Monthly Archives: January 2021

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ON HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY “A PROMISED LAND” Part 50 “Accepting that African Americans and other minority groups might need extra help from the government—that their specific hardships could be traced to a brutal history of discrimination rather than immutable characteristics or individual choices—required a level of empathy, of fellow feeling, that many white voters found difficult to muster”

January 10, 2021 – 1:52 am

—

Trump: Let me be clear, I condemn the KKK, white supremacists and the President Trump

Gutfeld on Trump getting rid of critical race theory

Ben Carson: I’ve never seen evidence of Trump being racist

January 10, 2021

Office of Barack and Michelle Obama
P.O. Box 91000
Washington, DC 20066

Dear President Obama,

I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters. 

There are several issues raised in your book that I would like to discuss with you such as the minimum wage law, the liberal press, the cause of 2007 financial meltdown, and especially your pro-choice (what I call pro-abortion) view which I strongly object to on both religious and scientific grounds, Two of the most impressive things in your book were your dedication to both the National Prayer Breakfast (which spoke at 8 times and your many visits to the sides of wounded warriors!!

I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it. 

Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:

Over the years, that trust proved difficult to sustain. In particular, the fault line of race strained it mightily. Accepting that African Americans and other minority groups might need extra help from the government—that their specific hardships could be traced to a brutal history of discrimination rather than immutable characteristics or individual choices—required a level of empathy, of fellow feeling, that many white voters found difficult to muster. Historically, programs designed to help racial minorities, from “forty acres and a mule” to affirmative action, were met with open hostility. Even universal programs that enjoyed broad support—like public education or public sector employment—had a funny way of becoming controversial once Black and brown people were included as beneficiaries.
     And harder economic times strained civic trust. As the U.S. growth rate started to slow in the 1970s—as incomes then stagnated and good jobs declined for those without a college degree, as parents started worrying about their kids doing at least as well as they had done—the scope of people’s concerns narrowed. We became more sensitive to the possibility that someone else was getting something we weren’t and more receptive to the notion that the government couldn’t be trusted to be fair.
     Promoting that story—a story that fed not trust but resentment—had come to define the modern Republican Party. With varying degrees of subtlety and varying degrees of success, GOP candidates adopted it as their central theme, whether they were running for president or trying to get elected to the local school board. It became the template for Fox News and conservative radio, the foundational text for every think tank and PAC the Koch Brothers financed: The government was taking money, jobs, college slots, and status away from hardworking, deserving people like us and handing it all to people like them—those who didn’t share our values, who didn’t work as hard as we did, the kind of people whose problems were of their own making.

For Proof Of Left’s Double Standard On Racism, Compare The Women’s March And Tea Party

What’s happening with the Women’s March right now is similar to what the left claimed about the Tea Party. The only difference is the reports this time appear to be true.By Emery McClendon

Plans for the 2019 Women’s Marches in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere are falling apart. The radicalism of the movement and controversial views of its leadership are bringing it down.

Surprisingly, what’s happening with the Women’s March right now is similar to what the left claimed about the Tea Party ten years ago. The only difference is the reports this time appear to be true.

New Orleans will not have a Women’s March this year due to “drastically declined” interest and fundraising. Chicago won’t have one despite boasting more than 250,000 people in 2017. The march in Eureka, California was cancelled because organizers were concerned it would be “overwhelmingly white.”

What’s wrong? The Women’s March is clearly out of the mainstream. At the 2017 D.C. rally, Madonna told the crowd she thought about “blowing up the White House.” After the Justice Department shut down the infamous Backpage.com website used by prostitutes and possible human traffickers in 2018, the Women’s March tweeted that “[s]ex workers [sic] rights are women’s rights.” Those aren’t mainstream values. Past supporters are now disaffected.

Most prominently, the Women’s March has been hurt by the radicalism of its leaders. Co-founder Tamika Mallory touts her ties to Louis Farrakhan, who last year likened Jews to termites and suggested Jews control the FBI, which he called “the worst enemy of black advancement.” March leader Linda Sarsour also praised Farrakhan, and tweeted that Sen. Susan Collins was a “disgrace” and supported “white supremacy” by voting to confirm U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Yet polling showed at least half of American women supported Kavanaugh. This isn’t leadership that represents all American women, to say the least.

Vanessa Wruble, who helped organize the first march, claims that Mallory, Sarsour and Carmen Perez purged her from the leadership because she is Jewish. Actress Alyssa Milano says she will not participate in the Women’s March if Mallory and Sarsour remain in charge. Others are endorsing her position.

Yet the NAACP, which was alarmed in 2010 that Tea Party organizations “have given platform to anti-Semites, racists and bigots,” remains a partner of the Women’s March despite all the reported antisemitism, racism, and bigotry associated with it. This is all in stark contrast to how the Tea Party movement was portrayed by the left. The Tea Party was held to a totally different standard regarding its events. Was it simply based on the Tea Party having conservative leanings while the Women’s March has progressive leanings? It appears to be so.

The Tea Party was tagged as racist from its inception. Anytime a controversial person attended or a questionable sign was held up at a Tea Party event, there was an immediate call for accountability. If one person in thousands brought a Confederate flag, the NAACP wanted Tea Party leaders to repudiate those individuals as if they were invited to the podium. Critics even tried to label the Gadsden Flag, the Revolutionary War flag adopted by the Tea Party, as racist.

Yet, in contrast, it took two years and multiple investigative articles and public pressure from celebrities to get the Women’s March to address public racism by its leaders. Why the double standard allowing leaders on the left to get away with publicly condoning overt racists like Farrakhan while those on the right are tarred as racist despite their ready and open condemnation of it every time some unknown shows up at their events with a questionable sign?

The notion of Tea Party racism continues to be pursued even though black conservatives like myself not only attend these rallies, but are also speakers and organizers. As a leader of Tea Party rallies in the Midwest, I’ve always made it known that it is an open movement. I invite every American to join us out of love for God, country, and a common desire to preserve our Constitution and founding principles.

Over the past ten years, I have traveled to and spoken at countless Tea Party events. During this time, I’ve never witnessed a single incident of racism. To the contrary, I have been given several prestigious awards and been the keynote speaker at many movement events. I speak at conferences, write articles and make television and radio appearances to discuss the issues and motivations of the Tea Party movement.

Compare that to the Women’s March, which is concerned with events being too white and promoting radical rhetoric that only divides Americans. After all of the criticism of the Tea Party, it’s time for the left to come to grips with itself and police the extremism of the Women’s March. They can’t have it both ways.Emery McClendon is a member of the Project 21 black leadership network and a tea party activist in the state of Indiana.


Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 293) (Founding Fathers’ view on Christianity, Elbridge Gerry of MA)

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 5, John Hancock)

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 4, Elbridge Gerry)

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 3, Samuel Adams)

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 2, John Quincy Adams)

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 1, John Adams)

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the founding fathers and their belief in inalienable rights

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the possibility that minorities may be mistreated under 51% rule

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—-

—

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Ken Paxton to Newsmax TV: Trump Not Accountable for Capitol Riot

January 10, 2021 – 12:49 am

01:05 / 08:52

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

 

 
 
 
 
 
________________

_____

Ken Paxton to Newsmax TV: Trump Not Accountable for Capitol Riot

By Theodore Bunker
Friday, 08 Jan 2021 2:04 PM

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told Newsmax TV on Friday that President Donald Trump cannot be held “responsible for the acts that someone else has done,” when it comes to the riot at the Capitol on Wednesday.

“We’re talking about 1st Amendment rights here,” Paxton told “John Bachman Now” on Friday. “I sat and listened to the president’s speech … I never once thought that that speech would mean that people would go and do bad things.”

He went on to say, “A small percentage of people decided they were going to go do this, we don’t know why they did it, we don’t know what their motivations were, we don’t know what they would have done without the speeches.”

Paxton said, “I don’t think you can hold President Trump or anybody else responsible for the acts that someone else has done,” and noted, “I certainly think what they did was awful.”



Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

 

 

 

 

 

6 Key Points on Efforts to Oust Trump in Final Days

Fred Lucas / / / 0 Comments

President Donald Trump greets the crowd at the “Save America” rally Wednesday just south of the White House before rioters breached the Capitol. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

After the riot at the Capitol, congressional Democrats increasingly are calling for the removal of President Donald Trump before his term expires Jan. 20, either through a second impeachment or by invoking the 25th Amendment. 

Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., an assistant House speaker, said  lawmakers could vote on impeachment within a week. 

After vowing never to concede the 2020 presidential contest at a rally Wednesday, Trump announced the next day that he is committed to an orderly transition to the presidency of Joe Biden. 

Theoretically, if Trump were removed from office, it would create two historic precedents. 

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

First, Trump would be the first president to be impeached twice. And second, if Vice President Mike Pence were to become the 46th president–with a term expiring Jan. 20–it would be the shortest presidential term American history. President William Henry Harrison died 31 days into his term. 

Here are six things to know about efforts to boot Trump from office before his term ends in less than two weeks. 

1. Could Opponents Use 25th Amendment?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have called for Pence and the Trump Cabinet to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. 

Pelosi said the House could move to impeach Trump if his Cabinet didn’t act. On Friday, she issued a statement calling for Trump to resign or face impeachment:

It is the hope of Members that the president will immediately resign. But if he does not, I have instructed the Rules Committee to be prepared to move forward with Congressman Jamie Raskin’s 25th Amendment legislation and a motion for impeachment. Accordingly, the House will preserve every option–including the 25th Amendment, a motion to impeach or a privileged resolution for impeachment.

Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, introduced his 25th Amendment legislation in October. 

But legal experts say the 25th Amendment is not in play in this case, primarily because Pence reportedly has no plans to call the Cabinet together to remove Trump. 

“The 25th Amendment wouldn’t be applicable here,” Ross Garber, a lawyer who specializes in political investigations and impeachment and teaches at Tulane Law School, told The Daily Signal. 

Garber represented four governors who faced state impeachment investigations in Connecticut, South Carolina, Alabama, and Missouri. 

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution allowsfor the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries to determine that a president is physically or mentally unfit to carry out the duties of the office. It provides for the vice president to become acting president on a temporary basis. 

Congress then could remove the president from office permanently with a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. That would be an even higher bar to reach than impeachment, because the latter requires only a simple majority in the House to remove a president, but two-thirds of the Senate.

Congress adopted the 25th Amendment in 1967, about three years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The move was based on the concern about what to do while a president was still alive but experiencing a health crisis.

“The 25th Amendment is for when a president is unable to fulfill the duties of the office for either physically or mental reasons,” John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. 

“I don’t think it’s appropriate as a matter of constitutional law,” added Malcolm, also a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. 

And it’s not practical since Pence doesn’t plan to invoke the option, he said. 

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., became the first GOP lawmaker to call for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment. 

“It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment and end this nightmare,” said Kinzinger, who also said he would back impeaching Trump. 

2. What Could Trump Be Impeached For?

The charges that Democrats most often talk about are sedition, incitement to riot, and insurrection, or in aiding and abetting a riot or seditious acts. 

This approach would be different from the House’s 2019 impeachment of Trump on two articles that did not allege a crime, but specified abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“It’s not sedition, that would be ridiculous, or aiding and abetting,” said Robert Ray, a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton and was a lawyer for Trump in the 2020 Senate impeachment trial.

“But an impeachment alleging incitement [of a riot] or aiding and abetting would not suffer the same defect as the earlier impeachment,” Ray told The Daily Signal. “At least there would be an alleged crime. A factual basis would be the challenge.” 

The federal statute on sedition defines it as conduct promoting the overthrow of the U.S. government. 

Both Republicans and Democrats referred to the mob that broke into the Capitol and overwhelmed police as an “insurrection.” 

Federal law defines an insurrectionist as “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”

Federal riot law includes provision on those “with intent” to “incite a riot,” or to “aid and abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying out a riot.”

In Trump’s speech Wednesday at the “Save America Rally” before the riot, which many on both sides criticized as inflammatory, the president said at one point: “ I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

However, Trump also told the crowd: “Fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.” 

The president also said: “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

U.S. Capitol Police announced Thursday night that Officer Brian Sicknick, 42, had died of his injuries and that authorities were treating the 12-year veteran’s death as a homicide. He was the fifth person to die as a result of the chaos at the Capitol.

Twitter, the social media platform that Trump long has used to spread his message, announcedlate Friday that it had “permanently suspended” his account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Heritage’s Malcolm said earlier that he didn’t want to guess what the House’s articles of impeachment would say, but said he thought sedition would be a stretch. 

“I don’t think the president was trying to set up a coup to take over the government, but his words were certainly unwise and inflammatory,” Malcolm said. 

Beyond his words at the rally are news reports that the president   resisted securing the Capitol and that senior Trump administration officials had to go around him to bring in the D.C. National Guard to help bring order to the building. 

“A key issue to focus on is what the president did after the riots and whether he refused to deploy forces to secure the Capitol,” Garber said. “If that is true, it’s hard to justify.”

All impeachment proceedings should be based on whether an officeholder poses a danger to the country, the government, or  the office, Garber said. 

“That should always be the justification for impeachment,” Garber said. “It’s not to censure or punish. It’s meant to protect the country. … You could make an argument that the president has enormous power he could exercise in 12 days.” 

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., announced Wednesday that she was drawing up articles of impeachment against Trump. 

The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, 2019, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which the two leaders discussed Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, as well as U.S. military aid. 

The Senate acquitted Trump on Feb. 5, 2020. 

3. Time Expiring for a Senate Trial?

Although only one Senate Republican, Mitt Romney of Utah, voted to remove Trump in last year’s trial, Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said Friday morning that he would consider supporting articles of impeachment if the House sent them to the Senate. 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, called Friday for Trump to resign. 

Even if the House impeaches Trump next week, the likelihood that the Senate could or would reconvene in time to hold a trial before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration Jan. 20 seems unlikely, Malcolm said. 

“The House could draft articles of impeachment and vote on it in 12 days,” Malcolm said. “I do not think there is time for a Senate trial. But Trump could be the first president in American history to be impeached twice.”

The Senate would have to come back into session to address House charges against Trump. The Senate calendar has the body scheduled to be in recess until Jan. 20. 

Still, that early return to Washington is not impossible, Garber said. 

“There is conceivably time to do this. Impeachment doesn’t have to be drawn out,” he said. “Impeachment is intended to be a measure in an emergency.”

4. What’s the Point of Impeaching Trump Now? 

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution says that if a federal official is convicted in an impeachment trial, “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” 

Legal experts debate whether disqualification from running for future office requires the same two-thirds majority as removal from office, or just a simple majority. 

“It would not be wise to rush an impeachment for the purpose of preventing him from holding office again and bar him from running in 2024,” Ray said. “That should be something voters could decide.”

So the House could impeach and the Senate–soon to be under slim Democratic control–could hold a trial even after Trump leaves office. It basically would be to disqualify Trump from running for president again, as many suspect he will do in 2024. 

5. Could Trump Be Impeached After Leaving? 

Precedent going back to the scandal-plagued Grant administration’s War Secretary William Belknap suggests that retroactive impeachment could occur.

Belknap ran what is now the Defense Department for almost eight years. In 1876,  a House investigation found evidence that he took part in kickbacks and corruption involving a military vendor that paid $20,000 to the war secretary. 

On March 2, 1876, Belknap resigned from office just minutes before the House was scheduled to impeach him. If he thought this would preclude impeachment, he was wrong. 

The House approved five articles of impeachment, including one that accused Belknap of “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The fact that Belknap no longer held office didn’t prevent the Senate from holding a trial. On Aug. 1, 1876, a Senate majority voted in favor of all five articles of impeachment–well short of the two-thirds required to convict. The former war secretary was acquitted and never prosecuted. 

Such drama would consume much of Washington if it occurred with Trump, Ray said, and that likely isn’t what Biden wants. 

“Is this really how Biden wants to begin his administration?” Ray said. “It’s not really in the country’s best interest, and it isn’t in the Democratic Party’s best interest.” 

6. Could Biden Justice Department Charge Trump After He Leaves?

Many on the left have clamored for Trump to be prosecuted for something–anything–after leaving office well before the Capitol riot occurred. 

Biden announced this week that he will nominate a federal judge, Merrick Garland, to be his attorney general. President Barack Obama nominated Garland to the Supreme Court in 2015, but the Republican-led Senate declined to consider the nomination.

The Garland choice makes a political prosecution somewhat unlikely, Ray said. 

Ray secured a plea deal with Bill Clinton just before the 43rd president left office in which Clinton agreed to surrender his law license and admit to making misleading statements under oath to avoid future prosecution. 

“In the past, the judgment of the Justice Department was to leave well enough alone with former presidents,” Ray said.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

 

 

_________________

March 8, 2021

President Biden c/o The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I read in A PROMISED LAND these words about the transition period for Obama/Biden:

“President Bush would end up doing all he could to make the eleven weeks between my election and his departure go smoothly. Every office in the White House provided my team with detailed ‘how to’ manuals. His staffers made themselves available to meet with their successors, answer questions, and even be shadowed as they carried out their duties. The Bush daughters, Barbara and Jenna, by that time young adults, rearranged their schedules to give Malia and Sasha their own tour of the ‘fun’ parts of the White House. I promised myself that when the time came, I would treat my successor the same way.” 

How did you and President Obama treat Donald Trump’s transition to power? Also Bush did not say one thing negative about you and President Obama during your time in White House! Did you and President Obama extend the same courtesy that the President who followed you?

POLITICSCOMMENTARY

Our Upside-Down Postelection World

Victor Davis Hanson / / / 12 Comments

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks prior to the holiday at The Queen theater Dec. 22, 2020, in Wilmington, Delaware. (Photo: Joshua Roberts/Stringer/Getty Images)

After Nov. 3, the meaning of some words and concepts abruptly changed. Have you noticed how new realities have replaced old ones?

Media cross-examination of the president is now an out-of-date idea. The time for gotcha questions has come and gone. Why ask a president whether he is a traitor or a crook when you can focus on his favorite flavor of milkshake or compliment him on his socks?

The old pre-election truth was that new vaccines take years to develop. The new postelection truth is that it’s no big deal to bring out new vaccines in nine months.

Impeaching a first-term president after his first midterm election—on a strictly partisan vote, for political reasons other than the Constitution’s “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”—is now a terrible idea.

Stand for your principles in 2021—even in the face of Congress, the media, and the radical Left ganging up on conservatives and our values. Learn more now >>

Worse would be to appoint a special counsel to harass a president on unfounded charges of collusion with China. An even scarier notion would be a conservative dream team of partisan lawyers hounding a President Joe Biden—using a 22-month, $40 million blank check.

It would be unprofessional for university psychologists and physicians from a distance to diagnose, in pop fashion, the mental faculties of a President Biden.

Certainly, there would never be talk about Department of Justice officials contemplating wearing a wire as part of an entrapment scheme to remove a President Biden through the 25th Amendment. That would almost constitute a coup attempt.

Almost as bad would be for the holdover FBI director to start “memorializing” his private conversations with Biden on FBI devices. He might then leak such memos to the press—just in case he were to be fired for secretly investigating Biden for “Chinese collusion” and then lying about such a probe.

What happened to the Logan Act? Not long ago it was assumed to be a critically needed guardrail. Wouldn’t it now ensure that presidential transition team members were not calling foreign leaders while Donald Trump is still president? How has it suddenly become a defunct, ossified relic?

Leaking classified material would be about the worst thing government officials could do. Imagine if a Trump holdover, burrowed into the new Biden administration, released a transcript of Biden’s private conversations with the Mexican president or the Australian prime minister.

Such a breach of trust would be almost as bad as a turncoat anti-Biden mole seeking to resist presidential directives. Imagine if this anonymous staffer were given an op-ed in The New York Times to claim that a cadre of old-time Democrats was shocked by Biden’s cognitive decline and resisting his directives.

Is extending security clearances to former high-level officials-turned-cable TV pundits still a bad idea? Who would wish to see, for instance, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe issuing warnings each night on Fox News? With a wink-and-nod hat tip to his “confidential sources,” Ratcliffe could spin conspiracy theories that Biden is facing bombshell disclosures about his family misadventures with the Chinese.

Is it still important that we keep the tradition of retired high-ranking military officers—all subject to the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—not disparaging the president?

Who would want former Pentagon officials, some of them serving on the boards of military contractors, warning us that Biden should be removed because of cognitive challenges? Certainly, generals and admirals should not compare a President Biden’s policies to those of Mussolini or the Nazis.

At least “dark money” no longer exists. The old idea of right-wing billionaires pouring money into candidates’ political campaigns was supposedly a dangerous practice. It would be far more civic-minded for left-wing billionaires to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of nonpartisan state bureaucracies entrusted with guaranteeing the sanctity of national elections.

And apparently after, not before, an election is the proper time to announce critically important news.

Like the rollout of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine?

Like a $900 billion stimulus package?

Like a revised upward Fannie Mae report on the economy?

Like the ties between a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee and a suspected Chinese spy?

Like a federal investigation of Biden’s son and his possible profiteering with rich Chinese elites affiliated with China’s government?

To keep track of our brave new American world is easy.

Just consider everything said to be bad by the “Animal Farm” media before Nov. 3 as now good. And remember that everything said to be good two months ago is now actually bad.

(C)2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

________

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

Related Posts:

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 10)

Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, a leading pro-life advocate and convert to Catholicism, died at the age of 84 on Monday a week ago in his New York home, after a long struggle with cancer. The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Chapter 12 is titled To The Thanatoriums, an allusion the Walker […]

:

 

Francis Schaeffer’s prayer for us in USA

 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 […]

 

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY

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

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

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 […]

 

 

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

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 […]

The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and A Christian Manifesto in that process.

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 […]

Who was Francis Schaeffer? by Udo Middelmann

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 […]

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

My rough draft letter to President Elect Biden that will be mailed on March 23, 2021! (Part 63) Pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff quotes wise 9 yr kid concerning abortion, “It doesn’t matter what month. It still means killing the babies.”

January 9, 2021 – 2:13 am

—-

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office
January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Mr. Hentoff with the clarinetist Edmond Hall in 1948 at the Savoy, a club in Boston.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

________________

______________________

March 23, 2021

President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view. Although we are both Christians and have the Bible as the basis for our moral views, I did want you to take a close look at the views of the pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff too.  Hentoff became convinced of the pro-life view because of secular evidence that shows that the unborn child is human. I would ask you to consider his evidence and then of course reverse your views on abortion.

___________________

The pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff wrote a fine article below I wanted to share with you.

Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many   cases (Bernard Nathanson, Donald Trump, Paul Greenberg, Kathy Ireland)    when other high profile pro-choice leaders have changed their views and this is just another case like those. I have contacted the White House over and over concerning this issue and have even received responses. I am hopeful that people will stop and look even in a secular way (if they are not believers) at this abortion debate and see that the unborn child is deserving of our protection.That is why the writings of Nat Hentoff of the Cato Institute are so crucial.

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

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 Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

_____________________________________

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

________________

Jewish World Review June 12, 2006/ 16 Sivan, 5766

Insisting on life

http://www.NewsandOpinion.com | A longtime friend of mine is married to a doctor who also performs abortions. At the dinner table one recent evening, their 9-year-old son — having heard a word whose meaning he didn’t know — asked, “What is an abortion?” His mother, choosing her words carefully, described the procedure in simple terms.

“But,” said her son, “that means killing the baby.” The mother then explained that there are certain months during which an abortion cannot be performed, with very few exceptions. The 9-year-old shook his head. “But,” he said, “it doesn’t matter what month. It still means killing the babies.”

Hearing the story, I wished it could be repeated to the justices of the Supreme Court, in the hope that at least five of them might act on this 9-year-old’s clarity of thought and vision.

The boy’s spontaneous insistence on the primacy of life also reminded me of a powerful pro-life speaker and writer who, many years ago, helped me become a pro-lifer. He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: “There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life.

“That,” he continued, “was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore out of your right to be concerned.”

This passionate reverend used to warn: “Don’t let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn’t a human being. That’s how the whites dehumanized us … The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do — and not even feel they’d done anything wrong.”

That preacher was Jesse Jackson. Later, he decided to run for the presidency — and it was a credible campaign that many found inspiring in its focus on what still had to be done on civil rights. But Jackson had by now become “pro-choice” — much to the appreciation of most of those in the liberal base.

The last time I saw Jackson was years later, on a train from Washington to New York. I told him of a man nominated, but not yet confirmed, to a seat on a federal circuit court of appeals. This candidate was a strong supporter of capital punishment — which both the Rev. Jackson and I oppose, since it involves the irreversible taking of a human life by the state.

I asked Jackson if he would hold a press conference in Washington, criticizing the nomination, and he said he would. The reverend was true to his word; the press conference took place; but that nominee was confirmed to the federal circuit court. However, I appreciated Jackson’s effort.

On that train, I also told Jackson that I’d been quoting — in articles, and in talks with various groups — from his compelling pro-life statements. I asked him if he’d had any second thoughts on his reversal of those views.

Usually quick to respond to any challenge that he is not consistent in his positions, Jackson paused, and seemed somewhat disquieted at my question. Then he said to me, “I’ll get back to you on that.” I still patiently await what he has to say.

As time goes on, my deepening concern with the consequences of abortion is that its validation by the Supreme Court, as a constitutional practice, helps support the convictions of those who, in other controversies — euthanasia, assisted suicide and the “futility doctrine” by certain hospital ethics committees — believe that there are lives not worth continuing.

Around the time of my conversation with Jackson on the train, I attended a conference on euthanasia at Clark College in Worcester, Mass. There, I met Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society, and already known internationally as a key proponent of the “death with dignity” movement.

He told me that for some years in this country, he had considerable difficulty getting his views about assisted suicide and, as he sees it, compassionate euthanasia into the American press.

“But then,” Humphry told me, “a wonderful thing happened. It opened all the doors for me.”

“What was that wonderful thing?” I asked.

“Roe v. Wade,” he answered.

The devaluing of human life — as the 9-year-old at the dinner table put it more vividly — did not end with making abortion legal, and therefore, to some people, moral. The word “baby” does not appear in Roe v. Wade — let alone the word “killing.”

And so, the termination of “lives not worth living” goes on.

______________________

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. Now after presenting the secular approach of Nat Hentoff I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith.  I  respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,

Related posts:

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part U “Do men have a say in the abortion debate?” (includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS and editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part T “Abortion is a dirty business” (includes video “Truth and History” and editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Abortion supporters lying in order to further their clause? Window to the Womb (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part D “If you can’t afford a child can you abort?”Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 4 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part C “Abortion” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 3 includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part B “Gendercide” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes Part 2 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

SANCTITY OF LIFE SATURDAY “AngryOldWoman” blogger argues that she has no regrets about past abortion

Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw  something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” The Church Awakens: Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (includes the video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part H “Are humans special?” includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) Reagan: ” To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all”

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part G “How do moral nonabsolutists come up with what is right?” includes the film “ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE”)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Tagged | Comments (0)

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ON HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY “A PROMISED LAND” Part 49 O, fly and never tire, Fly and never tire, Fly and never tire, There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land. —FROM AN AFRICAN AMERICAN SPIRITUAL

January 9, 2021 – 1:45 am

—

January 9, 2021

Office of Barack and Michelle Obama
P.O. Box 91000
Washington, DC 20066

Dear President Obama,

I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters. 

I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it. 

Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:

O, fly and never tire, Fly and never tire, Fly and never tire, There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land. —FROM AN AFRICAN AMERICAN SPIRITUAL

Representative Text

1 Oh, walk together, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Walk together, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Walk together, children. 
Don’t you get weary,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.
Going to mourn and never tire,
Mourn and never tire,
Mourn and never tire,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.

2 Oh, talk together, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Talk together, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Talk together, children. 
Don’t you get weary,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.
Going to mourn and never tire,
Mourn and never tire,
Mourn and never tire,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.

3 Oh, sing together, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Sing together, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Sing together, children. 
Don’t you get weary,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.
Going to sing and never tire,
Sing and never tire,
Sing and never tire,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.

4 Oh, get you ready, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Get you ready, children,
Don’t you get weary,
Get you ready, children. 
Don’t you get weary,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.
Going to pray and never tire,
Pray and never tire,
Pray and never tire,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.

5 For Jesus is a-coming,
Don’t you get weary,
For Jesus is a-coming,
Don’t you get weary,
For Jesus is a-coming. 
Don’t you get weary,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.
Going to pray and never tire,
Pray and never tire,
Pray and never tire,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.

6 Oh, I feel the spirit moving,
Don’t you get weary,
Feel the spirit moving,
Don’t you get weary,
Feel the spirit moving. 
Don’t you get weary,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.
Going to shout and never tire,
Shout and never tire,
Shout and never tire,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.

7 Oh, now I’m getting happy,
Don’t you get weary,
Now I’m getting happy,
Don’t you get weary,
Now I’m getting happy. 
Don’t you get weary,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.
Going to shout and never tire,
Shout and never tire,
Shout and never tire,
There’s a great camp-meeting in the Promised Land.

Source: Songs of Zion #156

—

Listen again to this song:

For Jesus is a-coming,
Don’t you get weary,
For Jesus is a-coming,
Don’t you get weary,
For Jesus is a-coming. 

Either Jesus is coming or he isn’t. Which is it? Why not take a closer look at the evidence that indicates that the Bible is historically accurate!

Spiritually my heroes have been both Francis Schaeffer and Adrian Rogers. An interesting fact about both of these two men and that is they both believed the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Both men defended the historical accuracy of the Bible even though both of the religious denominations they belonged to started to shift to the liberal view that the Bible contains errors in it.

H. L. Mencken
J. Gresham Machen

J. Gresham Machen

Francis Schaeffer’s battle on this issue came in the 1930’s when he got to know Dr. J. Gresham Machen was involved in a battle with  the Presbyterian Church USA over their leftward shift in theology. Francis Schaeffer observed:

H.L. Mencken died when I was a young man and I read some of the stuff he wrote and he came at just the point of the total collapse of the American consensus back in the 1930’s or a little before. H.L.Mencken was very destructive to the American consensus and he was way out. It is he who said the famous thing about Dr. J. Gresham Machen. Dr. Machen was the man who was fighting the battle for historic Christianity against the liberals in the big denominations and expressly the Presbyterian denomination and the liberals were trying to laugh Machen out of court. But H.L. Mencken said a remarkable thing, “Well, if you really want to be a Christian there is only one kind of Christian to be and that is the Machen kind.” This is wonderful. This is exactly where the battlefield is. When you take Christianity and chip away at it like the liberals wanted to do then you don’t have anything left. This is no halfway war. If you are going to be a Christian you have to be a biblical Christian. Machen and Mencken understood this and this is my position too.  

Adrian Rogers also was that type of Christian too. Recently a relative told me that his Bible Study Teacher at the church he started attended recently started a series on Genesis and he said on the front end that evolution is true. I encouraged my relative to ask the simple question: DO YOU BELIEVE IN A LITERAL “ADAM AND EVE?” I sent him the sermon on Evolution by Adrian Rogers and here is a portion of it below:

H.G. Wells

H. G. Wells, the brilliant historian who wrote The Outlines of History, said this—and I quote: “If all animals and man evolved, then there were no first parents, and no Paradise, and no Fall. If there had been no Fall, then the entire historic fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for the atonement, collapses like a house of cards.” H. G. Wells says—and, by the way, I don’t believe that he did believe in creation—but he said, “If there’s no creation, then you’ve ripped away the foundation of Christianity.”

Now, the Bible teaches that man was created by God and that he fell into sin. The evolutionist believes that he started in some primordial soup and has been coming up and up. And, these two ideas are diametrically opposed. What we call sin the evolutionist would just call a stumble up. And so, the evolutionist believes that all a man needs—he’s just going up and up, and better and better—he needs a boost from beneath. The Bible teaches he’s a sinner and needs a birth from above. And, these are both at heads, in collision.

What is evolution? Evolution is man’s way of hiding from God, because, if there’s no creation, there is no Creator. And, if you remove God from the equation, then sinful man has his biggest problem removed—and that is responsibility to a holy God. And, once you remove God from the equation, then man can think what he wants to think, do what he wants to do, be what he wants to be, and no holds barred, and he has no fear of future judgment.

Francis Schaeffer & the SBC

Actually Francis Schaeffer’s good friend Paige Pattersontalked Adrian Rogers into running for President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979 and the liberal shift was halted. In the article “Francis Schaeffer ‘indispensable’ to SBC,” (Thursday, October 30, 2014,)  David Roach wrote:

The late Francis Schaeffer was known to pick up the phone during the early years of the Southern Baptist Convention’s conservative resurgence. Paige Patterson knew to expect a call from Schaeffer around Christmas with the question, “You’re not growing weary in well-doing are you?”

Patterson, a leader in the movement to return the SBC to a high view of Scripture, would reply, “No, Dr. Schaeffer. I’m under fire, but I’m doing fine. And I’m trusting the Lord and proceeding on.”

To some it may seem strange that an international Presbyterian apologist and analyst of pop culture would take such interest in a Baptist controversy over biblical inerrancy.

But to Schaeffer it made perfect sense.

He believed churches were acquiescing to the world, abandoning their belief that the Bible is without error in everything it said. A watered-down theology left the SBC with decreased power to battle cultural evils. To Schaeffer the convention was the last major American denomination with hope for reversing this “great evangelical disaster,” as he put it.

Thirty years after Schaeffer’s death, Baptist leaders still remember how he took time from his speaking, writing and filmmaking schedule to quietly encourage Patterson; Paul Pressler, a judge from Texas with whom Patterson worked closely during the conservative resurgence; Adrian Rogers, a Memphis pastor who served three terms SBC president; and others.

By the early 1990s, conservatives had elected an unbroken string of convention presidents and moved in position to shift the balance of power on all convention boards and committees from the theologically moderate establishment. But at the time of Schaeffer’s annual calls, the outcome of the controversy was still in doubt.

(Paige Patterson)

“I strongly suspect that he was afraid I would not hold strong,” Patterson, now president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, told Baptist Press. “He had seen so many people fold up under pressure that he assumed we probably would too. So he would call and ask for a report.”

Schaeffer’s interest in engaging culture made him particularly appealing to Southern Baptist conservatives. He helped provide them with a “battle plan” to fight cultural evils and what they perceived as theological drift in their denomination, Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, told BP.

Along with theologian Carl F.H. Henry, Schaeffer was the key intellectual influence on leaders of the conservative resurgence, Land said. When conservatives started to be elected as the executives of Baptist institutions, Henry spoke at Land’s inauguration at the Christian Life Commission (the ERLC’s precursor), R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky and Timothy George’s at Beeson Divinity School in Alabama.

“If Schaeffer had still been alive, we would have had him come,” Land said. He noted that Schaeffer was “close” to Rogers and “admired” by Bailey Smith, two conservative SBC presidents. Edith Schaeffer and Patterson’s wife Dorothywere close friends and traveled together in the early 1980s speaking on the importance of the home.

Clark Pinnock, a former New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary professor who mentored conservative resurgence leaders before taking a leftward theological turn in his own thinking, served on Schaeffer’s staff at L’Abri.

(ADRIAN ROGERS, chairman of the committee that drafted changes to the Baptist Faith & Message, joins Al Mohler, Chuck Kelley and Richard Land in a news conference shortly after the new statement of faith was adopted by messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Orlando, Fla)

Mount Sinai is one of the most important sites of the entire Bible. It was here that the Hebrew people came shortly after their flight from Egypt. Here God spoke to them through Moses, giving them directions for their life as newly formed nation and making a covenant with them.

The thing to notice about this epochal moment for Israel is the emphasis on history which the Bible itself makes. Time and time again Moses reminds the people of what has happened on Mount Sinai:

Deuteronomy 4:11-12New International Version (NIV)

11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fireto the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the Lordspoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form;there was only a voice.

Moses emphasized that those alive at the time had actually heard God’s voice. They had received God’s direct communication  in words. They were eyewitnesses of what had occurred–they saw the cloud and the mountain burning with fire. They saw and they heard. Moses says, on the basis of what they themselves have seen and heard in their own lifetime, they are not to be afraid of their present or future enemies.

On the same basis too, Moses urges them to obey God: “Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen…” (Deuteronomy 4:9)

Thus the people’s confidence and trust in God and their obedience to Him are alike rooted in truth that is historical and open to observation…The relationship between God and His people was not based on an upward experience inside their own heads, but upon a reality which was seen and heard. They were called to obey God not because of a leap of faith, but because of God’s real acts in history. For God is the LIVING GOD….”Religious Truth” according to the Bible involves the same sort of truth which people operate on in their everyday lives. If something is true, then its opposite cannot also be true.From the Bible’s viewpoint, all truth finally rests upon the fact that the infinite-personal God exists in contrast to His not existing. This means that God exists objectively. He exists whether or not people say He does. The Bible also teaches that God is personal.Much of the Bible is in the sphere of normal existence and is observable. God communicated himself in language. This is not surprising for He  was the creator of people who use language in communicating with other people.In the Hebrew (and biblical) view, truth is grounded ultimately in the existence and character of God and what has been given us by God in creation and revelation. Because people are finite, reality cannot be exhausted by human reason.It is within this Judeo-Christian view of truth that, by its own insistence, we must understand the Bible. Moses could appeal to real historical events as the basis for Israel’s confidence and obedience into the future. He could even pass down to subsequent generations physical reminders of what God had done, so that the people could see them and remember.

John 21:1-14New International Version (NIV)

Jesus and the Miraculous Catch of Fish

21 Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee.[a] It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus[b]), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5 He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”

“No,” they answered.

6 He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.”When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[c] 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

__________

The resurrected Christ stood there on the beach of the Sea of Galilee. Before the disciples reached the shore, He had already prepared a fire with fish cooking on it for them to eat. It was a fire that could be seen and felt; the fire cooked the fish, and the fish and bread could be eaten for breakfast.

When the fire died down, it left ashes on the beach; the disciples were well fed with bread and fish and Christ’s footprints would have been visible on the beach…

Thomas, Christ tells us,  should have believed the ample evidence given to him of the physical evidence of the resurrection by the other apostles. Christ rebuked him for not accepting this evidence.He at that time and we today have the same sufficient witness of those who have seen and heard and were able to touch the resurrected Christ and were able to observe what He had done.

Because Thomas insisted on seeing and touching we have a more sure witness than we otherwise would have  had. In the testimony of those who saw and heard we have a sure witness and this includes Thomas’ doubt and his personal verification which removed that doubt. WE SHOULD BOW BEFORE THE TOTAL WITNESS OF THE RECORD WHICH WE HAVE  IN THE BIBLE, OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND IT’S FORM AND THE UNIQUENESS OF MAN. IT IS ENOUGH! BELIEVE HE HAS RISEN.

John 20:24-29New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Appears to Thomas

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Is Propositional Revelation Nonsense?

Tim Brister —  July 26, 2006 — 6 Comments

In the appendix of his book, He Is There and He Is Not Silent,Francis Schaeffer wrote a little piece called “Is Propositional Revelation Nonsense?” Schaeffer explains that, “To modern man, and much modern theology, the concept of propositional revelation and the historic Christian view of infallibility is not so much mistaken as meaningless” (345). The 20th century came with many challenges to theological formulation, not the least of which was the assault on propositional truth and revelation. Such camps as existentialists and logical positivists attempted to remove religious truth from the reason and revelation while others sought to justify meaning, reality, and truth with other criterion of verification such as experience and perception. However, center to the Christian faith is the belief that God has spoken and revealed himself in the written Word of God. In this revelation, God used language as the medium to carry and convey biblical truths and realities. This is not to say that God has revealed himself exhaustively, but it does mean that he has revealed himself truly and definitively. Schaeffer makes two points which I would like to mention here:

  1. Even communication between one created person and another is not exhaustive; but that does not mean that for that reason it is not true.
  2. If the uncreated Personal really cared for the created personal, it could not be thought unthinkable for him to tell the created personal things of a propositional nature; otherwise, as a finite being, the created personal would have numerous things he could not know if he just began with himself as a limited, finite reference point.

Schaffer makes some salient points here that deserve to be brought up in the 21stcentury. While we do not disagree that revelation is also personal, we cannot flinch on the assault on propositional revelation. God has revealed himself to us, his nature and his acts, through propositional revelation (i.e. the Bible), and the implications of this truth is that we do not have the rights to reinvent or rename the God Who Is There. If we do not begin with God and his revelation, Schaeffer is correct to conclude that there are many things we could not know about God based on such a limited, finite reference point as ourselves. It is no coincidence that, at the time of Schaeffer’s publishing of this book (1972), John Hick was advancing his pluralistic hypothesis which argued for the ineffability of the “Real” which argued that one cannot know anything about God as he is (ding an sich).Adapting the Kantian model of the noumenal and phenomenal worlds, Hick argues that God (“Real”) has not and cannot reveal himself truly and definitely; furthermore, it is impossible to know anything at all about the Real (except that it is ineffable and that it exists which is something he claims to know). The result when God is not the beginning, the reference point, the apriori grounds of knowledge and revelation, then knowing and defining God is a free-for-all to anyone who wants to postulate their phenomenological interpretations as religious truth. Schaeffer concludes his little article with this important paragraph in which he said:

“The importance of all this is that most people today (including some who still call themselves evangelical) who have given up the historical and biblical concept of revelation and infallibility have not done so because of the consideration of detailed problems objectively approached, but because they have accepted, either in analyzed fashion or blindly, the other set of presuppositions. Often this has taken place by means of cultural injection, without their realizing what has happened to them” (349, emphasis added).

In the days ahead, I hope to share how propositional truth is foundational to personal truth and give a few examples of the redefinition of revelation in contemporary contexts.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Hebrews 1:1-2

You want some evidence that indicates that the Bible is true? Here is a good place to start and that is taking a closer look at the archaeology of the Old Testament times. Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicle, of Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem, 2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism), 4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites, 6.Shishak Smiting His Captives, 7. Moabite Stone, 8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, 9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. 10. Cyrus Cylinder, 11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E., 12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription, 13. The Pilate Inscription, 14. Caiaphas Ossuary, 14 B Pontius Pilate Part 2, 14c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology., 

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 293) (Founding Fathers’ view on Christianity, Elbridge Gerry of MA)

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 5, John Hancock)

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 4, Elbridge Gerry)

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 3, Samuel Adams)

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 2, John Quincy Adams)

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 1, John Adams)

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the founding fathers and their belief in inalienable rights

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the possibility that minorities may be mistreated under 51% rule

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—-

—

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

6 Key Points on Efforts to Oust Trump in Final Days

January 8, 2021 – 11:10 pm

 



 
 
 
 
________________

_____

6 Key Points on Efforts to Oust Trump in Final Days

Fred Lucas / / / 0 Comments

President Donald Trump greets the crowd at the “Save America” rally Wednesday just south of the White House before rioters breached the Capitol. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

After the riot at the Capitol, congressional Democrats increasingly are calling for the removal of President Donald Trump before his term expires Jan. 20, either through a second impeachment or by invoking the 25th Amendment. 

Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., an assistant House speaker, said  lawmakers could vote on impeachment within a week. 

After vowing never to concede the 2020 presidential contest at a rally Wednesday, Trump announced the next day that he is committed to an orderly transition to the presidency of Joe Biden. 

Theoretically, if Trump were removed from office, it would create two historic precedents. 

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

First, Trump would be the first president to be impeached twice. And second, if Vice President Mike Pence were to become the 46th president–with a term expiring Jan. 20–it would be the shortest presidential term American history. President William Henry Harrison died 31 days into his term. 

Here are six things to know about efforts to boot Trump from office before his term ends in less than two weeks. 

1. Could Opponents Use 25th Amendment?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have called for Pence and the Trump Cabinet to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. 

Pelosi said the House could move to impeach Trump if his Cabinet didn’t act. On Friday, she issued a statement calling for Trump to resign or face impeachment:

It is the hope of Members that the president will immediately resign. But if he does not, I have instructed the Rules Committee to be prepared to move forward with Congressman Jamie Raskin’s 25th Amendment legislation and a motion for impeachment. Accordingly, the House will preserve every option–including the 25th Amendment, a motion to impeach or a privileged resolution for impeachment.

Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, introduced his 25th Amendment legislation in October. 

But legal experts say the 25th Amendment is not in play in this case, primarily because Pence reportedly has no plans to call the Cabinet together to remove Trump. 

“The 25th Amendment wouldn’t be applicable here,” Ross Garber, a lawyer who specializes in political investigations and impeachment and teaches at Tulane Law School, told The Daily Signal. 

Garber represented four governors who faced state impeachment investigations in Connecticut, South Carolina, Alabama, and Missouri. 

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution allowsfor the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries to determine that a president is physically or mentally unfit to carry out the duties of the office. It provides for the vice president to become acting president on a temporary basis. 

Congress then could remove the president from office permanently with a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. That would be an even higher bar to reach than impeachment, because the latter requires only a simple majority in the House to remove a president, but two-thirds of the Senate.

Congress adopted the 25th Amendment in 1967, about three years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The move was based on the concern about what to do while a president was still alive but experiencing a health crisis.

“The 25th Amendment is for when a president is unable to fulfill the duties of the office for either physically or mental reasons,” John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. 

“I don’t think it’s appropriate as a matter of constitutional law,” added Malcolm, also a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. 

And it’s not practical since Pence doesn’t plan to invoke the option, he said. 

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., became the first GOP lawmaker to call for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment. 

“It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment and end this nightmare,” said Kinzinger, who also said he would back impeaching Trump. 

2. What Could Trump Be Impeached For?

The charges that Democrats most often talk about are sedition, incitement to riot, and insurrection, or in aiding and abetting a riot or seditious acts. 

This approach would be different from the House’s 2019 impeachment of Trump on two articles that did not allege a crime, but specified abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“It’s not sedition, that would be ridiculous, or aiding and abetting,” said Robert Ray, a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton and was a lawyer for Trump in the 2020 Senate impeachment trial.

“But an impeachment alleging incitement [of a riot] or aiding and abetting would not suffer the same defect as the earlier impeachment,” Ray told The Daily Signal. “At least there would be an alleged crime. A factual basis would be the challenge.” 

The federal statute on sedition defines it as conduct promoting the overthrow of the U.S. government. 

Both Republicans and Democrats referred to the mob that broke into the Capitol and overwhelmed police as an “insurrection.” 

Federal law defines an insurrectionist as “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”

Federal riot law includes provision on those “with intent” to “incite a riot,” or to “aid and abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying out a riot.”

In Trump’s speech Wednesday at the “Save America Rally” before the riot, which many on both sides criticized as inflammatory, the president said at one point: “ I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

However, Trump also told the crowd: “Fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.” 

The president also said: “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

U.S. Capitol Police announced Thursday night that Officer Brian Sicknick, 42, had died of his injuries and that authorities were treating the 12-year veteran’s death as a homicide. He was the fifth person to die as a result of the chaos at the Capitol.

Twitter, the social media platform that Trump long has used to spread his message, announcedlate Friday that it had “permanently suspended” his account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Heritage’s Malcolm said earlier that he didn’t want to guess what the House’s articles of impeachment would say, but said he thought sedition would be a stretch. 

“I don’t think the president was trying to set up a coup to take over the government, but his words were certainly unwise and inflammatory,” Malcolm said. 

Beyond his words at the rally are news reports that the president   resisted securing the Capitol and that senior Trump administration officials had to go around him to bring in the D.C. National Guard to help bring order to the building. 

“A key issue to focus on is what the president did after the riots and whether he refused to deploy forces to secure the Capitol,” Garber said. “If that is true, it’s hard to justify.”

All impeachment proceedings should be based on whether an officeholder poses a danger to the country, the government, or  the office, Garber said. 

“That should always be the justification for impeachment,” Garber said. “It’s not to censure or punish. It’s meant to protect the country. … You could make an argument that the president has enormous power he could exercise in 12 days.” 

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., announced Wednesday that she was drawing up articles of impeachment against Trump. 

The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, 2019, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which the two leaders discussed Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, as well as U.S. military aid. 

The Senate acquitted Trump on Feb. 5, 2020. 

3. Time Expiring for a Senate Trial?

Although only one Senate Republican, Mitt Romney of Utah, voted to remove Trump in last year’s trial, Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said Friday morning that he would consider supporting articles of impeachment if the House sent them to the Senate. 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, called Friday for Trump to resign. 

Even if the House impeaches Trump next week, the likelihood that the Senate could or would reconvene in time to hold a trial before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration Jan. 20 seems unlikely, Malcolm said. 

“The House could draft articles of impeachment and vote on it in 12 days,” Malcolm said. “I do not think there is time for a Senate trial. But Trump could be the first president in American history to be impeached twice.”

The Senate would have to come back into session to address House charges against Trump. The Senate calendar has the body scheduled to be in recess until Jan. 20. 

Still, that early return to Washington is not impossible, Garber said. 

“There is conceivably time to do this. Impeachment doesn’t have to be drawn out,” he said. “Impeachment is intended to be a measure in an emergency.”

4. What’s the Point of Impeaching Trump Now? 

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution says that if a federal official is convicted in an impeachment trial, “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” 

Legal experts debate whether disqualification from running for future office requires the same two-thirds majority as removal from office, or just a simple majority. 

“It would not be wise to rush an impeachment for the purpose of preventing him from holding office again and bar him from running in 2024,” Ray said. “That should be something voters could decide.”

So the House could impeach and the Senate–soon to be under slim Democratic control–could hold a trial even after Trump leaves office. It basically would be to disqualify Trump from running for president again, as many suspect he will do in 2024. 

5. Could Trump Be Impeached After Leaving? 

Precedent going back to the scandal-plagued Grant administration’s War Secretary William Belknap suggests that retroactive impeachment could occur.

Belknap ran what is now the Defense Department for almost eight years. In 1876,  a House investigation found evidence that he took part in kickbacks and corruption involving a military vendor that paid $20,000 to the war secretary. 

On March 2, 1876, Belknap resigned from office just minutes before the House was scheduled to impeach him. If he thought this would preclude impeachment, he was wrong. 

The House approved five articles of impeachment, including one that accused Belknap of “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The fact that Belknap no longer held office didn’t prevent the Senate from holding a trial. On Aug. 1, 1876, a Senate majority voted in favor of all five articles of impeachment–well short of the two-thirds required to convict. The former war secretary was acquitted and never prosecuted. 

Such drama would consume much of Washington if it occurred with Trump, Ray said, and that likely isn’t what Biden wants. 

“Is this really how Biden wants to begin his administration?” Ray said. “It’s not really in the country’s best interest, and it isn’t in the Democratic Party’s best interest.” 

6. Could Biden Justice Department Charge Trump After He Leaves?

Many on the left have clamored for Trump to be prosecuted for something–anything–after leaving office well before the Capitol riot occurred. 

Biden announced this week that he will nominate a federal judge, Merrick Garland, to be his attorney general. President Barack Obama nominated Garland to the Supreme Court in 2015, but the Republican-led Senate declined to consider the nomination.

The Garland choice makes a political prosecution somewhat unlikely, Ray said. 

Ray secured a plea deal with Bill Clinton just before the 43rd president left office in which Clinton agreed to surrender his law license and admit to making misleading statements under oath to avoid future prosecution. 

“In the past, the judgment of the Justice Department was to leave well enough alone with former presidents,” Ray said.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

 

 

 

 

_________________

March 8, 2021

President Biden c/o The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I read in A PROMISED LAND these words about the transition period for Obama/Biden:

“President Bush would end up doing all he could to make the eleven weeks between my election and his departure go smoothly. Every office in the White House provided my team with detailed ‘how to’ manuals. His staffers made themselves available to meet with their successors, answer questions, and even be shadowed as they carried out their duties. The Bush daughters, Barbara and Jenna, by that time young adults, rearranged their schedules to give Malia and Sasha their own tour of the ‘fun’ parts of the White House. I promised myself that when the time came, I would treat my successor the same way.” 

How did you and President Obama treat Donald Trump’s transition to power? Also Bush did not say one thing negative about you and President Obama during your time in White House! Did you and President Obama extend the same courtesy that the President who followed you?

POLITICSCOMMENTARY

Our Upside-Down Postelection World

Victor Davis Hanson / / / 12 Comments

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks prior to the holiday at The Queen theater Dec. 22, 2020, in Wilmington, Delaware. (Photo: Joshua Roberts/Stringer/Getty Images)

After Nov. 3, the meaning of some words and concepts abruptly changed. Have you noticed how new realities have replaced old ones?

Media cross-examination of the president is now an out-of-date idea. The time for gotcha questions has come and gone. Why ask a president whether he is a traitor or a crook when you can focus on his favorite flavor of milkshake or compliment him on his socks?

The old pre-election truth was that new vaccines take years to develop. The new postelection truth is that it’s no big deal to bring out new vaccines in nine months.

Impeaching a first-term president after his first midterm election—on a strictly partisan vote, for political reasons other than the Constitution’s “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”—is now a terrible idea.

Stand for your principles in 2021—even in the face of Congress, the media, and the radical Left ganging up on conservatives and our values. Learn more now >>

Worse would be to appoint a special counsel to harass a president on unfounded charges of collusion with China. An even scarier notion would be a conservative dream team of partisan lawyers hounding a President Joe Biden—using a 22-month, $40 million blank check.

It would be unprofessional for university psychologists and physicians from a distance to diagnose, in pop fashion, the mental faculties of a President Biden.

Certainly, there would never be talk about Department of Justice officials contemplating wearing a wire as part of an entrapment scheme to remove a President Biden through the 25th Amendment. That would almost constitute a coup attempt.

Almost as bad would be for the holdover FBI director to start “memorializing” his private conversations with Biden on FBI devices. He might then leak such memos to the press—just in case he were to be fired for secretly investigating Biden for “Chinese collusion” and then lying about such a probe.

What happened to the Logan Act? Not long ago it was assumed to be a critically needed guardrail. Wouldn’t it now ensure that presidential transition team members were not calling foreign leaders while Donald Trump is still president? How has it suddenly become a defunct, ossified relic?

Leaking classified material would be about the worst thing government officials could do. Imagine if a Trump holdover, burrowed into the new Biden administration, released a transcript of Biden’s private conversations with the Mexican president or the Australian prime minister.

Such a breach of trust would be almost as bad as a turncoat anti-Biden mole seeking to resist presidential directives. Imagine if this anonymous staffer were given an op-ed in The New York Times to claim that a cadre of old-time Democrats was shocked by Biden’s cognitive decline and resisting his directives.

Is extending security clearances to former high-level officials-turned-cable TV pundits still a bad idea? Who would wish to see, for instance, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe issuing warnings each night on Fox News? With a wink-and-nod hat tip to his “confidential sources,” Ratcliffe could spin conspiracy theories that Biden is facing bombshell disclosures about his family misadventures with the Chinese.

Is it still important that we keep the tradition of retired high-ranking military officers—all subject to the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—not disparaging the president?

Who would want former Pentagon officials, some of them serving on the boards of military contractors, warning us that Biden should be removed because of cognitive challenges? Certainly, generals and admirals should not compare a President Biden’s policies to those of Mussolini or the Nazis.

At least “dark money” no longer exists. The old idea of right-wing billionaires pouring money into candidates’ political campaigns was supposedly a dangerous practice. It would be far more civic-minded for left-wing billionaires to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of nonpartisan state bureaucracies entrusted with guaranteeing the sanctity of national elections.

And apparently after, not before, an election is the proper time to announce critically important news.

Like the rollout of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine?

Like a $900 billion stimulus package?

Like a revised upward Fannie Mae report on the economy?

Like the ties between a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee and a suspected Chinese spy?

Like a federal investigation of Biden’s son and his possible profiteering with rich Chinese elites affiliated with China’s government?

To keep track of our brave new American world is easy.

Just consider everything said to be bad by the “Animal Farm” media before Nov. 3 as now good. And remember that everything said to be good two months ago is now actually bad.

(C)2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

________

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

Related Posts:

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 10)

Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, a leading pro-life advocate and convert to Catholicism, died at the age of 84 on Monday a week ago in his New York home, after a long struggle with cancer. The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Chapter 12 is titled To The Thanatoriums, an allusion the Walker […]

:

 

Francis Schaeffer’s prayer for us in USA

 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 […]

 

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY

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

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

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 […]

 

 

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

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 […]

The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and A Christian Manifesto in that process.

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 […]

Who was Francis Schaeffer? by Udo Middelmann

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 […]

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

Former Senator Tom Daschle, who led the Democrats in 2001 in negotiating the power-sharing agreement with Lott, recommended that Schumer negotiate some kind of similar deal with McConnell

January 8, 2021 – 5:03 pm

—

Explainer: How a U.S. Senate Divided 50-50 on Party Lines Could Work

By Reuters Wire Service Content • Jan. 6, 2021, at 2:28 p.m.

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Twin wins by Democrats in two U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia, if confirmed, could divide the chamber 50-50 and give Democratic Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the tie-breaking vote.

Raphael Warnock, a Black Baptist preacher, beat Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler, and Jon Ossoff, a documentary filmmaker, declared victory with a narrow lead over incumbent David Perdue.

How will a 50-50 Senate work?

GETTING TO 50-50

The Senate currently has a Republican majority. The Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Senate says that it must have in hand a properly executed certificate of election from the state to swear in and seat a senator.

This could yet last a few days or even a couple of weeks, because Georgia counties have until Jan. 15 and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has until Jan. 22, to certify statewide results from the Jan. 5 elections. So there may not be a 50-50 Senate until then.

VICE PRESIDENT IS THE TIE-BREAKER

The U.S. Constitution makes the vice president the presiding officer of the Senate, who can vote only in case of a tie. Once Harris is sworn in on Jan. 20, she will become the tie-breaking vote, giving the Democrats effective control of the chamber.

Until then, the Republicans will have the majority even if the newly elected Democratic senators are sworn in, because Vice President Mike Pence will be the tie-breaker until he leaves office on Jan. 20.

HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE?

Yes, three times previously: in 1881, 1954 and again 20 years ago.

In 2001 the Senate was split 50-50 from January until June, when Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party and became an independent who caucused with Democrats, giving the Democrats control.

HOW DOES A 50-50 SENATE WORK DAY-TO-DAY?

Senate Democratic Leader Schumer declared on Wednesday he would be the new majority leader, but said he had yet to speak to the current majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell.

In practice, the vice president usually is not in the Senate chamber every day, delegating the presiding to a member of the majority party.

So the desire to bring some predictability to daily operations prompted the party leaders in 2001 to strike a power-sharing agreement to guide the chamber.

Republican Leader Trent Lott was recognized as the majority leader, based on the fact that the new Republican vice president, Dick Cheney, was the tie-breaking vote. The agreement, however, mandated that both leaders seek to attain an equal balance of the two parties’ s interests when scheduling and debating legislative and executive business.

The deal split committee memberships evenly, instead of giving the majority an advantage as would normally happen, and made some other provisions to regulate floor proceedings.

If a tie vote prevented a measure or nomination from escaping committee to the Senate floor, the majority or minority leader could move to bring the bill to the floor – and only a majority vote was needed to do so.

DEMOCRATS CAN COUNT ON HARRIS’ VOTE. DO THEY REALLY HAVE TO STRIKE A POWER-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH REPUBLICANS?

No, but such a deal might help them get something like a normally functioning Senate, said Michael Thorning of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

“If Democrats really want to play hardball on Jan. 20, they don’t have to enter into a power-sharing agreement like this. They could leverage their 50 votes plus the vice president to try to run the Senate the way they see fit,” he said.

“They may find that under the current rules, that that is a very slow, very arduous way to run the Senate. You’d essentially be having a little skirmish over everything you wanted to do if Republicans really also wanted to play hardball,” Thorning said.

Former Senator Tom Daschle, who led the Democrats in 2001 in negotiating the power-sharing agreement with Lott, recommended that Schumer negotiate some kind of similar deal with McConnell.

“There’s only so much you can do with 51 votes, and you can’t expect the vice president to be sitting there, day after day, on every single issue, breaking the tie,” Daschle said.

“At the end of the day you’ve got to figure out a way to collaborate with the minority, because for all intents and purposes, there is no minority; you’re an equal. You’re equally represented in the Senate and that requires some equal voice, with regard to what the agenda is going to be.”

Lott acknowledged that the deal he negotiated with Daschle was not initially well received by other Republicans in 2001. “Some of my best friends were critical of it — basically saying what are you doing? We have the majority, you’ve gone too far!” Lott said.

“Finally … Pat Roberts of Kansas … stood up and said, ‘what are you people thinking? It’s 50-50. Our leader did the best he could. Now let’s move forward.’ That basically shut them all up,” Lott said.

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

–
Like Milton Friedman Rand Paul is standing against other Republicans who want to add to government overspending!!!

Milton Friedman – A Limit On Spending

__

Rand Paul Defects on Proposed Health Law Repeal

Republican senator says measure to begin process of repealing Affordable Care Act adds too much to federal budget deficit

 
 

Sen. Rand Paul, shown at an event on Oct. 27, says the Republicans’ measure to begin repealing the Affordable Care Act would add $9.7 trillion in debt over 10 years to the federal budget.ENLARGE
Sen. Rand Paul, shown at an event on Oct. 27, says the Republicans’ measure to begin repealing the Affordable Care Act would add $9.7 trillion in debt over 10 years to the federal budget. PHOTO: TIMOTHY D. EASLEY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
By

KRISTINA PETERSON and
SIOBHAN HUGHES

Jan. 4, 2017 2:13 p.m. ET

354 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said Wednesday that he would oppose the budget measure Republicans are counting on to begin the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act, leaving the effort in danger of derailing if any other GOP senators defect.

The Senate on Wednesday took its first procedural vote on the budget measure, a vehicle that Republicans can use to repeal the 2010 health-care law with a simple majority vote. Republicans now hold only 52 seats in the Senate, where most legislation needs 60 votes to pass.

Mr. Paul said Wednesday he would vote against the budget measure because it adds too much to the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2017.

“I’m a no,” he said in a brief interview. “It adds $9.7 trillion in debt over 10 years.”

Other Senate Republicans, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, have voiced concerns about repealing the health-care law before the GOP has settled on a plan to replace it. However, all three voted to advance the budget in an early procedural vote Wednesday, which passed 51-48, allowing the Senate to consider the measure.

Mr. Paul was the only Republican to join the entire Democratic caucus in voting not to move forward with the budget blueprint. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) didn’t vote.

Other senators could still raise objections ahead of the final vote—on either the plan to repeal the health-care law or on the budget itself.

READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL

Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for Trump transition news.

Aware of the razor-thin margins, GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida wrote Tuesday in a joint letter to GOP Senate leaders that while they understood the budget was “primarily a mechanism to advance [the health law’s] repeal,” the Senate should still abstain from any budget devices that they oppose.

“Our votes in favor of the ‘Obamacare Repeal Resolution’ do not indicate in any way our support for the revenue, spending, and deficit numbers therein, nor for the use of those numbers as the basis for future federal budgets,” the three senators wrote, using the GOP nickname for the budget blueprint.

The next fiscal year’s budget, expected to pass this spring and help Republicans overhaul the tax code, must balance the federal budget in 10 years, they wrote.

Budget blueprints are nonbinding documents used by political parties to signal how they think federal dollars should be spent. The budget document introduced in the Senate Tuesday also starts the process of repealing the health-care law.

The Senate’s budget resolution directs four relevant committees, two in the Senate and two in the House, to write legislation by Jan. 27 that reconciles spending and tax policy with the budget blueprint for the coming fiscal year. Embedded in the committees’ legislation will be provisions that repeal much of the health law.

Democrats, who have paid a heavy political price for the health law’s unpopularity, said Republicans will now bear responsibility for any attempts to gut and replace it.

“Now, they’re gonna own it, and all the problems in the health-care system are going to be on their backs,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said Wednesday.

Write to Kristina Peterson at kristina.peterson@wsj.com and Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@wsj.com

Related posts:

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Mark J. Perry@Mark_J_Perry July 30, 2016 10:46 am | AEIdeas Happy 104th birthday, Milton Friedman

November 18, 2016 – 12:27 am

Free to Choose: Part 1 of 10 The Power of the Market (Featuring Milton Friedman) Free to Choose Part 2: The Tyranny of Control (Featuring Milton Friedman Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman Mark J. Perry@Mark_J_Perry July 30, 2016 10:46 am | AEIdeas Happy 104th birthday, Milton Friedman Tomorrow […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Champion of Liberty by Stephen Moore Friday, October 26, 2012

November 11, 2016 – 12:12 am

Free to Choose: Part 1 of 10 The Power of the Market (Featuring Milton Friedman) Free to Choose Part 2: The Tyranny of Control (Featuring Milton Friedman Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman Champion of Liberty by Stephen Moore […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Socialism, RIP Tottering European economies prove again the Keynesian model is a failure By Stephen Moore – – Sunday, July 12, 2015

November 4, 2016 – 12:08 am

Free to Choose: Part 1 of 10 The Power of the Market (Featuring Milton Friedman) Free to Choose Part 2: The Tyranny of Control (Featuring Milton Friedman Socialism, RIP Tottering European economies prove again the Keynesian model is a failure By Stephen Moore – – Sunday, July 12, 2015 ANALYSIS/OPINION: A few years ago, the […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY What Would Milton Friedman Say? Immigration opponents often try to claim the famed economist as an ally. They’re mistaken. By STEPHEN MOORE Updated May 29, 2013 8:31 p.m. ET

October 28, 2016 – 12:04 am

Free to Choose: Part 1 of 10 The Power of the Market (Featuring Milton Friedman) What Would Milton Friedman Say? Immigration opponents often try to claim the famed economist as an ally. They’re mistaken. By STEPHEN MOORE Updated May 29, 2013 8:31 p.m. ET One of the fascinating sideshows of the immigration debate within the […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Obama loves the death tax but listen to what Milton Friedman had to say about it!!!

October 21, 2016 – 12:01 am

__ Obama loves the death tax but listen to what Milton Friedman had to say about it!!! Milton Friedman Redistribution of Wealth and the Death Tax ___________ The Obama Administration’s Assault on the Rule of Law September 6, 2016 by Dan Mitchell What’s the worst development in economic policy of the Obama years? The faux stimulus […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Dan Mitchell and Milton Friedman: Subsidies for Higher Education Are the Problem!

October 14, 2016 – 12:37 am

Milton Friedman – Should Higher Education Be Subsidized? Published on Aug 14, 2013 Professor Friedman leads a roundtable discussion with students. http://www.LibertyPen.com Hillary Is Wrong: Subsidies for Higher Education Are the Problem, not the Solution August 24, 2016 by Dan Mitchell “So many bad ideas, so little time.” That’s my attitude about Hillary Clinton. She proposes […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman and Walter Williams have explained, minimum wage laws are especially harmful for blacks!

October 7, 2016 – 12:10 am

Milton Friedman – A Conversation On Minimum Wage Published on Oct 4, 2013 A debate on whether the minimum wage hurts or helps the working class. http://www.LibertyPen.com Is Anybody Shocked that Higher Minimum Wage Mandates Are Resulting in Fewer Jobs? August 25, 2016 by Dan Mitchell While economists are famous for their disagreements (and their incompetent […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman and Dan Mitchell look at the economics of medical care!!

September 30, 2016 – 12:01 am

Milton Friedman on Medical Care (Full Lecture) Another Grim Reminder that Obamacare Has Made Healthcare More Expensive August 29, 2016 by Dan Mitchell Way back in 2009, some folks on the left shared a chart showing that national expenditures on healthcare compared to life expectancy. This comparison was not favorable to the United States, which easily […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY 2 videos by Milton Friedman on welfare state plus 2 cartoons that illustrate the fate of socialism from the Cato Institute

September 23, 2016 – 12:57 am

__________   Cato Institute scholar Dan Mitchell is right about Greece and the fate of socialism: Two Pictures that Perfectly Capture the Rise and Fall of the Welfare State July 15, 2011 by Dan Mitchell In my speeches, especially when talking about the fiscal crisis in Europe (or the future fiscal crisis in America), I often […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman has the two solutions to the Black Teenage Unemployment Problem!!!

September 16, 2016 – 12:40 am

Milton Friedman on Donahue Show in 1979 Milton Friedman has the two solutions to the Black Teenage Unemployment Problem!!! The solutions would be first to lower the Minimum Wage Amount and  second give students the opportunity to have vouchers so their parents can put them in the best schools when they start in the kindergarten […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Liberal amnesia about last summer’s riots

January 8, 2021 – 5:00 pm

–

Liberal amnesia about last summer’s riots

By Post Editorial Board

January 7, 2021 | 10:36pmRioters set fire to vehicles during a George Floyd protest in Seattle, Washington on May 30.Rioters set fire to vehicles during a George Floyd protest in Seattle, Washington on May 30.Dean Rutz/The Seattle Times via AP

President-elect Joe Biden got a text from his granddaughter about how police handled the US Capitol rioters, telling him: “Pop, this isn’t fair,” he said Thursday.

He then added: “No one can tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol. We all know that’s true, and it is unacceptable.”

We’re not sure what country Biden lives in — or Kamala Harris, who echoed the remarks — but it isn’t the United States.

Across the country, BLM and Antifa were coddled. Portland allowed them to set up an autonomous zone in the middle of the city for months, and police and politicians did nothing.

In liberal cities, politicians told cops to back off and pushed for more lawbreakers to be released without bail or no charges.

The thugs who attacked the Capitol were met with officers fighting back at barricades and tear gas. Guns were drawn and, in one case, deadly force was used.

The rioters were able to get the run of the Capitol because cops were vastly outnumbered. Officials are already resigning or being fired because of that failure.

This was a horrible insurrection and should be condemned. But Mr. Biden, don’t hypocritically try to rewrite the story of last summer’s riots to suggest that liberals weren’t permissive or that there’s some sort of double standard or racism at work here. 

We all saw what happened then, we all see what happened now.

——-

—-

Biden clashes with Trump over Antifa: ‘It’s an idea, not an organization’

President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden had a heated exchange over extremist violence with each facing questions over their approach to dealing with the problem  

When Trump called out Antifa, Biden referenced FBI Director Christopher Wray’s claim that Antifa was more of a movement or ideology rather than an organization. “Antifa is an idea, not an organization,” Biden said. Trump fired back: “Oh, you got to be kidding.”

After Biden mentioned Wray, Trump said his FBI director was “wrong.”

Earlier this month, Wray offered congressional testimony in which he said Antifa was a “real thing” and that the FBI had undertaken “any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists,” including into individuals who identify with Antifa.

At one point, he said that Antifa wasn’t “a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.” He also said the individuals who identify with the Antifa movement were “coalescing regionally into what you might describe as small groups or nodes” that are under investigation.

FBI DIRECTOR WRAY: ‘ANTIFA IS A REAL THING,’ FBI HAS CASES AGAINST PEOPLE IDENTIFYING WITH MOVEMENT

Regardless, Antifa has been blamed for a wide range of violent incidents in U.S. cities. Attorney General William Barr previously told CNN: “I’ve talked to every police chief in every city where there has been major violence and they all have identified Antifa as the ramrod for the violence.”

Biden has encountered criticism for his response to violence in U.S. cities, although he condemned “needless destruction” as early as May amid rioting in Minneapolis. “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary,” he said after George Floyd’s death. “It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”

Fox News’ Thomas Barrabi and the Associate

Related posts:

Liberal writes “Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court”

September 26, 2020 – 10:31 am

— —- Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court I disagree with Trump’s judicial nominee on almost everything. But I still think she’s brilliant.By Noah FeldmanSeptember 26, 2020, 8:00 AM EDT Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

​Amy Coney Barrett At Hillsdale College!!!

September 21, 2020 – 8:10 pm

— ​Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

Profile of Amy Coney Barrett who President Trump nominated for Supreme Court!

September 26, 2020 – 4:50 pm

— — Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter Posted Mon, September 21st, 2020 5:00 pmEmail AmyBio & Post Archive » Profile of a potential nominee: Amy Coney Barrett President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he would nominate a woman to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. According to news […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court but Fox News reports she is facing criticism from Dems over her religion!

September 26, 2020 – 4:49 pm

— —- — Amy Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972)[1][2] is an American lawyer, jurist, and academic who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Barrett considers herself a public-meaning originalist; her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.[3] Barrett’s scholarship focuses on originalism. Amy Coney Barrett Barrett in […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

A closer look at Amy Coney Barrett who was just nominated by President Trump for Supreme Court!!!

September 26, 2020 – 4:48 pm

— —- — Amy Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972)[1][2] is an American lawyer, jurist, and academic who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Barrett considers herself a public-meaning originalist; her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.[3] Barrett’s scholarship focuses on originalism. Amy Coney Barrett Barrett in […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett of RHODES COLLEGE in Memphis for Supreme Court!

September 26, 2020 – 4:43 pm

— I grew up and went to EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL in Memphis and ran some of our track meets at RHODES COLLEGE and I know that campus well and I even was contacted by a official at Rhodes with some recruiting material after a good performance in my sophomore year in my mile run there […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

A Conversation with Judge Amy Coney Barrett who was just nominated by President Trump for Supreme Court!!!

September 26, 2020 – 4:38 pm

— — — Amy Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972)[1][2] is an American lawyer, jurist, and academic who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Barrett considers herself a public-meaning originalist; her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.[3] Barrett’s scholarship focuses on originalism. Amy Coney Barrett Barrett in […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

Hesburgh Lecture 2016: Professor Amy Coney Barrett who was just nominated by President Trump for Supreme Court!!!

September 26, 2020 – 4:35 pm

— —- — Amy Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972)[1][2] is an American lawyer, jurist, and academic who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Barrett considers herself a public-meaning originalist; her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.[3] Barrett’s scholarship focuses on originalism. Amy Coney Barrett Barrett in […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett (RHODES COLLEGE GRAD) for Supreme Court!

September 26, 2020 – 4:32 pm

— —- I grew up and went to EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL in Memphis and ran some of our track meets at RHODES COLLEGE and I know that campus well and I even was contacted by a official at Rhodes with some recruiting material after a good performance in my sophomore year in my mile run […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court and she Opened Up about Adoption, Pregnancy in 2019 D.C. Talk

September 26, 2020 – 4:30 pm

— — —- Amy Coney Barrett Opened Up about Adoption, Pregnancy in 2019 D.C. Talk By TOBIAS HOONHOUTSeptember 22, 2020 2:41 PM While she hasn’t explicitly challenged the precedent established by Roe v. Wade in her capacity as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett — pegged by some as the odds-on favorite to be President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court and Democrats should resist the urge to target her for her faith!!!

September 26, 2020 – 4:25 pm

— —-   OPINION   DECLARATIONS The Truth About People of Praise If the nominee is Amy Coney Barrett, Democrats should resist the urge to target her for her faith. By Peggy NoonanSept. 24, 2020 7:28 pm ET I strongly felt in the winter of 2016 that it was right and wise to hold off on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett (Who graduated from RHODES COLLEGE of MEMPHIS) for Supreme Court!

September 26, 2020 – 4:05 pm

— I grew up and went to EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL in Memphis and ran some of our track meets at RHODES COLLEGE and I know that campus well and I even was contacted by a official at Rhodes with some recruiting material after a good performance in my sophomore year in my mile run there […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part P “Freedom of speech lives on Ark Times Blog” (includes the video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

April 25, 2013 – 6:49 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part O “Without God in the picture there can not be lasting meaning to our lives” (includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

April 23, 2013 – 7:04 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part K “On what basis do you say murder is wrong?”Part 1 (includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

April 16, 2013 – 5:49 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part J “Can atheists find lasting meaning to their lives?” (includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

April 15, 2013 – 7:48 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part H “Are humans special?” includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) Reagan: ” To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all”

April 10, 2013 – 6:43 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part G “How do moral nonabsolutists come up with what is right?” includes the film “ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE”)

April 9, 2013 – 6:36 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (3)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

April 7, 2013 – 6:25 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (2)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Abortion supporters lying in order to further their clause? Window to the Womb (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

April 6, 2013 – 12:01 am

It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Max Brantley, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part D “If you can’t afford a child can you abort?”Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 4 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

April 5, 2013 – 6:30 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

—-By Everette Hatcher III, on September 30, 2020 at 11:42 am, under Uncategorized. No CommentsPost a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ON HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY “A PROMISED LAND” Part 48 “This is what separates even the most liberal writers from their conservative counterparts—the willingness to flay politicians on their own side”

January 8, 2021 – 3:21 am

—

January 9, 2021

Office of Barack and Michelle Obama
P.O. Box 91000
Washington, DC 20066

Dear President Obama,

I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters. 

I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it. 

Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:

   I can provide the exact quote here, because in the audience that night was a freelance writer who was recording me. To her mind, my answer risked reinforcing negative stereotypes some Californians already had about working-class white voters and was therefore worth blogging about on Huffington Post. (It’s a decision I respect, by the way, though I wish she had talked to me about it before writing the story. This is what separates even the most liberal writers from their conservative counterparts—the willingness to flay politicians on their own side.)

Daily Beast panned for claiming Hunter Biden controversy went ‘largely unnoticed’ before the election

The Biden transition issued a press release that acknowledged the US Attorney’s Office in Delaware is investigating his ‘tax affairs’

By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

The Daily Beast drew heavy fire for suggesting that Hunter Biden‘s shady foreign business dealings which appear to be a part of a broad federal investigation in his taxes went “largely unnoticed” ahead of the election. 

The Biden transition on Wednesday issued a press release with a statement from Hunter Biden acknowledging that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware was investigating his “tax affairs,” but sources told Fox News that his financial links to China are also part of the probe, which began in 2018. Fox News first reported in October that the FBI subpoenaed a laptop and hard drive purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden in connection with a money-laundering investigation in late-2019.

However, despite the mainstream media’s refusal to dig into the New York Post reporting from October that shed light on Hunter Biden’s overseas ventures, The Daily Beast raised eyebrows when it alluded to the emails that were previously published. 

“It damn did not go ‘unnoticed,’” The Federalist correspondent David Marcus scolded Stein’s tweet. “It was reported by one of the biggest newspapers in the country, then promptly censored by big tech to the applause of supposed journalists in the corporate media.”

‘Unnoticed’ or actively suppressed?” Spectator USA Washington editor Amber Athey asked.

“’but went largely unnoticed’ = intentionally covered up the story so it would not hurt Biden’s chances against Trump,” Daily Wire reporter Ryan Saavedra tweeted.

“‘largely unnoticed’ = ignored by most of the mainstream media,” Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh similarly wrote. 

“‘largely unnoticed’ should be revised to read ‘purposefully unnoticed,’” Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon said.

The mainstream media finally began taking Hunter Biden seriously, at least now that his father has already won the presidential election. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

After the New York Post’s reporting was dismissed and characterized by members of the media as a “baseless conspiracy theory,” a “smear campaign,” and “Russian disinformation,” Wednesday’s announcement from Hunter Biden was ultimately too much for the media to ignore, earning coverage on all the major broadcast and cable news networks.

Francis Schaeffer in his 1983 book A CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO discusses the problem of liberal bias in the media:

The First Track is the fact of the conservative swing in the United States in the 1980 election. With this there is at this moment a unique window open in the United States. It is unique because it is a long, long time since that window has been open as it is now. And let us hope that the window stays open, and not on just one issue, even one as important as human life—though certainly every Christian ought to be praying and working to nullify the abominable abortion law. But as we work and pray, we should have in mind not only this important issue as though it stood alone. Rather, we should be struggling and praying that this whole other total entity—the material-energy, chance world view—can be rolled back with all its results across all of life. I work, I pray that indeed the window does stay open. I hope that will be the case.

Now the window is open and we must take advantage of it in every way we can as citizens, as Christian citizens of the democracy in which we still have freedom. We must try to roll back the other total entity. It will not be easy to roll it back because those who hold the other total world view of reality have no intention that it will be rolled back. Those who hold this view are deeply entrenched, they have had their own way without opposition for a long time, and they will use every means to see that the momentum they have achieved, and the results they have brought forth in all fields, will be retained and enlarged.

For example, all you have to do is to consider the way the media treated Dr. C. Everett Koop. Dr. Koop is one of the foremost pediatric surgeons in the United States, and among other honors, he was given the highest honor of the French government for his pioneering work in pediatric surgery. But when he was nominated for the position of Surgeon General, he was attacked by the secular media with total disregard for objective reporting—and with total disregard for his brilliant humanitarian record as a surgeon. Those in the media holding the humanist world view could not tolerate Dr. Koop’s voice to be heard—they could not tolerate his articulate defense of the sanctity of human life to be expressed.

—

The press is not balanced but is left leaning in the biggest way because of secular humanism!!!

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

PS: I have written to you before about this same subject of the liberal media bias which totally refuted your assertion that liberal writers are more balanced! In fact, Francis Schaeffer totally refuted this as early as 1982!!!

Francis Schaeffer 

File:Francis Schaeffer.jpg

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 293) (Founding Fathers’ view on Christianity, Elbridge Gerry of MA)

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 5, John Hancock)

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 4, Elbridge Gerry)

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 3, Samuel Adams)

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 2, John Quincy Adams)

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 1, John Adams)

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the founding fathers and their belief in inalienable rights

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the possibility that minorities may be mistreated under 51% rule

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—-

—

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

My rough draft letter to President Elect Biden that will be mailed on March 22, 2021! (Part 62) Pro-life Atheist Nat Hentoff: “Link between pro-lifers (of today) to the Abolitionists of 19th century who would not be deterred from their goal of ensuring equal rights for all human beings in this land”

January 8, 2021 – 2:12 am

—-

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office
January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Mr. Hentoff with the clarinetist Edmond Hall in 1948 at the Savoy, a club in Boston.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

________________

______________________

March 22, 2021

President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view. Although we are both Christians and have the Bible as the basis for our moral views, I did want you to take a close look at the views of the pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff too.  Hentoff became convinced of the pro-life view because of secular evidence that shows that the unborn child is human. I would ask you to consider his evidence and then of course reverse your views on abortion.

___________________

Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many   cases (Bernard Nathanson, Donald Trump, Paul Greenberg, Kathy Ireland)    when other high profile pro-choice leaders have changed their views and this is just another case like those. I have contacted the White House over and over concerning this issue and have even received responses. I am hopeful that people will stop and look even in a secular way (if they are not believers) at this abortion debate and see that the unborn child is deserving of our protection.That is why the writings of Nat Hentoff of the Cato Institute are so crucial.

Civil Rights And Anti- Abortion Protests

by Nat Hentoff
The Washington Post, February 6, 1989

Planned Parenthood recently assembled 13 distinguished civil rights leaders so that they might express their scorn for the notion that there is any moral connection between the Operation Rescue demonstrations “and the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.”

The leaders — including Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Julian Bond, John Jacob, Mary King and Roger Wilkins — deplored the pro-lifers’ “protests to deny Americans their constitutional right to freedom of choice. They want the Constitution rewritten.” And in the unkindest cut of all, these leaders — once themselves demonstrators against laws they considered profoundly unjust — compared the nonviolent Operation Rescue workers to “the segregationists who fought desperately to block black Americans from access to their rights.”

Actually, however, a more accurate analogy would link these pro-lifers to the civil rights workers of the 19th century, the Abolitionists, who would not be deterred from their goal of ensuring equal rights for all human beings in this land. They believed, as these 13 civil rights leaders later did, that social change comes only after social upheaval.

What the Abolitionists were opposing was the rule of law — ultimately underlined by the Supreme Court in its Dred Scott decision — that people of African descent, whether free or slaves, had “never been regarded as a part of the people or citizens of the State.” They had no rights whatever. They were the property of their owners, no more. The Abolitionists did indeed want the Constitution rewritten.

Now, the pro-lifers, aware that the Supreme Court has declared itself in error before, are protesting the holding in Roe v. Wade that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Although that decision also spoke of a time when the fetus becomes viable and then may be protected by the state, in fact we have abortion on demand.

As Justice Harry Blackmun said in Doe v. Bolton — decided on the same day as Roe v. Wade — the mother’s health is paramount, and that includes, among other things, “physical, emotional, psychological, familial” factors. Abortions can be obtained for these reasons, and more.

So, like the slave, the fetus is property and its owner can dispose of it. Increasingly, for instance, women are undergoing prenatal testing to find out the gender of the developing human being inside them. If it’s the wrong sex, it is aborted.

Pro-lifers who maintain the fetus should have equal protection under the law are not limited to those driven by religious convictions. There is the biological fact that after conception, a being has been formed with unique human characteristics. He or she, if allowed to survive, will be unlike anyone born before. From their point of view, therefore, pro-lifers are engaged in a massive civil rights movement. In 16 years, after all, there have been some 20 million abortions.

Some pro-lifers, like some of the abolitionists, feel that nonviolence, however direct, is insufficient. They are of the order of John Brown. As noted by James McPherson in “Battle Cry of Freedom,” Brown stalked out of a meeting of the New England Antislavery Society, grumbling, “Talk! Talk! Talk! That will never free the slaves. What is needed is action — action!”

Those relatively few — and invariably isolated — pro-lifers who follow John Brown’s flag are surely not in the tradition of Martin Luther King, and the 13 civil rights leaders have reason to keep them at a far distance. But Operation Rescue, and similar demonstrations, are not violent. Entrances are blocked, and so they were in some nonviolent civil rights demonstrations. There is shouting, some of it not very civil, back and forth across the lines, but so there was in the 1960s.

The only actual violence connected with Operation Rescue has been inflicted by the police, most viciously, in Atlanta where one of the Planned Parenthood’s 13 civil rights leaders is mayor. A member of the Atlanta City Council, Josea Williams — himself a close associate of Martin Luther King — has said: “We who were the leaders of the movement in the ’50s and ’60s are now political leaders. And we are doing the same thing to demonstrators that George Wallace and Bull Connor did to us.”

Twelve years ago, another associate of Dr. King argued against the Roe v. Wade thesis that a woman’s privacy rights justify abortion. That, he said, “was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the . . . treatment of slaves . . . because that was private.”

The civil rights leader who said that was Jesse Jackson — before he became a member of the pro- abortion congregation. By then, he was also a political leader.

Copyright 1989 The Washington Post

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

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 Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

_____________________________________

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

______________________________________

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. Now after presenting the secular approach of Nat Hentoff I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith.  I  respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,

Related posts:

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]

A man of pro-life convictions: Bernard Nathanson (part4)

January 14, 2012 – 12:29 pm

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response (on abortion) April 16, 2012 (part 5)

May 4, 2012 – 6:46 am

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 16, 2011. First you will see my letter to him which was mailed around April 9th(although […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

May 2, 2011 – 2:55 pm

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 9)(Donald Trump changes to pro-life view)

April 8, 2011 – 2:29 pm

When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part U “Do men have a say in the abortion debate?” (includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS and editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part T “Abortion is a dirty business” (includes video “Truth and History” and editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Abortion supporters lying in order to further their clause? Window to the Womb (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part D “If you can’t afford a child can you abort?”Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 4 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part C “Abortion” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 3 includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part B “Gendercide” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes Part 2 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

SANCTITY OF LIFE SATURDAY “AngryOldWoman” blogger argues that she has no regrets about past abortion

Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw  something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” The Church Awakens: Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (includes the video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part H “Are humans special?” includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) Reagan: ” To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all”

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part G “How do moral nonabsolutists come up with what is right?” includes the film “ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE”)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  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’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

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 […]

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Tagged | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” CLASSIC ARTICLE FROM DECADES AGO FROM MILTON FRIEDMAN “Mitterrand Elects Thatcher” by Milton Friedman Newsweek, 4 July 1983

January 8, 2021 – 1:30 am

—

Milton Friedman article

“Mitterrand Elects Thatcher”
by Milton Friedman
Newsweek, 4 July 1983, p. 51
©The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC


In 1981, as Britain slid into a deepening recession and unemployment mounted above the 2 million mark, the conventional political wisdom was that Margaret Thatcher’s days as prime minister were numbered unless she could manage to foster a prompt recovery in the economy that sharply reduced unemployment. Talk about a U-turn was the order of the day.
Margaret Thatcher stuck to her guns—proclaiming that U-turn was not in her vocabulary. The recession continued and unemployment kept going up. Yet three weeks ago, with more than 3 million unemployed, she was re-elected in a landslide, achieving the largest majority in Parliament since the postwar Labor landslide in 1945.
One source of her victory was a sharp decline in inflation, from 22 percent in early 1980 to 4 percent currently—fully realizing a major campaign promise. Yet, by itself, that could hardly have produced a landslide. The postmortems have stressed two other factors: the Falklands war and the disintegration of the Labor Party. The Falklands war enabled Mrs. Thatcher to demonstrate in a dramatic way a quality of leadership and a firmness of purpose that had been conspicuously lacking in her predecessors. The “Iron Lady” became an accolade, not an epithet.


The sharp left turn by the official Labor Party, the resulting formation of the Social Democratic Party and the alliance between the new party and the Liberals certainly played a major part in fragmenting the opposition to Mrs. Thatcher. As matters developed, there was simply no responsible alternative to Mrs. Thatcher, no credible alternative government.


However, this explanation lacks one essential ingredient: it omits the role of President Mitterrand.
France was suffering from the same ills when Mitterrand was elected president as Britain when Mrs. Thatcher became prime minister and the United States when Ronald Reagan became president—high and rising inflation, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Mitterrand’s attack on those ills was precisely the reverse of Mrs. Thatcher’s. On coming into office, Thatcher reduced taxes; Mitterrand increased them. Thatcher reduced controls over prices and wages; Mitterrand expanded them. Thatcher eliminated foreign-exchange controls; Mitterrand made them tighter. Thatcher moved to denationalize enterprises and reduce regulation, Mitterrand nationalized private banks and other enterprises and increased government intervention into the remaining private enterprise. Thatcher tried to hold down government spending, albeit with little success; Mitterrand went on a spending binge.


Had the Mitterrand policies succeeded, even if for only a year or so, Thatcher’s opposition in Britain would have been enormously strengthened. The Labor Party would have had a real alternative to offer—one that was consistent with its ideological propensities and that had worked on the other side of the Channel. The cry that Thatcher’s “monetarism” was a tragic failure could not have been dismissed as mere campaign rhetoric.

Instead, the Mitterrand policy was a clear failure. Inflation remained high. Unemployment went up. The government’s budget deficit soared. So did the deficit in the balance of payments. The franc had to be devalued three times in the past two years, despite massive government borrowing in a vain attempt to prop the franc up. Worst of all for Thatcher’s opposition, Mitterrand was forced to reverse course. The U-turn occurred across the Channel as the French government was driven to adopt the much-derided Thatcher policies.


Thatcher’s opposition was left intellectually bankrupt. It had no credible alternative policy to offer. The claim that she was an irresponsible demagogue imposing unnecessary costs on the British people rang hollow. Her persistence in the main lines of her policy was perceived by the voters as a realistic recognition that there was no easy cure for ills that had accumulated during decades.


The British experience is being repeated in the United States. The Democratic leaders attack Reaganomics as a failure, yet they, too, are intellectually bankrupt. They, too, have no credible alternative to offer, and many of them continue to attack the label while adopting the substance. Mitterrand has made no sharper U-turn than longtime New Dealers who have always praised deficits as a way to prime the pump and stimulate the economy but are now preaching the virtues of balancing the budget.

Thatcher and Reagan: The radical economics at the heart of their relationship

Centre for Policy Studies intern Tom Waters writes on the economic foundations of the Thatcher-Reagan relationship.

Aside from their excellent personal relationship, Thatcher and Reagan are commonly renowned for their revolutionary economic policies. They faced similar difficulties upon their first electoral victories, in 1979 and 1980; inflation was 18% in Britain, and 10% in America, economic growth had been faltering for a decade, and taxes were at a record high. Both Thatcher and Reagan were ultimately successful in reversing these trends. When they left office, in 1990 and 1989, inflation had been brought under control, they had overseen consistent growth for almost all their time in power, and taxation rates had been substantially reduced. The steps the two leaders took in achieving these feats were broadly similar, and were based in a belief in free markets and a responsible monetary policy.

Reagan and Thatcher adopted a similar strategy to reduce income tax rates. Inspired by the economic theory of Arthur Laffer, Reagan reduced the top rate of income tax from 70% to 50% in his first year; whilst excluding up to $3,000 of income from tax for married couples. Thatcher, likewise, had also seen the damaging effects that high marginal rates had on incentives in the UK. In her first budget, she dropped the top rate of income tax and increased the threshold for the basic tax rate, as well as lowering that rate by 3%. Later tax cuts went even further, cutting the basic rate of income tax to 25%, and the top rate to 40%.

But reform to the income tax system was not just about the changing the rates – Thatcher and Reagan recognised Adam Smith’s view that a good tax system was a simple one. Prior to Thatcher, there had been 11 bands of income tax. She reduced this to 7 in her first year, and by 1989 had got it down to just 2. The year before Reagan entered office there had incredibly been no less than 17 income tax brackets for single people. By 1988 there were also 2. Whereas before middle and high earners had faced damaging marginal taxes, the Reagan-Thatcher tax cut and simplification measures helped spur on an increase in productivity and innovation.

And these tax cuts didn’t mean that government spending had to fall either. On the contrary, Reagan upped federal spending in real terms from $1299bn in 1981 to $1645bn in 1989 (2005 $s) – an increase of almost 27%. But he did this without making government spending burdensome on the economy – across his Presidency, federal spending as a percentage of GDP stayed almost the same, falling just slightly from 21.7% to 20.9%. Likewise, although Thatcher has developed a reputation for savagely cutting, she in fact, like Reagan, increased spending – by 7% in real terms. But she too managed to do this without the state becoming an excessively large part of the economy, by decreasing public spending as a share of GDP from 42.8% to 36.5%.

Inflation had been a major issue in the late 1970s in both countries, and in the fiscal year in which Thatcher entered office inflation soared to almost 18%. In Reagan’s first year, inflation stood at over 10%. Both of them used high interest rates to curb the inflation which was damaging savings and capital investment. They recognised that the short-term pain of high rates was to produce a more certain environment for investment, wages and growth – to get the economy out of its stuttering trend of the 70s and move towards a steady, sustainable growth path.

And, indeed, growth was enjoyed in both countries. After inflation had been bought under control, America saw its longest ever period of sustained growth in peacetime – a full 92 months without recession. Similarly with Thatcher, after two years of recession caused by having to reign in the profligate monetary policy of previous governments, the British economy enjoyed continued growth for almost her entire premiership – from 1981 until 1990. And this wasn’t an artificial, debt fuelled growth like the one of the noughties – public debt as a percentage of GDP fell from 42% to 25% under Thatcher.

The starkest difference in their economics surrounds Thatcher’s privatisation agenda. For all his rhetoric, Reagan’s only major privatisation was of Conrail, a freight railroad system. Thatcher’s included huge state assets: British Airways, British Telecom and BP were sold off. She encouraged the public to buy shares in the industries being privatised, resulting in the number of individual shareholders across the country tripling. Other privatised companies included British Aerospace, the National Freight Company, and Jaguar. In 1979, 35% of people lived in state owned houses which were costly to the taxpayer; but under Thatcher, millions of people were able to buy their houses.

The similarities, both in approach and results, far outweigh the differences. The tough decisions taken by the President and Prime Minister gave economic hope to two nations in deep-rooted economic problems. By reducing and simplifying income taxes, privatising wasteful publicly owned industries, and reducing inflationary pressure, Reagan and Thatcher were both able to engender a long period of prosperous growth. It was that growth that enabled them to – despite the fall in tax rates – increase public spending, without making the state a burden on the economy.

Related posts:

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

 

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 7 of 7)

March 16, 2012 – 12:25 am

  Michael Harrington:  If you don’t have the expertise, the knowledge technology today, you’re out of the debate. And I think that we have to democratize information and government as well as the economy and society. FRIEDMAN: I am sorry to say Michael Harrington’s solution is not a solution to it. He wants minority rule, I […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave

Image result for milton friedman free to choose

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 6 of 7)

March 9, 2012 – 12:29 am

PETERSON: Well, let me ask you how you would cope with this problem, Dr. Friedman. The people decided that they wanted cool air, and there was tremendous need, and so we built a huge industry, the air conditioning industry, hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous earnings opportunities and nearly all of us now have air […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

In 1980 when I first sat down and read the book “Free to Choose” I was involved in Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president and excited about the race. Milton Friedman’s books and film series really helped form my conservative views. Take a look at one of my favorite films of his and this one deals with school vouchers:

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 5 of 7)

March 2, 2012 – 12:26 am

Part 5 Milton Friedman: I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

Created Equal [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 4 of 7)

February 24, 2012 – 12:21 am

The fundamental principal of the free society is voluntary cooperation. The economic market, buying and selling, is one example. But it’s only one example. Voluntary cooperation is far broader than that. To take an example that at first sight seems about as far away as you can get __ the language we speak; the words […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3 of 7)

February 17, 2012 – 12:12 am

  _________________________   Pt3  Nowadays there’s a considerable amount of traffic at this border. People cross a little more freely than they use to. Many people from Hong Kong trade in China and the market has helped bring the two countries closer together, but the barriers between them are still very real. On this side […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2 of 7)

February 10, 2012 – 12:09 am

  Aside from its harbor, the only other important resource of Hong Kong is people __ over 4_ million of them. Like America a century ago, Hong Kong in the past few decades has been a haven for people who sought the freedom to make the most of their own abilities. Many of them are […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1of 7)

February 3, 2012 – 12:07 am

“FREE TO CHOOSE” 1: The Power of the Market (Milton Friedman) Free to Choose ^ | 1980 | Milton Friedman Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 4:20:46 PM by Choose Ye This Day FREE TO CHOOSE: The Power of the Market Friedman: Once all of this was a swamp, covered with forest. The Canarce Indians […]

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 1-5 

Debate on Milton Friedman’s cure for inflation

September 29, 2011 – 7:24 am

If you would like to see the first three episodes on inflation in Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose” then go to a previous post I did. Ep. 9 – How to Cure Inflation [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Uploaded by investbligurucom on Jun 16, 2010 While many people have a fairly […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Tagged dr friedman, expansion history, income tax brackets, political courage, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

What were the main proposals of Milton Friedman?

February 21, 2013 – 1:01 am

Stearns Speaks on House Floor in Support of Balanced Budget Amendment Uploaded by RepCliffStearns on Nov 18, 2011 Speaking on House floor in support of Balanced Budget Resolution, 11/18/2011 ___________ Below are some of the main proposals of Milton Friedman. I highly respected his work. David J. Theroux said this about Milton Friedman’s view concerning […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

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

December 7, 2012 – 5:55 am

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama | Edit | Comments (1)

Defending Milton Friedman

July 31, 2012 – 6:45 am

What a great defense of Milton Friedman!!!!   Defaming Milton Friedman by Johan Norberg This article appeared in Reason Online on September 26, 2008  PRINT PAGE  CITE THIS      Sans Serif      Serif Share with your friends: ShareThis In the future, if you tell a student or a journalist that you favor free markets and limited government, there is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton and Rose Friedman “Two Lucky People”

July 31, 2012 – 6:43 am

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2 Uploaded by PenguinProseMedia on Oct 26, 2011 2nd half of 1994 interview. ________________ I have a lot of respect for the Friedmans.Two Lucky People by Milton and Rose Friedman reviewed by David Frum — October 1998. However, I liked this review below better. It […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

Video clip:Milton Friedman discusses his view of numerous political figures and policy issues in (Part 2)

July 25, 2012 – 2:16 am

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2 Uploaded by PenguinProseMedia on Oct 25, 2011 Says Federal Reserve should be abolished, criticizes Keynes. One of Friedman’s best interviews, discussion spans Friedman’s career and his view of numerous political figures and public policy issues. ___________________ Here is a review of “Two Lucky People.” […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman believed in liberty (Interview by Charlie Rose of Milton Friedman part 1)

July 24, 2012 – 10:01 am

Charlie Rose interview of Milton Friedman My favorite economist: Milton Friedman : A Great Champion of Liberty  by V. Sundaram   Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of three US Presidents – Nixon, Ford and Reagan – died last Thursday (16 November, 2006 ) in San Francisco […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

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

June 4, 2012 – 1:59 pm

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman

—

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)