Not many people know the truth about Robin Hood. Robin Hood was not a left-wing hero who stole from the rich and redistributed to the poor. That is what you are trying to do though Mr. President.
When I was a kid, I was a big fan of Robin Hood. I remember reading at least two books recounting the legend and I watched the Errol Flynn version of the movie several times.
And, as an adult, I saw both the Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe versions of Robin Hood.
“I’m not an occupy-Wall-Street moocher”
None of this makes me an expert, but it does allow me to state with some confidence that Robin Hood was not a left-wing hero who stole from the rich and redistributed to the poor.
Instead, he was a quasi-libertarian tax protestor. Okay, maybe it’s an exaggeration to claim he was a libertarian, but Robin Hood was on the side of ordinary people who were being exploited by incessant tax demands from the ruling class. His main enemies were Prince John and the Sheriff on Nottingham, not the medieval equivalents of Wall Street.
In the Russell Crowe version of the movie, Robin Hood even gives a speech about the importance of liberty.
So you can imagine how irked I get when statists agitate for things such as the “Robin Hood Tax” in this moronic video. But what motivated me today is a story in the Financial Times about a Cesar Chavez wannabee politician from Spain.
For Spain’s ruling politicians he is a criminal; for his supporters he is Robin Hood, stealing from supermarkets and redistributing the food to the poor. Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo, the mayor of Marinaleda, a southern town with a population of 2,600, has been catapulted to cult hero status in Spain after setting out this week on an anti-austerity march across Andalucia – occupying banks and stealing food… “We are fighting a war for the poor … going to jail is not important for me, it would be an honour,” Mr Sánchez Gordillo told the Financial Times. “We are going to occupy all of the banks and supermarkets we are able to in Andalucia. The robbers who have caused this crisis must pay the consequences for what they have done.”
But don’t hold your breath waiting for self-awareness from this clown.
Not surprisingly, unions are part of the protest. I’m guessing that Mr. Canamero represents government employees.
On Friday, the marchers, who plan to sleep in the open or in parks, occupied a branch of Banco Santander in the town of Mancha Real in the province of Jaén before leaving later in the day. Diego Canamero, head of the Andalucian Workers Union, was in the branch on Friday. He said critics of the protests were politicians protecting their own interests. “These are symbolic actions against an unsustainable economic situation,” he said. “The bankers rob us, and take our money to tax havens…”
The dig against tax havens is particularly laughable. Ordinary Spaniards should hope and pray that their deposits in the local banks are safely re-deposited in banks based in well-run and honest jurisdictions such as Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, or Singapore.
And if they’re smart, they already cut out the middleman and directly placed their savings in one of these low-tax jurisdictions. That way, they’re not only at much less risk of a bank collapse, but they also have greater ability to protect their assets from the venal and incompetent tax-hungry political elite.
Returning to the mischaracterization of Robin Hood, this Payne cartoon does a good job of capturing my thoughts.
I especially like how Payne shows that the left-wing version of Robin Hood is all about a perniciously corrupt version of redistribution (though he should have included the Export-Import Bank on the side of the van). The genuine poor get crumbs while the well-connected interests make out like bandits.
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
Now that new numbers have been released by the Congressional Budget Office, it’s time once again for me to show how easy it is to balance the budget with modest spending restraint (though please remember our goal should be smaller government, not fiscal balance).
I first did this back in September 2010, and showed that we could balance the budget in 10 years if federal spending was limited so it grew by 2 percent annually.
I repeated the exercise in January 2011 after new CBO numbers were released, and re-confirmed that a spending cap of 2 percent would eliminate red ink in just 10 years.
Most recently, back in January after CBO produced the new Economic and Budget Outlook, I crunched the numbers again and showed how a spending cap of 2 percent would balance the budget.
I’m happy to say that the new numbers finally give me some different results. We can now balance the budget if spending grows 2.5 percent annually.
In other words, spending can grow faster than inflation and the budget can be balanced with no tax hikes.
And here’s the video I narrated almost two years ago on this topic. The numbers have changed a bit, but the analysis is exactly the same.
In other words, ignore the politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interests when they say we have to raises taxes because otherwise the budget would have to be cut by trillions of dollars. They’re either stupid or lying (mostly the latter, deliberately using the dishonest version of Washington budget math).
Modest fiscal restraint is all that we need, though it would be preferable to make genuine cuts in the burden of government spending.
______
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
Another good cartoon from Dan Mitchell’s blog on gun control. It seems that Colorado is the only state that has passed sensible gun control laws after a gun tragedy and that was after the 1999 Columbine shootings.
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Thank you for your interest in my and the Cato Institute’s perspective regarding the various legislative proposals that have been offered in response to the tragedy at Newtown. As you know, Cato is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty and limited government and so we are at the forefront of all public debates regarding constitutional civil rights — including the Second Amendment’s protection of the natural right to armed self-defense.
Being an advocate for individual rights and civil liberties can be difficult. When terrorists attack, when the economy fails, and yes, when evil visits elementary schools, the natural instinct is to demand security above all else. Politicians’ natural instinct is just do something, anything, that seems responsive to the crisis of the day.
A good example of this tendency is the law signed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo last month, which Cato research fellow Trevor Burrus dissects in a blogpost (“A Cosmetic Gun Law”) that I enclose here. See also the absurd situations that the District of Columbia’s draconian — but ineffectual — restrictions provoke, as I describe in a second attached blogpost (“D.C. Treats Celebrities Better Than Veterans, Illustrating the Absurdity of Gun Laws”).
Yet, as Cato’s chairman Bob Levy wrote after the Tucson shooting — I enclose his op-ed (“Gun Control Measures Don’t Stop Violence”) — no gun regulation has ever been shown to reduce the incidence of violent crime, suicide, or accidents. So found a 2004 National Academy of Sciences study that reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control examined a host of policies, ranging from ammunition bans to waiting periods, registration to zero-tolerance laws — and likewise found no evidence that the laws reduced gun violence.
The problem, as I write in a second op-ed that I enclose (“Why I Still Support the Right to Bear Arms,” on which this letter is based), is that no law could make the 300 million firearms in America disappear, even if we wanted to do that. Even making it illegal to own a gun, were that constitutional, wouldn’t prevent a criminal or madman from doing his malevolent deed. Robust policies to prevent legal gun ownership only translate to guns being overwhelmingly possessed by those willing to break the law.
Indeed, Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and Sandy Hook Elementary is a “gun-free zone” — as was the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado (which is why the killer there chose it, passing up more convenient venues).
None of the measures at the top of gun-control advocates’ agenda — such as banning so-called assault weapons and closing gun-show loopholes — would’ve averted these shootings. And as you yourself demonstrated during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on January 30, adding certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips and bayonet mounts to ordinary hunting rifles does not in any way affect their functionality or otherwise transform them into weapons of war.
As Cato associate policy analyst David Kopel wrote in the third op-ed I’m enclosing (“Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown”), we’d be better off focusing on the identification and treatment of mental illness — the common factor in all these incidents — and ensuring that disqualifying records make it into the database used for background checks (which would’ve stopped the Virginia Tech shooter from buying his guns).
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t have any gun regulations. Cracking down on “straw purchasers” is a good idea and military-grade weapons like fully automatic “machine guns” — or rocket launchers, as I told Stephen Colbert on his July 8, 2010 show — indeed have no place in civilian life.
On the other hand, it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to have a gun to protect herself or her family. That’s why the Second Amendment is so important: Americans cherish their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness so much that they instituted a government that protects their right to defend against anyone who would threaten them.
After the 1999 Columbine shootings, Colorado passed a series of laws that should serve as a national model (for states; the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the power to enact most of the legislation that’s been floated lately.) As Kopel details in the fourth op-ed I’m enclosing (“Colorado Consensus on Gun Laws”), some of them consist of what people call “gun control,” while others are in the “gun rights” category. The most important one was the Concealed Carry Act, which has already saved countless lives, including at an Aurora church — three months before the theater shooting — where an off-duty cop killed a career criminal who was targeting congregants.
These cohesive measures are based on an obvious principle that enjoys broad public support: Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous, while guns in the right hands protect public safety — as Burrus details in the fifth op-ed that I enclose (“Face It: Guns Are Here to Stay”). The Second Amendment exists to protect the grand American experiment in self-government. Call me a “Constitution nut,” but I’m crazy about allowing people to live their lives with the maximum freedom possible.
If I could snap my fingers and end gun violence, I would. I would even take guns away from hunters and sportsmen if it meant better self-defense for the rest of us. Men aren’t angels, however, and, by definition, criminals don’t follow the law. Yes, in the wake of Newtown, my colleagues and I still support the right to bear arms.
