The dominant Bryant High School football program has lost two key cogs over the past week and Tuesday in a stunning turn of events lost the head coach who took the program to historic heights.
The Bryant School District confirmed in a statement Tuesday morning that head coach Buck James has resigned his post and is taking the open job at league rival Conway High School. The Wampus Cats began looking for a replacement this month when former head coach Keith Fimple took the Springdale athletic director job.
James’ bombshell comes on the heels of rising senior quarterback Gideon Motes, last year’s state championship game MVP and a University of Arkansas baseball commit, announcing he is giving up football to stay healthy for baseball and four-star defensive end TJ Lindsey announcing he is playing his senior season at the prestigious IMG Academy.
James finishes his seven-year tenure at Bryant with an 80-9 mark. The Hornets were 12-0 last season, marking the third time he helped the Hornets to an unblemished record. Bryant currently rides a 53-game in-state win streak. The only team to beat them since a league loss to North Little Rock in 2017 is Longview (Texas), which held on to knock them off 24-21 in 2021. That loss snapped a 32-game win streak.
James takes over a Wampus Cats program that he has been a thorn in the side of, never losing to the league rival in his tenure at BHS. In 2021, Bryant trailed by double-digits in the second half at Conway but pulled out a dramatic win to seal the 7A-Central Conference championship. Last season, James and Bryant beat Conway twice – 34-16 in the regular season and 42-21 in the 7A state playoff semifinals.
The Wampus Cats have been one of the top teams in Class 7A the past three seasons, qualifying for the state playoff semifinals those years — losing to Bryant twice. Conway, which finished 10-3 last season, was No. 3 in the final SBLive Arkansas Top 25 rankings and expected to be in the Top 5 when the preseason rankings are released in August.
Before the Bryant news, the Hornets would have been a favorite to repeat as conference champions with Cabot, which finished second in the Top 25 and beat Conway last season, and the Wampus Cats fighting for the No. 2 spot.
Major change was already expected on the coaching staff and in the Bryant athletic department as longtime athletic director Mike Lee announced he was taking a maintenance supervisor job with the South Conway School District. His last day in Bryant is June 30. Bryant named offensive coordinator and longtime James confidant Kirk Bock as the Lee’s replacement. Later, defensive coordinator Quad Sanders took the Jonesboro High School head-coaching job. James was reportedly promoting current assistants to fill those key vacancies.
James, who is a University of Arkansas at Monticello Hall of Fame football player, began his career at Star City and moved to Camden Fairview, where he won a 5A state championship in 2012 with the Cardinals after losing to Greenwood in the 2010 title game. After briefly serving as the offensive line coach and assistant athletic director at Little Rock Christian, he was hired by his former professional baseball scouting colleague, Lee, at Bryant in 2015.
After promising parents a state title at the initial meeting at the school, he had BHS in the state playoff semifinals for the first time in school history in a 9-4 debut season in 2016. After another state semifinals loss in 2017, the Hornets embarked on their run of five consecutive state titles.
In 2018, Bryant jumped to a big early lead on North Little Rock only to lose that game, 34-28. Bryant beat North Little Rock a few weeks later in the 7A state championship game, 27-7, and hasn’t lost to an in-state opponent since that late October 2018 game at North Little Rock.
Midway through his tenure, James adopted the ‘212’ mantra. Water is only hot at 211 degrees but with the extra degree at 212, it boils. That has become a rallying cry for his program and, overall, for the commuter town just outside of Little Rock. It is common to see ‘212’ on T-shirts, store windows, car windows and even scrawled on trashcans at the Hornet Stadium. It is perhaps fitting that James will end his Bryant career with an overall record of 212-37
The No. 1 Hornets (7-0, 5-0) found themselves in a dog fight Friday in front of a standing-room-only homecoming crowd as No. 2 Cabot (6-2, 4-1) strolled into Hornet Stadium looking for an upset.
Searching for their 49th straight win over an Arkansas team, the Hornets held down the fort for the 24-10 victory, scoring the second fewest points in a game this season.
“When we played good on first down, we were able to stop them,” said Head Coach Buck James. “It was a great game. My hat is off to Cabot. They have a great offense and were very good on defense. It was a good, hard-fought win.”
Bryant’s 10 points allowed is the highest of the year.
Beginning with the ball, Bryant’s first series was uneventful as the Hornets went three-and-out with a punt.
Cabot, though, would run more than 7 minutes off the clock on its first series, going 88 yards in 14 plays. The Panthers capped their impressive drive with a 1-yard TD on the quarterback keep from Abe Owen.
Cabot led 7-0 with 2:32 left in the quarter.
The score would stand after one, marking the first time Bryant was held off the scoreboard in the first 12 minutes of any game this season.
Bryant, though, would get things together on its second drive of the game, going 79 yards in 11 plays as running back James Martin ended the series with a 5-yard TD run.
Following swapped punts, Cabot would commit the first turnover of the game as Bryant star linemen TJ Lindsey hit Owen for the sack and fumble. Tyler Mosely would recover, setting the Hornets up nicely at the Cabot 36 with 6:42 to go in the half.
Bryant would not be able to get much, going as far as the Panthers 18 before sending Stephen Fuller on for the 35-yard field goal.
The good kick would make it 10-7 with 5:07 left in the half.
Neither team would add to the scoreboard as the game remained in the Hornets favor heading into the break.
Receiving the ball and searching for some momentum, the Panthers put together an impressive drive, but would stall at their own 44 before punting.
Bryant, too, would get something going after it looked like a quick three-and-out. However, a roughing the punter call would give Bryant new life. Nonetheless, it would all go for naught as quarterback Jordan Walker threw his only interception of the game moments later.
With both defenses playing well, the game would go into the final quarter still at 10-7 Hornets.
But Cabot would made things interesting in the fourth, tying the contest at 10-10 thanks to a 21-yard field goal off the boot of Kade Martin.
The drive was powered by a long 41-yard reception by Hayes Cox, taking the Panthers to the Bryant 17. After getting as close as the 2, Cabot would meet the Hornets impressive front three straight times before kicking the tying field goal.
With the ball at its own 20, Bryant would march 80 yards on nine plays as Walker kept it from 2 yards and the score. Bryant would lead 17-10 with 5:03 left in the game.
Receiver Mytorian Singleton made the biggest play of the drive, collecting a 27-yard pass for a first down on third-and-4.
Cabot had its chances still, but an interception from Owen to Bryant’s Bryson Adamoh all but ended the upset bid.
Bryant would add another score, this time a 26-yard pass from Walker to Cason Trickey, making it 24-10 Hornets.
Time would run out on Cabot as the Hornets moved closer to another 7A Central title with only two games remaining on the regular-season schedule.
Both teams combined to throw 51 times in the contest.
Walker finished 16 for 20 for 160 yards and a score.
Owen, who carried the Panthers most of the night, ended 16 for 30 for 183 yards and an interception.
On the ground, Martin paced Bryant with big runs on first and second down, finishing with 54 yards and a score on 14 carries. Chris Gannaway, too, ran well, going for 30 on six carries in the win.
“I thought James and Chris both played well. When we got loose, we were able to move the ball,” James said. “When we ran it well, we could throw it well and move the football.”
Martin would give his team and the crowd a scare in the fourth as he came up lame on a play before being helped to the sideline. James, though, said his running back was “running around after the game,” and seems to be fine.
Bryant had a big name in the house on homecoming. Arkansas Head Coach Sam Pittman walked the Bryant sidelines. Pittman was reportedly in town to watch Lindsey.
The senior defensive standout finished his night with 2.5 sacks, a number of quarterback hurries and tackles and a pass breakup on the final snap of the game. Lindsey leads Saline County in tackles for loss.
“He played well,” James said. “I was proud of him. We have been looking for that kind of game out of him and he answered in a big way.”
The Hornets will take to the road likely for the last time next week as they take on rival North Little Rock — the last in-state team to defeat the Hornets (2018).
“It is going to be a big challenge,” James said. “They play us hard. I think it is going to be a tough game. I think every game we play from here on out is going to be tough.”
Kickoff is set for 7 p.m.
North Little Rock took down Fort Smith Northside on Friday, winning 38-14.
Bryant also has Conway remaining on the schedule in Week 10. Conway sits at 7-1 overall and 4-1 in conference play after downing Central 49-0 on Friday. Both teams will battle under the lights of Hornet Stadium in Week 10.
2014 Salt Bowl
My Hornets came up short on winning the Salt Bowl this year but they played hard and another crowd of 25,000 showed up to see the game!!!!
This article was published September 6, 2014 at 2:55 a.m.
PHOTO BY SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE / CHRIS BRASHERS
Benton’s Drew Harris (2) tries to run past Bryant defensive back Steven Murdock during the Panthers’ 14-14 tie with the Hornets on Friday at War Memorial Stadium in Little Rock.
No one carried the Salt Bowl Trophy home Friday night.
Saline County rivals Benton and Bryant battled to a 14-14 tie in a game that featured an emotional final few minutes in front of a crowd of 24,816 at War Memorial Stadium.
Benton, which had lost eight consecutive to its I-30 rivals, had the last gasp, but Casey Maertens’ pass to the goal line was intercepted by Steven Murdock, who returned it to the 30 as time ran out.
Benton’s final possession was set up when Stone Paul intercepted Gunnar Burks at the Panthers 40 with 1:37 left.
Benton’s offense got moving on a face-guarding penalty, then a 15-yard pass to Drew Harris to set up first-down at the Hornets 42 with 35 seconds left.
A completion to Sam Baker gained 5 yards, but the Panthers were out of timeouts ended up with a desperation heave to the end zone on the final play.
Benton tied the score 14-14 on Drew Harris’ 6-yard run and Grant Hinze’s extra point with 2:48 left in the half.
Benton did not allow Bryant inside the Benton 40 in the final 24 minutes.
The Panthers’ best second-half drive ended inside the Bryant 10 when Drew Tipton deflected a pass and teammate Kyle Lovelace intercepted with 6:46 left in the third quarter.
Benton went up 7-0 on its first drive, but Bryant scored on consecutive possessions to take the lead.
Kylon Boyle completed a 27-yard scoring drive on a 6-yard run with 8:38 left in the half. Ben Bruick’s interception and 43-yard return set up the drive. Alex Denker kicked the extra point for the 14-7 lead.
Benton drove 68 yards in 8 plays on its first possession, with Maertens hitting Casey Green with a 14-yard scoring pass with 8:46 left in the first quarter. Hinze hit the extra point.
Boyle’s 3-yard run with 33 seconds left in the first quarter tied the game. The score was set up by a 33-yard scramble by Brandan Warner to the 3. Denker kicked the extra point for a 7-7 score.
Two years ago Barrett Jones and his Alabama Crimson Tide teammates came to Fayetteville and left town with a hard fought come from behind victory. This year things look a little easier on the front end at least. I wrote an article last year about Barrett and I just wrote one today and they both were […]
FR111446 AP Alabama Coach Nick Saban speaks to the media at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media days in Hoover, Ala. on Thursday, July 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Butch Dill) ___________ Yesterday I talked about Alabama in the SEC football preview and I today I am profiling their best player. I really respect Barrett Jones […]
For Barrett Jones is a Tim Tebow type of person and I am glad that people like Jones and Tebow are not ashamed of their Savior Jesus Christ. They don’t try to live two lives, one in church and one that is different in the lockerroom. Barrett Jones is the 2011 Outland Trophy winner […]
Knoxnews.com reports: LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) — Alabama’s Barrett Jones has won the Outland Trophy as the nation’s most outstanding interior lineman. The announcement was made during the College Football Awards show at Disney World. Stanford’s David DeCastro and Penn State’s Devon Still were the other finalists. Jones is the third Alabama player to […]
Today I am starting a new series called “Christians in Athletics.” Barrett Jones grew up under the ministry of Adrian Rogers at Bellevue. Below is a clip from the Memorial Service for Dr. Rogers. Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide has spent time the last two years ministering to earthquake victims in Haiti. Actually […]
I was influenced by Francis Schaeffer’s books and films and Adrian Rogers’ sermons when I grew up. I want to make the point that no one influenced the pro-life movement more than Francis Schaeffer!!! Schaeffer energized the movement and that is why it is appropriate that on May 15, 1994, ten years the anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing I would mail a letter to Carl Sagan that get him to ultimately respond to Schaeffer’s views on abortion which I included 3 letters that followed.
Francis Schaeffer and Adrian Rogers
On August 30, 1995, in my letter to Carl Sagan I included my published letter to the editor in that very day’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and it appeared under the title THE HUMANIST WORLD VIEW. This got Sagan’s notice and in his letter of December 5, 1995, Sagan disagreed with me concerning the close relationship between atheistic evolutionists and the abortion movement. Actually I wrote: Adrian Rogers, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has rightly said, “Secular Humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together.”
In another letter I noted that Nelson Price in THE EMMANUEL FACTOR (1987) tells the story about Brown Trucking Company in Georgia who used to give polygraph tests to their job applicants. However, in part of the test the operator asked, “Do you believe in God?” In every instance when a professing atheist answered “No,” the test showed the person to be lying. My pastor Adrian Rogers used to tell this same story to illustrate Romans 1:19 and it was his conclusion that “there is no such thing anywhere on earth as a true atheist. If a man says he doesn’t believe in God, then he is lying. God has put his moral consciousness into every man’s heart, and a man has to try to kick his conscience to death to say he doesn’t believe in God.” Sagan’s December 5, 1995 letter to me included the sentence “You argue that God exists because otherwise we could not understand the world in our consciousness,” and this may have been his short to this story above possibly.
I disagree with his assertion that there is a widespread ”Problem of Radicals Killing Abortion Doctors.” I know that Sagan included a radical evangelical killer in his book CONTACT, but in reality those are hard to find and I have provided a more detailed response in a past post. Let me briefly respond today with a picture:
—-
Sagan rightly noted, “New knowledge of embryology, the physicians said, had shown the fetus to be human even before quickening.” This brings me to Bernard Nathanson’s powerful testimony on why he gave up his abortion activities and spent the rest of his life in the pro-life promoting his film THE SILENT SCREAM because of the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we could actually see inside the womb.
On January 10, 1996, I wrote my response letter to Carl Sagan and I included an additional insert from Francis Schaeffer that showed The humanist base leads to meaningless and The Bible is God’s revealed truth and it tells us about our origin.
The first portion of my 5-15-94 letter to Carl Sagan and next week I will have the second part.
On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I mailed the following letter to Carl Sagan and to 250 other scientists!!! Sagan actually answered 4 of my letters on December 5, 1995.
Could you take 3 minutes and attempt to refute the nihilistic message of the song (DUST IN THE WIND) which appears at the beginning of the enclosed audio tape followed by Adrian Rogers sermon FOUR BRIDGES THE EVOLUTIONIST CAN NOT CROSS.
Back in 1980 I watched the series COSMOS and on May 5, 1994 I again sat down to watch it again. In this letter today I will tell you of 3 GENTLEMEN who contemplated the world around them. The first one is an evolutionist by the name of Carl Sagan. Mr. Sagan is what I would call a humanist full of optimism.
The second man also sought to contemplate the world around him and this man was King Solomon of Israel. In the Book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon limits himself to the question of human life lived “under the sun” between birth and death and what answers this would give (that is exactly what Mr. Sagan has done in COSMOS).It is this belief that life is only between birth and death that eventually causes Solomon to embrace nihilism. In the first few words of Ecclesiastes he observes the continual cycles of the earth and makes some very interesting conclusions”…to search for understanding about everything in the universe.”
The third man I want to mention is Francis Schaeffer who I believe was the greatest Christian philosopher of the 20th century. However, when he was a young agnostic many years ago he also had an experience similar to King Solomon’s when he contemplated the world and universe around him.contemplated the world and the universe around him.CARLSAGAN:”Our contemplations of the Cosmos stir us. There is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory of falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries.”KING SOLOMON: Ecclesiastes 1:2-11;3:18-19 (Living Bible): 2 In my opinion, nothing is worthwhile; everything is futile. 3-7 For what does a man get for all his hard work?Generations come and go, but it makes no difference.[b] The sun rises and sets and hurries around to rise again. The wind blows south and north, here and there, twisting back and forth, getting nowhere.* The rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full, and the water returns again to the rivers and flows again to the sea . .everything is unutterably weary and tiresome. No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied; no matter how much we hear, we are not content. History merely repeats itself…For men and animals both breathe the same air, and both die. So mankind has no real advantage over the beasts; what an absurdity!—-What Solomon said ties into this following statement by evolutionist Douglas Futuyma – “Whether people are explicitly religious or not they tend to imagine that humans are in some sense the center of the universe. And what evolution does is to remove humans from the center of the universe. We are just one product of a very long historical process that has given rise to an enormous amount of organisms, and we are just one of them. So in one sense there is nothing special about us.”
———-FRANCIS SCHAEFFER: There is no doubt in my mind that Solomon had the same experience in his life that I had as a younger man (at the age of 18 in 1930). I remember standing by the sea and the moon arose and it was copper and beauty. Then the moon did not look like a flat dish but a globe or a sphere since it was close to the horizon. One could feel the global shape of the earth too. Then it occurred to me that I could contemplate the interplay of the spheres and I was exalted because I thought I can look upon them with all their power, might, and size, but they could contempt nothing. Then came upon me a horror of great darkness because it suddenly occurred to me that although I could contemplate them and they could contemplate nothing yet they would continue to turn in ongoing cycles when I saw no more forever and I was crushed.
__________________PAGE 1 B
Solomon died 3000 years ago and Francis Schaeffer passed away on May 15, 1984 exactly 10 years ago.I firmly believe Solomon was correct when he said in Ecclesiastes 7:2 “It is better to spend your time at funerals than at festivals. For you are going to die, and it is a good thing to think about it while there is time.”Suppose that you to learn that you only had just one year to live—the number of your days would be 365. What would you do with the precious few days that remained to you? With death stalking you, you would have little interest in trivial subjects and would instead be concerned with essentials. I know that is what I did when I was bed ridden in a hospital in Memphis at age 15. I was told that I may not live. My thoughts turned to spiritual things. Thank you for your time.Sincerely,Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail lane, ALEXANDER, AR 72002, TIME MAGAZINE May 28, 1984:DIED, Francis Schaeffer, 72. Christian theologian and a leading scholar of evangelical Protestantism; of cancer; in Rochester, Minn. Schaeffer, a Philadelphia-born Presbyterian, and his wife in 1955 founded L’Abri (French for ‘the shelter’), a chalet in the Swiss Alps known among students and intellectuals for a reasoned rather than emotional approach to religious counseling. His 23 philosophical books include the bestseller How Should We Then Live? (1976).” (January 30, 1912-May 15, 1985)
Adrian Rogers is pictured below and Francis Schaeffer above.
Watching the film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? in 1979 impacted my life greatly
Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?
Francis and Edith Schaeffer
Carl Sagan, in full Carl Edward Sagan, (born November 9, 1934, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.—died December 20, 1996, Seattle, Washington), American astronomer and science writer. A popular and influential figure in the United States, he was controversial in scientific, political, and religious circles for his views on extraterrestrial intelligence, nuclear weapons, and religion. Sagan wrote the article “life” for the 1970 printing of the 14th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1929–73).
Sagan attended the University of Chicago, where he earned a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in physics in 1955 and 1956, respectively, and a doctorate in astronomy and astrophysics in 1960. From 1960 to 1962 he was a fellow in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, and from 1962 to 1968 he worked at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. His early work focused on the physical conditions of the planets, especially the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter. During that time he became interested in the possibility of lifebeyond Earth and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), a controversial research field he did much to advance. For example, building on earlier work by American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, he demonstrated that amino acids and nucleic acids—the building blocks of life—could be produced by exposing a mixture of simple chemicals to ultraviolet radiation. Some scientists criticized Sagan’s work, arguing that it was unreasonable to use resources for SETI, a fantasy project that was almost certainly doomed to failure.
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
In the 1st video below in the 45th clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
–
CARL SAGAN interview with Charlie Rose:
“…faith is belief in the absence of evidence. To believe in the absence of evidence, in my opinion, is a mistake. The idea is to hold belief until there is compelling evidence. If the Universe does not comply with our previous propositions, then we have to change…Religion deals with history poetry, great literature, ethics, morals, compassion…where religion gets into trouble is when it pretends to know something about science,”
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
Caroline Robinson, chair of the Saline County Library Board turned in her resignation, County Judge Matt Brumley announced at a Public Works and Safety Committee meeting Monday night.
Brumley said Robinson had turned in her resignation earlier that afternoon.
Robinson’s resignation comes after months of controversy surrounding the contents of the local public library.
Brumley submitted Jamie Clemmer as his recommended replacement for Robinson. The Quorum Court will vote to approve Brumley’s appointment at its regular meeting on June 19. At the library board meeting on April 22, Brumley spoke and told the members he had lost confidence in the leadership of the Saline County Library, and he reiterated those feelings at Monday night’s meeting.
Brumley again pointed out that the Saline County Library was out of compliance with several parts of an ordinance from 1978. Brumley said the library staff had not provided quarterly reports to the county judge and the justices of the peace. He asked the library board to send him the quarterly reports by May 31 which they did. The library leadership also provided Brumley with an organizational chart of library staff.
This comes after the county’s legislative body passed a resolution in April requesting the library move what many have deemed as “sexually explicit” content from the children’s section of the library. Brumley and members of the Quorum Court have expressed their frustrations with the library’s response to the resolution.
The committee also approved a new ordinance on Monday which amends several parts of the ordinance which created the Saline County Library board in 1978.
The amendments give the County Judge oversight of the library board in several areas, including oversight of the management and operations of the Saline County Library.
The ordinance states “The Saline County Library Board created by this ordinance shall have full and complete authority, subject to oversight Saline County Judge, to manage, operate, maintain and keep in a good state of repair any and all buildings.”
The amendments remove language from the ordinance which gave the library board power to employ and remove all employees of the Saline County Library, instead opting to give that power to the county judge.
The original ordinance simply required the library go through an annual audit, the new language states the library should submit an annual audit conducted by a third-party, non-governmental accounting firm. This ordinance passed committee and now goes to the full quorum court for final approval at its next meeting on June 19.
