Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 5)

Part 1

Part 2

To Mitt Romney, Box 149756, Boston, MA 02114-9756  From Everette Hatcher of www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002

Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He told him that the Religious Right did not have enough votes to get him elected on their own, but if he ever went against the pro-life view then they could definately derail his election bid.

Today I am writing you to remind you of the same thing. We in the pro-life movement are firmly behind you but we want to know some of the reasons are passionately pro-life.

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

A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer

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

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

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

____________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 27, 2012 – 7:52 am Categories: Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Post a comment

“Music Monday” Switchfoot is a Christian Band with a great message (Part 5)

Switchfoot is a Christian Band with a great message (Part 5)

One of my favorite bands is Switchfoot. Tim Foreman is the front man and this band has always been very vocal about their Christian faith. I am really enjoying this series on their band.

Switchfoot: Oh! Gravity. The Meaning Behind

 Posted: Friday, December 22, 2006, 12:24 (GMT)

Oh! Gravity.
The Songs by Jon Foreman

grav•i•ty (grv-t) n.
– The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
– Grave consequence; seriousness or importance
– Solemnity or dignity of manner.

Meaning Behind Songs

Oh! Gravity is a conversation with a well-known law of physics. The question is this: If in the physical world things naturally move closer together, why are we falling apart? War and rumors of war, divorce, hatred, violence, and everything else on the evening news seems to contradict gravity. This song is a fun happy-clappy tune about a grave matter: “Sons of my enemies, why can’t we seem to keep it together?”

American Dream. I am proud to be an American. Proud of my grandfather who was shot down in world war two. Proud of some of my best friends who are in the Marines. I believe in a nation that is serving a higher calling than a TV. I have nothing against the material world. I have nothing against consumerism as a social structure. Certainly we are consumers with physical bodies, but if that’s all we are we’ve lost what it means to be human. When success is equated with excess the ambition for excess wrecks us. As the top of the mind becomes the bottom line when success is equated with excess.

Dirty Second Hands. the machine. the clock. our own hands. The dirty second hand of time is always ticking- bringing us and all that we have worked so hard to achieve closer to the grave and the second hand store. In my fight with depression, lust, pride, and boredom I have found that the biggest challenger is often within me. The very machinery that I loathe and have fought so hard to defeat stares back at me from the mirror. This mechanism is always ticking. And in my spiritual life I have found that this is a part of me that has to die everyday if I am to be truly alive.

Awakening. How quickly I am lulled back to sleep! How quickly I forget. In one of my favorite Wilco songs Jeff Tweedy sings, “You know I would die if I could come back new.” Perhaps to be truly reborn death is not optional. Here’s a firsthand story about new life, it always starts at the bottom.

Circles. Here’s a tune that had its roots in the past. We actually played a version of this song a few tours ago while we were gearing up for the recording of “nothing is sound.” It’s an ecclesiastical song about the modern machine. We tracked a previous version of this song while we were tracking stars. But something about the song was never quite right. When Sean and Sarah Watkins (our friends from Nickel Creek) came in, the song took on a new life and became something truly special. The end of the song represents one of my favorite moments we’ve ever had on a CD.


Amateur Lovers. Oh that we knew how to love each other well! Here’s a song that elaborates on the title track with another set of social-physics questions. We all need love so badly- it’s how we were made. And yet we’re so bad at loving one another. It’s our attempt to put another matter of grave consequence in the skin of a pop tune.

Faust, Midas, and Myself. Two mythologies and the truth. Or more specifically, a man who makes a deal with the devil, a man who has a touch of gold, and my own personal struggles. CS Lewis had a lot to say about mythology. On one occasion he said that he writes fantasy to get past the watchful dragons of religion. That’s why I write music, because our minds are often so closed that even the truth can’t fit in to set us free. This is a story about following the fantasy and seeing where it leads. Sometimes the dreams turn into nightmares… In a million ways, I know firsthand that the taste turns sour very quickly.

Head Over Heals. This is an honest love song. Love is not a silk flower- always bright, with artificially whitened teeth and a fake tan. No, love is a fight. Love is what happens when you’ve been hurt and you want to quit. Love is what happens when you decide not to. Love is not the beginning of the story but the ending. Perhaps the thirty-minute sitcom has done a disservice to the sheer magnitude of what love is.

Yesterdays. I wrote this with my brother. The song is very straightforward. I have hope in this life and beyond the grave.

Burn Out Bright. One of two tracks on the record that is a command. Seems like every story I can relate to starts off with a broken heart, broken dreams and bleeding parts. There’s a story I know about a man named Israel who wrestled with God. From that day on he walked with a limp. I guess in a lot of ways I don’t trust a man who doesn’t have a limp. The future is yet unwritten. Write it well.

4:12. Another musical thesis on the subject of materialism. I’ve heard it said that we are souls and we have bodies. And yet our physical world is always hungry, always thirsty, always watching, always listening. It gets to the point where I begin to believe that all we are and that all of our dreams are nothing more than material. That love and fear and pain and justice are material? It’s nonsensical.

Let Your Love Be Strong. My wife’s favorite song. This one means a lot to me. “Maybe I’m just idealistic to assume that truth could be fact and form, that love could be a verb, maybe I’m just a little misinformed.” I wrote this one after a long walk in the early morning before the sun came up. I was sitting out by the train tracks halfway between the ocean and the freeway. When everything in your life falls apart you begin to realize what’s worth holding on to and who’s got a hold on you. Let the world fall apart … all of my life rests upon the love that created every breath I have been given.

*a footnote:
I have a hard time explaining what I do for a living. I sometimes wish I played the role of inventor: purposefully creative, a wizard with notes and words. But in fact my occupation is much more like an archeologist. Always digging. Always sorting. And occasionally I feel that I stumble across something truly remarkable. Like a hidden city buried in the ground, the notes and words seem to have been there long before me- as though the song would exist without my involvement. Or maybe it’s more like farming. Preparing the soil, planting, watering, pruning and caring for these ideas hoping to see a bumper crop yet knowing that the outcome is almost entirely out of my hands.

With that in mind, this collection of songs then is something that I can only partly take credit for. Most of my favorite moments on the record represent the times when my fingerprints are the lightest, where my own self-conscious second-guessing is absent and the buried city can speak for itself. I suppose to some extent I’m talking about honesty- allowing a song to be itself rather than forcing your own will upon it. This was a goal not only in the writing process but in the studio as well. Many times on this record we deliberately went back to the first take and the rough draft to find our direction simply because the first response to the song is often the most honest. Your first instincts might be poorly played or incomplete but they were honest.

I am so proud of these songs, like I am proud of my friends or as I imagine a father would be proud of his son. I truly feel like there is only so much credit that be given to the songwriter, for the buried city was waiting there all along.

August 27, 2012 – 7:49 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 159)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 159)

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

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

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

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

I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:

Below is an excellent plan to balance the budget through spending cuts from Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute written in April of 2011. Here is the second part.

A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget

by Chris Edwards, Cato Institute

Introduction
Reducing Spending over 10 Years
Spending Cut Details
Subsidies to Individuals and Businesses
Aid to State and Local Governments
Military Expenses
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Privatization
Conclusions

Spending Cut Details

Table 1 lists the proposed annual cuts for the balanced budget plan. By 2021, these include $150 billion in defense cuts and $490 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the 2010 health care law. The table also includes other discretionary and entitlement cuts valued at $445 billion in 2011. With the assumed revenues, all these spending cuts would be saving the government $260 billion in annual interest costs by 2021.7 All in all, total spending in 2021 under this plan would be about $1.4 trillion lower than under either the CBO baseline or the president’s budget.

As a technical note, most of the figures in Table 1 are outlays for fiscal 2011 from President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget.8 These cuts are expressed in 2011 dollars, but I’ve assumed that the value of these cuts would grow over time at the same rate as discretionary spending in the CBO baseline. The cuts in Table 1 marked with an asterisk are expressed in 2021 dollars and are generally based on CBO estimates.

The reforms listed in the table are deeper than the “duplication” and “waste” items often mentioned by federal policymakers, such as earmarks. The reality is that the nation faces a fiscal emergency, and we need to cut hundreds of billions of dollars of “meat” from federal departments, not just the obvious “fat.” If the activities to be cut are useful to society, then state governments or private groups should fund them, and those entities would probably be more efficient at doing so.

The cuts in Table 1 are illustrative of how to begin getting the federal budget under control. Further reforms are needed in addition to these cuts, particularly structural changes to Medicare. But the important thing is to start cutting right away because the longer we wait, the deeper the pile of debt we will have to dig out from.

Table 1 includes cuts to individual and business subsidies, cuts to state aid, cuts to military expenses, cuts to the growth in entitlement programs, and privatization of federal activities. The sections following the table discuss these various types of cuts, and further analysis of the cuts is available at www.DownsizingGovernment.org.

Table 1
Proposed Federal Budget Cuts
Agency and Activity   Annual Savings
     
$ billion
Department of Agriculture    
  End farm subsidies   29.5
  Cut food subsidies by 50 percent   52.7
  End rural subsidies   4.2
  Total cuts   86.4
Department of Commerce    
  End telecom subsidies   2.3
  End economic development subsidies   0.6
  Total cuts   2.9
Department of Defense    
  Enact Preble/Friedman reforms**   150.0
Department of Education    
  End K-12 education subsidies   52.7
  End student aid and all other programs   33.1
  Total cuts (terminate the department)   85.8
Department of Energy    
  End subsidies for energy efficiency   10.2
  End subsidies for vehicle technologies   5.2
  End the technology loan program   1.2
  End electricity research subsidies   2.0
  End fossil energy research   1.1
  Privatize the power marketing administrations   0.5
  End nuclear energy subsidies   0.6
  Total cuts   20.8
Department of Health and Human Services    
  Block grant Medicaid and freeze spending**   226.0
  Repeal 2010 health care law**   87.0
  Increase Medicare premiums**   39.8
  Cut non-Medicaid state/local grants by 50%   37.7
  Cut Medicare payment error rate by 50%   28.6
  Increase Medicare deductibles**   12.6
  Tort reform   10.0
  Total cuts   441.7
Department of Housing and Urban Development    
  End rental assistance   28.6
  End community development subsidies   15.0
  End public housing subsidies   8.9
  End housing finance and all other programs   8.3
  Total cuts (terminate the department)   60.8
Department of Justice    
  End state and local grants   5.0
Department of Labor    
  End employment and training services   4.8
  End Job Corps   1.7
  End Community Service for Seniors   0.8
  End trade adjustment assistance   1.3
  Total cuts   8.6
Social Security    
  Price index initial benefits**   41.1
  Raise the normal retirement age**   31.4
  Cut Social Security disability program by 10%   13.2
  Total cuts   85.7
Department of Transportation    
  End urban transit grants (federal fund savings)   5.8
  Privatize air traffic control (federal fund savings)   5.8
  Privatize Amtrak and end rail subsidies   2.9
  Total cuts   14.5
Department of the Treasury    
  Cut earned income tax credit by 50%   22.5
  End refundable part of child tax credit   22.9
  Total cuts   45.4
Other Savings    
  Cut federal civilian compensation costs 10%   29.6
  Cut foreign development aid by 50%   5.2
  Cut NASA spending by 50%   9.8
  Privatize the Corps of Engineers (Civil Works)   10.6
  Repeal Davis-Bacon labor rules   9.0
  End EPA state and local grants   6.5
  End foreign military financing   5.4
  End subsidies for the Corp. for Nat. Comm. Srv.   0.6
  End subsidies to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting   0.5
  End the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp.   0.2
  Total cuts   77.4
Grand total annual spending cuts   $1,084.9
Note: Data items are outlays for fiscal 2011, but items with ** refer to the value of savings in 2021.

 

August 27, 2012 – 7:45 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 130 B)

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.

What future does our country have if we never even attempt to balance our budget. As President it is your duty to take the lead on getting our budget balanced.

I read some wise words by Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) regarding the  debt ceiling deal that was passed on August 1, 2011:”Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, today’s Washington deal transforms last week’s strong Balanced Budget requirement into a toothless suggestion.”

If we are going to get the budget to balance it will take a Balanced Budget Amendment to force us to do so. There is no other way around that fact!!!

Ted DeHaven noted his his article, “Freshman Republicans switch from Tea to Kool-Aid,”  Cato Institute Blog, May 17, 2012:

This week the Club for Growth released a study of votes cast in 2011 by the 87 Republicans elected to the House in November 2010. The Club found that “In many cases, the rhetoric of the so-called “Tea Party” freshmen simply didn’t match their records.” Particularly disconcerting is the fact that so many GOP newcomers cast votes against spending cuts.

The study comes on the heels of three telling votes taken last week in the House that should have been slam-dunks for members who possess the slightest regard for limited government and free markets. Alas, only 26 of the 87 members of the “Tea Party class” voted to defund both the Economic Development Administration and the president’s new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program (see my previous discussion of these votes here) and against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank (see my colleague Sallie James’s excoriation of that vote here).

One of those Tea Party heroes was Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03). Last year I posted this below concerning his conservative views and his willingness to vote against the debt ceiling increase:

Congressman Landry’s Statement on Today’s Debt Ceiling Deal

Millard Mulé
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) issued the following statement regarding today’s debt ceiling deal:

“I’m sure by Washington standards, today’s deal is a great accomplishment; but by American standards, it comes up short. Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, today’s Washington deal transforms last week’s strong Balanced Budget requirement into a toothless suggestion. And today’s Washington deal puts at risk the security and pay of our brave men and women in uniform. It’s disheartening that Washington continues skirting the problem, instead of passing long-term solutions to end it. As evident by my decision today, I stand with the American people and choose to put the next generation above my next election.”

___________

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

August 27, 2012 – 6:42 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

QUOTATIONS ON THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

QUOTATIONS ON THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

 I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776

There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!

John Hancock (attributed), upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, September 12, 1821

With respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825

Independence Forever.

John Adams, toast for the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826

I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

Frederick Douglass, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” July 5, 1852

The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

Abraham Lincoln, speech on the Dred Scott Decision, June 26, 1857

We have besides these men-descended by blood from our ancestors-among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe-German, Irish, French and Scandinavian-men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.

Abraham Lincoln, speech at Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858

We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Calvin Coolidge, speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926

Today, 186 years later, that Declaration whose yellowing parchment and fading, almost illegible lines I saw in the past week in the National Archives in Washington is still a revolutionary document. To read it today is to hear a trumpet call. For that Declaration unleashed not merely a revolution against the British, but a revolution in human affairs. . . . The theory of independence is as old as man himself, and it was not invented in this hall. But it was in this hall that the theory became a practice; that the word went out to all, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, that “the God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” And today this Nation-conceived in revolution, nurtured in liberty, maturing in independence-has no intention of abdicating its leadership in that worldwide movement for independence to any nation or society committed to systematic human oppression.

John F. Kennedy, address at Independence Hall, July 4, 1962

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

Martin Luther King, “I Have A Dream,” August 28, 1963

Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of. Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people. There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.

Ronald Reagan, address at Yorktown, October 19, 1981

August 27, 2012 – 1:28 am Categories: Founding Fathers | Post a comment

Spending cut suggestions sent to Senator Mark Pryor electronically every Monday and displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org

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

I have faithfully sent spending cut suggestions to Senator Mark Pryor every Monday for almost a year now and at the same time I have posted all of them on www.thedailyhatch.org every monday after they have been sent electronically.

I have suggested cutting out the complete Dept of Education on several occasions.

Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself:

GUIDELINE #4: Terminate failed, outdated, and irrelevant programs.
President Ronald Reagan once pointed out that “a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on earth.” A large portion of the current federal bureaucracy was created during the 1900s, 1930s, and 1960s in attempts to solve the unique problems of those eras.
Instead of replacing the outdated programs of the past, however, each period of government activism has built new programs on top of them. Ford Motor Company would not waste money today by building outdated Model T’s alongside their current Mustangs and Explorers. However, in 2004, the federal government still refuses to close down old agencies such as the Rural Utilities Service (designed to bring phones to rural America) and the U.S. Geological Survey (created to explore and detail the nation’s geography).
Government must be made light and flexible, adaptable to the new challenges the country will face in the 21st century. Weeding out the failed and outdated bureaucracies of the past will free resources to modernize the government.
Status Quo Bias. Lawmakers often acknowledge that certain programs show no positive effects. Regrettably, they also refuse to terminate even the most irrelevant programs. The most obvious reason for this timidity is an aversion to fighting the special interests that refuse to let their pet programs end without a bloody fight.
A less obvious reason is that eliminating government programs seems reckless and bold to legislators who have never known a federal government without them. Although thousands of programs have come and gone in the nation’s 228-year history, virtually all current programs were created before most lawmakers came to Washington. For legislators who are charged with budgeting and implementing the same familiar programs year after year, a sense of permanency sets in, and termination seems unfathomable.7 No one even remembers when a non-government entity addressed the problems.
The Department of Energy, for example, has existed for just one-tenth of the country’s history, yet closing it down seems ridiculous to those who cannot remember the federal government before 1977 and for whom appropriating and overseeing the department has been an annual ritual for years. Lawmakers need a long-term perspective to assure them the sky does not fall when a program is terminated. For example, the Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, both closed in 1996, are barely remembered today.8
Instead of just assuming that whoever created the programs decades ago must have been filling some important need that probably exists today, lawmakers should focus on the future by asking themselves the following question: If this program did not exist, would I vote to create it? Because the answer for scores of programs would likely be “no,” Congress should:
  • Close down failed or outdated agencies, programs, and facilities, including:
  1. The U.S. Geological Survey9 (2004 spending: $841 million, discretionary);10
  2. The Maritime Administration ($633 million, discretionary);
  3. The International Trade Commission ($61 million, discretionary);
  4. The Economic Development Administration ($417 million, discretionary);
  5. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($1,892 million, discretionary);
  6. The Technology Opportunities Program ($12 million, discretionary);
  7. Obsolete military bases;
  8. The Appalachian Regional Commission ($94 million, discretionary);
  9. Obsolete Veterans Affairs facilities;
  10. The Rural Utilities Service (-$1,493 million,11 mandatory); and
  11. Repeal Public Law 480′s non-emergency international food programs ($127 million, discretionary)

This is how bad it is getting:

  • Discretionary spending is the portion of the annual budget that Congress actually determines.
  • Since 2000, discretionary outlays surged 79 percent faster than inflation, to $1,408 billion. The “stimulus” is responsible for $111 billion of 2010 discretionary spending.
  • Between 1990 and 2000, $80 billion annually in new domestic spending was more than fully offset by a $100 billion cut in annual defense and homeland security spending, leaving (inflation-adjusted) discretionary spending slightly lower.
  • Since 2000, all types of discretionary spending have grown rapidly.
  • Overall, since 1990, domestic discretionary spending has risen 104 percent faster than inflation and defense/security discretionary spending has risen 51 percent.

Check out some of the links below:

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 139)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 138)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 137)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 136)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 135)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 134)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 133)

  Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 132)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 131)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

August 27, 2012 – 12:11 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Francis Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?” (The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence) can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Francis and Edith Schaeffer January 1975
Huemoz sur Ollon at L’abri, Switzerland

 

Schaeffer rightly identifies what college students are thinking in this episode and he has the best answers for them too. Below is a portion of the episode with links to the complete episodes:

E P I S O D E 9

How Should We Then Live 9#1

T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce

I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought

II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism

Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed Values

A. General acceptance of selfish values (personal peace and affluence) accompanied rejection of Christian consensus.

1. Personal peace means: I want to be left alone, and I don’t care what happens to the man across the street or across the world. I want my own life-style to be undisturbed regardless of what it will mean — even to my own children and grandchildren.

2. Affluence means things, things, things, always more things — and success is seen as an abundance of things.

B. Students wish to escape meaninglessness of much of adult society.

1. Watershed was Berkeley in 1964.

2. Drug Taking as an ideology: “turning on” the world.

3. Free Speech Movement on Sproul Plaza.

a) At first neither Left nor Right.

b) Soon became the New Left.

(1) Followed Marcuse.

(2) Paris riots.

4. Student analysis of problem was right, but solution wrong.

5. Woodstock, Altamont, and the end of innocence.

6. Drug taking survives the death of ideology but as an escape.

7. Demise of New Left: radical bombings.

8. Apathy supreme. The young accept values of the older generation: their own idea of personal peace and affluence, even though adopting a different life-style.

Other segments:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]

August 26, 2012 – 12:52 am Categories: Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment

Francis Schaeffer would be 100 years old this year (Schaeffer Sunday)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2

Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970’s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him.

Francis Schaeffer

1912-1984

Christian Theologian, Philosopher, and Missionary

by Rit Nosotro First Published:: 2003

( Last updated: 09/02/2010 18:08:13)

One of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th century, Francis Schaeffer, was born January 30, 1912 in Germantown, Pennsylvania. He was the only son of a tradesman and grew up in a Christian home. However, during his years as an adolescent he rejected Christianity and became an agnostic. In his senior year of high school he began reading the Bible in search of answers, and months later he converted to Christianity at a tent meeting held by Anthony Zeoli. After graduating high school he enrolled in night school to study mechanical engineering. However, he soon decided he wanted to enter the ministry so he enrolled in Hampden Sydney College. During his time there he met his future wife Edith Seville, who was the daughter of missionaries working with China Inland Mission. In 1935 he graduated magna cum laude and that same summer he married Edith Seville. Together they had four children, Janet Priscilla born in 1938, Susan born in 1941, Deborah born in 1945, and Francis August Schaeffer V in 1952. After graduating college Schaeffer enrolled in Westminster Theological Seminary where he studied with Cornelius Van Til and J. Gresham Machen. Then in 1937 he transferred to Faith Theological Seminary where he became the first student to graduate from the seminary and ordained as a minister of the Bible Presbyterian Church. From there he went on to serve as a pastor.

After graduating from Faith Theological Seminary Schaeffer served as the pastor for churches in Grove City and Chester, Pennsylvania and then later went on to serve in St. Louis, Missouri. During those years he left the Bible Presbyterian Church and joined the Reformed Presbyterian Church. In 1947 he was sent to Europe as a representative for the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. His job was to survey the state of the churches in countries affected by World War II. In 1948 he moved the family to Switzerland to serve as missionaries. In 1954 Schaeffer severed ties with the board due to conflicts in emphasis in missionary work. That same year he was awarded the honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Highland College. A year later he and his wife Edith opened up their home to become L’Abri, which is the French word for shelter. L’Abri became an international spiritual retreat center where people could come to study and discuss Christian thought, lifestyle, and goals. L’Abri was opened to be a center for authentic Christian community. People came from all over to talk to Schaeffer and ask difficult philosophical questions. Several years after the opening of L’Abri, Schaeffer received the honorary Doctor of Letters degree from Gordon College. Then in 1979 he began L’Abri in America. During his last few years of life, Schaeffer spent his time writing books and encouraging Christians to be active in the fight against abortion. He died of cancer May 15, 1984 in his home.

Francis Schaeffer is most famous for his writings and for the establishment of L’Abri community in Switzerland. He wrote twenty two books on topics ranging from the Christian view of philosophy and culture, the inerrancy of the Bible, the Christian view of spirituality and the church, and the Christian view of the west. Some of his works include The God Who Is There, A Christian Manifesto, and How Should We Then Live?. He is often credited for sparking a return to political activism among Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists. He has been cited numerous times in works by other Christians and is considered to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th century alongside C.S. Lewis.

Matthew 7:7 says “Ask, and you will receive; seek, and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you.” That is exactly what Francis Schaeffer did. He sought after the truth and found it. Ever since that time Schaeffer sought the truth as a senior in high school, he has aided thousands of other people in their search for truth. Instead of ignoring the difficult questions he sought answers and found them. Francis Schaeffer demonstrated that Christianity is not a blind faith without valid reasons for what it believes, but rather that Biblical Christianity is the only worldview compatible with reality. He also demonstrated what Christian community really looks like through the L’Abri communities. President Ronald Reagan summed up Francis Schaeffer’s life nicely when he said “It can rarely be said of an individual that his life touched many others and affected them for the better; it will be said of Dr. Francis Schaeffer that his life touched millions of souls and brought them to the truth of their Creator.”

Sources

“Francis Schaeffer” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schaeffer

“Francis Schaeffer biography” at http://www.heroesofhistory.com/page57.html

“Francis Schaeffer biography” at http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/220.htm

“Francis Schaeffer biography” at ttp://members.aol.com/JAMIETAMPA/Schaeffer/index2.html

“Francis Schaeffer” at http://prayerfoundation.org/books/book_r19.jpg

August 25, 2012 – 8:00 pm Categories: Francis Schaeffer | Comments (1)

Mark May at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 5

I always enjoy the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting and August 20th was better than I expected. Mark May did a great job. I thought his answer concerning Tennessee being a sleeper team was an excellent description of them. I have not heard many commentators talking about the Vols challenging for the SEC East conference title. However, they do have some very good receivers and a fine quarterback in Tyler Bray.

I also was surprised that David said he did not invite Mark Henry to speak till his son committed to be a Razorback. Maybe David is right but I thought the members of the LR Touchdown Club would be able to rise above that. Keith Jackson played at Oklahoma and he has been on the radio broadcast for years.

1:00 am – August 21, 2012

<:header>

May gets TD Club off to good start

By Harry King

Arkansas News Bureau

hking@arkansasnews.com

LITTLE ROCK — Decked out in shorts and a colorful button-down collar shirt, ESPN analyst Mark May dropped by a Little Rock radio station to talk a little football on Monday morning.

Off the air, there was a conversation about his blunt assessment of the Penn State mess and how his employer appreciated his honesty to the point of wanting May to weigh in on all things controversial in college football.

You know the man is candid when he tells several hundred football fans from Arkansas that if he had a son who was a top recruit, he would encourage the young man to go to Alabama and play for Nick Saban. He is the best at developing talent, May told the Little Rock Touchdown Club.

The Outland Trophy winner while at Pittsburgh, May was a good leadoff hitter for the TD Club. Before May was introduced, club president David Bazzel reviewed the lineup of speakers, including the interesting timing of UA coach John L. Smith on Sept. 24 and UA athletic director Jeff Long in mid-October. Smith will be 10 days post-Alabama and Long is up when Arkansas is halfway through its Southeastern Conference schedule.

May had high praise for Long, crediting the athletic director with putting UA football on the map nationally, for the way he handled the dismissal of Bobby Petrino, and for hiring Smith as a CEO to oversee the program. Asked about the next coach, May said “most of those big names, you can’t get them,” but that if Long zeroes in on somebody, he would pursue him like a “rabid dog.”

Tossing out names, May mentioned Cincinnati coach Butch Jones, Louisville coach Charlie Strong, Florida State defensive coordinator Mark Stoops, and Texas defensive coordinator Manny Diaz. At our table, Smith’s successor received more attention than the upcoming season.

On the 2012 season, May said what Razorback fans want to hear, that Arkansas has a “road to the national championship.” Whether they heard his preamble, who knows.

He said Petrino left the cupboard full, but that he wanted to see running back Knile Davis get hit before the season opener, that the defense is still a question mark, and that the Razorbacks needed big plays from special teams. May noted that Arkansas would be favored in nine games and said fans should make sure the atmosphere is raucous for Alabama and LSU in Fayetteville.

