Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation speaks in Little Rock on 6-22-11 (Part 2)

The third monthly luncheon with featured speaker Ernest Istook was excellent. First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN   who came up with the idea of this luncheon, and then from Teresa Crossland of Americans for Prosperity.

Below is a portion of Istook’s biography from the Heritage Foundation:

Ernest Istook

Ernest Istook

  • Distinguished Fellow

Ernest J. Istook Jr. brings extensive congressional experience to bear on public policy issues as a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Istook served 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives before joining Heritage in 2007.

In Congress, representing Oklahoma’s 5th District, he engaged in a wide and robust range of issues as a member of the Appropriations Committee –where he chaired multiple subcommittees– and the Homeland Security Committee.

Istook delved into budget and spending issues in general as well as subjects such as transportation, trade, defense, health care, education, labor, financial services, homeland security and religious liberty. He was a founder of the re-established Republican Study Committee, the principal conservative caucus in the House.

In 2010, Istook was selected as a Fellow for the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

________________________________________

In his talk on June 22, 2011 in Little Rock, he spent some time talking about how excited he was about the Tea Party. One person asked him what we should think about the Republicans that just want to make their total goal keeping the majority and not try to rock the boat. Istook said that the Tea Party was going to make sure that did not happen.

Here is another article by Istook that discusses some of these same issues:

The biggest foreclosure yet may begin on November 2nd, as voters start foreclosure proceedings against big government.  It’s run up more debt than we can afford to pay.

The paperwork has been validated.  It’s found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, duly approved and signed by our Founding Fathers.

Previous proceedings went awry.  President Bill Clinton’s 1996 pronouncement that “The era of big government is over” proved to be empty words, as demonstrated by the subsequent free spending of Congress and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

So what’s different about today?  The Tea Party movement, for one thing.  It’s here to stay, as noted in an approving op-ed by Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, and documented in the  new best-seller by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen

Below is the article that Istook referenced:

Tea partiers won’t go when fun ends
By: Ed Feulner and Sen. Jim DeMint
October 14, 2010 04:46 AM EDT
In only 21 months, the tea party has exploded from a handful of scattered, spontaneous rallies into a full-fledged national movement capable of throwing out incumbents. Challenging entrenched Washington habits, it is a force both parties must reckon with.Skeptics and opponents, however, continue to ask two basic questions. First, does the tea party have any real philosophical depth, a historical pedigree? Second, will its force dissipate after the elections?In short, critics accept that the tea party has a present — but they question whether it has a past and a future.Yes and yes. Yes, the tea party has a pedigree as old as our nation, and yes, we think it is likely to continue to play a significant role in politics after Nov. 2. People in both parties who hope to wish it away and continue business as usual had better think twice.Americans have been disappointed by leaders in both parties who campaigned to right past wrongs and then, after getting to Washington, cared more about power than promises. Tea party supporters care more about principle than party labels or politics.Tea party members voice the kinds of concerns that even some of President Barack Obama’s former supporters are beginning to raise. As one Obama voter asked the president at a recent town hall, “Is the American dream dead for me?”

These are the questions Americans are asking nationwide — in their kitchens, church halls and ballparks. These are the concerns expressed at tea party rallies everywhere.

The tea party seeks answers to such questions not in the dictates of Washington today but in our country’s founding principles. There, it finds a prescription for constitutional, limited government based on God-given rights — not a Utopian blueprint for bureaucratic-managed change.

The tea party, in other words, is that inner voice that speaks to us when things go wrong — the conscience of the nation at a crucial point in our history.

What has gone wrong is clear. The “stimulus” package has failed to get this country back on its feet. The latest unemployment figures show that we still have anemic growth and nearly 10 percent unemployment. As Americans suffered, Washington wasted its time on a gargantuan, unmanageable and unaffordable health care package. No wonder many Americans feel frustrated.

But underneath the frustration, the tea party has roots that are deeper and aim higher. Deeper because it is within the best tradition of popular movements in our history — from the Great Awakening that gave rise to the American Revolution to the conservative revival that helped elect Ronald Reagan. Higher because it aims to recover our moral compass, bequeathed by our Founders and preserved ever since.

The tea party also symbolizes Americans’ indomitable desire for a better life. It reminds us that we’re a country of free people who understand that liberty is fragile and must be vigilantly defended.

Some past grass-roots movements have succeeded, and others have failed. Success comes because the energy of the moment is translated into a lasting, governing philosophy consistent with the settled opinions of the American people.

On this score, prospects look good. The tea party isn’t about to go away after the November elections. Its powerful message of limited government is likely to remain a sharp thorn in the side of those in both parties who want to continue politics as usual.

Take Obama’s health care package, which tea partiers have labeled “Obamacare.” Obama and Democrats rammed this through Congress, against the wishes of a majority of the American people.

But the repealing legislation should not itself contain some new massive health care plan. Even if the legislation offers good policy, the tea party is here to remind Republicans that pushing large, unexamined bills through Congress is wrong. We need to repeal Obamacare immediately, then openly debate and pass conservative-drawn, sensible and broadly supported health care reform.

It’s no surprise that pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen found that more than “half of the electorate now say they favor the tea party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 [percent] to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement and 2 [percent] to 7 percent say they are activists.”

This means that all those protesters with their Constitutions at tea party rallies nationwide represent millions of fellow Americans. The answers they seek won’t be found in the thousands of pages of new legislation coming out of Washington.

They are in those documents that first defined this nation and provide the most just framework for a free people to work hard, play by the rules and succeed.

Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation. Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina.

____________________________________

Other posts about Heritage Foundation:

Brummett: We need to tax the rich more (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 12)

John Brummett asserts that liberals are right about the cause of the deficit. He asserts in his article “Harry let us down,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 4, 2011: He is right that the actual deficit is caused by direct government spending exceeding income, an imbalance mostly caused, he will tell you with some justification, by […]

Ernest Istook: “it’s time to put away childish things” and tackle deficit, will Senator Mark Pryor do it?

