Open letter to President Obama (Part 173.1)

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

(This letter was emailed to White House on 11-21-11.)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Why are we spending more and more on welfare every year?  What would the Founding Fathers have to say about this if they were still here today? We will look at that in a little bit.

We need to cut Food Stamp program and not extend it. However, it seems that people tell the taxpayers back home they are going to Washington and cut government spending but once they get up there they just fall in line with  everyone else that keeps spending our money. I am glad that at least these 16 brave Senators voted against doing that. The vote count was 64 to 35. All but five Democrats joined 16 Republicans in voting to pass the bill. I wish we had some more brave Senators and Representatives up there in Washington. Here are the names of those brave senators: Lamar Alexander (TN), John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), Scott Brown (MA), Dan Coats (IN), Susan Collins (ME), Mike Enzi (WY), Chuck Grassley (IA), John Hoeven (ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Mike Johanns (NE), Richard Lugar (IN), Jerry Moran (KS), Pat Roberts (KS), Olympia Snowe (ME),  and John Thune (SD).

Here is what the Founding Fathers had to say about welfare. David Weinberger noted:

While living in Europe in the 1760s, Franklin observed: “in different countries … the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee (15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) was a Scottish lawyer, writer, and professor. Tytler was also a historian, and he noted, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”

Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan

April 6, 1816

[Jefferson affirms that the main purpose of society is to enable human beings to keep the fruits of their labor. — TGW]
 

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.

[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 14:466.]

_______

Jefferson pointed out that to take from the rich and give to the poor through government is just wrong. Franklin knew the poor would have a better path upward without government welfare coming their way. Milton Friedman’s negative income tax is the best method for doing that and by taking away all welfare programs and letting them go to the churches for charity.

During this lame duck session you will try to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling and I am contacting as many Senators and Representatives I can to ask them to not to approve that. Our problem is not having enough revenue but controlling our spending. Washington is like a drug addict that is spends all he can get his hands on. We need to give Washington more money like we need to give a drug addict more drugs.

It is obvious to me that if you get your hands on more money then you will continue to spend away our children’s future. You have already taken the national debt from 11 trillion to 16 trillion in just 4 years. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over I have written Speaker Boehner and the Congressmen (Griffin, Womack, Crawford) in Arkansas concerning this. I am hoping they will stand up against this reckless spending that our federal government has done and will continue to do if given the chance.

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

______

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Related posts:

Welfare Spending Shattering All-Time Highs

  We got to act fast and get off this path of socialism. Morning Bell: Welfare Spending Shattering All-Time Highs Robert Rector and Amy Payne October 18, 2012 at 9:03 am It’s been a pretty big year for welfare—and a new report shows welfare is bigger than ever. The Obama Administration turned a giant spotlight […]

We need more brave souls that will vote against Washington welfare programs

We need to cut Food Stamp program and not extend it. However, it seems that people tell the taxpayers back home they are going to Washington and cut government spending but once they get up there they just fall in line with  everyone else that keeps spending our money. I am glad that at least […]

Welfare programs are not the answer for the poor

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ Liberals argue that the poor need more welfare programs, but I have always argued that these programs enslave the poor to the government. Food Stamps Growth […]

Private charities are best solution and not government welfare

Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on May 11, 2012 by LibertyPen In this 1968 interview, Milton Friedman explained the negative income tax, a proposal that at minimum would save taxpayers the 72 percent of our current welfare budget spent on administration. http://www.LibertyPen.com Source: Firing Line with William F Buckley Jr. ________________ Milton […]

The book “After the Welfare State”

Dan Mitchell Commenting on Obama’s Failure to Propose a Fiscal Plan Published on Aug 16, 2012 by danmitchellcato No description available. ___________ After the Welfare State Posted by David Boaz Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer, who is lecturing about freedom in Slovenia and Tbilisi this week, asked me to post this announcement of his […]

President Obama responds to Heritage Foundation critics on welfare reform waivers

Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law? Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform Amy Payne August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful […]

Welfare reform part 3

Thomas Sowell – Welfare Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform By Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. February 6, 2003 Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. […]

Welfare reform part 2

Uploaded by ForaTv on May 29, 2009 Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/18/James_Bartholomew_The_Welfare_State_Were_In Author James Bartholomew argues that welfare benefits actually increase government handouts by ‘ruining’ ambition. He compares welfare to a humane mousetrap. —– Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. In the controversial […]

Why did Obama stop the Welfare Reform that Clinton put in?

Thomas Sowell If the welfare reform law was successful then why change it? Wasn’t Bill Clinton the president that signed into law? Obama Guts Welfare Reform Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley July 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm Today, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response July 10,2012 on welfare, etc (part 14)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 10, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

November 21, 2012 – 2:59 pm Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Post office running 15.9 billion deficit

The post office is running a huge deficit and it is time to privatize it.

Postal Reform in the Lame Duck?

Posted by Tad DeHaven

According to the Hill, policymakers are “scrambling” to do something about the U.S. Postal Service in the current lame-duck session of Congress. The USPS’s recently announced $15.9 billion loss for 2012 apparently inspired policymakers to act.

It’s hardly a surprise that Congress has waited as long as it can to do something about the USPS. Interest in postal issues for most members probably doesn’t go beyond naming post offices and franking. And regardless of whether Congress passes “reform” legislation in the lame-duck or next year, it will end up just kicking the can down the road. (Policy analysts who are frustrated with the inability of Congress to tackle entitlement reform would be wise to stay away from postal policy issue for mental health purposes.)

To get an idea of how absurd the current negotiations are, take this line from the article:

[S]ome liberal lawmakers and postal unions have pushed back against any attempts to limit six-day delivery, saying it would make bad business sense for the Postal Service to give up any competitive advantage as it moves forward.

Competitive advantage? By law, private carriers can’t compete with the USPS on the delivery of first class mail. To the degree that first class mail “competes” with the private sector, it’s with the internet. Going from six-day to five-day delivery won’t change the fact that the demand for the USPS’s flagship monopoly product is in permanent decline as more and more people decide to click “send” instead. What makes “bad business sense” for the USPS is to leave politicians in charge of it.

[See this essay for more on privatizing the U.S. Postal Service.]

November 21, 2012 – 8:54 am Categories: Cato Institute | Post a comment

Can states stop Obamacare from becoming law in their states?

Sen. Max Baucus admits the PPACA conditions tax credits on state compliance

Published on Sep 21, 2012 by

I really don’t know the answer to this question and would love it if someone would enlighten me. This article below from the Cato Institute makes the case that States can stop Obamacare from becoming law in their states.

Why ‘Obamacare’s Critics Refuse to Give Up’

Posted by Michael F. Cannon

Jonathan Adler and I have a paper titled, “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA.” Our central claims are:

  1. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act explicitly restricts its “premium-assistance tax credits” (and thus the “cost-sharing subsidies” and employer- and individual-mandate penalties those tax credits trigger) to health insurance “exchanges” established by states;
  2. The IRS has no authority to offer those entitlements or impose those taxes in states that opt not to create Exchanges; and
  3. The IRS’s ongoing attempt to impose those taxes and issue those entitlements through Exchanges established by the federal government is contrary to congressional intent and the clear language of the Act.

Over at The New Republic’s blog The Plank, my friend Jonathan Cohn says this is “preposterous“:

No sentient being following the health care debate could argue, in good faith, that Obamacare’s architects intended for the federal government to set up exchanges without subsidies. It would completely subvert the law’s intent.

It appears my friend does not know the statute, the legislative history, or what Congress’ intent was.

Cohn writes that the statute is “a little fuzzy” on this issue. Quite the contrary: the statute is crystal clear. It explicitly and laboriously restricts tax credits to those who buy health insurance in Exchanges “established by the State under section 1311.” There is no parallel language – none whatsoever – granting eligibility through Exchanges established by the federal government (section 1321). The tax-credit eligibility rules are so tightly worded, they seem designed to prevent precisely what the IRS is trying to do.

ObamaCare supporters just know that can’t be right. It must have been an oversight. Congress could not have written the law that way. It doesn’t make any sense. Those provisions must take effect in federal Exchanges for the law to work. Why would Congress give states the power to blow the whole thing up??

The answer is that Congress didn’t have any choice. Congress intended for ObamaCare to work this way because this was the only way that ObamaCare could become law.

  • The Senate bill had to have state-run Exchanges in order to win the essential votes of moderate Democrats. Without state-run Exchanges, it would not have passed.
  • In order to have state-run Exchanges, the bill needed some way to encourage states to create them without “commandeering” the states. In early 2009, well before House and Senate Democrats introduced their bills, an influential law professor named Timothy Jost advised congressional Democrats of one way to get around the commandeering problem: “Congress could invite state participation…by offering tax subsidies for insurance only in states that complied with federal requirements…”. Both the Finance bill and the HELP bill made premium assistance conditional on state compliance. Senate Democrats settled on the Finance language, which passed without a vote to spare. (Emphasis added.)
  • The Finance Committee had even more reason to condition tax credits on state compliance: it doesn’t have direct jurisdiction over health insurance. Conditioning the tax credits on state compliance was the only way the Committee could even consider legislation directing states to establish Exchanges. Committee chairman Max Baucus admitted this during mark-up.
  • Then something funny happened. Massachusetts voters sent Republican Scott Brown to the Senate, partly due to his pledge to prevent any compromise between the House and Senate bills from passing the Senate. With no other options, House Democrats swallowed hard and passed Senate bill. (They made limited amendments through the reconciliation process. These amendments did not touch the tax-credit eligibility rules, and indeed strengthen the case against the IRS.)

A law limiting tax credits to state-created Exchanges, therefore, is exactly what Congress intended, because Congress had no other choice. On the day Scott Brown took office, any and all other approaches to Exchanges ceased to embody congressional intent. If Congress had intended for some other approach to become law, there would be no law. What made it all palatable was that it never occurred to ObamaCare supporters that states would refuse to comply. The New York Times reports, “Mr. Obama and lawmakers assumed that every state would set up its own exchange.”

Oops.

The only preposterous parts of this debate are the legal theories that the IRS and its defenders have offered to support the Obama administration’s unlawful attempt to create entitlements and impose taxes that Congress clearly and intentionally did not authorize. (But don’t take my word for it. Read the statute. Read our paper. Read this, and this. Watch this video and our debate with Jost. Click on our links to all the stuff the IRS and Treasury and Jost have written.) I wonder if Cohn would tolerate such lawlessness from a Republican administration.

Cohn further claims the many states that are refusing to create Exchanges are “totally sticking it to their own citizens” and people who encourage them “are essentially calling upon states to block their citizens from receiving federal tax breaks, worth as much as several thousand dollars per person. Aren’t conservatives and libertarians supposed to be the party that likes giving tax money back to the people?” Seriously?

  • Fourteen states have enacted statutes or constitutional amendments — often by referendum, often by huge margins — that prohibit state employees from directly or indirectly participating in an essential Exchange function: implementing employer or individual mandates. In those instances, the voters have spoken.
  • Only 22 percent of the budgetary impact of these credits and subsidies is actual tax reduction, and the employer- and individual-mandate penalties triggered by those tax “credits” wipe out most of that. The other 78 percent is new deficit spending. So what we’re really talking about here is $700 billion of new deficit spending.
  • When states refuse to establish Exchanges, they block that new spending, which reduces the deficit and the overall burden of government.
  • In addition, those states exempt their employers from the employer mandate (a tax of $2,000 per worker) and exempt millions of taxpayers from the individual mandate (a tax of $2,085 on families of four earning as little as $24,000).

Who’s for tax cuts now?

Here’s what I think is really bothering Cohn and other ObamaCare supporters. The purpose of those credits and subsidies is to shift the cost of ObamaCare’s community-rating price controls and individual mandate to taxpayers, so that consumers don’t notice them. When states prevent such cost-shifting, they’re not increasing the cost of ObamaCare — they’re revealing it.

And that’s what worries Cohn. If the full cost of ObamaCare appears in people’s health insurance premiums, people will rise up and demand that Congress get rid of it. Cohn isn’t worried about states “sticking it to their citizens.” He’s worried about states sticking it to ObamaCare.

The title of Cohn’s blog post is, “Obamacare’s Critics Refuse to Give Up.” At least we can agree on that much.

November 21, 2012 – 7:40 am Categories: Cato Institute, Healthcare | Post a comment

Is President Obama going to bankrupt our country by going from 10 trillion to 22 trillion in debt? (part 11)

Spending Restraint, Part I: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

Uploaded by on Feb 14, 2011

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.

___________________

These posts are all dealing with issues that President Obama did not help on in his first term. I am hopeful that he will continue to respond to my letters that I have written him and that he will especially reconsider his view on the following import issue which deals with holding down federal spending!!! Is President Obama going to bankrupt our country by going from 10 trillion to 22 trillion in debt?

In this post I did want to admit that Republicans have spent way too much in the past too, but we do have some spending cut heroes too. I have a lot of respect for Tea Party heroes like Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash who are willing to propose deep spending cuts so we can eventually balance our budget.  

 Look at how things have been going the last four years and no matter how anyone tries to spin it, we are going down the financial drain fast. We got to balance the budget as soon as possible. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute showed in an article that I posted earlier about how much spending has exploded the last four years.

John Brummett wrote in the online addition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 30, 2012:

Obama did indeed run up the deficit with a stimulus measure to keep the economy from collapsing as he entered office…But in regard to budgets that he actually has proposed as president, beginning with the one for the fiscal year starting nearly a year after his election, Obama has raised spending at a slower rate than Clinton…

Republicans simply are more effective than Democrats at declaring a simple untruth loudly and repetitively through a pliable and powerful echo chamber of talk radio and cable news, thus embedding that untruth beneath the superficial consciousness of people otherwise disengaged.

__________

Now the truth of the matter is that Obama has spent around 25% of GDP when Clinton and most of the other presidents spent 20% or less. This fact allow disproves Brummett’s assertions listed above, but I will admit the Republicans have been guilty of spending too much also.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute sets the record straight concerning the Republican’s spending which has been excessive too at times:

In a post last week, I explained that Obama has been a big spender, but noted his profligacy is disguised because TARP outlays caused a spike in spending during Bush’s last fiscal year (FY2009, which began October 1, 2008). Meanwhile, repayments from banks in subsequent years count as “negative spending,” further hiding the underlying trend in outlays.

When you strip away those one-time factors, it turns out that Obama has allowed domestic spending to increase at the fastest rate since Richard Nixon.

I then did another post yesterday, where I looked at total spending (other than interest payments and bailout costs) and showed that Obama has presided over the biggest spending increases since Lyndon Johnson.

Looking at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track record.

President George W. Bush, for instance, scores below both Clinton and Jimmy Carter, regardless of whether defense outlays are included in the calculations. That’s not a fiscally conservative record, even if you’re grading on a generous curve.

This leads Jonah Goldberg to offer some sage advice to the GOP.

Here’s a simple suggestion for Mitt Romney: Admit that the Democrats have a point. Right before the Memorial Day weekend, Washington was consumed by a debate over how much Barack Obama has spent as president, and it looks like it’s picking up again. …all of these numbers are a sideshow: Republicans in Washington helped create the problem, and Romney should concede the point. Focused on fighting a war, Bush — never a tightwad to begin with — handed the keys to the Treasury to Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert, and they spent enough money to burn a wet mule. On Bush’s watch, education spending more than doubled, the government enacted the biggest expansion in entitlements since the Great Society (Medicare Part D), and we created a vast new government agency (the Department of Homeland Security). …Nearly every problem with spending and debt associated with the Bush years was made far worse under Obama. The man campaigned as an outsider who was going to change course before we went over a fiscal cliff. Instead, when he got behind the wheel, as it were, he hit the gas instead of the brakes — and yet has the temerity to claim that all of the forward momentum is Bush’s fault. …Romney is under no obligation to defend the Republican performance during the Bush years. Indeed, if he’s serious about fixing what’s wrong with Washington, he has an obligation not to defend it. This is an argument that the Tea Party — which famously dealt Obama’s party a shellacking in 2010 — and independents alike are entirely open to. Voters don’t want a president to rein in runaway Democratic spending; they want one to rein in runaway Washington spending.

Jonah’s point about “fixing what’s wrong with Washington” is not a throwaway line. Romney has pledged to voters that he won’t raise taxes. He also has promised to bring the burden of federal spending down to 20 percent of GDP by the end of a first term.

But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending.

It actually doesn’t even take much to move fiscal policy in the right direction. All that’s required is to restrain spending so that is grows more slowly than the private sector (with the kind of humility you only find in Washington, I call this “Mitchell’s Golden Rule“). The entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget would be a good start, along with some much-needed pruning of discretionary spending.

And if you address the underlying problem by limiting spending growth to about 2 percent annually, you can balance the budget in about 10 years. No need for higher taxes, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the fiscal frauds in Washington who salivate at the thought of another failed 1990s-style tax hike deal.

November 21, 2012 – 7:09 am Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 173)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6

Uploaded by  on Aug 30, 2010

http://www.icr.org/
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASG
http://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog

_______________________

(Mailed before Sept 1, 2012)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning your view on evolution:

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”

This is a review I did a few years ago.

THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. New York: Random House, 1995. 457 pages, extensive references, index. Hardcover; $25.95.
PSCF 48 (December 1996): 263.
Sagan is the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell University. He is author of many best sellers, including Cosmos, which became the most widely read science book ever published in the English language.
In this book Sagan discusses the claims of the paranormal and fringe-science. For instance, he examines closely such issues as astrology (p. 303), crop circles (p. 75), channelers (pp. 203-206), UFO abductees (pp. 185-186), faith-healing fakes (p. 229), and witch-hunting (p. 119). Readers of The Skeptical Inquirer will notice that Sagan’s approach is very similar.
Sagan writes:
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, academics, magicians, and others dedicated to skeptical scrutiny of emerging or full-blown pseudo-sciences. It was founded by the University of Buffalo philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976. I’ve been affiliated with it since its beginning. Its acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced Asci-cop C as if it’s an organization of scientists performing a police function Y CSICOP publishes a bimonthly periodical called AThe Skeptical Inquirer. On the day it arrives, I take it home from the office and pore through its pages, wondering what new misunderstandings will be revealed (p. 299).
Sagan points out that in 1991 two pranksters in England admitted that they had been making crop figures for 15 years. They flattened the wheat with a heavy steel bar. Later on they used planks and ropes, but the media paid brief attention to the confession of these hoaxers. Why? Sagan concludes, ‘Demons sell; hoaxers are boring and in bad taste’ (p. 76).
Christians must admire Sagan’s commitment to critical thinking, logic, and freedom of thought. He takes on many subjects in this book, and the vast majority of his analysis is exceptional. However, his opinions on religious matters are affected by his devotion to scientism. Sagan believes only that which can be proved by science is true. He disputes psychologist Charles Tart’s assertion that scientism is ‘dehumanizing, despiritualizing’ (p. 267). Sagan comments, ‘There is very little doubt that, in the everyday world, matter (and energy) exist. The evidence is all around us. In contrast, as I’ve mentioned earlier the evidence for something non-material called `spirit’ or `soul’ is very much in doubt’ (p. 267).
Science can only prove things about the physical world, and it cannot prove anything about the spiritual world. Does that mean that the mind and soul don’t exist? Of course not! First, we must realize that science is not the only way to truth. Even Sagan must admit that he must justify values like ‘be objective’ or ‘report data honestly’. Where do those values come from? They came from outside science, but they must be in place for science to work.
Sagan gives an illustration that contrasts physics and metaphysics. He shows that the physicist’s idea will have to be discarded if tests fail in the laboratory. Therefore, the main difference between physics and metaphysics is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory. This is a cute story, but can science answer the basic questions that underline all knowledge? Metaphysics is necessary for science to take place. It is not true that science is superior to metaphysics like Sagan would have us believe. The presuppositions of science can only be validated by philosophy. J. P. Moreland has correctly said, ‘The validation of science is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and any claim to the contrary will be a self-refuting philosophical claim’ (Scaling the Secular City, p. 197).
Second, the absence of scientific evidence for the soul does not mean the soul does not exist. Sagan himself states,’Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ (p. 213).
I was impressed with the way Sagan put his inner thoughts on the table. For instance, he comments, ‘Plainly, there’s something within me that’s ready to believe in life after death…If some good evidence for life after death was announced, I’d be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote’ (pp. 203-204). What kind of evidence is Sagan looking for? It certainly is not vague prophecies. He states, ‘Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy…Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs…Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? (p. 30). The answer to that question is yes. Christianity can point to very clear passages such as Isaiah 53 and Daniel 11 written hundreds of years before the events occurred.
While comparing science to religion, Sagan comments, ‘Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It’s just the best we have (pp. 27-28). Here Sagan is only half right. Science is imperfect, but it is not better than the Bible.’
The Demon-Haunted Worldis a thought-provoking book that I thoroughly enjoyed. Some of Sagan’s anti-Christian views come through, but on the whole, this book uses critical thinking and logic and applies them to the claims of the paranormal and fringe-science of our day.
Reviewed by Everette Hatcher III, P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221.
___________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Other posts that relate to Carl Sagan:

Atheist says “It’s not about having a purpose in life..” (Arkansas Atheist, Part 1)

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. _________________________- I want to make two points today. 1. There is no […]

Ancient Sea Monsters (A Creationist point of view Part 3)

Leviathan: the Fire-Breathing Dragon: Kent Hovind [6 of 7] Everybody is trying to get info on this subject. Here is what the Bible has to say about it. Mace Baker wrote the aritcle, “Sea Dragons – The Institute for Creation Research,” and here is the third portion of that article:  Pterosaurs were the flying reptiles of the ancient world. Why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)Other posts concerning Carl Sagan:

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

November 21, 2012 – 7:03 am Categories: Current Events, President Obama | Post a comment

“Woody Wednesday” Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love

Penelope Cruz at “To Rome with Love” premiere

Published on Jun 15, 2012 by

The Los Angeles Film Festival kicked off with Woody Allen’s latest film starring Penelope Cruz. KCAL 9’s Suzanne Marques reports from downtown L.A. at the premiere of “To Rome With Love.”

_______________

Review of “To Rome with Love.”

Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love
6/19/2012

 

Woody Allen’s “To Rome with Love” began with better titles. Yet despite the exquisite locations of the filmmaker’s first story of love, Italian style, this bland ensemble romance deserves the generic name rather than the clever working titles it started with.

Allen initially called it “Bop Decameron,” then changed it to “Nero Fiddled” before he and his distributor decided to slip in the name of the Eternal City.

Hey, it helped to have the City of Light mentioned in the title of last year’s Allen hit “Midnight in Paris.” So putting Rome in the name makes good marketing sense to hint that his latest continues the trend of light romance in a beautiful Old World capital.

Unfortunately, “To Rome with Love” lives up or rather, lives down to the superficial postcard sentiment of its title.

Weaving four stories of Italians and American visitors, the writer-director creates a lot of clever moments with his ensemble comedy that features Allen’s first on-screen appearance since 2006’s “Scoop.” In between the good times, the story and characters just drift about awkwardly, stuck on a walking tour of Rome that continually bumps up against dead ends, or worse, circles back so we wind up seeing the same things a few times too many.

It’s hard to even pick out a highlight among the four stories. Parts of each story work quite well, while other portions just weigh the scenarios down.

The film almost comes down to how well the actors inhabit their roles. Allen’s known for giving his cast plenty of leeway. That’s often resulted in Academy Award performances, and just as often has left Allen’s stars nervously milling around.

There are no Oscar prospects on screen in “To Rome with Love,” but Alec Baldwin conveys a sense of wistful nostalgia as an architect seemingly strolling into his own memories of Italy in his youth.

Baldwin’s a wry, omniscient commentator wafting in and out of a love triangle involving Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), Sally (Greta Gerwig) and her seductive pal Monica (Ellen Page). Gerwig’s sadly cast as a flavorless third wheel, but Eisenberg and Page are so tentative and cold in their supposedly impetuous fling that they seem like neutered pups alongside old hound Baldwin.

Roberto Benigni manages a few laughs as a dreary but contented family man hurled into notoriety after Rome’s press and paparazzi inexplicably choose him as a person of interest, shadowing him like an A-lister and hanging on his every word about what he had for breakfast. It’s a lightweight commentary on fleeting fame, and the gimmick quickly wears thin.

The weakest of the stories centers on naive newlyweds Antonio and Milly (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi), who come to Rome for a fresh start but end up separated and tossed into romantic misadventures with others. Antonio winds up with a bombshell hooker (Penelope Cruz, an Oscar winner for Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”), Milly with an Italian movie star (Antonio Albanese).

Antonio and Milly’s meanderings are pointless and uninvolving. Cruz, however, knows how to play voluptuous in her sleep, so she makes her little corner of the scenario fun and sexy.

Allen co-stars as retired music producer Jerry, who comes to Rome with his wife, Phyllis (Allen veteran Judy Davis) to meet the Italian fiance of their daughter, Hayley (“Midnight in Paris” co-star Alison Pill).

After Jerry hears the sublime opera vocals of Hayley’s future father-in-law, Giancarlo (Italian tenor Fabio Armiliato) from the shower, he’s determined to make the humble undertaker into a star. Giancarlo insists he sings only for personal pleasure, and when he auditions at Jerry’s insistence, he discovers that his talent fails him outside the shower.

You can guess the rest. The scenes of Giancarlo performing on stage could have become as repetitious as the media’s pursuit of Benigni, but Allen shows enough restraint and gives the sequences enough diversity that they remain consistently funny.

The time away from the screen hasn’t helped Allen’s acting chops. He’s curiously listless as Jerry, and Davis, who was razor-sharp in Allen’s “Husbands and Wives,” rarely rises above dreary hen-pecking as his wife.

The ineffable magic that made “Midnight in Paris” click eludes Allen here. When in Paris, Allen’s gimmicks coalesced into a sly, engaging romantic fantasy.

When in Rome, though, it’s not Nero who’s fiddling, but Allen, bopping and dithering around the city like a tourist so desperate to cram in all the sights that he comes away only with a few crisp highlights and a lot of out-of-focus snapshots.

“To Rome with Love,” a Sony Pictures Classics release, is rated R for some sexual references. Running time: 112 minutes. Two stars out of four.

Related posts:

Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” wins an academy award (link to complete listing of all historical figures mentioned in “Midnight in Paris”)

Sleepers (1973)   Allen (left) wrote, directed and starred in this oddball love story, set 200 years in the future.  It was his first on-screen collaboration with Diane Keaton (second left), who went on to become one of the director’s muses in the early days of his career.   ___________ I have written more on […]

“Woody Wednesday” Allen new movie

Stardust Memories (1980) 1/7 Uploaded by ghostrepublic on Oct 24, 2010 Stardust Memories is a 1980 film written and directed by Woody Allen, who considers this to be one of his best films in addition to The Purple Rose of Cairo and Match Point.[1] The film is shot in black-and-white, particularly reminiscent of Federico Fellini’s […]

Review of “To Rome with Love”

Jesse Eisenberg – Press Conference “To Rome With Love” Published on Apr 21, 2012 by portugal888 Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love Published: Tuesday, June 19 2012 11:06 a.m. MDT By David Germain View 4 photos » This film image released by Sony Pictures Classics shows, : Alec Baldwin as John, left, and Jesse Eisenberg […]

Woody Allen, ‘To Rome With Love’ Director, Talks ‘Midnight In Paris’ Success, Acting Career

How To Recover From a Break Up With Greta Gerwig Published on May 16, 2012 by younghollywood Young Hollywood is hanging out in NYC during the Tribeca film festival, where we chat with rising star Greta Gerwig about her hip slice-of-life movie, ‘Lola Versus’. Greta offers up some advice on how to get over a […]

Sam Tanenhaus on Woody Allen’s Black Magic

To Rome with Love Trailer Official 2012 [HD] – Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg To Rome with Love hits theaters on June 22nd, 2012. Cast: Woody Allen, Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Ellen Page, Judy Davis, Alison Pill, Roberto Benigni, Isabella Ferrari, Sergio Rubini, Antonio Albanese, Fabio Armiliata, Alessandra Mastronardi, Ornella Muti, Flavio […]

Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love

Penelope Cruz at “To Rome with Love” premiere Published on Jun 15, 2012 by CBSNewsOnline The Los Angeles Film Festival kicked off with Woody Allen’s latest film starring Penelope Cruz. KCAL 9′s Suzanne Marques reports from downtown L.A. at the premiere of “To Rome With Love.” _______________ Review of “To Rome with Love.” Review: Allen’s […]

Woody Allen: “I’m Immune to Whether My Films Do Well or Not”

Voto 10 Web TV – To Rome with Love – Jesse Eisenberg Published on Apr 20, 2012 by voto10cinema Puntata speciale su To Rome with Love della Web TV di Voto 10. Direttamente dal red carpet con Sonia Serafini e Eva Carducci l’intervista a Jesse Eisenberg. ____________________________ I really like the fact that Woody Allen […]

Review: Penelope Cruz, Robert Benigni Make Woody Allen’s “Rome” Movie

Ellen Page with Craig Ferguson 13.06.12 (‘To Rome With Love’) 1080p HD Good review of Woody Allen’s latest movie: Review: Penelope Cruz, Robert Benigni Make Woody Allen’s “Rome” Movie <!– –> After “Midnight in Paris,” you’re not getting–we’re not getting –a sequel, so forget it. Woody Allen’s “To Rome with Love” opens June 22nd after […]

June 14, 2012 Wall Street Journal interview of Woody Allen and he is still talking about the meaninglessness of existence

TO ROME WITH LOVE – conferenza stampa con Allen, Benigni e Cruz http://WWW.RBCASTING.COM Published on Apr 18, 2012 by RBcasting http://www.rbcasting.com Conferenza stampa del film “To Rome With Love”, scritto e diretto da Woody Allen. Tra gli interpreti, lo stesso Allen, Alec Baldwin, Roberto Benigni, Penelope Cruz, Judy Davis, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page e Greta […]

Woody Allen’s worldview as seen in his movies

  I love the movie Crimes and Misdemeanors and have written on it many times in the past. This quote below sums up Woody Allen’s worldview which I disagree with. In fact, the person who said this actually could not live with its conclusions in the movie and committed suicide.   Because Allen continues to […]

“Woody Wednesdays” Woody Allen on God and Death

Good website on Woody Allen How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he’d never stop throwing up. If only God would give me some clear […]

Woody Allen’s career in pictures “Woody Wednesday”

  Sleepers (1973)   Allen (left) wrote, directed and starred in this oddball love story, set 200 years in the future.  It was his first on-screen collaboration with Diane Keaton (second left), who went on to become one of the director’s muses in the early days of his career.   Bananas (1971)    en cast […]

Woody Allen on politics “Woody Wednesday”

Woody Allen on politics. Top political strategist Woody Allen thinks Obama would get much more done as dictator; No, really May 18, 2010 |  2:22 am The notorious and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen is apparently frustrated with the cumbersome operations of American democracy too. The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter tells the Spanish-language magazine La Vanguardia that the […]

 

November 21, 2012 – 6:42 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

More about the historical characters mentioned in the movie “Lincoln” by Steven Spielberg (Part 4) “Wells A. Hutchins”

 

 

I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my posts were concerning the movie “The Conspirator” which is one of my favorite movies.  I enjoyed reading about all the historical people involved with Lincoln. Boston Corbett is the man who shot Booth. Louis Weichmann was originally a suspect but he later became one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution.  John Wilkes Booth was the first man to kill an American President. Louis Powell attempted to kill Secretary of State Seward.  Mary Surratt was in the center of the conspiracy we are told, but is that true? (I believe the evidence shows that it was true that she was guilty of that.)

Wells A. Hutchins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Wells Andrews Hutchins
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Ohio‘s 11th district
In office
March 4, 1863 – March 3, 1865
Preceded by Valentine B. Horton
Succeeded by Hezekiah S. Bundy
Member of the Ohio House of Representatives
from the Scioto County district
In office
January 5, 1852 – January 1, 1854
Preceded by Oscar F. Moore
Succeeded by Samuel J. Huston
Personal details
Born (1818-10-08)October 8, 1818
Hartford, Ohio
Died January 25, 1895(1895-01-25) (aged 76)
Portsmouth, Ohio
Resting place Greenlawn Cemetery, Portsmouth
Political party Whig
Democratic
Spouse(s) Cornelia Robinson

Wells Andrews Hutchins (October 8, 1818 – January 25, 1895) was a U.S. Representative from Ohio during the American Civil War.

Contents

 [hide] 

[edit] Biography

Born in Hartford, Ohio, Hutchins was a first cousin to future congressman John Hutchins. He attended the public schools and then taught school. He later studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1841. He commenced practice in Warren, Ohio.

In 1842, Hutchins moved to Portsmouth, Ohio, where served as member of the State house of representatives in 1852 and 1853. He was a Whig while in Portsmouth.[1] He was the city solicitor from 1857-61. He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1860 to the Thirty-seventh Congress. During the early part of the Civil War, he was the United States provost marshal for the state of Ohio in 1862.

Hutchins was elected as a Democrat to the Thirty-eighth Congress (March 4, 1863-March 3, 1865). A War Democrat,[2] he supported Abraham Lincoln‘s agenda at critical moments. Hutchins called the proclamation Lincoln issued on September 15, 1863 under the authority of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863 “necessary” in order to defeat the rebellion.[3] He was one of only 16 Democrats in the House of Representatives who joined with the Republicans and voted to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 31, 1865. That amendment abolished slavery in the United States.[4] By doing so, he became one of a group who had “”defied their party discipline, and had deliberately and with unfaltering faith marched to their political death”,[5] according to abolitionist Congressman James Mitchell Ashley.

He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1864 for reelection to the Thirty-ninth Congress and again in 1880 to the Forty-seventh Congress.

Hutchins resumed the practice of law in Portsmouth and died there January 25, 1895. He was interred in Greenlawn Cemetery. He died of kidney disease.[1]

On February 23, 1843, Hutchins married Cornelia Robinson of Portsmouth.[1]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b c Evans 1900 :314-316
  2. ^ Evans 1900 : 298
  3. ^ Trefousse, Hans Louis (2005). “First among equals”: Abraham Lincoln’s reputation during his administration. Fordham University Press. pp. 53. ISBN 978-0-8232-2468-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZtOcMRKpzaQC&pg=PA53&dq=%22Wells+A.+Hutchins%22+Lincoln&hl=en&ei=GbSbTr3oJMjSiALB2cWnDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22Wells%20A.%20Hutchins%22%20Lincoln&f=false.
  4. ^ Williams, Frank J.; Holzer, Harold; Simon, John Y. (2007). Judging Lincoln. SIU Press. pp. 138. ISBN 978-0-8093-2759-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=hp29xMn1WccC&pg=PA138&dq=%22Wells+A.+Hutchins%22+Lincoln&hl=en&ei=GbSbTr3oJMjSiALB2cWnDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Wells%20A.%20Hutchins%22%20Lincoln&f=false.
  5. ^ Ashley, James M. (April, 1891). “The Passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution”. Magazine of Western History XIII (6): 663–679. http://books.google.com/books?id=IekQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA679&dq=%22defied+their+party+discipline,+and+had+deliberately+and+with+unfaltering+faith+marched+to+their+political+death%22&hl=en&ei=1b-bTv2XN8jSiALB2cWnDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22defied%20their%20party%20discipline%2C%20and%20had%20deliberately%20and%20with%20unfaltering%20faith%20marched%20to%20their%20political%20death%22&f=false.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

November 21, 2012 – 6:23 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 13)

Christopher Hitchens wouldn’t get rid of theism completely

Uploaded by on Sep 23, 2011

Scene from ‘Collision’ – Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson
http://www.collisionmovie.com/

________________________________

PART 6

6/01/2007 03:01 PM

Christopher Hitchens

To: Douglas Wilson

Re: Is Christianity Good for the World?

Quo warranto

is a very ancient question, meaning “by what right?” You ask me for my “warrant”

for a code of right conduct and persist in mistaking my answer for an evasion. I in turn ask you

by what right you assume that a celestial autocracy is a guarantee of morals, let alone by what

right you choose your own (Christian) version of it as the only correct one. All deities have been

hailed by their subjects as the fount of good behavior, just as they have been used as the excuse

for inexcusable behavior.

My answer is the same as it was all along: Our morality evolved. Just as we have. Natural selection

and trial-and-error have given us the vague yet grand conception of human rights and some but

not yet all of the means of making these rights coherent and consistent. There is simply no need

for the introduction of the extraneous or the supernatural. LaPlace was only one of those who

concluded that religion is essentially irrelevant to important questions: an option if you choose it,

but only one among many. (I have to say that your account of him makes him sound dangerously

like the repulsive Calvin, but even the great Isaac Newton and the even greater Alfred Russell

Wallace were prey to all kinds of superstitious delusions as they made their marvelous

humanistic discoveries.)

There seems to be no easy way to discuss this other than in personal or individual terms. You and

I have no idea what it is like to be a sociopath—someone who does not care about other people

except inasmuch as they serve his turn—or a psychopath—someone who derives actual delight

from inflicting misery on others. But we know that such people exist, and that they must be

guarded against. I regard their existence as part of our haphazard evolution and our kinship with

a nature that often favors the predator. You do not. Indeed, you apparently adopt the immoral

and suicidal doctrine that advocates forgiveness for those who would destroy us. Please take care

not to forgive my enemies, or the enemies of society. If I have to call such people “evil” (and I

find I have no alternative), I do not deduce peaceful coexistence from that observation and do

not want you being tender to them when it is my or my family’s life that is at stake.

Turning from this to the surprising amount of virtue that can be found in humans, I again

choose not to confect a mystery where none exists. Leaving ordinary sins to one side—I do not

steal other people’s property, for example, and hope for a reciprocal restraint on their part, and

do not pardon such offenses when they occur—I could mention something that is particular to

our discussion. Every now and then, in argument, I find myself glib enough to make a cheap

point or a point that might evoke instant applause from an audience. But I am always aware of

doing so, or if you like of the temptation to do so, and I strive (not always with success) to resist

the tactic, and rather dislike myself when I give in to it. Why do I do this? Socrates called this

restraint the

daemon: an inner voice that helps us toward self-criticism. Many later thinkers have

defined it in discrepant ways, but a definition is something short of an understanding.

I am content to regard it as indefinable, which is where we part company. My own inclination is

to regard it as a human faculty without which we could not have—I shan’t say “evolved” yet

again—made the smallest progress as

homo sapiens. You believe that I owe this inner prompting

to the divine, and you further assert that a heavenly intervention made in the last two thousand

years of human history (a microsecond of evolutionary time) is the seal on the deal. You will

have to excuse me when I say that I think such a belief is, as well as incredible, immoral. It makes

right action dependent on a highly improbable wager on the supernatural. To state the case in

another way, it suggests that without celestial sanction, you yourself would be unrestrained in

your appetites and careless of other people. Awful though many of your opinions are to me, I

decline to believe that you would, if you lost your faith, become base and self-centered. It is,

rather, religion that has made many morally normal people assent to appalling cruelties,

including the mutilation of children’s genitalia, the institution of slavery, the revulsion from

female sexuality, and many other crimes from which an average infidel would, without any

heavenly prompting, turn away. Ask yourself this question. Can you name one moral action, or

moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or

spoken by an atheist? My email is available to any reader who is willing to accept this challenge.

I like your joke about the reduction of mirth to a spasm (there was a solemn critic of P.G.

Wodehouse who defined the smile in terms of “naso-labial” contractions), but I think you let

yourself down a bit with your Hallmark conclusion. I dare say that I could add to the list of joys

and even include one or two subjects which Christianity and other religions have made difficult

to discuss in public. However, I shall select my own recent investigation of my DNA, which can

now be sequenced and analyzed. I was perfectly happy with the “revelation” of my own kinship

with other species and quite overwhelmed by the skill and precision of those who allowed me to

do it. A lot of wit and beauty and intelligence had to go into the confirmation of my status as an

evolved animal, just as a great deal of dullness and stupidity is required for the continuing denial

of it.

I think we shall do better if we do not resist evidence that may at first sight appear unwelcome or

unsettling, just as we shall do better if we refuse conclusions for which there is no evidence at all.

CH

Related posts:

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]

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

Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]

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

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death:   Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust   DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]

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

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]

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

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]

November 21, 2012 – 6:19 am Categories: Uncategorized | Post a comment

Evidence can be found in Archaeology that supports the historical accuracy of the Bible and here are some links posted here at www.thedailyhatch.org

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5)

The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy.

_________________________-

Many people have questioned the accuracy of the Bible, but I have posted many videos and articles with evidence pointing out that the Bible has many pieces of evidence from archaeology supporting the view that the Bible is historically accurate. Take a look at the video above and below.

The Bible and Archaeology (2/5)

There are some unbelievable stories in the Bible that have evidence backing them up too. Take at the evidence given by John MacArthur concerning the city of Tyre.  At the end of this post I have several links to other posts concerning Biblical Archaeology.

Photo of John MacArthur

Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4

Uploaded by on Dec 5, 2010

A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo

________________

John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled by historical events.

LESSON

I. BIBLICAL PROPHECY CONCERNING TYRE (Ezekiel 26:1–28:19)

A. The Forecast

1. The specifics

a) That King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:7-8).

b) That many nations would rise up against Tyre. These nations would come like waves of the sea, one after another (26:3- 4).

c) That Tyre will be made like a flat rock (26:4, 14).

d) That fisherman will dry their nets there (26:5, 14).

e) That the rubble of the city would be cast into the sea (26:12).

f) That Tyre would never be rebuilt (26:14).

2. The setting

Tyre was a great city. It was one of the largest and most powerful cities of Phoenicia, which is modern day Lebanon.

It was well fortified. A great wall protected the city from land attacks while their world-renowned fleet protected them from attack by sea.

Tyre was a flourishing city during the time when Joshua led Israel into the Promised Land. King Hiram, who began his reign during the rule of David, offered David cedars from Tyre to build his palace. He also loaned David his artisans to craft parts of the great palace (1 Chron. 14:1). Hiram also helped Solomon build the Temple by floating cedars down the shoreline to be picked up and hauled to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 2:16). So Tyre was a great city, and both David and Solomon looked to it for aid.

B. The Fulfillment

1. The prophetic call

a) To Nebuchadnezzar

Not long after the prophecy given by Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did exactly what had been predicted–he laid siege against the city in 585 B.C. For thirteen years Nebuchadnezzar cut off the flow of supplies into the city. In 537 B.C. he finally succeeded in breaking the gates down, but found the city almost empty.

During the thirteen-year siege, the people of Tyre moved all their possessions by ship to an island one-half mile offshore. So Nebuchadnezzar gained no plunder (Ezek. 29:17- 20). Although he destroyed the mainland city (Ezek. 26:8), the new city offshore continued to flourish for 250 years. The prophecy of Ezekiel 26:12–“they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water”–remained unfulfilled.

b) To Alexander the Great

At age twenty-two, Alexander the Great came east conquering the known world with an army of between thirty and forty thousand men. Having defeated the Persians under Darius III, Alexander was on the march toward Egypt.

(1) The dilemma

Alexander arrived in the Phoenician territory and demanded that the cities open their gates to him. The citizens of Tyre refused, feeling they were secure on their island with their superior fleet.

(2) The decision

Realizing he did not have a fleet that could match Tyre’s, Alexander decided to build a causeway to the island using the ruins from the mainland city. It was about two hundred feet wide. The prophet said that the city would be thrown into the water, and that’s exactly what happened.

(3) The details

Arrian, a Greek historian, wrote about the overthrow of Tyre and how it was accomplished (The Campaigns of Alexander [New York: Penquin, 1958], pp. 132-43). The fortification of Tyre resembled Alcatraz. The city sat offshore like a rock with walls that came down to the edge of the water. Alexander set out to build the only means to approach the city–a land peninsula. Soldiers started pitching rubble into the water, leveling it off as they went so they could march on it. The water got deeper as they approached the island, and to make their task even more difficult, the people of Tyre bombarded them with missiles.

Werner Keller in The Bible as History tells us that to safeguard the operation, Alexander built mobile shields called “tortoises” (New York: Bantam, 1956], p. 361). Knowing that when they reached the city they would have to scale the walls, Alexander built “Hele-poleis,” which were mobile siege towers 160 foot high. The idea was to roll these structures across the causeway and push them up against the walls. A drawbridge on the front of the towers enabled the soldiers to march across the top of the walls and into the city.

Alexander’s men were under constant attack from people within the city and from the Tyrian navy. Realizing that he needed ships to defend his flanks, Alexander returned to the cities he had conquered and demanded their assistance. That fulfilled the prophecy that God “will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up” (Ezek. 26:3).

(4) The destruction

Alexander’s plan succeeded. Eight thousand people were slain and thirty thousand were sold into slavery. It took Alexander seven months to conquer Tyre. The causeway he built can be seen to this day.

2. The prophetic result

How did Ezekiel know all those things would happen? The only explanation is he expressed the mind of God. Historian Philip Myers said, “Alexander the Great reduced it [Tyre] to ruins (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site … is now as bare as the top of a rock–a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry” (General History for Colleges and High Schools [Boston: Ginn and Co., 1889], p. 55). That fulfills the prophecies of Ezekiel 26:4-5, 14. The island city was repopulated, later to be destroyed by the Moslems in A.D. 1281. However, God said the mainland city would never be rebuilt–and it never has. Jerusalem has been rebuilt many times but Tyre will never be rebuilt because a prophet in Babylon said twenty-five centuries ago, “Thou shalt be built no more” (Ezek. 26:14).

Prophecy–Alexander The Great Siege of Tyre 6of6.flv

Uploaded by on Dec 5, 2010

This video by secular sources fulfills in amazing detail the prophecies made about Tyre by the Bible centuries in advance. Go here to see the Bible’s prophecies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K24uwdc-ato

Related posts:

Atheist says “It’s not about having a purpose in life..” (Arkansas Atheist, Part 1)jh69

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. _________________________- I want to make two points today. 1. There is no […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 32) (What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 6 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 6 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the Book […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 31)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 5 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 5 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 29)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 3 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 1 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the […]

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 28)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 2 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 2 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the […]

Easter Morning April 24, 2011,List of posts on series: Is the Bible historically accurate? (Updated 1 through 14C)

“In Christ Alone” music video featuring scenes from “The Passion of the Christ”. It is sung by Lou Fellingham of Phatfish and the writer of the hymn is Stuart Townend. On this Easter Morning April 24, 2011 there is no other better time to take a look at the truth and accuracy of the Bible.  […]

Is the Bible historically accurate?(Part 14C)(The Conspirator Part 7)

Critics – Part 1 By Dr In my ongoing debate with other bloggers on the Arkansas Times Blog, I had an interesting response from Dobert: You can’t have it both ways. If the Gospel writers were allowed to adapt their message to a particular audience then it can’t be claimed that God literally took their […]

Is the Bible historically accurate?(Part 14B)(The Conspirator Part 5)

The Institute for Creation Research equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework. info@icr.org http://www.icr.org Last night I had the opportunity to go back and forth with a couple of bloggers on the Arkansas Times Blog and this […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 14)(The Conspirator part 3)

This is a quick summary of the Bible’s reliability by a famous and well-respected former atheist. Please check out his website (http://www.leestrobel.com) for hundreds of FREE high quality videos investigating the critical aspects of our faith. Todd Tyszka http://www.toddtyszka.com On April 19, 2011 on the Arkansas Blog an entry of mine got this response from […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 13)

Many Kings and important people in the Bible are also verified by secular documents. 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 the Bible historically accurate? (Part 12)(Johnny Cash, Famous Arkansan pt C)

Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the dead sea scrolls some 2,000 years ago, expertly guides you through the latest archaeological finds that have changed the way we understand the world of the bible. (Part 6 of 6 in the film series The Stones […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 11)

My sons Wilson  and Hunter  went to California and visited Yosemite National Park with our friend Sherwood Haisty Jr. (Sherwood on left) March 21-27. Here you can see all the snow they had to deal with. Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 10)

Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the dead sea scrolls some 2,000 years ago, expertly guides you through the latest archaeological finds that have changed the way we understand the world of the bible. (Part 4 of 6 in the film series The Stones […]

November 21, 2012 – 1:38 am Categories: Biblical Archaeology | Post a comment

Milton Friedman taught us that human history shows that our greatest successes have come in those countries with free markets

Milton Friedman’s books and films have taught us much about self-interest and that the countries that had freedom thrived!!!

Posted Jul 31, 2012 1:34 pm by Brett Malin, Under: Friedman Day 2012

One of Milton Freidman’s greatest skills was his ability to effortlessly disarm liberals when they trot out their standard, shopworn canards.

President Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package went mainly to the hiring of government employees, so their continued spending would stimulate the economy. Many times Milton Friedman had lectured that this is a fallacy; there is no free lunch, every dollar the government spends is taxed, borrowed or taken by devaluation from the productive sector. More money is spent, but the overall production of goods and services is still the same; so how is the economy stimulated?

For those who believe capitalism a corrupt system, run by greed, Milton Friedman had a simple explanation. Greed, better identified as self-interest, is present everywhere; nowhere does there exists such perfect angels that do not act in their own self interest. What’s more, human history shows that our greatest successes have come in those countries with free markets and private property rights; it is in those countries that deny economic freedom that you find the same grinding poverty that plagued mankind for millennia.

Why shouldn’t the government use inheritance taxes to appropriate a man’s wealth when he passes? After all, he is dead and has no need for material goods. What’s more, would men not still work hard to improve their lot in life, even knowing the consequences once they are gone? Milton Freeman’s insight was convincing. The only human motivation as powerful as self interest is the desire to improve the circumstance of one’s children and family. The impulse to give your children a better life than yours is universal in the human spirit. Absent that, Friedman asks, what remains but to consume your life’s savings before you die? No assets accumulated or long-term investments made, just wasteful consumption. The destructive effect of this policy on the long term economic health of a society is obvious, with no long term growth, just the dispersal of all gains made with each generation.

If only today’s conservative politicians could demolish the left’s stale arguments so easily and completely.

Brett Malin is a noted political blogger with ConservativesClub.com.  His company, MR Data Corporation provides statistical analysis for Fortune 500 companies. (conservativesclub.com)

November 21, 2012 – 1:06 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment