Monthly Archives: June 2012

Should the 10 Commandments be banned from public life?(Part 5, David Barton’s Affidavit in support on 10 Commandments)

June 6, 2012 – 1:05 am

 

I read back on Dec 8, 2011 that Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, a social conservative advocacy organization, said in 2011 that President Obama has been “hostile” and “disdainful” toward Christianity. Rick Perry actually said President Obama had a war on religion. One of the most basic things that our founding fathers did is base our laws on the ten commandments. At the Supreme Court there is one depiction showing Moses sitting, holding two blank stone tablets. There is one depiction showing Moses standing holding one stone tablet. There are two stone tablets depicted with Roman Numbers I-X carved in the oak doors.

David Barton has studied the history of the founding of our country for many years and I wanted to share a portion of adocument he wrote concerning the 10 Commandments:
David Barton – 01/03/2001
(View the footnoted version on Liberty Council’s website)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LONDON DIVISION

SARAH DOE and THOMAS DOE, on behalf

of themselves and their minor child, JAN DOE

Plaintiffs,

v Civil Action No. 99-508

HARLAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT;

DON MUSSELMAN, in his official capacity

as Superintendent of the Harlan Country

School District,

Defendents.

______________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID BARTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF PARKER

HOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE EXPRESSED

IN CIVIL LAW IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Honor God’s name.

26. Civil laws enacted to observe this commandment were divided into two categories: laws prohibiting blasphemy and laws prohibiting swearing and profanity. Noah Webster, an American legislator and judge, affirms that both of these categories of laws were derived from the third commandment of the Decalogue:

When in obedience to the third commandment of the Decalogue you would avoid profane swearing, you are to remember that this alone is not a full compliance with the prohibition which [also] comprehends all irreverent words or actions and whatever tends to cast contempt on the Supreme Being or on His word and ordinances [i.e., blasphemy].

27. Reflecting the civil enactment of these two categories embodying the third commandment, a 1610 Virginia law declared:

2. That no man speak impiously or maliciously against the holy and blessed Trinity or any of the three persons . . . upon pain of death.

3. That no man blaspheme God’s holy name upon the pain of death.

28. A 1639 law of Connecticut similarly declared:

If any person shall blaspheme the name of God the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse in the like manner, he shall be put to death. Lev. 24.15, 16.

29. Similar laws can be found in Massachusetts in 1641, Connecticut in 1642, New Hampshire in 1680, Pennsylvania in 1682, 1700, and 1741, South Carolina in 1695, North Carolina in 1741, etc. Additionally, prominent Framers also enforced the Decalogue’s third command.

30. For example, Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued numerous military orders during the American Revolution that first prohibited swearing and then ordered an attendance on Divine worship, thus relating the prohibition against profanity to a religious duty. Typical of these orders, on July 4, 1775, Washington declared:

The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the army which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness; and in like manner requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine Service to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

31. Washington began issuing such orders to his troops as early as 1756 during the French and Indian War, and continued the practice throughout the American Revolution, issuing similar orders in 1776, 1777, 1778, etc.

32. This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Comments (0)

Charles Murray: Do we need the Dept of Education? (Part 2)

June 6, 2012 – 12:32 am

Another great article from Hillsdale College. Today we look at the Dept of Education. This is a three part series from Charles Murray. Here is part two:

January 2012

Charles Murray
American Enterprise Institute

Do We Need the Department of Education?

Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He received his B.A. in history at Harvard University and his Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has written for numerous newspapers and journals, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and National Review. His books include Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, What It Means to Be a Libertarian, and Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality. His new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, will be published at the end of January.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2011, at a conference on “Markets, Government, and the Common Good,” sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.

THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.

(Last time I covered part 1)

(2) Are there serious problems in education that can be solved only at the federal level?

The first major federal spending on education was triggered by the launch of the first space satellite, Sputnik, in the fall of 1957, which created a perception that the United States had fallen behind the Soviet Union in science and technology. The legislation was specifically designed to encourage more students to go into math and science, and its motivation is indicated by its title: The National Defense Education Act of 1958. But what really ensnared the federal government in education in the 1960s had its origins elsewhere—in civil rights. The Supreme Court declared segregation of the schools unconstitutional in 1954, but—notwithstanding a few highly publicized episodes such as the integration of Central High School in Little Rock and James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi—the pace of change in the next decade was glacial.

Was it necessary for the federal government to act? There is a strong argument for “yes,” especially in the case of K-12 education. Southern resistance to desegregation proved to be both stubborn and effective in the years following Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation of the schools had been declared unconstitutional, and constitutional rights were being violated on a massive scale. But the question at hand is whether we need a Department of Education now, and we have seen a typical evolution of policy. What could have been justified as a one-time, forceful effort to end violations of constitutional rights, lasting until the constitutional wrongs had been righted, was transmuted into a permanent government establishment. Subsequently, this establishment became more and more deeply involved in American education for purposes that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but instead with a broader goal of improving education.

The reason this came about is also intimately related to the civil rights movement. Over the same years that school segregation became a national issue, the disparities between black and white educational attainment and test scores came to public attention. When the push for President Johnson’s Great Society programs began in the mid-1960s, it was inevitable that the federal government would attempt to reduce black-white disparities, and it did so in 1965 with the passage of two landmark bills—the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act. The Department of Education didn’t come into being until 1980, but large-scale involvement of the federal government in education dates from 1965.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 10)

June 5, 2012 – 6:43 am

Tennessee Football – Johnny Majors – GREAT – Joining the VOLS in 1952

Uploaded by on Sep 3, 2010

Johnny Majors from Huntland, TN tried out for the UT Football team weighing 150 pounds. His Father, Shirley Majors his HS Coach,encourage him and then 4 younger brothers all to be Vols. Johnny Majors was the runner-up in 1956 for the Heisman Trophy to Paul Horning, on a loosing Notre Dame team. So much for Northern politics with writers.

Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country.

Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums  

By Alex Callos

(Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012 

When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in college football, and some teams have it way more than others.

There are 124 FBS college football teams, and when it comes to the stadiums they play in, they are obviously not all created equal.

There is a monumental difference from the top teams on the list to the bottom teams on the list. Either way, here it is: a complete ranking of the college football stadiums 1-124.

_________________

In 1980 I got to attend the Pitt Panthers at Tennessee game in Knoxville. Jackie Sherrill was the Panthers coach and Johnny Majors was the Vols coach. Johnny Majors had been hired away from Arkansas to be the head football coach at Iowa St and his assistants were Larry Lacewell, Jackie Sherrill and Jimmy Johnson.

A few months ago I posted this about Johnny Majors:

Today Johnny Majors spoke at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Majors told several revealing stories about his time at Arkansas from 1964-1968 when he was an assistant coach under Frank Broyles. One of the funniest stories concerned fellow assistant coach Jim MacKenzie who knew how to play Broyles at times according to Majors.

One such occasion the assistant coaches were being pressed into working long hours by Broyles during a time that Broyles thought he needed to see some progress with the team. Earlier the assistant coaches had been allowed to leave at noon and go fishing or play golf when the razorbacks had been winning almost all their games.

It was in July and Majors and some of the other coaches wanted to go play golf. Coach Broyles came into the room and asked how things were going. Coach MacKenzie asked Broyles what were the shots Broyles had on the first hole on Augusta when he got that 72. Broyles went to the chalk board and erased the plays and began to draw the placement of the ball on the first hole as he outlined the birdie he got .

By the time Broyles recalled the first 5 holes, he put down the chalk and said that it appeared we were all caught up around here and we should go play some golf!!!!

54. Mountaineer Field: West Virginia Mountaineers

250px-wvu_opening_game_mountaineer_field_display_image

Morgantown is a great college town, and even though the stadium only technically seats 60,000, there has been more than 70,000 at a home game before.

For the past 40 years, they have played John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads” at every home game. The fans here are a little rowdier than most other places in the country as well.

While loud is one word to describe the fans, hostile may be an even better adjective. A trip here is certainly a unique experience for anyone.

 

53. Boone Pickens Stadium: Oklahoma State Cowboys

71711_original_display_image

Boone Pickens Stadium has been around since 1920 and was known as Lewis Field from 1913-1920. The capacity here is right at 60,000, and over the past 10 years, there have been a lot of renovations that have this place up to date.

There is an extremely large student section here, and they are known to hit the stadium walls with large sticks, creating quite a loud environment.

A lot of traditions take place here, from the O-S-U- chant started by a gunshot from Pistol Pete to a wave every time there is a Cowboys touchdown.

 

52. Lane Stadium: Virginia Tech Hokies

250px-lane_upperstands_display_image

This stadium has more of an old school feel, as nearly all of the fans sit on bleachers in the 66,233-seat facility.

It was built in 1965, and there are a few luxury press boxes that have since been added, but for the most part, this stadium is filled with loud fans sitting on bleachers.

The fans here always show up now matter how good the Hokies are, and they are one of the loudest groups in the ACC.

 

51. Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium: Oklahoma Sooners

Aerial_display_image

There is a lot of history and tradition as far as this football program goes, and they have an old stadium to go along with that history.

Originally built in 1925, this stadium now seats 82,112 people and is always filled to capacity.

Tailgating here is some of the best in the country, and The Pride of Oklahoma marching band leads fans into the stadium.

This is a true college football experience.

 

50. Heinz Field: Pittsburgh Panthers

Heinz_580_display_image

Many people know Heinz Field as being the home of the Pittsburgh Steelers, but this new stadium also plays home to the Pittsburgh Panthers.

Located in downtown Pittsburgh and built in 2001, this stadium seats 65,050 people, and while it is always filled on Sundays, that is not the case every Saturday.

They still do turn out to support their Panthers, particularly when they are winning. With everything fully updated and not a bad seat in the house, this is a great place to watch any type of football game.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Canada’s conservative government has them heading the right direction

June 5, 2012 – 6:39 am

If we cut spending and balance our budget and enact pro-market reforms then our economy would boom too.  

______________

Those Sneaky Canadians Are Overtaking the United States

May 30, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

I’m not quite ready to trade places with Canada, but it may just be a matter of time. Like Germany and Sweden, they seem to be slowly but surely trying to move in the right direction.

I’ve already commented on good Canadian fiscal policy (including a much-needed lesson for Paul Krugman), and I’ve also praised our northern neighbors for privatizing their air traffic control system and opposing global bank taxes.

But I’ve just been skating along the surface. My Cato colleague Chris Edwards (a Canadian transplant) has just written up a report with some of the key details.

Two decades ago Canada suffered a deep recession and teetered on the brink of a debt crisis caused by rising government spending. The Wall Street Journalsaid that growing debt was making Canada an “honorary member of the third world” with the “northern peso” as its currency. But Canada reversed course and cut spending, balanced its budget, and enacted various pro-market reforms. The economy boomed, unemployment plunged, and the formerly weak Canadian dollar soared to reach parity with the U.S. dollar. …[In] the early 1990s combined federal, provincial, and local spending peaked at more than half of gross domestic product (GDP). In the 1993 elections, Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s Liberals gained power promising fiscal restraint, but this was the party of Trudeau, and so major reforms seemed unlikely. In the first Liberal budget in 1994, Finance Minister Paul Martin provided some modest spending restraint. But in his second budget in 1995, he began serious cutting. In just two years, total noninterest spending fell by 10 percent, which would be like the U.S. Congress chopping $340 billion from this year’s noninterest federal spending of $3.4 trillion. When U.S. policymakers talk about “cutting” spending, they usually mean reducing spending growth rates, but the Canadians actually spent less when they reformed their budget in the 1990s. The Canadian government cut defense, unemployment insurance, transportation, business subsidies, aid to provincial governments, and many other items. After the first two years of cuts, the government held spending growth to about 2 percent for the next three years. With this restraint, federal spending as a share of GDP plunged from 22 percent in 1995 to 17 percent by 2000. The spending share kept falling during the 2000s to reach 15 percent by 2006, which was the lowest level since the 1940s. …The spending reforms of the 1990s allowed the Canadian federal government to balance its budget every year between 1998 and 2008. The government’s debt plunged from 68 percent of GDP in 1995 to just 34 percent today.

Total government spending, including sub-national units such as states and provinces, is still slightly higher in Canada than in the United States. But I suspect that will change within the next five years.

Not surprisingly, good spending policy leads to good tax policy, as Chris explains.

a slimmed-down Canadian government under the Liberals enjoyed large budget surpluses and pursued an array of tax cuts. The Conservatives continued cutting after they assumed power in 2006. During the 2000s the top capital gains tax rate was cut to 14.5 percent, special “capital taxes” on businesses were mainly abolished, income taxes were trimmed, and income tax brackets were fully indexed for inflation. Another reform was the creation of Tax-Free Savings Accounts, which are like Roth IRAs in the United States, except more flexible. The most dramatic cuts were to corporate taxes. The federal corporate tax rate was cut from 29 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2012. Most provinces also trimmed their corporate taxes, so that the overall average rate in Canada is just 27 percent today. By contrast, the average U.S. federal-state rate is 40 percent. …Canada’s federal corporate tax rate has been cut from 38 percent in the early 1980s to just 15 percent today. Despite the much lower rate, tax revenues have not declined. Indeed, corporate tax revenues averaged 2.1 percent of GDP during the 1980s and a slightly higher 2.3 percent during the 2000s.

The Laffer Curve effect of higher tax revenue shouldn’t be surprising, though American policymakers still operate in a fantasy world where taxes are assumed to have no impact on the economy and no impact on taxable income.

But that’s a secondary point. The main lesson of this research by Chris is that it is both possible and desirable to shrink the burden of government spending.

And it’s not just Canada that has done the right thing. This video outlines past reforms in Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand as well.

P.S. Other than the cold weather, another reason why I don’t quite yet want to trade places with Canada is the government-run healthcare system. Right now, high-ranking politicians from the frozen wastelands can escape to America when they fall ill. If we copy Canada (and we’re already pretty far down that path), then where will we be able to go to get high-quality and cutting-edge care?

P.P.S. The Canadians aren’t know for having a sense of humor, but the person who wrote this parody about emigrating American leftists definitely has a good sense of humor.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute | Tagged | Comments (0)

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 7)

June 5, 2012 – 6:31 am

I am hoping that we start to respect the lives of the unborn in the USA in the future more than we have in the past.

The Bible and Abortion: A Biblical View of Abortion

 

THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- IntroductionAbortion (as a medical procedure) is never mentioned in the Bible. So that must mean that the Bible has nothing relevant to say on the subject, Right?  THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- What Does the Bible Say?Abortion is one of the most critical issues of our generation. Christians need to consider carefully what the Bible has to say on the subject.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- The Bible Condemns MurderFirst of all, the Bible clearly condemns murder, and by murder I don’t mean all killing. The Bible obviously allows animals to be killed, accidental killing of human beings is not condemned, and human beings may, in fact, be deliberately killed if they’ve committed a capital offense. You see the real issue is murder not killing, and murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- Is Abortion Murder?So once again the question, is abortion murder?  First of all, abortion certainly kills something: because obviously the fetus is a living organism, biologically distinct from the mother. The fetus also is certainly innocent — no one aborts a fetus because of something the fetus has supposedly done. And, with the exception of abortion to save the mother’s life, abortion is always done with the clear intent of killing the fetus. Therefore, the question of whether abortion is murder turns entirely on whether the fetus is or is not a human being.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- A Fetus Is a Human BeingNumerous philosophers and scientists have shown conclusively that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. In addition, the Bible, which ought to be our first authority, supports the very same conclusion. For example, in Psalm 51 David confesses that he was a sinner by nature from his very conception in the womb (Psa. 51:5).THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- ConclusionThe conclusion is this: abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it has to be regarded as murder. The only exception, as I have already indicated, would be in cases where the child must be aborted or the mother will die.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- Abortion is MurderIn short, while the Bible does not mention abortion specifically, it is clear by implication that abortion is murder. And don’t forget that Psalm 139 tells us that God created our inmost being, He knit us together in our mother’s womb and that all the days ordained for us were written in his book before even one of them came to be.On the Bible and abortion, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

March 17th, 2009 by CRI | Type: Standard

Filed Under: Current Events and Christianity, Perspectives

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Comments (0)

Andy Roddick has impressive stats “Tennis Tuesday”

June 5, 2012 – 1:04 am

Juan Carlos Ferrero vs Andy Roddick Final US Open 2003 Highlights Pt. 1

Andy has some impressive stats:

Serve records:

  • Fastest serve in Australian open: 148 mph .
  • Fastest serve in Dubai: 150 mph.
  • Fastest average in first serve: 134 mph.
  • Fastest serve in Beijing: 148 mph.
  • Fastest serve in San Jose: 150 mph.
  • Fastest serve in Madrid: 151 mph.
  • Fastest serve in Washington: 151 mph.
  • Fastest serve in Queens :153 mph.
  • Fastest serve in Lyon: 142 mph.
  • Fastest serve in Roland Garros: 144 mph (2006–2010).
  • Fastest serve in Wimbledon: 143 mph (2011)

[edit] Records and achievements

Tournament 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 SR W–L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open A A 2R SF QF SF 4R SF 3R SF QF 4R 2R 0 / 11 38–11
French Open A 3R 1R 1R 2R 2R 1R 1R A 4R 3R A   0 / 9 9–9
Wimbledon A 3R 3R SF F F 3R QF 2R F 4R 3R   0 / 11 39–11
US Open 1R QF QF W QF 1R F QF QF 3R 2R QF   1 / 12 40–11
SR 0 / 1 0 / 3 0 / 4 1 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 3 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 3 0 / 1 1 / 43  
Win–Loss 0–1 8–3 7–4 17–3 15–4 12–4 11–4 13–4 7–3 16–4 10–4 9–3 1–1   126–42
  • These records were attained in Open Era of tennis.
Championship Years Record accomplished Player tied
Wimbledon 2009 39 games won in a Grand Slam final Stands alone
ATP World Tour 2000–12 176 tiebreaks lost[46] Stands alone
ATP World Tour 2000–12 469 tiebreaks played[46] Stands alone
ATP World Tour 2007 18 consecutive tie-breaks won Stands alone
US Open 2004 Fastest serve in a Grand Slam tournament (152 mph) Stands alone

[edit] Major finals

[edit] Grand Slam finals

[edit] Singles: 5 (1–4)

Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent in the final Score in the final
Winner 2003 US Open Hard Spain Juan Carlos Ferrero 6–3, 7–6(7–2), 6–3
Runner-up 2004 Wimbledon Grass Switzerland Roger Federer 6–4, 5–7, 6–7(3–7), 4–6
Runner-up 2005 Wimbledon Grass Switzerland Roger Federer 2–6, 6–7(2–7), 4–6
Runner-up 2006 US Open Hard Switzerland Roger Federer 2–6, 6–4, 5–7, 1–6
Runner-up 2009 Wimbledon Grass Switzerland Roger Federer 7–5, 6–7(6–8), 6–7(5–7), 6–3, 14–16

[edit]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Should the 10 Commandments be banned from public life?(Part 4, David Barton’s Affidavit in support on 10 Commandments)

June 5, 2012 – 1:00 am

 

I read back on Dec 8, 2011 that Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, a social conservative advocacy organization, said in 2011 that President Obama has been “hostile” and “disdainful” toward Christianity. Rick Perry actually said President Obama had a war on religion. One of the most basic things that our founding fathers did is base our laws on the ten commandments. At the Supreme Court there is one depiction showing Moses sitting, holding two blank stone tablets. There is one depiction showing Moses standing holding one stone tablet. There are two stone tablets depicted with Roman Numbers I-X carved in the oak doors.

David Barton has studied the history of the founding of our country for many years and I wanted to share a portion of adocument he wrote concerning the 10 Commandments:
David Barton – 01/03/2001
(View the footnoted version on Liberty Council’s website)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LONDON DIVISION

SARAH DOE and THOMAS DOE, on behalf

of themselves and their minor child, JAN DOE

Plaintiffs,

v Civil Action No. 99-508

HARLAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT;

DON MUSSELMAN, in his official capacity

as Superintendent of the Harlan Country

School District,

Defendents.

______________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID BARTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF PARKER

HOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE EXPRESSED

IN CIVIL LAW IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Have no other gods.

20. This first commandment of the Decalogue is incorporated into the very first written code of laws enacted in America, those of the Virginia Colony. In 1610, in a law enacted by the Colony leaders, it was declared:

[S]ince we owe our highest and supreme duty, our greatest and all our allegiance to Him from whom all power and authority is derived, and flows as from the first and only fountain, and being especially soldiers impressed in this sacred cause, we must alone expect our success from Him who is only the blesser of all good attempts, the King of kings, the Commander of commanders, and Lord of hosts, I do strictly command and charge all Captains and Officers of what quality or nature soever, whether commanders in the field, or in town or towns, forts or fortresses, to have a care that the Almighty God be duly and daily served, and that they call upon their people to hear sermons, as that also they diligently frequent morning and evening prayer themselves by their own example and daily life and duties herein, encouraging others thereunto.

21. A subsequent 1641 Massachusetts legal code also incorporated the thrust of this command of the Decalogue into its statutes. Significantly, the very first law in that State code was based on the very first command of the Decalogue, declaring:

1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Deut. 13.6, 10, Deut. 17.2, 6, Ex. 22.20.

22. The 1642 Connecticut law code also made this command of the Decalogue its first civil law, declaring:

1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death (Duet. 13.6 and 17.2, Ex. 22.20).

23. There are numerous other examples affirming that the first commandment of the Decalogue indeed formed an historical part of American civil law.

Have no idols.

24. Typical of the civil laws prohibiting idolatry was a 1680 New Hampshire idolatry law that declared:

Idolatry. It is enacted by ye Assembly and ye authority thereof, yet if any person having had the knowledge of the true God openly and manifestly have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Ex. 22.20, Deut. 13.6 and 10.

25. Additional examples from colonial codes demonstrate that the second commandment also was historically a part of American civil law.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Comments (0)

Charles Murray: Do we need the Dept of Education? (Part 1)

June 5, 2012 – 12:30 am

Another great article from Hillsdale College. Today we look at the Dept of Education. This is a three part series from Charles Murray. Here is part one:

January 2012

Charles Murray
American Enterprise Institute

Do We Need the Department of Education?

Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He received his B.A. in history at Harvard University and his Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has written for numerous newspapers and journals, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and National Review. His books include Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, What It Means to Be a Libertarian, and Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality. His new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, will be published at the end of January.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2011, at a conference on “Markets, Government, and the Common Good,” sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.

THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.

(1) Is the Department of Education constitutional?

At the time the Constitution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government. But the shakiness of the Department of Education’s constitutionality goes beyond that. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate. Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause. I’m sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.

On a more philosophical level, the framers of America’s limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity. In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do. Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.

I should be explicit about my own animus in this regard. I don’t think the Department of Education is constitutionally legitimate, let alone appropriate. I would favor abolishing it even if, on a pragmatic level, it had improved American education. But I am in a small minority on that point, so let’s move on to the pragmatic questions.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

“The Failure of Socialism” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

June 4, 2012 – 1:59 pm

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full)

Published on Mar 19, 2012 by

Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done.

Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
 

Ronald Reagan: In 1980, a friend of mine did something of rare importance that some historians might miss. Dr. Milton Friedman, a scientist, a careful thinker, and a great teacher first presented his TV series Free to Choose. His TV series was about choices, risks, freedom, equality, and making a better future for all of us.

In 1976, the 200th birth of our nation, Milton Friedman won the Nobel Peace Prize in economics. Two hundred years earlier, in the same year as the Declaration of Independence, Adam Smith, the Scotsman, published a book entitled The Wealth Of Nations. The United States was the first country to apply the ideas in Adam Smith’s book. Those ideas have led to our prosperity and given us our freedom.

In Free to Choose, Milton Friedman shows us how those ideas can help us today. In this program, Milton and his wife Rose, take us on a brief tour of Eastern Europe. They wanted to see if the Czechs, Hungarians and Poles were taking the steps needed to achieve prosperity and a lasting freedom. In fact, a member of the Polish Parliament has said that Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose was a major influence on the Polish drive for freedom.

I find it exciting to watch the rebirth of freedom in Eastern Europe. Being free to choose should be every person’s birthright. Everywhere in the world, and especially here in the United States, we need to keep government on the sidelines. Let the people develop their own skills, solve their own problems, better their own lives. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to call Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.

Friedman: Those are the parliament buildings. This is the river Danube and I am in Budapest, the capitol of Hungary. Over there somewhere is Czechoslovakia, over there Poland, and farther away yet, the Soviet Union. Socialist states that started out with the very best of intentions, intending only to improve the lots of their citizens, they all ended up making the people poor, miserable and into slaves. And every one of them has been learning that lesson that socialism is a failure. They are all trying to move in the direction of a free, private market.

What happened here in Eastern Europe was a major event. The first time in history that the totalitarian countries decided to move toward free markets. Will they succeed? That is a question that brought my wife Rose and me here. As economists, we wanted to witness the most exciting experiment in political and economic organization that is likely to occur in our lifetime.

In the center of Prague, there is a famous cafe, a relic from the days when Czechoslovakia was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Today, we find only faded elegance, a pale echo of a productive past that was created by market incentives. What happened? Communist central control __ that is what happened. The same culture, the same people, the same resources who wanted different outcomes of vastly lower standard of living, the result of substituting orders from the top for incentives from below. Who says economic institutions don’t matter?

A year ago, right outside that cafe, hundreds of thousands of Czechs massed in Wensisloss Square to demand their freedom. This is where it all happened. In three days they got political freedom. The hopes were high. They thought economic miracles would follow quickly. Yet now it is a year later and almost nothing has happened. Political freedom can be achieved rapidly; economic freedom and prosperity is a very different thing. That’s what is beginning to dawn on these people. In reality they are not yet free. They are still the victims of thousands of controls the communists put in place.

If the newly elected governments are going to keep the support of the people, they must give them real freedom and they’ve got to do it fast. That was the secret of Margaret Thatcher’s success in England. She had a well worked out program and she put it into effect right after coming into office. It was the secret of Ronald Reagan’s program. On the other hand, Manahem Began in Israel came in without any plans whatsoever, and he ended up a failure. If Czechoslovakia is going to achieve the objectives of its revolution, it must move rapidly to put into effect the economic institutions which alone can convert political freedom into economic and human freedom. Those institutions are the institutions of free, private markets.

There are examples all over the place of both the opportunities and the problems. Yuri Malick wants to publish a magazine for people who are trying to set up their own private businesses in Czechoslovakia. He runs it from his living room. It’s a small family enterprise. The magazine is packed with information for would-be businessmen on how to thread their way through the jungle of bureaucratic regulations that still exist. The irony is that some of those very regulations are preventing him from getting his business off the ground. For a start, he needs to obtain 15 separate government licenses before he can distribute the magazine. After nearly a year, he still hasn’t got them. He has had to come here again and again to this government licensing bureau to try to persuade a bureaucrat to allow him to do business.

Yet again, it’s not his lucky day. Yuri Malick doesn’t give in easily, but things are not looking too hopeful. The man he has got to see is not available and no one else is interested in his problem. The Cheque government owns all the newsstands, the book shops, the nationwide distribution system which is controlled from here. There is one way, and only one way, to put an end to all this nonsense, the government must get out of business and stay out. It must transfer these assets into private hands.

These are the kinds of forms you have to fill out in this country in a place like that if you want to start a business or get anything done. But if you think that only happens here, tell me when was the last time you stood in line to get a driver’s license or a registration plate, or do you know anybody in Britain, France, Germany or the United States who has built a house sometime in the last 10 years. Ask him what he went through.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan | Comments (0)

“Razorback” name because it sounded intimidating

June 4, 2012 – 11:06 am

Uploaded by on Jul 21, 2009

Arkansas held a celebration on Dickson Street in Fayetteville to commemorate the start of the 100th year of the school’s Razorbacks mascot on July 21. Coaches, administrators and even a Hugo Bezdek impersonator, were on hand at the event. The Razorbacks debuted a historical maker near the old train station on Dickson Street, where Bezdek called the Arkansas Cardinals a “wild bunch of razorback hogs” after they defeated LSU 16-0 on Nov. 13, 1909. Just this week I saw the Hatfields and McCoys on the History Channel and they got in a fight over the ownership of a “razorback hog.”

_________________

Most college football teams are named after animals but all of them. Tennessee is named after the state nickname as other some other teams.  Why the name “Razorback” chosen for Arkansas. Hugo Bezdek tells us why below.

Facts About College Football Team Names

By: Maeve RichCollege football team names are unique, ranging from the Hurricanes to the Corn Huskers to the Buckeyes. Sometimes the origin of college football team names is uncertain; other times a lively explanation accompanies the team’s name.One of college football’s most popular and a widely recognized team is the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. There are a few theories as to where the name came from, but the most widely accepted explanation is that the press labeled Notre Dame’s team based on Irish stereotypes as well as the toughness and tenacity of the legendary Coach Knut Rockne’s teams. Other teams have taken on the name of popular stereotypes as well as local professions and Native American peoples. The Nebraska Corn Huskers are named as a nod to the well-known local crop and those that work on the farms. The Florida State Seminoles, though a bit controversial, were named after the Native American tribe that lived in and around the Tallahassee area. The Oklahoma Sooners’ nickname is a reference to the Oklahoma settlers who staked a claim to the land sooner than they were supposed to. Though it initially had a negative connotation, the school’s fans proudly call themselves Sooners today. The armed forces pay their respects to their soldiers with obvious nicknames of Midshipmen (Navy), Falcons (Air Force) and Black Knights (Army).Other schools have taken on the name of animals that populate the region surrounding the school. The Texas Longhorns are named after the cattle that evolved from those brought over from Spain by Columbus. They were one of the few species of cattle that could survive Texas’s harsh conditions.  The Colorado Buffaloes and Kentucky Wildcats follow in this tradition.Another tradition is to name teams after state nicknames The Sooners are a good example of this. Other examples include the Ohio State Buckeyes, Michigan Wolverines, Tennessee Volunteers and Wisconsin Badgers.

Other schools choose names to sound intimidating and in hopes that their players will exhibit the characteristics of those names. The Arkansas Razorbacks are a prime example of this. Arkansas coach Hugo Bezdek is said to have told a crowd that his team would play “like a wild band of Razorback Hogs.” Both the Clemson Tigers and LSU Tigers follow this line of thought.

Although team names may be colorful and intimidating, they do little to help the team win. At the same time, a team name may provide enough pride to motivate a team to play a little harder than their opponent.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)