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.
Tipton Calls for Common Sense, Balanced Approach to the Debt Ceiling
“The American people can’t call their banks and arbitrarily raise their spending limits; they have to cut back and tighten their budgets to live within their means, and they expect Washington to play by the same rules.”—Rep. Scott Tipton
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Stressing that Washington needs to start spending within its means like American families and businesses, Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-R) called for a common sense, balanced approach to the debt ceiling and spending problem.
“This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American issue. It is my hope that we can come together to reach a solution that embraces the common sense principles of living within our means and acting responsibly,” Tipton said. “We have an opportunity to cut, cap and balance, and chart a sustainable course in this country, rather than just cut and run. This is the balanced approach that the president has been asking for.”
The Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011 seeks to cut $111 billion in spending in FY2012 and $5.8 trillion over ten years, cap federal spending to under 20% of GDP by 2017, and pass a balanced budget amendment for passage by the states. Tipton plans to vote in favor of the Act later today.
“Forty-nine of our fifty states have some form of a balanced budget requirement. The President’s comment that a balanced budget is unrealistic for the federal government is out of touch,” Tipton said. “American families and small businesses balance their budgets every day; the states do it every day; it’s time that Washington does the same. With unemployment above 8 percent for 29 consecutive months, American families know all too well what it’s like to face a real debt ceiling. The American people can’t call their banks and arbitrarily raise their limits; they have to cut back and tighten their budgets to live within their means, and they expect Washington to play by the same rules.”
While House Republicans have passed a budget, and put forward solutions to curb Washington’s runaway spending and prevent Medicare and Social Security from going bankrupt, the President and Senate Democrats have yet to propose any plan.
“We are still waiting to see a plan from the President, and the silence has been deafening,” Tipton said. “The President cannot continue to punt on this issue. The time to act is now, and that’s what Republicans are doing by passing this plan to Cut, Cap, and Balance.”
What business owners are saying about the debt ceiling in the Third District:
“I’ve operated a small business for 25 years– meeting payrolls, keeping a balanced budget and never taking on more debt than we were able to payoff quickly. It’s time Washington politicians take off their political hats, start thinking like business owners and start living within their means. The American people and the business community want to see fundamental changes in the way Washington does business. That means standing on principle to cut spending and putting a stop to our country’s unsustainable debt before raising the debt ceiling.”—Tom Abbott, Owner, Montrose Ford-Nissan
“If Washington can raise the debt ceiling every time they decide to spend beyond their ability to pay, then what is the point? In my business, I can’t call the bank and tell them that I need more money if I decided to spend beyond my ability to pay. It should be no different for Washington. Washington needs to get serious and find a solution that fixes the root of the spending problem and pay down our debt before it’s too late to reverse the course.”—Doug Simons, Owner, Enstrom Candies, Grand Junction.
“It’s time we draw a line in the sand. We cannot continue to live off of future promises from Washington that fade away with every new spending increase. We don’t need more lip-service from Washington promising to fix things eventually, we need them to act now and get spending under control now. Our children’s future is at stake.”—Dean Matthews, Independent Electrical Contractor, Cortez
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min
T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce
I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought
II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism
Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed Values
A. General acceptance of selfish values (personal peace and affluence) accompanied rejection of Christian consensus.
1. Personal peace means: I want to be left alone, and I don’t care what happens to the man across the street or across the world. I want my own life-style to be undisturbed regardless of what it will mean — even to my own children and grandchildren.
2. Affluence means things, things, things, always more things — and success is seen as an abundance of things.
B. Students wish to escape meaninglessness of much of adult society.
1. Watershed was Berkeley in 1964.
2. Drug Taking as an ideology: “turning on” the world.
3. Free Speech Movement on Sproul Plaza.
a) At first neither Left nor Right.
b) Soon became the New Left.
(1) Followed Marcuse.
(2) Paris riots.
