people think they saw the wise guy lucifer and by the way, lucifer according to martin luther and john calvin was not satan. in jewish theology and by the way, dinesh, you are wrong. you made a misstatement. saul alinsky was not an atheist. he was agnostic and a jew until his dying day. you say things that are not fac fac factually correct and confuse people. saul alinsky was a classical liberal in the british sense of john lock, adam smith, and the left has appropriated his identity and work. i will summarize you one photograph from rules for radicals but -- paragraph -- don't be fueled by the rules or people who may or may not have read it but are circulating garbage. it is not dedicated to lucifer. it was dedicated to his beloved then wife, irene alinksky. this was an epigram which david will talk about sandwiched in with other epigrams. david will talk about that. he never said the ends justify the means. read the chapter. he asks explicitly what ends justify what means? it is very nuance. what did saul alinsky really stand for? live for? spend his life dedicated? he lived an open life, d

alinsky, they saw the wiseguy lucifer epitaph, and by the way, lucifer according to martin luther and john calvinwas not satan. in jewish theology, by the way, dinesh, you are wrong. you made in this statement. saul alinsky was not an atheist. he was an agnostic and a jew to his dying day. you say these things. they are not factually based and you confuse people. the left, saul alinsky was one of us. he was a classical liberal in the british sense of john locke, adam smith, and the left has appropriated his identity and his work. which i will summarize with one paragraph from "rules for radicals" but don't be fooled by the excerpts of rules. don't be fooled by people who may or may not have read it but are circulating garbage. it's not dedicated to lucifer. it was dedicated to his beloved then wife, irene alinsky. this was an epigram an epigram which david will talk about sandwiched in with an epigram from rabbi hill and thomas paine. david will talk about that. he never said that the inns justify the means. read the chapter. he asked explicitly, what inns justify what means? it's very nuanced. a

the denominations and groups who followed john calvin in their thinking.d further, i want to suggest, it's tentative, but i think it's plausible that the congress intentionally calibrated its phrasing to the ears of reformed americans who collectively made up the largest religious constituency in the colonies in 1776. at least three quarters, possibly closer to 80%, 90% of americans at that time. thus, the declaration's religious clauses can bust be seen as examples of what i'm calling strateging piety on the part of the continental congress. careful modulation and arrangement of religious language which was no less sincere for its political futility. by the way, i say the congress and not jefferson, because jefferson's original draft contained only one, in fact, explicit -- bless you -- reference to the diety to nature's god. the other three were -- it's hard to tell the writing in the manuscript, but someone, either jefferson himself, or more likely franklin, thought a reference to the creation in jefferson's very first draft ought to be made explicit. j

divine providence evidently meant to witherspoon what it did mean to john calvin who used these wordsrovidence means not that god observes from heaven what takes place on earth but that he governs all events." so i want to pause here for a moment. we have i think a mistaken view we have i think a mistaken view of american deism or of american deism or providencism. providencism. we tend to think that we tend to think that protestants were in fact all dies, which is not true. they have in mind a clock maker thought or a watchmaker god who makes the world in the same way that a clock maker or watchmaker makes a watch in all of its intricate parts. and who in those days winds it up with a key, injects energy into the machine, in other words, and then takes the key out and puts it in his pocket and walks away. and the thing runs of itself. in fact, one of the great projects of the enlightenment was to invent a machine that would go of itself, a perpetual motion machine. they were optimistic this could happen. but this was not the view the american founders had and the authors of the decla

. >> mason: john dickerson, thank you very much. joining us now is dr. calvin butts. he's president of the state university of new york at old west bury, and pastor of new york's abyssinian baptist church. thank you for being with us. the president said yesterday that racist is evil. have his remarks today effectively undercut that? >> i think so. everyone believes that he's trying to avoid identifying the hatred and the level of vitriole in the country today. and his statements today in terms of trying to spread the blame, so to speak, did not realize ensure americans, most of them-- and i would encourage the president to pay attention to the polls-- that we should not be living in fear. everyone is afraid today. >> mason: is it possible to keep the country united with this kind of rhetoric? >> no, and that's the problem. coming from the bully pulpit of the white house, you have to speak to the sensibilities of this nation. we're not going to fight the civil war again, and we're not going to stand for the kind of hatred that we see tearing this country apart. and the

emerson had remarried a man named calvin chafy back in massachusetts and had transferred ownership from the scotts from herself to her brother johnsanford he was a resident of new york state. so the scotts were being held in bondage by a man who lived in another state, a free state to boot. so field thought that the strategy would be the scotts could sue sanford and take that to their residence. they lost in the federal court. but they appealed that case directly to the u.s. supreme court. and that was the case that was heard by the supreme court in 1856, and again in 1857 when they actually rendered their decision. it is is interesting that sanford, his name is on the case. and he doesn't come into it until 1854 when they go to the federal court. and sanford is a key player in that we know the scotts were returned to slavery by the supreme court. yet they were set free in this room just a couple of months later. and the way that happened was that sanford died in new york state. and upon his death the ownership of the scotts reverted to his sister. and technically to her husband, dr. chafy who was from massachusetts. he was an ab

john dickerson. thank you m >>> joining us is dr. calvin butz, president of the state university of new york at old westbury and pastor. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> the president said yesterday that racism is evil. have his remarks effectively undercut that? >> i think so. everyone believes that he is trying to avoid identifying the hatred and the level of vitriol in the country today. and his statements today, in terms of trying to spread the blame, so to speak, did not really ensure americans, most of them. i would encourage the president to pay attention to the polls, that we should not be living in fear. everyone is afraid today. >> is it possible to keep the country united? with this rhetoric? >> no. that's the problem. coming from the bully pulpit of the white house. you have to speak to the we are not going to fight the civil war again. we are not going to stand for the kind of hatred that we see tearing this country apart. and the president needs to tone it down. he needs to demonstrate that he can lead this nation. i

the age of 88, he enthusiastically accepted the invitation of coolidge's son john to join the advisory board of the new calvin coolidge memorial foundation and urged him to establish a coolidge presidential library. thus, the norms of politeness prevailed over full public disclosure of hoover's often tense relationship with calvin coolidge. and what more need now be set? political parties are alliances of the factions. only three times in the 20th century, 1908, 1928 and 1988, did an elected candidate of one party succeed in office and elected incumbent of the same party. such intraparty successions can be fraught with peril, for they entail the ascendancy of a new faction within the coalition. trouble can soon result. if calvin coolidge have been a younger man and less of an organization man, the republican party might have engaged in factional warfare in 1932 as it did in 1912 and 1992. and for some of the same reasons. the convoluted hoover-coolidge story illustrates something else. the republican party in the 1920's was no monolith. in the nuances of these two men's relationship, we can see in microcosm,

devine providence evidently meant to what it meant to john calvin. it means not that god idly observes from heaven but that he governs all events, closed quote. i want to pause here. we have a mistaken view of prove den shlism. we tend to think to that founders were first of all all di asst. they had a kind of clolk maker god. i'm sure you have heard this analogy or a watch maker god who makes the world in the same way that a clock maker makes a watch in all of its intricate parts and who winds it up with a key and injects energy into the machine and then takes the key out and puts it in his pocket and walks away. the thing runs of itself. in fact one of the great projects is to invent a machine that would go of itself. this is not the view that the american founders had and the authors of the declaration oif b independence had. for them godder into vee interv. it is an active god, a god who makes the world, a god who has concern with the world and who acts in it. and i tried to show it has a distinctly reformed cast to it. as i say, it evidently mea