He did say that he believed Alabama would win the SEC, that the loss of Tyrann Mathieu would hurt LSU severely, and that USC is thin on defense and has a weak schedule.

May had some fun with Lou Holtz, his foil on “Final Verdict” with robe-wearing Rece Davis, including word that the bit is never rehearsed. Holtz gets ticked when he loses, particularly after his golfing buddies in Florida chide him about being outdone by May. “Have you ever been threatened by a 73-year-old?” May asked.

Bazzel got the jump on May, playing the tape of a phone message supposedly from Holtz. Bazzel’s former coach said he would have liked to have been in Little Rock for the meeting, but that he has a busy schedule. “Mark May doesn’t,” the caller said.

May did say he and Holtz would be putting in about 16 hours each Saturday since the Pac-12 has promised a 10:30 p.m. kickoff every week and that there is a wrapup show to follow.

May encouraged questions and picked Tennessee as a possible surprise in the SEC. He said he is not a big fan of the new four-team playoff in college football, pointing out that a team that goes through the rugged SEC must still win a conference championship game and a semifinal game to reach the title game while a team in the Big 12 has an advantage since there is no conference title game.

———-

Harry King is sports columnist for Stephens Media’s Arkansas News Bureau. His e-mail address is hking@arkansasnews.com.

Related posts:

August 25, 2012 – 10:07 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 130)

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 does the federal government have to take so much control of our lives? Back in 1929 the federal government spent 3% of GDP and now it spends 24.8%. Back then in 1929 there was 8.9% by State and local governments for a total of 11.9% and our freedom day was February 12th when we turn our attention to spending our money on the things we need. Now the government spends over 50% of our money and we don’t get our freedom day until sometime in July!!!

Milton Friedman on Tax Freedom Day

Posted by Chris Edwards

The Tax Foundation reported that Tuesday was Tax Freedom Day (TFD), which is the day that Americans stop “working for the government” through their tax payments and start working for themselves.

TFD is calculated by taking total federal, state, and local taxes and dividing by national income to get a ratio representing the share of income that the average person pays in all taxes. That ratio is applied to the 365-day calendar. This year the ratio is 29.2 percent, which translates into April 17 for TFD. Time to party!

But maybe not quite yet…

When I worked at Tax Foundation in 1993, I mailed a letter to Milton Friedman asking about his view on TFD. He kindly responded with a letter and a 1974 Newsweek article in which he proposed a “Personal Independence Day.” That day would be based on total government spending, which is larger than total taxes, and thus our day to celebrate freedom from the government hasn’t yet arrived this year.

In his letter to me, Friedman stressed that total spending is the important variable in assessing the burden of government: “If government spends an amount equal to 50 percent of the national income, only 50 percent is left to be available for private purposes, and that is true however the 50 percent that government spends is financed.” And while some economists focus on how government borrowing may “crowd out” private investment, Friedman said, “What does the crowding out is government spending, however financed, not government deficits.”

In its TFD report, Tax Foundation includes a supplemental calculation looking at spending. The thinktank figures that Americans will work until May 14 this year to be free from the burden of federal, state, and local spending. The Foundation is lacking a snappy name for that important day, but now we are reminded that Friedman has already suggested one.  

Friedman hoped that “Personal Independence Day” would complement our national Independence Day of July 4. The latter is the day we celebrate independence from the “Royal Brute of Britain,” as Tom Paine called him in Common Sense. But for Paine and the other Founders, the deeper goal of July 4, 1776 was to create a limited government to ensure the maximum space for the exercise of individual freedom. As Paine noted, private “society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.”

So Milton Friedman’s Personal Independence Day can be our annual reminder that while our forefathers gave the boot to the “crowned ruffians” of Old Europe, we’ve still got work to do in limiting the power grabbing of our own elected ruffians in Washington.

__________

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

____________

August 25, 2012 – 9:37 am Categories: Cato Institute, Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment