Dr. Francis Schaeffer, a brilliant Christian philosopher who died in 1984, gives great insight to the Postmodern crisis we are experiencing within the church today. He explains how Thomas Aquinas opened the door for an Epistemological compromise between the Bible as an authority on one hand and Aristotelian philosophy being an equal viewpoint on the other hand. This mixture, known as Syncretism, led to Christians questioning whether the Bible was needed at all.
This is something we are struggling with in our day. Is the Bible merely “a” source of truth, or is it “the” authoritative source for all moral truth? Is the Bible “a” truth (i.e. Relative Truth), or are there real absolutes that relate to all of life and reality?
If you have never read Dr. Shaeffer’s works, you need to rediscover this man’s amazing contribution to the Christian community. It may change your life, as it did mine nearly 20 years ago.
Mike Masterson is opinion editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’s Northwest edition and in the paper today he noted:
His favorite number.
To my colleagues in the media who apparently have no concept of why Denver quarterback Tim Tebow takes a knee in brief prayer when he makes an outstanding play on the field, let me assure you he is not thanking his creator for divine intervention for one act, or the outcome of the game. Tebow has never once said or even alluded to that.
God taking sides in a football game? Hard for me to believe even biased commentators would even put that one out there. It sounds like the reasoning of third-graders just to type this.
Instead, it’s evident to me that Tebow, who has prayed and openly expressed his devotion across his high school and All-American, Heisman Trophy college career, is simply expressing appreciation and gratitude to his maker for giving him the ability to perform at all.
The skeptics, naysayers and generally dissatisfied will disagree. Some will claim Tebow’s just hot-dogging or calling attention to himself. They have every right to believe that.
For me, Tebow represents a young man who is living his dream and doing what Christian scripture says is expected: To continually glorify God’s name and creation. He also has for years expressed his innermost self on the football field by wearing those black smudges beneath each eye containing the inscription John 3:16.
And here are some numbers bound to drive Tebow’s critics and nonbelievers (inside and outside the mainstream media) up a goalpost. You may have already seen these widely reported statistics.
In the Broncos’ overtime victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers two weeks back, Tebow averaged 31.6 yards per completion. He also threw for 316 yards. And the overtime television audience rating was 31.6. Pittsburgh’s time of possession? Why, 31 minutes, 6 seconds.
Make of this what you will. Some, of course, will shout coincidence. Perhaps. But that’s a Cowboys Stadium full of coincidences in my book. However, I do believe I can guess with certainty Tebow’s three luckiest numbers.
Tim Tebow is the best. Take a look at this article below: I believe in Tim Tebow Email Print By Rick Reilly ESPN.com Archive Tim Tebow FoundationTim Tebow with Jacob Rainey, one of the many people dealing with health problems Tebow hosted at Broncos games this season. I’ve come to believe in Tim […]
Another good article I found on Tebow: JANUARY 12, 2012 Does God Care Who Wins Football Games? After a moment of devotion, our team would all shout in unison, ‘Now let’s go kill those S.O.B.’s!’ By FRAN TARKENTON On Sunday, when Denver Bronco wide receiver Demaryius Thomas caught a pass from Tim Tebow on the […]
(In this clip above there is an argument concerning who Rodin married, but sorry it is in French.) Interesting article I wanted to pass on. I have written about Rodin’s “The Thinker” myself in the past. It’s official: Everyone on the planet has an opinion on Tim Tebow. By now we’ve heard from everyone from […]
With almost 300,000 hits on youtube: Uploaded by KDVRDenver on Jan 9, 2012 John Parr has updated his 1985 #1 hit “St. Elmo’s Fire (Man in Motion)” to honor Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. Download song at http://www.johnparramerica.com. Lyrics here: http://bit.ly/xHZqvW. Bill Maher is the one who brought Hitler into this. Related posts: Tim Tebow […]
Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. I used to write letters to the editor a whole lot back in the 1990′s. I am pro-life and many times my letters would discuss current political debates, and I got to know several names of people that would often write in response letters to my published letters. […]
The rivalry between the Seattle Sounders and the Vancouver Whitecaps goes back to their days in the old NASL in the 1970s, but the final 10 minutes of their first MLS match against each other on Saturday night might have been the best yet. The Sounders’ Mauro Rosales pulled the score even at 1-1 with a goal in the 81st minute and Osvaldo Alonso put them up 2-1 in the 84th. Just one minute later, Vancoucer’s Eric Hassli equalized with his second goal of the night and it just might prove to be the goal of the season in MLS.
Hassli chipped the ball over the defender and ran around him to volley it into the far side of the net from the edge of the box. The match would end 2-2 and showed exactly why Vancouver made the largely unknown Frenchman their highest paid player.
With six goals and three red cards in 10 matches so far, Hassli has had a strange yet productive season that, to this point, has been highlighted by the fact that he was sent off after celebrating a goal by removing his jersey to reveal the exact same jersey. Now it’s highlighted by that and a pretty great goal.
