Monthly Archives: October 2013

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Francis Schaeffer’s wife Edith passes away on Easter weekend 2013 Part 1 (includes pro-life editorial cartoon)

October 26, 2013 – 1:09 am

The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story Pt.1 – Today’s Christian Videos

The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story – Part 3 of 3

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (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 look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? (Full-Length Documentary)

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

Francis Schaeffer: What Ever Happened to the Human Race? (Full-Length Documentary)

Part 1 on abortion runs from 00:00 to 39:50, Part 2 on Infanticide runs from 39:50 to 1:21:30, Part 3 on Youth Euthanasia runs from 1:21:30 to 1:45:40, Part 4 on the basis of human dignity runs from 1:45:40 to 2:24:45 and Part 5 on the basis of truth runs from 2:24:45 to 3:00:04

________________

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.

A Tribute to the Life of Edith Schaeffer, 1914-2013

Thousands were led to belief in the importance of prayer by her weekly prayer times with students

Written by Marvin Padgett | Monday, April 1, 2013

As a personal note, no one, aside from my parents, more deeply affected the way I see God, his universe, his people and all people than did the Schaeffers. Their deep and sincere belief that Jesus Christ was Lord of all—all, all—carried me along throughout all my life. It was a deep and gracious thing that the Lord did to all me and mine to know these two great saints personally.
Edith Schaeffer passed into the presence of her Lord and Savior, whom she had served well and tirelessly for many years, on March 30th. Born Edith Rachel Merritt Seville on November 3, 1914, the fourth child of George and Jessie Seville, while her parents were serving in China with the China Inland Mission, her life began and ended as a missionary. She attended Beaver College in Glenside PA. After meeting in a church youth group, the Schaeffers married in 1935. Mrs. Schaeffer has four children, Priscilla, Susan, Deborah, and Frank; fifteen grandchildren, thirty-four great-grandchildren, and two great-great grandchildren.

She was possessed of a love of and zest for life. As a child she saw her father accommodate himself to the local Chinese culture rather than expecting it to accommodate itself to Western ways. This marked her life as the Schaeffers later defended and demonstrated their belief in the dignity of the lives of all human beings. Both firmly believed that all human beings were created in the image of God and were more like God than any other creature or thing in the entire universe.

Mealtimes were not cafeteria style, but served on finely set tables with folded napkins. There is a direct line from this treatment of people to the later controversies over human lives being taken in the horror of abortion. All death was seen as a horror, but hardly ever more so than in abortion.

She gave her life in service to God and all those created in his image. Schedules were never as important as the needs of the people in front of her. Planes missed, dignitaries kept waiting, and artificial imperatives all quailed before the dignity of the person with her at the moment.

Thousands were led to belief in the importance of prayer by her weekly prayer times with students. Prayer, public or private, convenient or inconvenient, came first. She truly believed that she was communicating with her Lord and God. Dr. and Mrs. Schaeffer were “constant in prayer” beyond anyone the writer has known.

Mealtimes were long and full of discussion. While the students were served elegantly, they were expected after the meals to clean up the mess that was made in the work of those who had prepared these feasts. We live after the Fall and before the coming of the Lord. In this time, work has to be done. She saw all godly work was as dignified and necessary. People were always to be treated well.

The ministry of L’Abri, cofounded by the Schaeffers, was the result of conflicts with a mission agency. This led the Schaeffers to begin L’Abri, a residential Christian community, that began in 1955 in a remote Swiss village and became one of the most important Christian works of our time. Beginning without a commitment to an American style growth mentality, the Schaeffers employed prayer for their needs in order to demonstrate to a watching world that the God they served was able to supply all their needs.

Honest answers to honest questions became a by-word at L’Abri. Men and women, young and old, flocked to an obscure Swiss village to find answers to their questions. A hard fought determination to the very concept of Truth and that the Bible was “breathed out by God,” led the Schaeffers to be dogged in their beliefs, and to demonstrate by word and deed that the God of the Bible “is there and is not silent.” All this work was permeated by loving patience for the difficult ones in their midst that they might be won.

Edith Schaeffer wrote nineteen books, many bestsellers, including L’Abri, and her Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Gold Medallion winners, Affliction (This was used by the writer as an important tool in graduate school.) and The Tapestry: the Life and Times of Francis and Edith Schaeffer.

As a personal note, no one, aside from my parents, more deeply affected the way I see God, his universe, his people and all people than did the Schaeffers. Their deep and sincere belief that Jesus Christ was Lord of all—all, all—carried me along throughout all my life. It was a deep and gracious thing that the Lord did to all me and mine to know
these two great saints personally. SDG!

Marvin Padgett is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He is currently the Acting Executive Director of Great Commission Publications.

_____________

L’Abri was a community where Francis and Edith Schaeffer got to meet vistors like Michele Bachmann and Timothy Leary and talk to them about the issues of the day. Here is a portion from the PBS website dedicated to the program FRONTLINE:

In his lengthy profile of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann in this week’s New Yorker, Ryan Lizza examines how her religious beliefs have shaped her political philosophy. A key figure is Francis Schaeffer, whom Bachmann described as “a tremendous philosopher” and “very inspirational.”

Who is this influential man, not widely known outside of the conservative evangelical community?

FRONTLINE profiled Schaeffer in episode six of God in America, our co-production with American Experience. The above clip explores his role as a catalyst who inspired evangelicals’ re-entry into American politics in 1970s, including that:

  • He was “an embodiment of the counterculture”: With his long hair, goatee, knickers and knee socks, Schaeffer cut a striking figure. L’Abri (“the shelter”), the spiritual community he founded in the Swiss Alps, attracted “lots of long-haired hippies, coming through with backpacks,” his son Frank, who remembers Timothy Leary coming to L’Abri on a pilgrimage, told us.
  • His documentary films inspired thousands of evangelicals — including Bachmann — to enter the political arena: His first series, How Should We Then Live (watch here) targeted what Schaeffer saw as the culture’s great evil — secular humanism. “Humanism is man putting himself at the center of all things, rather than the creator God,” Schaeffer explains in the film. He goes on to argue that surrendering to humanism would lead to the moral decay of society.
  • He persuaded Jerry Falwell that evangelicals needed to take up the cause of abortion: Falwell and other evangelicals initially viewed Roe v. Wade as “a Catholic issue.” Even Schaeffer himself initially didn’t see abortion as a political cause. He was persuaded to the cause by his son Frank (who, after impregnating his girlfriend at age 17, became a passionate abortion foe) and his good friend Dr. C. Everett Koop. Schaeffer’s second film series Whatever Happened to the Human Race (watch here) is a powerful indictment of abortion, euthanasia and indifference to life: “If in these last decades of the 20th century, the Christian community does not make a determined stand on the issue of each individual to have a right to live and a right to be treated as made in the image of God, rather than a machine, I believe we have failed in the greatest moral challenge of this century. The choice is yours to make.”

__________________________

(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.)

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the USA and this editorial cartoon touches on this issue.

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

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

The secret the founders knew about how to cut from the budget is limiting spending and allow the economy to grow!!!!

October 25, 2013 – 12:53 am

Sen. Mike Lee on Gun Control, Immigration and Internet Sales Tax

Published on Apr 23, 2013

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) talks about legislative battles in Congress: gun control, immigration reform, and the Internet sales tax. |

The secret the founders knew about how to cut from the budget is limiting spending and allow the economy to grow!!!! Chris Edwards has looked back in the early days and he concluded, “The success of Jefferson—and his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin—in reducing debt stemmed not from cuts to overall spending, but from simply ensuring that revenue increases from a growing economy went toward paying down the debt rather than expanding the government.”

August 14, 2013 3:22PM

Thomas Jefferson’s Sequester

By Chris Edwards

As federal policymakers gear up to battle over federal spending and the budget sequester this Fall, it is interesting to consider past efforts at restraint. President Calvin Coolidge, for example, held the federal budget down to about $3 billion seven years in a row, while cutting taxes and bringing the federal debt down from $22 billion to $17 billion.

President Thomas Jefferson pursued his own rough sequester, and substantially reduced the federal debt that had accumulated under the Federalists. In a 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry, Jefferson said “I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt.” Jefferson more or less followed through over his two terms. He kept total federal spending at about $9 to $10 billion, although his downsizing efforts were thrown off by various contingencies.

Figure 1 shows the basic story. Federal spending rose substantially under Presidents George Washington and John Adams, but then flattened under Jefferson between 1801 and 1809. Federal debt fell from $83 million in 1801 to $57 million in 1809. The drop in debt was impressive, especially considering that the government swallowed $13 million of added debt during that period from the Louisiana purchase. The success of Jefferson—and his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin—in reducing debt stemmed not from cuts to overall spending, but from simply ensuring that revenue increases from a growing economy went toward paying down the debt rather than expanding the government.

One lesson for today is that all we need to start getting our huge federal debt under control is some modest spending restraint. Large cuts would be better, but even holding overall spending roughly flat for a number of years would start the debt tumbling downward. Looking at CBO’s latest projections, for example, if policymakers held federal spending steady at this year’s $3.5 billion, the rise in revenues in coming years would be enough to balance the budget by 2016.

