Open letter to President Obama (Part 125B)

Obama Calls GOP Budget Plan “Prescription for Decline”

Uploaded by on Apr 3, 2012

In a blistering attack on the House-Passed Republican budget Tuesday, President Obama called the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan a “Trojan Horse” and “a prescription for decline.” Judy Woodruff, Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the CATO Institute’s Daniel Mitchell discuss the GOP budget plan.

_______

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.

You were really hard on Paul Ryan for his plan, but your plan will NEVER LEAD TO A BALANCED BUDGET.

Obama’s And Paul Ryan’s Conflicting Budget Visions

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on April 6, 2012

This article appeared in Fiscal Times on April 6, 2012.

With his speech to news editors and executives this week, President Obama has made it clear that he plans to run a starkly ideological campaign, contrasting his vision for the future of the country with that of his Republican opponents. And, he plans to make the Republican budget, written by rising GOP star Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and embraced by presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, exhibit one in that contrast. It would be worthwhile therefore to actually compare that budget with the one proposed by the president.

Deficits and Debt
The president’s budget proposal would reduce future deficits — at least until 2018 — but would never achieve balance. By 2018, the president projects deficits to fall to only $575 billion. After that, they begin rising again, reaching $704 billion by 2022. Overall, the president’s budget would add an additional $6.7 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Paul Ryan does better when it comes to deficit reduction, but only because the president has set such a low bar. Unlike the president, Ryan would eventually balance the budget — but not until 2040 or so. He does, however, generally run much lower annual deficits than the president would, and adds $3.3 trillion less to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Obama and Ryan have presented two distinct visions of the future.

Over the longer-term, the differences are much more pronounced. By 2050, for instance, Ryan would be running a surplus equal to as much as 3 percent of GDP. The president’s budget, in contrast, projects that we would still face budget deficits in excess of 6 percent of GDP.

Government Spending
Neither President Obama nor Paul Ryan actually cuts government spending. Rather, both are playing the time-honored game of calling a reduction in the rate of increase a “cut.” Thus, the president would increase federal spending from $3.8 trillion in 2013 to $5.82 trillion in 2022. That might not be as big an increase there might otherwise be, but in no way can it be called a cut. Meanwhile, Ryan, who is being accused of “thinly veiled Social Darwinism,” would actually increase spending from $3.53 trillion in 2013 to $4.88 trillion in 2022.

The president warns that Ryan’s spending “cuts” would “gut” the social safety net. And, it is true that Ryan’s budget knife falls more heavily on domestic discretionary spending than does the president’s — but only relatively. Over the next 10 years, Ryan would spend $352 billion less on those programs than would Obama, an average of just $35.2 billion per year in additional cuts. Given that domestic discretionary spending under the president’s budget will total more than $4 trillion over the next decade, Ryan’s cuts look less than draconian.

One area where the president appears to have the better argument is on defense spending. Ryan would undo the defense spending sequester agreed to under last year’s debt-ceiling compromise, and would spend $203 billion more over 10 years than was agreed to. Obama would cut defense by an additional $240 billion. Given our budget problems and the lack of a conventional military threat, Ryan’s plan to spare defense seems shortsighted.

Taxes
The president would increase tax revenue to 20.1 percent of GDP. That’s a huge increase from the current 15.4 percent, and higher than the post-World War II average of 18 percent. His budget includes tax hikes on people and small businesses making as little as $200,000 per year, as well as the usual panoply of tax hikes on energy products, businesses, investment and pretty much anything else the president can think of.

The president also continues to push for the so-called Buffet Rule, a new 30 percent minimum tax on the rich, based on the misleading claim that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Buffett Rule would raise very little revenue — less than $3.2 billion per year on average according to the Congressional Budget Office — but the president is pushing it as a matter of fairness.

Ryan would also allow taxes to increase as a percentage of GDP, returning to roughly their historical average around 18 percent of GDP. However, he is also calling for a major reform of the U.S. tax code. Ryan would replace the current four tax rates with two: 15 and 25 percent. He would also lower the current 38 percent corporate tax rate, the world’s highest, to 25 percent. At the same time, he would broaden the taxable base by eliminating many current deductions and loopholes. Unfortunately, Ryan has ducked the unpopular task of actually spelling out which loopholes would be eliminated.

Entitlement Reform
Perhaps the biggest disagreement between the president and Ryan is over how to reform the entitlement programs that are driving this country toward bankruptcy. Ryan would restructure Medicare for those under age 55 to give recipients a choice between the traditional program and a voucher that would allow them to purchase private insurance. That plan, drafted together with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, would have little impact in the short-term — in 2022, it would spend just $21 billion less than the president’s budget — but over the longer term would reduce Medicare’s unfunded liability, which the Medicare trustees put at $24.6 trillion, by trillions of dollars.

The president makes no significant changes to Medicare, relying instead on expansion of changes contained in the new health care law to save a projected $364 billion over the next 10 years.

Ryan would also turn the current Medicaid program to the states in the form of a federal block grant, while reducing spending by $810 billion over 10 years. States would have far more freedom to experiment with ways to reform the system, but would likely receive less federal funds over the long term. Obama, by contrast, leaves the program unchanged, while significantly expanding eligibility under the health care law.

Unsurprisingly in an election year, both Ryan and the president punt on Social Security reform. Neither offers any reform of the troubled retirement system, despite its $21 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Two Visions
The United States is teetering on the edge of Greek-style bankruptcy. Our total indebtedness, including the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, could run as high as $130 trillion, more than 900 percent of GDP. In the face of this looming crisis, Obama and Ryan have presented two distinct visions of the future. The president offers a bigger government, paid for with more debt and higher taxes. Ryan’s vision may be maddeningly timid and vague in places, but it takes important steps toward a smaller, less costly, and less intrusive government.

If that’s the debate that President Obama wants to have, let’s do it.

____________

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 16, 2012 – 11:43 pm Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

President Obama:“do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” (Part 4 of David Barton’s response)

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6

David Barton provided an excellent response to President Obama’s assertion: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Here it is:

Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?

Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, 1 repeated it as a presidential candidate, 2 and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” 3 (He made that announcement in Turkey because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.” 4 ) Then preceding a subsequent trip to Egypt, he declared that America was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” 5 (even though the federal government’s own statistics show that less than one-percent of Americans are Muslims. 6

The President’s statements were publicized across the world but received little attention in the American media. Had they been carried here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation 7 and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statements.

Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

.

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court 31 and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 32

His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. 33

Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures. 34

Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison, agreed. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Brewer declared:

We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 35

Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” 36

Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation. He concluded:

[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37

Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country. 38

There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,” 39filled with “Christian people,” 40 and was indeed “a Christian nation.” 41Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements 42 but so, too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision]. 43

In addition to its “Christian nation” declarations, the Supreme Court also regularly relied on Christian principles as the basis of its rulings on issues such as marriage, citizenship, foreign affairs, and domestic treaties.

For example, when some federal territories attempted to introduce the practice of bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court disallowed those practices because:

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. 44

In another case, the Court similarly explained:

The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. 45

And when the issue arose of whether marriages made in foreign nations would be recognized in the United States, the federal court held that foreign marriages would be recognized only if they were not “contrary to the general view of Christendom.” 46

The Supreme Court also decided military service issues in accord with Christian principles and standards. For example, in 1931, when a Canadian immigrant refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Supreme Court explained why he was therefore excluded from citizenship:

We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But also we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption (and safely can proceed upon no other) that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God. 47

The Supreme Court also relied on Christian principles in its rulings on international policies. For example, if an American citizen living in a foreign land was accused of a crime under the laws of a fundamentally different nation (such as in Islamic nations, secular nations, and most recently in Japan following World War II), by means of international treaties, the U. S. citizen would be tried in front of the U. S. Consul in that nation (in what were called Consular Tribunals) rather than before the courts of that country. Of this practice, the Supreme Court explained:

In other than Christian countries, they [the Consuls] were by treaty stipulations usually clothed with authority to hear complaints against their countrymen and to sit in judgment upon them when charged with public offenses. . . . The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse [transactions] and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them [the Muslims] placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments to withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries. 48

For example, an Islamic nation might charge an American with the capital-offense crime of blasphemy merely because the American attended Christian worship or used a Bible in that country; or a secular nation might accuse an American of the crime of proselytizing simply for sharing his faith with another (currently a crime in France, 49 across India, 50 Pakistan,51 Saudi Arabia, 52 Malaysia, 53 and many other nations). In such cases, the Consul tried the offense under America’s laws as a Christian nation. However, if another nation accused an American of a crime such as murder, the charge would stand since murder was also a crime in our Christian nation. 54

The Supreme Court commended this position 55 and federal courts observed the policy until deep into the twentieth century, 56 when many foreign nations finally began to adopt what the Supreme Court had earlier called “a system of judicial procedure like that of Christian countries.” 57

Federal domestic treaties were yet another area in which the federal judiciary relied on Christian principles and standards. For example, by 1877 a number of disputes had arisen in which Indian lands were wrongly being taken for timber, minerals, and other resources. When those cases reached the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the occupancy rights of the tribes to the lands because:

It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . 58

The Court repeated this position on numerous subsequent occasions – as in 1903 when it reiterated:

[I]n decisions of this court, the Indian right of occupancy of tribal lands, whether declared in a treaty or otherwise created, has been stated to be sacred. . . . Thus. . . . “It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . ” 59

The Court’s position was subsequently enacted into federal statutory law in 1906, 60 and in 1955, the Supreme Court was still praising this position 61 – a position regularly cited by other courts for decades, 62 including in the late 1990s. 63

These are just a few examples of the literally hundreds of similar cases at both federal and state levels affirming that America is indeed a Christian nation.

31. “United States Founding Fathers,” Party of 1776 (at:http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/contents.html) (accessed on May 1, 2009). (Return)

32. Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. II, pp. 8, 92. (Return)

33. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States(Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), Vol. III, p. 724, § 1867. (Return)

34. B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic(Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 639. (Return)

35. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 12. (Return)

36. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 11. (Return)

37. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), pp. 40, 46. (Return)

38. “Breakfast in Washington,” Time, February 15, 1954 (at:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936197,00.html).(Return)

39. Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 126, 198 (1844). (Return)

40. U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931). (Return)

41. Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892).(Return)

42. See for example, Warren v. U.S., 177 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1949); U.S. v. Girouard, 149 F.2d 760 (1st Cir.1945); Steiner v. Darby, Parker v. Los Angeles County, 199 P.2d 429 (Cal. App. 2d Dist 1948); Vogel v. County of Los Angeles, 434 P.2d 961 (1967). (Return)

43. Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages with Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 6, 1947 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12746).(Return)

44. Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 341-344, 348 n. (1890). (Return)

45. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States 136 U.S. 1, 49 (1890). (Return)

46. U.S. ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, 12 F.2d 927 (E.D. La. 1925). (Return)

47. U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931). (Return)

48. Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 463 (1891). (Return)

49. Patrick Goodenough, “French Anti-Sect Law: Christian Lawyers Prepare for Action,” Center for Studies on New Religions, June 4, 2001 (at:http://www.cesnur.org/2001/fr_june01.htm).(Return)

