Post on SNL skit of Tim Tebow draws reaction from Mormons and Skeptics

[SB10001424052970203501304577088612669534918]

Recently I posted that I was saddened by the Saturday Night Live reckless skit on Tim Tebow that among other things  endorsed Mormonism. In response, I gave several evidences from archaeology that disproved the Book of Mormon. Then I included a five part video series that showed the archaeological evidence that supported the historical accuracy of  the Bible. (Archaeological evidence evidence against the Book of Mormon is abundant i.e., the lack of horses and iron swords in North America 2000 years ago), but arhaeological evidence supports the accuracy of the Bible.)

Here are the responses that I got and my responses to them: 

Comments

Patrick
obrainghaile@gmail.com
216.0.97.11

Why were you saddened? I doubt Jason Sudeikis’ proclamation of the truth of Mormonism is going to be that one missionary tool the LDS church was missing to really get things going. It was pretty clear to me the joke was meant to be absurd. South Park did the same thing when in one episode the director of Hell tells some newcomers the Mormons are the ones who get into heaven.

What is really confusing is why so many people who are of Evangelical and Baptist faiths (to name a few) spend so much time and energy trying to debunk Mormonism. Why do they care so much? I would think there are many who need help far more than a group of people who appear to believe in Jesus Christ and try to emulate Him by living honest, moral lives. I would rather devote my time and energy making sure I understand and live my own faith.

   
December 23, 2011 – 8:49 am Categories: Biblical Archaeology, Current Events | Comments (2)

Tagged , , , |

James Robinson on Tim Tebow

 

[SB10001424052970203501304577088612669534918]

I have heard James Robinson preach many times before. I thought you might enjoy these insights on Tebow on 12-16-11:

Tim Tebow’s Witness

I remember clearly the first time I heard the name “Tebow.” Some of our family were watching a football game and I asked who was playing. Someone answered, “The University of Florida and some other team.” Neither were from our area. Curious, I asked why the interest in that game. Our son-in-law Terry Redmon answered, “I like Tim Tebow the quarterback. He is good and he is a very dedicated Christian and a great example.” Thinking of our six grandsons and five granddaughters, I was grateful to hear Terry’s reasoning, but not at all surprised. It was easy to understand his admiration for a talented athlete who was unashamed of his faith. He made it clear that he could declare boldly, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.” (Romans 1:16) Those words were true when Paul spoke them, and just as true with Tim Tebow in the 21stcentury. The salvation freely offered by God through Christ is available to those who believe. Obviously Tebow believes, and as a result of his witness, many others have and will trust Christ.

Do you find it amazing that there is so much interest and attention focused on this young man, and such diversity of opinion? Some like him, some despise him. There is love, hate, admiration, criticism, and even mockery. His very existence often reveals the true heart and attitude of people.

Dr. Linda Mintle points out in her blog “10 Reasons for Tim Tebow Hate” that public arrests of college and pro athletes averaged one every other day in 2010. Tebow doesn’t have an arrest record, yet there is an “I HATE TIM TEBOW” Facebook page.

Chap Clark, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school based in California, said Tebow’s unorthodox route to success, after so many predicted he would fail as a quarterback, has set him and his faith apart, even from the many other athletes who talk about their religious principles. “Tim has this ferocity as a competitor, but it’s still a game to him. He is consistently saying that football is not the center of life,” Clark says. “His great strength is that even people who don’t agree with his faith at all play their best around him.”

Tebow recently told the Associated Press that he knows his openness about his religion can be divisive but he feels compelled to share his story of salvation regardless of the sensitivity of the subject, and he relayed one of his favorite quotes: “I don’t know what my future holds, but I know who holds my future.” Tebow said, “The thing about my faith: it’s not just something that happens when you’re at church or happens when you’re praying or reading the Scripture. It’s part of who you are, as a person, as a player, in your life and everything.”

Tebow was the first college sophomore to win the Heisman trophy, college football’s most prestigious award. The Florida Gators won the national championship when Tebow was a junior. Tebow continued to excel throughout his college career. Some commentators, however, said he would not make it as a pro in the NFL. A few speculated that he might not be drafted, and if he was, he would be drafted low. They were wrong! They said he could not start – wrong! That he could not effectively quarterback a team – wrong! Could not be a winner – wrong! In the mile-high city of Denver he has the Broncos and their fans living two miles high. The buzz has become a roar.

This weekend he faces the three-time Super Bowl champion quarterback Tom Brady – two players with totally different styles in the same sport. This has the media pundits predicting one of the largest television audiences ever for a non-championship contest. While the world watches, will they witness Tebow help pull off another amazing victory? If Denver should win, will it be because of divine intervention? If they lose, what will Tebow do?

I predict either way he will point to God. If he loses, he will still give praise to God and to the Patriots, Brady, their coaches, and everyone involved. Whether he wins or loses the game, he will consistently encourage his team. Should they lose, he will perhaps accept personal responsibility for the loss, but will follow by declaring, “We will get better. We will never, never give up!”

Raised by missionary parents, Tebow wore Bible verses on his eye-black at Florida and still preaches to villagers in the Philippines and inspires inmates during jailhouse talks. And he’s sharing his religious beliefs with his teammates as enthusiastically as he yells the cadence at the line of scrimmage on Sundays. Coach John Fox asked Tebow to give the weekly address to the team on the eve of a game at San Diego last month, and nobody was surprised when Tebow shared Proverbs 27:17, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another,” something Tebow deemed appropriate as offense, defense and special teams feed off one another .

Recently an article on FOXNews stated:

Tim Tebow is not a religious symbol. He’s a shrine to the power of a strong, committed, passionate two-parent upbringing. Tebow’s birth — a product of his mother’s faith and refusal to listen to doctors advising her to abort — might very well have been a religious miracle. Tebow’s performance on the football field is testament to Bob and Pam Tebow and what they instilled in their youngest child…

What should be dawning on us — especially those of us who greeted Tebow’s Broncos career with skepticism — is that, thanks to a rock-solid, two-parent upbringing, Tebow is quite different from Young and Vick in terms of mental and emotional makeup. NFL quarterback is a 24/7-365-day job that Vick and Young were unprepared for coming out of college. NFL quarterback is a position best played by young men who were raised by strong fathers. Quarterback is the ultimate leadership position. You have to be taught how to lead. You have to be taught how to prepare.