Yahoo Sports reported: The rivalry between the Seattle Sounders and the Vancouver Whitecaps goes back to their days in the old NASL in the 1970s, but the final 10 minutes of their first MLS match against each other on Saturday night might have been the best yet. The Sounders’ Mauro Rosales pulled the score even […]
Today we are discussing the 7th most controversial game. Everette Hatcher’s choice: I have chosen this game partly because it was a game that the USA won. Sadly Escobar was killed in a bar back in Columbia when he got home. Two of my sons were learning soccer at the time and they were 7 […]
Today we are discussing the 8th most controversial game. Everette Hatcher picks the Germany v. USA game in 2002. 2002 World Cup Quarter Finals: Germany vs United States Close call on hand-ball: In the 49th minute of Friday’s Germany-United States World Cup quarterfinal, a shot by American Gregg Berhalter bounced off German goalkeeper Oliver Kahn and […]
Uploaded by TubeCentary on Jun 7, 2011 Goals from the GOLD CUP match. Dempsey and Altidore with the goals. Hilarious American commentary to go with it. The Associated Press reported: Five Mexican players fail test Associated Press CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Five players on Mexico’s soccer team, including goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa and defender Francisco Rodriguez, have […]
Today we are discussing the best player of all time. Everette Hatcher picks Pele. Pele The Great videosport.jumptv.com – A tribute to history’s greatest soccer player of all time. Wilson Hatcher’s pick: Lionel Messi Lionel Messi 2009 – Top 10 Goals *NEW* This list is based on talent not influence. For Pele would easily be […]
Here is the reason why I lay so much stress in my book on the importance of William of Ockham and his justly celebrated razor. Why on earth—if you excuse the impression—do the faithful spend so much time creating a mystery where none exists? And why do they insist on inserting unwarrantable assumptions?
I take the plain meaning of the passage in Luke (in a section that is clotted with stories about the casting out of devils and other embarrassing sorceries) to be the duty to others in distress. Surely it loses much of its force if the lesson is about discrepant ethnicities of which we cannot in any case be certain? Nothing can “invert” the message to emulate the Samaritan and to go “and do thou likewise.”
You dilute the purity of this—which is morally intelligible to any atheist or humanist—by saying that there is a millennium and a half delay between the “revelation” of this simple act of charity and its anecdotal fulfillment. You also appear to find no distinction between the intelligible injunction to “love thy neighbor” and the impossible order to love another “as thyself.” We are not so made as to love others as ourselves: This may admittedly be a fault in our “design,” but in such a case the irony would be at your expense. The Golden Rule is to be found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era and who sanely state that one should not do to others anything that would be repulsive if done to oneself. (Even this strikes me as either contradictory or tautologous, since surely we agree that sociopaths and psychopaths actually deserve to be treated in ways that would be objectionable to a morally normal person.) When you say that men have never known nor yet understood the essential principle, however, you speak absurdly. Ordinary morality is innate in my view. But if, in yours, it is still not known, then centuries of divine admonition have also gone to waste. You are trapped in a net of your own making. Take a look at the list of actual or potential crimes that you mention. Genocide is not condemned by the Old Testament and neither (as you well know and have lsewhere conceded) is slavery. Rather, these two horrors are often positively recommended by holy writ.
Abortion is denounced in the Oath of Hippocrates, which long predates Christianity. As for capital punishment and unjust war, the secular and the religious are alike at odds on the very definitions that underpin any condemnation. (When you include “stem-cell research,” by the way, I assume that you unintentionally omitted the word “embryonic.”)
To your needlessly convoluted subsequent question: Atheists are by no means “coy” on the question of evil or on the possibility of non-supernatural derivation of ethics. We are simply reluctant to say that, if religious faith falls—as we believe it must and to some extent already has—then the undergirding of decency falls also. And we do not fail to notice that a corollary is in play: The manner in which religion makes people behave worse than they might therwise have done. Take a look at today’s paper if you do not believe me: See what the parties of God are doing in Iraq. Or notice the sordid yet pious tradesmanship of Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff, and the late Jerry Falwell. The latter’s bedside is the one at which you should be asking your question—do you dare to say that a follower of Albert Einstein or Bertrand Russell would be gloating in the same way at their last hour? In either case—an atheist boaster and braggart or a hypocritical religious one—I trust that both of us would know enough to be quite “judgmental.” I would differ from you only in not requiring any supernatural sanction or in claiming to be smug enough to possess such a power.
I am sorry to see that you sarcastically refer to Thomas Jefferson as “my” beloved. Do you not respect him also? And why can you not summon enough charity to believe that a non-believer can give blood, say, for no return, out of the sheer satisfaction of doing a service that involves only a benefit and no loss? According to you, my doing this is pointless unless I accept the incredible idea that, after hundreds of thousands of years of human life and suffering, God chose a moment a few thousand years ago to finally mount an intervention. You will have to accept sooner or later that a good person can be born who cannot force his mind to believe such a fantastic thing. At that point, you will see that your strenuous conditions are surplus to requirements.
In closing, I reply to your clumsy observation about my motor vehicle by citing Heine, who said: In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.
The argument that you have been making was over long before either of us was born. There is no need for revelation to enforce morality, and the idea that good conduct needs a heavenly reward, or that bad conduct merits a hellish punishment, is a degradation of our right and duty to choose for ourselves.
Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]
Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]
A big majority of Americans are concerned about growing income inequality and government favor for the rich, and they understand that lower taxes do directly affect federal budget deficits, which Republican orthodoxy for 30 years has denied.
However, I like most Republicans would argue the problem is spending and not taxes. Take a look at this video and article from the Cato Institute concerning Illinios’ recent experience.
I’m mystified, though, why some Republicans are willing to walk into such a trap. If you were playing chess against someone, and that person kept pleading with you to make a certain move, wouldn’t you be a tad bit suspicious that your opponent really wasn’t trying to help you win?
When I talk to the Republicans who are open to tax hikes, they sometimes admit that their party will suffer at the polls for agreeing to the hikes, but they say it’s the right thing to do because of all the government red ink.
I suppose that’s a noble sentiment, though I find that most GOPers who are open to tax hikes also tend to be big spenders, so I question their sincerity (with Senator Coburn being an obvious exception).
But even if we assume that all of them are genuinely motivated by a desire to control deficits and debt, shouldn’t they be asked to provide some evidence that higher taxes are an effective way of fixing the fiscal policy mess?
I’m not trying to score debating points. This is a serious question.
European nations, for instance, have been raising taxes for decades, almost always saying the higher taxes were necessary to balance budgets and control red ink. Yet that obviously hasn’t worked. Europe’s now in the middle of a fiscal crisis.
Run up spending and debt, raise taxes in the naming of balancing the budget, but then watch as deficits rise and your credit-rating falls anyway. That’s been the sad pattern in Europe, and now it’s hitting that mecca of tax-and-spend government known as Illinois.
…Moody’s downgraded Illinois state debt to A2 from A1, the lowest among the 50 states. That’s worse even than California.
…This wasn’t supposed to happen. Only a year ago, Governor Pat Quinn and his fellow Democrats raised individual income taxes by 67% and the corporate tax rate by 46%. They did it to raise $7 billion in revenue, as the Governor put it, to “get Illinois back on fiscal sound footing” and improve the state’s credit rating. So much for that.
…And—no surprise—in part because the tax increases have caused companies to leave Illinois, the state budget office confesses that as of this month the state still has $6.8 billion in unpaid bills and unaddressed obligations.
In other words, higher taxes led to fiscal deterioration in Illinois, just as tax increases in Europe have been followed by bad outcomes.
Whenever any politician argues in favor of a higher tax burden, just keep these two points in mind:
1. Higher taxes encourage more government spending.
The combination of these two factors explains why higher taxes make things worse rather than better. And they explain why Europe is in trouble and why Illinois is in trouble.
The relevant issue is whether the crowd in Washington should copy those failed examples. As this video explains, higher taxes are not the solution.
This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives seven reasons why the political elite are wrong to push for more taxes. If allowed to succeed, the hopelessly misguided pushing to raise taxes would only worsen our fiscal mess while harming the economy.
The seven reasons provided by the video against this approach are as follows:
1) Tax increases are not needed;
2) Tax increases encourage more spending;
3) Tax increases harm economic performance;
4) Tax increases foment social discord;
5) Tax increases almost never raise as much revenue as projected;
6) Tax increases encourage more loopholes; and,
7) Tax increases undermine competitiveness
It pays to remember history. Today I am going to go through some of it and give an outline and quotes from the great Southern Baptist leader Adrian Rogers (1931-2005).
Somehow Newt Gingrich’s righteous indignation over CNN’s debate moderator John King’s questioning Gingrich over his ex-wife’s allegations that Newt Gingrich wanted an “open marriage” with both his then wife, Marianne Gingrich and Gingrich’s present wife Callista, appears to be a simple little temper tantrum by the seemingly cry-baby ex-Speaker.
Gingrich came off a whiner having a hissy fit over what is more than likely “the truth”..
One only need go back to the nineties when Gingrich was outraged over the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. The press and Gingrich went full throttle to paint President Clinton as the lowest form of life possible.
Gingrich had no problem with the Press and cable TV’s trial by media events that took place in what could be described as an incessant level of coverage back then.
Now all of a sudden he chooses to castigate the “elite media” and the debate moderator for reporting the story and in King’s case, for asking about the story. Newt Gingrich appears to be a victim all the time.
Would you like some cheese with that whine Mr. Gingrich?
___________________________
My former pastor Adrian Rogers summed this up best in 1998 during the Clinton scandal (“Does Character Count? A Biblical Treatment,” SBC Life, November 1998, 1):
[Rogers] suggests the comfort of the middle class has larger implications for American society. His concern in the recent presidential intern scandal was with the large number of people who were not particularly upset. “My concern is with the people whose response to a lack of character in our leaders is a roaring, “SO WHAT? LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL!” As long as there are people in this country who believe that a leader’s personal character makes no difference in any way, then I tell you that we are in the throes of crisis!”
Does Character Count? A Biblical Treatment by Adrian Rogers
“Vice is a monster of such awful mien, that to be hated needs but to be seen, but seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Our nation is in crisis and as a minister of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, I feel I must address this matter!
We cannot, we dare not, we must not, and we shall not ignore what is happening in America today. Some terrible and shocking accusations have been made against the President of our beloved republic. It is our duty as Americans and as Christians to pray that truth will be revealed and justice administered.
In this article I want to address not so much the crisis at the highest levels of our government, but the bigger and even more disturbing crisis at the level of everyday American life where most of us live. Let me explain what I mean…
(Some will believe the charges against the President and some will not).
Then there is a third response to serious moral and ethical charges against a person in high office. This is the group I want to talk about, because it is here that America’s shocking, degrading moral crisis rears its ugly head.
This third group of people are those who, instead of saying the accused is guilty or innocent, say, “SO WHAT? Who cares? Guilty, innocent – what difference does it really make so long as he is doing a good job?”
These people argue that there is no connection between a man’s personal life and his political abilities. And according to all indications, this response to scandal and serious charges is the most common response among Americans!
A recent editorial in U.S. News & World Report said: “A majority seem to believe in the President’s programs and politics even if they don’t believe in him. They care far more about the good times. As one wag put it, ‘People say they vote Dow Jones, not Paula Jones.'”
Another editorial writer argued that in the case of the President, “We elected him knowing his propensities. The economy is strong and he has a promising agenda. Tossing him out to keep up appearances would merely match the President’s destructive self-indulgence with our own.”
This man assumes the President has done wrong. But he’s saying that the economy is good and the President’s programs are so good. Why mess up a good thing?