Bailey Morgan, organizer of the Saline County Library Alliance, spoke critically of the Saline County Republican Women, Brumley and the Quorum Court during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Morgan referenced several social media posts from the Saline County Republican Women which target books because of LGTBQ+ content and racial issues content, not sexual or explicit content.
“I get it, that some of these books have content that you are uncomfortable with and that’s fine, you can be uncomfortable, no one is forcing you to read it. The reality is, you might think this is about protecting children, they don’t. This is about so much more,” said Morgan.
He said that the SCRW had shared social media posts leaking the personal information of library staff and supporters.
“You might not be doing that, but the people pushing this here are,” Morgan added. “If you think this is where it stops, you are so off base.”
Kari Lapp, community engagement manager for the library, issued a statement via email Tuesday morning.
“The Saline County Library would like to thank the community for attending and showing support at the Quorum Court committee meetings on June 5th,” the statement read.
“The library is continuing to seek guidance from the Quorum Court on the definition and guidelines of the resolution passed in April as well as researching state library law and court rulings to make sure the actions taken remain constitutional and best fit our community.
“We are sad to see our Library Board Chair, Caroline Miller Robinson, resign but look forward to meeting the new board member who will be appointed later this month. We will continue to keep communication open and cooperate with the County Judge and Quorum Court to do what is best for the entire county.”
Ahead of board meeting, groups keeping up pressure by Paige Eichkorn | Today at 7:30 a.m
The Saline County Republican Committee billboards decrying “x-Rated library books” stand on display over I-30 in Benton near the local Walmart on Friday, May 26, 2023. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Stephen Swofford)
The Saline County Library board delayed a vote earlier in the month that would grant the county judge power to relocate or remove “controversial” books from youth sections in the Benton and Bryant locations.
The board’s meeting was the first since the quorum court approved a resolution in April recommending the library system “relocate materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, due to their sexual content or imagery, to an area that is not accessible to children.”
Director Patty Hector has voiced that the library is already in compliance with Act 372, which will go into effect on Aug. 1, changing the way libraries handle challenges to content that members consider “obscene” and making librarians liable for disseminating such materials.
Hector mentioned that she hadn’t received any material reconsideration forms until the past week before the board meeting.
County Judge Matt Brumley argued that anyone should be able to go into the library and ask a staff member to reconsider a book without having to fill out a form.
But the two locations hold thousands of books, Hector said, and there’s no way her staff could possibly know and read them all.
“The county has no control over books in the library, the county can’t compel a library to do something,” Hector said. “A book has to be declared by the courts that it’s obscene and then if you don’t take it off shelves, that’s when it’s a felony. There’s a lot of chances to meet to avoid a charge on a librarian.”
A total of six Freedom of Information Act requests with 44 questions about the library’s assets and how it spends its money in a very detailed manner were submitted to the library recently, Hector said.
“I’m not sure why anyone would want such detailed information,” she said.
Bailey Morgan, an organizer for the Saline County Library Alliance, speculates that defunding efforts are brewing for the library.
“The GOP social media presence is confusing, and the judge said it’s about moving them from downstairs to upstairs but Saline County Republican Women said it’s about removing them entirely, but then other folks are saying it’s about removing tax dollars to the library,” he said. “Every time a member of the [Saline County Republican Women] or GOP are asked about defunding they say no, but at the same time they’re doing this, and it’s a little like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing type of thing.”
A billboard along Interstate 30 toward Benton near the local Walmart, put up by the Saline County Republican Committee, has also brought confusion to residents.
It reads: “WARNING: X-RATED LIBRARY BOOKS” and “SalineLibrary.com.”
Chairman of the county Republican committee David Gibson said a number of “like-minded Christians” got together to get the word out so individuals and families can look at the information and decide whether they want their children exposed to such materials.
The website, which is not the actual library’s homepage, gives a “small sample of the hundreds of inappropriate, sexually explicit books being marketed and distributed to minors at the Saline County Library,” it states at the top.
Gibson emphasized that the books are pornographic and should be moved to an adult section.
“The library has been spinning this, but let’s just deal with the facts: these books are sexually explicit and they’re in the children’s section,” he said. “Why do library directors think this is necessary or appropriate? [Hector] has to understand that she’s placing herself and her staff at risk when the law is implemented on August 1.
“They’re upset because we drew attention to the truth. Sex education has nothing to do with these books, these books discuss rape, how individuals were exposed to sex acts; there’s no education here, it’s hypersexualizing children,” Gibson said.
Gibson said the content on the billboard and website is “intended for the average adult voter.”
“I don’t think many children driving down the road will take the same interest,” he said. “The library has said this material is acceptable; the problem is, they redefine what an adult is, and they said it’s 12 years old, but the law decides that.”
Morgan said he got some feedback from a community member who had to explain to their child who was in the car with them what “x-rated” meant.
“It blows my mind that children could be exposed to ‘sexual materials’ and then parents are having to explain what ‘x-rated’ means because of their billboard, when children generally going to the library would never be exposed to that anyway,” he said.
The library alliance now has two billboards of its own, proclaiming “KNOW THE FACTS. FIGHT THE LIES. STAND WITH THE LIBRARY” and “SalineCountyLibraryAlliance.com.”
“General feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, and people are happy there’s a group trying to publicly advocate for the library,” Morgan added. “Our website leads folks to the fight for the first page, explains who we are and what our goals are and dispels misinformation that’s been spread about the library.”
Those who regularly visit the library have let Hector and staff know that they are on their side, Hector said.
“We’ve gotten support from our patrons. Every day someone says that they support us and they appreciate that we’re not trying to censor anything,” she said.
The next library board meeting will be on July 10 at the Bob Herzfeld Memorial Library.
Print Headline: Saline County library facing more scrutiny
Stephanie Duke holds a book she claims is pornographic and available at the Saline County Library during a meeting of the Saline County Quorum Court. She spoke in favor of a resolution that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The county governing body adopted the resolution.
The Saline County Quorum Court on Monday recommended that the county’s libraries “relocate materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, due to their sexual content or imagery, to an area that is not accessible to children.”
A state law signed in March allows people to challenge library materials they consider “obscene” and makes librarians legally liable for disseminating such materials. The Saline County resolution says the two libraries, one in Benton and one in Bryant, should “proactively take steps” to ensure children cannot access certain content in light of the new law. Resolutions do not create policy but are meant to guide future policy decisions.
The 13-member, all-Republican quorum court passed the resolution with two votes against it after an hour and 20 minutes of public comment from Saline County residents. Fewer than 30 people spoke out of the 50 that signed up to speak, and several more people gathered on the lawn outside the county courthouse and watched the livestream of the meeting on their phones.
Supporters of the court’s resolution said content pertaining to racism, sex and the LGBTQ+ community is “indoctrination” that should not be accessible to anyone under 18 years of age. Opponents said that the content in question reflects the community and that trying to restrict access to it is censorship.
“Let the library board do its job,” said Bailey Morgan, a former Democratic candidate for the quorum court. “Let librarians do their jobs. Nobody’s handing out inappropriate content to your kids. I promise you, this is a non-issue.”
The quorum court would likely be responsible for the final say on whether to keep challenged materials on Saline County library shelves or “relocate” them under Act 372 of 2023, which will go into effect 90 days after the session officially ends in May.
Act 372 opens the door for school and public librarians to be prosecuted “for disseminating a writing, film, slide, drawing, or other visual reproduction that is claimed to be obscene.” Arkansas’ definition of obscenity is “that to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest,” with prurient meaning overtly sexual.
A committee of five to seven people selected by school principals or head librarians will be charged with reviewing the “appropriateness” of content challenged under the new law. The committee would vote on whether to remove the material after hearing the complainant’s case in a public meeting. A complainant may appeal the committee’s decision if the majority votes no; appeals at public libraries would go to the county judge or the county quorum court for a final decision.
Employees of public or school libraries that “knowingly” distribute obscene material or inform others of how to obtain it would risk conviction of a Class D felony, the law states. Knowingly possessing obscene material would risk conviction of a Class A misdemeanor.
Act 372 did not pass the House Judiciary Committee until it had been amended to say books would be relocated, not removed, if elected officials find them to be “obscene.”
Garland County librarians Katie Allen (second from left) and Tiffany Hough (second from right) watch the livestream of the Saline County Quorum Court meeting on April 17, 2023. Hough’s children, Maggie (left) and Molly (right), brought protest signs to the county courthouse lawn. The quorum court adopted a resolution encouraging Saline County libraries to relocate books that might be inappropriate for children, and the resolution drew more spectators than could fit in the meeting room. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
Representation vs. propaganda
Other states have seen similar conservative-led pushes for “inappropriate” content to be removed from libraries so children cannot access them. In late March, Missouri’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a budget that would cut funding from all libraries in the state, a response to pushback against a 2022 law that made it a Class A misdemeanor for librarians or teachers to provide “explicit sexual material” to a student.
A county library system in Texas nearly closed due to a lawsuit over its refusal to remove books, some of which are about systemic racism, but system administrators decided earlier this week to keep the libraries open.
Here in Arkansas, the Crawford County Quorum Court has heard public opposition to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ content in the county’s five library branches, and the Farmington School Board restricted two books to readers age 17 and older after a parent voiced concerns.
On Monday, Sarah Griffiths held up a sign that said “Censorship disguised as moral outrage is still censorship” on the Saline County Courthouse lawn. She lives in the county and is a children’s programmer at a library in Little Rock.
Griffiths said she has seen firsthand how much children appreciate seeing members of their own communities in the stories they are told.
“I’m old enough to remember when there weren’t people of color introduced in mainstream storytelling, and we have that now, and it’s a very good thing,” she said. “Everybody needs a hero that they can recognize, no matter what age you are.”
Retired high school librarian and English teacher Marcia Lanier said she did not want her grandchildren to “live in a bubble.” Her decades of education experience meant she knew all kinds of students, including some from other countries, some that were gay and some that had experienced abuse and violence.
“Many of these students came to me, especially when I was a librarian, and asked me to help them find a book about someone else who experienced similar situations,” Lanier said.
The quorum court’s resolution states that Saline County libraries “are visited by individuals of all ages, backgrounds and beliefs.” Relocating books would “alienate” some of these individuals, said Olivia McClure, who spoke against the measure.
“Many of the books that have been listed [by supporters of the resolution] … are considered political based on their nature and representation of a community that some people don’t agree with, and that is in fact censorship that you are promoting today,” McClure said.
Books representing a diverse range of communities should not be considered propaganda, as some supporters of the resolution said, because they are not “biased or misleading” or “used to promote a particular political cause or point of view,” McClure added.
She and Edith Baker both said several of the books that have been considered inappropriate for minors do not contain any sexual content and instead simply acknowledge the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
“I am a queer woman, and if I was old enough to experience homophobia, then children should be old enough to read about it,” Baker said.
Dr. Sam Taggart holds his Saline County Library card while speaking against a resolution proposed by Saline County Quorum Court members that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The court adopted the resolution. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Dr. Sam Taggart holds his Saline County Library card while speaking against a resolution proposed by Saline County Quorum Court members that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The court adopted the resolution. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
One book under conservative scrutiny is Bathe the Cat, a children’s book about a family doing chores. McClure pointed out that a rainbow flag in the illustration of the family’s refrigerator is the sole reason anyone has had a problem with the book.
Sam Taggart, a historian and retired physician, also spoke against the resolution and said people should only be allowed to make decisions about library content if they have library cards themselves. He said his family, teachers and librarians taught him the value of knowledge from a young age.
“These delightful people … taught me how to think, not what to think,” he said.
Child protection debate
Supporters of the resolution said it would increase parents’ ability to decide what their children read. Both sides agreed that parents have the right to know what their children are reading, but those against the resolution said it would infringe on parental rights instead of enhancing them.
“We can’t protect our children from every single dangerous idea,” said John Goff, a math teacher at Bryant Junior High School. “What can we do? We can be their parents.”
Goff added that the Bible has scenes of rape and other forms of violence in it that would likely come under fire if the same topics in other books were challenged.
Shannon Everett disputed this claim.
“I support this resolution that protects our children from being told their identity comes from anything but Jesus Christ,” he said.
Stephanie Duke said she is “not so proud” that her family donated the land where the library in Benton is located. She said she finds it difficult to go to bookstores with her grandchild, whom she said is a “voracious reader,” because so many books aimed at her grandchild’s age group are about “gayness, LGBT, transgender or anti-white” subject matter.
She held up a book she called “pornographic” — Sex: A Book for Teens: An Uncensored Guide to Your Body, Sex, and Safety by Nicol Hasler — that she said she found in the young adult section of the library.
Carl Hyel, who opposed the resolution, said he believed those in favor of it were sincere about wanting to protect children from harm.
“There are lots of experts that say knowing correct sexual education and correct anatomy terms is the best way to protect kids from abuse,” Hyel said.
However, Duke said she and other Saline County residents plan to challenge the Hasler book and others they consider “anti-Christian” and bring them before the quorum court under Act 372.
“It’s that serious to keep our rights as Christians,” Duke said, to which an audience member said “Amen.”
McClure said she had a different perspective as a Christian.
“I know that the first commandment from God is to love all [people], and when we understand who they are, we can actually do that,” she said.
Children are going to learn about the existence of LGBTQ+ people one way or another, said Grayson Hartz, a transgender teenager who works at a daycare. The children he supervises have accepted him and adjusted to his new name since he transitioned, he said.
“Most of the kids there completely understand that I went from being a girl to a boy,” Hartz said.
A crowd lines up to attend the Saline County Quorum Court meeting Monday evening at the Saline County Courthouse in Benton to discuss a resolution that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
A crowd lines up to attend the Saline County Quorum Court meeting Monday evening at the Saline County Courthouse in Benton to discuss a resolution that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
“Slippery slope”
Two of the four state legislators who sponsored Act 372 attended Monday’s quorum court meeting: Rep. Mary Bentley of Perryville, whose district includes part of Saline County, and Sen. Dan Sullivan of Jonesboro, which is more than two hours away from Saline County.
The public libraries in Craighead County, which includes Jonesboro, saw its funding cut in 2022 after protests over an LGBTQ+ book display and a transgender author’s visit to the library within the past couple of years.
Monday’s debate was the first step to Saline County’s libraries experiencing the same thing Craighead County’s libraries did, several opponents of the resolution said. Some, including Hyel, Fred McGraw and Dana Block, added that they did not believe any quorum court members intended to defund libraries now or in the future.
“I think you have good intentions, but my goodness, think about what you’re doing,” McGraw told the quorum court. “This is a slippery slope.”
Block is a mother of four and a children’s programmer in the Saline County library system. She said the library does not have “a secret adult section” where challenged books could be placed.
“We are not trying to indoctrinate your children,” Block said. “We are members of your community. We live here. Our children are being raised here. We go to church with you.”
Scott Gray disagreed and repeated comments he made in March when the House Judiciary Committee first heard Act 372. He said he did not believe taxpayers should fund the availability of sexual content from “leftist librarians,” a statement that made the audience laugh.
Gray was not the only one who claimed librarians have an agenda.
“It’s time, in my opinion, to not only look at the books that are in the libraries but to investigate the people that are placing them there,” Brian English said. “There are too many sexually explicit books available to our children for this to be an oversight or a mistake.”
Jon Newcomb speaks for a resolution before the Saline County Quorum Court that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. He holds a copy of “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” which he claims is pornographic. The court adopted the resolution, which strongly recommends the county library board take “proactive” steps to keep such books out of the view of children. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Jon Newcomb speaks for a resolution before the Saline County Quorum Court that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. He holds a copy of “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” which he claims is pornographic. The court adopted the resolution, which strongly recommends the county library board take “proactive” steps to keep such books out of the view of children. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Jon Newcomb claimed getting children interested in sex is “the first rule of a communist revolution.” He was about to read a passage from All Boys Aren’t Blue: A Memoir-Manifesto by George M. Johnson when Saline County Judge Matt Brumley told him not to read it.
County civil attorney Will Gruber said he agreed with Brumley that those attending or watching the meeting should not have to hear things that are “profane or obscene.” Newcomb and other supporters of the resolution said this proved their point.
“I’m all for the resolution, but in my opinion, it’s not enough,” Newcomb said. “I want this crap out.”
Quorum court discussion
Brumley said he supported the resolution and compared the availability of certain library content to the availability of cigarettes.
“Smoke ‘em up if you can buy them legally, but please don’t place them next to the Play-Doh at our local store,” he said.
Libraries have multiple sections of books aimed at minors, divided into different age groups, Saline County librarians Chelsea Simon and Jordan Sandlin both said. The children’s section is for children 7 and under, the juvenile section is for children between 8 and 12 years old, and the young adult section is for those 13 and up, Simon said.
Sandlin added that parents and guardians must sign library cards for children 12 and under and must be present with them in the library.
Justices of the Peace Carlton Billingsley of District 3 and Keith Keck of District 13 said the quorum court should have received input from local librarians in advance. They were the only members to vote against the resolution.
“If I’m going to a game, I want to make sure all the players are involved,” Keck said. “…We’ve got to do our job and do our due diligence.”
Three justices co-sponsored the resolution: Everette Hatcher of District 2, Jim Whitley of District 10 and Clint Chism of District 11.
Saline County District 10 Justice of the Peace Jim Whitley of Benton talks Monday about a resolution he sponsored that asks the county Library Board to restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The county Quorum Court adopted the resolution after a two-hour discussion. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Saline County District 10 Justice of the Peace Jim Whitley of Benton talks Monday about a resolution he sponsored that asks the county Library Board to restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The county Quorum Court adopted the resolution after a two-hour discussion. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Chism said he was wary of the fact that “making rules leads to more rules,” and he acknowledged that what is appropriate for children at different ages is not up to him to decide, but he also said it mattered to him that anyone under 18 is legally considered a child.
He quoted a verse from the Gospel of Matthew: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
The court rejected an amendment Keck proposed to add a statement in the resolution that parents are responsible for their children’s use of libraries. Whitley said he would only support the amendment if it specified that parents must give permission for their children to check out certain content.
Gruber said this requirement “could go down the wrong road.” In 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas decided the Cedarville School District violated the First Amendment by requiring signed permission slips from parents allowing their children to read the Harry Potter books.
Whitley was one of nine justices to vote against the amendment.
“If we can’t require parental permission in order for them to access these materials, it makes this resolution moot,” he said.
Justice Pat Bisbee of District 1 said he did not think he had “ever struggled more” on an issue before the court than whether to support the resolution. He used to be the court’s appointed liaison to the county libraries, and he has kept acting in this role even though it is no longer an official position, he said.
“I am always in support of the library,” Bisbee said. “As both a father and as a believing Christian, I strongly feel that the library needs to continue to strive to use common sense when placing books that may contain questionable content.”
The Saline County Quorum Court earlier this weekpassed a resolution to remove inappropriate books from the county public library’s children’s section. Saline County Public Library director, Patty Hector shared with KATV why they do not plan on following the court’s recommendation.
According to Hector, it’s been a tearful few days since the resolution passed. She said the court’s recommendation does not parallel that of the recently passed ACT 372.
“There’s goes a step further, they’re just saying in any children’s book that any parent objects to; actually it’s any parent or person, so anybody in the community whether they have a child or even have a library card,” she said.
ACT 372 is a law concerning libraries and obscene materials; to create the offense of furnishing a harmful item to a minor; to amend the law concerning obscene materials loaned by a library.
Hector said the Saline County Republican Womenhave a list of books they want to be removed but haven’t shared what’s on that list.
“I don’t believe that there endgame has anything to do with books, especially not sexual content,” Hector said. “I think that’s the wedge that they used to get to libraries. I think they want to erase people of color and marginalize LGBTQ people.”
KATV reached out to the women’s group for an on-camera interview, but they weren’t available on Wednesday for comment. One of their members, Mary Lewis made a public comment during Monday’s quorum court meeting.
“We need to make sure they have a solid foundation of goodness not things that are not to be,” Lewis said. “Because you open the door to that and that’s just opening up every single kind of evil in this world.”
According to Hector, they updated their policy to that of ACT 372. She also said they do not have any obscene materials in the children’s area and that they have no plans on removing any books. Hector said her concern if books are removed from the children’s section is a lawsuit could be filed. Hector told KATV such an action could infringe on freedom of speech.
An official with Saline County said the library will not be punished if they do not follow the resolution.
Saline County justices of the peace approved a resolution “requesting” the Saline County Library to relocate certain material “due to their sexual content or imagery” on Monday evening.
The resolution, titled “A resolution requesting the Saline County Library ensure that materials contained within the children’s section of the library are subject matter and age appropriate,” is listed as “Exhibit ‘E’” at the 6:30 p.m. quorum court meeting. Its sponsors are Jim Whitley, a justice of the peace representing District 10, and Clint Chism, a justice of the peace who represents District 11.
The resolution states, “The library should enact policies to relocate materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, due to their sexual content or imagery, to an area that is not accessible to children.”
During discussion by the justices of the peace, Whitley said he wanted to dispel “rumors and innuendo” surrounding the resolution. He said that people have accused the resolution of being related to defunding the library system.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Whitley said, emphasizing that there was no intent to defund the library in the resolution.
He also rejected claims that the library wanted to remove sexual material from the library at large. Instead, the resolution is “very specific to the children’s section of the library.”
Whitley said children are “inundated daily with sexual language, imagery content that is really inappropriate for them.”
Literature is at the core of America’s democracy, the justice of the peace said, adding that he supports the library system.
However, he said he doesn’t want children to come to the library and “read things they’re too immature to process.”
Chism said that, in the past three days, “I’ve come under a lot of anger.” He read a prepared statement, in which he expressed surprise at their response.
Laws already “do that sort of thing,” he said, adding that movies are rated, and that games and music have warning labels.
“I don’t understand why it’s even being a debate,” Chism said. “Why would you want your children to look at something like that?”
Keith Keck, a justice of the peace representing District 13, proposed an amendment that states “parents or legal guardians are ultimately responsible for the children’s use of the library and for determining the appropriate library materials for their children to have access to.”
After discussion, the amendment was voted down 9-4.
Keck also recommended an amendment that would add an additional reference to Act 372, but withdrew the motion after discussion.