4. Student analysis of problem was right, but solution wrong.
5. Woodstock, Altamont, and the end of innocence.
6. Drug taking survives the death of ideology but as an escape.
7. Demise of New Left: radical bombings.
8. Apathy supreme. The young accept values of the older generation: their own idea of personal peace and affluence, even though adopting a different life-style.
C. Marxism and Maoism as pseudo-ideals.
1. Vogue for idealistic communism which is another form of leap into the area of non-reason.
2. Solzhenitsyn: violence and expediency as norms of communism.
3. Communist repression in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
4. Communism has neither philosophic nor historic base for freedom. There is no base for “Communism with a human face.”
5. Utopian Marxism steals its talk of human dignity from Christianity.
6. But when it comes to power, the desire of majority has no meaning.
7. Two streams of communism.
a) Those who hold it as an idealistic leap.
b) Old-line communists who hold orthodox communist ideology and bureaucratic structure as it exists in Russia.
8. Many in West might accept communism if it seemed to give peace and affluence.
III. Legal and Political Results of Attempted Human Autonomy
A. Relativistic law.
1. Base for nonarbitrary law gone; only inertia allows a few principles to survive.
2. Holmes and sociological (variable) law.
3. Sociological law comes from failure of natural law (see evolution of existential from rationalistic theology).
4. Courts are now generating law.
5. Medical, legal, and historical arbitrariness of Supreme Court ruling on abortion and current abortion practice.
B. Sociological law opens door to racism, abrogation of freedoms, euthanasia, and so on.
IV. Social Alternatives After Death of Christian Consensus
A. Hedonism? But might is right when pleasures conflict.
B. Without external absolute, majority vote is absolute. But this justifies a Hitler.
V. Conclusion
A. If there is no absolute by which to judge society, then society is absolute.
B. Humanist thinking—making the individual and mankind the center of all things (autonomous) — has led to death in our culture and in our political life.
Note: Social alternatives after the death of Christian consensus are continued in Episode Ten.
Questions
1. What was the basic cause of campus unrest in the sixties? What has happened to the campus scene since, and why?
2. What elements — in the life and thought of the communist and noncommunist world alike — suggest a possible base for world agreement?
3. “To prophesy doom about Western society is premature. We are, like all others who have lived in times of great change, too close to the details to see the broader picture. One thing we do know:
Society has always gone on, and the most wonderful epochs have followed the greatest depressions. To suggest that our day is the exception says more about our headache than it does about our head.” Debate.
4. As Dr. Schaeffer shows, many apparently isolated events and options gain new meaning when seen in the context of the whole. How far does your own involvement in business, law, financing, and so on reveal an acquiescence to current values?
Key Events and Persons
Oliver Wendell Holmes: 1841-1935
Herbert Marcuse: 1898-1979
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: 1917-
Hungarian Revolution: 1956
Free Speech Movement: 1964
Czechoslovakian repression: 1968
Woodstock and Altamont: 1969
Radical bombings: 1970
Supreme Court abortion ruling: 1973
Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago: 1973-74
Further Study
Keeping one’s eyes and ears open is the most useful study project: the prevalence of pornographic films and books, more and more suggestive advertising and TV shows, and signs of arbitrary absolutes.
The following books will repay careful reading, and Solzhenitsyn, though long and horrifying, should not be skipped.
Os Guinness, The Dust of Death (1973).
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: Parts I-II (1973), Parts III-IV (1974).
It is a great day if Obamacare ends up going down through the courts. Is there anyway in the world if the Founding Fathers were on the court that Obamacare would have any chance at all to become law.
Today is a great day for liberty. By striking down the individual mandate, the Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed that the Constitution places limits on the federal government’s power. Congress can do a great many things under modern constitutional jurisprudence, but, as the court concludes, “what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.” Indeed, just because Congress can regulate the health insurance industry does not mean it can also require people to buy that industry’s products.
One of the striking things about today’s ruling is that, for the first time in one of these cases, a Democrat-appointed judge, Frank Hull, has ruled against the government. Just as the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton made waves by being the first Republican appointee to rule in the government’s favor, today’s 300-page ruling shows that the constitutional issues raised by the healthcare reform—and especially the individual mandate—are complex, serious, and non-ideological.
Supporters of limited constitutional government need to temper their celebrations—just as they wisely tempered their sorrows after the last ruling—because we must all now realize that this will not end until the Supreme Court rules. Nevertheless, today’s decision gives hope to those who believe that there are some things beyond the government’s reach and that the judiciary cannot abdicate its duty to hold Congress’s feet to the constitutional fire.
Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler)
Published on Jun 6, 2012
Norm Geisler argues via Kalam Cosmological Argument for the origins of the universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much evidence Geisler gave, Paul Kurtz refused to fully acknowledge the implications of it, while NEVER giving evidence for his own interpretation of the universe’s beginning.
I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names.
Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (11 of 14) (to motivate people to be good without God)
In the Epilogue to Outrage, Bugliosi bears his soul and the struggle he has had with justifying God’s goodness with the presence of evil in the world and God’s “inaction” in the trial in allowing a murderer to go free:
When tragedies like the murders of Nicole and Ron occur, they get one to thinking about the notion of God. Nicole was only thirty-five, Ron just twenty-five, both outgoing, friendly, well-liked young people who had a zest for life. How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur, along with countless other unspeakable atrocities committed by man against his fellow man throughout history? And how could God–all-good and all-just, according to Christian theology—permit the person who murdered Ron and Nicole to go free, holding up a Bible in his hand at that? When Judge Ito’s clerk, Deidre Robertson, read the jury’s not-guilty verdict, Nicole’s mother whispered, “God, where are you?”[8]
I have an article below that really does a great job responding to that.
Answers the problem of evil and a good God… puts the issue squarely in the lap of the skeptic asking the question (where it belongs).
The problem of evil is a significant moral issue in the atheist’s arsenal. We talk about a God of goodness, but what we see around us is suffering, and a lot of it apparently unjustifiable. Stephanie said, “Disbelief in a personal, loving God as an explanation of the way the world works is reasonable–especially when one considers natural disasters that can’t be blamed on free will and sin.”{17}
One response to the problem of evil is that God sees our freedom to choose as a higher value than protecting people from harm; this is the freewill defense. Stephanie said, however, that natural disasters can’t be blamed on free will and sin. What about this? Is it true that natural disasters can’t be blamed on sin? I replied that they did come into existence because of sin (Genesis 3). We’re told in Romans 8 that creation will one day “be set free from its slavery to corruption,” that it “groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” The Fall caused the problem, and, in the consummation of the ages, the problem will be fixed.
Second, I noted that on a naturalistic basis, it’s hard to even know what evil is. But the reality of God explains it. As theologian Henri Blocher said,
The sense of evil requires the God of the Bible. In a novel by Joseph Heller, “While rejecting belief in God, the characters in the story find themselves compelled to postulate his existence in order to have an adequate object for their moral indignation.” . . . When you raise this standard objection against God, to whom do you say it, other than this God? Without this God who is sovereign and good, what is the rationale of our complaints? Can we even tell what is evil? Perhaps the late John Lennon understood: “God is a concept by which we measure our pain,” he sang. Might we be coming to the point where the sense of evil is a proof of the existence of God?{18}
So,… if there is no God, there really is no problem of evil. Does the atheist ever find herself shaking her fist at the sky after some catastrophe and demanding an explanation? If there is no God, no one is listening.
Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday.
John Maynard Keynes famously quipped, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Free-market economist Milton Friedman, however, actually did manage to capture the minds not only of practical men, but of politicians and even other intellectuals. He understood that the world would change if people understood the meaning of freedom.
Historic social and political movements began with powerful ideas. For instance, the rise of the Roman Empire predicated itself on the idea of Roman citizenship and a sense of personal duty, and America’s founding relied on a distinct knowledge of personal liberty and its implied negative rights. Pivotal events, such as shifts of culture or the rise of a new state, occur in response to the outcomes of various conflicts in an ongoing war of ideas.
Milton Friedman joined this intellectual struggle knowing that education provides the best weapon. Most importantly, he believed education was a personal undertaking. This perception led to his recognition that most current “education” was actually compulsory schooling or training. The government mandated that children attend taxpayer-funded schools where little to no actual education ever occurred. His solution: school vouchers, which enabled parents to choose where they think their children will be best educated, whether it be public schools, private schools, charter schools or even home schools. Vouchers redirect taxpayer dollars from bureaucrats to the families who need them, coupling education and choice to make the greatest impact.
Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” and a subsequent television series highlight the tenets behind the power of ideas and an education’s role in shaping those ideas. Free markets result from a combination of individual choice and scarcity of information. They offer great benefits, but require individuals to trade with each other in order to obtain them. These types of exchanges only result when individuals possess freedom of choice. This idea undergirded America’s economy until progressive promotion of increased centralization eroded individual choice and increased government meddling in the economy. Thanks to their efforts, a large portion of Americans now hold the institution of federal government responsible for their every need, from the cradle to the grave.
Ultimately, Friedman recognized education’s foundational role in changing society’s institutions. Sustainable political change must be preceded by sustainable social change, which can only result from education. The battle of ideas starts in our schools. Friedman knew ideas like individual choice and freedom had lost significant ground there, but he also recognized that the ground could be regained by letting people choose how they want to educate themselves. He, like economist F.A Harper, knew that “men who know freedom will find ways to be free.”
Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler)
Published on Jun 6, 2012
Norm Geisler argues via Kalam Cosmological Argument for the origins of the universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much evidence Geisler gave, Paul Kurtz refused to fully acknowledge the implications of it, while NEVER giving evidence for his own interpretation of the universe’s beginning.
I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names. However, I will mention my good friend John George who passed away a couple of years ago after a battle with cancer.
He wrote a book published by Prometheus which was started by Paul Kurtz. Kurtz was the originator of the Humanist Manifesto II. I have corresponded in the past with him and I have found him to be a very kind man. I highly recommend his debate concerning humanism on the John Ankerberg Show. I have included clips of that show.
I do not question the fact that many atheists live moral lives. However, this idea that humanists and atheists can come up with a logical moral system that rules out murder is not realistic. Rationally they can not do it. Without God in the picture then you only have this world of time and chance. If evolution teaches us the survival of the fittest then why would “might makes right” ever be wrong?
The movie maker and atheist Woody Allen knows this best.
I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates man’s need for God more than Allen’s 1989 film Crimes and Misdemeanors. This film also brought up the view that Hitler believed that “might made right.” How can an atheist argue against that? Basically Woody Allen is attacking the weaknesses in his own agnostic point of view!! Take a look at the video clip below when he says in the absence of God, man has to do the right thing. What chance is there that will happen?
Crimes and Misdemeanors is about a eye doctor who hires a killer to murder his mistress because she continually threatens to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. Afterward he is haunted by guilt. His Jewish father had taught him that God sees all and will surely punish the evildoer.
But the doctor’s crime is never discovered. Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his father had with Judah’s unbelieving Aunt May during a Jewish Sedar dinner many years ago:
“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazi’s, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says Aunt May.
Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”
Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”
Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”
Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”
Judah’s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”
The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it? The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).
Crimes and Misdemeanors (Woody Allen – 1989) – Final scenes
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.
Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.
Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (11 of 14) (How to motivate people to be good without God?)
Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (3 of 14)
Milton Friedman, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, would have turned 99 on Sunday. Though few individuals have been as deserving of praise, Milton Friedman was “much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas” than the person having them. In that spirit, we celebrate his birthday by reflecting on some of his greatest ideas. Unsurprisingly, this past year provides ample evidence of Milton Friedman’s continued genius.
[Stimulus] grants increased steadily from the first quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2010 before tapering off. But state and local government purchases hardly changed at all during this period. The biggest change during the period of the [stimulus] grants was a large decrease in state and local government net borrowing, or, equivalently, an increase in net lending.