In a newspaper article, a sociologist made this observation: “Character has been slowly bred out of many Americans, especially baby boomers and their children.” He argued that decades of pampering and organized activities and “feel-good” approaches in which participants do not have to take personal responsibility have made character almost passé.
Is character passé in America? A Newsweek magazine poll said that voters tend to believe the President is lying about his adulterous affairs, yet he is enjoying his highest approval rating ever. These sentiments sum up the attitude of this third group and indicate that we are in deep trouble as a nation!
I want you to understand that no matter what has been revealed or what action has been taken by the time this is read, the crisis I want to address will not just go away. My concern is with the people whose response to a lack of character in our leaders is a roaring, “SO WHAT? LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL!”
As long as there are people in this country who believe that a leader’s personal character makes no difference in any way, then I tell you that we are in the throes of crisis!
But make no mistake. It makes every difference what a person in leadership believes and does in his personal life. Character counts with God, and it must count with us if we want to stay the judgment of God on this great nation.
The Character God Requires
What does God say about the kind of leadership a nation needs? I want to give you four principles I have ferreted out from the Word of God. Let’s think first of all about the character God requires. The Bible says in Proverbs 29:2, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”
One argument we are hearing these days is that national leaders are like airplane pilots. “We don’t care about a pilot’s morals,” this line goes, “as long as he can fly the airplane. His character doesn’t matter as long as he can get us from point A to point B. We want a safe take-off, a safe trip, and a safe landing. What the pilot does in his personal life behind closed doors is none of our concern.”
This argument about a leader’s character might hold water if we did not need the BLESSING OF GOD on this country. If we are going to say, “God, we don’t need You to bless our leaders or our people,” then this argument may be valid.
But let me use another analogy. Suppose you were going to have open-heart surgery. Would you want the surgeon to come from the restroom and into the operating room without even washing his hands? Would you want him to hold your heart in his hands if they were not sanitary? I want the hands of those who hold the heart of this nation to be clean. Clean hands and a pure heart are necessary for godly leadership and godly leadership is a prerequisite to blessing.
The fact is that America desperately needs the blessing of God! We are ruined without it. But God says, “If you want My blessings, here are some things that are necessary.” Let me give you six biblical characteristics that God requires of leaders before His blessing can rest on a nation.
Below are the verses that should describe our leaders:
“It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness” (Prov. 16:12).
“I wisdom dwell with prudence. … By me [wisdom] kings reign and, princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth” (Prov. 8:12, 15-16).
Proverbs 17:7 tells us, “Excellent speech becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince.” According to Proverbs 20:28, “Mercy and truth preserve the king.”
(Avoid bad counselors) Proverbs 29:12 says, “If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.”
“The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him. What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows? Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings” (Prov. 31:1-3).
A Leader Must Be a Man Who Protects the Weak
Here’s a final trait of leadership that God requires. A leader must protect the weak and the helpless.
In Proverbs 31:8-9, God says to King Lemuel, “Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”
A president, or any leader, must speak up for those who can’t speak up for themselves, those who are about to be destroyed. When a president is inaugurated, he takes a pledge to defend the nation. There are many defenseless people in America today, and they’re depending on the government to defend them. The President should be standing up for the unborn, the most defenseless of all those who cannot speak for themselves.
I once testified in Washington before a Senate committee dealing with abortion. After I left the room there at the Capitol, a female lawyer met me in the hall. “You don’t understand,” she said. “You’re a man, so you don’t understand what a trauma it is to have an unwanted pregnancy.”
I said to her, “Do I understand you to say that if somebody traumatizes you, you can eliminate them? Because you’re traumatizing me right now. What if I were to put both my thumbs on your windpipe and strangle you right now? At least you could scream or run. But a baby in its mother’s womb can’t do either.”
She just turned and walked off. I’m sure she told someone, “That Baptist preacher said he was going to strangle me!” But I only said, “What if?”
It’s the job of a ruler to speak up for the unborn! “Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction,” God commands the one in authority. Someone may say, “But Pastor Rogers, abortion is legal.” Then hear these verses: “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood” (Ps. 94:20-21).
If a throne of iniquity is one that uses the law to commit evil, then what we have in America today is a throne of iniquity! Laws are passed to shed innocent blood. But NOTHING IS POLITICALLY RIGHT THAT IS MORALLY WRONG.
Jeremiah said concerning evil King Jehoiakim, “Thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it” (22:17). The prophet Habakkuk warned, “Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!” (2:12).
The king, the prince, the president, must be the protector of the helpless. This is the character that God requires.
Does character count? It does if there is a God in glory – a God who helped our founders establish this nation, and who has sustained this nation and brought us thus far.
But if our people are willing to say, “God, we don’t need You anymore. We don’t want Your rule anymore. We know what we are doing. Our skill and ingenuity will see us through,” then I say God help America! Because God will say, “You don’t need Me? That’s fine. But then don’t call on Me when judgment falls.”
Do you remember what happened when Peter preached his great sermon on the Day of Pentecost? The people of Israel “were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).
This is the question God’s people need to ask today.
________
Newt should have had a steadfast love for his wife!!! Take a look at this clip below:
Some Southern Baptist leaders defended Newt Gingrich’s past moral failings and attempted to explain why the former Speaker of the House could be supported as the Republican standard-bearer. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things are working poorly now, are we to conclude that the Keynesian sort of mixed regulation was wrong __
FRIEDMAN: Yes.
LEKACHMAN: __ or alternatively that we need still more regulation. That’s my conclusion, I might say.