Let’s take a closer look at Figure 1, where each of the spending spikes tells a story. The spike in 1794-1795 stemmed from military expenses to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The spike in the late-1790s was the Army and Navy build-up under President Adams. The spike in the middle of Jefferson’s tenure was partly from payments to Britain of about $1 million a year for three years as part of the earlier Jay Treaty. The costs of the Barbary War also added about half a million dollars to spending in both 1804 and 1805.

Looking at revenue, Jefferson and Gallatin enjoyed a gusher from import duties, which generated the bulk of federal receipts. Other federal revenues came from land sales and internal taxes, including whiskey taxes. Jefferson and Gallatin were the first advocates of “starve-the-beast” policies. Jefferson promised that he would repeal all internal taxes if elected, and he followed through in 1802. Internal taxes raised just eight percent of revenue, but Jefferson and Gallatin observed that they required a big bureaucracy to collect, imposed compliance costs on citizens, and abused civil liberties. So the Jefferson-Gallatin policy was to kill the most inefficient and odious type of tax, which is also a good lesson for tax reformers today.

Unfortunately, the War of 1812 sidetracked the Jefferson-Gallatin plans on tax and debt reduction for a number of years. The Embargo Act of 1807 slashed federal revenues, and internal taxes were reimposed in 1813 to help fund the war. However, internal taxes were repealed again under President James Monroe in 1817, and they were not reimposed until the Civil War. So the Jeffersonian tax reform approach did have long-lasting influence.

It’s a similar story with debt. Jefferson and Gallatin hated government debt, but their long-term plan to eliminate it was sidetracked by the war. After reaching a low of $45 million in 1812, federal debt soared to $127 million by 1816. But again, Jeffersonian ideas had lasting influence, and federal debt started falling again under President Monroe. Federal debt was eliminated by 1835, and although it started rising again after that, it remained at low levels until the Civil War. Between 1816 and 1860, the federal budget was balanced 30 out of 45 years.

Figure 2 compares annual average spending under the one term of John Adams and the two terms of Thomas Jefferson. Interest was by far the largest expense, and it was only toward the end of Jefferson’s second term that it started falling as the debt was reduced. The Jefferson-Gallatin spending cuts were mainly focused on the Army and the Navy. The increases to Foreign Affairs and Miscellaneous under Jefferson were mainly due to extraordinary expenses, including the Barbary War and the Jay Treaty payments. The “Civil List” was the basic federal bureaucracy, and it remained fairly flat between the two administrations. Finally, the Indian Department had an increase under Jefferson, which I imagine stemmed from the government continuing to sign new treaties, which usually entailed grabbing Indian land in return for long-term federal aid to the tribes.

Here are some sources of historical budget data and analysis:

Related posts:

Do we need another stimulus?

July 9, 2013 – 12:00 pm

President Obama wants to do another stimulus, but will that work? A Perfect Holiday Album for the Keynesians on Your Christmas List December 6, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I’m understandably partial to my video debunking Keynesian economics, and I think this Econ 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity does a great job of […]

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

Economist Antony Davies’ video “Does Stimulus Spending Work?” (includes editorial cartoon)

July 9, 2013 – 1:54 am

  Stimulus spending down in 2009 did not help at all. Does Stimulus Spending Work? After the housing bubble burst, the Bush and Obama administrations turned to stimulus in an effort to “create jobs.” Does such spending lead to economic improvement? Prof. Antony Davies examines the data to see how increases in federal spending relate […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog that demonstrate what Obama is doing to our economy (stimulus cartoon)

May 29, 2013 – 1:11 am

I have put up lots of cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control. Classic Cartoon on So-Called Stimulus Is Amusing and Economically Accurate February 6, 2012 by Dan Mitchell People often ask […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, President Obama, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Obama’s stimulus failed according to his own figures

January 17, 2013 – 9:37 am

The president wants to raise taxes on the job creators and he thinks he can get more jobs that way. Dan Mitchell brings up some great points about lowering government spending will help us not become Europe. Using the White House’s Own Benchmark, I Give Obamanomics an F on CNBC August 7, 2012 by Dan Mitchell […]

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

Videos by Cato Institute on failed stimulus plans

December 1, 2012 – 12:55 am

In this post I have gathered several videos from the Cato Institute concerning the subject of failed stimulus plans. _____ Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy […]

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

The stimulus program did not help, but getting government out of the way would!!!!

November 13, 2012 – 1:07 am

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ The stimulus program did not help, but getting government out of the way would!!!! Take a look at this great article that goes over several examples […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Videos by Cato Institute on failed stimulus plans

November 1, 2012 – 7:09 am

In this post I have gathered several videos from the Cato Institute concerning the subject of failed stimulus plans. _____ Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Founding Fathers, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 438) A suggestion to cut some wasteful spending out of the government Part 5 (includes editorial cartoon)

October 25, 2013 – 12:38 am

(Emailed to White House on 3-15-13.)

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.

I know that you are looking at cutting spending in order to try and get deficit reduction. I am glad that you have that as your goal and I wanted to pass on a suggestion on where to cut spending.

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 cut wasteful spending out of the government and here is another fine suggestion from the Heritage Foundation.

Todd Thurman

March 12, 2013 at 5:40 pm

Newscom

The massive spending bill, or continuing resolution, released by the Senate this week continues spending on programs which are inappropriate or wasteful and fails to adopt good policies in many areas. Here’s a rundown of some of the worst offenders in the Senate bill:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): $77.2 billion. The recommendation continues record-high food stamp benefits. Food stamp spending has approximately doubled since President Obama came to office. It is one of the largest and fastest growing federal welfare programs. The federal government operates 80 federal welfare programs at a cost of nearly $1 trillion a year. Over 10 of these provide food assistance.

Food stamp spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. Able-bodied adults without dependents who receive food stamp benefits should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving benefits.

—Rachel Sheffield, Research Associate

Job Corps: $30 million added to the funding level already provided under sequestration. This program should be terminated, because a scientifically rigorous impact evaluation of Job Corps participants were less likely to obtain high school degrees, were no more likely to attend or complete college, and earned only $0.22 more in hourly wages than non-participants. Further, the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General estimates each Job Corps participant who is successfully placed into any job costs taxpayers $76,574.

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants: $416.5 million. VAWA grants should be terminated, because these services should be funded locally. Using federal agencies to fund the routine operations of domestic violence programs that state and local governments could provide is a misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the federal government.

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) grants: $1.1 billion. OJP grants should be terminated, because these grants assign functions to the federal government that fall within the expertise, jurisdiction, and constitutional responsibilities of state and local governments. Further, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants ($392 million) within OJP have been used to place criminals on the street without posting bail.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP): $279.5 million. OJJDP grants should be terminated, because these grants fund juvenile justice and prevention programs that fall under the unique responsibilities of state and local governments. Further, there is little evidence that these grants are effective at preventing delinquency.

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): $225.5 million. COPS grants should be terminated, because these grants assign functions to the federal government that fall within the expertise, jurisdiction, and constitutional responsibilities of state and local governments. Further COPS grants were used to supplant local funds and had little to no effect on reducing crime.

FEMA Fire Grants: $675 million. Fire grants should be terminated. Fire grants, which subsidize the routine operations of local fire departments, are ineffective at reducing fire-related deaths and injuries of firefighters and civilians. Fire grants incorrectly encourage local fire departments to become increasingly dependent on federal funding.

—David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis

In my speeches, especially when talking about the fiscal crisis in Europe (or the future fiscal crisis in America), I often warn that the welfare state reaches a point-of-no-return when the number of people riding in the wagon begins to outnumber the number of people pulling the wagon.

To be more specific, if more than 50 percent of the population is dependent on government (employed in the bureaucracy, living off welfare, receiving pensions, etc), it becomes rather difficult to form a coalition to fix the mess. This may explain why Greek politicians have resisted significant reforms, even though the nation faces a fiscal death spiral.

But you don’t need me to explain this relationship. One of our Cato interns, Silvia Morandotti, used her artistic skills to create two images (click pictures for better resolution) that show what a welfare state looks like when it first begins and what it eventually becomes.

These images are remarkably accurate. The welfare state starts with small programs targeted at a handful of genuinely needy people. But as  politicians figure out the electoral benefits of expanding programs and people figure out the that they can let others work on their behalf, the ratio of producers to consumers begins to worsen.

Eventually, even though the moochers and looters should realize that it is not in their interest to over-burden the people pulling the wagon, the entire system breaks down.

Then things get really interesting. Small nations such as Greece can rely on permanent bailouts from bigger countries and the IMF, but sooner or later, as larger nations begin to go bankrupt, that approach won’t be feasible.

I often conclude my speeches by joking with the audience that it’s time to stock up on canned goods, bottled water, and ammo. Many people, I’m finding, don’t think that line very funny.

If you spend too much then people won’t want to work anymore.

___________

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Great article on Francis Schaeffer

October 25, 2013 – 12:15 am

Great article.

Owen Strachan|5:30 AM CT

Everything But the Knickers: The Enduring Significance of Francis Schaeffer

Everything But the Knickers: The Enduring Significance of Francis Schaeffer avatar

In a news cycle driven by the latest quotes from Rick Perry, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney, you would not expect to see Francis Schaeffer popping up on the daily ticker. The American expatriate, wearer-of-knickers, connoisseur of Swiss cosmopolitanism, and, above all, philosophically minded Calvinist public intellectual once made national headlines, to be sure. But suddenly he has returned, posthumously torturing the public square with supposed plans of a Christian political takeover, a master-strategy foiled in his day yet rising again in the phoenix of Michelle Bachmann’s presidential campaign.

Bad history and considerable ink-spilling aside, all this prompts a question: did Schaeffer ever really leave? A controversy recently erupted in the Twittersphere over this very matter. Alan Jacobs, one of evangelicalism’s most astute scholars, wrote in response to the aforementioned claims of Schaeffer-inspired dominionism, that he could not recall hearing the L’Abri founder’s name mentioned in 25 years of teaching in Christian academic institutions. Once one acknowledged that Schaeffer inspired evangelicals to engage ideas and appreciate art, Jacobs suggested that one had to concede that the man was no longer necessary.

Surely, Jacobs was right to suggest (implicitly) that the idea that Schaeffer’s work even now rouses hordes of evangelicals to attempt political takeover is ridiculous. But was Schaeffer’s influence really as circumscribed as suggested?

The Man and His Work

First things first: Schaeffer is unparalleled in evangelical history. There is no one who prefigures him and no one who now perfectly emulates him. Born in 1912, Schaeffer was raised in a Protestant home and came to faith in 1930. He studied and moved in fundamentalist circles in the 1930s and 40s and was influenced early on by famed controversialist Carl McIntire. Schaeffer moved to Europe in 1948 to conduct missionary work among children. Warming quickly to the physical beauty and intellectual spirit of Switzerland, Schaeffer and his wife, Edith, established L’Abri, a shelter-turned-community-turned-waystation, in 1955.

Through a variety of unusual encounters with spiritual pilgrims, Schaeffer soon earned a reputation as an evangelical guru, one to whom skeptics or struggling Christians could go for all-night conversation that led in many cases to personal transformation. The salon-like discussions were often taped and subsequently distributed throughout the world by Schaeffer devotees as a cycle developed: more guests distributing more tapes led to more guests. Schaeffer became something of an evangelical celebrity, with stories circulating throughout evangelicalism of visits from the son of President Gerald Ford, the children of Billy Graham, and counter-cultural mystic Timothy Leary.

In the mid-50s, Schaeffer began venturing back across the pond to lecture in the United States at schools like Harvard, MIT, Wheaton, Calvin, and many more, electrifying his audiences even as he provoked them. His talks ranged over Western philosophy and theology and held his audiences spellbound. The apologist knew how not to over-conclude, to leave his hearers on the edge of a rhetorical precipice. According to Baylor historian Barry Hankins, in a 1968 Wheaton College address, Schaeffer ended on a dime:

There is death in the city; there’s death in the city; there’s death in the city.

He then sat down. Those who believe in the cultivation of searing oratory will find ample means of growth in the Schaefferian corpus.

Hankins suggests that the two major tenets of Schaeffer’s speaking (and his broader program) were these: (1) Christianity is logically non-contradictory and (2) a system in which one can live consistently. Perhaps we could add a third: the living God reached out to a suffering world to offer it hope and salvation. Amid generous and wide-ranging engagement with major intellectual and cultural voices, Schaeffer propounded these themes in texts like He Is There and Is Not Silent, The God Who Is There, and Escape from Reason. His apologetic approach was presuppositional, but Schaeffer did not believe that this view abnegated understanding of and even affection for the non-Christian world. He practiced a rough-and-ready brand of cultural engagement but famously said that a Christian studies the world “with tears.” For Schaeffer, the intellectual life of the public Christian had intrinsic value even as it was, of necessity, missiological. One studied to understand, then set out to engage and persuade.

Schaeffer in Contemporary Evangelical Life

We cannot fully reconstruct the sweeping events, the great struggles and victories, of the evangelical icon in this piece. Such has been attempted, with a good deal of success, by two recent biographies, the first by British writer Colin Duriez entitled Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Crossway, 2008), the second by Hankins entitled Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America (Eerdmans, 2009). These books—one popular, the other academic (but each valuable for either audience)—suggest by way of mere existence that Francis Schaeffer is an important figure for the contemporary evangelical movement. The same goes for prior works by authors including Lane Dennis, Scott Burson and Jerry Walls, and Christopher Catherwood. In 2008, Christianity Today published a cover story on L’Abri, noting by way of title that it was “Not Your Father’s L’Abri.” Whatever one of thinks of him—whether savant or kook—Schaeffer’s name is still on our lips.

Schaeffer’s legacy lives on in institutional form at Covenant Theological Seminary, which houses the Francis A. Schaeffer Institute. Headed by academic Jerram Barrs, a disciple of the apologist, the institute offers an annual lectureship, colloquia, and a fellows program that has drawn some of the brightest evangelical minds. Led by Bruce Little, the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary recently acquired the Schaeffer papers and held a major conference in Schaeffer’s honor. The World Journalism Institute, affiliated with prominent evangelical writer Marvin Olasky, has a Francis Schaeffer Chair of Apologetics.

Prominent evangelical leaders and theologians who count (or counted) themselves deeply influenced by Schaeffer include William Brown, president of Cedarville University; David Wells of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; William Edgar of Westminster Theological Seminary; James Sire of the University of Missouri; Harold O. J. Brown, late of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Lane Dennis of Crossway Books; Os Guinness; Udo Middleman; Barrs; Douglas Wilson; and Nancy Pearcey. Schaeffer’s books—and books about Schaeffer—are assigned reading at a wide range of evangelical schools, including TEDS (I read Hankins’s text in a doctoral seminar), The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (several of Schaeffer’s works were assigned in my systematic theology classes taught by Al Mohler), Covenant Theological Seminary, Biola University, Southeastern Seminary, and many others. L’Abri shelters operate in 11 locations around the world and have grown in the last several decades, even if the movement seems in places to have distanced itself from Schaeffer (there is little about him on the L’Abri website, a quixotic reality).

Though he has won his eternal reward, Schaeffer’s ideas continue to animate Christians adhering to the conservative tradition, whether his defense of inerrancy, his care for the unborn, his love for art, film, and literature, or his belief in “true truth.” His 27 books continue to find an international audience. The “worldview thinking” that Schaeffer and other figures such as Carl F. H. Henry championed and popularized has essentially won the day as the dominant intellectual approach of evangelicalism, whether in the basement of the home-school consortium or the cavernous halls of the top-tier Christian university. Popular speakers and apologists like Chuck Colson, Josh McDowell, James Dobson, and Ravi Zacharias all promote this theocentric integration of intellectual and spiritual concerns, even if none of them has followed true Schaefferian suit and adopted knickers or a walking stick.

Schaeffer’s effect on evangelicalism, whether academic or popular, extends widely enough that it is difficult in the final analysis to quantify his influence. The number of pastors, scholars, missionaries, and other leaders affected by Francis Schaeffer number in the thousands, to be sure. Many of them frequent this site; some of them owe their love for theology and cultural engagement to Schaeffer, and others may credit their very salvation to him.

Conclusion

Was Schaeffer necessary? Is he relevant beyond a basic apprehension of the importance of ideas and art? Does his legacy endure and spread in our day? The answer to all three of these questions seems to be a decisive yes. Schaeffer was not a perfect man to his wife or family. He was not and did not present himself as an academic scholar, so one can find holes or mischaracterizations in his work. H did not seem to have a strong doctrine of the local church. He is not appreciated or even known by all evangelicals. Despite his flaws and the passage of time, however, we can conclude that Francis Schaeffer was a brilliant apologist who helped midcentury evangelicals by pioneering worldview thinking, cultural engagement, and robustly theological outreach to intellectuals, artists, and others whom Christians struggled to evangelize. He is worth studying, reading, and appreciating.

D. A. Carson has engaged the life and thought of Schaeffer with nuance. His work offers a fitting conclusion to our brief tour of the significance of the apologist: “In the aeons to come, there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of redeemed men and women who will rise up and call him blessed for helping them to escape from various intellectual and moral quagmires.” May that number only increase.

Owen Strachan is assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College and executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. He blogs at Thought Life and is the co-author of the The Essential Edwards Collection.

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

“Friedman Friday” Celebrating Milton Friedman (How “Free to Choose” was put together)

October 25, 2013 – 12:03 am

Bob Chitester Discusses Milton Friedman and ‘Free to Choose’

Published on Jul 30, 2012 by

“There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people.”

That is how former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described the Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. But it is not for his technical work in monetary economics that Friedman is best known. Like mathematician Jacob Bronowski and astronomer Carl Sagan, Friedman had a gift for communicating complex ideas to a general audience.

It was this gift that brought him to the attention of filmmaker Bob Chitester. At Chitester’s urging, Friedman agreed to make a 10 part documentary series explaining the power of economic freedom. It was called “Free to Choose,” and became one of the most watched documentaries in history.

The series not only reached audiences in liberal democracies, but was smuggled behind the iron curtain where it played, in secret, to large audiences. Reflecting on its impact, Czech president Vaclav Klaus has said: “For us, who lived in the communist world, Milton Friedman was the greatest champion of freedom, of limited and unobtrusive government and of free markets. Because of him I became a true believer in the unrestricted market economy.”

July 31st, 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Friedman’s birth. To commemorate that occasion, we’d like to share an interview with “Free to Choose” producer Bob Chitester. Like this interview, the entire series can now be viewed on-line at no cost at http://www.freetochoose.tv/, thanks to the incredible technological progress brought about by the economic freedom that Milton Friedman celebrated.

Produced by Andrew Coulson, Caleb O. Brown, Austin Bragg, and Lou Richards, with help from the Free to Choose Network

_______________

Celebrating Milton Friedman

by Andrew J. Coulson

Andrew Coulson directs the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom and is the author of Market Education: The Unknown History.

Added to cato.org on July 31, 2012

This article appeared in Cato.org on July 31, 20

For us, who lived in the communist world, Milton Friedman was the greatest champion of freedom, of limited and unobtrusive government and of free markets. Because of him I became a true believer in the unrestricted market economy.

Those are the words of Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Both Friedman’s writings and his landmark 1980 documentary series “Free to Choose”were smuggled into totalitarian communist states, inspiring a generation of future scholars, activists, and politicians.

July 31st, 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Friedman’s birth. To commemorate that occasion, the Cato Institute has put together a video interview with Bob Chitester, producer of “Free to Choose,” recounting how it came to be, its impact, and what it was like working with Milton Friedman.

Aside from those who lived under communism, there is another group for whom Friedman was and is a colossal figure: advocates of educational freedom. At a time when state-run schooling had been the norm for nearly a century, and had long ceased to be questioned by America’s elites, Friedman offered a modest observation: there was no good reason for the government of a free society to actually run schools and many good reasons for it not to do so.

He made this case in his essay “On the Role of Government in Education,” first published in 1955. The idea had been floated by others, including Adam Smith and Thomas Paine, but Friedman eloquently and powerfully introduced it to the American policy debate. In so doing, he, more than any other individual, can be credited with giving rise to the modern school choice movement.

Not only did Friedman spark the creation of this movement, he helped to fan the flame of educational freedom, writing popular commentaries and book chapters, speaking with and encouraging activists, founding a leading school choice institution, and dedicating the entire sixth episode of “Free to Choose” to this subject.

I had the good fortune to speak and correspond with Milton occasionally, starting in the late 1990s, and what struck me most about him was his personal integrity. He once told me that he never said anything negative about a person in private that he would not be willing to say openly in that person’s presence. So far as I know, he never violated that principle. And while he staunchly defended his conclusions as long as he remained convinced of their correctness, he would amend them if the weight of evidence shifted.

Indeed the rigorous empiricism that Friedman applied in his scholarly work is generally regarded as one of his most influential contributions to the field of economics—for a long time controversial but eventually the norm, at least in principle. His view, published in the 1953 collection Essays in Positive Economics, was that

the ultimate test of the validity of a theory is… the ability to deduce facts that have not yet been observed, that are capable of being contradicted by observation, and that subsequent observation does not contradict. [p. 300]

Equally wise, though not yet as widely accepted, is the long time horizon against which Friedman measured policy outcomes. Economist and philosopher of science James R. Wible notes that Friedman’s greatest contribution “may be his constant reminder not to forget the long run consequences of short run policies.”

In the 1982 edition of his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman observed that scholars cannot single-handedly bring about change. Their real role, he wrote, is to “keep the lights on”—to remind us which policies work and which do not, and to show us how to advance our understanding even further. His own unfailing empiricism and concern for the long term remain valuable beacons today, both for advocates of educational freedom and the broader policy community.

_____________

Related posts:

Quotes from Milton Friedman on his 100th birthday

Milton Friedman’s 100th: Exploring His Wisdom for the Ages (Part I: Worldview) by Robert Bradley Jr. July 31, 2012 [Ed. note: Milton Friedman’s views will be further explored in Part II on energy and Part III on political capitalism.] “Our central theme in public advocacy has been the promotion of human freedom … [It] underlies […]

Thomas Sowell remembers his former teacher Milton Friedman 100 years later

I was impacted in 1980 by the film series “Free to Choose” and I was very impressed by the performance by Thomas Sowell. Today he remembers his former teacher Milton Friedman.   Friedman could be a help today     By  Thomas Sowell Creators Syndicate Tuesday July 31, 2012 7:00 AM If Milton Friedman were alive […]

Milton Friedman destroys liberal student challenges

In the video above Milton Friedman takes on some liberal students with their challenges to capitalism.   Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld speaking at Tribute to Milton Friedman (transcript) As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, White House, Washington, D.C., Thursday, May 09, 2002 Mr. President (George W. Bush), Rose and Milton […]

Every Friday you need to click on www.theDailyHatch.org for “Friedman Friday”

Every Friday you need to click on http://www.theDailyHatch.org if you would like to see a video clip of Milton Friedman as he shares his common sense conservative economic views. Many of his articles are posted too. I remember growing up and reading those great articles every week in Newsweek. They are just as relevant today as […]

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 12

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 12 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]

Chattanooga Times Free Press comments on 100th year since Milton Friedman’s birth

published Tuesday, July 31st, 2012  Chattanooga Times Free Press Milton Friedman at 100   Milton Friedman Photo by Associated Press /Chattanooga Times Free Press.   enlarge photo   One hundred years ago today, the most powerful defender of economic liberty in American history was born in Brooklyn to poor Jewish immigrants. Though he stood barely […]

Milton Friedman’s passion was to make a difference in the lives of young people

No one did more to advance the cause of school vouchers than Milton and Rose Friedman. Friedman made it clear in his film series “Free to Choose” how sad he was that young people who live in the inner cities did not have good education opportunities available to them. Remembering Milton Friedman’s School Choice Legacy […]

Milton Friedman remembered at 100 years from his birth (Part 5)

Testing Milton Friedman – Preview Uploaded by FreeToChooseNetwork on Feb 21, 2012 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth. His work and ideas continue to make the world a better place. As part of Milton Friedman’s Century, a revival of the ideas featured in the landmark television series Free To Choose are being […]

Defending Milton Friedman

What a great defense of Milton Friedman!!!!   Defaming Milton Friedman by Johan Norberg This article appeared in Reason Online on September 26, 2008  PRINT PAGE  CITE THIS      Sans Serif      Serif Share with your friends: ShareThis In the future, if you tell a student or a journalist that you favor free markets and limited government, there is […]

Milton and Rose Friedman “Two Lucky People”

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2 Uploaded by PenguinProseMedia on Oct 26, 2011 2nd half of 1994 interview. ________________ I have a lot of respect for the Friedmans.Two Lucky People by Milton and Rose Friedman reviewed by David Frum — October 1998. However, I liked this review below better. It […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)

If you want to cut the size of government then we have to have spending caps!!!

October 24, 2013 – 11:57 am

If you want to cut the size of government then we have to have spending caps!!!

For any Fiscal Policy Question, Spending Restraint Is the Answer

October 24, 2013 by Dan Mitchell

Okay, I’ll admit the title of this post is an exaggeration. How to fix the mess at the IRS is a fiscal policy question, and that requires tax reform rather than spending restraint.

But allow me a bit of literary license. We just had a big debt limit battle in Washington and, after a lot of political drama, politicians kicked the can down the road.

So we need to ask ourselves whether that fight accomplished anything?

It did focus attention of the flaws of Obamacare, and I suppose there’s some value in that.

But the debt limit was not a vehicle – as has been the case in the past – for changes in fiscal policy. We didn’t get something good, like the sequester which resulted from the 2011 debt limit legislation. And we didn’t get something bad, like the tax hike in the 1985 debt limit legislation

Some are asking whether we should even have a debt limit. A number of critics have suggested we should get rid of the borrowing cap because it creates the risk of default. I think those concerns are very overblown.

I’m more persuaded by those who argue that the debt limit diverts attention from better options to improve fiscal policy.

Professors Gary Becker and Edward Lazear write in the Wall Street Journal that the debt ceiling is not a very good tool for restraining the growth of government. They look at evidence from the states to warn that fiscal rules that seek to limit borrowing are ineffective.

Many states are required to have “balanced” budgets, but the growth in spending and the size of state governments continues apace. During good times, when tax revenues are high, states “balance” their budgets by spending at the high levels consistent with large revenues. When times get tough, it is difficult if not impossible to eliminate programs that had been initiated during the fat years. Instead, the states resort to budgetary gimmicks, like delaying shortfalls until next year’s “balanced” budget.

Gimmicks are bad, of course, but politicians also respond to fiscal squeezes by raising taxes.

And that can be even worse as the prospect of more revenue leads to a ratchet effect, with periodic tax hikes used to maintain or expand the gravy train of spending. The fiscal mess in Europe is an obvious case study, but if you want a painful example from America, just look at data from Connecticut. The state did quite well without an income tax from the 1600s until 1991.

But then an income tax was imposed, in part to deal with the fiscal shortfall caused by an economic downturn. And, as critics warned, that new tax has produced dismal results. The top rate has jumped from 4.5 percent to 6.5 percent and inflation-adjusted per-capita state government spending has doubled. And there have been zero net private-sector jobs created since the income tax was implemented.

So what’s the answer? Becker and Lazear explain that lawmakers should target the underlying problem of spending rather than the symptom of red ink.

Better than a debt-ceiling rule would be one that controls spending directly, not the debt that results from it. The specifics are less important than the general principle, which is that spending growth should be limited in a way that brings government outlays back down to historic ratios relative to GDP. This would place the attention where it belongs, on spending rather than on the difference between outlays and receipts. Increased spending, coupled with even larger increases in taxes, might bring the deficit down, but it would damage economic growth and well-being.

