Advertisement

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 AM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234

How Do We Choose?

Sunday, August 28, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

In my men’s Bible Study this week we were discussing that scripture makes it plain one cannot be a serious Christian outside of a Christian community.  Proverbs 27:3 – “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”  But it goes deeper than just that – God is Trinity and therefore God is community.  If we are, in our Christian walk, to become more like God, we must somehow be more in community.  And yet, in my many decades of Christian life I have seen many, many very bad Christian communities – ones that destroyed peoples lives, not aided them.

The saying goes, “We are all sinners,” which is most true; there is no perfect Christian community.  At some point we must choose between one set of sinners and another; we must choose which particular set of sins we will associated with.  Somehow we have to decide that a specific community will, on average, help me move closer to God, even with its foibles and pratfalls.  How do we make such a decision?

A total answer is far too complex for a blog post, or even a series of blog posts.  There are so many personal and relational aspects that for any situation the answer can only be arrived at by individual counselling.  But there are some principles to help guide us towards a decision.  Among those principles is the fact that there are some sins worse than others.  Most of us, in a rush to grace and to emphasize that all of us need Christ, tend to lump all sin together.  And while that has theological validity, Christ did exhibit ethics.  He did treat some sins differently than others indicating that some sins are worse than others.  I think an examination of how Christ treated different sins can help in our decision making. Continue Reading

Advertisement

“Clinton Cash” Author Peter Schweizer On The Latest Clinton Foundation Revelations And His Relationship With Trump Campaign CEO Steve Bannon

Friday, August 26, 2016  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, joined me this AM:

Audio:

08-26hhs-schweizer

Transcript:

HH: Pleased to welcome back to the program Peter Schweizer. Hello, Peter, good morning to you.

PS: Hey, good morning, Hugh.

HH: Peter, you’re among the earliest investigators of the Clinton Foundation, the findings of which were detailed in Clinton Cash. I want to ask you about the revelations of the past two weeks, but first, what’s the relationship that you have with Steve Bannon?

PS: Well, Steven Bannon was a co-founder with me of the Government Accountability Institute, which has, so was launched in 2012 to look into crony capitalism and corruption. And we’ve done that by looking at both Republicans and Democrats. And you know, our stories have been picked up from everything from 60 Minutes to the New York Times.

HH: Now I don’t know Steve Bannon. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. I’m told he may have been on my show once in an election special, but I don’t recall. What’s your assessment of Mr. Bannon, who’s been the subject most recently of an excoriating set of remarks by Hillary Clinton yesterday?

PS: Yeah, I mean, I’ve known Steve for 12 years. We’ve done a couple of films together, and you know, look. Steve comes out of a background from the U.S. Navy, from Wall Street, from financing Hollywood films. He’s a tough guy. But any suggestions that you know, somehow he is racist or you know, is a bigot, is just outrageous and not true. And I know that from my friendship with him for 12 years. Continue Reading

The Ultimate Expression of Relativism

Wednesday, August 24, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

Quite accomplished and noted scientist Lord Kelvin said:

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be.

That is actually an argument about objectivity.  Measurement, numbers are standards.  You can measure a thing and I can measure a thing and we should arrive at the same number.  But even measurement can be subject to perceptual errors.  In school I spent hours learning how to read the meniscus in a buret to avoid perceptual errors in titration.  Until we measure and number a thing we do not know about a thing, we know what we know or what you know about a thing, but that is not the thing itself.  This sounds esoteric, but it is a vitally important distinction.

It applies also to political issues.  We all come with predetermined biases to reading news, but moreover, we all only can read so much.  We may both have facts about a situation, but unless we have all the facts the best we can claim is an opinion.

I thought about this when I read Scott Johnson at Powerline argue that we have the two worst presidential candidates in history.  I did not think about it because I disagree, but because I was thinking about how we got into such a pickle. Continue Reading

The Washington Post’s Rosalind Helderman On The Clinton Foundation

Wednesday, August 24, 2016  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The Washington Post’s Rosalind Helderman joined me this morning to discuss the Clinton Foundation:

Audio:

08-24hhs-helderman

Transcript:

HH: Rosalind Helderman is a political investigations and enterprise reporter for the Washington Post. You can follow her on Twitter, @PostRoz. Roz, welcome to the program, great to have you on this morning.

RH: Thanks for having me.

HH: You’ve done some reporting on the Clinton Foundation. It is a sizeable entity. I’m looking at the Charity Navigator summary of it at, it says its asset amount is $354 million dollars. What’s its overhead, Roz?

RH: So I can tell you that a different organization that also does sort of analysis of charities has found that they spend 89% of their money on their charitable cause. You know, there’s some discussion about this, because the amount that they spend in direct grants to other organizations is small, and a lot of private foundations, the way they work, is they collect money from one group and give it to another group. And so that’s a good way for a lot of organizations to look at sort of how much of their money they spend on charity. The Clinton Foundation, for all of its issues, and there are issues that are worth looking at, they work a little bit differently. They actually employ people on the ground through their charitable effort. So you have to look at the way they do it a little bit differently. And the sort of independent analysis by groups that do this for charities, you know, not connected to political figures has found it’s 89%. Continue Reading

Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Sierra Pacific Mortgage
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top