U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 DPA J-J Dinner U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. (Did you notice that besides Mike Ross, EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT THAT PRYOR MENTIONS DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB IN WASHINGTON IS NO LONGER IN OFFICE, SNYDER, LINCOLN, and BERRY)

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 4)

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beach is one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but […]

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 3)

The problem with social security   David John, a Senior research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explains his position on Social Security as it relates to taxes and health care. He suggests it would be a good solution for the government to raise the age of retirement. “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to […]

Who was Milton Friedman and what did he say about Social Security Reform? (Part 4)

Arnold Schwarzenegger did  the opening introduction to the film series “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman, but then  Arnold abandoned the principles of Friedman!!!! Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect […]

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 1)

What is the future of Social Security and Medicare?  Congresswoman Virginia Foxx talks with Alison Fraser of the Heritage Foundation about the state of Social Security and Medicare. “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison […]

Max Brantley thinks there are three reasons we have huge debt: 1. Bush Tax cuts for rich 2. Bush’s wars 3. Recession (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 11)

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory The Laffer Curve charts a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. While the theory behind the Laffer Curve is widely accepted, the concept has become very controversial because politicians on both sides of the debate exaggerate. This video shows the middle ground between those who claim […]

Pat Lynch: We need to bring tax rates back up for Rich (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 10)(If you love Milton Friedman then you will love this post)

The liberal Pat Lynch in his article “Worry Inc.” Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, April 4, 2011 commented: While the budget cutters are busy going after programs that help mere citizens, any notion of bringing taxrates for the wealthy back to the levels of the Clinton era, when there was a federal surplus, is off the table. […]

John Brummett:Cause of deficit is we don’t tax rich enough (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 9)(Famous Arkansan Wayne Jackson)

John Brummett asserts that liberals are right about the cause of the deficit. He asserts in his article “Harry let us down,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 4, 2011: He is right that the actual deficit is caused by direct government spending exceeding income, an imbalance mostly caused, he will tell you with some justification, by […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

JONES VOTES AGAINST LARGEST DEBT LIMIT INCREASE IN HISTORY

 
 

Washington, Aug 3 –

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week Congressman Walter B. Jones voted against S. 365 – the bill negotiated between President Barack Obama and House and Senate Leadership which would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling by up to $2.4 trillion.  That increase in the debt limit would be the largest in U.S. history.   The bill is expected to pass the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama later today.  Congressman Jones is the only member of Congress to have voted against final passage of every single increase in the debt limit over the last seven years.   

While Congressman Jones was pleased that the Speaker of the House was able to overcome the President’s original request for a blank check to increase deficit spending without cuts, and then his insistence that a debt limit increase be paid for with tax increases and phantom spending reductions, the Congressman had serious concerns with the final deal. 

The bill allows the President to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion over the next 6 months, while the promised spending reductions would take place over the next 10 years – assuming no future Congress undoes those cuts.  Further – even if the reductions stay in effect – the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending will still go up each and every year of the ten year agreement, with the government adding at least another $4 trillion in deficit spending over those ten years.  

Congressman Jones is also troubled by the unbalanced reductions required by the bill, and the impact they could have on Eastern North Carolina.  While defense spending constitutes roughly 1/6th of current federal spending, the bill would require that half of future cuts come from defense.  That could have serious consequences for America’s ability to defend itself, and for Eastern North Carolina’s military bases.  The bill would also leave veterans funding open to cuts.  And while funding for Eastern North Carolina veterans and military bases would be on the chopping block, the bill protects overseas spending in Iraq and Afghanistan from cuts.  The bill also allows spending on optional “discretionary programs” to rise by over $200 billion dollars, yet subjects Eastern North Carolina hospitals, doctors and seniors to Medicare cuts. 

“Cutting funding for Eastern North Carolina bases and our veterans while expanding funding for overseas wars is an unacceptable proposition,” said Congressman Jones.  “Allowing increases in spending on discretionary programs at the same time you are cutting medical benefits just makes no common sense.  There is no doubt that federal spending must be cut dramatically if this nation hopes to get back on its feet.  But under this legislation total spending and debt continue to rise, and the cuts that actually are made are unbalanced.  This bill unfortunately missed the mark.”

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 113)

Alexis Garcia reports on America’s exploding debt. Experts blame entitlements like Social Security and government spending. But what is the solution? Can we raise taxes without crushing the economy and the middle class? Does Obama really want to lower the debt, or does he support continued deficit spending? See interviews with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Brian Riedl, Jason Peuquet and former Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK).

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:

 Here are a few more I  emailed to him myself.

Senator Rand Paul on Feb 7, 2011 wrote the article “A Modest $500 Billion Proposal: My spending cuts would keep 85% of government funding and not touch Social Security,” Wall Street Journal and he observed:

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Office of Personnel Management
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease
OPM $2.924 B $9.070 B 12.3%
The Office of Personnel Management is notorious for its red tape. Responsible for hiring federal employees – who earn double the salaries of their private sector counterparts (USA Today, March 3, 2010) – the agency has a reputation of poor performance in hiring, which even President Obama has scolded and sought to reform. However, more has to be done to streamline the processes of this behemoth of an organization that is a perfect example of government growth and waste.

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 2)

Coldplay

This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference:

My son Hunter is a coldplay nut and his 19th favorite song is “Glass of Water.”

The whole album is very interesting and I have written about it before. The subject of death is prominent in the songs “Poppyfields,” “Violet Hill,” “Death and All His Friends,” “42,” and the “Cemeteries of London.” Then the song “The Escapist” states, “And in the end, We lie awake and we dream, we’re makin our escape.” In the end we all die. Therefore, I assume this song is searching for an afterlife to escape to. The song “Glass of Water” sheds some more light on where we possibly escape to: “Oh he said you could see a future inside a glass of water, with riddles and the rhymes, He asked ‘Will I see heaven in mine?’

Coldplay is clearly searching for spiritual answers but it seems they have not found them quite yet. The song “42“: “Time is so short and I’m sure, There must be something more.” Then the song “Lost“: “Every river that I tried to cross, Every door I ever tried was locked, I’m just waiting til the shine wears off, You might be a big fish in a little pond, Doesn’t mean you’ve won, Because along may come a bigger one and you will be lost.”
Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for this “something more” that Coldplay is talking about, but he did not find any satisfaction in pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), work (2:4), wealth (2:8) or fame (2:9). All of his accomplishments would not be remembered (1:11) and who is to say that they had not already been done before by others (1:10)? This reminds me of the big fish in the little pond that Coldplay was talking about. Even if you think you are on top, are you really? Also Solomon’s upcoming death depressed him because both people and animals alike “go to the same place — they came from dust and they return to dust” (3:20).  The answer to this problem is given at the end of the Book of Ecclesiastes.

The Best Coldplay Songs Of All Time – And Why?

By

Continental OnePass® Card Earn Miles on Your Daily Purchases Exclusive OnePass® Plus Benefits. CHASECreditCards.com/Continental
Find A Record Label Natl. TV campaign for new artists. Submit your music today. www.TateMusicGroup.com
Download Google Chrome A free browser that lets you do more of what you like on the web www.google.com/chrome

Expert Author Vincent Friend

No one can argue that Coldplay is one of the best bands of today. Their music has been spread across the globe from the US to Canada, Australia to New Zealand, England to France and many more. Personally, I’m a huge Coldplay fan and when the question of “what are the best Coldplay songs of all time” came up amongst a few friends of mine while playing Rock Band it got the cogs in mind thinking…

I decided that there were too many great Coldplay songs so I narrowed it down to just five. Here’s what I came up with…

Trouble

Trouble is the song that made me fall in love with the band. A great starting piano tune that not only delivers an excellent chorus but then tops that with a remarkable ending. Not too many songs these days change total direction at the end and give their listeners something more at the finale. A gorgeous video combining stop-motion and digital effects. If you’re unfamiliar with Coldplay’s music then this is a great place to start.