Vick and Young, athletic freaks on par with Tebow, do not have Tebow’s nuclear-family foundation. Vick and Young entered the league emotionally immature and with a set of values inconsistent with the values that lead to consistent, strong QB play. You can wing it in college and get by on sheer athleticism and talent. You can’t do that at the quarterback position in the NFL. (This writer clearly recognizes and again illustrates the importance of strong marriages and families and the example in our homes, which is missing in so many.)

Rick Sams, a pastor in Alliance, Ohio, and friend of LIFE Outreach, wrote in his local newspaper, “Before Tim was born doctors begged his mother, Pam, to abort him. She had been given drugs to counter her amoebic dysentery not knowing she was pregnant, drugs known to almost universally cause irreversible damage to fetuses. She refused, trusting God for the outcome. All the while Tim’s father prayed, not only for a healthy son, but that God would make him a preacher. God answered those prayers. But the ‘Mile-High Messiah’ won’t be seen wearing robes, only pads and a jersey with his congregation numbering in the millions.”

Most Christians don’t believe that God determines the outcome of sporting events by releasing miraculous power in behalf of either team (even though fans sometimes wonder!) Most of the time, the best team wins and the best competitor finishes first. God leaves it in our hearts and hands to compete and perform, to give our best. Surely He must watch sometimes, don’t you think? We do know for certain He is interested in the lives of all who participate. And if He ever should decide to pick a team, woe to the opponent! Don’t expect it though this week when the Broncos play the Patriots. Be assured, players on both teams and fans on both sides of the field will be cheering and some will even be praying.

Tim Tebow loves Jesus and cares about people. He carries the heart of his missionary parents for the people of the Philippines, where he was born, and he is building a hospital in that country. He consistently assists people here at home and faithfully shares his testimony and witness whenever the occasion arises. He is, in my opinion, a wonderful role model. May I ask what’s wrong with that when we have so many terrible examples being lifted up? Many athletes, entertainers, and leaders have failed, so I am so glad our children and grandchildren admire someone like Tim Tebow. He “walks the talk.” They appreciate his athletic ability and success, but not nearly as much as his consistent Christian life. I personally wish I had always had the same steadfast, consistent walk that this highly-visible competitor has exhibited. On occasions, I did not and the fact that I did not have dedicated missionary-minded parents is no excuse for any inconsistency on my part or anyone else’s because Tebow’s Jesus offers everyone an opportunity to experience abundant life.

This is why every one of us needs the perfect example of the One who has captured Tim Tebow’s heart and the One he has chosen to follow: Jesus Christ. He alone can lift us beyond our weaknesses and hold us in the loving, forgiving arms we all need. Tim Tebow is lifting Jesus up so high that I am convinced He will draw others unto Himself. I thank God for his consistent witness. No matter what happens when the Broncos play the Patriots, I know who will win regardless of the outcome because Tim Tebow will still kneel down, look up, stand up, and point unashamedly to the gospel of Jesus Christ even if the NFL won’t allow him to print Scripture verses under his eyes during the games. There is no way the witness of this young man can be silenced. May God grant all of us the courage and consistency we see on public display through Tim Tebow because the testimony he gives is written on the hearts of all observers and brings glory to God.

December 23, 2011 – 8:11 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Johnny Cash (Part 3)

I got to hear Johnny Cash sing in person back in 1978.  Here is a portion of an article about his Christian Testimony.

 
A Walking Contradiction
Cash’s daughter, singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash, once pointed out that “my father was raised a Baptist, but he has the soul of a mystic. He’s a profoundly spiritual man, but he readily admits to a continual attraction for all seven deadly sins.””There’s nothing hypocritical about it,” Johnny Cash told Rolling Stonescribe Anthony DeCurtis. “There is a spiritual side to me that goes real deep, but I confess right up front that I’m the biggest sinner of them all.” To Cash, even his near deadly bout with drug addiction contained a crucial spiritual element. “I used drugs to escape, and they worked pretty well when I was younger. But they devastated me physically and emotionally—and spiritually … [they put me] in such a low state that I couldn’t communicate with God. There’s no lonelier place to be. I was separated from God, and I wasn’t even trying to call on him. I knew that there was no line of communication. But he came back. And I came back.”Years after his return to the land of the living, Cash once got a visit from U2 members Bono and Adam Clayton who were driving across the U.S., taking in the local colors. The three of them sat around a table before their meal, and Cash floored the two Irishmen with an incredible prayer of thanksgiving to God. Then, without skipping a beat, he raised his head and quipped, “Sure miss the drugs, though.”Cash sums up his soul’s murky landscape—if that’s possible—better than anybody else: “I’m still a Christian, as I have been all my life. Beyond that I get complicated. I endorse Kris Kristofferson’s line about me: ‘He’s a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction.’ I also like Rosanne’s line: ‘He believes what he says, but that don’t make him a saint.’ I dobelieve what I say. There are levels of honesty, though.”Sigh.At this juncture, you may be asking why the book you’re holding is attempting to figure out the spiritual nature of this man. A puzzling personality who once implored, “Please don’t tell anybody how I feel about anything … unless I told you in the last few days.”

The answer? It’s attempting nothing of the sort. The sole purpose of this book is to focus on the wild, incredible ups and downs of Cash’s spiritual journey. It’s a chronicle of his highs and lows, a record of the ebb and flow of his soul’s story.

And like many such journeys, Cash’s was a roller coaster experience—though his twists and turns and plunges have been more intense than the average person’s … and, well, there were a lot more of them.

Cash began life close to church, close to the earth, and close to gospel music; but his earliest singles for Sun Records hit the secular path rather than the gospel road he hoped Sam Phillips would let him follow; Phillips’ preference for the former led to big hits from Cash right from the start, and he immediately became a slave to the road, soon making millions of dollars and winning over millions of fans; he battled through a lot of death through the years—including his big brother Jack’s, his parents’, his longtime guitarist Luther Perkins’, and especially his wife of 35 years, June Carter Cash’s—but Cash somehow eluded the Grim Reaper’s snares despite feeding his frame with truckloads of uppers and downers over the better part of the 1960s; he enjoyed a creative and spiritual renaissance in the late ’60s and early ’70s, a run that not only sealed his status as the father of American music but proved a blueprint for what would soon become contemporary Christian music; and then, just when it appeared his career was sputtering to a halt in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Cash confounded everyone by becoming the “it” artist once again, boldly interpreting eclectic song mixtures that mined alternative rock and bygone standards.

And while his body suffered recently under the strain wrought by years of abuse, Cash’s mind stayed strong … and his spirit stayed stronger.

December 23, 2011 – 12:57 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 2)

Collision (The Movie) – Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson 2-9

INTRODUCTION

Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity itself has benefited the world. Below is their exchange, one in a series that will appear on our website over the course of this month.

Douglas Wilson is author of Letter from a Christian Citizen, senior fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College, and minister at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking . His  Blog and Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.

Christopher Hitchens wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Twelve Books). Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man,” Letters to a Young Contrarian , and Why Orwell Matters. He was named, to his own amusement, number five on a list of the “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” by Foreign Policy and Britain’s Prospect.

Related posts:

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

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 […]

Christopher Hitchens discusses Ron Paul in 3-2-11 inteview

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 […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 3)

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 […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 2)

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 […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 1)

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 […]

 

December 23, 2011 – 12:24 am Categories: Atheists Confronted, Current Events | Post a comment

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 6)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

Pure and simple Senator Mark Pryor WILL BE DEFEATED IN 2014 BECAUSE HE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT AND HAS OFFERED SILLY REASONS WHY IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA.

Earlier I mentioned briefly that it was silly for Senator Pryor to say the Balanced Budget Amendment is “a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases..” 

Actually Ed Meese has answered this in a fully way than I did with the article below.  

Balanced Budget Amendment: Instrument to Force Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes

By Edwin Meese, III
July 21, 2011

 

As Congress considers what to do about federal overspending and overborrowing, conservatives must maintain focus. We must pursue the path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget, while preserving our ability to protect America and without raising taxes. An important part of that conservative agenda is adoption of a sound—repeat, a sound—Balanced Budget Amendment.[1] A Balanced Budget Amendment is not sound if it leads to balancing the federal budget by tax hikes instead of spending cuts. Thus, a sound Balanced Budget Amendment must prohibit raising taxes unless a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress votes to raise them. Without the two-thirds majority requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes the means for big spenders to raise taxes.

Supporters of the Balanced Budget Amendment rightly want to force the federal government to live within its means—to spend no more than it takes in. Because the government has failed for decades to follow that balanced budget principle, America is now $14.294 trillion in debt, a debt of more than $45,000 for every person in the United States.[2]

President Obama is making things worse. In discussions with congressional leaders, he has pushed hard to get authority to borrow yet more trillions of dollars and hike taxes. And the White House reiterated this week that President Obama opposes amending the Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget.[3]

A Sound Balanced Budget Amendment Must Require Two-Thirds Majorities to Raise Federal Taxes

Like 72 percent of the American people, The Heritage Foundation favors passage by the requisite two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and ratification by the requisite 38 states of an effective Balanced Budget Amendment to become part of our Constitution.[4] Heritage has made clear that an effective Balanced Budget Amendment must control spending, taxation, and borrowing; ensure the defense of America; and enforce, through the legislative process and without interference by the judicial branch, the requirement to balance the budget.[5] A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will drive down federal spending and end federal borrowing.

To date, Congress has proposed one largely sound Balanced Budget Amendment for consideration—Senate Joint Resolution 10, often called the Hatch-Lee Amendment after its main proponents.[6] It has a number of important features, such as an annual federal spending cap of not to exceed 18 percent of the economy’s annual output of goods and services (called the gross domestic product, or GDP) that Congress cannot exceed, except by a law passed with two-thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress or in specified circumstances involving military necessity.

A crucial feature is included in section 4 of the Balanced Budget Amendment proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 10: “Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.” The requirement that no tax hikes occur without the approval of 290 Representatives and 67 Senators is essential in a sound Balanced Budget Amendment. Without the requirement for two-thirds majorities for any tax increase, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes a sword for big spenders to use to raise taxes, instead of a shield to protect Americans from tax hikes. Those who seek to anchor into our Constitution a requirement to balance the budget must always remember that, if the only requirement is “balance,” that can be achieved two ways—cut spending or hike taxes. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will balance the budget by driving down federal spending and not by driving up federal taxes.

Balanced-Budget States That Allow Simple Majorities for Tax Hikes Face Situations Very Different from That of the Federal Government

Some look at the experience of states that have requirements in their constitutions for a balanced state budget and draw the wrong conclusion about the need for two-thirds majorities for taxation. They mistakenly conclude that a requirement merely for simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes suffices to keep state taxation under control and therefore that a federal Balanced Budget Amendment should require only simple majorities in Congress to raise taxes. But the balanced budget requirement at the state level occurs in a very different context from such a requirement at the federal level.

As a practical matter, state legislators regularly work and live among the people they represent, often do their legislative work face-to-face with their constituents, and often depend upon direct contact with voters to persuade voters to keep the legislators in office. As a result, state legislators tend to be closely attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation. In contrast, U.S. Senators and Representatives spend much of their time distant from the people they represent, often deal with their constituents through the insulation of large staffs, and amass large campaign funds through political fundraising that allow them to depend more upon expensive mass communications than upon direct contact with voters to persuade the voters to keep them in office. As a result, U.S. Senators and Representatives tend to be less directly attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation than state legislators are. Accordingly, while a requirement for merely simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes may suffice to keep taxes under control in that state, simple majorities are not likely to keep taxes under control at the federal level—as the experience of federal tax increases in the last 50 years proves.

Some who recognize the need for taxpayer protection by requiring supermajorities, rather than just simple majorities, of the two Houses of Congress to raise taxes think a supermajority of three-fifths of both Houses would suffice. While three-fifths would add a modicum of taxpayer protection in the House, three-fifths would add little if anything in the way of taxpayer protection in the Senate, which already often requires a three-fifths majority to proceed to consideration of legislation. The existing three-fifths rule in the Senate has often failed to protect taxpayers from federal tax increases in the past. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment would add protection for taxpayers in both Houses of Congress by a requirement for two-thirds majorities of the membership of both Houses to raise taxes.

Conclusion: Adopt the Two-Thirds Majority Requirement for Tax Hikes, to Make the Balanced Budget Amendment the Instrument of Spending Cuts and Not Tax Hikes

America’s soon-to-be New Minority—people who pay federal income tax—need protection from unreasonable taxation.[7] When all Americans have the right to vote, but only a minority has the duty to pay the federal income taxes from which all Americans benefit, the risk is high that a non-taxpaying majority will elect a Congress pledged to adopt taxation that oppresses the taxpaying minority. The impulse to seek something for nothing has regrettably taken root in the American body politic in the past century. The requirement in the Balanced Budget Amendment of a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress to raise taxes will protect a taxpaying minority against oppressive taxation.

As Congress continues on the path toward adopting a joint resolution to recommend a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification, Congress should ensure that the Amendment includes a requirement for approval by two-thirds of the membership of the two Houses of Congress for tax hikes. Absent such a requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment will encourage tax hikes instead of spending cuts as the means to balance the budget, making the Amendment the friend of the tax, spend and borrow crowd, instead of the friend of those who believe in limited government, free enterprise, and individual freedom.

Edwin Meese III is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Edwin Meese, III

  • Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Edwin Meese III is a prominent leader, thinker and elder statesman in the conservative movement – and America itself.

Meese holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he is responsible for keeping the late president’s legacy of conservative principles alive in public debate and discourse.

He also is Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, founded in 2001 to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution, legal principles and how they affect public policy.

These two Heritage “hats” keep Meese, a trusted counselor to Reagan before becoming Attorney General, among the major conservative voices in national policy debates at an age when most men and women enjoy quiet retirements.

In 2006, for example, Meese was named to the Iraq Study Group, a special presidential commission dedicated to examining the best resolutions for America’s involvement in Iraq.

Immediately after Reagan’s death in 2004, and in the years since, Meese appeared on the major cable and broadcast news programs to discuss the lasting impact of his old friend, mentor and boss. He often summarizes the Reagan legacy in three accomplishments: 1) Reagan cut taxes and kept them low. 2) He worked to defeat and end the Soviet Union and its worldwide push for communism. 3) He restored America’s faith in itself after years of failure and “malaise.”

“I admired him as a leader and cherish his friendship,” Meese wrote in a 2004 essay for Heritage members and supporters. “Ronald Reagan had strong convictions. He was committed to the principles that had led to the founding of our nation. And he had the courage to follow his convictions against all odds.”

Meese spent much of his adult life working for Reagan, first after the former actor, sports announcer and athlete was elected Governor of California in 1966 and then when he sought and won the presidency in 1980.

Meese served as the 75th Attorney General of the United States from February 1985 to August 1988. As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, he directed the Justice Department and led international efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime.

From January 1981 to February 1985, Meese held the position of Counsellor to the President – the senior job on the White House staff – and functioned as Reagan’s chief policy adviser. In 1985, he received Government Executive magazine’s annual award for excellence in management.

Meese joined Heritage in 1988 as the think tank’s first Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow – the only policy chair in the country to be officially named for the 40th president.

His relationship with Heritage began eight years earlier, however, when Meese met with senior management to discuss the think tank’s landmark policy guide, Mandate for Leadership, prepared for the incoming administration. Meese later recalled that Reagan personally handed out copies of the 1,093-page book to members of his Cabinet and asked them to read it. Nearly two-thirds of Mandate’s 2,000 recommendations would be adopted or attempted by the Reagan Administration.

Meese took on a new role as Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies more than a decade after joining the think tank. Under his guidance, the center has counseled White House staffers, Justice Department officials and Senate Judiciary Committee members on the importance of filling judicial vacancies with qualified men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to the founding document’s original meaning.

The center also became known for hosting “moot court” practice sessions to sharpen the arguments of attorneys slated to bring important cases before the Supreme Court. Those cases addressed constitutional issues ranging from property rights to racial preferences in primary and secondary schools to restrictions on free speech in campaign finance law.

Meese headed the center’s Advisory Board for the writing and editing of the best-selling book, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Regnery, 2005). The book assembles 109 experts to walk readers through a clause-by-clause analysis of the Constitution. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was among those keeping the reference work handy during Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominees.

Meese’s other books include Leadership, Ethics and Policing (Prentice Hall, 2004); Making America Safer (Heritage, 1997); and With Reagan: The Inside Story (Regnery Gateway, 1992).

He also is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California and lectures, writes and consults throughout the United States on a variety of subjects.

As both Attorney General and Counsellor to President Reagan, Meese was a member of the Cabinet and the National Security Council. He also served as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Council and the National Drug Policy Board.

After Reagan won the White House in the 1980 election, Meese headed the transition team. In the campaign, he was the Reagan-Bush Committee’s senior official.

During the Reagan governorship, Meese served as Executive Assistant and Chief of Staff from 1969 through 1974 and as Legal Affairs Secretary from 1967 through 1968. He previously was Deputy District Attorney in Alameda County, Calif.

Reagan never forgot Meese’s loyalty and hard work over the years. During a press conference at which reporters questioned Meese’s actions at the Justice Department, Reagan replied: “If Ed Meese is not a good man, there are no good men.”

Meese had a career outside government and politics. From 1977 to 1981, he was a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also directed the Center for Criminal Justice Policy and Management.

He was an executive in the aerospace and transportation industry as Vice President for Administration of Rohr Industries Inc. in Chula Vista, Calif. He left Rohr to return to the practice of law, doing corporate and general work in San Diego County.

Edwin Meese III was born Dec. 2, 1931, to Edwin Jr. and Leone Meese in Oakland, Calif. He graduated from Yale University in 1953 and holds a law degree from the University of California-Berkeley. A retired Colonel in the Army Reserve, he remains active in numerous civic and educational organizations.

He and his wife, Ursula, have two grown children and reside in McLean, Va.

 

December 23, 2011 – 12:08 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

“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 said, never leave the window. Lunch hour, anything else, we must have every window open all day. But, the important things was we knew you would have a big line so there was no use trying to hurry, because the line was going to continue. So we said, now, when you get a withdraw slip and the passbook, go back and check the signature. Even though you know your friend John Jones, just to delay time, just to mark time and then when you pay the money out, we are not going to pay in $100 bills. We are going to pay in $5, $10 and $20. And count it twice and hand it out with a smile.
Friedman: The banks survived the morning. But they didn’t have enough cash left so in the afternoon they called for more from the Federal Reserve Bank.
George Eccles: So the Federal Reserve sent up the armored car, two big sacks full of currency were brought in by the guard crowded through the crowd and the assistant manager, Morgan Kraft, came in also. So Mariner and my brother grabbed Mr. Kraft and he says, now, get up on this marble counter and tell these people that you brought up a lot of money and there is more where that came from! And he did. And then Mariner got up and said now you’ve heard that story, were not going to close. We’re going to stay open as long as any of you people want your money. So don’t worry about it at all. Well, of course, you had one other bank in the city and we called him and told him he couldn’t close either. He said well I can’t I haven’t got any money to stay open. So we made him a temporary loan. Because if we had another bank close while this run was going on the psychology of the public would be such that they’d, we’d never break the run in our bank. Everybody would come until they got all of their money out. (END)
The bank survived the first day’s run. It was time to change psychology. The second day was to be very different.
George Eccles: So that evening we called our employees all together because we knew that the next day that people had been working during the day and would have heard about this and the next morning we’d have them with us. So we figured now we can’t let a crowd build up in the lobby. So we told our tellers, I say now, you pay out this money just as fast as you can. So when anybody comes in the front door they don’t see a line. You pay out in $100 bills and don’t let any line ever develop at your window. Well it never did. So along about noon time people were just coming and going in a normal fashion and the run was over.
Friedman: It was all a question of reassuring the public that they could get their money. The Federal Reserve System was there to insure that this happened by supplying cash to the banks.
Why didn’t this system prevent The Great Depression after 1929? Because from 1929 to 1930 after the stock market crashed, the Federal Reserve system allowed the quantity of money to decline slowly thereby throttling the monetary structure. By December 1930, the quantity of money had fallen by 3% which may not seem much, but a growing economy needs additional money in order to prevent deflation and problems. Given this throttling of the monetary system, what happened after that was more or less inevitable. If the Bank of United States had not happened to fail, some other bank would have been the victim. It would have failed and would’ve set off the runs. Once the runs started, the Federal Reserve could have prevented them from having the disastrous consequences they did by stepping in and providing the banking system in general through creating new money with the cash it needed to meet the demands of the depositors. After all, once depositors start trying to take their money out of the banks, there is a strong tendency for the quantity of money to fall. Each dollar of cash which is withdrawn from a bank had been backing several dollars of deposits. If the Federal Reserve had stepped in, bought government securities on a large scale, provided the cash, the depositors would have found that they could’ve got their money and they would have stopped asking for it.
Ironically, the people at the New York Reserve Bank knew that this was the right policy. No one had advocated it more forcefully than Benjamin Strong, the first head of the bank. Tragically for America, he died two years before the real crisis.
With the death of Benjamin Strong, a truly remarkable man who not only ran the New York bank but was also the key figure in the entire Federal Reserve system. A struggle for power broke out between New York, the other banks and the Board in Washington. New York lost, the other banks and even more, the Board in Washington, won. That was a little noticed event but it was the first step in that massive move of power to Washington that has dominated our lives ever since. Then and now, this building housed the U.S. Treasury Department. But at that time, the Federal Reserve Board also had its modest offices somewhere in the same building. The shift of power was sealed a few years later when the Board got its own magnificent temple a few blocks away from here on Constitution Avenue. Despite excellent advice from New York, the system refused to buy government bonds, something which would have provided cash to the commercial banks with which they could have met more easily the insisted demands of their depositors. Instead, believe it or not, the system stood idly by while banks crashed on all sides. As the head of one of the banks put it, the reserve system had to keep its powder dry for a real emergency.
But if this wasn’t an emergency, what was? As bank after bank closed a chain reaction was in process destroying money as it went. It’s a process that even today a few bankers understand.
If you ask an individual banker whether he creates money, he’ll look at you as if you are mad. Of course not, he’ll say. I don’t create money, all I do is I accept deposits from high customers, I put a little of that deposit in the vault as a reserve and I lend the rest out. I don’t create money. From the point of view of the economist, the situation is very different. As I explained earlier, most of the deposits on the books of banks were put there by an accountant’s pen. But that simple fact is concealed from the individual banker, because is doesn’t happen here, inside the bank, it happens as a result of the transactions between banks.
As the men who ran the Federal Reserve knew very well, it happens when money loaned by one bank is deposited into another bank, to be loaned out yet again. In the depression the process was working in reverse. The banks were destroying money. Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve let it happen.
The end result was that by the time the whole sorry episode was over, by 1933 the quantity of money in the United States had gone down by a third. The slow throttling had turned into strangulation. For every $3 of currency in deposits the people had in 1929, only $2 were left. For every three banks that were open in 1929, in 1933 only two were left.
The terrible depression that followed was a direct result of bungling by the Federal Reserve System. Their monetary policy starts with any hope of economic recovery.
December 23, 2011 – 12:07 am Categories: Current Events, Milton Friedman | Post a comment

Tom Brady, Coldplay, Kansas, Solomon and the search for satisfaction (part 2)

Tom Brady “More than this…”

Uploaded by on Jan 22, 2008

EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview.

To Download this video copy the URL to www.vixy.net

________________

Obviously from the video clip above, Tom Brady has realized that even though he has won many Super Bowls in the past, it takes more to bring satisfaction to a person spiritually. Usually once someone has reached the top of the field, they pause and think about their future. They had already achieved their original goals, but satifaction did not come with all those accomplishments.

WHAT WILL THE FUTURE HOLD FOR ME NOW? Then it dawns on them that death will come to them eventually and NO ONE WILL EVER REMEMBER WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE DISTANT FUTURE!!!!

At this point many people start to look in the world for lasting meaning in life. I am hoping that Tom Brady will start on this same journey and end up where the members of the band Kansas ended up. The band Coldplay (who I will see play in Houston on 6-13-12) has been asking some of these same questions in recent years too.

Coldplay
Views:2
Coldplay

Coldplay – Life In Technicolor ii

Back in 2008 I wrote a paper on the spiritual themes of Coldplay’s album Viva La Vida and I predicted this spiritual search would continue in the future. Below is the second part of the paper, “Coldplay’s latest musical lyrics indicate a Spiritual Search for the Afterlife.”

_____________________________

Death and the time cycle

Over and over in Coldplay’s latest music you see the theme of death and the time cycle brought up concerning the shortness of a person’s life. Earlier I quoted the song “42” that states “Life is so short” and in the song “Life in Technicolor II” (Prospekt March) : “Time came a creeping, Oh and time’s a loaded gun.”  Even more than this do you see death mentioned. The song “42” which I quoted earlier said, “Those who are dead” and the song “Poppyfields” (from Prospekt March) states, “People burying their dead” and later says, “I don’t wanna die on my own in a separate sky.” The song “Violet Hill” states, “When I’m dead and hit the ground” and in the song “Viva La Vida” “Revolutionaries wait for my head on a silver plate.” Needless to say I do not even have to mention that other songs like “Death and All his Friends”and “Cemeteries of London” also deal with death. Solomon had to grapple with the fact of his upcoming death.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21

18 I also thought about the human condition—how God proves to people that they are like animals. 19 For people and animals share the same fate—both breathe[a] and both must die. So people have no real advantage over the animals. How meaningless! 20 Both go to the same place—they came from dust and they return to dust. 21 For who can prove that the human spirit goes up and the spirit of animals goes down into the earth?

There is another rock group that looked at the logical conclusion of man in the light of death:

In 1978 I heard the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas.  That song told me that Kerry Livgren the writer of that song and a member of Kansas had come to the conclusion that life  without God in the picture was like dust in the wind which was exactly what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes when he talked about life “under the sun.”  In fact, in the verses I just listed (3:18-21) Solomon says we are all returning to the dust and there is no reason to think we are going any where else with God out of the picture. Take a look at what Kerry Livgren wrote back in 1978:

DUST IN THE WIND

I close my eyes
Only for a moment and the moment’s gone
All my dreams
Flash before my eyes of curiosity

Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind

Same old song
Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do
Crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

Now
Don’t hang on
Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky
It slips away
And all your money won’t another minute buy

Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind

(Dust in the Wind)

Kansas – Dust In The Wind

Power reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced.

Solomon comes to the realization that powers reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced.

Ecclesiastes 4:1   Again, I observed all the oppression that takes place under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them. The oppressors have great power, and their victims are helpless.

Ecclesiastes 7:15

15 I have seen everything in this meaningless life, including the death of good young people and the long life of wicked people.

People that believe there is no afterlife must concede that Hitler will never face the due punishment for his acts. However, in the song “Viva La Vida” the evil king DID NOT MAKE IT TO HEAVEN. “I used to rule the world…Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes…there was never an honest word and that was when I ruled the world, It was the wicked and wild wind, Blew down the doors to let me in, Shattered windows and the sound of drums, People couldn’t believe what I’d become.”

Later in the song, “For some reason I can’t explain, I KNOW SAINT PETER WON’T CALL MY NAME, Never an honest word, But that was when I ruled the world.”

This last part indicates to me that Coldplay realizes that evil individuals will be judged in an afterlife.

God reveals Himself in two Ways 

Lets take a look at the lyrics from the song “Cemeteries of London:”

God is in the houses
And God is in my head
And all the cemeteries of London
I see God come in my garden
But I don’t know what He said
For my heart, it wasn’t open
Not open

Romans chapter one clearly points out that God has revealed Himself through both the created world around us  and also in a God-given conscience that testifies to each person that God exists.
Notice in this song that the song writer notes, “I see God come in my garden” and “God is in my head.” These are the exact two places mentioned by the scripture.  Romans 1:18-20 (Amplified version)

18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)

I have shown what thought processes Solomon went through in Ecclesiastes and then compared them to the evident changes that are occurring with Coldplay. By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. My prediction: I am hoping that Coldplay’s next album will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

Kerry Livgren of Kansas found Christ eventually after first trying some Eastern Religions. I remember telling my friends in 1978 when “Dust in the Wind” was the number 6 song in the USA that Kansas had written a philosophical song that came to the same conclusion about humanistic man as Solomon did so long ago and I predicted that some members of that band would come to know the Christ of the Bible in a personal way. You can hear Kerry Livgren’s story from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Coldplay – Cemeteries of London ( FULL VIDEO)

The brilliant video for Cemeteries of London. It’s the perfect mix between music and image, Coldplay sold around 8 million albums with Viva La Vida.

December 22, 2011 – 11:56 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Christopher Hitchens remembered

I have enjoyed reading these articles about Christopher Hitchens who sounded like a nice person.

Remembering Christopher Hitchens

December 16, 2011

When I was a kid, I pursued what I considered dueling obsessions.

I wanted to be George F. Will. I pored over his twice-weekly syndicated columns in the Press of Atlantic City, dictionary never far from hand. Before church on Sundays, I set the timer on the VCR to record ABC’s This Week.

Tragic, I know.

But I also wanted to be Keith Richards. If I wasn’t reading, I was flogging a guitar. I snapped I-don’t-know-how-many high-E strings on my cheap Telecaster until I finally realized that you tune down, not up, for Keith’s signature open-G tuning.

To me, in middle-class southern New Jersey, these two archetypes seemed diametrically opposed. I had no concept of bohemia—of the urban intellectual, of literary dissolution. No idea, really, of writing or rhetoric as a species of artistic performance. At some point, I told myself, you’re going to have to choose: the bow tie or the skull ring.

[See the latest political cartoons.]

Shortly after graduating from college, I discovered Christopher Hitchens. I’m pretty sure the discovery was occasioned by Hitchens’s outspoken hatred (for Hitch, was there any other kind?) for President Bill Clinton.

I was captivated by the cover photograph (taken by the great Annie Leibovitz) of this collection of Hitchens’s columns.

Here was the hybrid creature I never knew existed.

In 1999, my now-wife and I went to the annual Funniest Celebrity in Washington contest at D.C.’s Improv comedy club. Hitchens was a contestant that year. I introduced myself; I tried something clever, like, “I’m a self-flagellating conservative who likes your stuff.”

[See a slide show of the top 10 most hated news commentators.]

“I don’t see what should be flagellating about that,” Hitchens replied. (He was right; he was far from what passes in the American commentariat for a doctrinaire liberal.)

“I’m more of Shaftesbury, Tory type of conservative than an American one,” I said.

“Shaftesbury was a good man,” he declared.

About to part ways, Hitchens signaled for me to stick around.

He was headed to Timberlake’s, his favorite Dupont Circle watering hole.

“I’ll meet you on the pavement,” he said. (He meant the street, my more worldly-wise girlfriend/wife would explain to me.)

Off to Timberlake’s we went for a late evening of drinks and food. Him, renowned essayist; me, twenty-something nobody. It’s not quite right to say that Hitchens’s gift at conversation was akin to performance—because performance, properly speaking, should be a strenuous act.

[Follow the Thomas Jefferson Street blog on Twitter.]

For Hitchens, it was effortless.

I don’t want to engage here in the more controversial aspects of Hitchens’s work: the militant atheism, for example.

What I’ll remember about Hitchens most, aside from the prodigious output, is that, for all his well-cultivated contempt, he was actually an extraordinarily kind person.

I remember, as we got up to leave, Hitchens embracing my girlfriend/wife and kissing her on the cheek. The gesture seemed at once rakish and completely gentlemanly. Distinctly British.

“I’m in the book,” he said—meaning, feel free to call him.

He meant it. He was as open with his time and talent as anyone of his stature could possibly be.

[Check out 2011: The Year in Cartoons]

A couple years later, I saw him at a book fair in downtown Washington. I told him that I’d almost finished Anthony Powell’s 12-novel cycle A Dance to the Music of Time, which Hitchens frequently championed.

He raised his hands in the air as though he had scored a touchdown.

This, more than anything else—more than religion, more than politics, more than high society—is what animated Hitchens. He simply loved to write, and he loved great writers.

For me, he was an inspiration. I’m going to miss him greatly.

______________-

Related posts:

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 1)

Collision (The Movie) – Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson 1-9 Uploaded by DrKroenen2000 on Aug 17, 2010 Collision is a documentary film. released on October 27, 2009 featuring a debate between prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, Presbyterian pastor of Christ Church Moscow. Described by Hitchens as a “buddy-and-road” movie, it provides an overview […]

Christopher Hitchens comments on “Pascal’s Wager” in Nov of 2010

Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Nov 29, 2010 As Christopher nears the end of his life, will he bargain on the possibility of a God as Pascal suggests? Watch the full interview uploaded by MuggedbyReality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEX4jDJy5Us _________________________________ Christopher Hitchens addresses this issue in the video clip above. The last video clip below includes some comments by […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 4)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 11 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 12     DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 13 The Christian Post > World|Fri, Dec. […]

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

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 […]

Christopher Hitchens discusses Ron Paul in 3-2-11 inteview

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 […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 3)

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 […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 2)

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 […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 1)

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 […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 24)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 6 In the next few days I will be sharing portions of the article “Archaeology and the new Atheism:The Plausibility of the Biblical Record,” Apologetic Press. Dewayne Bryant is the author and in the third portion he notes: Archaeology […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 23)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 5 In the next few days I will be sharing portions of the article “Archaeology and the new Atheism:The Plausibility of the Biblical Record,” Apologetic Press. Dewayne Bryant is the author and in the second portion he notes: Archaeology […]

December 22, 2011 – 10:33 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

DOUBLE-CROSSERS!!! Highway Commission makes commitment to Hutchinson and then does not keep commitment

I read the article by John Brummett, “Keeping  Commitments,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, December 18, 2011, with great interest. I have put the whole article below for you to read. (I have commented on this issue before.)

In this article he tells the sad story of  another political lie. The Arkansas Highway Commission promised to change the their 10 districts in order to avoid change being forced upon them during the legislative session in movement started by State Senator Jeremy Hutchinson. In fact, they “double-crossed” Senator Hutchinson according to Brummett by promising to change the districts and then last week saying they would not. Brummett noted that the commission declined “to do the very thing it committed to legislators to do.”

That is why I do not hesitate to agree with Brummett that they will now reap the consequences of breaking their promise. Brummett finishes the article by stating:

An obvious recourse for Hutchinson is to bring back his constitutional-amendment proposal in 2013 and not put any stock in anything the five high-and-mighty rich white guys of the Highway Commission—Madison Murphy, Tom Schueck, Dick Trammel, John Burkhalter and John Ed Regenold—say about it.

___________________

The whole article is below:

We have designed the state Highway Commission, after all, to be arrogant.

By constitutional amendment in 1948, we gave it operational independence from the governor and Legislature. The purpose was to keep the business of roads above the sullying influence and inconvenience of politics, you see.

And if the people of the state were asked today if the Highway Commission should represent all geographic areas of the state equally, they probably would say yes, absolutely.

For the record, I disagree with all of that.

State government agencies ought to be accountable to the people we elect, not independent of them. And you can never get politics out of highways; the only variable is where the power gets bestowed. And the southern and eastern parts of the state should not get the same degree of representation and consideration in highway governance as the central and northwestern parts.

That’s because, for now, most of the cars that use the roads are in the central and northwestern parts.

We redraw congressional districts when population shifts. So should we redraw highway districts.

But maybe there is something about highways on which we can agree. That would be the answer to this question: Do you believe the Highway Commission ought to make a public commitment to legislators to do something, then turn around several months later in its arrogant independence and decline to do the very thing it committed to legislators to do?

Surely you join me in a resounding “no.”

We intended the highway commissioners to be holier-than-thou, not double-crossers. We positioned them to be separated from legislators, not liars to their faces.

It’s a simple story and I am here to tell it.

State Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, Republican of Little Rock, has long been worked up about the way the Highway Commission voluntarily organizes itself. Each of its five commissioners primarily represents, or advocates for, two geographic districts based on decades-old population patterns.

The system gives the declining eastern and southern sectors more representation by powerfully independent highway commissioners than the northwestern corner. It means discretionary highway money doesn’t follow traffic, but commissioners.

So Hutchinson threw in a proposed constitutional amendment during the regular legislative session last winter. It was to remove the Highway Commission’s independence.

The Highway Commission could have beaten it, but not without effort. So it decided the better course was to head off the idea before Hutchinson might persuade legislators to include his proposal among three constitutional amendments to be referred to voters.

To mollify Hutchinson, Highway Director Dan Flowers, now retired, negotiated with Hutchinson on a public statement for presentation to the State Agencies Committee. The commission said in this eventually agreed-on statement that it would “reevaluate its 10 advocacy districts” and “be committed to drawing advocacy districts that are of substantially equal populations.”

It was generally a mushy and hedged declaration, but those two words, “be committed,” actually had meaning. Or they appeared to have meaning.

So Hutchinson withdrew his proposed constitutional amendment, having apparently leveraged an incremental gain.

But on Wednesday the Highway Commission met and said it wasn’t going to do what it said it would do.

Randy Ort, public information man for the Highway Commission, told me there was no double-cross. The commission did, in fact, draw new districts, as it committed, he said. It simply didn’t like them, he said, and rejected them.

So instead, Ort said, the commissioners simply did away with the advocacy districts altogether and formally freed the highway commissioners to do what they were doing already anyway by constitutional authority, which was represent the entire state.

Hutchinson told me this was all a semantic trick. The commission will simply continue business as usual, he said, with the commissioners representing the same “maintenance districts” without actually calling them “advocacy districts.”

He said the long and short of it was that the Highway Commission had broken a promise not only to him, but to the entire state Legislature.

Hutchinson said he specifically rejected that at-large gambit during last winter’s negotiations. And he said legislative staff members redrew these advocacy districts smartly in a few minutes.

An obvious recourse for Hutchinson is to bring back his constitutional-amendment proposal in 2013 and not put any stock in anything the five high-and-mighty rich white guys of the Highway Commission—Madison Murphy, Tom Schueck, Dick Trammel, John Burkhalter and John Ed Regenold—say about it.

—–––––

John Brummett is a regular columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his blog at brummett.arkansasonline.com.

_________

December 22, 2011 – 8:37 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

5 things you might not know about Tim Tebow from People Magazine

From People Magazine:

By Gabrielle Olya and Rennie Dyball

Sunday December 11, 2011 10:30 PM EST

Tim Tebow: Five Things to Know

Tim Tebow

Brian Dowling/PictureGroup

Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow is the buzz of the NFL these days.

The former University of Florida star has helped lead his NFL team to an 8-5 record with one incredible comeback after another, including a 13-10 overtime win Sunday over the Chicago Bears.

Well known for his faith and charity work, Tebow’s personal life is as carefully guarded as it is speculated about – one Web site even features a “Do You Think Tim Tebow Has a Girlfriend?” poll.

So what do we know about the 24-year-old Heisman Trophy winner?

1. He’s saving himself for marriage
Two of the most memorable Tebow moments came in 2009 – both of which set him apart from the typically macho world of football.

First, he said that he was a virgin, waiting for marriage.

Five months later, TV cameras captured him sobbing on the sidelines as his Gators lost the SEC Championship to Alabama, and later giving a tearful interview about the loss.

2. He had an international upbringing
Tebow was born in Makati City in the Philippines where his parents were working as Christian Baptist missionaries. He returned to the Philippines during his high school summers to assist his father with his orphanage and missionary work there.

3. His name has been used to refer to both an NCAA regulation and an Internet fad
The National Collegiate Athletic Association passed a rule in 2010 banning players from writing messages in their eye blacks, dubbed “The Tebow Rule” by media because of his habit of adorning his with biblical verses. Tebow’s name is now also a verb to thanks to the “Tebowing” phenomenon, with people mimicking his kneeling and praying motion and posting pictures of themselves online.

4. He was homeschooled
Tebow and his four siblings were all taught at home by their mother as part of their Christian upbringing. “I think that being home schooled offered me an opportunity to learn some life lessons, and those experiences help me while I’m on the field,” he told Sports Illustrated in a 2007 interview.

Tebow became the first homeschooled athlete to win a Heisman Trophy. He’s also put his education to good use off the field: Tebow co-wrote his autobiography Through My Eyes, which was released earlier this year. It debuted at No. 6 on the bestseller list.

5. He was on TV before he was household name
Before he was a Bronco or a Gator, Tebow played for Nease High School in Florida. It just so happened the MTV show Two-A-Days: Hoover High was filming when the Hoover Buccaneers played Tebow’s high school in the pilot episode. Tebow was featured as the quarterback for the opposing team, which lost the game.

Related posts:

Tom Brady, Coldplay, Solomon and the search for satisfaction (part 1)

Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. To Download this video copy the URL to http://www.vixy.net Tom Brady is still searching for satisfaction in his life. Over the years I wanted bands like Kansas and Coldplay […]

“True Satisfaction,” Tebow has it, Brady would like to have it

Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. To Download this video copy the URL to http://www.vixy.net Below you will see several video clips of both Tom Brady and Tim Tebow. Evidently despite all the super bowl […]

Sound off on Tebow

Denver quarterback Tim Tebow reacts after Broncos running back Lance Ball scored a touchdown against the New England Patriots on Sunday, Dec. 18, 2011. (Associated Press/Jack Dempsey) I think Tebow is fine Christian man who believes in telling others about Christ and he lives a morally pure life unlike many others in our society. Therefore, […]

Joy Behar and her liberal friends on “The View” gang up on pro-life Elisabeth Hasselback

“The View” Fights over Abortion Uploaded by RandomClips2008 on Jun 14, 2009 Hot-Topics The ladies on “The View”sit down and talk about President Obama’s commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame and talk about how the crowd got a little riled over Abortion protesters. They then continue on the abortion subject which leads to […]

SNL mocks Tebow and endorses Romney: Is Mormonism true?

I was saddened that SNL proclaimed Mormonism true in a skit Saturday. The archaeological record is obvious that Joseph Smith was wrong in many of the details he put in the  Book of Mormon and he assumed that the Indians in the North America had the same surroundings that the Jews did in the middle east 2000 years […]

Tebow’s team goes down to defeat, what next?

I knew this day would come soon. I was asked this morning if I thought God was pulling for the Broncos and I responded, “No I do not. Many think that and for them it will be said that that devil Tom Brady brings the Tebow winning streak to a halt.” Sure enough New England […]

Tim Tebow verses and interviews

Another good article I read on Tebow: By PATTON DODD On a brisk Thursday evening in mid-November, I sat high in the stands at a Denver Broncos home game, covering the ears of my 4-year-old son as the fans around us launched f-bombs at Tim Tebow, the Broncos’ struggling second-year quarterback. Mr. Tebow was ineffective […]

What is God doing with Tim Tebow? Fellowship Bible pastor of Little Rock ponders…

Everyone is wondering if this amazing fourth quarter comeback streak will end for the Denver Broncos and their quarterback Tim Tebow. At the December 11, 2011 early service at Fellowship Bible Church, pastor Mark Henry noted: How many of you have been watching the drama behind Tim Tebow. Tim Tebow is the starting quarterback for […]

December 22, 2011 – 8:09 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment