The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.
What Can a Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment Accomplish?
The obvious purpose of a tax limitation/balanced budget amendment is to prohibit politicians from engaging in deficit spending except in unusual circumstances, such as war. Government spending hinders the economy’s performance by transferring resources from the productive sector to the government. This is true whether government spending is financed by taxes or by borrowing. A balanced budget amendment, by making it more difficult to use borrowing as a way to raise revenue, should slow the growth of government.
In order to maximize the possible economic benefits of a balanced budget amendment, however, politicians will need to include a strong tax limitation provision such as a supermajority requirement. By making it as difficult for politicians to raise revenue by increasing taxes as it will be to raise revenue by issuing debt, the tax limitation/balanced budget amendment will help ensure that the end result is smaller government and more freedom for Americans.
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.
Yesterday 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 just emailed to him myself at 4pm CST on May 17, 2011.
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease Corps of Engineers $5.075 B $1.854 B 27% Many in Congress as well as those with the Corps of Engineers have been opposed to consolidation of services due to institutional and communal structures. According to the Government Accountability Office in September 2010, “The Corps has faced and will likely continue to face challenges to any realignment effort: (1) inability to gain congressional support, (2) limitations of its funding structure, and (3) the autonomous culture of its districts.” In addition, the Corps’ incremental project-based appropriations and cost-sharing requirements create an impediment to realignment. With the communications resources we now have in this country there is no justification for 38 separate Corps districts across our country. Most telling is the majority of division and district commanders the GAO interviewed said the Corps’ technical guidance is outdated by 10 to 15 years, causing different divisions and districts to execute projects differently.
Arnold Schwarzenegger Fathers Love Child With Longtime Member Of Household Staff
Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life?
Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube clip above she comments:
“Like a lot of you I’m in transition: people come up to me all the time, asking, what are you doing next?” she said, adding: “It’s so stressful to not know what you are doing next when people ask what you are doing and they can’t believe you don’t know what you are doing.”
“I’d like to hear from other people who are in transition,” she said. “How did you find your transition: Personal, professional, emotional, spiritual, financial? How did you get through it?”
Mrs. Shriver has asked for spiritual input and I personally think that unless she gets the spiritual help that she needs then she will end up in the divorce court. I am starting a series on how a marriage can survive an infidelity. My first suggestion would be to attend a “Weekend to Remember” put on by the organization “Family Life” out of Little Rock, Arkansas. I actually posted this as a response to Mrs. Shriver’s request on you tube.
Angela was depressed—really depressed. In fact, she was borderline suicidal. She didn’t know why, and her husband, Stuart, was equally puzzled. Their communication and sex lives were practically nil, and Stuart was worried. So he brought Angela in for counseling. He was doing fine, he said—it was she who needed the help.
I insisted that Stuart stay around for the first few sessions—I wanted to get an idea of their history together. After much discussion about various factors in their relationship, I began to find the clues I was looking for.
Stuart had indulged in a short entangled affair with his secretary five years earlier. Both Stuart and his wife vigorously assured me that they had gotten over it long ago.
Yet here was Angela about to end it all, with no apparent cause. I hypothesized to myself that their resolution of the event five years ago left something to be desired, that there still were major factors left unresolved between them.
Angela claimed that she had forgiven her wayward husband, but I had a hunch that hers had been a surface-only forgiveness and that her depression was the result of buried feelings of hostility toward her infidel husband.
After the affair Angela determined to go on as though nothing happened and be a “hero of God’s grace.” She kept a stiff upper lip in their church circle and was viewed as a paragon of virtue. In her heart, however, Angela was dying a slow death. Stuart seemed appreciative of her quick forgiveness—after all, that was his style too: his slogans of “Move on,” “Get over it,” and “Don’t look back” helped him to soon forget it too. He dropped his illicit relationship and arranged for his secretary to be transferred to a distant office, and she resigned rather than move. So all looked well from Stuart’s point of view.
Little did he know that a growing depression was engulfing his wife and beginning to affect her health. When he finally brought Angela in for help, she had very little of herself left to consider her anger at Stuart. In fact, she had almost forgotten the affair. It took some digging to link her feelings of “frustration” with the incredibly swift processing of the betrayal.
When Angela finally got angry and both she and Stuart began to grieve, it was like a huge festering sore that had finally been lanced. Their relationship worsened at first as the anger surfaced. But when Angela finally expressed her rage and began to struggle toward forgiveness on the basis of her true feelings, instead of denial, she was able to approach forgiveness. In effect, she was moving toward forgiveness right through her anger, not by going around it. As a result, Stuart developed an entirely new respect for her.
When Angela chose to forgive her husband, Stuart knew it was for real this time, and he could therefore begin to grieve his losses. Angela discovered a whole new person—her real self—to share with her husband. At the end of that long and arduous process, they were able to stand before the congregation and share their testimony of healing without shame.
Stuart, who had begun to feel like a second-class citizen in the church, could finally begin to feel better about himself, because his sin had been fully recognized by the one he had hurt—his wife. The two have a newfound respect for each other, and the children are doing a lot better, too.
But the best part is that they know for certain that they have forgiven one another. As a result, they know that their relationship is growing closer as time goes by, not more distant.
Remember, forgiveness is a process; all the characteristics of genuine forgiveness will not always be present, but they should become increasingly apparent along the journey.
Chip Ingram – Two Biblical Requirements to Resolve Conflict (pt 4)
To resolve conflict effectively and Biblically there are two absolutes that both parties must agree on – do you know what they are? Without this framework, you can try all kinds of things to avoid or resolve conflict in your marriage and relationships, but you probably won’t be successful. Listen and discover the common ground that can literally transform even the most challenging points of conflict. Want to learn more? Download the full message from guest speaker Tim Lundy for free at: http://www.venturechristian.org/files/sermons2/t032011.mp3
Eric Schurenberg is Editor-in-Chief of BNET.com and Editorial Director of CBS MoneyWatch.com. Previously, Eric was managing editor of MONEY. As managing editor, he expanded the editorial focus to new interests including real estate, family finance, health, retirement, and the workplace. Prior to MONEY, Eric was deputy editor of Business 2.0. He was also the managing editor of goldman.com, a Web site for Goldman Sachs Group’s personal wealth management business, and an assistant managing editor at Fortune magazine. Schurenberg has won a Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business journalism, a National Magazine Award, and a Page One Award.
Social Security isn’t the only cause of America’s fiscal problems, but it is Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them. No serious solution to our debt can ignore a program that will tax and spend about 4.8% of GDP this year and account for about 20% of all federal spending-and that within a few decades will count almost a third of the population as beneficiaries. But whenever I write about Social Security here at CBS MoneyWatch, I’m always struck by how much disagreement there is about how the system really works.
A handful of misconceptions tend to crop up repeatedly-often having to do with that fiscal fun-house mirror, the Social Security trust fund. And despite the efforts of writers like Allan Sloan and experts like the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle, the myths won’t die. This column won’t kill them either, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a whack. Here goes:
Myth: Social Security is an easy fix
Any policy wonk worth his or her spreadsheet can quickly come up with ways to bring Social Security into long-term actuarial balance. You can conjure up solutions yourself using the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s calculator. You’ll find it’s not that hard to wipe out the system’s long-term deficit.
The only problem is, most such solutions regard Social Security as a closed system. They assume that the trust fund is an ATM that gushes cash whenever the trustees demand, and that workers will never balk at stepping up to higher payroll taxes.
Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself. In the real world that Social Security actually operates in, the government and its citizens all have other obligations. As Steuerle puts it:
Social Security as a budget issue revolves not simply around its internal accounting balances and trust funds, but rather how much of the economy it occupies and how much of future growth it absorbs.
The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy. Instead, we need to ask a larger, tougher question: In light of all we owe-to our creditors, our children and our future-how much do we want to spend supporting everyone who happens to live past 62? We want to spend something, to be sure, and maybe a lot. But myths and slogans shouldn’t persuade us that we can avoid the question. We can’t.
______________________________________________
Social Security (featuring Ron Paul)
Pat Kondelis is at it again, interviewing folks on the street about the tough issues facing America. And, you guessed it, Ron Paul weighs in with what he thinks about them, too.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver and family – “The Longest Yard” Los Angeles premiere, May 19, 2005
Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life?
Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube clip above she comments:
“Like a lot of you I’m in transition: people come up to me all the time, asking, what are you doing next?” she said, adding: “It’s so stressful to not know what you are doing next when people ask what you are doing and they can’t believe you don’t know what you are doing.”
“I’d like to hear from other people who are in transition,” she said. “How did you find your transition: Personal, professional, emotional, spiritual, financial? How did you get through it?”
Mrs. Shriver has asked for spiritual input and I personally think that unless she gets the spiritual help that she needs then she will end up in the divorce court. I am starting a series on how a marriage can survive an infidelity. My first suggestion would be to attend a “Weekend to Remember” put on by the organization “Family Life” out of Little Rock, Arkansas. I actually posted this as a response to Mrs. Shriver’s request on you tube.
The recent news that Prince William and Kate Middleton are engaged is the perfect story for this hyped-up, celebrity-driven world. Three days after the announcement, I saw that there were over 8,000 stories about the royal couple on Google News. One headline appropriately read, “Middleton gets her man: Let the massive global overkill begin.”
From the media I learned that:
If my name was William and my wife’s name was Kate, we could get free pizzas at Domino’s.
One of the most crucial questions for our world over the next few months will be what Kate’s wedding dress will look like, and who will design it.
I could help bring England’s economy out of the doldrums by ordering souvenir plates and paperweights.
Bookies were taking bets on what date the wedding will fall on, where they’ll go on their honeymoon, and even what color the bridesmaids will wear.
Since, in our world of social media, everything is really all about me, I could participate in a poll on, “Is Kate right for William?” and even pass on tips to the royals on how to have a good marriage.
The only notes of concern came from observers who were worried about whether Kate was wise to marry into the royal family. As one headline stated, “From Princess Diana to Sarah Ferguson, British royal marriages rarely end happily ever after.”
Even those concerns, however, reveal something interesting about human character: In this cynical world of rampant divorce, people want marriages to succeed. As one writer said last week, “If any of you have ever stumbled across my ramblings before, you will know that I am not a big fan of our royals. So I found myself somewhat at a loss last night to understand why I (oh the shame) had a tear in my eye as I watched Kate and William talk of their engagement … It was, I suppose, because we’re all suckers for a love story. We had one, or so we mistakenly thought, with Diana and Charles. Now it’s her son’s chance to put it right.”
I think deep down in the human soul, we want family. When we see marriage and family work, we’re encouraged–even if we can’t make it work ourselves.
Perhaps that why, when former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, announced last summer that they were divorcing, we saw such an outpouring of dismay in the media. Ellen McCarthy of the Washington Post spoke for many when she wrote, “Please, Al and Tipper, don’t do this. For our sakes–don’t.”
Yes, famous couples divorce all the time. But we thought the Gores were different. Even if we didn’t agree with their politics, we admired their marriage … They’re like the couple down the block with the lush garden and the annual Labor Day cookout. The pair who are always power-walking together and drinking wine on the front porch, who make you nudge your husband and say, “See? I want that.” …
We wanted to see the Gores–our parents, our friends, the neighbors with the porch–delight in their twilight years. Playing with their grandchildren, traveling together in a way they never could before, operating more slowly, but in union. We wanted to see them move into sweetness.
Do you sense the apprehension in those words? And the unspoken question? “If they can’t make it, how can we?”
People want their marriages to last a lifetime. Yet, sadly, they often don’t know how to do it. And that, in a nutshell, is why I work at FamilyLife. It’s why I write these Marriage Memos. When people realize that they can’t build the marriage and family they want so desperately, they are often open to hearing about God. When they realize they can’t do it on their own, they understand their need for a Savior.
In just one November weekend, for example, more than 6,200 people attended 10 Weekend to Remember® marriage getaways around the country. Here are a couple quotes from those who went:
We are moving from a place of being ready to divorce to looking forward to growing together through Christ. This has given us important tools to do so.
We’ve been walking separate roads for many years. Infidelity was the final straw leading us to divorce. I was filling out the papers two days before we came to this event. Over the course of the weekend we found each other, wrote love letters that will be kept as reminders of our true love for each other. I granted forgiveness that my husband really needed. We are going to burn the divorce papers when we get home!
In today’s culture, the issues of marriage and family are open doors for the gospel–the Good News of Christ. Because people want their marriages and families to succeed.
This article originally appeared in the December 6, 2010 issue of Marriage Memo, a weekly e-newsletter. To subscribe free to Marriage Memo and other FamilyLife e-newsletters, click here. For the Marriage Memo archives, click here.
Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has acknowledged that he fathered a child with a member of his household staff, a revelation that apparently prompted wife Maria Shriver to leave the couple’s home before they announced their separation last week.
Shriver separately issued a statement saying it was a “heartbreaking time,” and one of their children, Patrick, expressed sadness and a yearning for normalcy in a Twitter message.
Schwarzenegger and Shriver jointly announced May 9 that they were splitting up after 25 years of marriage. Yet, Shriver moved out of the family’s Brentwood mansion earlier in the year after Schwarzenegger acknowledged the child is his, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.
“After leaving the governor’s office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago,” Schwarzenegger told the Times on Monday in a statement that was later sent to The Associated Press. “I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry.
“I ask that the media respect my wife and children through this extremely difficult time,” the statement concluded. “While I deserve your attention and criticism, my family does not.”
Hours later, Shriver also released a statement: “This is a painful and heartbreaking time. As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal. I will have no further comment.”
In a Twitter posting Tuesday, Patrick Schwarzenegger, 17, said: “some days you feel like s—, some days you want to quit and just be normal for a bit, yet i love my family till death do us apart.” He signed his tweet “Patrick Shriver.”
Schwarzenegger’s representatives did not comment further.
The Times did not publish the former staffer’s name or that of her child but said the woman worked for the family for 20 years and retired in January.
Schwarzenegger issued his statement to the Times late Monday, after the newspaper interviewed the former staffer. She had told the Times that another man — her husband at the time — was the child’s father. When the Times later informed the woman of the governor’s statement, she declined to comment further.
Schwarzenegger later released the statement to The Associated Press and other news organizations.
The child was born before Schwarzenegger began his seven-year stint in public office.
Shriver stood by her husband during his 2003 gubernatorial campaign after the Times reported accusations that he had a history of groping women. Schwarzenegger later said he “behaved badly sometimes.”
In public comments after the couple announced their breakup, Schwarzenegger said last week that he and Shriver “both love each other very much.”
“We are very fortunate that we have four extraordinary children and we’re taking one day at a time,” he said at a Los Angeles event marking Israeli independence. Their children range in age from 13 to 21.
Since his term as California governor ended in early January, Schwarzenegger, 63, has hopscotched around the world, his wife nowhere in sight. While the “Terminator” star appeared confident about the future since exiting politics, cutting movie deals and fashioning himself as a global spokesman for green energy, Shriver, known for her confidence, seemed unsettled.
The estranged couple’s initial separation statement referred to “a time of great personal and professional transition for each of us” but gave no hint of what caused the split.
Shriver had also mentioned “transitions” in a Facebook posting earlier this year but gave no details. At the time it seemed most likely to be a reference to the end of her role as California’s first lady. Schwarzenegger had left office in January after seven years as California’s governor. Shriver never moved to Sacramento during that time, but she used her position to run a popular yearly women’s conference that drew high-profile attendees.
Shriver, daughter of Sargent and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, met the former Mr. Universe in 1977 at the Robert F. Kennedy Pro-Celebrity Tennis Tournament in Forest Hills, N.Y.
They married on April 26, 1986, in a white clapboard church in Hyannis, Mass., with many members of the Kennedy clan and celebrities present and a crowd of fans cheering outside. At the time she was an anchor on the “CBS Morning News” and he was filming a movie.
In addition to Patrick, they have three other children, Katherine, 21, Christina, 19, and Christopher, 13.
The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 1
From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by such writers as John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, the use of Hebrew of Egyptian languages did not exist in North America when they said they did.
Archaeological evidence shows that the only people known to have developed written languages in America were the Olmecs and Mayans, whose written languages have no resemblance to Hebrew or Egyptian hieroglyphs. Additionally, professional linguists and Egyptologists do not consider the Anthon Transcript document to contain any legitimate ancient writing. Klaus Baer, Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, called the characters of the transcript nothing but “doodlings”.[94]
The Smithsonian Institution has noted, “Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.”[29]
Additionally, linguistic studies on the evolution of the spoken languages of the Americas agree with the widely held model that homo sapiens arrived in America between 15,000 and 10,000 BC. According to the Book of Mormon, immigrants first arrived on the American continent about 2500 BC (the presumed time period of the biblical Tower of Babel).
__________________________________________
Ossuary of Caiaphas Did this ossuary contain the bones of Caiaphas, high priest during the time of Jesus?
This beautifully decorated ossuary found in the ruins of Jerusalem, contained the bones of Caiaphas, the first century AD. high priest during the time of Jesus.
On the side (as seen above) and the back of the ossuary is inscribed Caiaphas’ name (“Yosef bar Caifa”).
(see Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13-14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6; Josephus, Ant. 23.25, 39). It was a custom in ancient Israel to store the bones of the dead in ossuaries. They gathered the bones about a year after burial.
Caiaphas, who’s name means “searcher” was appointed high priest (after Simon ben Camith) by the procurator Valerius Gratus, under Tiberius, 18 A.D.. He continued in office from A.D. 26 to 37, when the proconsul Vitellius deposed him. He was the president of the Jewish council (Sanhedrim) which condemned the Lord Jesus to death, Caiaphas declaring Him guilty of blasphemy.
Caiaphas was the official high priest during the ministry and trial of Jesus (Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6).
It was Caiaphas who, unknowingly, made the incredible prophecy concerning God’s plan of sacrificing Jesus for the sins of the nation and even the whole world:
John 11:47-54 “Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.”
Matthew 26:3-5 “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
Matt 26:57-68 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ” And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, saying, “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?”
John 18:19-24 “The high priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said.” And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, “Do You answer the high priest like that?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.”
The Jewish High Priests from 200 B.C to the Reign of Herod the Great
1. Simon II the Just, 220-190 B.C.
2. Onias III, 190-174 B.C.
3. Jason/Jeshua,175-172 B.C.
4. Menelaus, 172-162 B.C.
5. Alcimus, 162-156 B.C.
6. Jonathan, 153-142 B.C.
7. Simon, 142-135 B.C.
8. John Hyrcanus I, 134-104 B.C.
9. Aristobulus I, 104-103 B.C.
10. Alexander Jannaeus, 103-76 B.C.
11. Hyrcanus II, 76-67 B.C.
12. Aristobulus II, 67-63 B.C.
13. Hyrcanus II, 63-40 B.C.
14. Antigonus, 40-37 B.C.
The Jewish High Priests from Herod the Great to the Destruction of Jerusalem
15. Ananel, 37-36 B.C. (Appointed by Herod the Great)
16. Aristobulus III, 35 B.C.
17. Jesus, son of Phiabi, ? -22 B.C.
18. Simon, son of Boethus, 22-5 B.C.
19. Matthias, son of Theophilus, 5-4 B.C.
20. Joseph, son of Elam, 5 B.C.
21. Joezer, son of Boethus, 4 B.C.
22. Eleazar, son of Boethus, 4-1 B.C. – (Appointed by Herod Archelaus)
23. Jesus, son of Sie, 1 – 6 A.D.
24. Annas, 6-15 A.D. (Appointed by Quirinius)
25. Ishmael, son of Phiabi I, 15-16 A.D. (Appointed by Valerius Gratus)
26. Eleazar, son of Annas, 16-17 A.D.
27. Simon, son of Kamithos, 17-18 A.D.
28. Joseph Caiaphas, 18-37 AD.
29. Jonathan, son of Annas, 37 A.D. (Appointed by Vitellius)
30. Theophilus, son of Annas, 37-41 A.D.
31. Simon Kantheras, son of Boethus, 41-43 A.D. (Appointed by Herod Agrippa I)
32. Matthias, son of Annas, 43-44 A.D.
33. Elionaius, son of Kantheras, 44-45 A.D.
34. Joseph, son of Kami, 45-47 A.D. (Appointed by Herod of Chalcis)
35. Ananias, son of Nebedaius, 47-55 A.D.
36. Ishmael, son of Phiabi III, 55-61 A.D. (Appointed by Herod Agrippa II)
37. Joseph Qabi, son of Simon, 61-62 A.D.
38. Ananus, son of Ananus, 62 A.D.
39. Jesus, son of Damnaius, 62-65 A.D.
40. Joshua, son of Gamal iel, 63-65 A.D.
41. Matthias, son of Theophilus, 65-67 A.D.
42. Phinnias, son of Samuel, 67-70 A.D. (Appointed by The People)
Some dates cannot be known for certain.
The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 2
Residents look at a massive crack in the ground.
I grew up listening to sermons by Adrian Rogers who was the longtime pastor of Bellevue Church in Memphis.
Adrian Rogers sermon “No other way to heaven except through Jesus” based on Romans chapter one (part 3).
As the federal government hit its debt limit of $14.3 trillion Monday, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said the Obama administration must accept substantial spending cuts to win congressional approval to borrow more money.
The Treasury Department began shuffling funds around, including stopping payments into pension accounts, and Secretary Tim Geithner said that such stopgap measures would last until Aug 2. If congressional leaders can’t reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling by then, the United States will default on its debt, Geithner said.
Toomey, a Republican and former investment banker, said such warnings were “scare tactics,” adding that a failure to raise the debt limit would be disruptive, but not catastrophic. The White House has said it wants Congress to bump up the limit without preconditions.
The situation is “like the family that is routinely spending more than their income and making up the difference running up credit cards – and when they reach the limit on their last credit card, the White House position is, ‘Throw another credit card at them,’ ” Toomey said in a luncheon speech to the Philadelphia chapter of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers.
“My own view is, it’s time for an intervention,” he said.
A year’s worth of federal tax revenue is more than 10 times the government’s annual payments on its debt, Toomey said, so the nation would be able to avert default by making a priority of spending to pay interest on its debt first. In February, Toomey introduced the Full Faith and Credit Act, a bill that would require such an approach when the debt limit was exceeded.
“Instead of the scare tactics, they ought to be discussing the kind of reforms we can make to get on a sustainable fiscal path,” Toomey said after his speech at the Blank Rome law firm’s offices in Logan Square.
He favors a statutory cap on overall federal spending in the future as a condition for approving a debt-limit increase – an approach that House Speaker John Boehner has suggested as well. Spending cuts, Boehner said in a statement Monday, must be “greater than any increase in the debt limit.”
Nine times in the last decade the federal government has crept near its debt ceiling and Congress has voted to raise it.
Tea party types say they intend this time to tie their votes to raise the debt limit to actual and concurrent spending reductions.
But this is no equation. You absolutely owe your debt. Quite separately, it’s up to your future behavior whether you can fashion spending reductions to gain control of tomorrow’s debt so that you don’t have to keep dealing with these kinds of untenable financial and political situations.
Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. Here is a portion of this recent article:
Now that Osama bin Laden has been successfully dispatched to the eternal damnation he so richly deserves, Washington is ready to return to the more mundane question of whether the Obama administration will be allowed to spend this country into oblivion.
The next big fiscal fight will be over when and how to increase the debt limit. The administration has been hard at work trying to shape the message and public opinion. Unsurprisingly, much of that message is less than 100 percent accurate. Here are some myths about the debt ceiling and the upcoming debate about raising it:
2. Failure to pass the debt-ceiling increase on time would be unprecedented. Both the administration and the media sound as if we are at the edge of zero hour, the time at which economic Armageddon will erupt if we have not raised the debt ceiling. That’s not quite so. It is true that Congress has never refused to raise the debt ceiling. But it has, in fact, frequently taken its time doing so. In 1985, Congress waited nearly three months after the debt limit was reached before it authorized a permanent increase. In 1995, four and a half months passed between the time the government hit its statutory limit and the time Congress acted. And in 2002, Congress delayed raising the debt ceiling for three months. In none of those cases did the world end. It won’t this time, either.
3. It’s always a “clean bill.” The administration is also insisting that it would be shocking for Congress to add any conditions to the debt-ceiling increase. But such conditions are far from unprecedented. There have been numerous amendments and conditions attached to debt-ceiling bills throughout the years. Remember Gramm-Rudman-Hollings? The classic spending-control plan was added to the debt-ceiling vote in 1985.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
Michael Foust wrote an excellent article, “‘Livingtogether‘ beforemarriage a statisticalrisk ,” March 26, 2008, Baptist Press, and I wanted share portions of that article with you the next few days. Here is the second portion:
The number of cohabitating couples has soared in recent decades, from about 439,000 in 1960 to more than 5 million today. About 10 percent of couples who married between 1965 and 1974 lived together before marriage. Today, that number is more than 50 percent. Couples who live together not only are significantly more likely to divorce after marriage, but about 45 percent of them will break up before marriage, studies show. Cohabitation, McManus said, has a high failure rate because it’s based on selfishness.
“‘If you make me feel loved, then I might marry you. If you make me happy, then I might marry you,'” McManus said. “Love and marriage is an investment, and cohabitation is a gamble. Cohabitation is conditional; marriage is based on permanence. These are radically different psychological premises. True love is selfless — seeking to serve the other person.
Cohabitation is based on selfishness — ‘How will this relationship satisfy me?'”
____________________________________
Tim Hawkins on Bananas – Playground Mishaps
(2/5) Adrian Rogers – No Other Way to Heaven Except Through Jesus
This is colour video of Albert Woolson, the last Union veteran of the US Civil War; he is also the last absolutely confirmed veteran of that conflict from either side.
This footage, as far as I know, is the very last footage taken of a US Civil War veteran at all. I believe at least one still photograph of Woolson was taken after this video, however. Woolson outlived the second-last Union veteran (James Albert Hard) by well over 3 years, and the last verified Confederate veteran (Pleasant Crump) by about 5 years. Hard was the last verified combat veteran of the US Civil War, known to have been at the battles of Antietam and Chancellorsville.
Woolson never saw combat, but his father Willard died of wounds taken at the battle of Shiloh. Young Albert came into contact with the army because of this, when his mother moved them down to be with his father when he was trying to recover. He signed up as a drummer boy. The 1st Minn. Heavy Artillery Regiment never saw action, and Woolson was officially discharged on 7 September, 1865.
I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in Little Rock for another event (Bill Clinton’s election to president) I will be sharing portions of it the next few days and here is the second part:
There were 48 committees formed to oversee all aspects of the reunion, from lodging, food and entertainment to greeting arrivals at train depots and directing them to their destinations and suggesting businesses to patronize. The morning Arkansas Gazette and the afternoon Arkansas Democrat newspapers published reunion commemorative editions. The Democrat’s totaled 98 pages, highlighting a “modern-day” Little Rock, but fudged a bit by claiming a population of 65,000.
Federal military tents were erected throughout City Park (now MacArthur Park) to house and feed the 11,000-12,000 veterans — double the expectation — who came. The U.S. Congress unanimously approved legislation to supply the tents for the Confederate veterans. The state Legislature, on the other hand, refused to appropriate any money to help with the city-hosted reunion.
City schools were closed that week to be used for overflow housing. About 9,000 cots were placed in schools, in churches and even local government offices to take care of visitors for $1 per night. Residents opened their homes to still more. A campaign for women and schoolchildren to sell “tribute” buttons for $1 each statewide helped to raise funds to cover expenses.
Businesses were pressured to contribute to the cause. Hotels and boardinghouses were ordered to freeze their prices to assure fair treatment of the tourists. Merchants who donated money to the reunion could display yellow placards with official reunion seals in their windows to advertise their support, and their names were printed in the newspapers as supporters. The names of those who didn’t contribute were also publicized, Gurley said.
“Clearly, the organizers wanted to make sure Little Rock didn’t come away with a bad reputation, that the honor of the city was at stake,” Gurley said.
The hot-air balloon Arizona grounded in Camp Shaver at City Park (now MacArthur Park) during the 1911 United Confederate Veterans’ Reunion held in Little Rock (Pulaski County).