Well stated. Reducing the overall burden of government spending – measured as a share of economic output – should be the goal of fiscal policy. That’s simply another way of stating my Golden Rule. And there’s a growing body of academic evidence showing that reducing the size of government is a good way of improving economic performance.

I’ve been highlighting the example of Switzerland, which has successfully strengthened its economy and fiscal policy with a spending cap (which, ironically, is called a “debt brake” even though the real effect of the law is to limit how fast spending can increase over time).

Other countries that have limited spending also have achieved some very impressive results. The video at this link looks at evidence from nations such as New Zealand and Canada in the 1990s, and there’s a more recent data about the positive effects of spending restraint in the Baltic nations.

There has been some interest in spending caps on Capitol Hill. Congressman Brady of Texas has proposed a MAP Act that is somewhat similar to Switzerland’s debt brake and Senator Corker of Tennessee has introduced a CAP Act that also would restrain annual spending increases.

Perhaps if some of their colleagues read today’s Becker-Lazear column, they’ll also understand why it’s better to focus on the underlying problem of government spending rather than getting distracted by the symptom of red ink.

John Stossel ~ 17,000,000,000,000 Problems

Related posts:

The Dysfunction in Washington is Republicans and Democrats that are unwilling to cut spending in order to vote for more programs (Democrats want more food stamps etc but Republicans vote for their pet programs and wars too like No Child Left Behind Act, the Iraq war, the prescription drug entitlement, and the TARP bailout).

October 11, 2013 – 6:30 am

The Dysfunction in Washington is Republicans and Democrats that are unwilling to cut spending in order to vote for more programs (Democrats want more food stamps etc but Republicans vote for their pet programs and wars too like No Child Left Behind Act, the Iraq war, the prescription drug entitlement, and the TARP bailout). If […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Washington better wake up and cut spending or the USA will end up bankrupt like Detroit!!!

July 25, 2013 – 10:34 am

Washington better wake up and cut spending or the USA will end up bankrupt like Detroit!!! Atlas Shrugs in Detroit July 25, 2013 by Dan Mitchell About two weeks ago, while making an important point about the Laffer Curve, here’s what I wrote about the fiscal disaster in Detroit. Detroit’s problems are the completely predictable result […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Lessons from Canada:CUT SPENDING AND LOWER TAXES AND GIVE MORE CONTROL BACK TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS!!!!

July 7, 2013 – 4:48 pm

When Governments Cut Spending Uploaded on Sep 28, 2011 Do governments ever cut spending? According to Dr. Stephen Davies, there are historical examples of government spending cuts in Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and America. In these cases, despite popular belief, the government spending cuts did not cause economic stagnation. In fact, the spending cuts often […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Speaker of the House John Boehner, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

We got to cut spending and this farm bill is the perfect place to start!!!

June 3, 2013 – 7:01 am

We got to cut spending and this farm bill is the perfect place to start!!! May 29, 2013 12:33PM Farm Bill Would Increase Spending 47% By Chris Edwards Share House and Senate farm subsidy supporters are pushing to enact the first big farm bill since 2008. Democratic and Republican supporters say that this year’s legislation […]

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

President Obama will not cut spending ever it appears

April 5, 2013 – 9:59 am

President Obama will not cut spending ever it appears. Early Details Show Obama Will Propose a Bait-and-Switch Budget Plan Containing Higher Taxes and More Spending April 5, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Are we about to see a new kinder-and-gentler Obama? Has the tax-and-spend President of the past four years been replaced by a fiscal moderate? That’s […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, President Obama, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

We got to cut spending and stop raising the debt ceiling!!!

February 8, 2013 – 7:45 am

  We got to cut spending and stop raising the debt ceiling!!! When Governments Cut Spending Uploaded on Sep 28, 2011 Do governments ever cut spending? According to Dr. Stephen Davies, there are historical examples of government spending cuts in Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and America. In these cases, despite popular belief, the government spending […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Economist Dan Mitchell, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

To save the USA from Greece’s fate we must cut spending

January 3, 2013 – 8:49 am

Maybe Romney will focus on cutting spending now that Ryan is on board. Is the American Electorate that Dumb? Posted by Roger Pilon Today POLITICO Arena asks: Can Ryan boost Romney’s poll numbers? My response: Ryan is the shot in the arm that Romney needed. If last night’s “60 Minutes” interview of the two is […]

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

The USA must cut spending and balance budget or end up like Greece

December 21, 2012 – 9:38 am

Why can’t we learn the lesson from Europe that we must start to cut spending and balance our budget or we will end up like Greece? Europe’s Crisis Is Because of Too Much Government, Not the Euro Currency July 19, 2012 by Dan Mitchell The mess in Europe has been rather frustrating, largely because almost everybody […]

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

An award to the person who cut spending by our federal governement the most ($47)

April 23, 2012 – 5:16 am

A funny carton. Finally, Some Government Workers Who Want to Cut Spending April 23, 2012 by Dan Mitchell In recent years, taxpayers have been victimized by huge expansions in the burden of government spending. Among the highlights (lowlights would be a much better word): A corrupt bailout of politically connected Wall Street insiders. A bloated healthcare […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Updated version:Rick Crawford falls for Democrats’ trick:raise taxes first and we will cut spending later

March 16, 2012 – 8:25 am

RAISE TAXES: Report says Rick Crawford will break from GOP and back millionaires’ tax. The Arkansas Times reported that Congressman Rick Crawford has a plan that includes raising taxes for 5 years if there is an agreement to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. However, if after 5 years the Balanced Budget Amendment does not get […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Jason Tolbert, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 437) Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

October 24, 2013 – 1:30 am

(Emailed to White House on 3-4-13.)

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.

I wanted to share with you some about my pro-life perspective.

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.

On 2-21-13 on the Arkansas Times Blog  I asserted: 

Elwood you suggest if prolife people are not willing to pay for poor people’s unwanted babies’ needs then we are not part of the answer.

Hank Hanegraaff noted:

Attacking people rather than arguing principles, ad hominem arguments are a trick designed to distract attention from the real issue — namely, that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

On 2-21-13 on the Arkansas Times Blog  the liberal Amy Benton Bradley-Hole observed:

“Instead, it is an attempt to attack character in order to avoid the case against abortion.”

The hell it is. It’s an attempt to make moral absolutists face reality and comprehend the actual results of their misguided actions. But the problem with moral absolutists is they’re too dense to understand this.

On 2-21-13 on the Arkansas Times Blog  I responded:

Francis Schaeffer rightly noted, “If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgements conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions.”

That is why I wonder why Amy Bento Bradley-Holes would be critical of moral absolutes. On what basis do moral nonabsolutists have to say that Hitler was wrong?

________________

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.

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 look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith pictured below.

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (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 look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? (Full-Length Documentary)

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

Francis Schaeffer: What Ever Happened to the Human Race? (Full-Length Documentary)

Part 1 on abortion runs from 00:00 to 39:50, Part 2 on Infanticide runs from 39:50 to 1:21:30, Part 3 on Youth Euthanasia runs from 1:21:30 to 1:45:40, Part 4 on the basis of human dignity runs from 1:45:40 to 2:24:45 and Part 5 on the basis of truth runs from 2:24:45 to 3:00:04

___________

Francis Schaeffer saw the issues that our society would be facing in the future because of humanism and he was right on just about everything. Take a look at some of his quotes below: (By the way one of my favorite quotes is the first one listed below.)

“People today are trying to hang on to the dignity of man, but they do not know how to, because they have lost the truth that man is made in the image of God. . . . We are watching our culture put into effect the fact that when you tell men long enough that they are machines, it soon begins to show in their actions. You see it in our whole culture — in the theater of cruelty, in the violence in the streets, in the death of man in art and life.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape from Reason: A Penetrating Analysis of Trends in Modern Thought
“When a man comes under the blood of Christ, his whole capacity as a man is refashioned. His soul is saved, yes, but so are his mind and his body. True spirituality means the lordship of Christ over the total man.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art & the Bible
“I am afraid that as evangelicals, we think that a work of art only has value if we reduce it to a tract.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art & the Bible
“As Christians, we must see that just because an artist -even a great artist- portrays a worldview in writing or on canvas, it does not mean that we should automatically accept that worldview. Good art heightens the impact of that worldview, but it does not make it true.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art & the Bible
“Returning to the Moral Majority, we must realize that regardless of whether we think the Moral Majority has always said the right things or whether we do not, or whether we think they have made some mistakes or whether we do not, they have certainly done one thing right: they have used the freedom we still have in the political arena to stand against the other total entity [secular humanism]. They have carried the fact that law is king, law is above the lawmakers, and God is above the law in to this area of life where it always should have been. And this is a part of true spirituality.The Moral Majority has drawn a line between the one total view of reality and the other total view of reality and the results this brings forth in government and law. And if you personally do not like some of the details of what they have done, do it better. But you must understand that all Christians have got to do the same kind of thing or you are simply not showing the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto and Pollution and the Death of Man
“Christian art is the expression of the whole life of the whole person as a Christian. What a Christian portrays in his art is the totality of life. Art is not to be solely a vehicle for some sort of self-conscious evangelism.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art & the Bible
“Truth carries with it confrontation. Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster
“We are not being true to the artist as a man if we consider his work “junk”, simply because we differ with his outlook on life. Instead, if the artist’s technical excellence is high, he is to be praised for this even if we differ with his worldview… Yet where his work shows his worldview, it must be judged by its relationship to the Christian worldview.If we stand as Christians before a man’s canvas and recognize that he is a great artist in technical excellence, we have been fair with him as a man. Then we can say that his worldview is wrong. We can judge his views on the same basis as we judge anybody else- philosopher, common man, laborer, business man, or whatever. God’s Word binds the great man and the small, the scientist and the simple, the king and the artist.We should realize that if something untrue or immoral is stated in great art, it can be far more devastating than if it is expressed in poor art. The greater the artistic expression, the more important it is to consciously bring it and it’s worldview under the judgment of Christ and the Bible. The common reaction among many however, is just the opposite. Ordinarily, many seem to feel that the greater the art, the less we ought to be critical of its worldview. This we must reverse.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer
“We should realize that if something untrue or immoral is stated in great art, it can be far more devastating than if it is expressed in poor art. The greater the artistic expression, the more important it is to consciously bring it and it’s worldview under the judgment of Christ and the Bible. The common reaction among many however, is just the opposite. Ordinarily, many seem to feel that the greater the art, the less we ought to be critical of its worldview. This we must reverse.”
― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art & the Bible

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

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s prayer for us in USA

 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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY

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

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

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

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 […]

The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and A Christian Manifesto in that process.

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 […]

Who was Francis Schaeffer? by Udo Middelmann

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 […]

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

FREE TO CHOOSE “Who protects the worker?” Video and Transcript Part 5 of 7 “With a welfare system of the kind we have, you have the problem that people immigrate in order to get welfare, not in order to get employment”

October 24, 2013 – 1:23 am

FREE TO CHOOSE “Who protects the worker?” Video and Transcript Part

In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong with our schools?”  and “Created Equal”  and  From Cradle to Grave, and – Power of the Market. Milton Friedman shows in this episode how the worker is best protected and it is not by the government!!!!!!!

The essence of what Milton Friedman is saying in this episode is found in this statement:

“The situation of immigration restrictions really has to do with the question of a welfare state. As I say in the film, I would favor completely free immigration in a society which does not have a welfare system. With a welfare system of the kind we have, you have the problem that people immigrate in order to get welfare, not in order to get employment. You know, it’s a very interesting thing, if you would ask anybody before 1914 the U.S. had no immigration restrictions whatsoever, I’m exaggerating a little bit, there were some immigration restrictions on orientals, but it was essentially, mainly free. If you ask anybody, any American economic historian was that a good thing for America, everybody will say yes it was a wonderful thing for America that we had free immigration. If you ask anybody today, should we have free immigration today, everybody will __ almost everybody will say no. What’s the difference? I think there’s only one difference and that is that when we had free immigration it was immigration of jobs in which everybody benefited. The people who were already here benefited because they got complementary workers, workers who could work with them, make their productivity better, enable them to develop and use the resources of the country better, but today, if you have a system under which you have essentially a governmental guarantee of relief in case of distress, you have a very, very real problem.”

Pt 5

L. WILLIAMS: Dr. Friedman and Walter Williams go back in history and they take a look at a situation where America was empty, where we didn’t have anything like the sophisticated industrial economy we have today, but had a much more agricultural and rural kind of economy and of course when the __ when the impoverished peasants of Europe, my ancestors and most of our ancestors, except for the slaves, which is another situation, but when these people came from Europe and came to a wide open continent with the most fertile soil then available to anyone in the world, naturally there was progress; and I or any of us would be mad to deny progress. But as that developed and as population increased and as we moved into a much more sophisticated industrial economy, we moved then into the situation in the 1930s, or earlier than that , at the end of the century. As some of the more skilled jobs came along, the labor movement didn’t happen by accident. Didn’t happen because there wasn’t a need there. The results of this development, even with all the wealth available in America, the results of this development was that many working people were not having anything like, by standards of civilization or whatever, anything like their fair share in this progress.

MCKENZIE: Now you’re arguing that in a free market, for labor, everyone benefits. Does that mean that you would favor abolition of all immigration restrictions?

FRIEDMAN: The situation of immigration restrictions really has to do with the question of a welfare state. As I say in the film, I would favor completely free immigration in a society which does not have a welfare system. With a welfare system of the kind we have, you have the problem that people immigrate in order to get welfare, not in order to get employment. You know, it’s a very interesting thing, if you would ask anybody before 1914 the U.S. had no immigration restrictions whatsoever, I’m exaggerating a little bit, there were some immigration restrictions on orientals, but it was essentially, mainly free. If you ask anybody, any American economic historian was that a good thing for America, everybody will say yes it was a wonderful thing for America that we had free immigration. If you ask anybody today, should we have free immigration today, everybody will __ almost everybody will say no. What’s the difference? I think there’s only one difference and that is that when we had free immigration it was immigration of jobs in which everybody benefited. The people who were already here benefited because they got complementary workers, workers who could work with them, make their productivity better, enable them to develop and use the resources of the country better, but today, if you have a system under which you have essentially a governmental guarantee of relief in case of distress, you have a very, very real problem.

MCKENZIE: But this is true of every western industrialized country.

FRIEDMAN: That’s right and that’s why today __

MCKENZIE: Yeah.

FRIEDMAN: __ under current circumstances you cannot, unfortunately have free immigration. Not because there’s anything wrong with free immigration, but because we have other policies which make it impossible to adopt free immigration.

MCKENZIE: Well I’d like other reactions. Is it at all feasible to open the door of the labor market internationally now? Bill Brady?

BRADY: I would __ I would say yes providing they open the door to us. I think that the door to not only the labor market, the door to all markets should be __ should be open. That is the product markets.

W. WILLIAMS: My feelings about the undocumented workers of Mexican-Americans are inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. I think that the people should have the right to come to this country. Now, those who would say, you know, I hear a number of people saying that, well the immigrants are contributing to our unemployment problem. And I point this out to some people, I said, “look, you know, this is the same rhetoric that the Irish used when the blacks were coming up from the north, ” you know, they’re using blacks as scapegoats. They’re saying, “get those people back where they came from so that our members can get jobs, ” you know. Unions were as well doing this, you know, they called them scabs, strikebreakers, etcetera, etcetera. So I do not wish for Mexican-Americans to become the new scapegoats of our particular national problems. They are not the problem, and our nation benefits to the extent that these people come here and work. And to that extent __ to that extent__ so it’s kind of good for them to remain illegal aliens as opposed to being legal aliens where they’re subject to our welfare programs, so that we don’t want them to come here to __

(Several people talking at once.)

GREEN: I think that this country cannot have a group of workers to remain outside the framework of our laws and our protection. And as long as we have workers who are attracted to the United States because of the standards of living; and I think minimum wages play a part in that as part of that attraction. But it seems to me to have undocumented workers without providing either a means of protection for them and it seems to me that we’ve got to go to the question of providing the amnesty for those generations of workers who have come here over a period of time, now two, three, maybe four generations. We have to see that they have the same rights and protection of all other workers. And as it stands now, large numbers of them live outside the framework of the laws and statutes that we have on the __ on our books.

MCKENZIE: Comment Milton.

FRIEDMAN: They do and the tragedy of the situation, as what Walter Williams point out, that as long as they are undocumented and illegal they are a clear net gain, the nation benefits and they benefit. They wouldn’t be here if they didn’t. The tragedy is that we’ve adopted all these other policies so that if we convert them into legal residents it’s no longer clear that we benefit. They may benefit, but it’s no longer clear that we do. What Lynn Williams said before is again a travesty on what was actually going on. The real boost to the trade union movement came after the Great Depression of the 1930s; that Great Depression was not a failure of capitalism; it was not a failure of the private market system as we pointed out in another one of the programs in this series; it was a failure of government. It was not the case that somehow or other there was a decline in the conditions of the working class that produced a great surge of unionism. On the contrary __ unions have never accounted for more than one out of four or one out of five of American workers. The American worker benefited not out of unions, he benefited in spite of unions. He benefited because there was greater opportunity because there were people who were willing to invest their money because there was an opportunity for people to work, to save, to invest. That’s still the case today. You say, we have to provide them with something or other Ernest. Who are the “we”?

GREEN: We the people.

FRIEDMAN: How do we the people __ but how do we the people do it?

GREEN: And it seems __ we the people provide them the protection by seeing that their safety __

MCKENZIE: You’re talking about the immigration population now.

GREEN: __ and occupational health codes that protects the environment that they work in, see that they have civil rights laws that protect their own person. See that they have civil liberties laws that protect them further. We the people of this country provide that protection.

W. WILLIAMS: Why are they coming here it’s so bad? If they don’t have, you know, you’re kind of painting an image, you know. Why are these people coming? We’re not pulling them here by chains.

GREEN: It’s obvious why people come here; it’s one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

(Several talking at once.)

MCKENZIE: Gentlemen, don’t all talk at once. Lynn, and then __

W. WILLIAMS: So what are you talking about protecting them?

GREEN: Why did you leave Little Rock, Arkansas to go to Philadelphia? It seems to point__

L. WILLIAMS: It seems to me that it’s obvious __

W. WILLIAMS: Would you extend the courtesy to finish. Look, look, first thing, look, let me say the following things: There’s some basic things that we need to know.

L. WILLIAMS: Well now are you going to say the thing I was interrupting and then say five more things. I mean there isn’t all afternoon.

W. WILLIAMS: You know, labor unions, and minimum wages for that case cannot improve the condition of the working people of the country.