50. “India ‘Anti-Conversion’ Law Takes Effect in Fifth State,” WorthyNews, May 2, 2008 (at: http://www.worthynews.com/1641-india-anti-conversion-law-takes-effect-in-fifth-state). See also “India ‘Anti-Conversion’ Law Considered in Karnataka,” Compass Direct News, March 2, 2009 (at:http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news〈=en=long&idelement=5829). Seven of India’s 28 states have passed an anti-conversion law (which has been implemented in 5) and one additional state has a law in process that has not yet been passed. (Return)

51. “Congressional Hearings on Anti-Conversion Laws this Friday,” Free Copts, April 6, 2006 (at: http://freecopts.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70).(Return)

52. Jerry Dykstra “A Leader in Religious Intolerance: In Saudi Arabia, conversion to Christianity is punishable by death,” Today’s Christian, July 1, 2006 (at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2006/004/11.53.html).(Return)

53. Jane Perlez “Once Muslim, Now Christian and Caught in the Courts,” New York Times, August 24, 2006 (at:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/asia/24malaysia.html?ex=1157083200&en=48413500adb50796&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS).(Return)

54. Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453 (1891). (Return)

55. See, for example, Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). (Return)

56. See, for example, U.S. v. Best, 76 F. Supp. 857 (D. Mass. 1948); U.S. v. Robertson, Court of Military Appeals (May 27, 1955); U.S. v. Tiede, 86 F.R.D. 227, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13805 (D. Berlin Mar. 14, 1979); and many others.(Return)

57. Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 480 (1891). (Return)

58. Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517, 525 (1877). (Return)

59. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565 (1903). See also the same language in Yankton Sioux Tribe of Indians v. U. S., 272 US 351 (1926); U. S. v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U.S. 494 (1900); Atlantic & P R Co v. Mingus, 165 U.S. 413 (1897); Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. Roberts, 152 U.S. 114 (1894); Buttz v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 119 U.S. 55 (1886). (Return)

60. “Act of April 26, 1906, Public Number 129,” Access Genealogy Indian Tribal Records (at:http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/laws/act_april_26_1906.htm) (accessed May 4, 2009). (Return)

61. Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). (Return)

62. Sioux Tribe of Indians v. U.S., 146 F. Supp. 229 (Ct. Cl. Nov. 7, 1956);Seminole Nation v. White, 224 F.2d 173 (10th Cir. 1955); U.S. v. Drumb, 152 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1946); Appeal of Brunt, 5 B.T.A. 134, 1926 WL 47 (October 21, 1926); Parr v. U.S., 153 F. 462 (D. Or. 1907). (Return)

63. Cohen v. Little Six, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. App. 1996). (Return)

August 16, 2012 – 11:41 pm Categories: David Barton, Founding Fathers | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 125)

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 did your stimulus idea  not work in 2009?

Keynesian Economics in a Cartoon

September 1, 2011 by Dan Mitchell

I’ve written extensively about the flaws of Keynesian economics, and I’ve even narrated a video on the flaws of Keynesian theory.

But this clever cartoon may be more effective than anything I’ve ever done.

If you like cartoons that teach economics, check out this gem. It’s not on Keynesianism, but it’s very good.

_______________

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 16, 2012 – 7:19 am Categories: President Obama | Post a comment

“Woody Allen Wednesdays” can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1

If you like Woody Allen films as much as I do then join me every Wednesday for another look the man and his movies. Below are some of the posts from the past:

“Woody Wednesday” How Allen’s film “Crimes and Misdemeanors makes the point that hell is necessary (jh 14)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]

According to Woody Allen Life is meaningless (Woody Wednesday)

Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]

“Midnight in Paris” wins academy award “Woody Wednesday”

Bananas (1971)    en cast ex-wife, Louise Lasser (the duo were married from 1966 to 1969), as his romantic lead in this quirky comedy. When asked why he chose to title the movie Bananas, Allen quipped, “Because there are no bananas in it.”  “Midnight in Paris” is one of Woody Allen best works. Woody Allen […]

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

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

Why am I obsessed with Woody Allen?

I guess the reason I have spent so much time on Woody Allen is because in so many films he discusses the big questions in life. His movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example. Check out my earlier post Nihilism can be seen in Woody Allen’s latest film “Midnight in Paris” . September (1987) The director […]

Woody Allen films and the issue of guilt (Woody Wednesday)

Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress Print In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. […]

“Midnight in Paris” has become Woody Allen’s most successful movie at box office (Woody Wednesdays)

The dvd sales of “Midnight in Paris” which went on sale in December have gone through the roof (look at the bottom of this post) and this summer we learned this fact below: ‘Midnight in Paris’ becomes Woody Allen’s all-time biggest hit. How the heck did that happen? by Owen Gleiberman Categories: Annie Hall, Bridesmaids, […]

Agnostic Allen notes, “The people who successfully delude themselves seem happier than the people who can’t” (Woody Wednesday)

Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham on Religion This article below makes we think of the lady tied to the Railroad in the Schaeffer video. Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism (Modern man sees no hope for the future and has deluded himself by appealing to nonreason to stay sane. Look at the example […]

Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham (Woody Wednesday)

A surprisingly civil discussion between evangelical Billy Graham and agnostic comedian Woody Allen. Skip to 2:00 in the video to hear Graham discuss premarital sex, to 4:30 to hear him respond to Allen’s question about the worst sin and to 7:55 for the comparison between accepting Christ and taking LSD. ___________________ The Christian Post > […]

“Woody Wednesday” Allen acts silly in 1971 interview (Part 4)

“Woody Wednesday” Allen acts silly in 1971 interview (Part 4) Woody Allen interview 1971 PART 4/4 Uploaded by captainvontrapp on Jul 21, 2008 Woody Allen interview from 1971, just after the worldwide release of ‘Bananas’ ________________________ David Mishkin God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen by David Mishkin March 1, 1993 This is an […]

 

August 16, 2012 – 1:02 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

There’s nothing nutty about a balanced-budget amendment
In fact, it makes a lot of sense
Thursday, July 21, 2011
By Dick Thornburgh

A late entry in the budget deficit-debt ceiling talkathon in Washington is increasing support for a constitutional requirement that the federal budget be balanced each and every year.

Doctrinaire liberals will no doubt characterize this proposal as a nutty one, but careful scrutiny of such an amendment to our Constitution demonstrates its potential to prevent future train wrecks in the budgeting process.

Coupled with a presidential line-item veto and separate capital budgeting (which differentiates investments from current outlays), a constitutional budget-balancing requirement makes sense. These tools already are available to most governors and state legislatures. And they work.

The current debate in the Congress will likely include the following arguments usually raised against a balanced-budget amendment.

First, it will be argued that the amendment would “clutter up” our basic document in a way contrary to the intention of the founding fathers.

This is clearly wrong. The framers of the Constitution contemplated that amendments would be necessary to keep it abreast of the times. It already has been amended on 27 occasions.

Moreover, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, one of the major preoccupations was how to liquidate the Revolutionary War debts of the states. Certainly, it would have been unthinkable to the framers that the federal government itself would systematically run at a deficit, decade after decade. Indeed, the Treasury did not begin to follow such a practice until the mid-1930s.

Second, critics will argue that the adoption of a balanced-budget amendment would not solve the deficit problem overnight.

This is correct, but begs the issue. Serious supporters of the amendment recognize that a phasing-in period of five or 10 years would be required to reach a zero deficit. During this interim period, however, budget makers would be disciplined to meet declining deficit targets in order to reach a balanced budget by the established deadline.

As pointed out by former Commerce Secretary Peter G. Peterson, such “steady progress toward eliminating the deficit will maintain investor confidence, keep long-term interest rates headed down and keep our economy growing.”

Third, it will be argued that such an amendment would require vast cuts in social services and entitlements or defense expenditures.

Not necessarily. True, these programs would have to be paid for on a current basis rather than heaped on the backs of upcoming generations. Certainly, difficult choices would have to be made about priorities and levels of program funding. But the very purpose of the amendment is to discipline the executive and legislative branches actually to debate these choices and not to propose or perpetuate vast spending programs without providing the revenues to fund them.

The amendment would, in effect, make the president and Congress fully accountable for their spending and taxing decisions, as they should be.

Fourth, critics will say that a balanced-budget amendment would prevent or hinder our capacity to respond to national defense or economic emergencies.

This concern is easy to counter. Any sensible amendment proposal would feature a “safety valve” to exempt deficits incurred in response to such emergencies, requiring, for example, a three-fifths “super majority” in both houses of Congress. Such action should, of course, be based on a finding that such an emergency actually exists.

Fifth, it will be said that a balanced-budget amendment would be “more loophole than law” and might be easily circumvented.

The experience of the states suggests otherwise. Balanced-budget requirements are now in effect in all but one of the 50 states and have served them well.

Moreover, the line-item veto, available to 43 governors, would assure that any specific congressional overruns (or loophole end-runs) could be dealt with by the president. The public’s outcry, the elective process and the courts would also provide backup restraint on any tendency to simply ignore a constitutional directive.

In the final analysis, most of the excuses raised for not enacting a constitutional mandate to balance the budget rest on a stated or implied preference for solving our deficit dilemma through the “political process” — that is to say, through responsible action by the president and Congress.

But that has been tried and found wanting, again and again.

Surely, this country is ready for a simple, clear and supreme directive that its elected officials fulfill their fiscal responsibilities. A constitutional amendment is the only instrument that will meet this need effectively. Years of experience at the state level argue persuasively in favor of such a step. Years of debate have produced no persuasive arguments against it.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson put it best:

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us down with perpetual debt.”

That is the aim of a balanced-budget amendment. Reform-minded members of Congress should choose to support such an amendment to our Constitution as a means of resolving future legislative crises and ending “credit card” government once and for all.

A nutty idea? Not by a long shot.

Dick Thornburgh, of counsel to the Pittsburgh law firm K&L Gates, is a former U.S. attorney general and governor of Pennsylvania.
First published on July 21, 2011 at 12:00 am
August 16, 2012 – 12:12 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Differing with Dan Mitchell on one point

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute wrote a very good article and I agree with most of it. However, I do take exception to just one part. He is right to get on to USA Today for calling this current Congress the most unproductive since they only passed 61 bills. Dan rightly pointed out that in the first two years of Obama’s term the Democratically controlled Congress turned out lots of law but they included some very bad laws like Obamacare.

How I differ with Mitchell on this one point. In 2011 the Republicans in Congress failed to block the debt ceiling proposal and only 66 brave Republicans in the House voted against it. As a result we have continued to run trillion dollar deficits which in my view (and Dan’s too) makes this Congress the dumbest and most unproductive ever. Dan has actually shown how government involvement in deficit spending can actually hinder economic growth. and Dan did an excellent video series on restraining spending in government and I have included the You Tube clips of those in this post.

Here below is a list of those 66 brave Republicans that voted against the debt ceiling increase listed below in August of 2011.

Full House roll call
By: Associated Press
August 1, 2011 08:46 PM EDT

The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure.

Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats – Sewell, Y.

Republicans – Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA

Republicans – Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats – Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Pastor, N.

Republicans – Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, Y; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats – Ross, Y.

Republicans – Crawford, Y; Griffin, Y; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats – Baca, X; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, N; Chu, N; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, N; Filner, N; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, N; Honda, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; McNerney, N; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N.

Republicans – Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats – DeGette, N; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans – Coffman, Y; Gardner, Y; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats – Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, N; Murphy, N.

DELAWARE

Democrats – Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats – Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans – Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.

GEORGIA

Democrats – Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, N; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans – Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, Y; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, Y.

HAWAII

Democrats – Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans – Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats – Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, N.

Republicans – Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, N; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, Y; Schilling, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA

Democrats – Carson, N; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans – Bucshon, Y; Burton, N; Pence, Y; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, Y.

IOWA

Democrats – Boswell, N; Braley, N; Loebsack, N.

Republicans – King, N; Latham, N.

 

KANSAS

Republicans – Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, Y; Pompeo, Y; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats – Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, N.

Republicans – Davis, N; Guthrie, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

LOUISIANA

Democrats – Richmond, Y.

Republicans – Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; Cassidy, Y; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats – Michaud, Y; Pingree, N.

MARYLAND

Democrats – Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, N; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans – Bartlett, Y; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats – Capuano, N; Frank, N; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats – Clarke, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, N.

Republicans – Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, Y.

MINNESOTA

Democrats – Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans – Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats – Thompson, N.

Republicans – Harper, Y; Nunnelee, Y; Palazzo, Y.

MISSOURI

Democrats – Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, N.

Republicans – Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hartzler, N; Long, Y; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA

Republicans – Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans – Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

NEVADA

Democrats – Berkley, Y.

Republicans – Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans – Bass, Y; Guinta, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats – Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans – Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

 

NEW MEXICO

Democrats – Heinrich, Y; Lujan, N.

Republicans – Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats – Ackerman, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, X; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, Y; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Tonko, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N.

Republicans – Buerkle, N; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Butterfield, N; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, N; Shuler, Y; Watt, N.

Republicans – Coble, Y; Ellmers, Y; Foxx, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Berg, Y.

OHIO

Democrats – Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.

Republicans – Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats – Boren, Y.

Republicans – Cole, Y; Lankford, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON

Democrats – Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans – Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats – Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, N; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans – Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats – Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Clyburn, Y.

Republicans – Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE

Democrats – Cohen, N; Cooper, Y.

Republicans – Black, Y; Blackburn, Y; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, Y; Fincher, Y; Fleischmann, N; Roe, Y.

TEXAS

Democrats – Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.

Republicans – Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH

Democrats – Matheson, Y.

Republicans – Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats – Welch, N.

VIRGINIA

Democrats – Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans – Cantor, Y; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, Y; Griffith, N; Hurt, Y; Rigell, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON

Democrats – Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans – Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats – Rahall, Y.

Republicans – Capito, Y; McKinley, Y.

WISCONSIN

Democrats – Baldwin, N; Kind, Y; Moore, X.

Republicans – Duffy, Y; Petri, Y; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y.

WYOMING

Republicans – Lummis, Y.

_____

Although this line is attributed to many people, Wikiquote says that Gideon Tucker was the first to warn us that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

This cartoon about Keynesian economics sort of makes the same point, but not with the same eloquence.

But that’s not the point of this post. Instead, I want to focus on this grossly misleading headline in USA Today: “This Congress could be least productive since 1947.”

I don’t think it’s a case of media bias or inaccuracy, as we saw with the AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, or the Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus.

But it does blindly assume that it is productive to impose more laws. Was it productive to enact Obamacare? What about the faux stimulus? Or the Dodd-Frank bailout bill?

Wouldn’t the headline be more accurate if it read, “This Congress could be least destructive since 1947″?

Here are the relevant parts of the USA Today report.

Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post World War II era. Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2% of all proposed laws, according to a USA TODAY analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk’s office. In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law. The only other year in which Congress failed to pass at least 125 laws was 1995. …When Democrats controlled both chambers during the 111th Congress, 258 laws were enacted in 2010 and 125 in 2009, including President Obama’s health care law.

To be sure, not all legislation is bad. Now that the Supreme Court has failed in its job, Congress would have to enact a law to repeal Obamacare. Laws also would need to be changed to reform entitlements, or adopt a flat tax.

And some laws are benign, such as the enactment of Dairy Goat Awareness Week or naming a federal courthouse.

But I’m guessing that the vast majority of substantive laws are bad for freedom and result in less prosperity.

So let’s cross our fingers that future Congresses are even less productive (and therefore less destructive) than the current one.

____________

Here is list from Wikipedia of the recent federal budgets:

August 15, 2012 – 10:54 pm Categories: Bill Clinton, Cato Institute, spending out of control, Uncategorized | Post a comment

Tagged |

Nellie Gray founder of March for life dies

I have been involved with the March for Life for almost 30 years here in Little Rock. My four kids and I  have walked in it on a regular basis in Little Rock and I have posted about it before on my blog www.thedailyhatch.org . When I first marched in it Ronald Reagan was the president and he wrote one of the best articles on the pro-life movement that I ever read. I have included below.

Nelly Gray passed away on August 13, 2012 and she started the March almost 40 years ago. I wanted to honor her today with this post. Please stand on the side of life!!!!!

Nellie Gray, Founder Of ‘March For Life,’ Dies

EnlargeRoger L. Wollenberg /UPI /LandovNellie Gray, president of the March for Life Fund, at the March for Life rally near the White House in 2004.

Nellie Gray, president of the March for Life Fund, at the March for Life rally near the White House in 2004.

Roger L. Wollenberg /UPI /LandovNellie Gray, president of the March for Life Fund, at the March for Life rally near the White House in 2004.

Nellie Gray, who in 1974 helped start the annual antiabortion demonstration in Washington called March for Life that attracts thousands to the nation’s capital, has died. She was 88.

According to The Washington Post, “Gene Ruane, a colleague, said that he found Miss Gray dead Monday in her Capitol Hill home and that the chief medical examiner will determine the cause and date of her death.”

National Review’s The Corner blog writes that:

“The March for Life is Nellie Gray’s main legacy. Many pro-lifers sometimes seem to take the annual March for granted, but the longevity of the March is actually a remarkable achievement. Some 39 years ago, pro-life activists felt a need to properly commemorate the first anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision. That is when the idea for the March for Life was born. Interestingly, there was no plan to repeat the first March, but when deciding what to do with the leftover funds, someone suggested hosting a March the next year. Before long, the March for Life was incorporated with Nellie Gray as president and became an annual tradition.

“Since then, the March has been a key contribution to the pro-life cause.”

The Associated Press says “Gray was a lawyer and former federal employee who devoted herself full-time to the anti-abortion movement after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. … [She] was the primary organizer of the march throughout its 38-year history. She used the phrase ‘no exceptions, no compromise’ to sum up her belief that life begins at conception and abortion should be illegal. At this year’s march, she referred to abortion as genocide and the Roe v. Wade decision as ‘an evil imposed upon our country.’ ”

The next March for Life is scheduled for Jan. 25, 2013.

 

Nellie Gray: ‘No one … can legalize even a little bit of abortion’

June 10, 2004, 10:30 a.m.
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. It ran in the Review‘s Spring 1983, issue and is reprinted here with permission.

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973 is a good time for us to pause and reflect. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation’s wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

As an act of “raw judicial power” (to use Justice White’s biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority inRoev. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead,Roe v. Wadehas become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: “. . . any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of “Baby Doe” in Bloomington because the child had Down’s Syndrome.

Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that “the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children.”

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion — efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of “freedom of choice,” have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

________________________________________________

I remember when President Carter and candidate Reagan debated in 1980 and the subject of abortion came up. Reagan said that if you were on a dusty area and you found someone laying down would you bury him without knowing for sure if he is alive or not? It is the same with the case of abortion.

Related posts:

Pro-life posts can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Uploaded by ProLifeOnCampus on Jan 29, 2011 The Miracle of Life by Valley Baptist Church of Bakersfield, California. _________ If you want to see some more great pro-life videos and articles then check out these links below: Kathy Ireland’s argument with Planned Parenthood over abortion February 24, 2012 – 6:54 am   Science Matters #2: Former […]

Ronald Reagan’s videos and pictures displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org

President Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton attending the Dinner Honoring the Nation’s Governors. 2/22/87. Ronald Reagan is my favorite president and I have devoted several hundred looking at his ideas. Take a look at these links below: President Reagan and Nancy Reagan attending “All Star Tribute to Dutch Reagan” at NBC Studios(from […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response (on abortion) April 16, 2012 (part 5)

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 April 16, 2011. First you will see my letter to him which was mailed around April 9th. […]

 

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 2)

Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Uploaded by ColsonCenter on Jan 31, 2012 Under Francis Schaeffer’s tutelage, Evangelicals like Chuck Colson learned to see life through the lens of a Christian worldview. Join Chuck as he celebrates a life well lived. ______________ Despite what the liberals like Max Brantley […]

Unborn babies lose out:Susan G. Komen reverses decison on Planned Parenthood

Richard Dawkins comments on Tim Tebow pro-life commercial. I am sad today because Susan G. Komen reversed their decision and will continue to supports Planned Parenthood which the USA’s largest abortion provider. The Arkansas Times Blog reported that the leader of Susan G. Komen apologized and explained that Planned Parenthood would be receiving funds from […]

Ron Paul’s Pro-life view

Ron Paul’s Pro-life view Ron Paul’s Pro-Life Speech in Ames, Iowa Uploaded by RonPaul2008dotcom on Aug 13, 2011 Free email updates: http://www.RonPaul.com/welcome.php Please like, share, subscribe & comment! http://www.RonPaul.com 08/13/2011– Ron Paul is America’s leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy. ___________________________________ Related posts: Crowd […]

Prolife March in Little Rock has 20 to 1 ratio more than abortion march of previous day

PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL Marchers arrive at the state Capitol on Sunday after beginning the Arkansas March for Life in downtown Little Rock As in the past, the pr0-life March in Little Rock had at least twenty times the people in attendance that the pr0-abortion march did the previous day. In fact, last year Channel […]

March for Life in Little Rock 2pm Jan 22, 2012

34th Annual March For Life Sunday, January 22, 2012 2:00 PM Capitol and Louisiana Downtown Little Rock Will your face appear in pictures at the next March for Life? We certainly hope that you will consider joining us each January for this important pro-life event. Hundreds of people from across the state make the annual […]

August 15, 2012 – 10:18 pm Categories: Prolife | Post a comment

Woody Allen films and the issue of guilt (Woody Wednesday)

Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt

Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress

In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. Actors flock to his projects just to have a chance to work with him. He is funny, creative, and philosophical in his musings about love, life, and death.

Woody Allen is an Oscar award-winning director and screenwriter. His latest film, “Match Point,” has garnered another screenwriting nomination for Allen from the Academy. And while industry buzz is growing behind “Crash” screenwriters Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco to win, Allen’s nomination is not a courtesy nod to an aging dinosaur. Most critics have hailed “Match Point” as Allen’s comeback film – a movie that demonstrates that Allen is still performing at the height of his powers. “Match Point” most closely resembles another of Allen’s Oscar-nominated films – 1990’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Comparing these two critically-acclaimed films shines a light not only on Woody Allen’s dark and cynical writer’s journey, but also on a culture that consistently chooses to honor his work.

Crimes and Misdemeanors – Sin and Struggle

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” is an odd morality tale. Judah Rosenthal is an ophthalmologist who has been carrying on an affair for over two years. When his mistress threatens to call his wife, he contracts to have her killed. Throughout the film, characters attempt to make sense of their moral universe. Judah struggles with his guilt and at one point seems so driven by his belief that he must be punished for his sin that he nearly decides to call the police to turn himself in. He is dissuaded by a veiled threat from his mob-connected brother Jack (who arranged the murder at Judah’s request). As time goes by, Judah finds that he is not punished – not by the secular authorities or by God. After a while, even the guilty feelings fade away. He decides that the idea that evil is always punished is only true in the movies. In real life, people get away with it. Judah pushes aside his guilt, returns to his privileged life and walks off, with his wife, into the sunset.

Allen comes down on the wrong side of the moral equation in “Crimes and Misdemeanors” because he is unwilling, or unable, to take into account the judgment of God in the world to come. His materialist-informed worldview discounts or denies that the reality of eternity is more significant than what happens in this life. What made the film noteworthy was its depiction of the moral struggle that people go through when they sin. What made the film chilling is the knowledge that the rationalism engaged in by Judah in the movie represents more than fiction. Psalms and Proverbs are full of pleas from weary saints who complain to God about the prosperous wicked. We cannot know the mind of God. Some sins are punished swiftly; others apparently are not punished at all in this life. But God declares that one day everything done is darkness will be revealed in the light (1 Corinthians 4-5).

Match Point – No Sin, Just Luck

Fifteen years later, Allen gives audiences “Match Point,” the story of Chris Wilton, a British social-climbing tennis pro who marries for money and prestige, but continues to lust after a poor American actress, Nola Rice, who is dating his future brother-in-law. The affair with Nola begins and ends before Chris’ marriage, but picks up again when Nola returns to England. What begins as animal attraction turns complicated as Nola begins pressuring Chris to leave his wife. Chris is torn between his feelings for Nola and the wealth, power, and privilege that he enjoys by being married to his wife, Chloe. Ultimately he determines that he must be rid of one of them. How best to do it while risking the least for himself? Kill one – but make it look like someone else did it. The audience is left guessing whether he will kill Nola, thereby covering his tracks and keeping his wife, or kill Chloe, inheriting her wealth and gaining the sympathy of her family, and then take up again with Nola. Once the deed is done, there is the crying and terror over the prospect of being found out and punished that must accompany any such act. But when word of the homicide appears in the paper, and the fictional motives that Chris hoped to plant are printed as if they are fact, Chris discovers that he has gotten away with it.

The theme of “Match Point” is hammered into the audience over and over again – the world runs on luck. From Chris’ tennis career, to his marriage to a rich and beautiful woman and into a paternalistic and helpful family, to plot twists involving incriminating evidence, everything just falls his way at crucial moments. And while some characters continue to extol the virtues of hard work and perseverance, Chris recognizes and, in the end, vocalizes that the best attribute to possess is good fortune. There is no justice; there is only the slim divide between being caught and getting away with it. No one is smart enough to cover all the bases, so in the end much of it comes down to luck. Chris has it; his victim did not.

Unlike “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” no great struggle over guilt and sin is played out on the screen. The only scene that looks remotely like remorse occurs right after the act. Beyond that, Chris merely lies to those he knows and stonewalls the police. He is like the boy who kills his parents and then begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan
– only in this case, he gets off.

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” could be rationalized as a depiction of one side of the sin debate – that sometimes the wicked prosper. The struggle for Judah’s soul is represented by his brothers: the mafia-connected Jack and Judah’s rabbi brother Ben. In this case, Ben loses, but there is, haunting the background, the idea that it could be otherwise. No such spiritual subtext exists in “Match Point.” Audience members can only get out of the film what they bring to it – it is a case brought before us for judgment.. Those who believe in a just God will find Chris to be a calculating killer who rightly needs to be punished. For those who enter the film believing that humans are merely animals seeking to satisfy drives with no true spiritual component; who believe that guilt only exists if you get caught; who believe (whether they know the source or not) that Nietzsche was right when he said that the hallmark of human existence is the will to power – Chris is a kind of hero. He got everything he wanted, succeeded in destroying those who stood in his way, and emerged unscathed because he was favored by a series of uncalculated quirks in the universe. No objection to such assessment is placed in anyone’s way.

The Weaving of Cultural Threads

Thomas Frentz, noted rhetorical critic, argues that by comparing products of our culture over time, we can begin to discern emerging moral patterns. Cultures, Frentz claims, are always moving toward, or away from, some optimal moral end state. If Frentz is right, then looking at these two similar films from Woody Allen can tell us a little about the state of moral struggle. I do not know whether Allen’s film intends to move us, or if it is merely a reflection of the culture as he sees it. Either way, what Allen appears to be saying is that we have moved beyond morals and simply must deal with what is. In his earlier film, Allen asserts that there is no objective moral lens through which to view the world – ignore morality and it will go away. Now he is saying that if you happen to share the world with people who still hold to the “myth” of morality, “hope you are lucky and then you can get away with it.”

But there is yet a ray of hope.

Anyone watching “Match Point” will come to the conclusion that Chris “got away with it.” The concept of “getting away with something” could not exist in a truly amoral world, because the term itself presupposes punishment. If no punishment is objectively due, then there is nothing from which to “get away.” The concept of escape only exists in a world in which something is pursuing. Even conventional laws implicate an overarching moral sensibility of right and wrong. My fear is not that Allen is predicting some evolutionary leap in moral thinking where all codes are abandoned, but that he is rightly illustrating a growing trend – the searing of the western conscience.
Marc T. Newman, PhD (marc@movieministry.com) is the president of MovieMinistry.com – an organization that provides sermon and teaching illustrations from popular film, and helps the Church use movies to reach out to others and connect with people.

Other posts concerning Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

What can we learn from Woody Allen Films?, August 1, 2011 – 6:30 am

Movie Review of “Midnight in Paris” lastest movie by Woody Allen, July 30, 2011 – 6:52 am

Leo Stein and sister Gertrude Stein’s salon is in the Woody Allen film “Midnight in Paris”, July 28, 2011 – 6:22 am

Great review on Midnight in Paris with talk about artists being disatisfied,July 27, 2011 – 6:20 am

Critical review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”, July 24, 2011 – 5:56 am

Not everyone liked “Midnight in Paris”, July 22, 2011 – 5:38 am

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years,July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am

August 15, 2012 – 7:52 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 124 B)

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY.

Uploaded by on Nov 4, 2011

A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, 1st AC Brian Andrews, Sound Mixer Gus Salazar, Written and Directed by Brian Stepanek. Help us spread the word by clicking ads or at www.debtlimitusa.org

_________________

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.

You are the President of the United States and you need to take the bull by the horns and cut some spending now!!!! I read some wise words by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) and I wanted to pass them on. He sees how dangerous it is to keep kicking the can down the street: “The Budget Control Act trades $21 billion in cuts next year for a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion. That’s one penny in cuts for each dollar of new debt. The bill does not seriously address the drivers of the federal government’s fiscal crisis. It does not improve entitlement programs. It does not include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted:

After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined.

We need some national statesmen (and ladies) who are willing to stop running up the nation’s credit card.

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 Justin Amash of Michigan. Last year I posted this below concerning his conservative views and his willingness to vote against the debt ceiling increase:

Amash Issues Statement After Debt Ceiling Vote

Representative Votes Against Budget Control Act
Aug 1, 2011 Issues: Spending and Debt
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 1, 2011
CONTACT
Will Adams
202.731.2294
will.adams@mail.house.gov

Amash Issues Statement After Debt Ceiling Vote

Representative Votes Against Budget Control Act

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) issued the following statement after the vote on the Budget Control Act of 2011:

“The Budget Control Act trades $21 billion in cuts next year for a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion. That’s one penny in cuts for each dollar of new debt. The bill does not seriously address the drivers of the federal government’s fiscal crisis. It does not improve entitlement programs. It does not include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I cannot in good conscience vote for so little reform when so much is at stake.

“I had hoped that Democrats and Republicans would work together to develop a reasonable compromise that is fiscally responsible. I would favor a package that combines eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies with a well-structured balanced budget amendment. I believe that type of package would have broad-based support from the American people. Instead, Congress continues to kick the can down the road.

“We can do better. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the next several months to adopt structural reforms that will put the government back on a sustainable path.”

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 15, 2012 – 7:49 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

Social Security time bomb

 

Liberals that say that Social Security is running fine don’t want to live in the real world but in a make-believe liberal world that doesn’t exist.

 

I don’t give the issue much attention on this blog, but I’m very interested in Social Security reform. I wrote my dissertation on Australia’s very successful system of personal retirement accounts, for instance, and I narrated this video on Social Security reform in the United States.

So I was very interested to see that the Associated Press put out a story warning about the dismal state of the program’s finances.

Here’s some of what the AP reported.

For nearly three decades Social Security produced big surpluses, collecting more in taxes from workers than it paid in benefits to retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children. The surpluses also helped mask the size of the budget deficit being generated by the rest of the federal government. Those days are over. Since 2010, Social Security has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes… The projected shortfall in 2033 is $623 billion, according to the trustees’ latest report. It reaches $1 trillion in 2045 and nearly $7 trillion in 2086, the end of a 75-year period used by Social Security’s number crunchers because it covers the retirement years of just about everyone working today. Add up 75 years’ worth of shortfalls and you get an astonishing figure: $134 trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $30.5 trillion in 2012 dollars, or eight times the size of this year’s entire federal budget.

First of all, kudos to the AP. I criticized them for a sloppy and biased report on poverty last month, so it behooves me to mention that their story on Social Security is mostly fair and accurate.

My only complaint is that the story does include some analysis of the Social Security Trust Fund, even though that supposed Fund is nothing but a pile of IOUs – money that one part of the government promises to give to another part of the government.

But let’s set that aside. Another interesting tidbit from the story is this quote from one of the kleptocrats at the American Association of Retired Persons. Note that he implicitly rules out any changes other than those that enable the government to “pay the benefits we promised.”  But that shouldn’t be a surprise. AARP is part of the left-wing coalition.

“I’m not suggesting we need to wait 20 years but we do have time to make changes to Social Security so that we can pay the benefits we promised,” said David Certner, AARP’s legislative policy director. “Let’s face it. Relative to a lot of other things right now, Social Security is in pretty good shape.”

But I will say that Mr. Certner is sort of correct about Social Security being in better shape than Medicare and Medicaid. But that’s like saying the guy with lung cancer who is 75 lbs overweight is in better shape than the two guys with brain tumors who are both 150 lbs overweight.

If you have to engage in fiscal triage, it would be smart to first address Medicare and Medicaid, but Social Security also needs reform. And not the kind of statist reform the folks at AARP would like to see.

By the way, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that President Obama’s approach is similar to the left-wingers at AARP. Here’s a video I narrated about his preferred policy.

It seems that the question doesn’t matter with this administration. The answer is always to impose more class-warfare tax policy.

P.S. If you need to be cheered up after reading this post, here’s a good cartoon showing the difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme, and here’s another cartoon showing what inspired Bernie Madoff to steal so much money.

.

 

August 14, 2012 – 10:25 pm Categories: Cato Institute, Social Security | Comments (2)