorite cd’s !!! I hope to see them when they come to our area Petra- keep rockin’ amd praisin’ God Bless !!!!!
a Virginia Fan
* * *
Well, I have to say, I’ve liked them for some time now. The very first tape I got of theirs was ‘Praise 11’. They really know how to make you just scream ‘Halelujah!’ I really want to see them but they never seem to be anywhere close by for me. My youngest daughter just loves the music. Infact one of our teachers at our school/church is a christian singer. Her and her husband have tapes out and preform different places around here. She also is in charge of the Jr. choir in which my daughter is part of. A couple weeks ago they sang “I will call upon the Lord” in church. They did it in a round too. They also have done “Lord I lift Your name on High”. Of course while they were singing it you wanted it to rock just a bit more but there are alot of elderly people at the church that, well, may not appreciate it that way.
Oh and one of my all time favorites is “Its our turn now!” that they (Petra) team up with Carmen. I love the video of that one.
Thanx and God Bless. Lori Corso from Kenosha, Wisconsin
* * *
I have been a Petra fan since “NOT OF THIS WORLD” I believe that Bob Hartman is a good song writer and has contributed a geat deal to the Christian Music industry. I like the old and the new stuff .KEEP UP THE GOD WORK !!!!! Thanks, PHILLIP
* * *
Petra is one of my husand’s and my favorite group. They really touch are souls and hearts. When we listen to them we can feel the holy spirit around us. We like it when they play fast songs and slow to really worship our Lord. Petra is really awesome. W e would like to see them in concert. I think they will put on a really good concert. My husband is the one who started to listen to them and then he got me to listen to them.
We like all of their songs, they really hit us, and make us realize that there is a Lord of all and he is our master. And talk to him about your problems or anything you want . Petra always says put God first and we have done that and we thank you for it .
Thank you, David & Cochran from Southern California
* * *
I just want to say to everyone that the awesome group PETRA has really inspired me and touches my life everyday. I got into their music like about twelve years ago. My brother would always listen to them since he was young and he got me into them. I love their type of music because every song that they write and play, it touches me all the time. So who’s ever wanting to know which band plays awesome, It’s PETRA.
Keith Green – Asleep In The Light (live) Uploaded on May 25, 2008 Keith Green performing “Asleep In The Light” live from Estes Park ’78 Russ Taff – Praise The Lord 1983 (Live) For Those Tears I Died – Children of the Day Uploaded on Apr 22, 2007 Children of the Day singing For […]
My favorite Christian music artist of all time is Keith Green. Sunday, May 5, 2013 You Are Celled To Go – Keith Green Keith Green – (talks about) Jesus Commands Us To Go! (live) Uploaded on May 26, 2008 Keith Green talks about “Jesus Commands Us To Go!” live at Jesus West Coast ’82 You can find […]
AMY GRANT tekstovi 800 x 533 | 127KB | tekstovi-pesama.com Michael W. Smith & Amy Grant – El Shaddai – (Live) Uploaded on Feb 15, 2011 MICHAEL W. SMITH with AMY GRANT – EL SHADDAI – (LIVE) — From the album “LIVE IN CONCERT – A 20 YEAR CELEBRATION 2004″ — The View Chatting with Amy Grant in […]
Don Francisco – He’s Alive Adam Where Are You w/ASl & Lyrics – Don Francisco Gotta Tell Somebody Don Francisco In South Africa – “Jehoshaphat” I Could Never Promise You w/ASL – Don Francisco Dolly Parton – He´s alive (Full song) I saw Don Francisco in concert in Memphis in the late 70′s with my good […]
RISE AGAIN – DALLAS HOLM Dallas Holm Harvest Interview 2008 Come unto Jesus My friend David Rogers invited to a concert at First Assembly of God church in Memphis in the late 1970′s and we got to hear Dallas Holm sing and David Wilkerson speak. Here is some info on Dallas Holm from his website: […]
I never thought I’d be quoting Chuck Norris about Obama’s tax policy, but he has a nice rant that includes a collection of the President’s more offensive statements.
Sort of akin to the list I put together in this post (which also includes some preposterous statements by Secretary of State Clinton).
Obama claims to support free enterprise, self-reliance and individual initiative, but his actions say otherwise. He has forced on America a federal takeover of health care, increased oppressive regulation of private business and sustained massive government spending, and he has expanded our nation’s welfare rolls by 32 percent. He even attacks corporations while accepting campaign funds from the same ventures he condemns. (Ironically, Obama has accepted nearly $120,000 from Bain Capital executives, is the top recipient of funds from BP, has investments in Chinese companies and through a Cayman Islands trust, and staffed his own Cabinet with wealthy CEOs.) In 2008, Obama famously told Joe the Plumber of his plans to confiscate money from small businesses: “It’s not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you — that they’ve got a chance at success, too. … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” In 2010, he arrogantly remarked, “I do think at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.” In July, Obama attacked business again, saying, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” (As I explained in an earlier column, that “somebody” to whom Obama referred was in fact the federal government.) In other acts of class warfare, the president embraced the anarchist Occupy movement, pitted labor unions that heavily fund his campaign against the private sector and blatantly condemned capitalism. Meanwhile, Obama likes to say his tax increases would affect only “millionaires” and “billionaires,” but the actual hikes would hit couples with incomes of $250,000 or higher.
The final point about disingenuous use of the English language seems trivial, but shouldn’t. We’re so used to politicians lying that we give them a pass for medium-level dishonesty.
President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
Edward Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard, is the author of “Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier.”
Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) — Under the current political compromise the U.S. debt ceiling will eventually be raised by $2.1 to $2.4 trillion dollars says Bloomberg Government analyst Scott Anchin. The cuts will only lower the nation’s debt to GDP ratio to 76.2% by 2020 says Bloomberg Government analyst Christopher Payne. (Source: Bloomberg)
We have stared hard into the abyss of a national default, and the close call with financial Armageddon is starting to make a balanced-budget amendment look good.
A stringent restriction on public borrowing, if properly crafted, offers the hope for more fiscal responsibility, less wasteful spending and a slightly less terrifying budgetary process. Yet while a well-crafted amendment looks a little better, there are enormous challenges in creating a sensible measure that balances fiscal restraint with the ability to adapt to new circumstances.
Balanced-budget amendments have been in circulation for decades; Minnesota Representative Harold Knutson proposed a constitutional limit on borrowing back in 1936. In 1982, the Senate approved an amendment requiring that “prior to each fiscal year, the Congress shall adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for that year in which total outlays are no greater than total receipts,” but that proposal died in the House. In 1995, the House passed an amendment requiring that “total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year;” it failed in the Senate.
The possibility of a balanced-budget amendment is back, and the case today seems a lot stronger than it did in the 1980s and 1990s. I rarely favor changing the Constitution, which can lead to fits of folly like the 18th Amendment that brought about prohibition. Moreover, Congress can run a balanced budget any time it wants simply by cutting spending and raising taxes.
Broken Process
Throughout most of my life, the debt has seemed manageable and the budgetary process seemed to work, more or less. The robust deficits of the Reagan era were reduced with a bipartisan deal signed by President George H.W. Bush. During the Clinton years, the combination of a centrist Democrat who cared about bond markets and an empowered Republican House led to budget surpluses.
During those years, it seemed clear that deficits were rarely the real enemy. The big social costs from big government came from wasteful spending, not from financing that spending with taxes today or tomorrow. If you spend $100 million on a bridge to nowhere, it doesn’t much matter if that bridge is paid for with taxes or debt.
The best argument for balanced budgets is that forcing governments to pay for their spending with current taxes will produce less wasteful spending. The past decade has done much to illustrate the allure of spending without taxation in Washington. The rotation of the parties was supposed to cycle gently back and forth between Democratic generosity and Republican thrift, but that model disappeared in the 1980s. Instead, Democratic taxing and spending is succeeded by Republican spending and not taxing.
Political Pandering
And it’s hard to give any government much credit for cutting taxes without cutting spending. That’s not political courage; it’s pandering.
If we were confident that federal spending was delivering great bang for the buck and that the U.S. was going to be much richer in the future, then perhaps high interest payments could be accepted as the cost of a better tomorrow. But there is plenty of federal spending that could be cut, such as agricultural subsidies, new highway construction and subsidies for homebuilding inTexas. Surely, not every dollar of defense procurement is absolutely necessary.
State Beneficiaries
Another reason to favor more federal fiscal restraint is that we could use a better balance between state and federal spending. Over the past 50 years, the federal government has become heavily involved in financing infrastructure, even when those projects overwhelmingly serve in-state users and could be funded with user fees. Why is it so obvious that the federal government has a role in funding rail between Tampa and Orlando, or a big tunnel in Boston?
Washington’s prominence is explained primarily by the federal government’s ability to borrow, and not by any inherent edge it has in infrastructure development. Federalizing expenditures breaks the connection between the projects’ funders and the projects’ users. Any instance when we’re spending other people’s money is an invitation for waste.
States and localities saddled with balanced-budget rules are relatively parsimonious and spend a fair amount of time debating even relatively modest public investments. That’s far more desirable than the federal government’s freedom to distribute billions without imposing taxes on voters.
Responding to Downturns
The current system’s pathologies should leave us open to the possibility of a new budgeting procedure, but the literature on state balanced-budget rules teaches us that the devil is in the details. In many cases, the state rules have weak teeth, and do little. When they do work, they can seriously constrain a state’s ability to respond to downturns.
During the recent collapse, the federal ability to borrow has thrown a lifeline to local governments, leading to greater preservation of important local services, such as education. Although the federal government could benefit from a little less budgetary freedom, the states either need more ability to borrow during downturns or more investment in rainy-day funds.
Any federal balanced-budget amendment should allow the government to spend more than it collects in taxes during wars and recessions, with the understanding that it will spend less during peaceful times of plenty. If the budget is to be balanced, it should be balanced over the business cycle, not year by year.
State of Emergency
But the crafting of such an amendment won’t be easy. The most natural out, perhaps, is to allow Congress to declare an economic emergency, which would temporarily eliminate the budgetary straightjacket. But then what’s to prevent lawmakers from declaring a perpetual state of emergency?
Another worry is that freezing the federal ability to borrow will create more pseudo-borrowing through semi-public entities, such as the mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I dreaded the prospect of default and would love to see a system that ensures the books are regularly balanced except during extreme times. A balanced-budget amendment might make that happen, but it would have to be done right. It would be far better if we could just count on Congress to live within its means, but the fiscal experience of the last decade has made such optimism untenable.
(Edward Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard University, is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is the author of “Triumph of the City.” The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Edward L. Glaeser at eglaeser@harvard.edu.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net.
The Daily Hatch 