Speed of Sound

Great beat. Great lyrics. Again, you have a beautiful piano part starting the song off. Where “Trouble” is a steady horse from start to end, Speed of Sound is more like a gallop that increases as the song progresses. Just when you think they’ve drawn you in with the ultimate hook they continue to deliver hook after hook in this song. And not just in the vocals. The guitars and piano are all throwing in their cool little hooky riffs. Its kinda like one of those russian dolls that you keep opening up to more and more cute little dolls. This song is guaranteed to fill your musical palette over and over again.

In My Place

In My Place starts with a rockin drum line with kick, snare and hi-hat by the ever-talented “Will Champion”. Then a beautiful guitar line comes in with Jonny Buckland leading us through the whole song. This is the first hook we hear in the song, played in the upper registers of the guitar with a combination of arpeggios and melodic note choices. I always find it funny to hear instruments in a song that don’t show up in the video. If you listen closely you’ll hear a gentle organ playing its way through the verse but in the video it’s not featured. And once again Chris does an amazing job coming up with the best hooks in the chorus providing not only a great Pop/Rock tune but a memorable song that will last through the times.

Clocks

I don’t think any piano line has been played more than the one from Clocks. You’ll not only hear this song in every romantic movie out there but the piano hook itself has been dissected from the song just to be featured by itself in many movies and tv shows. The song is a basic 4/4 form but what’s great is how they divide the meter. A constant division of 3-3-2 driving you throughout the entirety of the song. It provides not only a great rock feel but with such a rhythm it’s guaranteed you’ll find yourself alone in your room dancing like a freak until your mum walks in on you embarrassing you in the process.

The Scientist

No other song by Coldplay gives me goosebumps like The Scientist. A sweet and nostalgic tune that enjoys a long intro with Chris Martin on vocals and piano. It’s not until the 1:38 mark does the full band finally come in. That’s a big no no in the Pop world. You see, by Pop standards you’re supposed to hit the full chorus by at least the first 30 seconds. But that’s perhaps what I love about this song. They manage to go outside that box and provide a moving a wonderful musical tale. In the July 14th, 2005 edition of Rolling Stone magazine, Chris Martin is quoted as saying:”On the second album I was thinking there was something missing. I was in this really dark room in Liverpool, and there was a piano so old and out of tune. I really wanted to try and work out the George Harrison song ‘Isn’t It A Pity,’ but I couldn’t. Then this song came out at once. I said, ‘Can you turn on the recorder?’ The first time I sung it is what’s out there.”

Whether you agree with my choice for the best Coldplay songs of all time or not, there’s no disputing that they are one of the greatest bands of all time.

Related posts:

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 4)

Dave Hogan/ Getty Images This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: For the 17th best Coldplay song of all-time, Hunter picks “42.” He notes, “You thought you might […]

Documentary on Coldplay (Part 2)

The best band in the world. Below I have linked some articles I have earlier about the search for meaning in life the band seems to involved in. Chris Martin, Jonny Buckland, Guy Berryman, and Will Champion formed Coldplay in 1996 while going to University in London. The young band quickly established themselves in the […]

Review of New Coldplay song with video clip

I am presently involved in the counting down of the best Coldplay songs of all time, but I am also in a series here reviewing the upcoming songs on Coldplay’s new cd that will be released soon. Here is a review from Rolling Stone: Coldplay Debut new song ‘Charlie Brown’ June 6, 2011 Coldplay debuted […]

Documentary on Coldplay (Part 1, the song “Yellow” featured)

Great documentary on Coldplay. I have written a lot on Coldplay the last few years and I see something spiritually happening with the group as they continue to search for a deeping meaning in life. Coldplay Max Masters – Part 1 of 7 Uploaded by thepostbox on May 6, 2009 The ASTRA Award winning music documentary […]

“Woody Wednesday” Will Allen and Martin follow same path as Kansas to Christ?

Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 3)

 This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference:   Hunter has chosen the song “Viva La Vida” as his number 18 pick. Hunter noted, “The violin synth is a […]

Review of New Coldplay songs (video clip too)

Coldplay – Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall Published on Jun 28, 2011 by ColdplayVEVO The new single, taken from Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall EP (featuring two more new tracks). Download it from http://cldp.ly/itunescp Music video by Coldplay performing Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall. (P) 2011 The copyright in this audiovisual recording is owned by […]

 

Two amazing actresses: Sisters Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Haviland

Last night I watched the movie “Suspicion” with Joan Fontaine. 

 

 

‘

Feuding Sisters: Olivia de Havilland & Joan Fontaine

Over the years, the Academy has recognized acting families, with awards bestowed upon siblings, parents and children, and even cousins.  The Huston’s, the Fonda’s, the Coppola’s, and the Redgrave’s, are among the acting families, who have multiple awards amongst them.  But perhaps the most interesting, would be that duo of feuding sisters, who’s private infighting, became Hollywood gossip, and who would butt heads at the Oscar ceremonies on more than one occasion! 


Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine were both army brats, two sisters born one year apart in Tokyo , where their father was stationed, back in 1916-17.  The girls suffered from ill-health, forcing the parents to move to California when they were young.  During that time, their parents divorced, and their father returned to Tokyo.

The sisters admit that growing up together, that they fought constantly.  According to Fontaine, elder sister, Olivia never got used to the idea of a younger sister, and thus a jealous rivalry was begun.  Their fighting was so bitter as children, that it often resulted in fist fighting, as much as it did petty squabbling.

Olivia was the first to venture into acting, taking the stage in the early thirties.  Sister Joan followed suit a few years later.  

As they were both being courted for contracts with movie studios, Joan changed her name to Fontaine,  supposedly on the advice of a fortune teller.  While Joan started to work her way up the ranks of RKO, playing smaller roles to Katherine Hepburn and Joan Crawford, Olivia was signed with Warner’s, playing high profile roles in Robin Hood and in several Bette Davis films.  

By 1939, Olivia had made a name for herself, so much so, that she was a popular choice with fans, and with casting agents, to play Melanie, in the classic, Gone With the Wind. Olivia earned her first nomination for Best Supporting Actress, playing the ultra-pure wife of the man that Scarlett O’Hara is hot-to-trot for.

Of course, the award would ultimately be handed out to her co-star, Hattie McDaniel, the first black actress to ever win the award, but that fact didn’t console de Havilland.  She later admitted, that for at least two weeks after her defeat, she was convinced that ‘there was no God.’  She admitted that on the night that McDaniel won,  she ‘couldn’t stay at that table another minute.  I had to be alone, so I wandered out into the kitchen and cried.’  She said that it took a few days before she could finally be ‘proud’ that she “belonged to a profession which honored a black woman who merited this, in a time when other groups had neither the honesty, nor the courage to do the same sort of thing.”

The very next year, David Selznick was looking for a vehicle to follow up his success on Gone With the Wind.  He chose Rebecca, and gave newcomer, Alfred Hitchcock free reign to direct.  Hitchcock cast the other sister, Joan, in the lead role of the meek and mild, second Mrs. de Winter.  The film was a success, garnering yet another Best Picture win for Selznick’s camp.  Meanwhile, Joan was suddenly a big star, and found herself nominated for her first Best Actress Award.

Despite raving reviews by the critics, and a huge fan base that was gunning for her, Joan didn’t win that year.  Instead, the award went to Ginger Rogers, who was perhaps being honored for a decade worth of fine work in classic musicals and comedies, rather than for the second grade weepy, Kitty Foyle, for which she was nominated.  Fontaine was gracious about losing, stating that ‘to have won for my first good role, would have been precipitous.’ 

The 1941 Oscar’s marked the first round in the battle of the feuding sisters, when both of them were nominated for the Best Actress Oscar.  Joan received the nod for Suspicion, her second film with Alfred Hitchcock directing her, while Olivia was recognized for Hold Back the Dawn.  

Joan actually didn’t plan on attending the ceremony, stating that she had to be up early the next morning, however, older sister, Olivia twisted her arm, stating, “You have to be there.  Your absence would look odd.”

Gingers Rogers presented the Best Actress award, while the two sisters sat next to each other at the Selznick table.  When she called out Joan’s name, Joan remembers how she just froze.  “Get up there,” her sister nudged.  Joan remembers bursting into tears at that very moment.  “All the animus we felt toward each other as children,” she recalled.  “The hair pulling, the savage wrestling matches, the time Olivia fractured my collar bone, all came rushing back in kaleidoscopic imagery.  My paralysis was total … I felt age four, being confronted by my older sister.  Damn it!  I incurred her wrath again.”

Here is a picture of her in Suspicion above.


David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 1)

 

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

___________

David Barton did a great job with this article America’s Religious Heritage As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations :

David Barton – 01/2009

America’s Religious Heritage

As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations

Religious activities at presidential inaugurations have become the target of criticism in recent years, 1 with legal challenges being filed to halt activities as simple as inaugural prayers and the use of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. 2 These critics – evidently based on a deficient education – wrongly believe that the official governmental arena is to be aggressively secular and religion-free. The history of inaugurations provides some of the most authoritative proof of the fallacy of these modern arguments.

In fact, since America’s first inauguration in 1789 included seven distinct religious activities, that original inauguration is worthy of review. Every inauguration since 1789 has included numerous of those activities.

The First Inauguration

Constitutional experts abounded at America’s first inauguration. Not only was the first inauguree (George Washington) a signer of the Constitution but numerous drafters of the Constitution were serving in the Congress that organized and directed that first inauguration. In fact, just under one fourth of the members of the first Congress had been delegates to the Convention that wrote the Constitution. 3 Furthermore, the identical Congress that directed and oversaw these inaugural activities also penned the First Amendment. Having therefore produced both the Constitution and all of its clauses on religion, they clearly knew what types of religious activities were and were not constitutional. Clearly, then, the religious activities that occurred at the first inauguration may well be said to have the approval and imprimatur of the greatest collection of constitutional experts America has ever known. Therefore, a review of the religious activities acceptable in that first inauguration will provide guidance for citizens in general and critics in particular.

The first inauguration occurred in New York City. (New York City served as the nation’s capital for the first year of the new federal government; for the next ten, Philadelphia was the capital city; in 1800, the federal government moved to Washington, D. C. for its permanent home). George Washington had been at home at Mt. Vernon when Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress, notified him that he had been unanimously elected as the nation’s first president.

On receiving this news, Washington departed from Mt. Vernon and began his trek toward New York City, stopping first at Fredericksburg, Virginia, to visit his mother, Mary¬ – the last time the two would see each other. Mary was eighty-two and suffering from incurable breast cancer. Mary parted with her son, giving him her blessings and offering him her prayers, telling him: “You will see me no more; my great age and the disease which is rapidly approaching my vitals, warn me that I shall not be long in this world. Go, George; fulfill the high destinies which Heaven appears to assign to you; go, my son, and may that Heaven’s and your mother’s blessing be with you always.” 4Washington did go, and he did indeed fulfill the high destinies assigned him by Heaven. A moving painting was made of her giving him her final charge; his mother passed away a few months after that final meeting.

Leaving his mother, Washington continued northward toward New York City. In town after town along the way, special dinners and celebrations were held – including in Alexandria, Georgetown, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Trenton, and other locations. Finally reaching Elizabethtown, New Jersey, Washington boarded a barge that carried him the rest of the way, where another celebration awaited him upon entering New York Harbor.

On April 30th, 1789, George Washington was to be inaugurated on the balcony outside Federal Hall. (Federal Hall was originally named Old Hall, but New York City – in an effort to convince the new federal government that the City was serious about becoming the national capital – remodeled the structure, renaming it Federal Hall. The House and Senate met in two chambers inside that Hall, and the inauguration took place on the remodeled building’s balcony.) Incidentally, religious activities had been planned to precede the inauguration, with the people of New York City being called to a time of prayer. The papers in the Capital City reported on that scheduled activity:

[O]n the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o’clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the Most high. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and . . . is designed wholly for prayer. 5

The preparations for the inauguration had been extensive; everything had been well planned; the event seemed to be proceeding smoothly. The parade carrying Washington by horse-drawn carriage to the swearing-in was nearing Federal Hall when it was realized that no Bible had been obtained for administering the oath. Parade Marshal Jacob Morton hurried to the nearby Masonic Lodge and grabbed its large 1767 King James Bible.

The Bible was laid upon a crimson velvet cushion (held by Samuel Otis, Secretary of the Senate) and, with a huge crowd gathered below watching the ceremony on the balcony, New York Chancellor Robert Livingston was to administer the oath of office. (Robert Livingston had been one of the five Founders who had drafted the Declaration of Independence; however, he was called back to New York to help his State through the Revolution before he could affix his signature to the very document he had helped write. As Chancellor, Livingston was the highest ranking judicial official in New York.) Beside Livingston and Washington stood several distinguished officials, including Vice President John Adams, original Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, Generals Henry Knox and Philip Schuyler, and a number of others. The Bible was opened at random to the latter part of Genesis; Washington placed his left hand upon the open Bible, raised his right, and then took the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution. Washington then bent over and kissed the Bible, reverently closed his eyes, and said, “So help me God!” Chancellor Livingston then proclaimed, “It is done!” Turning to the crowd assembled below, he shouted, “Long live George Washington – the first President of the United States!” That shout was echoed and re-echoed by the crowd below.

Critics today claim that George Washington never added “So help me God!” to his oath 6 – that associating religious intent with the oath is of recent origins. After all, the presidential oath of office as prescribed in Article II of the Constitution simply states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

But overlooked by many today is the fact that the Framers of our government considered an oath to be inherently religious – something George Washington affirmed when he appended the phrase “So help me God” to the end of the oath. In fact, it was universally acknowledged by every American legal scholar of that day that any legally-binding oath was overtly religious in nature. As signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon succinctly explained:

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [a calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow. 7  

1. A number of legal authorities, university professors, and news writers have criticized inaugural religious activities. See, for example, Alan M. Dershowitz, “Bush Starts Off by Defying the Constitution,” Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Metro section, Part B, p. 9; Larry Judkins, Religion Page Editor, Sacramento Valley Mirror, “Dershowitz Piece Misleading: All Presidents Flaunt Constitution,” in Positive Atheism Magazine, Thursday, January 25, 2001 (at: http://www.positiveatheism.org); “President Bush Announces Religious Agenda on Inauguration Day,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, January 20, 2001 (at:http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=6095); et. Al.(Return)

2. Noted atheist Michael Newdow filed suit in federal court to have prayers barred from the Presidential Inauguration of 2001, 2005, and in 2009 to have inaugural prayers halted and to prevent the Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court from saying “So help me God” when administering the oath of office to the president. (Return)

3. Significantly, many of the U. S. Senators at the first Inauguration had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention that framed the Constitution including William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, George Read, Richard Bassett, William Few, Caleb Strong, John Langdon, William Paterson, Robert Morris, and Pierce Butler; and many members of the House had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Hugh Williamson, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, and James Madison.(Return)

4. Benson J. Lossing, Our Country: A Household History for All Readers (New York: Henry J. Johnson, 1877), Vol. IV, p. 1121. (Return)

5. The Daily Advertiser, New York, Thursday, April 23, 1789, p. 2. (Return)

6. See, for example, Newdow v. Roberts, complaint filed by Newdow on December 29, 2008, pp. 20-21, par. 103-104 of the complaint. See also Cathy Lynn Grossman, “No proof Washington said ‘so help me God’ – will Obama,”USA Today, January 9, 2009 (at:http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm). (Return)

7. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, pp. 139-140, 142, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows. (Return)

 

 

The two games I saw this week (Tenn at Florida, Troy at Arkansas) jh21

This weekend I got to see two games on TV. I wanted to make a few comments about both games. Arkansas finally put away Troy 38-28 and Florida finally put away Tennessee 33-23.

I told my kids that Arkansas was going to be facing a tough opponent this week in Troy. Harry King agreed evidently:

Well-informed Razorback fans, here’s a trivia question: What four opposing quarterbacks are on the Davey O’Brien watch list?

Thinking cap on, I came up with Texas A&M’s Ryan Tannehill, Tennessee’s Tyler Bray and Mississippi State’s Chris Relf. Knowing the watch list was released in mid-July, Alabama, Auburn and LSU were eliminated because the quarterback situation at those schools was unsettled at the time.

South Carolina’s oft-suspended Stephen Garcia was the red herring.

The final member of the quartet is Troy’s Corey Robinson, who will have an opportunity to show off this evening in Fayetteville. Two-thirds of the 38 on the watch list are from the six BCS conferences and five are from Conference USA where pass defense is prohibited, so Robinson had to have some credentials to be recognized from the Sun Belt Conference.

As a freshman last year, he completed almost 64 percent of his 505 passes for 3,726 yards with 28 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

Don’t assume Robinson feasted on Sun Belt opposition. He was 28-of-38 in a 41-38 loss to Oklahoma State, 58 percent or better against three other non-conference foes and 32-of-42 for 387 in a New Orleans Bowl victory over Ohio.

Two weeks ago, in Troy’s only game of the year, he was 24-of-42 against Clemson. Troy led the Tigers 16-13 at the half.

___________________________

The Tennessee game showed me that Bray is the real deal. I actually think that Tennesse may be the toughest game that Arkansas has at home this year. Some people would argue it is South Carolina, but I am picking Vandy to beat them this week. Miss St is very good but will they be able to recover from starting 0-2 in the SEC?

The other SEC home game for Arkansas is Auburn and with the defeat this week at Clemson it proves that Auburn will lucky to finish 4-4 in the SEC conference play this year. I think Tennessee will be a surprising dark horse in the East and probably the toughest team Arkansas will face this year at home. We will have to wait and see.

Below is a negative view of Tennessee’s game yesterday from Knoxnews.com:

Quarterbacks: B-

Tyler Bray had one of his first mistakes of the season, and it proved to be a big one. The sophomore’s interception to start the second half led directly to points and put UT in a hole it couldn’t climb out of without Justin Hunter at receiver.

Running backs: C-

Tauren Poole was a non-factor, and Marlin Lane didn’t provide much more on the ground. Lane did add another touchdown to his growing resume and was productive out of the backfield as a receiver.

Wide receivers/ tight ends: B

Losing Hunter early was a critical blow to the offense, but it did give Vincent Dallas and DeAnthony Arnett a chance to make an impact. Both got involved in the passing game and showed signs of being able to help moving forward.

Offensive line: D

There were no running lanes to be found, and James Stone struggled mightily to get the ball to Bray with his shotgun snaps. The sophomore hadn’t really shown any signs of problems through two weeks, but Bray was frequently scooping balls off the ground.

Defensive line: C-

The Vols didn’t have much time to generate much pressure on Florida quarterback John Brantley because he was so quick to dish it to his running backs. There were plenty of opportunities to wrap Chris Rainey and Jeff Demps in the backfield, but the Vols missed far too many times.

Linebackers: C-

A lot of the blame has to be placed on this group for the success of Florida’s short passing game. Rainey’s 83-yard catch-and-run came clearly as a result of busted coverage. Nevertheless, there were some highlights for this group, as both freshmen A.J. Johnson, who ran back a fumble in the third quarter, and Curt Maggitt looked very good at times.

Secondary: C

The Vols didn’t have to worry much about Brantley or Florida’s underwhelming group of wide receivers burning them for big plays, but they also share some of the blame for Rainey’s and Demps’ short catches going for long gains. There should have been someone around to slow down Rainey on his long touchdown catch. Senior Art Evans, back in the starting lineup, and Marsalis Teague were mostly reliable at cornerback, but they weren’t tested very often.

Special teams: F

What could go wrong did go wrong, and to make matters worse, there were penalties on top of that. Michael Palardy missed a short field goal in the first quarter, had a punt blocked and was woeful on kickoffs. The only facet that wasn’t a mess was the typically awful punt return team. Of course, with the way Florida was scoring, there weren’t many opportunities.

Coaching: C-

Dooley questioned his decision to go for a two-point conversion midway through the third quarter, but collectively the Vols seemed to make some adjustments on both sides of the ball that allowed them to stay competitive in a game that looked like it could get out of hand at times.

Overall: C-

The Vols were dealt some adversity early with Hunter going down, and they didn’t handle it well and struggled to get an early foothold in the game. That might not be surprising for a young team, but it showed some signs of maturing in the way it battled back late.

Brummett wrong on Capital Punishment

John Brummett on Sept 18, 2011 commented :

…that the debate audience had cheered and whistled the week before at the Reagan library. It happened when a questioner related that 234 death row inmates had been executed in Rick Perry’s gubernatorial tenure in Texas, far more than in any other state.

The question to Perry, after the death glee subsided, was whether he agonized about any of that. He said no, not at all.