L. WILLIAMS: We do it everyday.

W. WILLIAMS: Because if__ are you suggesting __

L. WILLIAMS: We improve the working conditions of working people in countries all around the world, everyday.

W. WILLIAMS: Well you know this __ you know what you’re telling the audience, you’re saying that you can solve the problems in Bangladesh. You can make them a rich country if you tell them to unionize like we are __

L. WILLIAMS: I didn’t say that.

W. WILLIAMS: __and demand high wages.

L. WILLIAMS: No, I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

W. WILLIAMS: It’s productivity that keeps income low.

MCKENZIE: Lynn, let him finish.

BRADY: I come back to my initial question: why are so many leaving the union?

L. WILLIAMS: There aren’t very many leaving the union.

BRADY: Oh, there are too. I’ve given you the statistics.

L. WILLIAMS: Ah, now, do you think I’m __ you grind off some percentages. I live in the labor movement.

BRADY: You __ do you have other percentages?

FRIEDMAN: In or on?

L. WILLIAMS: In, with and on. And of course they pay me, of course, and I don’t have any objection to that at all.

FRIEDMAN: Neither do I.

L. WILLIAMS: At least we got you a few minutes ago __ we got you to get the labor movement up into this century. And I agree with the observation you made __

(Laughter)

L. WILLIAMS: I agree with the observation you made that the industrial union movement __ that there was a union movement came out of the, out of the dirty ’30s and out of the depression and grew and that was essentially and industrial union movement. But I wonder if __ I wonder when I hear your commentary on the film and so on about unions and restricting practices and restricting access to industry and all of this, I really __ I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but I really wonder __

FRIEDMAN: Don’t mind being disrespectful, it’s all right. I’m used to it.

L. WILLIAMS: I really wonder if you, if you do understand how the industrial union movement, which is __ the more recent part of the union, how it really operates. We’re not telling anybody who they have to hire.

FRIEDMAN: (Laughing)

Related posts:

“The Power of the Market” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

June 21, 2012 – 7:39 am

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 1-5 How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms.  I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Tagged | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday,” EPISODE “The Failure of Socialism” of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

December 7, 2012 – 5:55 am

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama | Edit | Comments (1)

________________

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 3 of 7)

Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside is the largest horde of gold in the world. Because the world was on a gold standard in 1929, these vaults, where the U.S. gold was stored, […]

“Friedman Friday” (Part 16) (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 2 of 7)

  George Eccles: Well, then we called all our employees together. And we told them to be at the bank at their place at 8:00 a.m. and just act as if nothing was happening, just have a smile on their face, if they could, and me too. And we have four savings windows and we […]

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1of 7)

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1 FREE TO CHOOSE: Anatomy of Crisis Friedman Delancy Street in New York’s lower east side, hardly one of the city’s best known sites, yet what happened in this street nearly 50 years ago continues to effect all of us today. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

____________________________

_____________


________________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 3 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: If it […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 2 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 2 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Groups of concerned parents and teachers decided to do something about it. They used private funds to take over empty stores and they […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Vouchers | Edit | Comments (1)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 1 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 1 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Friedman: These youngsters are beginning another day at one of America’s public schools, Hyde Park High School in Boston. What happens when […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Vouchers | Tagged , , , , | Edit | Comments (0)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 2 of transcript and video)

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 2 of transcript and video) Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 1 of transcript and video)

 Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan Liberals like President Obama (and John Brummett) want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series. […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3 of 7)

February 17, 2012 – 12:12 am

  _________________________   Pt3  Nowadays there’s a considerable amount of traffic at this border. People cross a little more freely than they use to. Many people from Hong Kong trade in China and the market has helped bring the two countries closer together, but the barriers between them are still very real. On this side […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2 of 7)

February 10, 2012 – 12:09 am

  Aside from its harbor, the only other important resource of Hong Kong is people __ over 4_ million of them. Like America a century ago, Hong Kong in the past few decades has been a haven for people who sought the freedom to make the most of their own abilities. Many of them are […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1of 7)

February 3, 2012 – 12:07 am

“FREE TO CHOOSE” 1: The Power of the Market (Milton Friedman) Free to Choose ^ | 1980 | Milton Friedman Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 4:20:46 PM by Choose Ye This Day FREE TO CHOOSE: The Power of the Market Friedman: Once all of this was a swamp, covered with forest. The Canarce Indians […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday,” EPISODE “The Failure of Socialism” of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama | Edit | Comments (1)

“The Failure of Socialism” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)

Dear Senator Pryor, here are some spending cut suggestions (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

October 24, 2013 – 1:08 am

Senator Pryor pictured below:

 Why do I keep writing and email Senator Pryor suggestions on how to cut our budget? I gave him hundreds of ideas about how to cut spending and as far as I can tell he has taken none of my suggestions. You can find some of my suggestions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,  here, and  here, and they all were emailed to him. In fact, I have written 13 posts pointing out reasons why I believe Senator Pryor’s re-election attempt will be unsuccessful. HERE I GO AGAIN WITH ANOTHER EMAIL I JUST SENT TO SENATOR PRYOR!!!

Dear Senator Pryor,

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

On my blog www.thedailyhatch.org . I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. (Actually there were over 160 emails with specific spending cut suggestions.) However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted although you did respond to me several times. 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 or I send you specific spending cut suggestions. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

IF YOU TRULY WANT TO CUT THE BUDGET AND BALANCE THE BUDGET THEN SUBMIT THESE POTENTIAL BUDGET CUTS PRESENTED BELOW!!

_______________

When Governments Cut Spending

Uploaded on Sep 28, 2011

Do governments ever cut spending? According to Dr. Stephen Davies, there are historical examples of government spending cuts in Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and America. In these cases, despite popular belief, the government spending cuts did not cause economic stagnation. In fact, the spending cuts often accelerated economic growth by freeing up resources for the private sector.

_______________

I have been emailing Senator Mark Pryor over and over again about places to cut spending out of our federal government and I will email him about this too.

Taxpayers all across America send lots of money to Washington, DC, in part because we’re supposed to believe that redistribution is a legitimate and desirable function of the federal government.

But this is a very perverse form of redistribution. All that money going to Washington helps subsidize a network of overpaid bureaucrats, fat-cat lobbyists, corrupt politicians, and well-heeled interest groups.

Indeed, as shown in this map, 10 of the 15 richest counties in the country are in the Washington metropolitan area.

One of those wealthy areas is Arlington County, VA, just across the river from Washington. Home to thousands of federal bureaucrats and other DC insiders, Arlington is similar to Washington in that there is a lot of wasteful spending. Sort of makes you wonder if local bureaucrats and federal bureaucrats ever meet at bars after work and brag about who wasted the most money that day?

Anyhow, here are some sordid details from a Washington Post story.

A wall made of etched glass opens the rear vista to newly planted landscaping. Embedded in the floor are heating elements intended to ward off the cold weather and keep winter-weary feet cozy. …And the price tag: $1 million. “Is this made of gold?” asked commuter Yohannes Kaleab, examining the concrete-and-stainless-steel bench that is part of the new, seven-figure bus shelter. “What?” asked Robin Stewart as he learned of the cost of the structure while waiting for a bus there last week. “That’s ridiculous. From a citizen, from a voter, whoever put that budget through needs to get their butt canned. It’s an outrage.” The “super stop,” which opened March 11, is the first of 24 new bus stops that will also accommodate Arlington’s long-planned streetcars. …It will shelter 15 people at a time.

Boondoggle Bus Stop

$1 million for this bit of glass, metal, and concrete?!?

That sounds kind of expensive, but we can be comforted by the fact that thoughtful public servants predict future savings.

“When you do a prototype, you end up heavily front-loading on the costs,” said Dennis Leach, Arlington’s transportation director.

So how much will taxpayers save on the remaining 23 stops? Well, the good news is that they won’t cost $1 million each. The bad news is that the government doesn’t exactly save a lot of money when doing bulk purchases.

“Our goal if at all possible is to do it for less,” Leach said. The county has budgeted $20.8 million for the remaining 23 stops, or about $904,000 for each one.

Gee, knock me over with a feather. The additional bus stops will “only” be $904,000!

That’s not counting cost overruns, which are an inevitable reality with government budgeting, so I think it’s safe to assume that the final cost will be far higher.

So why do governments waste money like this?

Part of the answer, of course, is that politicians are inherently wasteful. But there’s another factor at play. Politicians are especially wasteful when they can spend money that isn’t collected from their own taxpayers.

And readers from other parts of America doubtlessly will be overjoyed to learn that their paying for a big chunk of this boondoggle.

Federal and state transportation money paid 80 percent of the costs.

With taxpayers outside of Arlington paying such a high share of the cost, we should think of ourselves as lucky that the bus stop didn’t cost $10 million!

But here’s the most amazing part of the story.

What’s the most important part of a bus stop? In theory, a bus stop can be nothing more than a sign indicating the spot where you should wait for a bus.

But if you’re going to build a structure, the most valuable feature – at least from the perspective of riders – is that you will be protected from the weather. So what sort of protection are riders getting as a result of this $1 million boondoggle? Meh, not so much.

…the bus shelter is “pretty, but I was struck by the fact that if it’s pouring rain, I’m going to get wet, and if it’s cold, the wind is going to be blowing on me. It doesn’t seem to be a shelter. It doesn’t really shelter you very much . . . you can get pretty soaked in two minutes.” Her opinion was shared by some on Columbia Pike trying it out.

Gee, isn’t this wonderful. Some contractors doubtlessly lined their pockets building this white elephant. Some consultants doubtlessly fattened their bank accounts with all the nonsense that is now part of the “planning” process.

But taxpayers, as usual, got the short end of the stick. They got taken for a ride, figuratively. And if they actually use the bus stop, they can get taken for a ride, literally, so long as they don’t mind getting wet.

P.S. And let’s not forget that Obama wants some more class-warfare tax hikes to finance more of this “investment.”

______________

The Balanced Budget Amendment is the only thing I can think of that would force Washington to cut spending. We have only a handful of balanced budgets in the last 60 years, so obviously what we are doing is not working. We are passing along this debt to the next generation. YOUR APPROACH HAS BEEN TO REJECT THE BALANCED BUDGET “BECAUSE WE SHOULD CUT THE BUDGET OURSELF,” WELL THEN HERE IS YOUR CHANCE!!!! SUBMIT THESE CUTS!!!!

Thank you for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com www.thedailyhatch.org, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733

Related posts:

Mark Pryor responds to me concerning Debt Ceiling email (Part 1)

The problem with the debt ceiling is very clear to me. We need to get serious about cutting federal spending. I am so upset about it that I have emailed over 100 emails to Senator Pryor concerning specific spending suggestions. I get emails from back from Senator Pryor like the one below. This means that […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 164)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 164) Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 163)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 163) Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to […]

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

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 162) Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to […]

Capitol Tours with Senator Mark Pryor

Three very good video tours below from Senator Mark Pryor. Published on Jun 13, 2012 by SenatorPryor Episode 1: Arkansans in the Capitol Published on Jul 9, 2012 by SenatorPryor Episode 2: The Crypt and the Old Supreme Court Published on Aug 20, 2012 by SenatorPryor Episode 3: The Senate Chamber If you want to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 161)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 161) Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to […]

Senator Mark Pryor responds to my email

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending and I sent them to him but he didn’t take any of my suggestions. However, he did take time to get back to me today, but I am not too impressed with Senator Pryor’s response. I gave him hundreds of ideas about how […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 160)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 160) Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 159)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 159) Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 158)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Office of the Majority Whip | Balanced Budget Amendment Video In 1995, Congress nearly passed a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. The Balanced Budget Amendment would have forced the federal government to live within its means. This Balanced Budget Amendment failed by one vote. 16 years later, Congress has the chance to get it […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Sadly Senator Pryor has voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment over and over in his long time in the Senate. Senator Pryor: “There are a lot of people who think a balanced-budget amendment solves all the fiscal problems. I completely disagree.” (Peter Urban, Pryor Tilts Balanced Budget, Southwest Times Record, 11/17/11) Dear Senator Pryor, Why […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Mark Levin and Senator Hatch discuss the balanced budget amendment and it’s importance. Uploaded by loveconstitution on Jan 28, 2011 Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with […]

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected in 2014? (Part 4)(Royal Wedding Part 5)

Dr. Jay Barth with Hendrix College comments on our latest poll results on Arkansas politics (clip from Talkbusiness) Talk Business reported today in the article “Poll Shows Beebe Strength, Pryor Shaky,” the following: A new Talk Business-Hendrix College Poll shows Gov. Mike Beebe (D) maintaining his high job approval rating, while Sen. Mark Pryor (D) […]

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected in 2014? Part 3 (The Conspirator Part 16)

U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. Mark Pryor is up for re-election to the Senate in 2014. It is my opinion that the only reason he did not have an opponent in 2008 was because the Republicans in Arkansas did not want to go […]

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected or not? (Part 3)

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO institute, explains that the rate of return on social security will be much lower for todays youth. Steve Brawner wrote in his article “Tiptoeing toward the third rail,” (Arkansas News Bureau, Jan 9,): Social Security has long been considered the “third rail” for American politicians, meaning it’s […]

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected or not? Part 2

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com   CBS — October 19, 2010 — New York Times’ Jeff Zeleny talks to Jan Crawford about the state of Democrats in the South… Are they a dying species? In the article “Southern Democrat much closer to extinction after GOP wave,” (Washington Times, Nov 4, 2010), Ben Evans notes: After this week’s elections, the […]

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected or not? Part 1

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Roland Martin appears on Rick’s List with Rick Sanchez and the Best Political Team on television (Candy Crowley, John King, Jeffery Toobin, Ed Rollins, Gloria Borger and Victoria Toensing) to discuss day two of the Elena Kagan Supreme Court confirmation hearings. During the analysis, Senator Graham and Elena Kagan had an interesting exchange over […]

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

Wintery Knight and William Lane Craig: “Can atheists distinguish between right and wrong actions?”

October 24, 2013 – 12:07 am

_______________

Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason

____________________

Episode 8: The Age Of Fragmentation

Published on Jul 24, 2012

Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture

_______________________

I love the works of Francis Schaeffer and I have been on the internet reading several blogs that talk about Schaeffer’s work and the work below was really helpful. Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?  Wikipedia notes, “According to Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live traces Western history from Ancient Rome until the time of writing (1976) along three lines: the philosophic, scientific, and religious.[3] He also makes extensive references to art and architecture as a means of showing how these movements reflected changing patterns of thought through time. Schaeffer’s central premise is: when we base society on the Bible, on the infinite-personal God who is there and has spoken,[4] this provides an absolute by which we can conduct our lives and by which we can judge society.  Here are some posts I have done on this series: Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”, episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” , episode 6 “The Scientific Age” ,  episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” , episode 4 “The Reformation”,  episode 3 “The Renaissance”, episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” .

ll

Can atheists distinguish between right and wrong actions?

Take a look at two atheists who try to affirm that morality is simultaneously objective and subjective.

Atheists deny that there is any design for the universe – they think there is no Designer. That means there is no way that the universe ought to be, objectively speaking. I.e. – when there were no humans around, there was no way the universe ought to have been. When humans appear, they evolve arbitrary customs and conventions in order to live together more peaceably. These are not real in any sense – they are just aids to survival and group cohesion. Different groups in different times and places evolve different rules, and no set of rules is any better than any other, because there is no way we ought to be. We call this atheistic/evolutionary form of morality “moral relativism”. It stands in contrast with the theistic view of morality, which is called “moral objectivism”.

In their view, slavery is not really right or wrong, it’s just a matter of opinion decided by majority rule in different social groups living in different places and times. Some groups in certain places and times think it’s right, and some groups in some places and times think it’s wrong. In our view (theism), God creates the universe, and he designs it to be a certain way. There is a certain way we ought to be. So if God thinks slavery is wrong, then it really is wrong, and his opinion of right and wrong becomes a duty for us.

What’s wrong with moral relativism?

I found this list of the seven flaws of moral relativism at the Australian site Faith Interface.

Here’s the summary:

  1. Moral relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
  2. Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
  3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
  4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
  5. Relativists can’t improve their morality.
  6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
  7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.

Here’s my favorite flaw of relativism (#6):

Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions. What’s there to talk about? If morals are entirely relative and all views are equal, then no way of thinking is better than another. No moral position can be judged as adequate or deficient, unreasonable, acceptable, or even barbaric. If ethical disputes make sense only when morals are objective, then relativism can only be consistently lived out in silence. For this reason, it is rare to meet a rational and consistent relativist, as most are quick to impose their own moral rules like “It’s wrong to push your own morality on others”. This puts relativists in an untenable position – if they speak up about moral issues, they surrender their relativism; if they do not speak up, they surrender their humanity. If the notion of moral discourse makes sense intuitively, then moral relativism is false.

I sometimes get a lot of flack from atheists who complain that I don’t let them make any moral statements without asking first them to ground morality on their worldview. And that’s because on atheism morality IS NOT rationally grounded, so they can’t answer. In an accidental universe, you can only describe people’s personal preferences or social customs, that vary by time and place. It’s all arbitrary – like having discussions about what food is best or what clothing is best. The answer is always going to be “it depends”. It depends on the person who is speaking because it’s a subjective claim, not an objective claim. There is no objective way we ought to behave, on atheism. What atheists are really talking about when they say that something is right or that something is wrong is that in our group, we have evolved these beliefs that this behavior is good or this behavior is bad – we have these group preferences.

The horror of atheism, then, is that they reduce murder and slaver to beingmatters of opinion. And these majority opinions are arbitrary and can be different in different times and places. When you are talking to an atheist, you are talking to a person who literally thinks that the decision to rape or not rape is the same as the decision to drive on the left side of the road or the right side of the road. In both cases, it’s just something that groups decide one way or another arbitrarily, depending on how they evolved in different places and at different times.

All Christians should be able to draw out the moral relativism of atheists and challenge them on it, because once they are forced to affirm objective morality, they have to affirm God as the moral lawgiver. Take some time and read the linked article, then ask your atheistic friends to justify their talk about right and wrong. What do they mean by right and wrong? Why would they sacrifice their own self-interest in order to do “right”? Is the only reason that atheists have to be “good” far of being caught and punished by their group for breaking these arbitrary rules that vary by place and time? Do atheists only do the “right” thing when others are watching?

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY

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

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

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

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 […]

The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and A Christian Manifesto in that process.

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 […]

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