New Dead Sea scrolls with verses of the books of Zechariah and Nahum found

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)

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)

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

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

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

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

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

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)

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?

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?

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)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

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

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

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)

OPEN LETTER ABOUT SENATOR’S 2017 PRAISE OF FILIBUSTER!!! ALSO WHY DON’T YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF UNBORN LITTLE GIRLS? Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

March 19, 2021 – 6:56 am

—

March 19, 2021

Office of Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster.
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?

Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

—-

I read something you said back during the campaign:

“In the first 100 days I will remove Trump’s ‘gag rules’, which I can do with no need of congressional involvement,” she said. “I will reverse funding decisions right away, and make sure that we only nominate judges for confirmation who are consistent with the law” of Roe v Wade.

Senator I wanted to tell you about an opportunity I had back in 1995 and it dealt with corresponding with Carl Sagan about the issue of abortion. I know this is an issue that you care deeply about.

Carl Sagan pictured below:

_________

Recently I have been revisiting my correspondence in 1995 with the famous astronomer Carl Sagan who I had the privilege to correspond with in 1994, 1995 and 1996. In 1996 I had a chance to respond to his December 5, 1995letter on January 10, 1996 and I never heard back from him again since his cancer returned and he passed away later in 1996. Below is what Carl Sagan wrote to me in his December 5, 1995 letter:

Thanks for your recent letter about evolution and abortion. The correlation is hardly one to one; there are evolutionists who are anti-abortion and anti-evolutionists who are pro-abortion.You argue that God exists because otherwise we could not understand the world in our consciousness. But if you think God is necessary to understand the world, then why do you not ask the next question of where God came from? And if you say “God was always here,” why not say that the universe was always here? On abortion, my views are contained in the enclosed article (Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan {1990}, “The Question of Abortion,” Parade Magazine, April 22.)

I was introduced to when reading a book by Francis Schaeffer called HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT written in 1968.

Francis Schaeffer

I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and in his December 5, 1995 letter Dr. Sagan went on to tell me that he was enclosing his article “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I am going to respond to several points made in that article. Here is a portion of Sagan’s article (here is a link to the whole article):

Image result for adrian rogers — (both Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer mentioned Carl Sagan in their books and that prompted me to write Sagan and expose him to their views.

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

“The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”

by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

For the complete text, including illustrations, introductory quote, footnotes, and commentary on the reaction to the originally published article see Billions and Billions.

The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the Constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes. The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed.

Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide? We wrote this article to understand better what the contending views are and to see if we ourselves could find a position that would satisfy us both. Is there no middle ground? We had to weigh the arguments of both sides for consistency and to pose test cases, some of which are purely hypothetical. If in some of these tests we seem to go too far, we ask the reader to be patient with us–we’re trying to stress the various positions to the breaking point to see their weaknesses and where they fail.

In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?

Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held–especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions–that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names–pro-choice and pro-life–were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.

Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound–including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?

As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?

——-

End of Sagan Excerpt

When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson.

C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below

Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”

On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:

An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN.

I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism.

How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong.

This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.”

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

Image result for jefferson county hospital, pine bluff, arkansas — My wife was born in main hospital in Pine Bluff, Arkansas

They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!

Image result for carl sagan humanist of the year 1982 — Carl Sagan was elected the HUMANIST OF THE YEAR in 1982 by the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION

Carl Sagan asked, “Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?”

Sincerely,

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

—

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

Biden Overstepped Constitutional Authority When He Revoked Keystone Pipeline Permit, Multiple States Allege in Lawsuit

March 18, 2021 – 10:33 pm

—

Biden Overstepped Constitutional Authority When He Revoked Keystone Pipeline Permit, Multiple States Allege in Lawsuit

Thomas Catenacci / @ThomasCatenacci / March 18, 2021

A group of 21 Republican state attorneys general has accused President Joe Biden of overstepping his constitutional authority when he revoked the Keystone XL pipeline’s federal permit. Pictured: Biden delivers remarks in the State Dining Room of the White House March 15, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

A group of 21 Republican state attorneys general filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against President Joe Biden’s administration over its decision to nix the Keystone XL pipeline.

The states, led by Montana and Texas, accused Biden of overstepping his constitutional authority when he revoked the Keystone XL pipeline’s federal permit on Jan. 20 hours after entering office, in the lawsuit filed Wednesday afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

“The power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce belongs to Congress—not the President,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said in a statement Wednesday. “This is another example of Joe Biden overstepping his constitutional role to the detriment of Montanans.”

“There is not even a perceived environmental benefit to his actions—his attempt to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline is an empty virtue signal to his wealthy coastal elite donors,” Knudsen said. “It shows Biden’s contempt for rural communities in Montana and other states along the pipeline’s path that would benefit from and support the project.”

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

Congress never granted the president the authority to revoke the pipeline’s permit, which is a regulation of interstate and international commerce, according to the lawsuit. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to regulate interstate and international commerce.

Further, Biden violated the rules previously set by Congress on what actions the executive branch may take regarding the Keystone pipeline, the lawsuit said.

Biden had stated that keeping the pipeline’s permit would not be consistent with his “economic and climate imperatives,” which include solving the world’s climate crisis. The complaint Wednesday argued that he couldn’t alter U.S. domestic policy with the intention of conducting foreign policy.

“The President has certain prerogatives to act on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs,” the lawsuit said. “But as far as domestic law is concerned, the President must work with and abide by the limits set by Congress—whether he likes them or not.”

“This Administration has sought to leverage its power regarding U.S. foreign policy to unilaterally contradict Congress’s stated domestic policy regarding one of the most significant energy projects in a generation: the Keystone XL Pipeline,” the lawsuit said.

Former President Donald Trump’s March 2019 executive order approving the pipeline permit was constitutional because it fell in line with the “repeatedly expressed preferences” of Congress, according to Wednesday’s complaint.

The lawsuit also noted the damages incurred by Biden’s decision to nix the pipeline’s permit. The project was estimated to generate $55.6 million in property taxes across 27 counties in just three states and to create more than 42,000 jobs.

The project is an extension of an existing TC Energy pipeline that already transports crude oil from Canada to the U.S., according to The Wall Street Journal. The extension would carry crude directly from Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would connect to existing pipeline that stretches to the Gulf of Mexico.

The part of the pipeline extension that crosses the U.S.-Canada border is mostly completed, the lawsuit said.

Montana, Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming were listed as plaintiffs on the suit.

Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas were all listed as defendants.

On Feb. 10, 14 attorneys general, including many listed in Wednesday’s lawsuit, sent a letter “with alarm” to the Biden administration, urging the president to reconsider his decision to effectively kill the pipeline. The letter warned that the states had been reviewing all available legal options to protect their residents.

“Your decision will result in devastating damage to many of our states and local communities,” the attorneys general wrote in the letter to Biden. “Even those states outside the path of the Keystone XL pipeline—indeed all Americans—will suffer serious, detrimental consequences.”

Knudsen, the Montana attorney general, led the coalition, which included the top legal officers from Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. Montana’s portion of the proposed pipeline would have been 285 miles long and was expected to generate more than 4,000 jobs.

John Kerry, the White House climate czar, recently said workers who lose their jobs due to the administration’s climate policies can find jobs making solar panels. The letter said the Biden administration’s insistence that laid off pipeline workers would be given green jobs in the future was a “cold promise.”

Several prominent trade unions, which endorsed Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, strongly condemned the executive order. The unions ignored requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation asking why they supported Biden despite his campaign promise to nix the job-creating pipeline.

“Well, I wish he hadn’t done that on the first day,” Richard Trumka, the president of the powerful AFL-CIO, told Axios. “Because the Laborer’s International was right, it did and will cost us jobs in the process.”

The Teamsters, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters signed the Keystone pipeline’s labor agreement in August. The agreement promised the creation of 42,000 “family-sustaining jobs” in the U.S. and $2 billion in total earnings for the all-union workforce.

The Laborers’ International Union of North America estimated that Biden’s executive action would kill thousands of union jobs. LIUNA General President Terry O’Sullivan called the action “insulting and disappointing.”

Meanwhile, 12 states sued the Biden administration over its climate policies on March 8. One day later, two states sued the administration over its immigration policies.

A group of Republican attorneys general threatened additional legal action against the Biden administration in a letter to Department of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Tuesday. The 21 attorneys general demanded clarity on Biden’s position regarding state tax policy.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.

Joe Biden Signs COVID Bill With the Greatest Expansion of Abortion Funding in a Decade

NATIONAL STEVEN ERTELT MAR 11, 2021 | 4:59PM WASHINGTON, DC

Share this story:https://www.facebook.com/v2.6/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=172525162793917&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df3e89f2c1f35cee%26domain%3Dwww.lifenews.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.lifenews.com%252Ff12984aafd2427%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2021%2F03%2F11%2Fjoe-biden-signs-covid-bill-with-the-greatest-expansion-of-abortion-funding-in-a-decade%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joeyhttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.0edc1ef9f8b82d9b79c6115bda79f63f.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2021%2F03%2F11%2Fjoe-biden-signs-covid-bill-with-the-greatest-expansion-of-abortion-funding-in-a-decade%2F&size=m&text=Joe%20Biden%20Signs%20COVID%20Bill%20With%20the%20Greatest%20Expansion%20of%20Abortion%20Funding%20in%20a%20Decade&time=1615776366791&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2021%2F03%2F11%2Fjoe-biden-signs-covid-bill-with-the-greatest-expansion-of-abortion-funding-in-a-decade%2F%23.YE7KbrQHlz8.twitter

Joe Biden today signed the so-called COVID relief bill that is the greatest expansion of abortion in a decade. Although he claims to be a “devout Catholic,” Biden just signed a bill that forces Americans to fund abortions and the Planned Parenthood abortion business. It is the largest expansion of abortion funding since 2010, when Democrats passed Obamacare.

The COVID relief bill that spends all but 9% on COVID relief and will spend tens of millions, perhaps over $100 million on funding abortions and the Planned Parenthood abortion corporation.

In the Senate, Democrats defeated a pro-life amendment that would have stopped the COVID relief bill from using tens of millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to fund killing babies in abortions. Democrat Senators Joe Manchin and Bob Casey, who both claim to be pro-life, voted for the abortion-funding legislation after the amendment was defeated.

The Senate voted 52-47 to defeat the pro-life amendment offered by Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma to apply the Hyde Amendment to the COVID bill. Every Republican voted for the amendment along with Democrat senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Senator Sullivan of Alaska did not vote. despite voting for the amendemnt to stop abortion funding, Casey and Manchin eventually voted for the abortion-funding bill.

The amendment failed because it did not reach the 60-vote threshold needed to waive budget rules associated with the legislation. Without the 3/5 majority necessary, the amendment fails and the COVID bill will fund abortions.

Yesterday, the nation’s Catholic bishops slammed Democrats for passing the bill without any protections against abortion funding.

It is “unconscionable” that Congress passed the bill “without critical protections needed to ensure that billions of taxpayer dollars are used for life-affirming health care and not for abortion,” wrote the bishops in a statement.

“Unlike previous COVID [coronavirus] relief bills, sponsors of the American Rescue Plan Act refused to include the longstanding, bi-partisan consensus policy to prohibit taxpayer dollars from funding abortions domestically and internationally,” the bishops declared.

The policy was needed, they continued, “because this bill includes many general references to healthcare that, absent the express exclusion of abortion, have consistently been interpreted by federal courts not only to allow, but to compel, the provision of abortion without meaningful limit.”

“The many important, life-saving provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act have been undermined because it facilitates and funds the destruction of life, which is antithetical to its aim of protecting the most vulnerable Americans in a time of crisis,” they state.

The $350 billion state bailout funds are particularly problematic as the bill doesn’t prevent states and localities from using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Under the current guidelines, liberal states like New York and California, which are likely going to receive the lion’s share of the bailout, can funnel millions to abortion giants like Planned Parenthood if they choose.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gabfor the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

The Family Research Council released a lengthy analysis of the funds in the bill that could be used to pay for abortions:

The American Rescue Plan Act lacks key abortion funding restrictions on over $459 billion, breaking decades of congressional precedent on restricting federal funding for abortion.

1. Funds that Can Directly Pay for Abortions (Up To $386.7 Billion):

$350 billion in funding for state and local governments with little to no guardrails against funding abortions. The funding formula is tilted towards blue states like California and New York who are more likely to abuse this money to fund abortions directly and bail out Planned Parenthood the abortion industry.
$8.5 billion for the Provider Relief Fund, which could be used to directly finance abortions as well as to bail out abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood
$7.66 billion for public health workers
$7.6 billion for community health centers
$800 million for National Health Service Corps
$750 million for global health activities under the Center for Disease Control
$500 million for rural health clinics
$330 million for Teaching Health Centers that operate Graduate Medical Education
$200 million for medical reserve corps
$200 million for the nurse corps
$200 million for programs related to sexual assault and domestic violence
Amounts of $10 billion for COVID medical supplies that remain after September 2022 are allowed to be spent on other public health-related activities which can include abortion.

2. Funds that Can Subsidize Abortion ($704 Million) and Abortion Lobbying ($10 Billion) Overseas:

$10 billion in foreign assistance funds not subject to the Siljander Amendment, allowing these funds to be used for international abortion lobbying.

Of these funds, $500 million in humanitarian response activities for migrants and refugees by the United Nations also lack Helms Amendment protections to prevent the UN from using these funds to pay for abortions.
Of these funds, $204 million for State Department Activities also lack Helms Amendment protections, allowing these funds to be used for abortions abroad.
Of these funds $8.7 billioncan be spent on contraception and sterilization procedures overseas and are likely to go to the major abortion business like International Planned Parenthood and MSI Reproductive Choices that provide these services.

3. Major Subsidies for Health Plans that Cover Abortion ($81.7 Billion):

For 2021 and 2022, vastly expands Obamacare’s premium tax credits and cost sharing reduction payments, which subsidizes plans that cover abortion. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimatesthese subsidies to cost $45.624 billion.

Those under 150% of federal poverty level (FPL) would receive a 100% taxpayer subsidy to enroll in silver plans.
Those unemployed of any income level (for 2021) would receive a 100% taxpayer subsidy to enroll in a silver plan, and enhanced cost-sharing reduction payments.
Those between 150% and 400% FPL would receive a much more generous subsidy than current law.
Middle class taxpayers above 400% FPL, ineligible under current law, would become newly eligible for a significant subsidy so that the benchmark silver premium doesn’t exceed 8.5% of household income.
For six months, subsidizes 100% of the cost of COBRA continuation coverage. This subsidy covers the cost of health care premiums for the newly unemployed to remain on their employer sponsored health plans, which includes many plans that cover abortion. JCT estimates these subsidies to cost $35.095 billion.

4. Bailout for Abortion Businesses ($50 Million)

$50 million for the Title X family planning program – The Biden administration will likely direct these funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses that withdrew from Title X over pro-life changes that were made by the Trump administration. Longstanding requirements on political lobbying, encouraging parental involvement, and reporting sexual abuse are not included.

The pro-life group SBA List wrote to senators ahead of the Senate vote urging them to adopt pro-life amendments to curb abortion funding.

“While prior bipartisan COVID relief packages have included Hyde protections on funding streams that fall outside of existing limits on abortion funding, this bill departs from the status quo by leaving funds open to use for abortion. COVID relief money should be used for life-affirming purposes… we strongly support and will score in favor of amendments to mitigate the funding of abortion, abortion coverage, or abortion providers,” it wrote.

SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser added: “Pro-abortion forces emboldened by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are shamelessly exploiting the COVID-19 crisis to expand abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers. By failing to include Hyde Amendment protections and forcing taxpayers to bail out the abortion industry, their so-called ‘rescue plan’ abandons some of the most vulnerable Americans – unborn children and their mothers. Their agenda will divide, rather than unite our nation as this administration promised.”

Tom McClusky, president of March for Life Action also told LifeNews that the pro-life group opposes the bill without pro-life amendments to stop abortion funding.

“The current COVID-19 relief package has the potential to be the largest expansion of abortion funding since Obamacare. Less than 10% of the ‘relief’ actually goes towards combatting the pandemic. Instead, pro-abortion politicians are using this bill to open the floodgates to abortion funding, with billions of dollars unprotected from being used for the life-ending practice both here in the U.S. and abroad. This is radically out of step with the majority of Americans who oppose their tax dollars funding it. Americans who have been suffering from the effects of the pandemic deserve authentic relief, not this pro-abortion bonanza,” he said.

Follow LifeNews on the Parler social media network for the latest pro-life news!

Fortunately one of the abortion funding provisions was removed from the bill prior the Senate vote.

Senator Rand Paul has forced Democrats to remove a pro-abortion provision in their massive $1.9 trillion COVID bill that would have allowed every Planned Parenthood across America to receive free money through the Paycheck Protection Program. Last year, the Planned Parenthood abortion business improperly applied for and received $80 million in federal funds meant to support small businesses as they battle the economic fallout from the coronavirus.

That is despite the fact that the rules and regulations associated with the program specifically prohibited affiliates of larger organizations with more than 500 employees from applying. That covers Planned Parenthood as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PFFA) alone has had more than 600 employees.

Shockingly, only 9% of the bill’s funding will go to public health issues, and almost half of the funding, not including the proposed stimulus checks, won’t be distributed until 2022 at the earliest.

Recent Marist polling, though, shows Americans overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortion overseas. The survey reveals 77 percent of Americans reject the idea of taxpayer dollars funding abortion abroad while a majority of Democrats—55 percent—also oppose taxpayer funding of abortion abroad.

Share this story:https://www.facebook.com/v2.6/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=172525162793917&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df164e6197e72f68%26domain%3Dwww.lifenews.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.lifenews.com%252Ff12984aafd2427%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2021%2F03%2F11%2Fjoe-biden-signs-covid-bill-with-the-greatest-expansion-of-abortion-funding-in-a-decade%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joeyhttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.0edc1ef9f8b82d9b79c6115bda79f63f.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-2&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2021%2F03%2F11%2Fjoe-biden-signs-covid-bill-with-the-greatest-expansion-of-abortion-funding-in-a-decade%2F&size=m&text=Joe%20Biden%20Signs%20COVID%20Bill%20With%20the%20Greatest%20Expansion%20of%20Abortion%20Funding%20in%20a%20Decade&time=1615776366792&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2021%2F03%2F11%2Fjoe-biden-signs-covid-bill-with-the-greatest-expansion-of-abortion-funding-in-a-decade%2F%23.YE7KbotmJ2E.twitter

March 1, 2021

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

Dear President Obama,

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:

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision focused further attention on Court appointments with every nomination from that point on triggering a pitched battle between pro-choice and anti-abortion forces.

—

I know that you are a professing Christian but I wonder how you the view the Bible? Do you believe like evangelicals that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and is historically accurate? Tony Dungy is an evangelical and like me he is pro-life. Take a look at this article below:

—-

Ex-NFL coach Tony Dungy skeptical about Warnock’s faith after ‘pro-choice pastor’ tweet

DECEMBER 11, 2020 BY RYAN GAYDOS

Former NFL coach Tony Dungy is a man who takes his Christian faith very seriously, and when it comes to Rev. Raphael Warnock, who is running for U.S. Senate in Georgia, he wasn’t so sure about him.

Warnock, a Democrat and pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, is in the middle of a runoff election against Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga.

Warnock tweeted Tuesday he was a “pro-choice pastor,” which inherently goes against the pro-life views of most Christians.

WARNOCK COMPARED AMERICA TO COMMUNIST CUBA, SAID FIDEL CASTRO HAD ‘COMPLEX’ LEGACY IN RESURFACED VIDEO

When a Twitter user pointed out on Wednesday that “pro-choice pastors” do exist, the Super Bowl champion head coach appeared skeptical.

“Rev Warner may be a pastor. My question would be ‘Is he a Christian?’ That is, does he follow the teachings of Jesus and does he believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God?” tweeted, who is a football commentaror for NBC.

He added: “I would think it would be difficult for someone who believes that God sees us when we are in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16) to think that it is OK to choose not to bring that life to fruition.”

On Thursday, another Twitter user said being pro-choice didn’t mean that a person was pro-abortion. Dungy replied, “Please read Psalm 139:13-16. Then tell me if you think God puts babies in the womb or man does? If you believe they randomly get there then I have no argument. But if you believe God puts them there, then how does anyone have a right to ‘choose’ which ones survive?”

LOEFFLER AD BLITZ TARGETS WARNOCK’S ALLEGED PAST DISMISSALS OF CRITIQUES ON SOCIALISM

He then clarified his position in another way.

“What if I was advocating for the right to kill someone who was already born? Would that be morally OK? Of course not. The only question in this debate is what we think of the unborn baby? Is it a life or is it not?”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

Dungy is not one to shy away from his faith. In 2006, it was noted that Dungy nearly put his football career on pause to join the prison ministry. And over the course of his career he worked in community service organizations and was a public speaker for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

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

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

Were the founding fathers christian?

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

“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)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

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

https://youtu.be/6lQEViPZLrE

—-

—

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

Dan Mitchell article Defending Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform

March 18, 2021 – 5:00 pm

—

Defending Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform

Here are four things to understand about poverty and dependency.

Throughout most of human history, harsh material deprivationwas the norm for the vast majority of people.
The development of free enterprise and economic liberty led to dramatic increases in living standards.
The poverty rate declined significantly in the 1800s and early 1900s when there was no welfare state.
After the welfare state was created, poverty and dependency stopped declining.

Now let’s add a fifth item.

The United States adopted welfare reform in the mid-1990s.

Today’s column examines whether this was a bad development or good development.

We’ll start with a harsh critic.

In his column for the New York Times, Charles Blow wants Democrats to repeal Clinton’s welfare reform.

Clinton’s record, particularly with respect to Black and brown Americans and the poor, was marked by catastrophic miscalculation. …the welfare reform bill, …Clinton promised would “end welfare as we know it.” One of its central provisionswas block-grant assistance to the states. …the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out in 2020, the block grant to states “has been set at $16.5 billion each year since 1996; as a result, its real value has fallen by almost 40 percent due to inflation.” …With the passage of the “American Rescue Plan,” the Democrats, alone, took another major step away from the mistakes of the Clinton legacy by increasing aid to families with children and to workers.

Reading the column, it seems like blacks must have suffered immensely because of the 40 percent reduction in the block grant.

But now let’s consider whether welfare reform was a good thing.

According to the data, the answer is yes. This chart, based on the Census Bureau’s data (specifically Table B-5), shows that the poverty rate for African Americans has declined since welfare reform was enacted.

To be sure, one could argue that the post-welfare reform decline was simply a continuation of a positive trend. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s certainly no evidence that the 1996 legislation led to bad results.

Moreover, research from the Brookings Institution makes a persuasive case that welfare reform deserves credit for some of the post-1996 progress.

Why? Because it sent a message – both practically and rhetorically – that permanent dependence on Uncle Sam was a bad thing. As a result, more people entered the workforce and poverty dropped.

That seems like a result that should be celebrated.

Unfortunately, Biden’s so-called American Rescue Plan contains big per-child handouts that are not dependent on being in the workforce.

The only silver lining to that dark cloud is that the handouts are only for 2021.

But the pro-redistribution crowd already is clamoring to make that provision a permanent giveaway. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, they want to “restore welfare as we knew it.”

P.S. Based on what I’ve read in his columns, Charles Blow is a hard-core leftist on economic issues. But he’s semi-reasonable on gun rights, so that’s one point in his favor.

P.P.S. Welfare reform is just one example of the good policiesthat were enacted during the Clinton years.

P.P.P.S. We can learn lessons about welfare and dependency by looking at data from Europe and Canada.

President Clinton Signing the Balanced Budget Bill (1997)

Newt Gingich Explains How He Balanced the Budget as Speaker of the House

Ronald Reagan Talks About Balancing the Budget on Johnny Carson’s Tonigh…

President Reagan’s Remarks on Balanced Budget Amendment on July 12, 1982

—-

—

February 22, 2021

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

Dear President Obama,

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:

The realignment Johnson foresaw ended up taking longer than he had expected. But steadily, year by year—through Vietnam, riots… and Nixon’s southern strategy; through busing, Roe v. Wade, urban crime, and white flight; through affirmative action, the Moral Majority, union busting, and Robert Bork; through assault weapons bans and the rise of NEWT GINGRICH …and the Clinton impeachment—America’s voters and their representatives became more and more polarized.

There are two main things that Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton teamed up on and accomplished and they were a balanced budget and welfare reform!

I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on raising the debt ceiling before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly. I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

I have posted articles on my blog (www.thedailyhatch.org) about the balanced budget efforts of very prudent people like Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan.

The main reason we need a Balanced Budget Amendment is to control spending. Milton Friedman was right about that. Notice below that Ron Paul quotes Friedman on this issue.

Ron Paul: Constitutional Amendment Needed to Limit Taxes and Spending

Submitted by bobbyw24 on Wed, 07/20/2011– 07:09in

Economy

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) says merely scaling back to 2008 spending levels is nowhere near enough to fix the massive government debt problems.

“As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget,” Paul said in a speech to the House of Representatives made prior to the vote on the “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill. The bill is expected to pass the House tonight, but President Barack Obama has said he will veto it if it clears the Senate and reaches his desk.

What is needed is a dramatically smaller federal government, says Paul. “If we achieve this, a balanced budget will take care of itself,” he says. “We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago.”

Sincerely,

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

—

President Reagan’s Remarks on a Constitutional Amendment for a Balanced …

—

PAY IT BACKWARDS: The Federal Budget Surplus with Milton Friedman

How to Reduce Debt and Grow the Economy: Milton Friedman on Budget Recon…
——

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49)

September 21, 2011 – 7:32 am

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control | Tagged bipartisan compromise, budget control, compromise deal, u s constitution. | Edit | Comments (0)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48)

September 20, 2011 – 12:25 am

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47)

September 19, 2011 – 12:17 am

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46)

September 18, 2011 – 12:14 am

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Image result for milton friedman ronald reagan

Ronald Reagan with Milton Friedman Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 2-5

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

October 21, 2011 – 12:15 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did? VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 6 of 7)

October 14, 2011 – 12:14 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 5 of 7)

October 7, 2011 – 12:13 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 5 of 7 MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter) VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not? MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

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

September 30, 2011 – 12:12 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 4 of 7 The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

September 23, 2011 – 12:11 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

September 16, 2011 – 12:10 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

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

September 9, 2011 – 12:09 am

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

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 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)

“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)

“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)

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

April 19, 2013 – 1:14 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)

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 […]

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

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

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

Were the founding fathers christian?

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

“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)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

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

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

—-

—

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

OPEN LETTER ABOUT SENATOR’S 2017 PRAISE OF FILIBUSTER!!! WHY DID YOU SUPPORT FILIBUSTER WHEN TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS HAD MAJORITY BUT NOT NOW? DEMOCRATS WANT FREEDOM TO RUN UP NATIONAL DEBT!! Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey

March 18, 2021 – 6:40 am

—

March 17, 2021

Office of Senator Bob Menendez
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Menendez,

I noticed you that signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster.
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?

Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

—

I read that you oppose the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, and I was sad to read that.

REPUBLICANS WANT TO SLOW SPENDING NOW AND I ADMIT THAT WASN’T ALWAYS THE CASE!!!

Sincerely,

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

—

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

—

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

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ON HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY “A PROMISED LAND” Part 118 OBAMA’S VIEW ON MINIMUM WAGE “At every stop I made, in every city and small town, my message was the same. I promised to raise taxes on high-income Americans to pay for vital investments in education, research, and infrastructure. I promised to strengthen unions and raise the minimum wage”

March 18, 2021 – 4:57 am

—

Milton Friedman – A Conversation On Minimum Wage FREE TO CHOOSE

March 19, 2021

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

Dear President Obama,

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:

I was campaigning to push the country in the opposite direction. I didn’t think America could roll back automation or sever the global supply chain (though I did think we could negotiate stronger labor and environmental provisions in our trade agreements). But I was certain we could adapt our laws and institutions, just as we’d done in the past, to make sure that folks willing to work could get a fair shake. At every stop I made, in every city and small town, my message was the same. I promised to raise taxes on high-income Americans to pay for vital investments in education, research, and infrastructure. I promised to strengthen unions and raise the minimum wage as well as to deliver universal healthcare and make college more affordable.
I wanted people to understand that there was a precedent for bold government action. FDR had saved capitalism from itself, laying the foundation for a post–World War II boom.

—-

The minimum wage has hurt young people as they seek to enter the job market and prove themselves and start heading up the financial ladder of opportunity and by cutting the bottom of the ladder off it is difficult for the most unskilled and disadvantaged to compete!

More and More Evidence that Higher Minimum Wages Mean Fewer Jobs and Less Opportunity

How many times can you say the same thing over and over and over again?

When it comes to the minimum wage, we may never know the answer.

No matter how often new research is produced showing that low-skilled workers are hurt when politicians cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, politicians persist in pushing for bad policy.

Many state already have increased minimum wages, and the “Fight for $15” crowd wants a nationwide increase.

So let’s explain, for the umpteenth time, why this is misguided.

We have lots of data and anecdotes to review, so let’s begin with some scholarly research from Europe.

Here are some results from a study in Denmark, where the minimum wage increases when workers reach age 18, at which point many of them lose their jobs (h/t: Marginal Revolution).

This paper estimates the long-run impact of youth minimum wages on youth employment by exploiting a large discontinuity in Danish minimum wage rules at age 18 and using monthly payroll records for the Danish population. …On average, the hourly wage rate jumps up by 40 percent when individuals turn eighteen years old. Employment (extensive margin) falls by 33 percent and total labor input (extensive and intensive margin) decreases by around 45 percent, leaving the aggregate wage payment nearly unchanged. Data on flows into and out of employment show that the drop in employment is driven almost entirely by job loss when individuals turn 18 years old. We estimate that the relevant elasticity for evaluating the effect on youth employment of changes in their minimum wage is about -0.8.

Here’s the most relevant chart from the study. A rather remarkable drop in employment, as you can see.

Speaking of academic research, a new report from the European Central Bank confirms that higher minimum wages have a negative impact on both employment and consumer costs.

Rises in the minimum wage determine not only the bottom part of the earnings distribution but also labour costs in general, and this could potentially cause headcount reductions. …We address this topic using a uniquefirm-level cross-country survey dataset compiled from a survey… Firms in eight Central and Eastern European (CEE8) countries, namely Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovenia, were asked about the particular adjustment strategies they had chosen following a specific instance of a rise in the minimum wage… The most popular adjustment channels are the increase in product prices…employment effects are realised mostly through reduced hiring, rather than direct layoffs.

This chart from the study is actually somewhat encouraging since it shows that employers bend over backwards to try to save jobs.

Now let’s look at real-world examples from the United States.

A landmark restaurant in Boston is closing, in part because the minimum wage was increased.

One of Boston’s most historic restaurants is closing its doors…Durgin-Park in Faneuil Hall…disappointed customers are trying to get in their final meals. …”This is another passing of a great institution,” said Berg. Rachelle Mazzone is Durgin-Park’s bartender and says dozens of long-time workers were told the restaurant would be closing next weekend. She was told it’s no longer profitable. …According to Ark Restaurants CEO Michael Weinstein, the restaurant wasn’t profitable anymore. He says…increase in minimum wage and health care costs…were all factors in the restaurant’s downfall. …Since 1827, the business attracted faithful diners and tourists to its Faneuil Hall location, winning several culinary awards.

An increase in the minimum wage may have been the straw to break the camel’s back for three restaurants in New York.

The rising minimum wage is getting at least part of the blame for the abrupt closure of three St. Lawrence County restaurants. …About 60 people have lost their jobs. “The minimum wage increase has been a big burden on our business. At one point we were up to 100 employees and the minimum wage has just increased every year since I opened in 2009. It’s been harder and harder to do business in New York state every year,” said Marc Morley, owner of the restaurants. …Morley said he told the restaurant managers to notify the workers. “They held all the contact information for all their individual employees,” he said. “It was an abrupt decision on our end. It wasn’t something we were planning on doing. We just got to the point where the businesses weren’t profitable and we were losing money every week.”

Here are some results from a study on the higher minimum wage in Minnesota.

Beginning in 2014, the state of Minnesota began a series of minimum wage increases. …While the effects of minimum wages changes remains a controversial topic, comparing relative outcomes in Wisconsin and Minnesota suggests that the minimum wage increases led to employment losses in Minnesota,particularly in the restaurant industry and youth demographic most affected by the changes. …Following the minimum wage increases limited service restaurant employment fell by 4% in Minnesota relative to Wisconsin. Further, youth employment fell by 9% in Minnesota following the minimum wage increases, while it increased by 10.6% in Wisconsin over the same time period. In addition, part of the increased wage costs employers faced have been passed on to consumers through higher prices. The relative price of restaurant food in the Minneapolis metro area had fallen by 2% in the four years preceding the minimum wage hikes, but it has risen by 6% in the four years since.

This chart from the study shows the impact on employment levels. The gap between the two lines is a measure of the foregone jobs in Minnesota.

As I’ve noted before, some groups are more victimized than others.

Here are excerpts from an article by Black Entertainment Television.

…economists William Even from Miami University and David Macpherson from Trinity University report that when a state, or the federal government, increases the minimum wage, Black teens are more likely to be laid off. The duo analyzed 600,000 data points… The report focused on 16-to 24-year-old males without a high school diploma and found that for each 10 percent increase in the federal or state minimum wage employment for young Black males decreased 6.5 percent. By contrast, after the same wage boost, employment for white and Hispanic males fell respectively just 2.5 percent and 1.2 percent. The real hit for Black teens occurred, however, in the 21 states that had the federal minimum wage increase in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The findings reveal that while 13,200 Black young adults lost their jobs as a direct result of the recession nearly 40 percent more, a total of 18,500, were fired because of the rise in the federal minimum wage.

Now let’s look at a video on the Seattle minimum-wage hike.

Now that we’ve dug through lots of data and research on why it would be bad news for workers if the minimum wage went up, it would be appropriate to make the obvious point that higher wages would be a desirable outcome.

And as Andy Puzder explained in the Wall Street Journal, that is why there is no substitute for economic growth.

The formula is simple: When the economy accelerates, employers compete for employees and wages increase. I experienced this during my 17 years as CEO of a national quick-service restaurant chain. The stronger the economy, the harder it was to get good employees. Conversely, when growth is weak, as it was during most of the Obama presidency, employees compete for jobs and wages stagnate. …The left’s proposed solution to wage stagnation has been for government to mandate increased wages by more than doubling the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour. That causes employers to eliminate jobs and reduce hours to offset their increased costs. To increase wages without these unintended consequences, you need economic growth. …With regulatory relief, tax cuts and the increased business that comes from economic growth, employers now have the resources to bid up wages. …the competition for employees and the associated wage increases will continue—if government stays out of the way.

I basically said the same thing at the end of this interview from a few years ago.

Let’s close with some minimum wage-related humor.

Our resident philoso-raptor makes a return appearance (previous appearances here and here) to ask a question that even Hillary Clinton answered correctly.

And it’s always fun to mock the social justice warriors.

It takes a special person (h/t: Libertarian Reddit) to parade their ignorance so boldly.

Last but not least is this amusing cartoon strip that showed up in my inbox.

Reminds me of the superb crayon cartoon, which basically captures the first two-thirds of Mitchell’s Law.

P.S. This video is a great summary of why minimum wage laws should be eliminated.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

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

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

Were the founding fathers christian?

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

“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)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

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

https://youtu.be/VfqBN9iW0_Q

—-

—

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

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 363 Charles Darwin “I am glad you were at the Messiah, it is the one thing that I should like to hear again, but I dare say I should find my soul too dried up to appreciate it as in old days…I am a withered leaf for every subject except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science” (Schaeffer v. Richard Dawkins) Featured artist is Gheorghe Virtosu

March 18, 2021 – 2:48 am

Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins

June 10, 2018

Richard Dawkins c/o Richard Dawkins Foundation,
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Dawkins,

Did you know that Charles Darwin lost his taste for music, art and the beauty of nature in his old age?

A letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, June 17, 1868, which repeats to some extent what is given in the Autobiography of Darwin:—

“I am glad you were at the Messiah, it is the one thing that I should like to hear again, but I dare say I should find my soul too dried up to appreciate it as in old days; and then I should feel very flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as I constantly do, that I am a withered leaf for every subject except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science, though God knows I ought to be thankful for such a perennial interest, which makes me forget for some hours every day my accursed stomach.’

Francis Schaeffer summarized Darwin’s statement:

So he is glad for science because his stomach bothers him, but on the other hand when I think of what it costs me I almost hate science. You can almost hear young Jean-Jacques Rousseau speaking here, he sees what the machine is going to do and he hates the machine and Darwin is constructing the machine and it leads as we have seen to his own loss of human values in the area of aesthetics, the area of art and also in the area of nature. This is what it has cost him. His theory has led him to this place. When you come to this then it seems to me that you understand man’s dilemma very, very well, to think of the origin of the theory of mechanical evolution bringing Darwin himself to the place of this titanic tension.

Let me challenge you to attend the Messiah performance or at least listen to the words on You Tube of a performance.

Ben Witherington in his blog post Handel’s Messiah— the Story behind the Classic noted:

Handel came across a libretto composed by Charles Jennens. Composed entirely of Scripture portions, mainly from the OT, Handel was deeply affected when he read this libretto. It was divided into three parts: 1) prophecies about the coming messiah (largely drawing on Isaiah); 2) the birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection of Christ; 3) the End times with Christ’s final victory over sin and death, largely based in the book of Revelation. Inspired, Handel decided he must compose an oratorio based on this libretto.

The Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah refers to were fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. If you just look at the verses in Psalm 22 that refer to the piercing of Christ hands and feet then you must admit that when these prophecies were made hundreds of years before the events that they describe that Psalm 22 must have been divinely inspired. In 1000 B. C. the common Jewish way of killing people was stoning and it was the Romans who brought in crucifixion.

Here is Psalm 22:1,7,8,16,17,18:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?

7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 “He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”

16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221

Image result for richard dawkins peter singer

Francis and Edith Schaeffer at their home in Switzerland with some visiting friends

Schaeffer with his wife Edith in Switzerland.

Image result for john lennox and richard dawkins

Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Image result for francis schaeffer c. everett koop whatever happened to human race?

Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris

Image result for four horsemen richard dawkins

Canary Islands 2014: Harold Kroto and Richard Dawkins

Image result for harry kroto richard dawkins

Francis Schaeffer pictured below:

—

The Basis of Human Dignity by Francis Schaeffer

Richard Dawkins, founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Credit: Don Arnold Getty Images

—

Francis Schaeffer in 1984

Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer in 1982

—-

Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Episode 1

—

Image result for richard dawkins brief candle in the dark

–

Garik Israelian, Stephen Hawking, Alexey Leonov, Brian May, Richard Dawkins and Harry Kroto

—-

Featured artist is Gheorghe Virtosu

Gheorghe Virtosu most important contemporary artist

Gheorghe Virtosu was born in 1968 in Chisinau, Moldova. He went to study at the Sankt Petersburgh Arts Academy. However, he has left the art academy for studies at State Security Academy. After quitting his military career in 1992 he went to London where he acquired British citizenship.

He developed an interest in abstract painting and writing. Virtosu lives and works in London, Amsterdam, Luxembourg. The artist creates focusing on his experiences and knowledge, translating social phenomena and characters to abstract.
He has developed his style and the iconic painting series of Prophet Muhammad Daughters (2016) is the evidence of it. The artist was the subject of a major retrospective at the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris in 2016–2017. In 2017 he represented the UK in the Venice Biennale. The artist mastered abstraction, however, he does not deny reality in his painting.

His painting Fatimah Bint Muhammad (2016) broke records in 2017 and became the highest-grossing work by a contemporary UK artist. His works sold in 39 countries including Dmitry Rybolovlev and Salman bin Abdulaziz.

—-

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 48 Nobel Prize Winner and Global Warming Denier Ivar Giaever “I think religion is to blame for a lot of the ills in this world!”

October 20, 2015 – 5:20 am

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 78 THE BEATLES (Breaking down the song TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS) Featured musical artist is Stuart Gerber

September 24, 2015 – 5:42 am

The Beatles were “inspired by the musique concrète of German composer and early electronic music pioneer Karlheinz Stockhausen…” as SCOTT THILL has asserted. Francis Schaeffer noted that ideas of “Non-resolution” and “Fragmentation” came down German and French streams with the influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets and then the influence of Debussy and later Schoenberg’s non-resolution which is in total contrast […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 42 Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

September 8, 2015 – 5:10 am

_______ On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Bart Ehrman “Why should one think that God performed the miracle of inspiring the words in the first place if He didn’t perform the miracle of preserving the words?”

September 2, 2015 – 8:42 am

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto ____________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner Dr. […]

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

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ON HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY “A PROMISED LAND” Part 117 IMMIGRATION Milton Friedman noted, “If you ask anybody, any American economic historian [around 1914] was that (free immigration} a good thing for America, everybody will say yes it was a wonderful thing for America that we had free immigration. If you ask anybody today, should we have free immigration today, everybody will __ almost everybody will say no. What’s the difference? I think there’s only one difference and that is that when we had free immigration it was immigration of jobs in which everybody benefited, but today, if you have a system under which you have essentially a governmental guarantee of relief in case of distress, you have a very, very real problem.”

March 18, 2021 – 1:51 am

—

Milton Friedman in 2004

Power of the Market – Immigration

MILTON FRIEDMAN ON IMMIGRATION

MILTON FRIEDMAN ON IMMIGRATION PART 2

March 18, 2021

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

Dear President Obama,

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:

WHEN IT CAME to immigration, everyone agreed that the system was broken. The process of immigrating legally to the United States could take a decade or longer, often depending on what country you were coming from and how much money you had.Meanwhile, the economic gulf between us and our southern neighbors drove hundreds of thousands of people to illegally cross the 1,933-mile U.S.-Mexico border each year, searching for work and a better life. Congress had spent billions to harden the border, with fencing, cameras, drones, and an expanded and increasingly militarized border patrol. But rather than stop the flow of immigrants, these steps had spurred an industry of smugglers—coyotes—who made big money transporting human cargo in barbaric and sometimes deadly fashion. And although border crossings by poor Mexican and Central American migrants received most of the attention from politicians and the press, about 40 percent of America’s unauthorized immigrants arrived through airports or other legal ports of entry and then overstayed their visas.
By 2010, an estimated eleven million undocumented persons were living in the United States, in large part thoroughly woven into the fabric of American life.Many were longtime residents, with children who either were U.S. citizens by virtue of having been born on American soil or had been brought to the United States at such an early age that they were American in every respect except for a piece of paper. Entire sectors of the U.S. economy relied on their labor, as undocumented immigrants were often willing to do the toughest, dirtiest work for meager pay—picking the fruits and vegetables that stocked our grocery stores, mopping the floors of offices, washing dishes at restaurants, and providing care to the elderly. But although American consumers benefited from this invisible workforce, many feared that immigrants were taking jobs from citizens, burdening social services programs, and changing the nation’s racial and cultural makeup, which led to demands for the government to crack down on illegal immigration. This sentiment was strongest among Republican constituencies, egged on by an increasingly nativist right-wing press. However, the politics didn’t fall neatly along partisan lines: The traditionally Democratic trade union rank and file, for example, saw the growing presence of undocumented workers on co
nstruction sites as threatening their livelihoods, while Republican-leaning business groups interested in maintaining a steady supply of cheap labor (or, in the case of Silicon Valley, foreign-born computer programmers and engineers) often took pro-immigration positions.
Back in 2007, the maverick version of John McCain, along with his sidekick Lindsey Graham, had actually joined Ted Kennedy to put together a comprehensive reform bill that offered citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants while more tightly securing our borders. Despite strong support from President Bush, it had failed to clear the Senate. The bill did, however, receive twelve Republican votes, indicating the real possibility of a future bipartisan accord. I’d pledged during the campaign to resurrect similar legislation once elected, and I’d appointed former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano as head of the Department of Homeland Security—the agency that oversaw U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection—partly because of her knowledge of border issues and her reputation for having previously managed immigration in a way that was both compassionate and tough.
My hopes for a bill had thus far been dashed. With the economy in crisis and Americans losing jobs,few in Congress had any appetite to take on a hot-button issue like immigration. Kennedy was gone. McCain, having been criticized by the right flank for his relatively moderate immigration stance, showed little interest in taking up the banner again. Worse yet, my administration was deporting undocumented workers at an accelerating rate. This wasn’t a result of any directive from me, but rather it stemmed from a 2008 congressional mandate that both expanded ICE’s budget and increased collaboration between ICE and local law enforcement departments in an effort to deport more undocumented immigrants with criminal records. My team and I had made a strategic choice not to immediately try to reverse the policies we’d inherited in large part because we didn’t want to provide ammunition to critics who claimed that Democrats weren’t willing to enforce existing immigration laws—a perception that we thought could torpedo our chances of passing a future reform bill. But by 2010, immigrant-rights and Latino advocacy groups were criticizing our lack of progress..And although I continued to urge Congress to pass immigration reform, I had no realistic path for delivering a new comprehensive law before the midterms.

Milton Friedman wisely noted, “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,”
Is it prudent to allow illegal immigrants (60 percent of whom are high-school dropouts) access to Social Security, Medicare, and, over time, to 60 federal means-tested welfare programs? I don’t think so either!

FREE TO CHOOSE “Who protects the worker?” Video and Transcript Part

In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount. I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong with our schools?” and “Created Equal” and From Cradle to Grave, and – Power of the Market. Milton Friedman shows in this episode how the worker is best protected and it is not by the government!!!!!!!

The essence of what Milton Friedman is saying in this episode is found in this statement:

“The situation of immigration restrictions really has to do with the question of a welfare state. As I say in the film, I would favor completely free immigration in a society which does not have a welfare system. With a welfare system of the kind we have, you have the problem that people immigrate in order to get welfare, not in order to get employment. You know, it’s a very interesting thing, if you would ask anybody before 1914 the U.S. had no immigration restrictions whatsoever, I’m exaggerating a little bit, there were some immigration restrictions on orientals, but it was essentially, mainly free. If you ask anybody, any American economic historian was that a good thing for America, everybody will say yes it was a wonderful thing for America that we had free immigration. If you ask anybody today, should we have free immigration today, everybody will __ almost everybody will say no. What’s the difference? I think there’s only one difference and that is that when we had free immigration it was immigration of jobs in which everybody benefited. The people who were already here benefited because they got complementary workers, workers who could work with them, make their productivity better, enable them to develop and use the resources of the country better, but today, if you have a system under which you have essentially a governmental guarantee of relief in case of distress, you have a very, very real problem.”

L. WILLIAMS: Dr. Friedman and Walter Williams go back in history and they take a look at a situation where America was empty, where we didn’t have anything like the sophisticated industrial economy we have today, but had a much more agricultural and rural kind of economy and of course when the __ when the impoverished peasants of Europe, my ancestors and most of our ancestors, except for the slaves, which is another situation, but when these people came from Europe and came to a wide open continent with the most fertile soil then available to anyone in the world, naturally there was progress; and I or any of us would be mad to deny progress. But as that developed and as population increased and as we moved into a much more sophisticated industrial economy, we moved then into the situation in the 1930s, or earlier than that , at the end of the century. As some of the more skilled jobs came along, the labor movement didn’t happen by accident. Didn’t happen because there wasn’t a need there. The results of this development, even with all the wealth available in America, the results of this development was that many working people were not having anything like, by standards of civilization or whatever, anything like their fair share in this progress.

MCKENZIE: Now you’re arguing that in a free market, for labor, everyone benefits. Does that mean that you would favor abolition of all immigration restrictions?

FRIEDMAN: The situation of immigration restrictions really has to do with the question of a welfare state. As I say in the film, I would favor completely free immigration in a society which does not have a welfare system. With a welfare system of the kind we have, you have the problem that people immigrate in order to get welfare, not in order to get employment. You know, it’s a very interesting thing, if you would ask anybody before 1914 the U.S. had no immigration restrictions whatsoever, I’m exaggerating a little bit, there were some immigration restrictions on orientals, but it was essentially, mainly free. If you ask anybody, any American economic historian was that a good thing for America, everybody will say yes it was a wonderful thing for America that we had free immigration. If you ask anybody today, should we have free immigration today, everybody will __ almost everybody will say no. What’s the difference? I think there’s only one difference and that is that when we had free immigration it was immigration of jobs in which everybody benefited. The people who were already here benefited because they got complementary workers, workers who could work with them, make their productivity better, enable them to develop and use the resources of the country better, but today, if you have a system under which you have essentially a governmental guarantee of relief in case of distress, you have a very, very real problem.

MCKENZIE: But this is true of every western industrialized country.

FRIEDMAN: That’s right and that’s why today __

MCKENZIE: Yeah.

FRIEDMAN: __ under current circumstances you cannot, unfortunately have free immigration. Not because there’s anything wrong with free immigration, but because we have other policies which make it impossible to adopt free immigration.

MCKENZIE: Well I’d like other reactions. Is it at all feasible to open the door of the labor market internationally now? Bill Brady?

BRADY: I would __ I would say yes providing they open the door to us. I think that the door to not only the labor market, the door to all markets should be __ should be open. That is the product markets.

W. WILLIAMS: My feelings about the undocumented workers of Mexican-Americans are inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. I think that the people should have the right to come to this country. Now, those who would say, you know, I hear a number of people saying that, well the immigrants are contributing to our unemployment problem. And I point this out to some people, I said, “look, you know, this is the same rhetoric that the Irish used when the blacks were coming up from the north, ” you know, they’re using blacks as scapegoats. They’re saying, “get those people back where they came from so that our members can get jobs, ” you know. Unions were as well doing this, you know, they called them scabs, strikebreakers, etcetera, etcetera. So I do not wish for Mexican-Americans to become the new scapegoats of our particular national problems. They are not the problem, and our nation benefits to the extent that these people come here and work. And to that extent __ to that extent__ so it’s kind of good for them to remain illegal aliens as opposed to being legal aliens where they’re subject to our welfare programs, so that we don’t want them to come here to __

(Several people talking at once.)

GREEN: I think that this country cannot have a group of workers to remain outside the framework of our laws and our protection. And as long as we have workers who are attracted to the United States because of the standards of living; and I think minimum wages play a part in that as part of that attraction. But it seems to me to have undocumented workers without providing either a means of protection for them and it seems to me that we’ve got to go to the question of providing the amnesty for those generations of workers who have come here over a period of time, now two, three, maybe four generations. We have to see that they have the same rights and protection of all other workers. And as it stands now, large numbers of them live outside the framework of the laws and statutes that we have on the __ on our books.

MCKENZIE: Comment Milton.

FRIEDMAN: They do and the tragedy of the situation, as what Walter Williams point out, that as long as they are undocumented and illegal they are a clear net gain, the nation benefits and they benefit. They wouldn’t be here if they didn’t. The tragedy is that we’ve adopted all these other policies so that if we convert them into legal residents it’s no longer clear that we benefit. They may benefit, but it’s no longer clear that we do. What Lynn Williams said before is again a travesty on what was actually going on. The real boost to the trade union movement came after the Great Depression of the 1930s; that Great Depression was not a failure of capitalism; it was not a failure of the private market system as we pointed out in another one of the programs in this series; it was a failure of government. It was not the case that somehow or other there was a decline in the conditions of the working class that produced a great surge of unionism. On the contrary __ unions have never accounted for more than one out of four or one out of five of American workers. The American worker benefited not out of unions, he benefited in spite of unions. He benefited because there was greater opportunity because there were people who were willing to invest their money because there was an opportunity for people to work, to save, to invest. That’s still the case today. You say, we have to provide them with something or other Ernest. Who are the “we”?

Sincerely,

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

“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)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

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