Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:
Returning Most Non-Defense Discretionary Spending to 2008 Levels. Non-defense discretionary spending has expanded 21 percent faster than
inflation over the past three years. Returning to 2008 levels still leaves
typical programs nearly one-third larger than they were in 2000 (adjusted for inflation). Freezing this spending at 2008 levels through 2015 and then capping subsequent growth at the inflation rate would save more than $2 trillion in the first decade and even more thereafter.
Many of these savings are achieved by reducing the size of the federal
bureaucracy, overhauling the federal pay system, permanently eliminating many earmarked accounts, and consolidating duplicative functions. Yet not all programs are affected equally. For example, Coast Guard and other important security spending rises under the plan, while lower-priority spending, such as subsidies to public broadcasting, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, is left to the private sector.
Devolving or Privatizing Most Transportation Spending. Under the federal highway program, Washington collects the 18.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax from states, subtracts a large administrative fee, and returns the remaining funds to the states with numerous strings attached, including many requirements to spend the dollars on congressional earmarks and for specific uses that may not coincide with local needs. The Heritage plan reforms this inherently wasteful system by devolving the highway program and gas tax to the states, thereby eliminating the federal middleman and allowing states to retain the gas tax revenues and spend them on their own highway priorities, provided they maintain a minimum standard of interstate highway maintenance.
The Heritage plan ends federal funding for passenger rail, saving money on
projects that invariably have ridership that is far below projections and costs that far exceed initial budgets. Amtrak subsidies are phased out over three years, the President’s costly high-speed rail program is terminated, and subsidies to for-profit freight railroads are ended. This relieves states of the upkeep and maintenance burdens associated with rail programs that Washington is currently pressuring them to undertake. The private sector and state governments can either take over or terminate these rail programs as they see fit.
Finally, all non-safety functions of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) are transferred to the private sector, and most FAA fees are eliminated.
The air traffic control system will be transferred to the private sector, where it belongs, and financed by flight ticket user fees. The airport improvement program is also terminated, with airlines, state government, and private investment taking the place of the federal taxpayer.
As you know, we here at Red Arkansas Blog have been keeping tabs on the prognosticators’ ratings for Arkansas’ Congressional seats heading towards the 2012 election.
In Arkansas’ Fourth District, the word has been that Mr. Ross would be the likely winner in 2012.
We’re thinking the best-case turnout for Democrats would be that the immediate change for the race would be to “Toss Up.” We here at RAB think it may very well become a “Lean R” seat by the end of the day.
UPDATE
The Cook Political Reportis the first one out of the shoot, and it isn’t good for Democrats.
AR-04 has moved from Likely Democrat to Lean Republican.
Per Cook:
While the field in AR-04 will not emerge for several months, southern Arkansas is the last place Democrats want to defend an open seat with President Obama atop their ballot.
(snip)
Many Democrats will be livid at the news of Ross’s exit: in April, state Democrats passed a redistricting plan that stretched Ross’s district into northwest Arkansas, making it two points more Republican under the assumption that Ross would use it as a springboard to campaign in the fastest-growing region of the state. Now that Ross won’t be running next year, Democrats’ task of keeping the open seat is even harder than it would have been before redistricting.
UPDATE II:
Per Roll Call: AR-04 has moved from Likely Democrat to Lean Republican.
There are some Democrats out there that see an opportunity for a Republican pick up here.John Brummett in his article “Ross is running, but I repeat myself,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 26, 2011 noted:
To win, a Democrat will need to be as good a politician as Ross. I can’t identify such a Democrat at present.
At this point I’d give tea party pageanteer Beth Anne Rankin, the Sarah Palin wannabe of Arkansas, a decent shot.
U.S. Mike Rossof Prescott surprised everyone by scheduling an announcement this morning in Little Rock to say he would not seek a seventh term in Congress in 2012.His statement is on the jump. He said he hadn’t decided yet on a race for governor in 2014, which he’s long been expected to make. But his reference to the race indicates it is very much in his sights.
ROSS NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott on Monday announced he will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Ross, who won re-election in 2010 by 18 points and has no announced opponent, has represented Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District in Congress since 2001. A fifth generation Arkansan, Ross is a former state senator and former small business owner.
Statement from U.S. Congressman Mike Ross:
Representing my home state of Arkansas in the U.S. Congress for the past eleven years has been a real privilege and honor. It is a job that I take very seriously and one that I love. However, as I reflect on turning 50 this year, I believe it is time for me to begin a new chapter in my life by spending more time with my family and exploring new opportunities here at home in Arkansas.
That’s why I have decided not to seek a seventh term to the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District. This was not an easy decision and one that I carefully made after a lot of reflection, thought and prayer.
Last year was a tough political environment to seek re-election. Yet, I won by 18 points—one of the largest margins of any member of Congress in a swing district. The trust and confidence the folks here at home have continually placed in me is something I will never forget. The people of Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District are good, decent, hard working people and I am proud to serve and represent them in the U.S. Congress.
A lot has changed since I was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2000. Congressional campaigns have gone from several months in length to never-ending, costing millions of dollars every two years. As a result, fundraising never ends nor do the political attacks. While I have worked hard to bring folks to the middle to craft commonsense solutions to the many problems that confront our nation, Washington is mired in gridlock, gamesmanship and constant partisan bickering. Too many issues and votes are based on partisan politics rather than good public policy. Despite our many challenges, I remain optimistic that America’s best days are still ahead of us.
I never believed that my service in the U.S. Congress should become a permanent career. This seat never belonged to me—it belongs to the people of Arkansas. And I know there are many bright people in Arkansas ready to step up, go to Washington and offer a new generation of leadership. Simply put, it is someone else’s turn to represent our state in the U.S. Congress.
I have many good memories of my service in the U.S. Congress, and we have helped thousands of people. None of this would have been possible without the support of the people here in Arkansas, and for that, my family and I will always be grateful to them.
I look forward to serving out the remainder of my term in the U.S. Congress, which doesn’t end until January 2013. I will continue to work each and every day on behalf of the people I represent, just as I have faithfully tried to do from the beginning.
I have received a lot of encouragement to run for Governor of Arkansas when Governor Beebe’s term ends in 2014. I’ve always been very upfront and honest in the fact that, as a fifth generation Arkansan, I love our state and would like very much to help lead it at some point in the future. Whether I run for Governor in 2014 is a decision I have not yet made and won’t make until sometime after my term in this Congress ends.
__________________________________
Ross will tough to beat in the governor race in 2014. However, I do think that the Republicans will have an excellent chance to capture a fourth Congressional seat in 2012. Will there ever be another Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Arkansas? (In fact if you check out some of the information at the Red Arkansas Blog and you will see that most people view this district as a Republican pick up.)
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge. However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.
Republican Tom Cotton from Dardanelle confirms to the Tolbert Report this morning that he will seek the open seat and is already putting together his team. Potential donors have confirmed that Cotton is lining up support and may already have over six figures in commitments. In addition, Cotton has been seen meeting recently with Second District Congressman Tim Griffin who could lend support to Cotton’s campaign.
Cotton was one of the many names considering a run for Senate in 2010 against former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but ultimately decided against it. Cotton currently works for international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company. A veteran, he also serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. Cotton lives in Yell County, which was part of the Second Congressional District represented by Congressman Griffin. It was moved to the Fourth Congressional Disctrict in the last redistricting process.
In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well. Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration. She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years. Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.
In addition, sources close to State Rep. Lane Jean of Magnolia confirm that he is “strongly considering” getting into the race as well. Jean was elected to his first term in the Arkansas House in 2010.
Other potential Republicans names mentioned are: State Rep. Matthew Shepherd, former Congressional candidate Glenn Gallas, and Will Rockfeller – the son of the late Lt. Gov. Win Rockfeller.
The Arkansas Times Blog reported today: U.S. REP. MIKE ROSS U.S. Mike Rossof Prescott surprised everyone by scheduling an announcement this morning in Little Rock to say he would not seek a seventh term in Congress in 2012.His statement is on the jump. He said he hadn’t decided yet on a race for governor […]
HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Arkansas Democrat Rep. Mike Ross Explains Why He Voted For the Health Care Bill in Committee (video from Tolbert Report.com) “I wasn’t sent to Washingon to play politics. I was sent there to do my job.” These are the words of Congressman Mike Ross after he basically got through playing politics and helped pass […]
HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com (John Stossel on healthcare bill 7 min) The Republicans are moving now to try and overturn the Obama healthcare act , but no one really gives their efforts much hope. How did President Obama get this healthcare act get passed in the first place. The liberal columnist John Brummett wrote an excellent article on […]
Mark Pryor’s support of the ultra liberal Obama is very clear in the video clip above. He voted for President Obama’s plan to nationalize healthcare and Obama’s stimulus plan that wasted almost a trillion dollars. Now he is following President Obama down the path of raising taxes during the debt ceiling debate.
Senator Mark Pryor on July 22 made the following statement on the Senate floor to encourage his colleagues to end the budget gimmicks and move forward with a comprehensive debt-reduction plan as part of a debt ceiling solution. A portion of his statement is below:
Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln once said, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
We need to bring people the facts about our nation’s debt. People in my state see through the games being played in Washington. They want solutions, courage and leadership — the kind that puts us on a more secure fiscal path for the future.
Mr. Bryant of Hot Springs Village, Arkansas writes: “We know we have to increase the debt ceiling so let’s get serious about finding a solution….Why is this a problem for our politicians? The public expects responsible leadership not the demagoguery we are getting from both sides of the aisle.”
So here are the facts. For over 230 years, the United States government has honored its obligations. Even in the face of a Civil War, two World Wars and the Depression, America has paid its bills. Yet, now we stand on the brink of tarnishing the full faith and credit of the United States. And we stand here because Congress has failed to bring the American people the real facts. The easiest thing for a politician to do is to say they are for lower taxes and increased spending. This mind-set has rung up a $14.2 trillion debt. We now borrow 41 cents of every dollar we spend.
Now, under this debt, combined with the theatrics playing out in the House and Senate, the unthinkable could happen. The 80 million bills the federal government pays could come to a screeching halt. That means millions of seniors may not receive their Social Security checks in the mail, troops may not receive paychecks, Medicare patients could be denied care and the stock market could significantly drop.
Moreover, credit rating agencies have warned us that we will likely lose our AAA credit rating without immediate action. Interest rates would permanently rise, piling on additional costs for families. The cost of owning a home, buying food, filling a gas tank, sending kids to college and buying a car will become even more expensive.
There’s one more real fact I want to highlight. A default adds heavily to our deficit. For every 1 percent increase in the interest rates we pay, it adds $1.3 trillion to the debt.It is no wonder Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last summer said, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat. “
_____________________________
Mark Pryor has made several miscalculations concerning the debt ceiling problem. He thinks that the nationalizing of our healthcare will not affect the future deficits, and he doesn’t want to take a serious look at Medicare reform. Finally, although he says a lot about how serious the national debt is, he does not want to propose any serious cuts to federal spending. WHY NOT ELIMINATE THE DEPT OF EDUCATION? WOULDN’T THAT BE A BIG SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT? JIMMY CARTER CREATED THAT AGENCY AND IT HAS DONE NOTHING TO HELP EDUCATION IMPROVE SINCE THEN DESPITE THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE HAVE THROWN ITS WAY!!!!
Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z.
As Democrats and Republicans debate the U.S. debt situation, both sides seem more concerned about pandering to their respective bases than reining in the debt. Worse, much of the discussion addresses only the debt per se, not the broader question of what policies are good for the economy. These conditions are likely to yield only cosmetic fixes, some of which will make things worse over the long haul.
The debt problem is substantial and pressing: Congressional Budget Office projections show America’s debt is exploding. Expenditures are growing much faster than the gross domestic product and tax revenues possibly could. Under the CBO’s most plausible projections, the debt would reach 109 percent of GDP by 2023, and 190 percent of GDP by 2035. This is not a problem we can ignore or address with minor adjustments.
The federal budget includes numerous programs that ought to be eliminated regardless of the deficit.
Raising tax rates is a bad idea: By reducing the income of households and the profits of businesses, higher tax rates discourage consumption and investment, slowing the economy in the short run. By reducing hiring, savings, and investment, they reduce economic growth in the long run. And higher tax rates are undermined by tax evasion and avoidance, making them an inefficient way to raise revenues.
Reducing tax “expenditures” is a good idea: When the tax code favors particular kinds of consumption or specific industries, it reduces productivity by distorting market forces, just as government spending can. Those who support economic efficiency should therefore oppose such tax expenditures, regardless of how they affect revenue or whether they are paired with reductions in tax rates. Important examples include the mortgage-interest deduction, special tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance premiums, and tax breaks for both conventional and green energy.
Health care is the greatest driver of expenses: The CBO’s analysis also indicates that rapidly increasing expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance subsidies under Obamacare are the most important factors behind the exploding debt. Serious attempts to control the debt must reduce these programs’ growth rates.
Higher deductibles reduce health spending: Slowing the growth of health expenditures is crucial, but not all fixes are created equal. Price controls and rationing, for example, generate huge inefficiencies.
Higher deductibles are a better approach. They not only reduce spending directly; they also encourage consumers to economize and comparison shop, generating competition, efficiency, and lower costs. This moves Medicare toward insuring against catastrophic costs and away from reimbursing all expenses.
Patrick Michaels argues that, when discussing climate change, “people accept the strangest things without really fact checking.” Michaels argues that many of Al Gore’s claims and presumptions about global warming are false.
—–
There’s a whole new world of global warming science today-but few ever hear about it. In recent years, an internally consistent body of scientific literature has emerged that argues cogently for global warming but against the gloom-and-doom, apocalyptic vision of climate change.
Not that you would know. Consult the daily newspaper or evening newscast: dire predictions are nearly all we see or hear.
In their new book, “Climate of Extremes”, coauthors Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. illuminate the other side of the story, the science we arent being told. This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed and far from catastrophic. However, because it is not infused with horrific predictions and angst about the future, regardless of its quality it is largely repressed and ignored.
This in-depth exploration illustrates the crucial unreported forecasts: that changes in hurricanes will be small, that global warming is likely to be modest, and that contrary to daily headlines, there is no apocalypse on the horizon – Cato Institute
Pat Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers, for the demonstration that urban heat-related mortality declined significantly as cities became warmer. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science; and his articles have appeared also in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and the Journal of Commerce.
In the video clip above Woody Allen says that films are not his number 1 priority. There are very few of his films that are successful in his opinion. It is my view that his film Crimes and Misdemeanors is his best.
Owen Wilson and Lea Seydoux with director Woody Allen
First Posted: 05/23/11 10:57 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:55 PM ET
NEW YORK — Leaving the Angelika Theater this past weekend, on the opening night of Woody Allen’s latest film, I participated in a mild argument with my companion that left me feeling a bit like one of the blathering, pseudo-intellectual characters Allen has been parading before audiences for decades.
What I liked best about “Midnight in Paris” — and what my friend found most annoying — was its very thinness, its gallery of static characters, its steady march of fleshed-out clichés. In the film’s fantastical sequences, which deliver a struggling novelist from 2010 back to 1920s Paris, Allen conducts affairs with a mythical grasp of history, from entire eras –- primarily, the gin- and jazz-soaked Roaring Twenties -– to individuals: Ernest Hemingway always rearing for a fight; genial Scott Fitzgerald thwarted by his hysterical wife, Zelda; and Salvador Dali, the wide-eyed, hallucinatory weirdo.
All of this irritated my companion and delighted me, in large part because I do not really care much about Woody Allen as a moviemaker, but see “Midnight in Paris” in the tradition of other of his films, such as “Zelig” and “The Purple Rose of Cairo,” that are really just lavish gifts of transposition: film treatments of Allen’s extraordinary body of short humor writing that began forty years ago with the publication of his first collection, Getting Even.
Compared to the business of making movies, Allen has called humor writing “sheer dessert” -– no producers, no actors, no budget concerns -– and his other early collections, Without Feathers(1975), and Side Effects (1980), are overstuffed with the sort of gags and sleights of hand that on film answer to the name “special effects.” (His more recent collection, Mere Anarchy from 2007, had its moments but is more laborious and less funny.)
Getting Even contains the story “A Twenties Memory,” a parody of Hemingway’s laconic style as well as a breezy exploration of the same territory romanticized in his latest film. Indeed, the celebrity cast (the characters, not the actors) of “Midnight in Paris” is almost identical to that of “A Twenties Memory.” While the story is incomparably sillier than the film, the treatment of their common characters suggests Allen’s understanding of them is about the same as it was 40 years ago.
Lately, to get a sense of the academic world’s perception of Allen’s writing, I’ve spent some time with literary journals that analyze his work. “Midnight in Paris,” and my ensuing argument over its merits, reminded me of a complaint registered by a critic named Sanford Pinsker, who essentially called Allen, the writer, a lightweight. For all his textual nods to Camus, Kierkegaard, Kafka and other giants of art and thought, Allen’s “playfulness about Ideas and parodic romps depend on a ‘familiarity with’ -– if not an understanding of -– the originals,” he wrote.
Yet Allen has been the focus of much positive attention in academia, and it’s been said this is due to his mix of high and low culture (beavers that take over Carnegie Hall, Kafka references alongside men who long only to sit waist high in gravy) –- together with his good fortune to come along at a time of academic interest in popular culture. Allen won an O. Henry Award for his 1978 short story, “The Kugelmass Episode,” which more than any other of his writings resembles the plot of “Midnight in Paris.” It tells the story of Kugelmass, a romantic, frustrated City College professor who is magically transported to the French countryside of “Madame Bovary,” where he begins an affair with the beautiful Emma.
The conceit is nearly identical to the one that drives “Midnight in Paris,” in which a novelist played by Owen Wilson travels back in time to 1920s Paris, where he learns that one man’s golden age is another’s dull present. Similarly, in “Kugelmass,” as the lovers stroll past a country church, Emma admires Kugelmass’ leisure suit and tells him, “I’ve always dreamed that some mysterious stranger would appear and rescue me from the monotony of this crass rural existence.”
In a 1999 essay in the journal South Atlantic Review, David Galef acknowledged the danger of analyzing Woody Allen: “[A]cademics who play around with him risk being played around with themselves.” Canonical discussions of Allen’s work tend to be marked with hesitation — perhaps marred by considerations of his occasionally scandalous personal life, or maybe because it is simply premature to canonize the living.
In academic circles, Allen is frequently compared to Mark Twain. Both started their careers as humorists and, while never shedding that guise, increasingly strove for moral seriousness. In 1984, the Twain scholar Hamlin Hill wrote, “no major, sustained comic voice will arise and endure between now and the end of the century, to take a place with Franklin, Twain, Thurber, and possibly Woody Allen.”
Nearly 20 years after that tentative assessment, Allen is as prolific a filmmaker as ever, though his prose output is limited to the occasional piece in The New Yorker. Still, admirers of his writing cling hopefully to a hint he dropped in 1995, when he told the Paris Review he had a draft of a novel completed, “all handwritten, lying in my drawer on graph paper.” He said he was saving it for when he lacks the energy to make movies, or when the studios will no longer let him.
The following year, looking back on his custody battle and scandal –- involving actress Mia Farrow and her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen would go on to marry –- Allen told the The New Yorker, “[p]eople kept saying, ‘This guy’s career is finished.’ I thought, You must be joking. My career can never be finished, because I will always write. Nobody can stop me.”
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:
Over the past decade, Congresses and Presidents haveundertaken a
surge of spending that has accelerated America’s speed along the road to
economic ruin. Since 2000, non-defense discretionary outlays have expanded 50 percent faster than inflation. Antipoverty spending has risen 83 percent faster than inflation, and other programs have grown rapidly. Despite multiple government audits that have shown many programs to be duplicative or ineffective, no significant federal program has been eliminated in more than a decade. Government continues to grow, financed by taxes on Americans and an explosion of borrowing that is imposing huge additional burdens on future generations.
Thus, although the major entitlement programs are the primary driver of
long-term spending and debt, Congress must take tough action on discretionary programs and smaller entitlement programs to reach a balanced budget and ensure that federal spending is smaller, more effective, and more efficient.
Under the Heritage plan, non-defense discretionary spending—appropriated programs such as foreign aid, K–12 education, transportation, health research, housing, community development, and veterans health care, which account for 4.5 percent of GDP—is reduced to 2.0 percent of GDP by 2021. These reforms will reduce the burden of government, thereby empowering families and entrepreneurs and promoting economic prosperity.
In addition, antipoverty spending is reformed. Obamacare is repealed, as
noted earlier, and replaced with an alternative solution to uninsurance and high costs. Agriculture and education programs are structurally reformed. The central goal for defense is to guarantee national security as prudently and economically as possible. With improvements in efficiency, we estimate that defense needs will require spending approximately 4 percent of GDP for the foreseeable future.
Rather than across-the-board spending reductions, which would not set true priorities for government, the Heritage plan follows six guidelines in designing reforms:
The federal government should focus on performing a limited
number of appropriate governmental duties well while empowering state and local governments, which are closer to the people, to address local needs creatively in such areas as transportation, justice, job training, the environment, and economic development.
Functions that the private sector can perform more efficiently
should be transferred to the private sector.
Duplicative programs should be consolidated both to save money
and to improve government assistance.
Federal programs should more precisely target those who are
actually in need, which means reducing aid to large businesses and upper-income individuals who do not need taxpayer assistance and enforcing program eligibility rules better.
Outdated and ineffective programs should be eliminated.
Waste, fraud, and abuse should be cleaned up wherever found.
By following these six guidelines, the Heritage plan produces a more
effective and efficient government and promotes stronger economic growth.
Last Tuesday night I watched Gene Simmons Family Jewels and I commented how I was struck by the good advice that his son Nick gave him. He told him that he grew up thinking that his father was the best. However, now that the marital infidility has come out, it has made Nick think long and hard about what other things in his father’s life are not like he thought they were.
In today’s sermon at church I heard our pastor say that Randy Alcorn said one of the main reasons he did not want to have an affair was:
Hurt to and loss of credibility with my beloved daughters, Karina and Angela. (“Why listen to a man who betrayed Mom and us?”)
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT NICK SAID IN THE PROGRAM LAST TUESDAY!!!!HE GREW UP THINKING HIS FATHER HUNG THE MOON AND NOW HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT IS AUTHENTIC ABOUT HIS FATHER’S LIFE ANY MORE.
Today I went to my church, Fellowship Bible Church and heard one of our teaching pastors, Brandon Barnard, deliver a message on Sexual Purity.
He started off the sermon by reading three chapters from Proverbs. Here are the verses:
Proverbs 5:1-23
English Standard Version (ESV)
Proverbs 5
Warning Against Adultery
1 My son, be attentive to my wisdom;
incline your ear to my understanding, 2that you may keep discretion,
and your lips may guard knowledge. 3For the lips of a forbidden[a] woman drip honey,
and her speech[b] is smoother than oil, 4but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword. 5Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to[c] Sheol; 6she does not ponder the path of life;
her ways wander, and she does not know it. 7And now, O sons, listen to me,
and do not depart from the words of my mouth. 8Keep your way far from her,
and do not go near the door of her house, 9lest you give your honor to others
and your years to the merciless, 10lest strangers take their fill of your strength,
and your labors go to the house of a foreigner, 11and at the end of your life you groan,
when your flesh and body are consumed, 12and you say, “How I hated discipline,
and my heart despised reproof! 13I did not listen to the voice of my teachers
or incline my ear to my instructors. 14 I am at the brink of utter ruin
in the assembled congregation.”
15Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well. 16Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you. 18Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated[d] always in her love. 20Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman
and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?[e] 21For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD,
and he ponders[f] all his paths. 22The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him,
and he is held fast in the cords of his sin. 23 He dies for lack of discipline,
and because of his great folly he is led astray.
Proverbs 6:20-35
English Standard Version (ESV)
Warnings Against Adultery
20 My son, keep your father’s commandment,
and forsake not your mother’s teaching. 21 Bind them on your heart always;
tie them around your neck. 22 When you walk, they[a] will lead you;
when you lie down, they will watch over you;
and when you awake, they will talk with you. 23For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light,
and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, 24to preserve you from the evil woman,[b]
from the smooth tongue of the adulteress.[c] 25 Do not desire her beauty in your heart,
and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes; 26for the price of a prostitute is only a loaf of bread,[d]
but a married woman[e] hunts down a precious life. 27Can a man carry fire next to his chest
and his clothes not be burned? 28Or can one walk on hot coals
and his feet not be scorched? 29So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife;
none who touches her will go unpunished. 30People do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry, 31but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold;
he will give all the goods of his house. 32He who commits adultery lacks sense;
he who does it destroys himself. 33He will get wounds and dishonor,
and his disgrace will not be wiped away. 34For jealousy makes a man furious,
and he will not spare when he takes revenge. 35He will accept no compensation;
he will refuse though you multiply gifts.
Proverbs 7:6-27
English Standard Version (ESV)
6For at the window of my house
I have looked out through my lattice, 7and I have seen among the simple,
I have perceived among the youths,
a young man lacking sense, 8passing along the street near her corner,
taking the road to her house 9in the twilight, in the evening,
at the time of night and darkness.
10And behold, the woman meets him,
dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart.[a] 11She is loud and wayward;
her feet do not stay at home; 12now in the street, now in the market,
and at every corner she lies in wait. 13She seizes him and kisses him,
and with bold face she says to him, 14“I had to offer sacrifices,[b]
and today I have paid my vows; 15so now I have come out to meet you,
to seek you eagerly, and I have found you. 16I have spread my couch with coverings,
colored linens from Egyptian linen; 17I have perfumed my bed with myrrh,
aloes, and cinnamon. 18Come, let us take our fill of love till morning;
let us delight ourselves with love. 19For my husband is not at home;
he has gone on a long journey; 20he took a bag of money with him;
at full moon he will come home.”
21With much seductive speech she persuades him;
with her smooth talk she compels him. 22All at once he follows her,
as an ox goes to the slaughter,
or as a stag is caught fast[c] 23till an arrow pierces its liver;
as a bird rushes into a snare;
he does not know that it will cost him his life.
24And now, O sons, listen to me,
and be attentive to the words of my mouth. 25Let not your heart turn aside to her ways;
do not stray into her paths, 26for many a victim has she laid low,
and all her slain are a mighty throng. 27Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death.
Then Brandon made several points concerning the scriptures. Probably the most powerful point he made was referring to the exercise that Randy Alcorn had challenged all men to make. This below is my advice to Gene Simmons.
Personalized List of Anticipated Consequences of Immorality
Grieving my Lord; displeasing the One whose opinion most matters.
Dragging into the mud Christ’s sacred reputation.
Loss of reward and commendation from God.
Having to one day look Jesus in the face at the judgment seat and give an account of why I did it. Forcing God to discipline me in various ways.
Following in the footsteps of men I know of whose immorality forfeited their ministry and caused me to shudder. List of these names:
Suffering of innocent people around me who would get hit by my shrapnel (a la Achan).
Untold hurt to Nanci, my best friend and loyal wife.
Loss of Nanci’s respect and trust.
Hurt to and loss of credibility with my beloved daughters, Karina and Angela. (“Why listen to a man who betrayed Mom and us?”)
If my blindness should continue or my family be unable to forgive, I could lose my wife and my children forever.
Shame to my family. (The cruel comments of others who would invariably find out.)
Shame to my church family.
Shame and hurt to my fellow pastors and elders. List of names:
Shame and hurt to my friends, and especially those I’ve led to Christ and discipled. List of names:
Guilt awfully hard to shake—even though God would forgive me, would I forgive myself?
Plaguing memories and flashbacks that could taint future intimacy with my wife.
Disqualifying myself after having preached to others.
Surrender of the things I am called to and love to do—teach and preach and write and minister to others. Forfeiting forever certain opportunities to serve God. Years of training and experience in ministry wasted for a long period of time, maybe permanently.
Being haunted by my sin as I look in the eyes of others, and having it all dredged up again wherever I go and whatever I do.
Undermining the hard work and prayers of others by saying to our community “this is a hypocrite—who can take seriously anything he and his church have said and done?”
Laughter, rejoicing and blasphemous smugness by those who disrespect God and the church (2 Samuel 12:14).
Bringing great pleasure to Satan, the Enemy of God.
Heaping judgment and endless problems on the person I would have committed adultery with.
Possible diseases (pain, constant reminder to me and my wife, possible infection of Nanci, or in the case of AIDS, even causing her death, as well as mine.)
Possible pregnancy, with its personal and financial implications.
Loss of self-respect, discrediting my own name, and invoking shame and lifelong embarrassment upon myself.
I’m older now, turned 55 a few days ago. My daughters are grown, with children of their own. But the list of consequences of immorality is larger than ever. I have two sons-in-law and four grandsons. Many people have read my books, so the circle of people I would be letting down has grown. (For resources on this subject, see my book The Purity Principle, and my booklet Sexual Temptation: How Christian Workers Can Win the Battle.)
It would still break my heart to let down my Lord Jesus and my wonderful wife. That’s why I’m more careful than ever to avoid the little compromises and indulgences that could lead to moral disaster.
If we would rehearse in advance the ugly and overwhelming consequences of immorality, we would be far more prone to avoid it.
Last Tuesday night I watched Gene Simmons Family Jewels and I commented how I was struck by the good advice that his son Nick gave him. He told him that he grew up thinking that his father was the best. However, now that the marital infidility has come out, it has made Nick think long and hard […]
Last night I watched Gene Simmons Family Jewels and I was struck by the good advice that his son Nick gave him. He told him that he grew up thinking that his father was the best. However, now that the marital infidility has come out, it has made Nick think long and hard about what […]
I watched with great interest the first episode of Gene Simmons show two days ago when his wife left him because of his repeated unfaithfulness. Nerve editors are divided on the subject of Chelsea Handler, by which I mean that I find her kind of funny and Ben made a barfy face when I said […]
Parents, Public Braced for Amy Winehouse’s Death Through Five-Year Fade
Posted Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:13pm PDT by Chris Willman
To Amy Winehouse’s family, the singer/songwriter’s death was not unexpected. It was “only a matter of time,” her mother, Janis Winehouse, was quoted as saying in the Sunday Mirror. She’d visited her daughter the day before she died, and said, “She seemed out of it. But her passing still hasn’t hit me.”
She said their final encounter had ended with the weakened Amy saying “I love you, mum.” “Those are the words I will always treasure,” Janis said. “I’m glad I saw her when I did.”
Father Mitch Winehouse had been in New York preparing to do a series of showcases for his new jazz album. He canceled the shows and was seen at JFK a few hours after the news hit. “I’m completely devastated,” he was reported as saying. “I’m coming home. I have to be with Amy. I can’t crack up, for her sake. My family needs me.”
Mitch Winehouse had been vocal in the past—too vocal, for Amy’s tastes—about his daughter’s substance abuse. As far back as three years ago, he was raising the specter of her possible demise when he publicly revealed that she was suffering from emphysema. “Doctors have told her if she goes back to smoking drugs, it won’t just ruin her voice, it will kill her,” he was quoted as saying in 2008, while issuing an ultimatum to drug dealers to stay away.
If the family had clearly braced themselves for this news at various points over the years, so had the public, which had grown nearly inured to tales of the singer’s inebriated escapades and false promises of new output.
With Amy Winehouse, sadly, drug counselors finally have the all-or-nothing case study in creative stifling they need.
It never helped their cause that other famous members of the so-called “27 Club” who’d also died at age 27—including Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Janis Joplin—had managed to record great music right up until their deaths. These legends’ romanticized swan songs helped foster the belief among some drug users that, even if the grim reaper looms, artistic genius can coexist with or even be aided by addiction.
But the five fallow years that have passed since Winehouse released her second and final album, the Grammys-sweeping Back to Black, tell a very different cautionary tale about promises unfulfilled. There’s no reason to expect the kind of posthumous releases that followed the deaths of figures like Michael Jackson and Tupac Shakur. It’s not at all clear Winehouse managed to record anything more than a few cover songs in the half-decade that passed since she released one of the most triumphant recordings of the 21st century.
The only confirmed recording Winehouse has in the can is a duet with Tony Bennett of the standard “Body and Soul,” set for hisDuets II album, which will be out Sept. 20. Winehouse was said to have been cheeky but capable when she joined the 84-year-old Bennett at London’s Abbey Road studio March 23, calling the experience “a story to tell my grandchildren to tell their grandchildren to tell their grandchildren,” according to a reporter from the Telegraph who attended the session.
But unless the recording sessions were an incredibly well-kept secret, there’s no album no. 3 in the vault. Answering fan queries online, she always had an answer ready when the inevitable questions would come about when we should expect the next album: “Soon!” Writing on her Formspring web page last summer, she told fans, “Aww, my album is coming. I can’t wait”—followed eight months ago by the tease, “Do you want to know my first song from my new album?” She never did use that forum to name the promised song, or even mention the supposed album-in-progress again.
Last year, there was conjecture of a project with the Roots’ Questlove. On March 1, 2010, she tweeted, “Me an Quest, sittin in a tree, makin a s-up-er group.” Little was heard about this highly anticipated hookup again.
Her professional relationship with producer Mark Ronson, who was responsible for much of Back to Black, had definitely been on-again, off-again in the intervening years. Famously, in early 2008, Ronson abandoned sessions that were intended to produce a possible theme song for the James Bond movie Quantum of Solace, diplomatically saying, “We tried to work for a little bit. I’m not sure she’s ready to work on music yet.”
In July of 2010, she appeared as a surprise guest at a club gig by Ronson, singing her B-side, “Valerie,” though she failed to remember all the lyrics. Things between the two seemed to take a bad turn last September, when she tweeted some invective aimed at her producer:“Ronson you’re dead to me; one album I write an you take half the credit- make a career out of it? Don’t think so BRUV.” But three days later, she attempted to make up with him online, writing, “Ronson I love you; that make it better? You know I love you- it’s a jew thing…”
More recently, Winehouse and Ronson collaborated on the last recording released during her lifetime, a cover of Lesley Gore’s “It’s My Party” for a star-studded Quincy Jones tribute album. Her vocal was widely panned, with fans and critics wondering what the unedited tapes sounded like, if that was the best performance Ronson could patch together with the help of editing tools.
Winehouse’s last appearance on stage was just three days before her death-a non-singing cameo at a show by her beloved goddaughter, Dionne Bromfield, at the iTunes Festival in London. Her final actual gig had been a disastrous June 18 tour kickoff in Serbia, the booing of which was seen and mocked around the world on YouTube. Three days later, the cancellation of the rest of the tour was announced.
The day after the Serbian disaster, her father, Mitch Winehouse, who had been candid about the extent of his daughter’s troubles, tweeted, “Amy was advised by me and her manager not to do gigs. These were contracted months ago when she was well.” Two days later, he added, “By the way, Amy is not retiring. She is going to get some r and r and come back better than ever.”
Norma Bates noted on the Arkansas Times Blog yesterday
The most common justification throughout history – the elephant in everybody’s living room – is religion. “God is on our side.” “We are the chosen people.” “God gave us this land.” “God said to — .”
Judaism, Christianity, or that relative Johnny-come-lately – Islam – are all exactly alike despite their man-behind-the-curtain smoke-and-mirrors fright shows of Truth and Superiority to the others.
As Richard Dawkins says in “The God Delusion,” “Religion is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no discussion.”
________________
HERE IS A GOOD ANSWER TO DAWKINS:
When I asked Ravi Zacharias about religion causing violence as Dawkins claims, Zacharias unapologetically said, “Dawkins is pathetic at this point. He is either ignoring political fact or is misusing numbers to convey something that he is predisposed to want to convey.”
The biggest point Dawkins is missing, Ravi Zacharias said, is “irreligion and atheism have killed infinitely more than all religious wars of any kind cumulatively put together … Joseph Stalin’s violence and eradication of 15 million of his own people was a result of his stepping away from God and into a rabid kind of atheistic thinking.”
By the same token, in their zeal to enforce an atheistic communism, “Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot caused the extermination of tens of millions of people,” Zacharias said.
Norma Bates noted on the Arkansas Times Blog yesterday, “Communism was a comprehensive, all-embracing religion and not simply a political party, political system or philosophy. This fact is illustrated by the numerous ways in which Communism embraced and attemped to promulgate peculiar quasi-religious (and often clearly anti-scientific) beliefs which had nothing all to do with politics or government. Although Communism typically touted itself as anti-religious and pro-science, it was, in fact, deeply anti-scientific and clearly a religion. One of Communism’s hallmarks in the Soviet Union and China was its aggressive and violent suppression of other religions. Communism was ‘anti-religious’ only in the sense that it forcibly suppressed all religions other than itself.”
If it walks like a duck . . . .
____________________________
Francis Schaeffer in the episode “The Revolutionary Age” in his film series “How should we then live?” which is available on youtube, made the point that Communism is atheistic and has NEVER EXISTED WITHOUT BRINGING REPRESSION. A few months ago a young person said to me, “I think that Marx was misunderstood and that true communism has not been really tried yet.” I responded that there are a hand full of Communist countries today and they all have several similar conditions: NO FREEDOM OF PRESS, NO POLITICAL FREEDOM, NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND NO ECONOMIC FREEDOM. I noted that Schaeffer has rightly said that Communism is basically based on materialism and a result it must fail. It does not have a Reformation base.
I have corresponded on several occasions with the humanist Paul Kurtz. I must say that he is one of the finest gentlemen on the face of the earth. I have had dinner with several other secular humanist who have signed the Humanist Manifesto II and had very civil discussions with them. None of them ever suggested that the Communists were not atheistic. They just simply thought that these particular men murdered to suit their own purposes but were not following logic which would have led them to treat others with respect. However, this idea that humanists and atheists can come up with a logical moral system that rules out murder is not realistic. Rationally they can not do it. Without God in the picture then you only have this world of time and chance. If evolution teaches us the survival of the fittest then why would “might makes right” ever be wrong?
The movie maker and atheist Woody Allen knows this best.
I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates man’s need for God more than Allen’s 1989 film Crimes and Misdemeanors. This film also brought up the view that Hitler believed that “might made right.” How can an atheist argue against that? Basically Woody Allen is attacking the weaknesses in his own agnostic point of view!! Take a look at the video clip below when he says in the absence of God, man has to do the right thing. What chance is there that will happen?
Crimes and Misdemeanors is about a eye doctor who hires a killer to murder his mistress because she continually threatens to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. Afterward he is haunted by guilt. His Jewish father had taught him that God sees all and will surely punish the evildoer.
But the doctor’s crime is never discovered. Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his father had with Judah’s unbelieving Aunt May during a Jewish Sedar dinner many years ago:
“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazi’s, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says Aunt May.
Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”
Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”
Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”
Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”
Judah’s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”
The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it? The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).
Crimes and Misdemeanors (Woody Allen – 1989) – Final scenes
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.
Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.
Below is a study by Francis Schaeffer that makes the point that the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution in Russia should be compared.
E P I S O D E 5
How Should We Then Live 5-1
T h e
REVOLUTIONARY AGE
I. Bible as Absolute Base for Law
A. Paul Robert’s mural in Lausanne.
B. Rutherford’s Lex Rex (Law Is King): Freedom without chaos; government by law rather than arbitrary government by men.
C. Impact of biblical political principles in America.
1. Rutherford’s influence on U.S. Constitution: directly through Witherspoon; indirectly through Locke’s secularized version of biblical politics.
2. Locke’s ideas inconsistent when divorced from Christianity.
3. One can be personally non-Christian, yet benefit from Christian foundations: e.g. Jefferson and other founders.
II. The Reformation and Checks and Balances
A. Humanist and Reformation views of politics contrasted.
B. Sin is reason for checks and balances in Reformed view: Calvin’s position at Geneva examined.
C. Checks and balances in Protestant lands prevented bloody resolution of tensions.
D. Elsewhere, without this biblically rooted principle, tensions had to be resolved violently.
III. Contrast Between English and French Political Experience
A. Voltaire’s admiration of English conditions.
B. Peaceful nature of the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 in England related to Reformation base.
C. Attempt to achieve political change in France on English lines, but on Enlightenment base, produced a bloodbath and a dictatorship.
1. Constructive change impossible on finite human base.
2. Declaration of Rights of Man, the rush to extremes, and the Goddess of Reason.
3. Anarchy or repression: massacres, Robespierre, the Terror.
4. Idea of perfectibility of Man maintained even during the Terror.
IV. Anglo-American Experience Versus Franco-Russian
A. Reformation experience of freedom without chaos contrasts with that of Marxist-Leninist Russia.
B. Logic of Marxist-Leninism.
1. Marxism not a source of freedom.
2. 1917 Revolution taken over, not begun, by Bolsheviks.
3. Logic of communism: elite dictatorship, suppression of freedoms, coercion of allies.
V. Reformation Christianity and Humanism: Fruits Compared
A. Reformation gave absolutes to counter injustices; where Christians failed they were untrue to their principles.
B. Humanism has no absolute way of determining values consistently.
C. Differences practical, not just theoretical: Christian absolutes give limited government; denial of absolutes gives arbitrary rule.
VI. Weaknesses Which Developed Later in Reformation Countries
A. Slavery and race prejudice.
1. Failure to live up to biblical belief produces cruelty.
2. Hypocritical exploitation of other races.
3. Church’s failure to speak out sufficiently against this hypocrisy.
B. Noncompassionate use of accumulated wealth.
1. Industrialism not evil in itself, but only through greed and lack of compassion.
2. Labor exploitation and gap in living standards.
3. Church’s failure to testify enough against abuses.
C. Positive face of Reformation Christianity toward social evil.
1. Christianity not the only influence on consensus.
a) Church’s silence betrayed; did not reflect what it said it believed.
b) Non-Christian influences also important at that time; and many so-called Christians were “social” Christians only.
2. Contributions of Christians to social reform.
a) Varied efforts in slave trade, prisons, factories.
(1) Wesley, Newton, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and abolition of slavery.
(2) Howard, Elizabeth Fry, and prison reforms.
(3) Lord Shaftesbury and reform in the factories.
b) Impact of Whitefield-Wesley revivals on society.
VII. Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection
But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement.
A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong.
B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.
Questions
1. What has been the role of biblical principles in the legal and political history of the countries studied?
2. Is it true that lands influenced by the Reformation escaped political violence because biblical concepts were acted upon?
3. What are the core distinctions, in terms of ideology and results, between English and American Revolutions on the one hand, and the French and Russian on the other hand?
4. What were the weaknesses which developed at a later date in countries which had a Reformation history?
5. Dr. Schaeffer believes that basic to action is an idea, and that the history of the West in the last two or three centuries has been marked by a humanism pressed to its tragic conclusions and by a Christianity insufficiently applied to the totality of life. How should Christians then approach participation in social and political affairs?
Key Events and Persons
Calvin: 1509-1564
Samuel Rutherford: 1600-1661
Rutherford’s Lex Rex: 1644
John Locke: 1631-1704
John Wesley: 1703-1791
Voltaire: 1694-1778
Letters on the English Nation: 1733
George Whitefield: 1714-1770
John Witherspoon: 1723-1794
John Newton: 1725-1807
John Howard: 1726-1790
Jefferson: 1743-1826
Robespierre: 1758-1794
Wilberforce: 1759-1833
Clarkson: 1760-1846
Napoleon: 1769-1821
Elizabeth Fry: 1780-1845
Declaration of Rights of Man: 1789
National Constituent Assembly: 1789-1791
Second French Revolution and Revolutionary Calendar: 1792
The Reign of Terror: 1792-1794
Lord Shaftesbury: 1801-1855
English slave trade ended: 1807
Slavery ended in Great Britain and Empire: 1833
Karl Marx: 1818-1883
Lenin: 1870-1924
Trotsky: 1879-1940
Stalin: 1879-1953
February and October Russian Revolutions: 1917
Berlin Wall: 1961
Czechoslovakian repression: 1968
Further Study
Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction: 1789-1850 (1970).
R.N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (1963).
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1957).
Peter Gay, ed., Deism: An Anthology (1968).
John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church (1970).
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1957).
Louis L. Snyder, ed., The Age of Reason (1955).
David B. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1975).
J. Kuczynski, The Rise of the Working Class (1971).
Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma (1958).
John Newton, Out of the Depths. An Autobiography.
John Wesley, Journal (1 vol. abridge).
C. Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, Ireland, 1845-1849 (1964).
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge. However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.
In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well. Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration. She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years. Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.
But unless the recording sessions were an incredibly well-kept secret, there’s no album no. 3 in the vault. Answering fan queries online, she always had an answer ready when the inevitable questions would come about when we should expect the next album: “Soon!” Writing on her Formspring web page last summer, she told fans, “Aww, my album is coming. I can’t wait”—followed eight months ago by the tease, “Do you want to know my first song from my new album?” She never did use that forum to name the promised song, or even mention the supposed album-in-progress again.