FRIEDMAN: You want the right people manipulating the leaders. But go back. Memory smooths things out. If you really look at that 25_year period you’re talking about, it was not a period of stability; it was a period that was punctuated by the very sharp inflation of the Korean War. It was a period that was punctuated by three recessions in the course of about eight years in the fifties and early sixties. It was a period in which you had a __ inflation really starting to go from creeping to running, in the latter sixties. It was a period which laid the ground work for the kind of situation in which we are now, where you have both higher unemployment and higher inflation. It was __
TEMIN: I don’t think that followed. I mean there were these movements, as we say, but they weren’t the movements like the 1930s. There was a recession in ’58, yes.
FRIEDMAN: I agree.
TEMIN: We all called it a recession. We all worried about it and so on, but it was a small thing, little potatoes.
FRIEDMAN: The same thing was true in earlier periods between The Great Depression. If you take the area between the great depression in the United States of the 1870s and the 1890s, again you had a period like that. If you take it between The Great Depression of the 1890s and World War I, with a minor __ with one minor exception, it was similar to that. So that what you have, and this is a historical fact, is that except for the great depressions, all of which are linked to monetary collapses and to governmental involvement, in the interim period, the society has been reasonably stable.
MCKENZIE: Haven’t we reached the stage, incidentally, where we need not again see anything like the great depression. You say recessions, yes; but it bears no relationship to what we knew __
FRIEDMAN: No.
MCKENZIE: __ in the thirties. Have we solved that problem now? People are deeply __
JAY: No, we haven’t. Because I think the seeds of it remain there. I don’t agree with Professor Lekachman that everything was __ I don’t want to misparaphrase him __ but did pretty well until 1973 and then it suddenly all went wrong. It seems to me that the seeds of the subsequent instability, stagflation, were there before. That each time round the economic cycle inflation went a little faster. Each time around the economic cycle unemployment tended to be a bit higher. But this brings me to what is my disagreement with Professor Friedman. I agree with him that government has failed to correct, and is bound to fail to correct that instability. I do not agree with him that it is the root cause of that instability or simply removing or containing the government will remove that instability. Because his constitution, and I agree with all the things he wants to put into it, but I want to put more into it, leaves big capital entirely free to operate. Now he doesn’t mind that. In response to big capital, you are bound to get __ as a simple, natural reaction __ big labor. He doesn’t mind that. He’s quite happy with that. But my contention is that once you have big labor, you have a way of setting rewards in society, not only by trade unions, but through all sorts of other processes whereby groups get together in order to exploit the political process and legal rights, and to protect themselves from competition, in which, inevitably, people set rewards above what economists call the “market clearing price” for labor. They set levels of rewards which make it impossible that everybody should be employed and you therefore have a built-in tendency to high unemployment. If governments react to that on the Keynesian pattern by trying to inject spending which will enable these people to be employed, then I agree with Professor Friedman that all you get is faster and faster inflation, and that if you like, is caused by the government. But the government is a proximate cause of an original instability that is already there. And there’s nothing in Professor Friedman’s constitution which would correct that inherent, if you like, contradiction or flaw in classical western political economy.
FRIEDMAN: Do you deny, Peter __
MCKENZIE: Let me get the reaction to that __
FRIEDMAN: __no, I want to ask just one question of Peter. Do you deny that big government plays a large part in the rise of big capital and big labor?
JAY: I think they’re interactive. I once said big capital causes big labor, causes big government, causes big failure. That is the tragic story, in my opinion, of the 20th century.
FRIEDMAN: And what about if you start that __
JAY: We have to unravel that.
FRIEDMAN: __ if you start that route with big government. Will it be wrong? Big government causes big capital, causes big labor, causes big failure?
JAY: I don’t think historically that’s what happened. But you and I are agreed, we don’t want big government.
FRIEDMAN: That’s right.
JAY: What we’re disagreed about is what else we need.
LEKACHMAN: I think something is seriously wrong with a beautiful system which develops this big, clumsy, aggressive government, huge corporations, with more influence over their markets than is desirable from the standpoint of free competitive theory, trade unions, which at least according to some opinions, have a similarly malignant influence on their markets. There must be something radically flawed with the capitalist system which allows these institutional developments. This doesn’t alarm me because I’m a socialist, but I would __ I would readily __
FRIEDMAN: There must be something radically wrong with socialist philosophy which allows the __ extraordinary __ the much worse developments that have occurred, wherever there has been any real significant attempt to put a thoroughgoing socialism into practice.
LEKACHMAN: Socialism is a word of many meanings.
MCKENZIE: Now I think we might easily get into a quite serious debate on that point.
VOICE OFF SCREEN: Right.
JAY: I think it’s possible to note in passing that they may both be right.
MCKENZIE: Yes.
JAY: That conventional capitalism, conventional socialism, as conceived in the 20th century, are both wrong and that the polarization of the debate between those simple two alternatives greatly impoverishes the real range of political-economic choices which modern societies have.
FRIEDMAN: But what has happened? Over and over again one claim after another for the kind of socialism __ this kind of socialism or that kind of socialism __ has turned to ashes. And each time the answer has come, “Oh well, it was a wrong brand of socialism that was adopted, or the wrong people were running it.”
VOICE OFF SCREEN: But you’re saying __
JAY: You’re arguing with yourself when you’re saying __
FRIEDMAN: No I’m not.
JAY: The Federal Reserve in 1929 failed to do the right thing. It was the wrong brand of government.
FRIEDMAN: It was the wrong brand, absolutely, but what I’m saying is something different. I can at least point to examples in history of systems of capitalist systems in which the government had a fairly limited role, not my ideal government. Many things, doing many things I would not want it to do. But I’m going to point to such examples over long stretches of history in __ which have been relatively successful. Where the major achievements of humankind, not merely in economics, but in all other areas, have largely arisen. It is very difficult to point to any similar examples __
TEMIN: But then you are pointing back __
FRIEDMAN: __ of where big government has achieved such success.
TEMIN: But you said before you didn’t like to go back. You’re now talking about going back.
FRIEDMAN: No, no. I didn’t say I didn’t like to go back.
TEMIN: They took place in different times.
FRIEDMAN: What I said is going back or forward is irrelevant. What we want to do is __
TEMIN: But it’s not irrelevant to this discussion __
FRIEDMAN: __ the right thing wherever it comes from.
TEMIN: __ because as Bob Lekachman said earlier, things have increased in scale, and the scale of business and increased, and you were saying just before, big government, big labor, big industry, big firms go together, and you didn’t accept it before, when Bob said you’ll accept it now from here.
FRIEDMAN: No, no. I don’t accept it. What I accept is that big government is a major factor promoting big labor and big capital. I did not accept that in the absence of big government you would have the big capital and big labor that worries him.
There was a very interesting interview with Dali by Mike Wallace. Here are the video clips and transcript below:
WALLACE: …in religion. Well now I spoke with you about a year ago and we talked about religion, and you said that as the years go by,you embrace Roman Catholicism more and more with your mind but not yet completely with your heart.DALI: This is true,WALLACE: Why not?
DALI: Because…perhaps it is my early intellectual training and information. But now every day is more approach of this real feeling of religion. Just one month ago– is one tremendous operation of appendix – a broken appendix. After this operation becoming three times more religious than before.
WALLACE: How old are you Dali?
DALI: Never remember exactly, but 54 or 53 or something.
WALLACE: Are you formally involved with your religion? Do you go to church a good deal – do you pray – do you….
DALI: Every day more, but is no sufficient…
WALLACE: Not sufficient….Have you ever had a supernatural vision?
DALI: Visionary things – but no supernatural.
WALLACE: No supernatural. An article about you – you mention your fear of death. An article about you in Life magazine once said that you’re afraid of almost everything from ocean liners to grasshoppers. The article said you won’t buy shoes because you don’t like to take off your shoes in public. And that when you go out you carry a little piece of Spanish driftwood which you keep to ward off evil spells.
DALI: Yes, because remind very very superstitious but this is- I’m sure is is common of every Spanish people, you know. Spanish people is very superstitious.
WALLACE: Do you know anything about politics at all? You say you don’t care about them. Do you know anything about them? Do you know, for instance who the prime minister of Great Britain is?
DALI: Yes, but no – not particularly care of this. Because, for me the important thing is look – the philosophical event of every moment. And now is absolutely sure for instance, monarchy is restored in Spain very shortly.
WALLACE: You think it will be?
DALI: Prince Juan Carlos and Franco agree on its restoration. Is absolutely convincing the monarchy coming back in France very shortly after one military mayor or perhaps one De Gaulle or another….
WALLACE: Do you know – do you know who the Vice President of the United States is? Can you name him…
DALI: Mr. Nixon. Yes, yes – but, but what is possible now – what is possible perhaps tomorrow you put this in quick question and…
WALLACE: And you will answer… What do you enjoy doing most? Do you like to talk, to paint, to eat, to think? What, what do you like to spend your time doing, Dali?
DALI: My manner of expend my time – is the more joy, the more delightful is becoming every day – a little more – Dali.
WALLACE: A little more Dali.
DALI: Because in the beginning of my life, you remember in like at becoming Napoleon…
WALLACE: First you wanted to be a cook – first you waited to be a cook, then you wanted to be a Napoleon.
DALI: Cook and woman – one woman cooking.
WALLACE: You wanted to be a woman, cooking?
DALI: Exactly … a woman cooking. Second, like of becoming Napoleon.
WALLACE: Napoleon.
DALI: A little one like it becoming Dali. And now is every day more Dali.
WALLACE: In a moment I’d like to ask you about an extraordinary power which you claim that you have. You’ve written that you can remember your thoughts and your feelings before you were born.
And I’d like to know what those thoughts and feelings were. And we’ll get Salvador Dali’s answer in just sixty seconds.
(COMMERCIAL)
WALLACE: Now then, Dali – you said that you can remember not only things that happened to you in your infancy, but even your feelings before you were born. What were they? What did you think about? What did you feel?
DALI: Well I remember very clearly many mansions. How so – not only in black and white but in glorious technicolor….technicolor.
WALLACE: I see, and what specifically.. What were some of these things?
DALI: At some phosphorous and x-luminous-x…..I told these visions to Doctor Freud in London. Freud tell me that it is absolutely true – is the region of intra-uterine memories. Probably my position – fetal position, my pupils is very hurt by my hands. Depend on my position.
WALLACE: Was it – well, what was it like? Was it, was it pleasant before you were born?
DALI: Ah – it was completely paradise.
WALLACE: Paradise…
DALI: From this moment the more divine nature – in the moment of born is the moment of the paradise is lost. This is an ethereal …
WALLACE: Well, under those circumstances I find it difficult to understand your fear of death. If the moment of being born was paradise-lost, perhaps death, for you will be paradise-regained. And therefore I would think that you would….
DALI: This is my hope. But is not absolutely sure. This is the trouble. You see, the death is again the regain of this paradise – this is excellent, but is not, not sure.
WALLACE: Do you, do you enjoy yourself as you live. Do you like yourself? You think – you say that you are a genius. Certainly you have had…
DALI: I enjoy my life every day more.
WALLACE: You do…
DALI: Every week more. Because of Sir Dali – and my admiration for Dali is becoming tremendous.
WALLACE: Yes, What kind of dreams do you have? What are they about, Dali?
DALI: Every time is very agreeable and creative. The last dreams is about the anti-matter angels. Perhaps for five months only dream about archangels, angels, kings and the most beautiful spectacular.
WALLACE: You seem to be a mild-mannered man. Are you?
DALI: I don’t understand – mild?
WALLACE: Are you, are you a mild man? Are you a pleasant man to deal with? Are you a friendly man? You seem to be a mild man.
DALI: Everybody love Dali very much.
WALLACE: Everybody loves Dali.
DALI: But they pick on him.
WALLACE: But your paintings – they’re frequently violent. And you’ve written, that in your private life you have had sudden impulses to injure people. As a child you kicked people – you threw a friend off a rocky ledge. As an adult you confessed that you once kicked a legless beggar along the street.
DALI: Exactly. But this is my adolescence period. Now becoming much more quiet in these kind of sadistic things.
WALLACE: Yes…
DALI: As a contrary – after my religious feelings becoming more strong – these sadistic things of my adolescence disappeared almost completely.
WALLACE: Is that so? And, and when you were a young man, too, you used to try to hurt – you were masochistic as well as sadistic. You used to try to hurt yourself…you’d bind your head until it hurt, because you felt that you could be more creative that way. You do not need that…..
DALI: No – now every of this has disappear because every of my libido now is simply made in the religion and the mysticism.
WALLACE: Well, there’s one story about yourself I’d like to ask you about before you go. When you were courting your wife, Gala you did an unusual thing. As you’ve described it, you smeared your body with your own blood from a cut. You tore your clothes and then you rubbed a jar of evil-smelling fish glue all over yourself. And you planned to present yourself this way in front of your future wife. Why did you do that?
DALI: Because in this moment of weakness in this moment Dali is true is almost crazy before met Gala. My, my brain is very close of one sick pathologic brain.
WALLACE: Your brain, yes…
DALI: In this moment liked seduce Gala in the most terrific manner. I believe from the smell is a more attractive manner for seduce Gala. Gala becoming in love with me appears as probably the real …Gala created the real mysticism or the real classicist of my adult life.
WALLACE: And you have been married now to Gala for how many years?
DALI: Oh perhaps 20 or more, but is still in love with Gala – more than in the beginning. That is something that nobody believe. Perhaps – Dali never make love avec one other woman than Gala.
WALLACE: In 20 years.
DALI: And the people never believe because – everybody….
WALLACE: Why – why shouldn’t we believe? It’s the most sensible thing in the world.
DALI: Yes, but there is no… you should believe – it’s very frequent. But the other people don’t think it’s very exceptional.
WALLACE: Well I don’t think perhaps as exceptional as…
DALI: And now my obsession is the chastity, because….
WALLACE: Chastity…
DALI: …is more important for religious belief.
WALLACE: Dali, I certainly thank you for coming and spending this time. I’m looking forward to the publication of your new book, “Dali” which will be published in the Fall and I understand will have a good many color plates of your paintings in it. Thank you Dali.
DALI: Merci.
WALLACE: To those who raise eyebrows or look down their noses at him, Salvador Dali bristles his remarkable moustache with equal disdain. As he puts it, “I cannot understand why human beings should be so little individualized. Why they should behave with such great collective uniformity.” He says, “I do not understand why, when I ask for grilled lobster in a restaurant, I’m never served a cooked telephone.” I’ll be back in a moment with a special announcement about future plans.
(COMMERCIAL)
WALLACE: Tonight’s interview ends my series which started a year ago for the Philip Morris Company, the makers of Philip Morris, Parliament, and Marlboro cigarettes and I want to thank the Philip Morris Company, sincerely, for helping me to bring you these programs.
WALLACE: Next Sunday evening – next Sunday evening at ten o’clock Eastern Daylight Saving Time, on many of these stations, I’ll start a new interview series devoted to the theme of Freedom and Survival. The series will be produced in cooperation with the Fund for the Republic and will be designed to encourage public discussion of freedom and justice. We’re going to talk about the problems of the individual in his relationship to big government, big business, and big labor.
WALLACE: We’re going to examine the growing power of political parties and pressure groups, we’ll talk about the responsibility of our mass media…newspapers, magazines, motion pictures and television. We’ll discuss these issues with such men as Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, Aldous Huxley, author of “Brave New World”, industrialist Cyrus Eaton. Next Sunday night on the first program, we’ll open the series with an examination of religious skepticism.
WALLACE: Of the conflict between church and state, of religion and morality in American life. Our guest, you see him behind me, will be one of the world’s leading religious thinkers, the Protestant theologian, Doctor Reinhold Niebuhr. We’ll ask Doctor Niebuhr why he charges that our current religious revival is essentially meaningless. We’ll find out why Doctor Niebuhr says that religion can never abolish injustice and evil in society. That’s next Sunday at ten on many of these stations. Until then, Mike Wallace – goodnight.
ANNOUNCER: The Mike Wallace Interview has been brought to you by the new high filtration Parliament. Parliament – now for the first time at popular price.
I used to go to the Immanuel Baptist Church (Clinton was member there) Luncheon every week in Little Rock and in 1995 I visited the large Southern Baptist Church in the Atlanta where Newt was a member.
Both men evidently shared some hypocritical habits which included cheating on their wife. The Arkansas Times rightly pointed out that Newt is in trouble because of the news clip seen above. Christian leaders are now discussing what to do below in the Republican primaries.
With just days to go before South Carolina’s First In South Republican primary, the war over who should be the not-Mitt Romney candidate has gone completely nuclear.
Influential evangelical leader James Dobson set off the fireworks at this weekend’s Christian Right summit, giving a speech that lavished praise on Karen Santorum and asked whether Americans really wanted Callista Gingrich — “a woman who was a man’s mistress for eight years” — as their First Lady, according to sources who attended the meeting.
Sources told Business Insider that Dobson’s speech was a “startling moment” that left many in the audience — particularly those who support Gingrich — floored. One source described Dobson’s tone as “angry,” and said it seemed like Dobson was blaming Callista Gingrich for the couples’ affair, which began while the former House Speaker was still married to his second wife (this is Callista Gingrich’s first marriage).
“It was clear that, to him, the villian in this story is Callista Gingrich,” the source said. “And he was announcing it to 170 ministers with huge mailing lists and television ministries.”
Needless to say, the Texas summit did little to unite the Christian Right. On Sunday, the day following the conference, reports began circulating about Karen Santorum’s six-year love affair with a Pittsburgh obsetrician and abortion provider 40 years her senior. (The Santorum campaign has yet to comment on the story.)
The vitiriol of these attacks indicates that the schism in the Religious Right is only getting worse as the 2012 race drags on. Sources who attended this weekend’s summit — which was ostensibly held to unite religious conservatives behind one candidate — said that the conference was largely a charade, with the outcome predetermined in favor of Santorum.
Ultimately, the beneficiary of all this evangelical infighting is Romney, who has already been helped by the divided social conservative vote. But it is unclear if the former Massachusetts Governor — a Mormon with a history of flip-flopping on social issues — has what it takes to patch the Religious Right back together and convince them to go to bat for him as the Republican nominee. If he can’t reunite this powerful coalition, his path to the White House could be very difficult.
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
In this paper below you will read:
America cannot raise taxes to continue overspending, because tax hikes shrink our economy and grow our government. America cannot borrow more to continue overspending, because borrowing puts an enormous financial burden on the American children of tomorrow. A BBA will help address this long-term problem because, after the multi-year process for securing ratification of the BBA by three-quarters of the states, the BBA will keep federal spending under control in subsequent years.
Washington has not been able to cut spending so the BBA is needed to force Washington to do the right thing. Your father David Pryor was the governor of Arkansas and he knew what it meant to have a balanced budget by mandate.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.
Two key principles should govern congressional consideration of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires the federal government to balance its budget:
First Principle: A Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is important to help bring long-term fiscal responsibility to America’s future when the BBA takes effect after ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures; it is equally important for Congress to cut spending nowto address the current overspending crisis.
Second Principle: An effective BBA will include three elements to: (a) control spending, taxation, and borrowing, (b) ensure the defense of America, and (c) enforce the requirement to balance the budget.
Cuts for the Future, Cuts for the Present
Federal spending is out of control—both obligations for the future and spending right now.
Congress must get spending under control in the long term. America cannot raise taxes to continue overspending, because tax hikes shrink our economy and grow our government. America cannot borrow more to continue overspending, because borrowing puts an enormous financial burden on the American children of tomorrow. A BBA will help address this long-term problem because, after the multi-year process for securing ratification of the BBA by three-quarters of the states, the BBA will keep federal spending under control in subsequent years.
Congress also must get spending under control in theshort term. Federal overspending is not simply about the future, but also about the present. Under the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Submission, measured by the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will spend $1.2 trillion more than it will take in, a gargantuan burden of additional debt forced on future generations to pay current bills.
Thus, America needs both a Balanced Budget Amendment for the long term and deep cuts in federal spending starting right now, without waiting for a BBA to take effect. As Congress considers budget resolutions, appropriations bills, appropriations continuing resolutions, and debt limit bills, Congress should take every opportunity now to cut federal spending, including for the biggest overspending problem: the ever-growing entitlement programs.
Congress should recognize that the best way to encourage state legislatures to ratify a BBA is to demonstrate, through consistent congressional cuts in spending, that the American people have the will to accept spending cuts to balance the budget.
Elements of a Successful Balanced Budget Amendment
A successful BBA will:
Control spending, taxing, and borrowing through a requirement to balance the budget.The BBA should cap annual spending at a level not exceeding either: (a) a specified percentage of the value of goods and services the economy produces in a year (known as gross domestic product, or GDP), or (b) the level of revenues. To ensure that Congress cannot simply balance the budget by continually raising taxes instead of cutting overspending, the BBA should require Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. Any authority the BBA grants Congress to deal with economic slowdowns, by waiving temporarily the requirement that spending not exceed the GDP percentage or revenue level, should specify the amount of above-revenue spending allowed and require supermajority votes.
Defend America. The BBA should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when waiver is essential to pay for the defense of Americans from attack.
Enforce the balanced budget requirement. The BBA should provide for its own enforcement, but must specifically exclude courts from any enforcement of the BBA, so unelected judges do not make policy decisions such as determining the appropriate level of funding for federal programs. A government that spends money in excess of its revenues must borrow to cover the difference. Therefore, to enforce the requirement to balance the budget, the BBA should prohibit government issuance of debt, except when necessary to finance a temporary deficit resulting from congressional supermajority votes discussed above.
America is in a fiscal crisis. Our government spends too much. Overspending must stop immediately. Overspending will stop only if Congress cuts spending now, including with respect to the ever-expanding entitlement programs. For the future, Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures can adopt and ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to anchor the American willingness to live within a balanced budget.
David S. Addington is Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, and J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.
Francis Schaeffer
“Vice is a monster of such awful mien, that to be hated needs but to be seen, but seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