Gun Free Zones???? Stalin and gun control On 1-31-13 ”Arkie” on the Arkansas Times Blog the following: “Remember that the biggest gun control advocate was Hitler and every other tyrant that every lived.” Except that under Hitler, Germany liberalized its gun control laws. __________ After reading the link from Wikipedia that Arkie provided then I responded: […]
On 1-31-13 I posted on the Arkansas Times Blog the following: I like the poster of the lady holding the rifle and next to her are these words: I am compensating for being smaller and weaker than more violent criminals. __________ Then I gave a link to this poster below: On 1-31-13 also I posted […]
Will “CARRYING HANDGUN IS PROHIBITED” poster work? Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute on gun control On 1-13-13 on the Arkansas Times Blog the person with the username “ArkDemocrat” stated, “I visited a church in another state that allows guns, and there was a sign similar to the “No Smoking” signs (i.e. smoking cigarette with […]
Poster for November 2008 benefit for Pressly family, held at Peabody Hotel in Little Rock. ______________ Max Brantley of the Ark Times Blog often attacks those on my side of the gun control debate and that makes me argue even harder for the 2nd amendment. Several months ago Lindsey Miller and Max Brantley were talking […]
I have posted some cartoons featured on Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they are very funny. An Amusing Look at Gun-Free Zones September 26, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I’ve shared a very clever Chuck Asay cartoon about gun-free zones, so let’s now enjoy four posters on the topic. Let’s begin with a good jab at one […]
The recent killing by a mad gunman in CT is not indicating a trend. School killings have gone down and probably peaked in 1929. Nick Gillespie reported in the below video, “Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped […]
Pretty shocking admissions from the liberal Jeffrey Goldberg on gun control. An Honest Liberal Writes about Gun Control December 16, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened again. First, some background. Like every other decent person, I was horrified […]
Despite what Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog (1-9-13) would have you believe gun control does not make since unless you suspend your reasoning ability. There are so many examples that show how silly gun control is. Mocking Gun Control Fanatics October 18, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Last month, I shared some very amusing images […]
It seems to me that most of the gun control arguments I have heard are not very logical. Deciphering How Statists Think about Gun Control September 9, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Even though I don’t own that many guns, I’m an unyielding supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, I use gun control as a quick and […]
John Stossel report “Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime After this horrible shooting in the school the other day it seems the gun control debate has fired up again. Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times jumped on Charlie Collins concerning his position on concealed weapons but I think that would lower gun crimes and not raise […]
Ron Paul has made “End the Fed” a popular slogan, but some people worry that this is a radical untested idea. In part, this is because it is human nature to fear the unknown.
But there are plenty of examples of policy reforms that used to be considered radical but are now commonplace.
Self-styled progressives used to say that air traffic control system needs to be a government monopoly, but our Canadian neighbors privatized their system and now have more safety and efficiency.
Defenders of the status quo used to claim that school choice was a radical idea, but it’s hard to defend that position since nations such as Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands have adopted competitive systems.
This list could go on, but the pattern is always the same. People assume something has to be done by government because “that’s the way it’s always been.” Then reform begins to happen and the myth is busted.
But is money somehow different? Not according to some experts.
Why must our government make currency competition illegal? …Competition is generally good. Why not competition in currencies? Most people I interviewed scoffed at the idea. They said private currency should be illegal. But impressive thinkers disagree. In 1975, a year after he won the Nobel Prize in economics, F.A. Hayek published “Choice in Currency,”which has inspired a generation of “free banking” economists. Hayek taught us that competition not only respects individual liberty, it produces essential knowledge we cannot obtain any other way. Any central bank is limited in its access to such knowledge, and subject to political pressure, no matter how independent it’s supposed to be. “This monopoly of government, like the postal monopoly, has its origin not in any benefit it secures for the people but solely in the desire to enhance the coercive powers of government,” Hayek wrote. “I doubt whether it has ever done any good except to the rulers and their favorites. All history contradicts the belief that governments have given us a safer money than we would have had without their claiming an exclusive right to issue it.” Former Federal Reserve economist David Barker discussed this idea recently with me. “There are a lot of ways that private money might be better,” Barker said. “It might have embedded chips that would make it easier to count.” The chips would also prevent counterfeiting. There used to be private currencies. A businessman who sold iron and tin made coins that advertised his business. The Georgia Railroad Co. also produced its own currency. This became illegal in 1864 — Abraham Lincoln was a fan of central banking.
Stossel’s historical references are particularly important. As I explain in this video, many nations – including the United States – used to have competing currencies.
The Federal Reserve has existed for almost 100 years and it has created depressions, recessions, inflation, and bubbles. This CF&P Foundation video explains the origin of central banking and mentions possible alternatives that will be discussed in subsequent mini-documentaries.
________________-
And if you want a thorough analysis of the Fed’s performance, I urge you to watch this George Selgin speech. Then ask yourself whether we would have been in better shape with private currencies.
__________
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
A lot of big-city police chiefs are political appointees who promote gun control, presumably to please their political masters.
They tell citizens that they should passively rely on government rather than take personal responsibility for self defense.
I have no idea if the numbers in this image are correct, but there’s no doubt that a gun is a lot quicker than the cops. Heck, just watch this video and ask yourself whether you would want your daughter armed.
And the cops I know – the ones who actually interact with the public and fight crime – are supportive of the Second Amendment, precisely because they realize they can’t be everywhere and they know there are bad people in the world.
But not all police chiefs and senior cops are mindless bureaucrats. In this video, the Sheriff of Milwaukee County not only acknowledges the right of self defense, but he’s also is willing to help train citizens to resist crime.
This doesn’t necessarily make him a libertarian hero. Indeed, his comments about layoffs and furloughs indicate that he’s also interested in maximizing the size of his staff.
Poster for November 2008 benefit for Pressly family, held at Peabody Hotel in Little Rock. ______________ Max Brantley of the Ark Times Blog often attacks those on my side of the gun control debate and that makes me argue even harder for the 2nd amendment. Several months ago Lindsey Miller and Max Brantley were talking […]
I have posted some cartoons featured on Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they are very funny. An Amusing Look at Gun-Free Zones September 26, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I’ve shared a very clever Chuck Asay cartoon about gun-free zones, so let’s now enjoy four posters on the topic. Let’s begin with a good jab at one […]
The recent killing by a mad gunman in CT is not indicating a trend. School killings have gone down and probably peaked in 1929. Nick Gillespie reported in the below video, “Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped […]
Pretty shocking admissions from the liberal Jeffrey Goldberg on gun control. An Honest Liberal Writes about Gun Control December 16, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened again. First, some background. Like every other decent person, I was horrified […]
Despite what Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog (1-9-13) would have you believe gun control does not make since unless you suspend your reasoning ability. There are so many examples that show how silly gun control is. Mocking Gun Control Fanatics October 18, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Last month, I shared some very amusing images […]
It seems to me that most of the gun control arguments I have heard are not very logical. Deciphering How Statists Think about Gun Control September 9, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Even though I don’t own that many guns, I’m an unyielding supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, I use gun control as a quick and […]
John Stossel report “Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime After this horrible shooting in the school the other day it seems the gun control debate has fired up again. Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times jumped on Charlie Collins concerning his position on concealed weapons but I think that would lower gun crimes and not raise […]
Liberals love to talk a lot about taking up all the guns and how the world would be such a better place. Even Bob Costas jumped in yesterday and got into the mix. An IQ Test for Criminals and Liberals November 8, 2012 by Dan Mitchell A lot of people say Obama is anti-business, but there’s […]
Abbott and Costello perform the classic “Who’s on first?” baseball sketch in their 1945 film “The Naughty Nineties” first performed as part of their stage act. Still find this really funny
Who’s on First? is a vaudevillecomedy routine made most famous by Abbott and Costello. In Abbott and Costello’s version, the premise of the routine is that Abbott is identifying the players on a baseball team to Costello, but their names and nicknames can be interpreted as non-responsive answers to Costello’s questions. In this context, the first baseman is named “Who”; thus, the utterance “Who’s on first” is ambiguous between the question (“which person is the first baseman?”) and the answer (“The name of the first baseman is ‘Who'”).
“Who’s on First?” is descended from turn-of-the-century burlesque sketches that used plays on words and names. Examples are “The Baker Scene” (the shop is located on Watt Street) and “Who Dyed” (the owner is named Who). In the 1930 movie Cracked Nuts, comedians Bert Wheeler and Robert Woolsey examine a map of a mythical kingdom with dialogue like this: “What is next to Which.” “What is the name of the town next to Which?” “Yes.” In English variety halls (Britain’s equivalent of vaudeville theatres), comedian Will Hay performed a routine in the early 1930s (and possibly earlier) as a schoolmaster interviewing a schoolboy named Howe who came from Ware but now lives in Wye. By the early 1930s, a “Baseball Routine” had become a standard bit for burlesque comics across the United States. Abbott’s wife recalled Bud performing the routine with another comedian before teaming with Costello.[1]
Bud Abbott stated that it was taken from an older routine called “Who’s The Boss?”, a performance of which can be heard in an episode of the radio comedy program It Pays to Be Ignorant from the 1940s.[2] After they formally teamed up in burlesque in 1936, he and Costello continued to hone the sketch. It was a big hit in 1937 when they performed the routine in a touring vaudeville revue called “Hollywood Bandwagon”.[1]
In February 1938, Abbott and Costello joined the cast of The Kate Smith Hour radio program, and the sketch was first performed for a national radio audience that March.[1] The routine may have been further polished before this broadcast by burlesque producer John Grant, who became the team’s writer, and Will Glickman, a staff writer on the radio show.[3] Glickman may have added the nicknames of then-contemporary baseball players like Dizzy and Daffy Dean to set up the routine’s premise. This version, with extensive wordplay based on the fact that most of the fictional baseball team’s players had “strange nicknames” that seemed to be questions, became known as “Who’s on First?” By 1944, Abbott and Costello had the routine copyrighted.
Abbott and Costello performed “Who’s on First?” numerous times in their careers, rarely performing it exactly the same way twice. They did the routine for President Franklin Roosevelt several times. An abridged version was featured in the team’s 1940 film debut, One Night in the Tropics. The duo reprised the bit in their 1945 film The Naughty Nineties, and it is that longer version which is considered their finest recorded rendition. They also performed “Who’s on First?” numerous times on radio and television (notably in The Abbott and Costello Show episode “The Actor’s Home”).
In 1956 a gold record of “Who’s on First?” was placed in the Baseball Hall of Fame museum in Cooperstown, New York. A video (taken from The Naughty Nineties) now plays continuously on screens at the Hall.
Shortstop: I Don’t Care/I Don’t Give a Darn/I Don’t Give a Damn
The name of the shortstop is not given until the very end of the routine, and the right fielder is never identified. In the Selchow and Righter board game, the right fielder’s name is “Nobody”.[5]
At one point in the routine, Costello thinks that Naturally is the first baseman:
Abbott: You throw the ball to first base. Costello: Then who gets it? Abbott: Naturally. Costello: Naturally. Abbott: Now you’ve got it. Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally. Abbott: You don’t! You throw it to Who! Costello: Naturally. Abbott: Well, that’s it—say it that way. Costello: That’s what I said. Abbott: You did not. Costello: I said I throw the ball to Naturally. Abbott: You don’t! You throw it to Who! Costello: Naturally.
Abbott’s explanations leave Costello hopelessly confused and infuriated, until the end of the routine when he finally appears to catch on. “You got a couple of days on your team?” He never quite figures out that the first baseman’s name literally is “Who”. But after all this he announces, “I don’t give a darn!” (“Oh, that’s our shortstop.”) That is the most commonly heard ending, which varied depending on the perceived sensibilities of the audience. The even milder “I Don’t Care” was used in the version seen in the film The Naughty Nineties. A recording of the obvious “I Don’t Give a Damn” has also turned up on occasion.
The skit serves as a climax for an Abbott and Costello radio broadcast which begins with Costello receiving a telegram from Joe DiMaggio asking Costello to take over for him.[6]
I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with God, but concerning the meaning of life and what is right and what is wrong, and concerning mankind and nature. 3. The people of the Reformation did not have humanism’s problem, because the Bible gives a unity between God—as the ultimate universal—and the individual things.” What a great difference this made in the world!!!
E P I S O D E 4
T h e
REFORMATION
I. The Reformation as a Reaction Against Medieval Religious Distortions of the Biblical and Early Christian Church’s Teaching
A. Illustration from Luther.
B. Luther—German; Zwingli—Zürich; Thomas Cromwell—England; Calvin—Geneva.
C. Biblical view of salvation (grace only) and its effect on certain aspects of church construction.
D. Real meaning of destruction of artwork in Reformation.
E. The Reformation rejected.
1. Medieval distortion of Church’s having made its authority equal to the authority of the Bible.
2. Medieval distortion of Church’s having added human works to the finished work of Christ for salvation.
3. Medieval distortion introduced by Aquinas: mixture of biblical thinking and pagan thought.
F. Summary of humanistic influence in church.
1. Illustrated by Raphael’s School of Athens and Disputà.
2. Illustrated by Michelangelo’s making pagan prophetesses equal to Old Testament prophets in Sistine Chapel.
G. For William Farel and the other Reformers it was the Scriptures only.
1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel.
2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with God, but concerning the meaning of life and what is right and what is wrong, and concerning mankind and nature.
3. The people of the Reformation did not have humanism’s problem, because the Bible gives a unity between God—as the ultimate universal—and the individual things.
4. The Reformation was no golden age, but it did aspire to depend on the Bible in all of life.
II. The Reformation and the Arts
A. German Reformation music tradition peaks in Bach.
B. Significance of Cranach’s and Luther’s friendship.
C. Dürer’s identification with Luther evidenced in his diary; significance of his work.
D. Rembrandt’s paintings show that he understood that his sins had sent Christ to the cross, and that Christ is the Lord of all of life.
E. Point is not to romanticize Reformation art but refute view that reformation was either hostile to art and culture, or did not produce art and culture.
F.Wittenberg Gesangbuch , Geneva Psalter, and revival of congregational singing.
III. Comparison of Renaissance and Reformation.
Both sought freedom. In the South license resulted from lack of absolutes; in the North freedom lasted through absolutes.
Questions
1. Can you clearly differentiate between the key ideas of the Renaissance and the Reformation, respectively?
2. “The Reformation is simply the last gasp of medieval Christianity. Once exhausted, the truly modern and humane force of the Renaissance dominated the West.” Comment.
3. “As a man thinketh, so is he”—the renewed emphasis upon the Bible’s teaching in the Reformation had practical results. If some of these results are no longer common among us, how far may this be attributed to a de-emphasis upon biblical teaching today?
I got on the Arkansas Times Blog and noticed that a person on there was bragging about the high minimum wage law in San Francisco and how everything was going so well there.
Couldn’t be better (the person using the username “Couldn’t be better) is bragging on California while Rick Perry just got finished with a recruiting tour of the state because so many California businesses are continuing to leave there for low tax Texas.
It has been a joy to watch Jerry Brown destroy the state with his liberal philosophy. At least he is not a Rino like Arnold. The liberals in California are getting a dose of their own medicine and the Phil Micklesons of the world will be relocating soon. Is that the utopia you are referring to?
Saline, Perry got zero (0) businesses because companies care about their employees also and Gov Goodhair has destroyed the Texas school system which no one thought could be made worse but he showed that there is no level of education that can’t be further destroyed by stupid Republicans.
Taxes aren’t the only reason anyone move but I know that Republicans only care about their money and people really don’t matter. Most Californians actually read and can see what the Tea Pot brains have done to Texas and the only good news is that in 20 years, when they start to rebuild Texas based on no oil or gas, that the Democratic Hispanic majority do care about families and their kid’s education. In the interim, Austin will continue to survive in their Alamo mode.
You are correct that Perry’s recent trip has not produced any immediate results. The Houston local CBS station reported on 2-13-13 that Rick Perry is empty handed so far on this one trip to California where he met with 20 business leaders who had expressed interest in moving to Texas where there are less taxes, and red tape. The fact that these business leaders requested Perry to come is not a good sign for California.
When you try and tax and spend too much then the business community will try and relocate to another state. That is exactly what is happening in California today.
Sometimes I wonder what planet liberals are from. The economy of California was the strongest in the nation in the 1970′s when Ronald Reagan was the governor, but after the green movement and other liberal regulators got a hold of it, things went south fast.
I could give you countless stories about people I know that have told me that their customers are in California, but they build their warehouses in surrounding states and ship their products into California. They tell me that you would have to be crazy to try to build a warehouse in California because of all the red tape you have to put up with.
President Obama has raised taxes on the rich just like California Governor Jerry Brown did. How is that working out for Jerry? Now businesses are leaving California for Texas. How do I know this is true? Look at what Dan Mitchell had to say recently on his blog:
Indeed, in the last five years Texas has gained 400,000 new jobs while California has lost 640,000. The Lone Star State’s rate of job growth was 33 percent higher than California’s last year, even as the Golden State finally pulled out of the recession. …Texas’s legislature has just trimmed its $188 billion two-year budget by 8 percent, and the state may have more revenue than it can legally spend because it is barred from raising outlays more than the rate of economic growth.
_____
Let me get you something to laugh about. Dan Mitchell posted three funny cartoons about people leaving California for Texas.
So it’s understandable that the Governor of Texas is telling employers in California that his state has a better climate for job creation.
John Fund of National Review opines on this bit of competition between states.
Texas governor Rick Perry knows how to start a rumble. Last week, he spent a mere $24,000 on radio ads in California, urging firms there to move to Texas, with its “zero state income tax, low overall tax burden, sensible regulations, and fair legal system.” …He begins a four-day barnstorming tour of California today, touting Texas’s virtues to business owners. …several observers acknowledged that Perry has gotten the better of the battle.
Indeed, in the last five years Texas has gained 400,000 new jobs while California has lost 640,000. The Lone Star State’s rate of job growth was 33 percent higher than California’s last year, even as the Golden State finally pulled out of the recession. …Texas’s legislature has just trimmed its $188 billion two-year budget by 8 percent, and the state may have more revenue than it can legally spend because it is barred from raising outlays more than the rate of economic growth.
Here’s a very good Steve Breen cartoon about Perry’s fishing trip to the west coast.
Phil Mickelson said he will make “drastic changes” because of federal and California state tax increases. …The 42-year-old golfer said he would talk in more detail about his plans — possibly moving away from California or even retiring from golf… Mickelson said. “I’ll probably talk about it more in depth next week. …There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and, you know, it doesn’t work for me right now. So I’m going to have to make some changes.” …”If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate’s 62, 63 percent,” said Mickelson, who lives in Rancho Santa Fe. “So I’ve got to make some decisions on what I’m going to do.”
He’s actually overstating his marginal tax rate. I suspect it’s closer to 50 percent.
California politicians got too greedy and now they may get 13.3 percent of nothing
But so what? It’s still outrageous and immoral that government is confiscating one-half of the income he generates.
Heck, medieval serfs were virtually slaves, yet they only had to give at most one-third of their output to the Lord of the Manor.
I hope he’s serious and that he escapes from the Golden State’s fiscal hell-hole.
And if he does, what will it mean for California government finances?
According to one estimate of 2011 earnings (comprising salary, winnings, bonuses, endorsements and appearances) Mickelson was then the second-highest paid athlete in the United States, earning an income of over $62 million, $53 million of which came from endorsements.
Now let’s bend over backwards to make sure we’re not exaggerating. Notwithstanding the Wikipedia estimate, let’s assume his annual taxable income will be only $40 million for 2013 and beyond.
With a 10.3 percent top tax rate, California would collect about $4.12 million per year. And Mickelson apparently thought that was tolerable.
But guess how much the politicians will collect if he leaves the state? I’m tempted to say zero, but they may still get some revenue because of California-based tournaments and other factors.
Find Phil Mickelson
I can say with great confidence, however, that California won’t collect $5.32 million, which is probably what the politicians assumed when they seduced voters into approving the 13.3 percent tax rate.
After all, that assumption only works if Mickelson is willing to be a fiscal slave for Jerry Brown and the rest of the crooks in Sacramento.
As such, I’ll also state with certainty that California’s politicians won’t collect $4 million if Mickelson leaves for another state. Or $3 million. Or $2 million. Or even $1 million.
The best they can hope for is that Mickelson decides to stay in the state while also reducing his taxable income. In that scenario, the politicians might still pocket a couple of million dollars.
Not as much as they collected when the tax rate was 10.3 percent, and far less than what they erroneously assumed they would get with a 13.3 percent rate.
Hopefully we’re all disgusted when insiders rig the system to rip off taxpayers. And I suspect you’re not surprised to see that the worst example on that list comes from California, which is in a race with Illinois to see which state can become the Greece of America.
The numbers are even larger in California, where a state psychiatrist was paid $822,000, a highway patrol officer collected $484,000 in pay and pension benefits and 17 employees got checks of more than $200,000 for unused vacation and leave. The best-paid staff in other states earned far less for the same work, according to the data.
Wow, $822,000 for a state psychiatrist. Not bad for government work. So what is Governor Jerry Brown doing to fix the mess? As you might expect, he’s part of the problem.
…the state’s highest-paid employees make far more than comparable workers elsewhere in almost all job and wage categories, from public safety to health care, base pay to overtime. …California has set a pattern of lax management, inefficient operations and out-of-control costs. …In California, Governor Jerry Brown hasn’t curbed overtime expenses that lead the 12 largest states or limited payments for accumulated vacation time that allowed one employee to collect $609,000 at retirement in 2011. …Last year, Brown waived a cap on accrued leave for prison guards while granting them additional paid days off. California’s liability for the unused leave of its state workers has more than doubled in eight years, to $3.9 billion in 2011, from $1.4 billion in 2003, according to the state’s annual financial reports. …The per-worker costs of delivering services in California vastly exceed those even in New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Ohio.
I suppose the silver lining to that dark cloud is that many bureaucrats now rank as part of the top 1 percent, so they’ll have to recycle some of their loot back to the political vultures in Sacramento.
But the biggest impact of the tax hike – as shown in the Ramirez cartoon – will be to accelerate the shift of entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners to states that don’t steal as much. Indeed, a study from the Manhattan Institute looks at the exodus to lower-tax states.
The data also reveal the motives that drive individuals and businesses to leave California. One of these, of course, is work. …Taxation also appears to be a factor, especially as it contributes to the business climate and, in turn, jobs. Most of the destination states favored by Californians have lower taxes. States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates. The data suggest that many cost drivers—taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, union power, and high labor costs—are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the exodus.
Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem? People say the government has a debt problem. Debt is caused by deficits, which is the difference between what the government collects in tax revenue and the amount of government spending. Every time the government runs a deficit, the government debt increases. So what’s to blame: too […]
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with his family I posted a portion of an article by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that pointed out that many businesses are leaving California because of all of their government red tape and moving to Texas. My username is SalineRepublican and this is […]
John Fund at Chamber Day, Part 1 Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund. John […]
Is our country learning from history? California keeps raising their taxes on the wealthy and people keep moving from California to Texas. What does our federal government do? They also have been raising taxes on the wealthy lately. Take a look at this excellent video below and then read a great article by Dan Mitchell […]
You can’t blame someone for leaving one state for another if they have a better an opportunity to make money. Maryland to Texas, but Not Okay to Move from the United States to Singapore? July 12, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I’ve commented before about entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners migrating from high tax states such […]
If our country is the grow the economy and get our budget balanced it will not be by raising taxes!!! The recipe for success was followed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980′s when he cut taxes and limited spending. As far as limiting spending goes only Bill Clinton (with his Republican Congress) were ability to […]
Gene Stallings used to interview the boys that dated his daughters. He asked his future son-in-laws if they played sports. He wanted to know if they had competed at something. Below is an article on what Stallings thinks about Texas A&M joining SEC. Stallings: SEC best fit for A&M By Troy Schulte Wednesday, September 7, […]
This week I watched on tv the replay of the last game in the series with Texas. It was the 1991 game in Little Rock against Texas. Right before that game Craig O’Neill pulled a prank on the Texas Athletic Dept. Listen to the clip above. The Arkansas Times Blog reported: Craig O’Neill tells all […]
I posted a portion of an article by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that pointed out that many businesses are leaving California because of all of their government red tape and moving to Texas. My username is SalineRepublican and this is how “Couldn’tBeBetter” responded this morning: Saline, if Texas is so great, don’t […]
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.
___________
Francis and Edith Schaeffer pictured below.
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE
Sanctity of Human Life Sunday (SOHLS) will be celebrated in churches across the nation this Sunday, January 20, 2013. In sermons, prayers, and songs, worshipers will acknowledge God as our Creator and affirm our identity as persons made in his image and set apart for his glory and service.Motte Brown wrote this account of the establishment of SOHLS in 2007. It is currently posted on Boundless Line:In 1983, an organization named Christian Action Council (now known as Care Net), founded with the help of Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, asked President Ronald Reagan to “create a special day to focus on the intrinsic value of human life.”Sources conflict about whether the initial proclamation was 1983 or 1984, but it was President Ronald Reagan who designated the third Sunday in January as Sanctity of Human Life Day. The third Sunday of January is the closest Sunday to the January 22nd anniversary of the 1973 Roe V. Wade Supreme Court Decision that legalized abortion in the United States.According to Wikipedia, Reagan issued the proclamation annually for the remainder of his Presidency. Both Presidents Bush (George H. and George W.) continued the tradition interrupted by Bill Clinton’s tenure of eight years as President. President Obama has declined proclamation of Sanctity of Human Life day during his presidential tenure to date.The purpose of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday (SOHLS) was articulated by Ronald Reagan as follows:
Since 1973, however, more than 15 million unborn children [that number now stands at more than 50 million] have died in legalized abortions — a tragedy of stunning dimensions that stands in sad contrast to our belief that each life is sacred. These children, over tenfold [now even more] the number of Americans lost in all our Nation’s wars, will never laugh, never sing, never experience the joy of human love; nor will they strive to heal the sick, or feed the poor, or make peace among nations. Abortion has denied them the first and most basic of human rights, and we are infinitely poorer for their loss.
We are poorer not simply for lives not led and for contributions not made, but also for the erosion of our sense of the worth and dignity of every individual. To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all. Slavery, which treated Blacks as something less than human, to be bought and sold if convenient, cheapened human life and mocked our dedication to the freedom and equality of all men and women. Can we say that abortion — which treats the unborn as something less than human, to be destroyed if convenient — will be less corrosive to the values we hold dear?
Throughout the years since 1983, various individuals and organizations have hoped to accomplish a number of goals through the celebration of SOHLS. In addition to celebrating the intrinsic value of human life, Carenet, a network of pregnancy care centers, sees this important day as “an opportunity for pregnancy centers to share about the work they do to bring life-affirming resources to their communities and to empower women and men to choose life for their unborn children.” SOHLS is a Sunday that highlights the hope and services pregnancy care centers offer. Many churches participate in raising funds by kicking off a baby bottle campaign on this day in their churches for the benefit of community pregnancy care outreach.
SOHLS is an opportunity to educate congregations on life issues. Through special bulletin inserts, special speakers, children’s sermons, and targeted worship resources churches seek to turn the tragic reality of abortion into a focus on the sacred value of human life. Often special events such as a video showing, a pro-life baby shower, special Sunday lessons and sermons, or the ringing of bells, the planting of crosses, or candle vigils help to commemorate the lives lost to abortion.
Remembering Roe: a special day of prayer and fasting. SOHLS is particularly significant in 2013, the 40th year since the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton which took place on January 22, 1973 and legalized abortion in our country. In addition to the Sunday celebration a host of pro-life organizations, who together affirm the value, dignity and sanctity of human life, have joined together to organize a special day of prayer and fasting remembering Roe on January 22, 2013. Individuals may register at http://www.rememberingroe.com for web based prayer event, post prayers on the website, send a message to the president, or share personal stories of where they were when abortion was legalized
An Ecumenical prayer service: National Memorial for the Pre-Born and Their Mothers and Fathers. A special commemorative service sponsored by members of the National Pro-Life Religious Council will be held at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C. ( (18th and D St.) on the January 25, 2013. Held just a few hours before the March for Life, the 8:30-10:30 am ecumenical prayer service will include participants from several denominations. Participants will commemorate lives lost to abortion and remember the life of Nellie Gray, founder of the March for Life.
Resources for SOHLS
Worship resources from a distinctly Presbyterian and Reformed perspective are available under the ‘Ministry Equipping’ tab of this website.
Right to Life of Michigan publishes a downloadable Prolife Litany and a Christian Discussion Guide on their website.
Focus on the Family offers videos to show on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday or throughout the month of January to inform about the impact of abortion on our nation.
Lutherans for Life is offering a slightly different focus in their resources for SOHLS in 2013. See their website for a host of materials for “living with Dying.”
Bethany Christian Services provides online resources with a focus on adoption.
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once […]
The opening song at the beginning of this episode is very insightful. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer. I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]
This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of […]
Great article on Schaeffer. Who was Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer? By Francis Schaeffer The unique contribution of Dr. Francis Schaeffer on a whole generation was the ability to communicate the truth of historic Biblical Christianity in a way that combined intellectual integrity with practical, loving care. This grew out of his extensive understanding of the Bible […]
“I’m not an occupy-Wall-Street moocher”For Spain’s ruling politicians he is a criminal; for his supporters he is Robin Hood, stealing from supermarkets and redistributing the food to the poor. Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo, the mayor of Marinaleda, a southern town with a population of 2,600, has been catapulted to cult hero status in Spain after setting out this week on an anti-austerity march across Andalucia – occupying banks and stealing food… “We are fighting a war for the poor … going to jail is not important for me, it would be an honour,” Mr Sánchez Gordillo told the Financial Times. “We are going to occupy all of the banks and supermarkets we are able to in Andalucia. The robbers who have caused this crisis must pay the consequences for what they have done.”
The Daily Hatch 