How could he have dared to say otherwise? This is no time for a Republican presidential hopeful to stand before a contemporary conservative audience in America and go all wobbly on death and killing.

_____________________

I am a Christian. It is my view that capital punishment is clearly taught in the Bible. I think if Brummett got his way then possibly more prison guards would be killed because capital punishment woujld be banned. Or we would get a crazy society like Norway that allows mass murderers out in 7 years. Below is an article that makes this clear. Also I do believe it is a deterrent. Greg Koukl rightly noted, “I was listening a couple of years ago to KABC and talk show host Michael Jackson. He was making the point that capital punishment never works. And of course, he’s thinking of it as a deterrent. My response is, capital punishment works every time. Every time it’s used, the prisoner dies.”

Also I agree with Koukl that in the case of the Oklahoma City Bombing the murderer deserved to die. The same should be said about this case in Norway!!!

Reasons for Capital Punishment

Gregory Koukl

There’s a reason both the Old and the New Testaments promote capital punishment. That reason was applicable then and still applies today.divider

Apparently, Jesse Jackson made some comments on “Meet the Press” this morning referring to the possibility of capital punishment for Timothy McVeigh. He said, allegedly, that executing McVeigh would just be a trophy that the people of Oklahoma City would like to get in their trophy case to make them feel better.Jackson should have been ashamed of his comment. To refer the punishment of a man who is a convicted killer of 168 citizens of Oklahoma City by those who are deeply interested in justice as simply a quest for trophies is an insult to every person who lost a loved one in that explosion.It’s an absolute insult, and it should be an insult to every clear-thinking American.Capital punishment is not about getting trophies in any trophy case, any more than life imprisonment is about putting man in a cage as a trophy in a human zoo. It’s about justice. What the people in Oklahoma City want– and all Americans who are in favor of capital punishment for a man who violently snuffed out the lives of 168 people– is not a trophy. They want justice.I’m actually stunned, to be honest with you, that there are so many Christians who oppose capital punishment on biblical grounds. It ought to be clear to anyone familiar with the biblical record that God is not against capital punishment. It was His idea. He started it.Go back to Genesis 9:6 and you’ll find this: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”

You see, the crime of murder is not principally based on the idea that you robbed a person of his life. That confuses the Fifth Commandment with the Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s wrong to take someone else’s possessions, including his life.

No, murder is not a crime of theft, but of destruction. We have destroyed the life of one made in the image of God . God says such a crime deserves the most extreme punishment. You take a life, you surrender your own life.

By the way, read through the Old Testament and you’ll find 21 different offenses that called for the death penalty. Only three include an actual or potential capital offense by our current definition. Six are for religious offenses, ten are for various moral issues, and two relate to ceremonial issues.

So if you’re going to call anybody frivolous about using capital punishment, you can start with God. God instituted it for a wide range of offenses, not just murder. But it included murder, and would certainly be justified, in God’s eyes, for someone who murdered 168 people.

I’m not suggesting we reinstate capital punishment for the offenses of the Old Testament or even that capital punishment is obligatory. I am saying that it’s a moral alternative that is, at least in principle, totally approved by God.

Some feel that even though capital punishment was approved in the Old Testament, the New Testament has changed all of that. I will tell you why that is not a good way to argue. They say Jesus, or some teaching in the New Testament, has somehow changed that. My response is, “Where?”

Actually, capital punishment is strongly assumed in the New Testament. In Romans 13, Paul argues that governing authorities are set there by God. He says, “If you do what is evil, be afraid, for the government does not bear the sword for nothing, for it is minister of God and avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” God ordains the governing authorities, and those governing authorities have a God-ordained responsibility to execute justice with the sword.

Peter says in 1 Peter 2:13-14 that these authorities were sent by God for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do right.

People say, “Well capital punishment is just revenge.” My response is they’re right in a sense. It is revenge. In fact, it’s justrevenge. It’s God’s vengeance based on justice, executed through the machinery of government that God ordained.

Paul uses the word “sword” here. I don’t think he had in mind paddling people with the broad side of the sword. No, capital punishment is in view here as a proper tool government would use to express the vengeance of God in a just fashion against gratuitous evil. That’s the biblical teaching.

What about Jesus? Some say Jesus’ ethic of love and forgiveness requires us to end the death penalty. This was the appeal Mother Theresa made when Robert Alton Harris was facing the gas chamber here in California. She appealed to the governor saying Jesus would forgive.

With no disrespect towards Mother Theresa, I think her comments were mistaken because her view simply proves too much. What should be done instead with capital criminals? Should we put them in prison for the rest of their lives? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put them in prison for ten years? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put a murderer in prison for one day? But Jesus would forgive.

You see, if this argument works it becomes justification for the abolishment of any kind of punishment whatsoever. This argument proves too much.

Further, that Jesus would forgive is a different issue from whether the governmentshould forgive. God can forgive evil. That doesn’t mean the government should forgive it in terms of its exercise of justice.

In fact, Jesus never challenged the validity of the death penalty when He had perfect opportunity to do so. Even in John 8, with the woman caught in adultery, he never challenged the death penalty itself. He didn’t enforce it under what seemed to be an unjust situation because all the witnesses fled. Remember, Jesus said, “Is there no one here to condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” The Law required witnesses to convict someone.

Jesus did not speak against the death penalty here. It was required by law. Jesus upheld the law. He just realized there was a nasty situation of injustice that was going on and so He found some other way to get around it.

And when Jesus was on the cross He asked God to forgive, not Caesar. He never suggested that capital punishment was inappropriate.

I think that we have to argue for the coherence and consistency of both Testaments on this issue. The question is not, “Was Jesus right or was Moses right?” The question is trying to find a way to bring them all together. Clearly, there was no abrogation of capital punishment in the New Testament.

In fact, if you recall Paul in the book of Acts (25:11) made this appeal for his life: “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Paul didn’t take exception with capital punishment, even for himself. His point was that he wasn’t guilty, not that capital punishment was wrong.

Which, by the way, brings us to another point that Mr. Jackson raised this morning on TV. He said Jesus was crucified. Jesus died at capital punishment. To which I respond, “So? What follows from that is…what? The significance of that is…what?” The answer is: nothing. The issue regarding Jesus was not capital punishment, but his innocence. In Acts 2, Peter condemns the act of handing over the innocentJesus to godless executioners.

Now, God’s mercy is always available in God’s court. But man’s court is another matter, ladies and gentlemen. It is governed by different biblical responsibilities. So one can’t say that capital punishment is patently immoral on biblical grounds. It just isn’t. There’s a good reason why. It has to do with something I explained very carefully to the man who interviewed me for US New and World Report on this very issue.

Capital punishment is important. The Bible–Old and New Testament–is for it, not against it. There is nothing in the New Testament that would give us any reason to think otherwise. In fact, it presumes capital punishment in many places.

I was listening a couple of years ago to KABC and talk show host Michael Jackson. He was making the point that capital punishment never works. And of course, he’s thinking of it as a deterrent.

My response is, capital punishment works every time. Every time it’s used, the prisoner dies.

You see, the reason for capital punishment is obviously not to rehabilitate somebody. The deterrent may be a secondary factor. But that isn’t why we use capital punishment. We use capital punishment to punishsomeone (pardon me for stating the obvious).

You see, all of this relates to your view of what human beings are. If human beings are machines determined either by genetics or by environment, then what do you do when a machine goes bad? You fix it. And if you can’t fix it, you throw it away. That’s the basis behind the rehabilitation idea. And of course, the throwaway mentality we see in a lot of other ethical areas.

however, if you think that human beings are personal creatures capable of choosing and, therefore, have moral responsibilities–when they do good we praise them, (which everybody wants), and when they do bad we punish them–then punishment makes sense. Punishment of all kinds. Even capital punishment.

Human beings are moral creatures who either deserve praise or blame depending on the circumstances–when they choose well, we praise them and when they violate a serious moral mandate, we punish them. (When we praise and blame, by the way, in both cases we’re expressing respect for the dignity of man in virtue of the fact that human beings are made in the image of God and have the capability of choosing.)

Punishment may range from a parking ticket to death. What determines which punishment? An ancient principle called lex taliones , “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”–the point being that the punishment must fit the crime. If somebody steals a loaf of bread, we don’t whack their arm off.

By the same token, if somebody kills 168 people, we don’t just put him in a cage for the rest of his life. He took 168 human lives! He should be punished in a way that fits his crime. He should sacrifice his own life.

That’s the basic question: What is a human being? I think he’s a free moral agent. If he is, then we should praise him when he does well. But if he doesn’t, then he deserves to be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show“Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1997 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Related post:

Max Brantley and Betsey Wright on Death Penalty

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com (2 min Mike Huckabee on Death Penalty in Republican Primary) Max Brantley rightly noted that “no one has been executed in Arkansas since 2005″ (Death Penalty in Decline, Arkansas Times Blog, Dec 27, 2010). However, the debate is clearly not over. In the July 13, 2006 article “Waiting for Death” by Max Brantley and […]

Gambling can lead to ruining your life jh22

I remember Lou Hardin when he took over at the University of Central Arkansas and practically doubled the size of that university. He was the toast of the town and he could do no wrong. However, he started gambling and the result was that he lost everything. The Arkansas Times reported on September 17, 2011:

THE HARDINS: Mary Hardin wrote court about her husband Lu: “I also hope you’ll see the other side of what you’ve been told about Lu. He is remorseful, contrite, and completely humbled.

  • THE HARDINS: Mary Hardin wrote court about her husband Lu: “I also hope you’ll see the other side of what you’ve been told about Lu. He is remorseful, contrite, and completely humbled.” (Photo by Brian Chilson)

Chuck Banks, the attorney for Lu Hardin, filed his pleading yesterday in federal court asking for leniency in sentencing Sept. 26 for Hardin, the former University of Central Arkansas president who has pleaded guilty to wire fraud in a bonus scheme he worked out in part to cover gambling debts.

Here’s the complete filing. From it:

The following factors are presented for the Court’s consideration in granting a probationary or alternative sentence, not as an excuse for Hardin’s behavior, but so that the Court can see the true man. These factors include: (1) Hardin’s acceptance of responsibility, extreme remorse and post-offense rehabilitation; (2) Hardin’s lifetime of service to the public and charitable organizations; (3) Hardin’s almost immediate payment of full restitution; (4) Hardin’s cooperation and other punishments already suffered because of the offense; and (5) Hardin’s recovering gambling addition.

So the question for readers: Has Hardin been punished enough by the public embarrassment and job and professional losses he’s experienced?

The complete filing is worth reading. It contains a biography (left fielder on a championship American Legion baseball team); has excerpts from many of the letters written in his behalf (son Scott Hardin: ” … the most honest man I have ever met. He has always been quick to call penalties on himself on the golf course, teaching me it is the only way to play the game….”), and it addresses the gambling that helped land him in court.

As explained in several of the letters of support provided to the Court, Lu Hardin has lived a life that has been a positive influence on others. He has been in an unquestioned faithful marriage for more than thirty years and he does not drink, smoke, or curse.

Approximately twelve years ago while on vacation, Hardin and his wife first played legal slot machines. He has never participated in any illegal gambling and in fact did not participate in any other form of legal gambling such as wagering on cards, dice, horses, or sporting events. His sole endeavor was slot machines which are known to be one of the most addictive forms of gambling. Although he was very financially stable when he began playing slot machines, what began as small stakes entertainment elevated to playing high stakes slot machines resulting in significant losses.

Hardin’s prior financial responsibility had him debt free at age 39 including owning a home in Russellville, Arkansas that was completely paid for. However, Hardin progressed from solid financial responsibility to deep debt. Lu Hardin took great pains accompanied with significant personal anguish to keep his legal wagering and the accompanying losses from his church, his friends, his board, other professionals, and any associated with the public except his wife.

Last year Hardin recognized he truly had an issue and has been attending Gamblers Anonymous since that date. He has been working the program, has a sponsor, and has not gambled in any shape, form, or fashion. Hardin has been proactive in his rehabilitation from gambling addiction and is ready to move forward with his life never entering a casino again.

__________________________________

John Brummett revisited the issue after Lu Hardin was sentenced in  a very good article.

Here is an excellent article from Crosswalk.com:

  • Michael Vlach, Author
  • Friday, October 15, 2004

An old joke asks: How can you tell when a gambler is lying? Answer: When his lips are moving. Unfortunately, this is often true for people who are addicted to gambling.

In his book Chance to Change, Michael Vlach explains that gambling and lying go hand in hand. “Problem gamblers usually do not have to think about lying and deception-it comes naturally,” he says. “To whom do problem gamblers lie? Everyone. This includes his or her spouse, parents, children, other relatives, friends, neighbors, employers, and coworkers. Gamblers also lie to themselves and to God.”

For a problem gambler, lying takes many forms. It may be saying you “broke even” at the casino, when really you lost $400. Or, it may mean telling your spouse you had to work late, when in reality you were at the racetrack. Or saying you lost a nice piece of jewelry that you really sold to the local pawnshop so you would have money to gamble.

Reflecting on her days as a problem gambler, Jane says, “I was beginning to lie to my own parents. Even to my own husband. I was beginning to believe my own lies; that’s the saddest thing.”

The same was true for Andy. “I lied to bill collectors about why I wasn’t getting my bills paid on time. ‘Oh, I’ve sent the check today,’ or, ‘I just got injured.’ I’d give them the sob story,” he states.

Lying can involve living a secret life, deception, manipulation, and even blaming others. Lying also involves rationalizations A gambler might think, everyone has his or her own form of recreation, mine just happens to be gambling. Or, I don’t have a gambling problem. You should see Joe; he loses a lot more money than I do.

No matter what the excuse is, there is one form of lying that is especially prevalent among problem gamblers. Vlach says, “Most problem gamblers are in denial. They have a cancer called gambling addiction that is killing them, and they refuse to see it. Those closest to the gambler clearly see it, but the gambler says, ‘I don’t have a gambling problem.'”

Embracing the Truth

God is “the God of truth” (Psalm 31:5). And He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). In fact, God hates lying. So how does a person who has lived a life of lying change his ways? He must not only commit to putting away all forms of lying, he must also actively embrace the truth.

If you have had trouble with gambling, remember, the truth will set you free. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Take Andy’s advice: “Life is good when you don’t have to lie.”

8 Most Common Lies Gamblers Tell Themselves

Gambling addiction and lying go hand in hand. The following lists the 8 most common lies gamblers tell themselves.

1. “One more trip to gamble won’t hurt.”

2. “I need to go gamble to see my friends.”

3. “I’m a loser, so who cares if I gamble.”

4. “I deserve to gamble, because I have had a hard week.”

5. “Gambling is how I handle stress.”

6. “Nobody is perfect; everyone has problems; gambling just happens to be mine.”

7. “This is the last time I’m going to gamble.”

8. “Gambling isn’t my problem; other people are the real problem.”

Originally posted in CW Finances in Oct. 2004.

Adapted from Chance to Change: Help for Problem Gamblers by Michael Vlach. Used by permission of the author.

Church Initiative has created a 13-week video series for churches entitled Chance to Change: Christ-Centered Gambling Recovery. This resource empowers churches to reach problem gamblers in their communities. The videos feature instruction from forty Christian counselors, pastors, and financial experts. For more information, visit www.chancetochange.org. You can also view their other resources at www.churchinitiative.com.

A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer (Part 3) (Schaeffer Sundays)

Part 1

Part 2

Below is a summary of “A Christian Manifesto” which is a very important book written by Francis Schaeffer just a couple of years before his death in 1984.

A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer

This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.

The abortion ruling is a very clear one. The abortion ruling, of course, is also a natural result of this other world view because with this other world view, human life — your individual life — has no intrinsic value. You are a wart upon the face of an absolutely impersonal universe. Your aspirations have no fulfillment in the “what-isness” of what is. Your aspirations damn you. Many of the young people who come to us understand this very well because their aspirations as Humanists have no fulfillment, if indeed the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance.

The universe cannot fulfill anything that you say when you say, “It is beautiful”; “I love”; “It is right”; “It is wrong.” These words are meaningless words against the backdrop of this other world view. So what we find is that the abortion case should not have been a surprise because it boiled up out of, quite naturally, (I would use the word again) mathematically, this other world view. In this case, human life has no distinct value whatsoever, and we find this Supreme Court in one ruling overthrew the abortion laws of all 50 states, and they made this form of killing human life (because that’s what it is) the law. The law declared that this form of killing human life was to be accepted, and for many people, because they had no set ethic, when the Supreme Court said that it was legal, in the intervening years, it has become ethical.

____________________________________________

The courts of this country have forced this view and its results on the total population. What we find is that as the courts have done this, without any longer that which the founding fathers comprehended of law (A man like Blackstone, with his Commentaries, understood, and the other lawgivers in this country in the beginning): That there is a law of God which gives foundation. It becomes quite natural then, that they would also cut themselves loose from a strict constructionism concerning the Constitution.

Everything is relative. So as you cut yourself loose from the Law of God, in any concept whatsoever, you also soon are cutting yourself loose from a strict constructionism and each ruling is to be seen as an arbitrary choice by a group of people as to what they may honestly think is for the sociological good of the community, of the country, for the given moment.

Now, along with that is the fact that the courts are increasingly making law and thus we find that the legislatures’ powers are increasingly diminished in relationship to the power of the courts. Now the pro-abortion people have been very wise about this in the last, say, 10 years, and Christians very silly. I wonder sometimes where we’ve been because the pro-abortion people have used the courts for their end rather than the legislatures — because the courts are not subject to the people’s thinking, nor their will, either by election nor by a re-election. Consequently, the courts have been the vehicle used to bring this whole view and to force it on our total population. It has not been largely the legislatures. It has been rather, the courts.

The result is a relativistic value system. A lack of a final meaning to life — that’s first. Why does human life have any value at all, if that is all that reality is? Not only are you going to die individually, but the whole human race is going to die, someday. It may not take the falling of the atom bombs, but someday the world will grow too hot, too cold. That’s what we are told on this other final reality, and someday all you people not only will be individually dead, but the whole conscious life on this world will be dead, and nobody will see the birds fly. And there’s no meaning to life.

As you know, I don’t speak academically, shut off in some scholastic cubicle, as it were. I have lots of young people and older ones come to us from the ends of the earth. And as they come to us, they have gone to the end of this logically and they are not living in a romantic setting. They realize what the situation is. They can’t find any meaning to life. It’s the meaning to the black poetry. It’s the meaning of the black plays. It’s the meaning of all this. It’s the meaning of the words “punk rock.” And I must say, that on the basis of what they are being taught in school, that the final reality is only this material thing, they are not wrong. They’re right! On this other basis there is no meaning to life and not only is there no meaning to life, but there is no value system that is fixed, and we find that the law is based then only on a relativistic basis and that law becomes purely arbitrary.

And this is brought to bear, specifically, and perhaps most clearly, in the public schools (I’ll come to that now) in this country. In the courts of this country, they are saying that it’s absolutely illegal, from the lowest grades up through university, for the public schools of this country to teach any other world view except this world view of final material or energy. Now this is done, no matter what the parents may wish. This is done regardless of what those who pay the taxes for their schools may wish. I’m giving you an illustration, as well as making a point. The way the courts force their view, and this false view of reality on the total population, no matter what the total population wants.

We find that in the January 18 — just recently — Time magazine, there was an article that said there was a poll that pointed out that about 76% of the people in this country thought it would be a good idea to have both creation and evolution taught in the public schools. I don’t know if the poll was accurate, but assuming that the poll was accurate, what does it mean? It means that your public schools are told by the courts that they cannot teach this, even though 76% of the people in the United States want it taught. I’ll give you a word. It’s TYRANNY. There is no other word that fits at such a point.

And at the same time we find the medical profession has radically changed. Dr. Koop, in our seminars for Whatever Happened to the Human Race, often said that (speaking for himself), “When I graduated from medical school, the idea was ‘how can I save this life?’ But for a great number of the medical students now, it’s not, ‘How can I save this life?’, but ‘Should I save this life?'”

Believe me, it’s everywhere. It isn’t just abortion. It’s infanticide. It’s allowing the babies to starve to death after they are born. If they do not come up to some doctor’s concept of a quality of life worth living. I’ll just say in passing — and never forget it – it takes about 15 days, often, for these babies to starve to death. And I’d say something else that we haven’t stressed enough. In abortion itself, there is no abortion method that is not painful to the child — just as painful that month before birth as the baby you see a month after birth in one of these cribs down here that I passed — just as painful.

So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views. The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”

I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession… The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.