The result of [vouchers] would be a sizable reduction in the direct activities of government, yet a great widening in the educational opportunities open to our children. They would bring a healthy increase in the variety of educational institutions available and in competition among them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace of progress in this area as it has in so many others. Government would serve its proper function of improving the operation of the invisible hand without substituting the dead hand of bureaucracy.
This past year has shown that Milton Friedman’s criticisms are as valid today as they ever were. The rampant cheating in the Atlanta public school system is just the most recent in a long string of events confirming that centralized education continues to fail both students and taxpayers.
Let’s hope that when we celebrate his 100th birthday we can look back on the year and celebrate the benefits that were derived from heeding the lessons of Milton Friedman. This past year has certainly shown the folly of ignoring his insights.
Politicians keep telling us they want to create Green jobs. It sounds good, but its nonsense. I have a new video column up on my webpage on that. The bottom line: If green jobs are a good idea, they will just happen. The give and take of free market competition will provide them. We wont need government to suck up more of our tax dollars to create them. Whatever Green jobs really are.
The next couple of days will lead to major events in Iowa impacting the Republican 2012 Presidential race, including tonight’s Fox News debate and the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday.
Here is my take on how the events can affect the candidates from a right-leaning blogger located 600 miles away. For insight from Iowa bloggers, I would recommend Iowa Independent and Iowa Republican.
Michelle Bachmann – Expectations for Bachmann are sky-high going down the stretch. Since the last debate a couple of weeks ago, she has become the Iowa “non-Romney” front-runner. Anything less than a first-place finish in the straw poll and a solid debate performance could burst her bubble.
Ron Paul – Mark my words, Paul will do well at the straw poll. His supporters are die-hard and would walk through walls to vote for him. The problem for Paul is that he shows no signs of being able to attract support from the other 80 to 90 percent of the party. His supporters will have a big weekend, but it very well could be the high point of their campaign.
Tim Pawlenty – In my opinion, this weekend is “make-or-break” for Pawlenty. He has completely fallen off the map in the last couple of months and a poor showing in Thursday’s debate and/or the straw poll will all but end his chances. However, unlike Bachmann, the expectations for Pawlenty are very low. A third place finish could be a glimmer of hope that keeps him alive for another day, but anything less and he really ought to drop out.
Breakout candidates – There is a chance for a long list of candidates to surprise folks with a strong showing. Rick Santorum probably stands the best chance of doing this as he appeals to the socially conservative Iowa Republican voter. Herman Cain could get a small boost from the FairTax group, although they are not providing him anywhere close to the support they provided Huckabee four years ago. Newt Gingrich could also surprise people, but I doubt it. I have not figured out why he is still running.
Mitt Romney – Romney is still the national frontrunner, but is making the conscious decision to ignore Iowa. After tonight’s debate, he is leaving Iowa and heading to New Hampshire. Iowans do not like to be ignored and he will probably pay the price at the straw poll
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 9)
Will Rogers has a great quote that I love. He noted, “Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago”(Paula McSpadden Love,The Will Rogers Book,(1972) p. 20.)
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
Tonight, I voted against the Budget Control Act. It leaves real cuts in federal spending to another day. We don’t need congressional super committees and triggers to do the heavy lifting for which Members of Congress were elected.
_______________________________
Nunes favored the bill below:
Cut, Cap and Balance Statement Debt Limit Plan
Washington, Jul 20 – Congressman Nunes issued the following statement on passage of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act:
“The Cut, Cap and Balance Act is not a perfect bill but it is certainly one that under any other circumstance would have garnered the unanimous support of conservatives across America. It contains a spending cap that would inoculate us against spending excess, while forcing budget reforms to ensure the federal government lives within its means. Leading up to the debate, I joined critics who desired more immediate spending reforms, including to our nation’s entitlements, and sought to have those reforms included. However, I ultimately sided with 233 of my Republican colleagues in supporting Cut, Cap and Balance recognizing the debate is not over. The bill will be considered in the Senate on Saturday.”