The effort from Whitley and Chism references Act 372, a state law signed March 30 that exposes library personnel to criminal charges for “knowingly” distributing material found to be obscene. Such efforts add to the wave of recent pressure placed on Arkansas libraries to remove children’s books that address sexual subjects.
Act 372 removes existing language from state law that shields library personnel as well as school employees from prosecution for disseminating obscene material.
A person who loans out from a public library material found to be obscene could be charged with a Class D felony under the law. The legislation also creates a new Class A misdemeanor offense for knowingly furnishing a “harmful item” to a minor.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR RESPONDS
In an interview before the quorum court meeting, Saline County Library Director Patty Hector, Saline County Library said she didn’t believe the county resolution was necessary.
The library board has already voted to update standards for Act 372, and their books are in “the appropriate age section,” according to Hector.
Act 372 establishes parameters for citizens to challenge the appropriateness of material available to the public that is held in school or public libraries. Successful challenges could result in material being relocated to an area not accessible to minors.
Decisions not to relocate the challenged material could be appealed to a school district’s board, in the case of a school library, or the governing body of a city or county, in the case of municipal or county libraries.
Anyone wanting to make an official challenge over a book should fill out a form and speak with Hector, the director said. If the complainant wants to continue with their challenge, their complaint will go to a committee of library staff, who will discuss the book. After the committee reports back to the complainant, that person can choose to take the challenge to the quorum court.
However, Hector said that, in the seven years she has been director of the system, “I haven’t had a book challenge in all that time.”
According to the director, library staff read professional reviews of books to determine whether the works are “right” for the library. Staff in the children’s section get together if they feel “the least bit concerned” about a book for kids, she said.
Hector said the library system also doesn’t buy books from groups pushing self-published works, or works that aren’t from a well-known publisher.
“We want things that are vetted by a publisher.”
Hector said she doesn’t think anything will need to be moved or relocated, because she believes her staff bought appropriate books.
OTHER EFFORTS
In addition to Act 372, Hector pointed to other similar efforts to regulate the availability of certain books in Crawford County, Siloam Springs, Craighead County.
A late September post on the website of the conservative education and research group Family Council lists libraries with children’s and young adult books containing what it calls “graphic sexual content.” Crawford County is listed among them, though neither the Saline County Library nor the Craighead County Jonesboro Library systems are mentioned.
The post states that people can take steps to remove material they find objectionable by using a form that asks libraries to remove offensive materials and call on their elected officials to pass laws that regulate “objectionable material” in libraries.
In February, Crawford County Library System Director Deidre Grzymala announced her resignation following criticisms of the inclusion and public display of children’s books with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning themes at the library.
The Craighead County Jonesboro Library lost half its revenue in November, after residents voted to decrease the library’s 2.0 mill tax to 1.0 mill.
The Siloam Springs Library has had at least 10 of its books challenged.
Similar efforts have also been taking place in other states.
Attempts to ban books “nearly doubled” in 2022, compared against the previous year, a March 22 news release from the American Library Association states. Nationwide, there were 1,269 “demands to censor library books and resources in 2022,” according to the association.
In Saline County, other new business on the quorum court’s Monday agenda included a “resolution recognizing public safety communicators as first responders,” a “resolution authorizing continuation of ICJR grant,” an “emergency ordinance designating planning services as professional services,” an “emergency ordinance establishing Saline County Litter Control Fund” and an “ordinance amending the 2023 Saline County budget ordinance 2022-36.”
Information for this article was contributed by Will Langhorne of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Doug Thompson of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
I have read articles for years from Dan Barker, but recently I just finished the book Barker wrote entitled LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which was prompted by Rick Warren’s book PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE which I also read several years ago.
Dan Barker is the Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, And co-host of Freethought Radio and co-founder of The Clergy Project.
On March 19, 2022, I got an email back from Dan Barker that said:
Thanks for the insights.
Have you read my book Life Driven Purpose? To say there is no purpose OF life is not to say there is no purpose IN life. Life is immensely meaningful when you stop looking for external purpose.
Ukraine … we’ll, we can no longer blame Russian aggression on “godless communism.” The Russian church, as far as I know, has not denounced the war.
db
—
In the next few weeks I will be discussing the book LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which I did enjoy reading. Here is an assertion that Barker makes that I want to discuss:
Think about sexuality. The bible says that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). It is assumed that Adam and Eve were heterosexual, because they were commanded to “replenish the earth.” Jesus made the same assumption: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (This is also sexist, from the male point of view.)
Sexiest? Sounds like you are modern day woke and you will end up turning on your buddy Richard Dawkins?
TRANSGENDERISM SEEN BELOW
——
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
During a recent interview with British journalist Piers Morgan, famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkinsdeclared, “there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it.”
He added that LGBTQ activists looking to discredit the reality of two biological sexes are pushing “utter nonsense.”
Dawkins further noted that those going after Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her commitment to the reality of two sexes are “bullies.”
Famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins strongly defends the reality of biological sex during an interview with Piers Morgan.(Screenshot/Piers Morgan Uncensored)
The famous critic of religion spoke with Morgan during a recent episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored.” The host prompted Hawkins by mentioning how “extraordinary” it is that LGBTQ activists and woke ideologues “want to what they call, de-gender and neutralize language.”
Piers was referring to a recent list of problematic words put out by the “EBB Language Project,” a collection of academics looking to police words that could potentially be found to be politically incorrect. The proposed list contained gendered words, such as “male, female, man, woman, mother, father,” U.K. outlet The Telegraph reported.
Dawkins had commented on the project last month, telling the paper, “The only possible response is contemptuous ridicule. I shall continue to use every one of the prohibited words. I am a professional user of the English language. It is my native language.”
During their interview, Morgan trashed such language policing and the idea there aren’t two sexes, He declared, “I mean, it’s incontrovertible. There’s no scientific doubt about this.” He also noted that a “small group of people have been quite successful actually in reshaping vast swathes of the way society talks and is allowed to talk.”
Dawkins immediately discredited the entire movement, saying, “It’s bullying.” Mentioning famous people who have been demonized for going against these activists, the renowned researcher added, “And we’ve seen the way J.K. Rowling has been bullied, Kathleen Stock has been bullied. They’ve stood up to it. But it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse and really talk errant nonsense.”
Richard Dawkins rose to fame for his books on religion and biology, but he has locked horns with woke orthodoxy over issues such as gender ideology. (Mark Renders/Getty Images)
Upon Morgan asking Dawkins how to combat the “nonsense,” Dawkins simply replied, “Science.”
He then said, “There are two sexes. You can talk about gender if you wish, and that’s subjective.” Morgan asked him about people who claim there are “a hundred genders,” though Dawkins claimed, “I’m not interested in that.”
He said bluntly, “As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it.”
Subsequently, the host mentioned how Dawkins has had his career and reputation dinged for simply asking questions about inconsistencies in the left’s dogmas on gender and identity.
Morgan said, “You had a humanist award stripped in 2021 because of your comments about of this kind of thing.” He cited the tweet that cost him, which stated, “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of the NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Morgan mentioned, “You had your award stripped because you were effectively doing what J.K. Rowling and others have said – you were just espousing a biological fact.”
Dawkins shot back, “I wasn’t even doing that. I was asking people to discuss. Discuss! That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities.”
Demonstrators protest in support of rights for transgender youth. (Fox News )
Morgan asked Dawkins why society has “lost that ability to actually have an open and frank debate.”
The scientist replied, “There are people for whom the word discuss doesn’t mean discuss, it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t… I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.”
Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital.
——-
I was referred this fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION by a tweet by Daniel Dennett.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979). Actually I just attended the retirement party held for my high school Bible teacher Mark Brink of EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL of Cordova, Tennessee on May 19th and he introduced me to the works of Francis Schaeffer and it was Schaeffer’s works that eventually help topple ROE v WADE!!! Ironically Mr Brink had a 49 year career that spanned 1973 to 2022 which was the same period that ROE v WADE survived!!!
Let me make a few points about this fine article below by the humanist Robyn E. Blumner.
Robyn is trying to use common sense on people that “GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind.” Romans 1 states:
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
Identitarian:A person or ideology that espouses that group identity is the most important thing about a person, and that justice and power must be viewed primarily on the basis of group identity rather than individual merit.(Source: Urban Dictionary)
“The Affirmations of Humanism”:We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.(Paul Kurtz,Free Inquiry, Spring 1987)
The humanist project is at a dangerous crossroads. I fear that our cohesion as fellow humanists is being torn apart by a strain of identitarianism that is making enemies of long-standing friends and opponents of natural allies.
Just at a time when it is essential for all of us to come together to work arm-in-arm against Christian Nationalism and the rise of religious privilege in law, humanism is facing a schism within its own movement. It is heartbreaking to watch and even more disheartening to know that the continued breach seems destined to grow.
The division has to do with a fundamental precept of humanism, that enriching human individuality and celebrating the individual is the basis upon which humanism is built. Humanism valorizes the individual—and with good reason; we are each the hero of our own story. Not only is one’s individual sovereignty more essential to the humanist project than one’s group affiliation, but fighting for individual freedom—which includes freedom of conscience, speech, and inquiry—is part of the writ-large agenda of humanism. It unleashes creativity and grants us the breathing space to be agents in our own lives.
Or at least that idea used to be at the core of humanism.
Today, there is a subpart of humanists, identitarians, who are suspicious of individuals and their freedoms. They do not want a free society if it means some people will use their freedom to express ideas with which they disagree. They see everything through a narrow affiliative lens of race, gender, ethnicity, or other demographic category and seek to shield groups that they see as marginalized by ostensible psychic harms inflicted by the speech of others.
This has given rise to a corrosive cultural environment awash in controversial speakers being shouted down on college campuses; even liberal professors and newspaper editors losing their jobs for tiny, one-off slights; the cancellation of great historical figures for being men of their time; and a range of outlandish claims of microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and other crimes against current orthodoxy.
It has pitted humanists who stand for foundational civil liberties principles such as free speech and equal protection under the law against others on the political Left who think individual freedoms should give way when they fail to serve the interests of select identity groups. The most important feature of the symbol of justice is not her sword or scales; it is her blindfold. Identitarians would pull it off so she could benefit certain groups over others.
Good people with humanist hearts have been pilloried if they don’t subscribe to every jot and tittle of the identitarian gospel. A prime example is the decision last year by the American Humanist Association (AHA) to retract its 1996 award to Richard Dawkins as Humanist of the Year. The man who has done more than anyone alive to advance evolutionary biology and the public’s understanding of that science, who has brought the light of atheism to millions of people, and whose vociferous opposition to Donald Trump and Brexit certainly must have burnished his liberal cred became radioactive because of one tweet on transgender issues that the AHA didn’t like.
Apparently decades of past good works are erased by 280 characters. Just poof. No wonder a New York Times poll1 recently found that 84 percent of adults say it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.
This is what identitarians have wrought. Rather than lifting up individuals and imbuing them with autonomy and all the extraordinary uniqueness that flows from it, identitarians would divide us all into racial, ethnic, and gender-based groups and make that group affiliation our defining characteristic. This has the distorting effect of obliterating personal agency, rewarding group victimhood, and incentivizing competition to be seen as the most oppressed.
In addition to being inherently divisive, this is self-reinforcing defeatism. It results in extreme examples, such as a draft plan in California to deemphasize calculus as a response to persistent racial gaps in math achievement.2 Suddenly a subject as racially neutral as math has become a flashpoint for identitarians set on ensuring equality of outcomes for certain groups rather than the far-more just standard of equality of opportunity. In this freighted environment, reducing the need for rigor and eliminating challenging standards becomes a feasible solution. The notion of individual merit or recognition that some students are better at math than others becomes racially tinged and suspect.
Not only does the truth suffer under this assault on common sense, but we start to live in a Harrison Bergeron world where one’s natural skills are necessarily sacrificed on the altar of equality or, in today’s parlance, equity.
Of course, the identitarians’ focus is not just on racial issues. Gender divisions also play out on center stage. I was at a secular conference recently when a humanist leader expressed the view that if you don’t have a uterus, you have no business speaking about abortion.
Really? Only people with female reproductive organs should be heard on one of the most consequential issues of the day? Such a call, itself, is a form of lamentable sexism. And it seems purposely to ignore the fact that plenty of people with a uterus are actively opposed to the right to choose, while plenty of people without a uterus are among our greatest allies for abortion rights. Why should those of us who care about reproductive freedom cut fully half of all humanity from our roster of potential vocal supporters and activists?
As has been said by others perplexed and disturbed by such a narrow-minded view, you don’t have to be poor to have a valid opinion on ways to alleviate poverty. You don’t have to be a police officer to have a valid opinion on policing. And, similarly, you don’t have to be a woman to have a valid opinion on abortion rights.
If the Affirmation quoted at the beginning of this article that rejects “divisive parochial loyalties” based on facile group affiliations isn’t a rejection of identitarianism, I don’t know what is. In his 1968 essay “Humanism and the Freedom of the Individual,” Kurtz stated bluntly:
Any humanism that does not cherish the individual, I am prepared to argue, is neither humanistic nor humanitarian. … Any humanism worthy of the name should be concerned with the preservation of the individual personality with all of its unique idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. We need a society in which the full and free development of every individual is the ruling principle. The existence of individual freedom thus is an essential condition for the social good and a necessary end of humanitarianism.
The individual is the most important unit in humanism. When our individuality is stripped away so we can be fitted into prescribed identity groups instead, something essential to the humanist project is lost. Those pushing for this conception of society are misconstruing humanism, diminishing human potential and self-actualization, and driving a wedge between good people everywhere.
Robyn E. Blumner is the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason &, Science. She was a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) for sixteen years.
FRANCIS SCHAEFFER LGBTQ+ SCHISM
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade. John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent Psalm 19 Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276). 2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.” 3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63). Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks? I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6 God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation
Helen Pashgian on Georges de La Tour | Artists on Art
FEATURED ARTIST IS DE LA TOUR
GEORGES DE LA TOUR (1593-1652)
The influence of Caravaggio is evident in De la Tour, whose use of light and shadows is unique among the painters of the Baroque era.
—
Francis Schaeffer
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 7 | The Age of Non-Reason
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 8 | The Age of Fragmentation
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human…
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 4 | The Basis for Human D…
1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaefer
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
In this post we are going to see that through the years humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic. In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]
_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
But I was only looking at the growth of inflation-adjusted spending during the fiscal years when various presidents were in office.
What about long-run estimates of how various presidents have changed America’s (depressing) fiscal trajectory.
Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post did something like this, though he focused on red ink rather than the spending burden.
That being said, he found somewhat similar results. Only he reports that LBJ was the worst with Nixon being the second worst.
Policy choices made long ago are more responsible for the fiscal state of the nation. Assigning a particular president responsibility for a debt increase is rarely productive, because so much depends on factors beyond a president’s control — an economic crisis such as the Great Recession or the pandemic, for example. …Which president has contributed the most to the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance? That would be Lyndon B. Johnson… Through an exhaustive study of Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget reports, …LBJ’s share of the fiscal imbalance is 29.7 percent. Close behind is Richard M. Nixon, with 29.2 percent. Johnson enacted Medicare and Medicaid in the mid-1960s, and then Nixon in the early 1970s expanded both programs and also enhanced Social Security so that benefits were indexed to inflation. …almost two-thirds of the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance is a result of policy choices made more than 50 years ago.
By the way, Kessler did not do his own calculations.
Instead, he relied on some research by Charles Blahous. Here’s the relevant table from that study, which was published in late 2021.
I’m not surprised that Reagan was the best president.
P.S. Biden was not included since he has just entered office when the research was conducted. If there is a similar study 10 years from now, I’m guessing he will be like Obama with bad but not horrible results. Yes, Biden has an awful fiscal agenda, but his failed stimulus and the watered-down (and absurdly misnamed) Inflation Reduction Act may wind up being the only significant damage he imposes.
Donald Trump: (02:29)
Thank you. Well, thank you very much. And I’m thrilled to be back in the great state of Texas. And I’m thrilled to be back at CPAC. CPAC, back. The proud patriots here today are the beating heart of the conservative movement. That’s true. The beating heart. It all started for me at CPAC, by the way. I don’t know if anyone was there, long time ago, but they are incredible. And the job that’s been done is unbelievable. You are the loyal defenders of our heritage, our liberty, our culture, our Constitution, and our God-given rights. You never stop fighting for America, and I will never, ever stop fighting for you. Won’t happen. Thank you.
Donald Trump: (03:15)
But let’s begin this evening by showing our appreciation to our two wonderful hosts, two incredible people, unbelievable patriots, a family of young ladies that are even more beautiful than they are. I have to say it. They are beautiful. We just took pictures, and it’s great to see Matt and Mercedes Schlapp.
Donald Trump: (03:53)
Great job. Great job. Really incredible. Thank you, Matt. Thanks, Mercedes. And let’s also show our appreciation to everyone at the American Conservative Union who helps to put this event on. It’s an incredible event, including all of the hardworking activists who dedicate their lives to preserving a thing called American freedom. They’re incredible people. Thank you, everybody. We’re also grateful to be joined by representatives Ronnie Jackson, my doctor. Dr. Ronnie, where’s Ron? Where’s Ronnie? He was the White House doctor. He was a great doctor. He was a Admiral, a doctor, and now he’s a Congressman.
Donald Trump: (04:37)
I said, “Which is the best if you had your choice?” And he sort of indicated Dr, because he loved looking at my body. It was so strong and powerful. How often? But he said I’m the healthiest president that’s ever lived. I was the healthiest. I said, “I like this guy.” I don’t know who the hell he is at the time. I said, but I… And he said, “I’m going to run for Congress.” And there were 48 people running.
Donald Trump: (05:02)
I said, “Ronnie, you’ve never done this before.” He was a great student in Annapolis, a great everything. Everything he did was great, but he said, “I’m going to run.”
Donald Trump: (05:10)
I said, “Well, let’s get you into the runoff.” You needed two, two out of 44. And he made it. And then I said, “Now we’re getting close, Ronnie, and let’s get you by the RINO. And we got him by that RINO.”
Donald Trump: (05:21)
And here he is. And he’s great. We love you, Ronnie. Great job. Thank you. Another one who’s a warrior, and he’s a friend of mine. Incredible man. Ralph Norman, Ralph. Congressman. Thank you, Ralph. Thank you.
Donald Trump: (05:39)
Ralph taught me a lesson. He was in a race, and it was so one-sided that everybody said we don’t have to vote for Ralph. We don’t have to vote. He’s going to win by a landslide. So maybe we’ll just go out to dinner, and then we’ll go back and watch the results.”
Donald Trump: (05:55)
And so many people didn’t vote, but he won. And that was the last time that’ll ever happen to Ralph. Right, Ralph? That was a lesson for us all, but he won. He always wins. And Beth Vandine, right here in Texas. Right here. Thank you, Beth. Thank you, Beth.
Donald Trump: (06:16)
A man who’s really courageous and a really great guy, and he loves Florida, and he loves the country. Matt Gates. Where is Matt? I’ll tell you, he’s always working. And he does indeed fight for all of us. For freedom, is what he fights for.
Donald Trump: (06:40)
Lauren Boebert. I heard you speaking, Lauren. Wow. I heard you speaking. That was something. I said, “Who the hell is that out there?” It was Laura. And she had one of the greatest commercials. She said, “Yeah, anybody can enter my house. Then she takes out a gun, starts spinning it around, “But he may not leave the same way.” This is her commercial.
Donald Trump: (07:06)
I said, “I don’t know who that is, but I love her.” That was a long time ago, right? And I can say the same thing for Marjorie Taylor Greene, a real champion. So popular, so popular. Every time we go someplace, they start screaming for you, Marjorie. You know that. Amazing. Really amazing. Thank you very much. And you’re sitting next to Matt. What a combination those two are. Wow. They are something, but they love our country. Congressional candidates.
Donald Trump: (07:46)
Now, look at this guy. He looks better than Cary Grant. Do you remember Cary Grant today? We don’t have Cary Grant. Today we have Rosie O’Donnell. We have… What happened to Cary Grant and Clark Gable and Errol Flynn? But we have a guy that looks just as good as them, and he’s running, and he’s going to win, Bo Hines. Bo, where’s Bo? Where is this guy? Hi, Bo. Great football player, too. Great student and a great football player.
Donald Trump: (08:15)
And Kevin Kylie. Kevin? Where’s Kevin? Great job, Kevin. A man who’s one of the hottest politicians in our country, married to an incredible woman and respected so much in North Carolina. And anybody that sees him or knows him, they immediately say, “There’s a man that we want representing us,” lieutenant governor, North Carolina, Mark Robinson. Where’s Mark? Thank you, Mark. Right. You’re a very popular guy, Mark.
Donald Trump: (09:07)
And somebody that really took this country by storm, not just the state, but took the country by storm, Tudor Dickson, governor of Michigan, soon to be, we hope straighten this state out. Tudor is fantastic. Tudor? Right. Now, she recently lost her father, very recently. And he’s looking down. He’s saying, “Oh, I’m so proud of my daughter.” I had met him. I guess that was his last meeting. Right? And they were at Mar-a-Lago, and her father was incredible. Great steel person. He was somebody that knew what China was doing. He knew more about China, what they were doing to us and devastation. And we put on those tariffs, and those tariffs worked so good. I hope they don’t terminate the tariffs, but your father’s looking down on you right now. And he’s so proud. He can believe it. He can believe it. It’s not like he can’t. He can, because he knew you better than anybody. So, congratulations, go get them. Go get them.
Donald Trump: (10:09)
She’s running against a woman whose husband didn’t obey any of her orders. It was, she’s the shutdown queen, but everybody was shut down but her husband. He was out there canoeing all by himself. Now, normally you wouldn’t consider that a bad thing, but when nobody else is allowed to do it, it’s not so good. So I think you’re going to have a fantastic success, Tudor.
Donald Trump: (10:32)
Nominee for Michigan, Attorney General. And I’ve known him for a long time. He’s so tough. People are afraid to even be in the same room with him. Attorney General. He’s going to make sure that you’re going to have law and order and fair elections and so many other things. He is respected by everybody in that state, Matt DePerno. Matt? That’s an important race. And a person who you just saw, one of the hottest politicians in this world, I think, at this moment, that I think it’s going to be that way for a long time. She’s incredible. I met her and almost immediately I said, “This one is incredible.” I’ll never forget. I was in Arizona, and a lot of people there, and I was introducing some of the folks and everybody was bored stiff.
Donald Trump: (11:27)
And he said, “This place is dying.” And I’m introducing gubernatorial candidates. And it was like, I said, “I’ve got to get through this. This is very bad.” There were a lot of candidates. And then I introduced this woman named Kari Lake, and the place went crazy. Right? The place went crazy. She’s an incredible woman. She’ll be an absolutely incredible governor. And she’ll be looking at everything. They need a good governor out there. They have a RINO who didn’t do the job. That’s supposed to say that that’s not politically correct, but I’ll say it anyway. You don’t mind. So Kari, good luck out there, and we’ll be out there. We’ll do a couple of rallies. We’ll get 45-50,000 people. Remember when I get 50,000, and Biden couldn’t fill up the eight circles in there? So he won. He won. Couldn’t fill up eight circles, and he won.
Donald Trump: (12:34)
I don’t think Kari feels that way. I don’t think a lot of people do. That state has such spirit. It’s incredible. So, congratulations. That’s an unbelievable win. Thank you. Good.
Donald Trump: (12:46)
A friend of mine and somebody who was truly one of the best. He was so brave. He was so courageous ambassador, Rick Grenell. So brave. [inaudible 00:13:03] He is great.
Donald Trump: (13:08)
Another one who’s great. He’s tough. He’s smart. He knows what’s happening. And he’s really been a friend to this administration, to my administration. And with the other side, saw him, and a lot of times he and Rick worked together. That was a duo. When I had a big problem, I’d send the both of them because the other countries didn’t have a chance. Up here, they didn’t have a chance. And even with toughness, they didn’t have a chance. Kash Patel. Where’s Kash? Great job, Kash. Thank you.
Donald Trump: (13:50)
And thank you, Rick. Chairman of the Japanese Conservative Union, Jay Aeba. And also Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck. Thank you, Glenn.
Donald Trump: (14:08)
So I lost a great friend in, as you know, the prime minister. What a great gentleman he was. What a great man he was. We had an incredible relationship. There was nobody really like him, and the job he did for Japan. So, he’s right now in greener fairways. He loved golf. And he could play golf, too. He was good. And we had a lot of fun together, but we made a lot of great deals for the United States and for Japan. The relationship was incredible. And he’s a man who will be greatly missed, greatly missed.
Donald Trump: (14:41)
I want to thank you for your incredible support also, because I just walked in the door, and they told me I had this straw poll. Now I’d just come in, “Sir, you won the straw poll.”
Donald Trump: (15:05)
I said, “I better damn win that straw poll.”
Donald Trump: (15:11)
Done by McLaughlin. The McLaughlin brothers are fantastic pollsters, so it’s an honor. And I guess we had 69% and 99% approval. Why couldn’t I get 100? Why? 99? Wow. When was the last time somebody had a 99% approval? That’s pretty good. Thank you, everybody. You’re the people that voted. Wow.
Donald Trump: (15:38)
And second place was 24%. And then you had them down in one, and most of them didn’t get anything. And not that I want that to happen, of course, but it’s okay if it does. And a very special thanks, and I do really appreciate that, Matt, because it’s very respected, that straw poll. Comes out and heavily-covered and really something. It’s really where the heart of conservative people in this country is, that straw poll is a tremendous indicator of what’s happening in our country.
Donald Trump: (16:09)
And a very special thanks for the amazing support from so many conservative Hispanic Americans in the Americano media straw poll. I got 81%. Is that nice? 81, with a second place finisher, I don’t even know who it is. Second place finisher was at 16%. That’s pretty good. So, I want to thank you very much. The Hispanic people are incredible, and they have really embraced the Republican Party. I say actually they’ve embraced me, not really the Republicans, but I won’t say that because I don’t want to get myself in trouble with Matt.
Donald Trump: (16:47)
But they really are. They’re incredible people. They’re hardworking. Unbelievable. But I’ve been watching CPAC for years. And as you know, it used to be very divided. You had Ron Paul. And great guy, Ron Paul, a little different, very much like his son Rand, who I also like a lot. But Ron’s a little different, a little difficult, like Rand. Rand can be difficult, but you know when they’re your friend, they’re your friend. But you had the Ron Paul people. You had the Bush people. And of course you had the RINOs.
Donald Trump: (17:17)
And I don’t know. I’m shocked to hear that. But now there’s a great feeling of unity. When you see poll numbers like that, 99% approval. There was no such thing. There was no such thing. And when you see those numbers, there’s a great feeling of unity, not only CPAC, but I think, Matt, in the Republican party, I think we have to do what we have to do to bring our nation back. Right?
Donald Trump: (17:46)
So as we gather tonight, our country is being destroyed more from the inside than out. America is on the edge of an abyss. And our movement is the only force on Earth that can save it. This movement right here. What we do in the next few months and the next few years will determine whether American civilization will collapse or fail, or whether it will triumph and thrive, frankly like never before. This is no time for complacency. We cannot be complacent. We have to seize this opportunity to deal with the radical left socialist lunatics and fascists. And we have to hit them very, very hard. Has to be a crippling defeat, because our country cannot take it.
Donald Trump: (18:41)
You remember when I was campaigning. And again, we did much better in the second election than we did in the first, by many millions of us, much, much better. But I used to say, not thinking this could even be very possible, but it always had a chance. It will be Venezuela large-scale or Venezuela on steroids. That’s what’s happening to our country. It’s not even thinkable. We have to take this chance to shatter the corrupt Washington establishment once and for all. We have to run aggressive, unrelenting and boldly, populist campaigns. Populist. We want to be populist. We want to love our country. That’s what we want.
Donald Trump: (19:26)
And we have to throw off the shackles of globalism, and reassert two very important words. You know what the words are? America first. It’s a very simple thing. We have to put our country first. We had that done, and we were doing great. If we do this, then not only will we fire Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, crazy Nancy Pelosi.
Donald Trump: (19:52)
What was she doing in Taiwan? Everything she touches turns to bad. I don’t want say it, because I don’t want them to say, “He used foul language.” I don’t want to say it, but it does. It turns bad. [inaudible 00:20:11] I got impeached twice. She failed twice. The woman brings chaos, and that’s exactly what’s happening. What’s happened in China, right now. What’s happening in China and Taiwan with what’s going on. She played right into their hands, because now they have an excuse to do whatever they’re doing.
Donald Trump: (20:29)
And I will tell you it would’ve never, ever happened in a million years under Trump. I can tell you that. We played right into their hands, but we will save our nation, and American power, prosperity and prestige will come back. And it’ll come back strongly. Victory cannot come a moment too soon. You could take the five worst presidents in American history, and put them together, and they would not have done the damage that Joe Biden has done to our country in less than two years. It’s true.
Donald Trump: (21:10)
The contrast between the Trump administration’s amazing success and the Biden administration’s breathtaking failure could not be more stark. Let’s look at the facts. I got gasoline, gasoline for cars, put it in the tank. Thank you very much. $ 1.87 a gallon I got it down to. They have it now at $5, $6, $7. A friend of mine from California called me this morning. He just paid $8.55, he told me.
Donald Trump: (21:48)
California. And you’ll follow. You’ll follow. It’s not even believable. With the help of our great Texas oil and gas workers, we achieved American energy independence, and we were even energy-dominant. And we were going to be double the size of Russia and Saudi Arabia combined. We were going to be energy-dominant. Now the United States is becoming a beggar for energy. We’re begging. We gave you the largest tax cuts and regulation cuts in American history. That’s why we had the job numbers. And don’t forget. You have not good job numbers right now. They’re not counting all of the millions of people that aren’t working. If you looked at the real numbers, that 3.5 would be double that, maybe. Some people say triple that. The radical Democrats now intend to impose the biggest tax hike. Think of this, the biggest tax hike in bad times. In American history, this will be, what they’re doing right now, the biggest tax hike in the history of our country. The exact opposite of what I did. And they’re working feverishly to pile on more regulations at levels never seen before. I asked a lot of the big companies, a lot of the biggest and best businessmen, “What’s more important? The big tax cuts that I got for the country to get it going?” And we never had a country going like we had before the China virus came in. We never had anything like it.
Donald Trump: (23:17)
And then we did it again. We did it again. We did it twice. The stock market was actually higher. It was actually higher than it was pre-COVID, as they say. COVID, such a nice name. I wonder where they got it.
Donald Trump: (23:32)
Mitch McConnell got taken for a ride by Joe Manchin and the group. And the great people of West Virginia have been seriously hurt by these political antics. I love West Virginia. I fought for it. I won by 45 points, 45. Joe Manchin has totally sold West Virginia out. What he’s done to West Virginia, I don’t believe… I don’t believe they’re going to stand for it. Let’s see what happens.
Donald Trump: (23:58)
And I said this was going to happen. Joe Manchin is devastating West Virginia. Kyrsten Sinema agreed to allow this massive tax increase just yesterday to go forward, only provided that Wall Street-ers are allowed to keep their current carried interest provision. It’s a hell of a provision. In fact, I had it ended, and then I ended up getting so much more for it. I would’ve terminated it. We were all set to terminated, but we got many, many other things for it. They gave up everything to keep it.
Donald Trump: (24:29)
It’s a rip off. What happened to Manchin and Sinema, what happened? We’re trying to figure out what the hell happened. Where did this new philosophy come from all of a sudden? 48 hours. I think if this deal passes, they will both lose their next election. I do believe that. West Virginia and Arizona will not stand for what they did to them.
Donald Trump: (24:58)
And that includes the races that are being run right now. They’re not going to take it. And I told the old broken crow, Mitch McConnell, that this was going to happen. No, I said it. I said it loud and clear. He should have never approved that fake infrastructure deal. Never approved it. He approved that infrastructure deal for trillions of dollars, and 91% of it is Green New Deal nonsense. There’s only 8% to 9% that’s actually for infrastructure. But he said, “If we approve this one, they will never come back and ask for more.”
Donald Trump: (25:31)
I said, “Yes, they will.” And guess what? They’re voting on it now. So maybe this speech can stop them, because when Manchin hears me say he’s going to lose West Virginia, and I’ll go down and campaign against him as hard as anybody can. And when Sinema does that to Arizona, and I will tell you, we have a person that I believe is going to be the next governor. I don’t think she’s going to stand for it. I don’t think she’s going to stand for it.
Donald Trump: (26:15)
It’s interesting with Manchin. So, I get along with him very well. He wanted to know Jerry West could get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I said, “Jerry West, great athlete.”
Donald Trump: (26:25)
“Could Bob Cousy get one too?”
Donald Trump: (26:28)
Yeah, Bob Cousy, great. Right? Everybody agrees. He was great. But I got along with him fantastically well, couldn’t have been better. Called me all the time. We had a good relationship. And he said when the impeachment hoax started, “I would never vote against you. You’re a great president. I will never vote against you.”
Donald Trump: (26:46)
And when we were counting up the numbers, which we won very easily, by the way, but when we were counting up the numbers, I say, “One Democrat I know for sure will never vote against me on impeachment is Joe Manchin.”
Donald Trump: (26:58)
So they’re taking the votes, and he voted against me.
Donald Trump: (27:02)
I said, “Oh, he must have made a mistake. Perhaps he didn’t know what they were doing.”
Donald Trump: (27:08)
But I said to Mitch McConnell that, “He will do this. And he will hurt our nation. And he will hurt the Republican Party, and he will hurt Independents, and he’s going to hurt the Democrats. He’s going to hurt everybody.” But Mitch McConnell has hurt our party very badly. Should have never happened. And I said it. And I said it publicly, “When they approve that horrible infrastructure deal,” and then they go and they do this. And they’re not finished yet. They still have a little time left.
Donald Trump: (27:41)
But McConnell is the most unpopular politician in the country, even more so than crazy Nancy Pelosi. And something has to be done. He raises large campaign contributions for senators, and that’s how he holds onto his power. And even I tell some of the senators who I’m very friendly with, which is most of them. You saw the vote. They call. They say, “What do we do? All of a sudden-”
Donald Trump: (28:03)
The vote. They call, they say, “What do we do?” All of a sudden they’re offered 20, and it’s hard for them to raise money. But McConnell will offer them 20 million because he raises all this money and he offers them to many of the senators, not all of them. And they’ll call me, “What do I do? What do I do?” I said, “Take the money. Take it. It’s all right. Don’t worry about it. He’ll end up where he ends up. Take the money.” They need it. But it’s not a good thing, and under the Trump administration, we had the greatest economy in the history of the world. We had no inflation. We had no inflation. It was just… Nobody could even believe it.
Donald Trump: (28:40)
They wrote books and they’re writing books on it. Biden created the worst inflation in 49 years, 9.1%. I believe it’s much higher than that, by the way. And it’s going higher, costing families nearly 5,000 and now they’re estimating 6 to $7,000 a year. Think of that, $7,000 a year. After the pandemic, we handed the radical Democrats the fastest economic recovery ever recorded, the history of our country, ever recorded. They’ve turned that into two straight quarters of negative economic growth, also known, despite their protestation to the contrary, as a recession.
Donald Trump: (29:23)
Just hope that the recession doesn’t turn into a depression, because the way they’re doing things, it could be a lot worse than a recession. The labor force participation is the worst in many, many decades. That’s the number that you have to look at. I rebuilt our military, including our nuclear capability, and we hope to God we never have to use it. But I rebuilt it. They had equipment and they had rockets and they had bombs that they had no idea if they even worked they were so old. It’s all new or newly renovated, and the power is greater than any power ever in the history of our country, but in the history of this world, and we just hope it never gets used.
Donald Trump: (30:13)
We created a thing called Space Force. They smiled at it. Biden smiled at it. It’s turned out to be so important. As you know, in Space Force, not for 79 years since Air Force has anything like that been done. 79 years. Air Force was the last one. Now it’s Space Force. Remember the first day they laughed at it, “Oh, Space Force.” They thought they were going to end it, and the public went crazy because you people know much more than they do. They surrendered our strength and our everything, our dignity, and turned Afghanistan into the greatest humiliation our country has ever seen. Not the fact that we were leaving, because I was the one that got us down to a small number of soldiers, but we were going to leave with strength and with dignity, and we were going to keep Bagram, not for Afghanistan, but because China’s nuclear plants are one hour away, where they make their nuclear weapons, one hour away. It’s one of the biggest airfields anywhere in the world. Cost us billions of dollars many years ago. I was going to keep Bagram.
Donald Trump: (31:21)
You know who’s occupying Bagram right now? China. And the fake news doesn’t want to mention it. But the way we left was a virtual surrender. When you leave, you don’t take your soldiers out first, you take your soldiers out last. After the Americans get out and you take your soldiers out after your equipment is taken out, and all of that was happening. This is the most incredible blunder, and the fake news doesn’t want to write about it because that’s bad for them. Look, you don’t even hear about so many bad things, you don’t ever hear about them anymore. We created the safest border in US history by far. By far. Now it’s the worst border ever in history. There’s never been a border like it, and that includes, in my opinion, third world countries, because there’s no third world country that would allow millions of people to pour in, they have no idea.
Donald Trump: (32:24)
Last month, 141 countries were represented. Not just your three plus Mexico. 141 countries were represented with people that came in illegally. We’re going to be paying a price for this for many years to come in terms of terrorism and crime. We ended catch and release, we deported record numbers of illegal alien gang members, and we built hundreds and hundreds of miles of border wall. In fact, we completely finished our original border wall plan, despite two and a half years of horrible Democrat-inspired lawsuits and litigation, and I won all of those suits. And then we started and we did some job and that gave us these incredible numbers that, frankly, everyone talks about today. The number of people coming in, that’s not three million or four million. In my opinion, it would be anywhere from 10 to 15 million people this year, 10 to 15 million people. We have no idea who the hell they are.
Donald Trump: (33:27)
We then added much more of the border wall, and most of that got finished too. Three weeks was all it would’ve taken. Three weeks and it would’ve been completed, the extra addition that we added. The border was the best ever. Think of it. It was the best ever. I went to Mexico and I said to the president of Mexico, who I like a lot, he’s a socialist, but I even like a couple of socialists in the world, about three. But I said, “President, you’re going to have to give us 28,000 troops to protect our border while we’re building the wall.” “No, no, no. I cannot do that, Don.” “But you have to.” “No, no, no. I cannot do that.” We started a negotiation.
Donald Trump: (34:13)
A woman from the State Department, a good woman, she said, “You won’t ever get any of these things.” I said to the Border Patrol who’s fantastic, by the way, “Give me your top 10 things.” I said, “Give me your top 10 things that you want.” And they gave me 10, and the woman looked at me, she laughed. She said, “Sir, I’ve been dealing in Mexico for 25 years. You won’t get any.” I said, “No, no, I’ll get them all. I’ll get them all. Guaranteed. Guaranteed, I get them all.” She smiled. She was a good woman, by the way. But she’s been doing this for 25 years. She said, “You won’t get anything.” What happened is the top representative came in. We met in front of this woman and others, and I said, “You’re going to have to give us 28,000 troops. You’re going to have to do a thing called remain in Mexico. In other words, people can no longer come into our country. You have to remain in Mexico.” Hundreds of thousands of people remain in Mexico.
Donald Trump: (35:08)
Eight other things, which was in many ways probably worse, right? Probably worse. I remember he laughed at me. He said, “Ha ha ha, we won’t do this.” He thought I was crazy. I said, “No, you’re going to do it. You will. You do.” “No, we won’t do it. We will not do that. We’re not going to give you troops free. We’re not going to give you troops. We’re not going to give you remain in Mexico. Why would we do such a thing?” I said, “Because on Monday morning I’m signing an order that every single car that you make and every single product that you sell into the United States will have a 25% tariff on it.” He said, “May I leave the room to make a call?” I said… Five minutes later, he comes back. “Mr. President, we would be honored to supply you with 28,000 soldiers. We would be honored to accept hundreds of thousands of people all over Mexico and remain in Mexico until we check them out.” It was pretty amazing. We got all 10 things. It took about five minutes. Took longer to create the piece of paper that he had to sign than it did to win the negotiation. But we don’t do that too much. We have a big advantage over China but people don’t know it. We have an advantage over Russia, big, big, but we don’t know it. Nobody knows it. They don’t know how to use it if they did know it.
Donald Trump: (36:42)
The border was the best and safest in US recorded history. They’ve turned it into a nightmare so quickly. The election was rigged and stolen and now our country is being systematically destroyed. And everybody knows it, and this corrupt January sixth of unselect people. They’re unselect. They never comment when I use that. See, unselect committee. But this corrupt group of people, these are the same people that went after me for the impeachment hooks. Number one, number two, the same people. Adam shifty Shift. The same people. They look into the mics, then they lose, and then they go on to the next one. It’s a disgusting… If they use the same energy to go and make our country great, it would be an incredible thing, but I don’t know if they can do that.
Donald Trump: (37:40)
But I ran twice, I won twice, and did much better the second time than I did the first, getting millions and millions of more votes than in 2016, and likewise, getting more votes than any sitting president in the history of our country by far. And now we may have to do it again. We may have to do it again.
Donald Trump: (38:05)
Thank you. Thank you. It’s so sad what’s happened to our country. We’re like a third world country in elections and we’re like a third world country and airports have… Has anybody been flying around lately, or trying? We’re like third world. But first we have to win an earth shattering victory in 2022. We have to do it, coming up in November. It’s a win in this November. This election needs to be a national referendum on the horrendous catastrophes the radical Democrats have inflicted on our country. The Republican party needs to campaign on a clear pledge that, if they are given power, they’re going to fight with everything they have to shut down the border, stop the crime wave, beat inflation, and hold the Biden administration accountable. They have to hold it accountable. Job number one for the next Congress.
Donald Trump: (39:26)
Thank you very much. Job number one for the next Congress and the next president will be to restore public safety. People are walking outside and getting shot in the head because of the radical left’s merciless crusade to dismantle law enforcement in America. Our country is now a cesspool of crime like it’s never been before. They’ve never seen anything like it. Other countries are talking about it. We’re talking about democracy. Isn’t it great? Then they say, ” You had seven people killed in Chicago this weekend. You had 68 people shot.” That’s not democracy. That’s not what we stand for. Savage criminals are being released on cashless bail to continue their violent rampages against the United States of America. Entire communities are being torn to shreds with stabbings, shootings, strangling, rapes, and murders. On that little piece we showed you, did you see the man with the knife in the back? Did anybody see that? I looked at it. I didn’t notice it the first time. I looked at it tonight, I’m getting ready to come on, a knife right in somebody’s back.
Donald Trump: (40:47)
The streets of our Democrat-run cities are drenched with the blood of innocent victims, gun battles rage between blood thirsty street gangs, bullets tear into crowds at random killing wonderful, beautiful little children that never even had a chance. They’re struck and they’re killed, and carjackers lay in wait like predators hunting their prey. They want that car, they’re going to take that car in California. People are leaving the trunks of their cars open so criminals don’t smash the windows when they try to rob their valuables. They leave the trunk open so that they don’t break the car and break the back of the car when they try and steal the tire and what’s ever in the trunk, so they just leave it open. “Take it, but please don’t destroy my car.”
Donald Trump: (41:41)
In Los Angeles, burglars are stalking people back to their homes to clean out the entire house at gunpoint. They follow them. They live in Beverly Hills. They live in some nice community. They follow them back and they go into the house and they do things that you don’t want to know about. This has to stop and it has to stop now.
Donald Trump: (42:10)
We are going to make America great again, but we have to make America safe again first. It’s time for leaders who have the courage to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done. It has to happen. It has to be happened. That’s why, when I see Tutor, when I see Carrie, when I see the people that are running, these people are not going to play games. They want to bring our country back. They’re going to bring our country back. To repair the damage from Democrats, gutting of police forces nationwide, defund the police. How about that? Defund the police. Now they’re saying, “Well, we really didn’t say that.” Oh yeah they did, and now they’re saying it again. Never going to change.
Donald Trump: (43:05)
The next Congress should spearhead the largest increase in the hiring of police officers in American history, hiring tens of thousands more officers nationwide. Make our cities safe. We have to leave our police alone. Let them do their job. Give them back their respect. They know what to do. We have to allow them to do it.
Donald Trump: (43:44)
When I came out here a little while ago, I have a consultant and he is a very nice person. He’s a rhino. He said to me, “Sir, I don’t think you should say that last statement. I don’t think you should say it. It’s really not good. I don’t think it’ll be that popular.” I said, “What? You mean the fact that we should let police do their job?” “Sir, I think it’s probably not going to be received well.” I don’t care. We have to let them do their job. He’s a rhino, but he’s a nice person. We’ll probably keep him on the payroll. You know?
Donald Trump: (44:18)
We need to return to the tried and true strategy of a thing called stop and frisk. We have to take the guns away from people that are criminals. Instead of taking guns away from law-abiding Americans, let’s take them away from the violent felons and career criminals for a change. We also need a no holds barred national campaign to dismantle organized crimes. These are street crimes. Organized crime today is on the streets, and this administration doesn’t want to talk about that crime. They want to talk about what they think are other crimes, and many people say they’re not crimes. We have to round up the drug dealers, the gang members, and the dangerous offenders, charge them for their crimes and get them either out of our country and back to where they came from or put them behind bars.
Donald Trump: (45:25)
If you look at countries throughout the world, there’s another thing. Please don’t say it, sir. Please, sir. I’ve been doing this for 30 years, sir. Then I looked at his list of wins. It’s not too good [inaudible 00:45:40]. Please don’t say it, sir. If you look at countries throughout the world, the only ones that don’t have a drug problem are those that institute the death penalty for drug dealers. That’s it. Right? When I was in China, and until the plague came in, I had a very good relationship with President Xi. We made a great trade deal for our manufacturers and farmers. But after the plague, I don’t even talk about that deal. Too much damage done. But I had a great relationship with President Xi of China. Strong man. You could go all over Hollywood, you couldn’t get an actor to play the role of President Xi. He’s a great guy in many respects, but he’s not too in love with our country. I can tell you that. But I said very innocently, “Do you have a drug problem?” First time I’m there? He looked at me like what kind of a stupid question is that? No, I said, “President, do you have a drug problem in China?” “No, no. No, I don’t have a… Why would we have a drug problem?” I said, “Well, what do you do?” “Oh, quick trial. Quick trial.” I said, “What’s a quick trial.” A quick trial is a bring drug dealers quickly to trial, and if they’re guilty, it’s immediate execution.
Donald Trump: (47:11)
Now, it sounds horrible. Sounds horrible. It does. Sounds horrible, but every drug dealer in this country, they say on average will kill at least 500 people. Some people think it’s much higher than that. So you would stop it. I believe if you instituted the death penalty for drug dealers, traffickers, I believe that drug dealing would go down 50% on day one. 50%. I really believe that. I think it goes down the day you institute it. I’ll tell you one thing. If I’m a drug dealer, I’m going to say, “No thanks. I’m going someplace else.” [inaudible 00:47:51] other people. In Singapore, you see what’s going on in Singapore? Very rich society, very powerful on drugs. They have no drug problem whatsoever. Lot of money, plenty of money to buy drugs. They have no drug problem. They have the death penalty for drug dealers. Other countries, likewise. We form blue ribbon committees where we put our great First Lady, Melania, she’s in charge.
Donald Trump: (48:23)
We have a blue ribbon committee headed by the First Lady and very nice people, fine, fine people, Diliton socialites. If they ever met a real killer drug dealer, if they ever met El Chapo or any of these people, I think that would be the end of them. They’d say, “I’m not doing this anymore.” But we have blue ribbon committees headed up by great people that really are well-meaning. I will tell you, our First Lady did a good job. She worked hard and we got drugs down 19%. That’s great. But you know what that is? That’s like nothing. And today, it’s worse than it’s ever been because the border’s so open that not only people are coming through, and bad ones, criminals are emptying their jails into our country, but drugs are coming into our country at a level that we’ve never seen before. Fentanyl coming in from China.
Donald Trump: (49:13)
I was with Xi and I said, “Listen, you can’t send fentanyl. You can’t do it.” They were really cutting down. They were really cutting down. Things were going really well, and then this tragedy happened in November two years ago. Tragedy. It was a tragedy for our country what happened, because of what’s gone on. All they had to do was leave everything in place. This place was going so good and they couldn’t help themselves. What a sad thing.
Donald Trump: (49:41)
But when I see these blue ribbon committees, it’s just… And everyone wants to get on. “Could I get on the blue ribbon committee,” says the local architect. Yeah. But they don’t know what’s happening here. No. You need the death penalty for drug dealers. Drugs will go down immediately by 50% and probably more. But you have to mean it, and you have to mean it. When you look at China and other places, they don’t have a problem. If they had that problem, they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing right now, and they weren’t. They had this problem many, many decades ago, and other countries far smaller were able to invade them and take them over because everybody was suffering from drugs, and they said, “We can’t do this.”
Donald Trump: (50:28)
It’s not very politically correct to say it, but you’ll save millions and millions of lives. Last year, we lost probably 250,000 people to drugs. 250. There’s no war. [inaudible 00:50:41] war. These are numbers that are bigger than war numbers. 250,000. They say it’s 100,000. I say it’s much more than that. It’s probably much more than 250,000, but you also have destroyed millions and millions of families throughout our nation because of drugs in places where there is a true breakdown of the rule of law such as the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago. The next president should use every power at his disposal to restore order, and if necessary, that includes sending in the national guard or the troops.
Donald Trump: (51:26)
Every American of every background deserves to live in safety and in peace. Every American. One of the things that we were saddled with and one of the hardest decisions I had to make when I looked at some of these cities that were run by Democrats going so bad, so fast, I wanted to send in the guard, I wanted to send in the troops, and sometimes I did. In Minneapolis, I sent in the troops and saved the place. I was getting ready to send them in Seattle when, if you look at I guess it was Antifa, took over a big portion. You don’t read about that too much. Nothing happened to those people, or very little. I think nothing. But they took over a big portion of Seattle. The troops were ready to go in and they heard that. All of a sudden they decided to leave. Thank you very much for leaving.
Donald Trump: (52:15)
But the president is not supposed to be doing that. The president is supposed to do it at the request of the governor. Well, when the governor was a Democrat or the mayors are Democrats, they don’t want any help under any circumstances. Very much like on January sixth where I offered Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC from 10 to 20,000 troops because I thought the crowd was going to be very, very large coming in, because I felt it. You could see it. And they turned it down. If they didn’t turn it down, and Cash Patel is a witness. Right? I think I can say you’re a witness. But we have many other witnesses to that. 10 to 20,000, they turned it down. Had they not turned it down, you wouldn’t have had January sixth as we know it. But the president is not supposed to be sending in it at well. I think the next time either we’re going for a very quick change or we’re sending them in, because we’re not going to let Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Portland. Portland, when the storefronts… They don’t even use new storefronts. You know what they do? They just put up wooden barricades now for stores, for the few remaining. Places are burned out hulls, and nothing happens to those people that have destroyed that place, that city.
Donald Trump: (53:37)
It’s also time to take back our streets in public spaces from the homeless and the drug addicted and the dangerously deranged, because no civilized society can allow this depravity and squalor to continue. You can’t let this happen. Places like San Francisco, the backyard of Nancy Pelosi, she, by the way, has a big wall around her house. You know that, right? But it’s so bad. It’s gotten so bad. People are leaving. Nobody wants to have office space there. Who would want to have an office space when you’re walking through a lot of people that are unfortunate and, in many cases, very sick, mentally ill. It’s actually dangerous to walk into your office.
Donald Trump: (54:28)
Liberals think that it’s somehow compassionate, then you’re going to have to let them invite the homeless to camp in their backyards, in their homes, and ruin their property and attack their families and use drugs where their children are trying to play, and all of a sudden that’ll stop very quickly. The only way you’re going to remove the homeless encampments and reclaim our downtowns is to open up large parcels, large tracks of relatively inexpensive land on the outer skirts of the various cities and bring in medical professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists, and drug rehab specialists, and create tent cities. You have to have it. They have tents right now. They’re living in tents with holes in them. You don’t have time to build buildings. You can do that later, but you have to get the people off the street. We have to bring back. We have to reclaim our cities. Now you’ll have people that will be taken care of. We’ll have doctors, we’ll have everything. We have to relocate the homeless until they can get their lives back and then come back to where they want to be, and we’ll bring a lot of them back. They will come back. But right now nobody’s coming back. You have no medical help. You have no nothing. It’s so dangerous, those streets. Los Angeles is so bad. San Francisco. Every city that’s run by Democrats, so bad. We want them to succeed. We want people to succeed.
Donald Trump: (56:02)
We want them to succeed. We want people to succeed, but they cannot be allowed to turn every sidewalk and public park, into their personal campground. It’s so dangerous. As everyone here in Texas knows firsthand, there is another horrific disaster we must confront if we want to restore safety in our country. At long last, we must stop the invasion at our southern border. It’s an invasion. Our country is being invaded.
Donald Trump: (56:31)
Our country is being invaded just like a military force was pouring in. Just last month an illegal alien here in Texas was indicted for the coldblooded murders of four elderly women throughout the state, and he’s been accused of links to the deaths of at least 24 people. 24 people. Perhaps the deadliest serial killer in Texas history. They’re now saying he could be the deadliest serial killer. He’s an illegal alien. Earlier this year, an illegal alien fugitive with a prior arrest for aggravated assault and many other arrests, viciously shot and killed a Harris County police officer at a traffic stop. No reason whatsoever, none.
Donald Trump: (57:39)
And in New Mexico last year an illegal alien criminal out of jail on unsecured bond was charged with decapitating a man, mutilating his body and kicking his head around like a soccer ball all over the public park. Think of this. Animals. Never forget every death at the hands of a criminal, illegal alien is entirely preventable. This is all preventable stuff.
Donald Trump: (58:16)
We remember Kate, don’t we? We remember Kate standing in San Francisco with her father. We remember that, a man who came in five times at least and shot beautiful Kate dead. Republicans in Congress must make clear that on their watch, not a single penny of taxpayer money will go to funding. Joe Biden’s open border agenda. It’s a sick agenda. It’s a sick agenda. Makes no sense.
Donald Trump: (58:50)
And some things make sense. I understand the other side. You always have to understand the other side. I understand the other side. Open borders. Nobody has open borders. It makes no sense. We fight and spend billions and billions and even trillions of dollars defending the borders of countries that are 7,000 miles away, but they don’t want to spend any money to defend our border. Makes no sense, does it?
Donald Trump: (59:22)
Next year, we have to use the purse strings to send a message to every would be illegal alien. All over the world if you break into our country illegally, you will be caught. We will detain you and we will quickly send you back to the place from which you came or put you in prison immediately.
Donald Trump: (59:44)
And we did that. We told people. Remember at the beginning? We had these big caravans. We didn’t have the caravans and they already… Now they’re starting at caravans. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. But the Obama administration had a big problem before us because they would bring people into Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico, lesser extent. And they’d bring them back and they wouldn’t let us land the planes. They wouldn’t let them have buses. They would let them come back into the country. So you’d have the worst gang members of the world, mostly MS 13.
Donald Trump: (01:00:28)
And if they came from Honduras, we couldn’t get them back. I had some incredible people in my office, border patrol people. Guys like Tom Homan and Mark Morgan. And so many others. These are great people. These are brave people. But they’d be in and they’d say to me, tell me, “We can’t bring them back, sir because the country won’t allow it.” I said, “Really? Why won’t they allow it? They won’t allow it. They don’t want MS 13 back in their country.” They force them out. They put them into caravans. They force them out.
Donald Trump: (01:01:06)
And why wouldn’t they? How smart. I mean, you don’t have to be… They don’t want them in their country. So what happens is I said, “All right, good. How much money do we pay those three countries?” “Sir, we pay them $750 million a year.” That’s a lot of money, right? Peanuts compared to what we pay to some. 750 million. I say, “That’s all right. Put out a notice immediately that we’re stopping payment. We’re not going to pay anymore.”
Donald Trump: (01:01:38)
They said, “Sir, I don’t think it’ll work. We tried everything. That’s why we kept them here because we couldn’t get them out.” “That’s all right. You let them know, we’re not going to pay anymore money to them.” The following morning I had calls from the three presidents of the country. “President, president. There seems to be a problem. Our funds have been cut off.” “Yeah, they’ve been cut off because you wouldn’t allow these people back that you probably pushed into our country because you didn’t want them because they were criminals and they were in jail in many cases. You got to take them back.”
Donald Trump: (01:02:13)
“Oh, president, this was just a minor misunderstanding. We would love to have MS 13 come back into our country.” And they took them back and we couldn’t get them out of here fast enough, I will tell you. That’s true. That’s true, Carrie. Carrie will do it. Carrie is going to stop him at the border. There’s nobody coming in. Arizona, that’ll be a safe place again. This guy, Kelly, he’s done nothing. He’s done nothing. Blake Masters is going to do a fantastic job, Carrie.
Donald Trump: (01:02:50)
Kelly’s got nothing going. He never did a thing. Never did a thing. We’ll also need a record increase in the number of new ICE officers and border patrol officers to resume the enforcement of our immigration laws and to deport the illegal aliens. Joe Biden is refusing to deport. They won’t even take out illegal aliens out of our country. In addition, we should pass much tougher penalties for repeat immigration violators of which there are many.
Donald Trump: (01:03:22)
If you’re a foreign national who repeatedly tramples upon the laws of our nation, you should be looking at spending a long time in jail. We can’t do it anymore. We can’t do it. We’re like the poor stupid people that take everybody including criminals and some of the worst murderers in the world. As we secure another key priority for the next Congress and the next president will be to drain the swamp once and for all. To remove rogue bureaucrats and root out the deep state Congress should pass groundbreaking reform, empowering the president to ensure that any federal employee who is corrupt, incompetent or unnecessary for the job can be told, “You’re fired.” You ever hear that. You’re fired? “You’re fired.” Our current appeals process to remove these bureaucrats people that can really be bad. They can even be thieves. You can catch them stealing large sums of money. You have to go through a three-stage appeals process, which takes on average five years per stage. 15 years, you’ll be gone. You’ll be out of office by that time. In other words, to fire someone who is doing a bad job, if the government wins will take more than a decade under the current system. Almost all politicians won’t start that process because they’ll be gone and they know it. You know, a lot of politicians in Washington DC.
Donald Trump: (01:05:31)
We did a lot of it, but nobody knew that deep state was that deep. We did a lot of it. As we take power out of Washington, we also need to take power back from the left wing lunatics who are indoctrinating our youth.
Donald Trump: (01:05:49)
We have to finally and completely smash the radical lefts corrupt education establishment. The current system is sick. It’s sick. We have the lowest scores almost in the world and we spend more per pupil than any other nation. School prayer is banned, but drag shows are allowed to permeate the whole place. It’s okay. You can’t teach the Bible, but you can teach children that America is evil and that men are able to get pregnant. Whatever it takes, conservatives must liberate America’s children from the captivity of these Marxist teachers unions. That’s what they are. Where do they come from?
Donald Trump: (01:06:36)
Yeah, where do they come from? We need to defend parents’ rights. Think of this. I gave a talk a few days ago and I was talking about defending parents’ rights. And I just said, “It’s parents’ rights.” They said, “Can you imagine we’re even talking… We are going to defend parents’ rights. Did you ever think 10 years ago, five years ago that we would be fighting for parents’ rights? What’s more basic than parents’ rights, especially parents’ rights over their children?” We’re trying to defend parents’ rights. It’s so crazy.
Donald Trump: (01:07:25)
Across the country, we need to implement strict prohibitions on teaching inappropriate, racial, sexual, and political material to America’s school children in any form whatsoever. And if federal bureaucrats are going to push this radicalism, we should abolish the Department of Education. We will keep men out of women’s sports. That’s another one. And by the way, we have a great person here. Where’s our beautiful, great swimmer, Gaines. Where’s Gaines? Come up here. Will you please come up with me? Come up, come on, come up. This is a great champion. She was beating everybody and then one day she looked over and said, “That’s the largest human being I’ve ever seen.” Come here. Come on up. She’s been so brave. Because a lot of people say you can’t talk about it. They told me, “Please don’t mention that, sir. It’s not politically correct.” And I did. About three weeks ago, the place went crazy. It was the largest applause I’ve ever heard. Come on up here. Look at this. Look at this.
Riley Gaines: (01:09:38)
Basically, all I want to say is that it takes a brain and common sense, and fifth grade biology-level understanding to realize that this is blatantly unfair. It’s completely obvious. So I spoke earlier today and I said a lot. So I’ll keep it short. I’m just going to say keep female sports female.
Donald Trump: (01:09:58)
Just to show you how ridiculous it is. Look at me. I’m much bigger and much stronger than her. There’s no way she could beat me in swimming. Do we all agree?
Donald Trump: (01:10:31)
Thank you. Now, I’d have a little trouble. It wouldn’t be pretty. I wouldn’t invite too many friends to that one, but how ridiculous is it really? How ridiculous is it? The weight lifters. They’re lifting numbers. They’re breaking the records by hundreds of pounds. It’s ridiculous. And no teacher should ever be allowed to teach transgender to our children without parental consent. At the same time, we need to get critical race theory and left wing gender ideology out of our military. I had it out. I had it out. The world is too dangerous for America’s armed forces to be politically correct. You look at what’s happening with China and Russia, but you look at those rockets going up one after another. We don’t want to be politically correct with our military. We got to be tough. Can you imagine George Patton?
Donald Trump: (01:11:40)
He had a very strong temper. He was a very violent man. Actually, great general. Violent guy. He’d walk in and he’d be screaming at people. They’d throw him out of the military today because he wasn’t nice. Now we have to get back to running things. I had it totally out of the military. I had it out of government through executive order and you couldn’t get the Democrats to go along with it, but it didn’t matter. I had it totally out. One of the first things they signed back in was that nonsense. And we can’t let that happen.
Donald Trump: (01:12:11)
We have to take back over. We have to take over government. We have to run it like it’s supposed to be run. We must also win the battle to restore free speech in America.
Donald Trump: (01:12:24)
Republicans across government have to be ruthless in going after the new censorship regime. It’s censorship. It’s worse than it’s ever been. I’ve never seen anything. It used to be even 10 years ago, because I was always very active with different things and I’d fight the media. I’d say something [inaudible 01:12:48]. You go back and forth. And you win, you lose. You like to win, but you win, you lose. Today, they don’t even talk about it. If you have anything to do with the election, they don’t want to talk about it. If you have anything to do with certain things they won’t even talk about it. They don’t want to debate it.
Donald Trump: (01:13:02)
January 6th never brings up the election, which is the reason all of those people were there. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to look at the corruption that took place in Arizona and all of the states. You saw in Wisconsin, I was in Wisconsin and it was an incredible group of people. But the nursing homes, traditionally, very few people vote in nursing homes. But in 2020, they had almost a hundred percent of the people voted. And you know how they found out? Because the children of elderly people in the nursing homes were so angry.
Donald Trump: (01:13:41)
“My father did not vote. He’s comatose. He’s been sick. He’s ready to die. He’ll be dead very soon. He didn’t vote.” Daughters and sons, they were very angry about it. That’s how it started. They have Justice Gabelman. He came out with this [inaudible 01:13:58] report about how crooked the election was.
Donald Trump: (01:14:04)
We should expose exactly what they’re doing, what they’re hiding, who they’re silencing and who is funding it all and who is coordinating it. Go out, sign up now, by the way, for Truth Social. It’s really great. It’s giving us a voice. It’s giving us our voice back. The list of urgent tasks for the next Congress and the next president is endless and we do not have to wait. We have to move quickly.
Donald Trump: (01:14:33)
We don’t have time to wait. Our country is being shot. It’s being destroyed. It’s something we have to do for the future. The future of our country is at stake. We don’t have time to wait years and years. We won’t have a country left. What I used to say about Venezuela is true. We have to save the economy, defeat the Biden, Pelosi, Schumer tax hike, which is happening right now tonight.
Donald Trump: (01:14:58)
Maybe it’s already approved. I do believe that Manchin and Sinema will pay a big price for it. But think of it, this is the only group. They want to do the biggest tax hike in the history. For green new deal stuff. And they’re just destroying us when everyone’s doing so poorly on top of the gasoline, on top of the bacon which is quadrupled. And stop the out of control inflation that is crushing American workers and families. It’s crushing. We haven’t seen anything like it. To bring down energy prices, we have to abolish the green new deal. It’s a fake. It’s a fake. It’s a fake. We had the cleanest air and the cleanest water in decades in my administration and yet we were producing more energy, more oil, more everything than we’ve ever done before. Instead of begging for oil from Iran and Venezuela or another distant foreign nations, we should be pumping it from Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Louisiana. And if you don’t mind, Texas. If you don’t mind.
Donald Trump: (01:16:13)
We should once again require able bodied, single adults to go back to work or train for a job in order to receive welfare and taxpayer funded benefits. We need the workers. We have to eliminate all remaining COVID mandates and lockdowns. And we have to rehire every patriot who is fired from the military with an apology and we have to give them their back pay.
Donald Trump: (01:16:47)
We have to restore America First. We have to go back to the America First foreign policy. We have to be America First. Right now we are truly America last. We are America last. Focus squarely on our national interest. And we have to keep the United States out of these ridiculous, endless foreign wars where they don’t even want us. To build on my historically successful trade policies, we need to increase the president’s tariff power and we need to make my China tariffs permanent.
Donald Trump: (01:17:25)
We took in billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars. No president has taken in 25 cents. Not 25 cents. China doesn’t like me too much. We need to hold on to our dignity and need to hold China accountable for the unleashing of the virus upon the world. $50 trillion of damage to the world. Not us, to the world. And we need to rapidly reduce our dependence on China and other foreign nations by bringing our supply chains, factories, and critical industries back home where they belong like it used to be. Back to the future. Back to the future.
Donald Trump: (01:18:13)
To be a strong nation, America must be a manufacturing nation. And we were doing that. We were doing that. Now they’re sending it all back to other nations to make for us and to make a tremendous amount of money. We have to protect our totally under siege Second Amendment. It is under siege. And restore the ancient and sacred right to self-defense. I’m sorry.
Donald Trump: (01:18:40)
One thing you know, they take away your guns. They’re not taking away the guns of the bad guy, are they? They’re not going to take away the guns of the bad guy. None of them are giving up their guns. We have to defend our cherished constitution and uphold our heritage as a society built and sustained by Judeo-Christian values. We have to restore one standard of justice in America, one standard of justice. So unfair what’s going on. The weaponization of law enforcement for political purposes must end. It must end immediately. There is massive prosecutorial misconduct going on right now all over our country. The likes of which has never been seen before. They’ve never seen anything like what’s going on right now. Look at all the people who are in prison or whose lives have been destroyed on January 6th, destroyed. A protest over a rigged and stolen election that nobody wants to look at, while others are allowed to burn down cities and violently and viciously kill people, and nothing happens to them. How about that?
Donald Trump: (01:19:58)
Prior to January 6th, I recommend it strongly. We mentioned it briefly before, but I have to say it again that the national guard or troops be brought in, but it was turned down by the DC mayor and Nancy Pelosi. We would’ve never had a problem from 10,000 to 20,000 troops. Is that a correct statement, Cash, and Rick and everybody? They were all there. Thank you. They were all there. Nobody wants to talk about it.
Donald Trump: (01:20:28)
They never bring it up. It’s not that they don’t. You know what else they don’t want to talk about? How about that phony story? I’m sitting in the back of the beast. I wasn’t sure if I should be honored, because I felt very strong. And I had these two big, strong Secret Service guys. I said one guy could lift 350 pounds, no problem. And I said, “Take me to the capital.” “No sir, can’t do it.” So I grabbed the steering wheel to commandeer the car.
Donald Trump: (01:21:04)
And he rebuffed me. She said he rebuffed. Interesting. He rebuffed me. Yeah like this. He rebuffed me. So my hands fell around another powerful guy. Strong as hell. I know these people. These are very strong people. It’s just not my deal. And I started to choke. [inaudible 01:21:31] So when the story came out, some people said, “I never knew you were that strong physically.” And then they said I started throwing food all over the White House.
Donald Trump: (01:21:46)
Now, I have too much respect for the White House. But that, somebody could sort of believe, you know that you could… But to think that I’m going to be jumping into the seat, grabbing a wheel, being rebuff, grabbing this big powerful guy, his neck is like this and grabbing me. I’m going to take him. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy. And guess what, the Secret Service put out on announcement, which they never do, put out an announcement that it never happened, which everyone knew anyway.
Donald Trump: (01:22:15)
But they won’t interview anybody from the Secret Service because they don’t want to hear that. And I still see the Times writing about it like it’s something that happened. They don’t want that. They haven’t called anybody from the Secret Service to put them on stand. It’s a disgrace what’s going on. It’s a one-sided witch hunt that continues and continues.
Donald Trump: (01:22:38)
As another example, the sting that they did involving Gretchen Whitmer was fake. Just like those who instigated January 6th, it was a fake deal. Fake. It was a fake deal. Gretchen Whitmer, was in less danger than the people sitting in this room right now, it seems to me. And you look to see what happened and trials are going on all over the place. I guess a lot of people [inaudible 01:23:11] are being exonerated, aren’t they? Huh? They’re being exonerated.
Donald Trump: (01:23:15)
Finally, everywhere we have the chance, we must pass critical election integrity reforms, including universal voter ID. They don’t want a voter ID. They don’t want voter ID, under no circumstances. We don’t want voter ID. There’s only one reason they don’t want voter ID because they want to cheat. They don’t want citizenship confirmation. We don’t care of your citizenship. We want everybody to come and vote.
Donald Trump: (01:23:45)
Think of it, those two things, no more fake drop boxes. You see the drop boxes in one case? 100% of the vote went to Joe Biden. 100%. And you saw 2,000 mules. I hope everybody saw it. I saw a…
Donald Trump: (01:24:05)
I looked at this movie, then I saw somebody being interviewed by Fox, unfortunately, somebody named Sandra Smith. And they talked about this whole scam. Don’t forget, the cameras have them and these are government cameras. Some of them were discarded by people illegally, but these are government cameras, the government. And they talked about it. Well, they saw it. They saw the stuffing, they saw everything. Looking up for the cameras the way they came in, they have it perfectly on tape. And she looks and she goes, “oh, that was debunked.” It wasn’t debunked. How did they debunk it, Mike? They didn’t debunk it. There was no debunking. It was debunked. So what’s debunked? They have it on camera.
Donald Trump: (01:24:54)
Well, the woman in Georgia that took the massive number of ballots from under the dress of the table, and now government’s apologizing to her. Oh, how could she have been so horribly treated? It’s very interesting. That one’s a very interesting one, because remember they said there was a water main break. A water main break, everybody out. They don’t talk about the real facts. Everybody out. Got to get out. They all run out. Then a couple of a short time later, a small group comes back in. They go right for the table. They don’t go back to the machine where they were, which would be more normal. They go right for the table, the dress, they lift that dress up. They grab that group of ballots, thousands of them, putting them in again and again. And then they said nothing happened.
Donald Trump: (01:25:48)
Bill Barr didn’t want to be impeached. He didn’t want to be impeached. How do you not get impeached? Nothing happened. I thought the election was fine. The rather respected Bill McSwain, the respected U.S. attorney from Pennsylvania, McSwain, called me, wanted my endorsement because he was running for governor. I said, “I wouldn’t endorse you for a good dog catcher because you didn’t” … And I didn’t like saying this, “because you didn’t do what you should have done, which is go into the election for it.” “Sir, I wasn’t allowed to.” “Why?” ” Bill Barr wouldn’t let me.” I said, “put it in writing.” He did, he wrote me a letter. I put the letter up, but they don’t want to print the letter. Very strong letter that Bill Barr would not let him look into corruption for it. In Philadelphia, one of the most dishonest election places in the country. In Detroit, the single most dishonest. They found nothing wrong.
Donald Trump: (01:26:54)
It’s a shame. But we want no private money pouring into local election offices anymore. Think of this Zuckerberg. He put in $417 million, Matt. 417 million. Matt knows because he was involved in Nevada. Matt wasn’t really, he was sort of on the edge. He could have gone either way. And then he got involved in looking at Nevada. He said, “this is the most corrupt thing I’ve ever seen.” But we had a Democrat judge who refused to even look at the case. The case was iron clad. He looked, this case is over. It’s a shame what’s happening to our country. A shame. Our goal should be same day voting with only paper ballots. That should be our goal. Only paper. France just said, France, which is pretty big country, just had 55 million people vote, all paper ballots, all same day voting. By 10 o’clock in the evening, the election was over. And the person that lost didn’t go around complaining, it’s onto the next one. I’d much rather do that. I’d much rather do that.
Donald Trump: (01:28:14)
But that would be the worst thing that could happen to our country, because we have to have honest elections or we have to have borders or we don’t have a country. And if we do all this, if we stop the crime, secure the border, save the economy, defend our culture and take back our democracy, then America first conservators will be rewarded with a governing majority that will transform American politics forever. We’re at such an important point. The radical left will be banished into political oblivion. We will save our freedom. We will save our children. And we will save our country. But the task will not be easy. Together, we are standing up against some of the most menacing forces, entrenched interests and vicious opponents our people and our country has ever seen. A friend of mine recently said that I was the most persecuted person in the history of our country.
Donald Trump: (01:29:29)
And then I thought about it, because I didn’t have time to think much because I’m always being persecuted, and I felt he may very well be right. What a terrible thing. We had, think of it, a Russia, Russia, Russia scam that was covered religiously by the fake news media. Even though they knew it was a fake, they knew it was fake, they knew earlier than anybody. It turned out to be a concocted fairy tale made up by crooked Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, a sleaze ball writer named Christopher Steele and a coordinated effort. This could only happen to me with of all places, you know who coordinate? Russia. They were the ones that were involved with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax on me. Then I had impeachment hoax number one, impeachment hoax number two, the Mueller investigation resulting in a verdict after two years of no collusion with Russia.
Donald Trump: (01:30:36)
During the very early part when I came down the escalator with our great first lady, who by the way is very popular, they love our first lady, great style and great heart, but when I came down the escalator, it started early on. Young people would come up, you might have heard this, I’ve told it a couple of times, not much, but young campaign were, “sir. It’s such an honor to meet you, sir.” “Oh, someday I want to be president.” Sir, can I ask you one question?” “Yes.” “Do you have anything to do with Russia?” I’d say, “that’s a strange question from this kid.” Then a month later, somebody else would come up, “sir, it’s an honor to meet you. Sir, do you have anything at all or any knowledge of anything that happened with you and Russia?” “No.” And I was so innocent. It was so crazy that I didn’t even take it seriously. But after about the fifth time this happened, “sir, do you have anything to do with Russia?” I said, “what the hell is going on with Russia?”
Donald Trump: (01:31:37)
And they made up a phony story. It was a concocted story. And it really started as a way to shift blame for the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats lost the election. But then it got carried away, and the press loved it and it kept going and going. But I tell the story with a very heavy heart, because I have a son who’s a very good guy, Don, very, very good guy. He’s a good person. Sometimes he comes across a little rough. But you know what? He’s really, he’s just a good person. And think of this, Adam shifty shift and these people, they made up this hoax. They knew it was a hoax. And I saw him at the microphones one day saying, “Donald Trump Jr., the son of the president of the United States, will soon be going to jail for what he did with Russia.” Think of this. He’s saying that my son, my beautiful son, my child is going to go to jail. And he knew it was a hoax. Wants to put my son, destroy my son. And he knew it was a hoax.
Donald Trump: (01:32:51)
And it continues to this day. These are evil people. These are sick people. Think of them. Kimberly. Who has been through anything like this? Certainly no politician and definitely no president. All of this while I was doing so much as president, including creating the most secure border in American history record tax and regulation cuts, $1.87 gasoline, no inflation, low interest rates, record growth in real wages, record growth in our economy, beating China, and Russian and everybody else, rebuilding our entire military. Rebuilt our entire military. Our military was falling to pieces. We have jet fighters that were 44 years old. You’ve heard the story, where the grandfather flew them, then the father, then the son. The historic Abraham Accords bringing peace to the Middle East. Jerusalem and Israel much, much more. And now we have the January 6th unselect committee of political hacks and folks like Schiff. Think of that though. Think about that. How would you like to be a father and watch this guy, not a stupid man? He’s a psycho, but he is not as stupid. And he does have an oddly shaped head. It’s shaped like a watermelon. No, he’s a psycho. And he acts so sanctimonious. “Ladies and gentlemen, I’m sorry to report Donald Jr. will be in jail for what he’s done.” And he knew it was a hoax. What they do to destroy lives. And they’re destroying the lives of many other people right now with that same thing and that same sickness and thinking. But it’s the very same people who perpetrated the lies that I was an agent of Russia. Me, I’m an agent. I’m the worst thing that ever happened to Putin. Look at what he’s doing now. He’s knocking the hell out of everyone because he has no respect. That would’ve never happened with me. Would’ve never happened.
Donald Trump: (01:35:05)
It was an amazing thing. I had to listen to this. With Russia, I put the biggest charges on every one of their people. But what did I do? I stopped Nord Stream 2. Nobody ever even heard the term Nord Stream. I found out. But I stopped them. And I stopped them, why did I stop them? Because I thought it was a terrible thing for our country. It was a terrible thing for Europe. I told that to Germany. They all smiled. Very famous now. Germany was smiling when I was at the United Nations saying this is a terrible thing. All you have to do is look at the last 200 years. It’s going to happen again. We could end up in World War III because we are being governed by incompetent people. Could happen. And this war will be worse than any war ever because we have weapons the likes of which nobody has ever seen before.
Donald Trump: (01:35:57)
But you say, where does it stop? Where does it end? It probably doesn’t stop, because despite great outside dangers, our biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our own country. Never forget everything this corrupt establishment is doing to me is all about preserving their power and control over the American people. They want to damage me in any form so that I can no longer represent the hardworking citizens of our country, so that I will no longer get a 99% approval rating from CPAC. I heard Matt protested. He said, “it can’t be eight.” It came out at 98. This is a story, I don’t know if it’s true, but Matt will tell you someday. He protested, he said, “that’s ridiculous. Can’t be.” So they went back and they checked all the facts, and it went from 98 to 99. Is that a true story? And that was McLaughlin. That’s a great, legit firm. That was McLaughlin.
Donald Trump: (01:37:04)
He said, “can’t be, that’s too high. Doesn’t look right. Well check it again.” It’s 99. But they don’t like that. The other side doesn’t like that much, man. And the fake news media is totally complicit in all of these things that are happening. If I renounced my beliefs, if I agreed to stay silent, if I stayed home or if I stayed in my basement, the persecution of Donald Trump would stop immediately. That’s what they want me to do, but I can’t do that. And I will not do that because I love our country and I love the people of our country so much. I’m not doing this for me because I had a very good and luxurious life. You know that, Carrie. I had a very luxurious life. What the hell did I do? I got a racist attorney general in New York that’s been after me for years. She campaigned on the fact, “I will get Donald Trump.” She doesn’t know anything about me. “I will get him.” Terrible people. These are terrible people.
Donald Trump: (01:38:22)
I built a great company. Now they’re finding out this was a great company. Great company. Actually better than they thought. Much better. But I do it for you and it’s my honor to do it. It’s my great honor to do it, because if I don’t, our nation is doomed to become another Venezuela or become another Soviet Union, which is where we’re headed. Or become a very large scale version of Cuba where all is lost and there is no hope. But no matter how big or powerful the corrupt radicals we are fighting against may be, no matter how menacing they appear, we must never forget that this nation does not belong to them. This nation belongs to you. This is your home. This is your heritage. This is your country that your American ancestors won with their own courage, defended with their own blood and built with their own hands
Donald Trump: (01:39:29)
From the jagged peaks of the Rocky Mountains, to the gleaming waters of the Great Lakes, from the majestic valleys of California, to the beautiful hill country of Texas, from the stark prairies of the Great Plains, to the banks of the Rio Grande, which is under seizure also, isn’t it? And from the magnificent skyscrapers of New York, and Chicago and LA, to the beauty right here of the story Alamo, we inherit the legacy of generations of American Patriots who poured everything they had into the nation that they loved. They scaled the summits. They forged the rivers. They crossed the sweltering deserts. Braved blistering winters. Conquered and unknown wilderness and settled the great frontier. They laid down the railroads. They built out the highways. And they turned tiny villages towering into great, magnificent buildings of iron and steel like nobody had ever seen before.
Donald Trump: (01:40:55)
They did it all to make America into the greatest and most exceptional nation in the history of the world. But now we are a nation in decline. We are a failing nation. We are a nation that is hurting very, very badly. We are a nation that has the highest inflation in over 40 years, and where the stock market just finished the worst first half of the year since 1872. Likewise, we are a nation that has the highest energy cost in its history. We are no longer energy independent or energy dominant as we were just two short years ago. We’re a nation that is begging Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and many others for oil. “Please, please, please help us, “Joe Biden says. And yet we have more liquid gold right under our feet than any other country in the world.
Donald Trump: (01:42:12)
We are a nation that is consumed by the radical left’s Green New Deal, yet everyone knows that the Green New Deal will lead to our destruction. We’re a nation that surrendered in Afghanistan, leaving behind dead soldiers, American citizens and $85 billion worth of the finest military equipment in the world. And we are a nation that allowed Russia to devastate a country, Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands of people. And it will only get worse. It would never have happened with me as your commander in chief. And for four long years, it didn’t. And China with Taiwan is next. Would also never have happened. We are a nation that has weaponized its law enforcement like never before against the opposing political party. We are a nation that no longer has a free press. No longer has a fair press. Fake news is all we get and they are the enemy of the people.
Donald Trump: (01:43:27)
We are a nation where free speech is no longer allowed, where crime is rampant like never before, where the economy has been collapsing at a rate that few have ever seen, where more people died of COVID in 2021 than died in 2020. We’re a nation that is allowing Iran to build a massive nuclear weapon, which they are incredibly being allowed to do right now and I had it stopped. And China, they used the trillions and trillions of dollars that has taken from us prior to our administration, and it’s happening again to build a military that will more than rival our own. And just two years ago we had Iran, China, Russia and North Korea in check, and they weren’t going to do a thing against us and everyone knows it. And perhaps most importantly, we are a nation that is no longer respected or listened to around the world. We are a nation that in many ways has become a joke. We are a nation that is hostile to liberty, freedom and faith. We are a nation that allows men to play sports on women’s teams and to dominate them.
Donald Trump: (01:44:53)
We are a nation whose airports are a disaster, whose flights never leave on time and whose passengers are stranded all over the country. We are in many ways, a third world nation. We are a nation whose economy is floundering, whose supply chain is broken, whose stores are not stocked, whose deliveries are not coming and whose educational system is ranked at the bottom of every single list. But we are not going to let this continue. Two years ago we had the greatest in our nation. We had something that was so incredible. We had the greatest people in our nation fighting like they’ve never fought before. They had spirit. They had hope. But we will soon have that greatness again. We will soon have that greatness. America’s comeback begins this November and it will continue onward with the unstoppable momentum that we’re going to develop on November 2024, because that’s going to be, that’s the big one.
Donald Trump: (01:46:14)
We are going to keep on working. We are going to keep on fighting. We are going to keep on winning. And we are going to get our country back. As long as we can not lose our spirit, our movement will never be defeated. This is the greatest movement, MAGA. This is the greatest movement in the history of our country. Greatest in the history of our country. Has never been anything like it. Probably you could say it’s the greatest or one of the greatest in the history of the world. And it’s interesting, because sometimes I’ll make a comment and I’ll be challenged so strongly by the fake news, but they never even challenged me on that. I’ve never been challenged. I look at them right now, a lot of viewers watching. They’ve never challenged me. It’s the greatest movement in the history of our country by far.
Donald Trump: (01:47:10)
And it will only get stronger with each passing day. And with the help of all of you here tonight and the millions of Patriots all across our land, we will make America powerful again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. God bless you all.
Democrats’ latest abortion legislation, while eschewing the words “woman” or “women,” states that its purpose is to “protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy.” Pictured: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., talks with a staffer Sunday during a press conference on Capitol Hill. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images)
Democrats’ latest abortion bill does not include the words “woman,” “women,” or “female.” Instead, the bill uses the word “person” to refer to those who bear and give birth to children.
The Senate is scheduled to vote Wednesday on legislation called the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing the bill back to the floor for another vote, despite its failure in February.
The new effort follows the leak last week of a draft opinion in the abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson, which suggests the Supreme Court is set to overturn its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion across the nation.
“Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing justices,” Schumer told reporters Sunday as he discussed a new vote on the bill. “Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing politicians. It’s a woman’s right. Plain and simple.”
Although Schumer insisted abortion is a “woman’s right,” the legislation states that its purpose is to “protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy.”
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy,” the bill explains, “to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.”
A 2021 version of the bill used the word “women” in the text 13 times. But it also clarified that the “terms ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services.”
“However,” the 2021 bill continued, “access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant.”
Melanie Israel, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said Tuesday that the legislation “doesn’t protect anyone’s health and contorts itself to, ironically, avoid mentioning the very term ‘women’ within the bill text.”
In an email to The Daily Signal, Heritage’s multimedia news organization, Israel said:
Allowing radical gender ideology to erase women isn’t new on the left. Seeing it on full display during consideration of a bill that would decimate health and safety protections for women and unborn children is yet another example on a long list of the left’s extremism when it comes to abortion.
The Biden administration has made a concerted effort to use the term “birthing person” when referring to those who bear children, rather than “woman” or “mother.”
Democrats say the Women’s Health Protection Actwould codify Roe v. Wade into law, but the bill actually would go further to remove all limits on abortion across all 50 states, even laws that have been in place for decades.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, called the act “Orwellian” during a teleconference with reporters Tuesday, adding that Democrats are “setting themselves up as the party of abortion absolutism.”
America already has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the word, but the Women’s Health Protection Act would go beyond nations such as China in allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason.
The Senate bill is expected to fail for lack of bipartisan support.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
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 >>
Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)
Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.
________________
______________________
September 25, 2021
President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.
Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 2021
Mr. Everette Hatcher III
Alexander, AR
Dear Mr. Hatcher,
Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter
Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.
As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.
Sincerely
Joe Biden
Mr. President, my wife was born in JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Adrian Rogers tells a story about another lady that was born in that same hospital: “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?”
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 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):
(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.
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.”
James D.Watson
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.”
Carl Sagan
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)
Pine Bluff, ArkansasMy 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!
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?”
This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.
_____________________________
I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks on a crucial subject that is very important today too.
A great talk by Francis Schaeffer:A Christian Manifesto by Dr. Francis A. SchaefferThis address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title._________
Infanticide and youth enthansia ———So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views.
The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession…
The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.
______________________________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband. Now I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith. I respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 16, 2011. First you will see my letter to him which was mailed around April 9th(although […]
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]
When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]
In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Speaking at the Seattle Public Library on Saturday, actor-writer Kirk Cameron encountered a small group of protesters who objected to his pro-faith, pro-family and pro-country messages during his children’s book event, with one individual hoisting a large sign that said, “You are growing to be a real pain — you know that.”
The sign’s message and lettering was a play on “Growing Pains,” the TV sitcom in which Cameron first came to fame as a young actor.
Cameron told Fox News Digital in a message on Sunday, “One nostalgic protester — protesting a book about humility? — lugged a huge sandwich board that said that I was ‘growing to be a real pain.’ Nicely played, sir!” added Cameron.
The protesters who showed up, however, were largely overwhelmed by the many supportive parents, children and families who came out to see him and hear him.
Said Cameron about his latest public library book-focused event, “In the city most famous for coffee and grunge music, we were awakened with a joyful song of gratitude from hundreds of parents and kids at the Seattle Public Library.”
On the left, a Seattle protester is shown on Saturday, May 27, 2023, holding up a sign referring to actor-writer Kirk Cameron — who has been speaking at numerous public libraries across the country and holding story hour programs for families and kids that focus on faith, family and country. (Brave Books/Kirk Cameron)
He added, “My new children’s book, ‘Pride Comes Before The Fall,’ was a huge hit and the kids instantly understood the importance of its main lesson: Always be humble and kind.”
He said he “was especially struck by the parents who said, ‘Thank you for coming to Seattle — where people forget there are good, God-loving and patriotic families.’”
He told Fox News Digital a few days ago in a phone interview, “With a nation that is so saturated with the idea that pride is a good thing, the Bible warns us that pride is the deadliest of the seven deadly sins. Before greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and lust – is pride.”
Kirk Cameron aims to teach children the importance of being humble and kind through his newest children’s book, out on June 1. (Kirk Cameron/Brave Books)
It’s “the mother vice that gives birth to all the other dangerous things on the list,” he said.
And so “I want to teach children the importance of being humble and kind” through this new book.
It is his second children’s book, after “As You Grow,” which was a bestseller.
Other books that address the other seven deadly sins are also being planned, he said.
At the Seattle event, Coach Kennedy told the assembled families that a game plan for life included, “Love God and love this country,” according to Brave Books.
“Humility is the road to blessing.”
Kennedy, a native of Washington, also “shared his humble story of faith,” Cameron said, “then reminded the kids to always do the right thing and consider others more important” than themselves.
Added Cameron, “Thank you, Seattle!”
Kirk Cameron is shown during a reading of his first children’s book, “As You Grow,” earlier this year in Scarsdale, New York. (Kerry J. Byrne/Fox News Digital)
Since late last year, Cameron has been traveling to public libraries all over the country to meet with families and deliver his patriotic and faith-filled messages as he reads from his books.
He’s been joined by special guests at many of the events
He has more events planned as part of this tour, especially as the new book comes out.
“Humility is the road to blessing,” he also said recently to Fox News Digital.
“With a nation that is perpetuating this idea that it’s good to be full of pride — especially this coming month, as we see signs that celebrate pride all over the place — we have to warn children that it’s humility that will lead to the good life, not pride,” he noted.
Stephanie Duke holds a book she claims is pornographic and available at the Saline County Library during a meeting of the Saline County Quorum Court. She spoke in favor of a resolution that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The county governing body adopted the resolution.
The Saline County Quorum Court on Monday recommended that the county’s libraries “relocate materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, due to their sexual content or imagery, to an area that is not accessible to children.”
A state law signed in March allows people to challenge library materials they consider “obscene” and makes librarians legally liable for disseminating such materials. The Saline County resolution says the two libraries, one in Benton and one in Bryant, should “proactively take steps” to ensure children cannot access certain content in light of the new law. Resolutions do not create policy but are meant to guide future policy decisions.
The 13-member, all-Republican quorum court passed the resolution with two votes against it after an hour and 20 minutes of public comment from Saline County residents. Fewer than 30 people spoke out of the 50 that signed up to speak, and several more people gathered on the lawn outside the county courthouse and watched the livestream of the meeting on their phones.
Supporters of the court’s resolution said content pertaining to racism, sex and the LGBTQ+ community is “indoctrination” that should not be accessible to anyone under 18 years of age. Opponents said that the content in question reflects the community and that trying to restrict access to it is censorship.
“Let the library board do its job,” said Bailey Morgan, a former Democratic candidate for the quorum court. “Let librarians do their jobs. Nobody’s handing out inappropriate content to your kids. I promise you, this is a non-issue.”
The quorum court would likely be responsible for the final say on whether to keep challenged materials on Saline County library shelves or “relocate” them under Act 372 of 2023, which will go into effect 90 days after the session officially ends in May.
Act 372 opens the door for school and public librarians to be prosecuted “for disseminating a writing, film, slide, drawing, or other visual reproduction that is claimed to be obscene.” Arkansas’ definition of obscenity is “that to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest,” with prurient meaning overtly sexual.
A committee of five to seven people selected by school principals or head librarians will be charged with reviewing the “appropriateness” of content challenged under the new law. The committee would vote on whether to remove the material after hearing the complainant’s case in a public meeting. A complainant may appeal the committee’s decision if the majority votes no; appeals at public libraries would go to the county judge or the county quorum court for a final decision.
Employees of public or school libraries that “knowingly” distribute obscene material or inform others of how to obtain it would risk conviction of a Class D felony, the law states. Knowingly possessing obscene material would risk conviction of a Class A misdemeanor.
Act 372 did not pass the House Judiciary Committee until it had been amended to say books would be relocated, not removed, if elected officials find them to be “obscene.”
Garland County librarians Katie Allen (second from left) and Tiffany Hough (second from right) watch the livestream of the Saline County Quorum Court meeting on April 17, 2023. Hough’s children, Maggie (left) and Molly (right), brought protest signs to the county courthouse lawn. The quorum court adopted a resolution encouraging Saline County libraries to relocate books that might be inappropriate for children, and the resolution drew more spectators than could fit in the meeting room. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
Representation vs. propaganda
Other states have seen similar conservative-led pushes for “inappropriate” content to be removed from libraries so children cannot access them. In late March, Missouri’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a budget that would cut funding from all libraries in the state, a response to pushback against a 2022 law that made it a Class A misdemeanor for librarians or teachers to provide “explicit sexual material” to a student.
A county library system in Texas nearly closed due to a lawsuit over its refusal to remove books, some of which are about systemic racism, but system administrators decided earlier this week to keep the libraries open.
Here in Arkansas, the Crawford County Quorum Court has heard public opposition to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ content in the county’s five library branches, and the Farmington School Board restricted two books to readers age 17 and older after a parent voiced concerns.
On Monday, Sarah Griffiths held up a sign that said “Censorship disguised as moral outrage is still censorship” on the Saline County Courthouse lawn. She lives in the county and is a children’s programmer at a library in Little Rock.
Griffiths said she has seen firsthand how much children appreciate seeing members of their own communities in the stories they are told.
“I’m old enough to remember when there weren’t people of color introduced in mainstream storytelling, and we have that now, and it’s a very good thing,” she said. “Everybody needs a hero that they can recognize, no matter what age you are.”
Retired high school librarian and English teacher Marcia Lanier said she did not want her grandchildren to “live in a bubble.” Her decades of education experience meant she knew all kinds of students, including some from other countries, some that were gay and some that had experienced abuse and violence.
“Many of these students came to me, especially when I was a librarian, and asked me to help them find a book about someone else who experienced similar situations,” Lanier said.
The quorum court’s resolution states that Saline County libraries “are visited by individuals of all ages, backgrounds and beliefs.” Relocating books would “alienate” some of these individuals, said Olivia McClure, who spoke against the measure.
“Many of the books that have been listed [by supporters of the resolution] … are considered political based on their nature and representation of a community that some people don’t agree with, and that is in fact censorship that you are promoting today,” McClure said.
Books representing a diverse range of communities should not be considered propaganda, as some supporters of the resolution said, because they are not “biased or misleading” or “used to promote a particular political cause or point of view,” McClure added.
She and Edith Baker both said several of the books that have been considered inappropriate for minors do not contain any sexual content and instead simply acknowledge the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
“I am a queer woman, and if I was old enough to experience homophobia, then children should be old enough to read about it,” Baker said.
Dr. Sam Taggart holds his Saline County Library card while speaking against a resolution proposed by Saline County Quorum Court members that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The court adopted the resolution. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Dr. Sam Taggart holds his Saline County Library card while speaking against a resolution proposed by Saline County Quorum Court members that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The court adopted the resolution. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
One book under conservative scrutiny is Bathe the Cat, a children’s book about a family doing chores. McClure pointed out that a rainbow flag in the illustration of the family’s refrigerator is the sole reason anyone has had a problem with the book.
Sam Taggart, a historian and retired physician, also spoke against the resolution and said people should only be allowed to make decisions about library content if they have library cards themselves. He said his family, teachers and librarians taught him the value of knowledge from a young age.
“These delightful people … taught me how to think, not what to think,” he said.
Child protection debate
Supporters of the resolution said it would increase parents’ ability to decide what their children read. Both sides agreed that parents have the right to know what their children are reading, but those against the resolution said it would infringe on parental rights instead of enhancing them.
“We can’t protect our children from every single dangerous idea,” said John Goff, a math teacher at Bryant Junior High School. “What can we do? We can be their parents.”
Goff added that the Bible has scenes of rape and other forms of violence in it that would likely come under fire if the same topics in other books were challenged.
Shannon Everett disputed this claim.
“I support this resolution that protects our children from being told their identity comes from anything but Jesus Christ,” he said.
Stephanie Duke said she is “not so proud” that her family donated the land where the library in Benton is located. She said she finds it difficult to go to bookstores with her grandchild, whom she said is a “voracious reader,” because so many books aimed at her grandchild’s age group are about “gayness, LGBT, transgender or anti-white” subject matter.
She held up a book she called “pornographic” — Sex: A Book for Teens: An Uncensored Guide to Your Body, Sex, and Safety by Nicol Hasler — that she said she found in the young adult section of the library.
Carl Hyel, who opposed the resolution, said he believed those in favor of it were sincere about wanting to protect children from harm.
“There are lots of experts that say knowing correct sexual education and correct anatomy terms is the best way to protect kids from abuse,” Hyel said.
However, Duke said she and other Saline County residents plan to challenge the Hasler book and others they consider “anti-Christian” and bring them before the quorum court under Act 372.
“It’s that serious to keep our rights as Christians,” Duke said, to which an audience member said “Amen.”
McClure said she had a different perspective as a Christian.
“I know that the first commandment from God is to love all [people], and when we understand who they are, we can actually do that,” she said.
Children are going to learn about the existence of LGBTQ+ people one way or another, said Grayson Hartz, a transgender teenager who works at a daycare. The children he supervises have accepted him and adjusted to his new name since he transitioned, he said.
“Most of the kids there completely understand that I went from being a girl to a boy,” Hartz said.
A crowd lines up to attend the Saline County Quorum Court meeting Monday evening at the Saline County Courthouse in Benton to discuss a resolution that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
A crowd lines up to attend the Saline County Quorum Court meeting Monday evening at the Saline County Courthouse in Benton to discuss a resolution that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
“Slippery slope”
Two of the four state legislators who sponsored Act 372 attended Monday’s quorum court meeting: Rep. Mary Bentley of Perryville, whose district includes part of Saline County, and Sen. Dan Sullivan of Jonesboro, which is more than two hours away from Saline County.
The public libraries in Craighead County, which includes Jonesboro, saw its funding cut in 2022 after protests over an LGBTQ+ book display and a transgender author’s visit to the library within the past couple of years.
Monday’s debate was the first step to Saline County’s libraries experiencing the same thing Craighead County’s libraries did, several opponents of the resolution said. Some, including Hyel, Fred McGraw and Dana Block, added that they did not believe any quorum court members intended to defund libraries now or in the future.
“I think you have good intentions, but my goodness, think about what you’re doing,” McGraw told the quorum court. “This is a slippery slope.”
Block is a mother of four and a children’s programmer in the Saline County library system. She said the library does not have “a secret adult section” where challenged books could be placed.
“We are not trying to indoctrinate your children,” Block said. “We are members of your community. We live here. Our children are being raised here. We go to church with you.”
Scott Gray disagreed and repeated comments he made in March when the House Judiciary Committee first heard Act 372. He said he did not believe taxpayers should fund the availability of sexual content from “leftist librarians,” a statement that made the audience laugh.
Gray was not the only one who claimed librarians have an agenda.
“It’s time, in my opinion, to not only look at the books that are in the libraries but to investigate the people that are placing them there,” Brian English said. “There are too many sexually explicit books available to our children for this to be an oversight or a mistake.”
Jon Newcomb speaks for a resolution before the Saline County Quorum Court that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. He holds a copy of “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” which he claims is pornographic. The court adopted the resolution, which strongly recommends the county library board take “proactive” steps to keep such books out of the view of children. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Jon Newcomb speaks for a resolution before the Saline County Quorum Court that would restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery”. He holds a copy of “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” which he claims is pornographic. The court adopted the resolution, which strongly recommends the county library board take “proactive” steps to keep such books out of the view of children. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Jon Newcomb claimed getting children interested in sex is “the first rule of a communist revolution.” He was about to read a passage from All Boys Aren’t Blue: A Memoir-Manifesto by George M. Johnson when Saline County Judge Matt Brumley told him not to read it.
County civil attorney Will Gruber said he agreed with Brumley that those attending or watching the meeting should not have to hear things that are “profane or obscene.” Newcomb and other supporters of the resolution said this proved their point.
“I’m all for the resolution, but in my opinion, it’s not enough,” Newcomb said. “I want this crap out.”
Quorum court discussion
Brumley said he supported the resolution and compared the availability of certain library content to the availability of cigarettes.
“Smoke ‘em up if you can buy them legally, but please don’t place them next to the Play-Doh at our local store,” he said.
Libraries have multiple sections of books aimed at minors, divided into different age groups, Saline County librarians Chelsea Simon and Jordan Sandlin both said. The children’s section is for children 7 and under, the juvenile section is for children between 8 and 12 years old, and the young adult section is for those 13 and up, Simon said.
Sandlin added that parents and guardians must sign library cards for children 12 and under and must be present with them in the library.
Justices of the Peace Carlton Billingsley of District 3 and Keith Keck of District 13 said the quorum court should have received input from local librarians in advance. They were the only members to vote against the resolution.
“If I’m going to a game, I want to make sure all the players are involved,” Keck said. “…We’ve got to do our job and do our due diligence.”
Three justices co-sponsored the resolution: Everette Hatcher of District 2, Jim Whitley of District 10 and Clint Chism of District 11.
Saline County District 10 Justice of the Peace Jim Whitley of Benton talks Monday about a resolution he sponsored that asks the county Library Board to restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The county Quorum Court adopted the resolution after a two-hour discussion. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Saline County District 10 Justice of the Peace Jim Whitley of Benton talks Monday about a resolution he sponsored that asks the county Library Board to restrict children’s access to books that contain “sexual content or imagery.” The county Quorum Court adopted the resolution after a two-hour discussion. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Chism said he was wary of the fact that “making rules leads to more rules,” and he acknowledged that what is appropriate for children at different ages is not up to him to decide, but he also said it mattered to him that anyone under 18 is legally considered a child.
He quoted a verse from the Gospel of Matthew: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
The court rejected an amendment Keck proposed to add a statement in the resolution that parents are responsible for their children’s use of libraries. Whitley said he would only support the amendment if it specified that parents must give permission for their children to check out certain content.
Gruber said this requirement “could go down the wrong road.” In 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas decided the Cedarville School District violated the First Amendment by requiring signed permission slips from parents allowing their children to read the Harry Potter books.
Whitley was one of nine justices to vote against the amendment.
“If we can’t require parental permission in order for them to access these materials, it makes this resolution moot,” he said.
Justice Pat Bisbee of District 1 said he did not think he had “ever struggled more” on an issue before the court than whether to support the resolution. He used to be the court’s appointed liaison to the county libraries, and he has kept acting in this role even though it is no longer an official position, he said.
“I am always in support of the library,” Bisbee said. “As both a father and as a believing Christian, I strongly feel that the library needs to continue to strive to use common sense when placing books that may contain questionable content.”
The Saline County Quorum Court earlier this weekpassed a resolution to remove inappropriate books from the county public library’s children’s section. Saline County Public Library director, Patty Hector shared with KATV why they do not plan on following the court’s recommendation.
According to Hector, it’s been a tearful few days since the resolution passed. She said the court’s recommendation does not parallel that of the recently passed ACT 372.
“There’s goes a step further, they’re just saying in any children’s book that any parent objects to; actually it’s any parent or person, so anybody in the community whether they have a child or even have a library card,” she said.
ACT 372 is a law concerning libraries and obscene materials; to create the offense of furnishing a harmful item to a minor; to amend the law concerning obscene materials loaned by a library.
Hector said the Saline County Republican Womenhave a list of books they want to be removed but haven’t shared what’s on that list.
“I don’t believe that there endgame has anything to do with books, especially not sexual content,” Hector said. “I think that’s the wedge that they used to get to libraries. I think they want to erase people of color and marginalize LGBTQ people.”
KATV reached out to the women’s group for an on-camera interview, but they weren’t available on Wednesday for comment. One of their members, Mary Lewis made a public comment during Monday’s quorum court meeting.
“We need to make sure they have a solid foundation of goodness not things that are not to be,” Lewis said. “Because you open the door to that and that’s just opening up every single kind of evil in this world.”
According to Hector, they updated their policy to that of ACT 372. She also said they do not have any obscene materials in the children’s area and that they have no plans on removing any books. Hector said her concern if books are removed from the children’s section is a lawsuit could be filed. Hector told KATV such an action could infringe on freedom of speech.
An official with Saline County said the library will not be punished if they do not follow the resolution.
Saline County justices of the peace approved a resolution “requesting” the Saline County Library to relocate certain material “due to their sexual content or imagery” on Monday evening.
The resolution, titled “A resolution requesting the Saline County Library ensure that materials contained within the children’s section of the library are subject matter and age appropriate,” is listed as “Exhibit ‘E’” at the 6:30 p.m. quorum court meeting. Its sponsors are Jim Whitley, a justice of the peace representing District 10, and Clint Chism, a justice of the peace who represents District 11.
The resolution states, “The library should enact policies to relocate materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, due to their sexual content or imagery, to an area that is not accessible to children.”
During discussion by the justices of the peace, Whitley said he wanted to dispel “rumors and innuendo” surrounding the resolution. He said that people have accused the resolution of being related to defunding the library system.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Whitley said, emphasizing that there was no intent to defund the library in the resolution.
He also rejected claims that the library wanted to remove sexual material from the library at large. Instead, the resolution is “very specific to the children’s section of the library.”
Whitley said children are “inundated daily with sexual language, imagery content that is really inappropriate for them.”
Literature is at the core of America’s democracy, the justice of the peace said, adding that he supports the library system.
However, he said he doesn’t want children to come to the library and “read things they’re too immature to process.”
Chism said that, in the past three days, “I’ve come under a lot of anger.” He read a prepared statement, in which he expressed surprise at their response.
Laws already “do that sort of thing,” he said, adding that movies are rated, and that games and music have warning labels.
“I don’t understand why it’s even being a debate,” Chism said. “Why would you want your children to look at something like that?”
Keith Keck, a justice of the peace representing District 13, proposed an amendment that states “parents or legal guardians are ultimately responsible for the children’s use of the library and for determining the appropriate library materials for their children to have access to.”
After discussion, the amendment was voted down 9-4.
Keck also recommended an amendment that would add an additional reference to Act 372, but withdrew the motion after discussion.
The effort from Whitley and Chism references Act 372, a state law signed March 30 that exposes library personnel to criminal charges for “knowingly” distributing material found to be obscene. Such efforts add to the wave of recent pressure placed on Arkansas libraries to remove children’s books that address sexual subjects.
Act 372 removes existing language from state law that shields library personnel as well as school employees from prosecution for disseminating obscene material.
A person who loans out from a public library material found to be obscene could be charged with a Class D felony under the law. The legislation also creates a new Class A misdemeanor offense for knowingly furnishing a “harmful item” to a minor.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR RESPONDS
In an interview before the quorum court meeting, Saline County Library Director Patty Hector, Saline County Library said she didn’t believe the county resolution was necessary.
The library board has already voted to update standards for Act 372, and their books are in “the appropriate age section,” according to Hector.
Act 372 establishes parameters for citizens to challenge the appropriateness of material available to the public that is held in school or public libraries. Successful challenges could result in material being relocated to an area not accessible to minors.
Decisions not to relocate the challenged material could be appealed to a school district’s board, in the case of a school library, or the governing body of a city or county, in the case of municipal or county libraries.
Anyone wanting to make an official challenge over a book should fill out a form and speak with Hector, the director said. If the complainant wants to continue with their challenge, their complaint will go to a committee of library staff, who will discuss the book. After the committee reports back to the complainant, that person can choose to take the challenge to the quorum court.
However, Hector said that, in the seven years she has been director of the system, “I haven’t had a book challenge in all that time.”
According to the director, library staff read professional reviews of books to determine whether the works are “right” for the library. Staff in the children’s section get together if they feel “the least bit concerned” about a book for kids, she said.
Hector said the library system also doesn’t buy books from groups pushing self-published works, or works that aren’t from a well-known publisher.
“We want things that are vetted by a publisher.”
Hector said she doesn’t think anything will need to be moved or relocated, because she believes her staff bought appropriate books.
OTHER EFFORTS
In addition to Act 372, Hector pointed to other similar efforts to regulate the availability of certain books in Crawford County, Siloam Springs, Craighead County.
A late September post on the website of the conservative education and research group Family Council lists libraries with children’s and young adult books containing what it calls “graphic sexual content.” Crawford County is listed among them, though neither the Saline County Library nor the Craighead County Jonesboro Library systems are mentioned.
The post states that people can take steps to remove material they find objectionable by using a form that asks libraries to remove offensive materials and call on their elected officials to pass laws that regulate “objectionable material” in libraries.
In February, Crawford County Library System Director Deidre Grzymala announced her resignation following criticisms of the inclusion and public display of children’s books with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning themes at the library.
The Craighead County Jonesboro Library lost half its revenue in November, after residents voted to decrease the library’s 2.0 mill tax to 1.0 mill.
The Siloam Springs Library has had at least 10 of its books challenged.
Similar efforts have also been taking place in other states.
Attempts to ban books “nearly doubled” in 2022, compared against the previous year, a March 22 news release from the American Library Association states. Nationwide, there were 1,269 “demands to censor library books and resources in 2022,” according to the association.
In Saline County, other new business on the quorum court’s Monday agenda included a “resolution recognizing public safety communicators as first responders,” a “resolution authorizing continuation of ICJR grant,” an “emergency ordinance designating planning services as professional services,” an “emergency ordinance establishing Saline County Litter Control Fund” and an “ordinance amending the 2023 Saline County budget ordinance 2022-36.”
Information for this article was contributed by Will Langhorne of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Doug Thompson of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
I have read articles for years from Dan Barker, but recently I just finished the book Barker wrote entitled LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which was prompted by Rick Warren’s book PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE which I also read several years ago.
Dan Barker is the Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, And co-host of Freethought Radio and co-founder of The Clergy Project.
On March 19, 2022, I got an email back from Dan Barker that said:
Thanks for the insights.
Have you read my book Life Driven Purpose? To say there is no purpose OF life is not to say there is no purpose IN life. Life is immensely meaningful when you stop looking for external purpose.
Ukraine … we’ll, we can no longer blame Russian aggression on “godless communism.” The Russian church, as far as I know, has not denounced the war.
db
—
In the next few weeks I will be discussing the book LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which I did enjoy reading. Here is an assertion that Barker makes that I want to discuss:
Think about sexuality. The bible says that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). It is assumed that Adam and Eve were heterosexual, because they were commanded to “replenish the earth.” Jesus made the same assumption: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (This is also sexist, from the male point of view.)
Sexiest? Sounds like you are modern day woke and you will end up turning on your buddy Richard Dawkins?
TRANSGENDERISM SEEN BELOW
——
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
During a recent interview with British journalist Piers Morgan, famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkinsdeclared, “there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it.”
He added that LGBTQ activists looking to discredit the reality of two biological sexes are pushing “utter nonsense.”
Dawkins further noted that those going after Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her commitment to the reality of two sexes are “bullies.”
Famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins strongly defends the reality of biological sex during an interview with Piers Morgan.(Screenshot/Piers Morgan Uncensored)
The famous critic of religion spoke with Morgan during a recent episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored.” The host prompted Hawkins by mentioning how “extraordinary” it is that LGBTQ activists and woke ideologues “want to what they call, de-gender and neutralize language.”
Piers was referring to a recent list of problematic words put out by the “EBB Language Project,” a collection of academics looking to police words that could potentially be found to be politically incorrect. The proposed list contained gendered words, such as “male, female, man, woman, mother, father,” U.K. outlet The Telegraph reported.
Dawkins had commented on the project last month, telling the paper, “The only possible response is contemptuous ridicule. I shall continue to use every one of the prohibited words. I am a professional user of the English language. It is my native language.”
During their interview, Morgan trashed such language policing and the idea there aren’t two sexes, He declared, “I mean, it’s incontrovertible. There’s no scientific doubt about this.” He also noted that a “small group of people have been quite successful actually in reshaping vast swathes of the way society talks and is allowed to talk.”
Dawkins immediately discredited the entire movement, saying, “It’s bullying.” Mentioning famous people who have been demonized for going against these activists, the renowned researcher added, “And we’ve seen the way J.K. Rowling has been bullied, Kathleen Stock has been bullied. They’ve stood up to it. But it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse and really talk errant nonsense.”
Richard Dawkins rose to fame for his books on religion and biology, but he has locked horns with woke orthodoxy over issues such as gender ideology. (Mark Renders/Getty Images)
Upon Morgan asking Dawkins how to combat the “nonsense,” Dawkins simply replied, “Science.”
He then said, “There are two sexes. You can talk about gender if you wish, and that’s subjective.” Morgan asked him about people who claim there are “a hundred genders,” though Dawkins claimed, “I’m not interested in that.”
He said bluntly, “As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it.”
Subsequently, the host mentioned how Dawkins has had his career and reputation dinged for simply asking questions about inconsistencies in the left’s dogmas on gender and identity.
Morgan said, “You had a humanist award stripped in 2021 because of your comments about of this kind of thing.” He cited the tweet that cost him, which stated, “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of the NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Morgan mentioned, “You had your award stripped because you were effectively doing what J.K. Rowling and others have said – you were just espousing a biological fact.”
Dawkins shot back, “I wasn’t even doing that. I was asking people to discuss. Discuss! That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities.”
Demonstrators protest in support of rights for transgender youth. (Fox News )
Morgan asked Dawkins why society has “lost that ability to actually have an open and frank debate.”
The scientist replied, “There are people for whom the word discuss doesn’t mean discuss, it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t… I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.”
Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital.
——-
I was referred this fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION by a tweet by Daniel Dennett.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979). Actually I just attended the retirement party held for my high school Bible teacher Mark Brink of EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL of Cordova, Tennessee on May 19th and he introduced me to the works of Francis Schaeffer and it was Schaeffer’s works that eventually help topple ROE v WADE!!! Ironically Mr Brink had a 49 year career that spanned 1973 to 2022 which was the same period that ROE v WADE survived!!!
Let me make a few points about this fine article below by the humanist Robyn E. Blumner.
Robyn is trying to use common sense on people that “GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind.” Romans 1 states:
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
Identitarian:A person or ideology that espouses that group identity is the most important thing about a person, and that justice and power must be viewed primarily on the basis of group identity rather than individual merit.(Source: Urban Dictionary)
“The Affirmations of Humanism”:We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.(Paul Kurtz,Free Inquiry, Spring 1987)
The humanist project is at a dangerous crossroads. I fear that our cohesion as fellow humanists is being torn apart by a strain of identitarianism that is making enemies of long-standing friends and opponents of natural allies.
Just at a time when it is essential for all of us to come together to work arm-in-arm against Christian Nationalism and the rise of religious privilege in law, humanism is facing a schism within its own movement. It is heartbreaking to watch and even more disheartening to know that the continued breach seems destined to grow.
The division has to do with a fundamental precept of humanism, that enriching human individuality and celebrating the individual is the basis upon which humanism is built. Humanism valorizes the individual—and with good reason; we are each the hero of our own story. Not only is one’s individual sovereignty more essential to the humanist project than one’s group affiliation, but fighting for individual freedom—which includes freedom of conscience, speech, and inquiry—is part of the writ-large agenda of humanism. It unleashes creativity and grants us the breathing space to be agents in our own lives.
Or at least that idea used to be at the core of humanism.
Today, there is a subpart of humanists, identitarians, who are suspicious of individuals and their freedoms. They do not want a free society if it means some people will use their freedom to express ideas with which they disagree. They see everything through a narrow affiliative lens of race, gender, ethnicity, or other demographic category and seek to shield groups that they see as marginalized by ostensible psychic harms inflicted by the speech of others.
This has given rise to a corrosive cultural environment awash in controversial speakers being shouted down on college campuses; even liberal professors and newspaper editors losing their jobs for tiny, one-off slights; the cancellation of great historical figures for being men of their time; and a range of outlandish claims of microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and other crimes against current orthodoxy.
It has pitted humanists who stand for foundational civil liberties principles such as free speech and equal protection under the law against others on the political Left who think individual freedoms should give way when they fail to serve the interests of select identity groups. The most important feature of the symbol of justice is not her sword or scales; it is her blindfold. Identitarians would pull it off so she could benefit certain groups over others.
Good people with humanist hearts have been pilloried if they don’t subscribe to every jot and tittle of the identitarian gospel. A prime example is the decision last year by the American Humanist Association (AHA) to retract its 1996 award to Richard Dawkins as Humanist of the Year. The man who has done more than anyone alive to advance evolutionary biology and the public’s understanding of that science, who has brought the light of atheism to millions of people, and whose vociferous opposition to Donald Trump and Brexit certainly must have burnished his liberal cred became radioactive because of one tweet on transgender issues that the AHA didn’t like.
Apparently decades of past good works are erased by 280 characters. Just poof. No wonder a New York Times poll1 recently found that 84 percent of adults say it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.
This is what identitarians have wrought. Rather than lifting up individuals and imbuing them with autonomy and all the extraordinary uniqueness that flows from it, identitarians would divide us all into racial, ethnic, and gender-based groups and make that group affiliation our defining characteristic. This has the distorting effect of obliterating personal agency, rewarding group victimhood, and incentivizing competition to be seen as the most oppressed.
In addition to being inherently divisive, this is self-reinforcing defeatism. It results in extreme examples, such as a draft plan in California to deemphasize calculus as a response to persistent racial gaps in math achievement.2 Suddenly a subject as racially neutral as math has become a flashpoint for identitarians set on ensuring equality of outcomes for certain groups rather than the far-more just standard of equality of opportunity. In this freighted environment, reducing the need for rigor and eliminating challenging standards becomes a feasible solution. The notion of individual merit or recognition that some students are better at math than others becomes racially tinged and suspect.
Not only does the truth suffer under this assault on common sense, but we start to live in a Harrison Bergeron world where one’s natural skills are necessarily sacrificed on the altar of equality or, in today’s parlance, equity.
Of course, the identitarians’ focus is not just on racial issues. Gender divisions also play out on center stage. I was at a secular conference recently when a humanist leader expressed the view that if you don’t have a uterus, you have no business speaking about abortion.
Really? Only people with female reproductive organs should be heard on one of the most consequential issues of the day? Such a call, itself, is a form of lamentable sexism. And it seems purposely to ignore the fact that plenty of people with a uterus are actively opposed to the right to choose, while plenty of people without a uterus are among our greatest allies for abortion rights. Why should those of us who care about reproductive freedom cut fully half of all humanity from our roster of potential vocal supporters and activists?
As has been said by others perplexed and disturbed by such a narrow-minded view, you don’t have to be poor to have a valid opinion on ways to alleviate poverty. You don’t have to be a police officer to have a valid opinion on policing. And, similarly, you don’t have to be a woman to have a valid opinion on abortion rights.
If the Affirmation quoted at the beginning of this article that rejects “divisive parochial loyalties” based on facile group affiliations isn’t a rejection of identitarianism, I don’t know what is. In his 1968 essay “Humanism and the Freedom of the Individual,” Kurtz stated bluntly:
Any humanism that does not cherish the individual, I am prepared to argue, is neither humanistic nor humanitarian. … Any humanism worthy of the name should be concerned with the preservation of the individual personality with all of its unique idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. We need a society in which the full and free development of every individual is the ruling principle. The existence of individual freedom thus is an essential condition for the social good and a necessary end of humanitarianism.
The individual is the most important unit in humanism. When our individuality is stripped away so we can be fitted into prescribed identity groups instead, something essential to the humanist project is lost. Those pushing for this conception of society are misconstruing humanism, diminishing human potential and self-actualization, and driving a wedge between good people everywhere.
Robyn E. Blumner is the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason &, Science. She was a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) for sixteen years.
FRANCIS SCHAEFFER LGBTQ+ SCHISM
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade. John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent Psalm 19 Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276). 2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.” 3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63). Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks? I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6 God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation
Helen Pashgian on Georges de La Tour | Artists on Art
FEATURED ARTIST IS DE LA TOUR
GEORGES DE LA TOUR (1593-1652)
The influence of Caravaggio is evident in De la Tour, whose use of light and shadows is unique among the painters of the Baroque era.
—
Francis Schaeffer
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 7 | The Age of Non-Reason
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 8 | The Age of Fragmentation
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human…
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 4 | The Basis for Human D…
1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaefer
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
In this post we are going to see that through the years humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic. In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]
_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
It’s difficult to have the albums created by the most important band in the history of music ranked from worst to best. After all, it’s unlikely that you’ll find any band or musical artist unwilling to share their admiration for the Fab Four. Their fingerprints are over everything created in popular music.
The Liverpool quartet recorded albums at a significant pace between 1963 and 1970. Many of these are classics that redefined what pop-rock could be. Most of these are tremendously experimental, adventurous affairs.
Still, which one’s the best? Is there any one album worth avoiding?
I’ve looked at the evidence and listened to the whole discography once more, and I think that I have an answer or two.
For simplicity’s sake, I have only included official UK releases. That means that the early US-released records aren’t on here. Neither are compilations such as “Anthology,” “Rarities,” or “Hey Jude.” “Yellow Submarine” is included as it included mostly unreleased material and was crafted as a studio album.
With this in mind, here’s a quick initiation into the musical world created by John, Paul, George, and Ringo, The Beatles albums ranked.
2. “The White Album” (1968)
This was The Beatles’ ninth album. It’s the record on which The Beatles’ confidence reached its peak.
They could tackle any style, present themselves in any way they wanted, and… often record songs separately from the other band members.
Most importantly, this zig-zagging through musical interests is happening while they are undoubtedly the biggest band on the planet. Many of the songs on the album were written during The Beatles’ visit to Rishikesh, India. Here, in 1968, they studied meditation and yoga at the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s ashram.
The album features a diverse mix of genres, including rock, pop, folk, country, blues, and experimental music. This diversity is reflected in the album’s songwriting, which features contributions from all four members.
Ringo Starr sings on the carefree “Don’t Pass Me By” and “Good Night.” He also gets a rare songwriting credit on the former.
George Harrison contributes the marvelous “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” the silly “Piggies,” and “Long, Long, Long.”
John Lennon is finding ways to balance his interest in politics, Oriental philosophy, and modern artist and future love interest, Yoko Ono.
On “Revolution 1,” the song’s lyrics express Lennon’s ambivalence about political revolution and call for people to find their own personal revolutions. On “Revolution 9” plays with Musique concrète. And, on “Julia,” he provides one of the most beautiful, earnest testimonies of love and loss.
Paul McCartney contributes a number of songs to The Beatles’ self-titled album. “Martha My Dear” and “I Will” are as tender as you’d expect. Meanwhile, however, “Helter Skelter” and “Honey Pie” are bizarre proto-hard-rockers.
There’s a lot to choose from here. So many songs came during these writing sessions that, for example, McCartney’s “Hey Jude,” ended up being released as a non-album single.
“Blackbird” is a gentle, acoustic guitar-based song inspired by the civil rights movement in the United States. “Mother Nature’s Son” is a folk-influenced song inspired by Donovan’s hippiesque fantasies.
Overall, McCartney matches Lennon every step of the way. In fact, many of the records’ songs could be interpreted as scenes of a friendly rivalry between pop-rock’s best writers of that period.
Could this album have been edited down to a single record? Sure! Still, the public would’ve lost a lot if that had happened.
‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ has become synonymous with John Lennon. The portion of New York’s Central Park where fans celebrate his memory is named for the 1967 song — a giant psychedelic leap forward for a band that had been holding girls’ hands and loving them eight days a week just a few years prior. The song gets its drippy, droney melody from then-futuristic Mellotron keyboard, and it features absurdest lyrics that at one point place the narrator in a “tree” he figures “must be high or low.” There’s no “or” there, buddy. You’re just high.
“Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream / It is not dying.” That’s how the Beatles’ ‘Tomorrow Never Knows,’ on 1966’s ‘Revolver,’ kicks off. It’s the “This is your captain speaking” moment, delivered by Capt. John of the Airship High. Yes, folks, you’re eight miles high, flying at an altitude unknown to your parents — your head is spinning right ’round like a record on your friend’s sofa, your eyes following the needle as it creates a strange, warm, crackling sound in the black groove on the circular disc that’s turning, turning, turning. This was a new sound to say the least, and all these years later, it still has the power to amaze.
Lennon always claimed ‘Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds’ has nothing to do with LSD (or Lysergic Acid Diethylamide), and that it was his son that came up with the idea for the song’s title. But come on — this ‘Sgt. Pepper’s’ classic is obviously about psychedelic drug use. No sober person could have written something this bizarre. It’d be like asking Salvador Dalí to paint a watercolor of a house and a yard with a lemon-yellow sun. Not gonna happen.
A full-page advertisement appeared in The Times newspaper on this day, signed by 64 of the most prominent members of British society, which called for the legalisation of marijuana. Among the signatories were The Beatles and Brian Epstein.
The advertisement was instigated as a response to the nine-month prison sentence for possession received on 1 June 1967 by John Hopkins, founder of International Times, the UFO Club and the 24 Hour Technicolour Dream. The following day an emergency meeting was held at the Indica Bookshop, during which Steve Abrams of drug-research organisation SOMA suggested bringing the issue into public debate by running a full-page advertisement.
Abrams agreed to organise the signatures, but the question of financing the advertisement proved temporarily problematic. None of The Beatles were present at the Indica, but the bookshop’s co-owner Barry Miles telephoned Paul McCartney, who agreed to finance the advertisement.
On 3 June Miles and Abrams visited McCartney’s house in Cavendish Avenue. McCartney listened to the plans, told Abrams that all The Beatles and Epstein would put their names to it, and told them how to contact the rest of the group for their signatures.
On 23 July, the day before publication, the ad was mentioned in The Sunday Times’ Atticus column, written by Philip Oates. Behind the scenes, however, The Times’ advertising manager, R Grant Davidson, nervously insisted on checking that all the people had indeed agreed for their names to be associated with the article.
Davidson also insisted on advance payment. Steve Abrams contacted Peter Brown at Brian Epstein’s office, and shortly afterwards received a personal cheque for £1,800 made out to The Times. At the time the amount was twice the average annual wage.
Although McCartney had wanted to keep the funding a secret, in fear of negative publicity, it soon proved impossible. The day after the advertisement appeared, the information appeared in the Evening Standard’s Londoner’s Diary.
Within a week of its appearance, the advertisement led to questions being asked in the House of Commons, and began a public debate which eventually led to liberalisation in the laws against cannabis use in Britain.
ADVERTISEMENT
This advertisement is sponsored by SOMA* The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice.
“All laws which can be violated without doing anyone any injury are laughed at. Nay, so far are they from doing anything to control the desires and passions of man that, on the contrary, they direct and incite men’s thoughts toward these very objects; for we always strive toward what is forbidden and desire the things we are not allowed to have. And men of leisure are never deficient in the ingenuity needed to enable them to outwit laws framed to regulate things which cannot be entirely forbidden. …He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it.”- Spinoza
The herb Cannabis sativa, known as ‘Marihuana’ or ‘Hashish’, is prohibited under the Dangerous Drugs Act (1965). The maximum penalty for smoking cannabis is ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of £1,000. Yet informed medical opinion supports the view that cannabis is the least harmful of pleasure-giving drugs, and is, in particular, far less harmful than alcohol. Cannabis is non-addictive, and prosecutions for disorderly behaviour under its influence are unknown.
The use of cannabis is increasing, and the rate of increase is accelerating. Cannabis smoking is widespread in the universities, and the custom has been taken up by writers, teachers, doctors, businessmen, musicians, scientists, and priests. Such persons do not fit the stereotype of the unemployed criminal dope fiend. Smoking the herb also forms a traditional part of the social and religious life of hundreds of thousands of immigrants to Britain.
A leading article in The Lancet (9 November, 1963) has suggested that it is “worth considering … giving cannabis the same status as alcohol by legalising its import and consumption … Besides the undoubted attraction of reducing, for once, the number of crimes that a member of our society can commit, and of allowing the wider spread of something that can give pleasure, a greater revenue would certainly come to the State from taxation than from fines. …Additional gains might be the reduction of inter-racial tension, as well as that between generations.”
The main justification for the prohibition of cannabis has been the contention that its use leads to heroin addiction. This contention does not seem to be supported by any documented evidence, and has been specifically refuted by several authoritative studies. It is almost certainly correct to state that the risk to cannabis smokers of becoming heroin addicts is far less than the risk to drinkers of becoming alcoholics.
Cannabis is usually taken by normal persons for the purpose of enhancing sensory experience. Heroin is taken almost exclusively by weak and disturbed individuals for the purpose of withdrawing from reality. By prohibiting cannabis Parliament has created a black market where heroin could occasionally be offered to persons who would not otherwise have had access to it. Potential addicts, having found cannabis to be a poor escape route, have doubtless been tempted to try heroin; and it is probable that their experience of the harmlessness and non-addictive quality of cannabis has led them to underestimate the dangers of heroin. It is the prohibition of cannabis, and not cannabis itself, which may contribute to heroin addiction.
The present system of controls has strongly discouraged the use of cannabis preparations in medicine. It is arguable that claims which were formerly made for the effectiveness of cannabis in psychiatric treatment might now bear re-examination in the light of modern views on drug therapy; and a case could also be made out for further investigation of the antibiotic properties of cannabidiolic acid, one of the constituents of the herb. The possibility of alleviating suffering through the medical use of cannabis preparations should not be dismissed because of prejudice concerning the social effects of ‘drugs’.
The Government ought to welcome and encourage research into all aspects of cannabis smoking, but according to the law as it stands no one is permitted to smoke cannabis under any circumstances, and exceptions cannot be made for scientific and medical research. It is a scandal that doctors who are entitled to prescribe heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and barbiturates risk being sent to prison for personally investigating a drug which is known to be less damaging than alcohol or even tobacco.
A recent leader in The Times called attention to the great danger of the “deliberate sensationalism” which underlies the present campaign against ‘drugs’ and cautioned that: “Past cases have shown what can happen when press, police and public all join in a manhunt at a moment of national anxiety”. In recent months the persecution of cannabis smokers has been intensified. Much larger fines and an increasing proportion of unreasonable prison sentences suggest that, the crime at issue is not so much drug abuse as heresy.
The prohibition of cannabis has brought the law into disrepute and has demoralized police officers faced with the necessity of enforcing an unjust law. Uncounted thousands of frightened persons have been arbitrarily classified as criminals and threatened with arrest, victimisation and loss of livelihood. Many of them have been exposed to public contempt in the courts, insulted by uninformed magistrates and sent to suffer in prison. They have been hunted down with Alsatian dogs or stopped on the street at random and improperly searched. The National Council for Civil Liberties has called attention to instances where drugs have apparently been ‘planted’ on suspected cannabis smokers. Chief Constables have appealed to the public to inform on their neighbours and children. Yet despite these gross impositions and the threat to civil liberties which they pose the police freely admit that they have been unable to prevent the spread of cannabis smoking.
Abuse of opiates, amphetamines and barbiturates has become a serious national problem, but very little can be done about it so long as the prohibition of cannabis remains in force. The police do not have the resources or the manpower to deal with both cannabis and the dangerous drugs at the same time. Furthermore prohibition provides a potential breeding ground for many forms of drug abuse and gangsterism. Similar legislation in America in the ‘twenties brought the sale of both alcohol and heroin under the control of an immensely powerful criminal conspiracy which still thrives today. We in Britain must not lose sight of the parallel.
MEDICAL OPINION
“There are no lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marihuana and no fatalities have ever been recorded. … The causal relationship between these two events (marihuana smoking and heroin addiction) has never been substantiated. In spite of the once heated interchanges among members of the medical profession and between the medical profession and law enforcement officers there seems to be a growing agreement within the medical community, at least, that marihuana does not directly cause criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, sexual excitement, or addiction.”
Dr. J. H. Jaffe, in The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, L. Goodman and A. Gillman, Eds., 3rd Ed. 1965
“Certain specific myths require objective confrontation since otherwise they recurrently confuse the issue, and incidentally divert the energy and attention of police and customs and immigration authorities in directions which have very little to do with the facts and much more to do with prejudiced beliefs. The relative innocence of marijuana by comparison with alcohol is one such fact, its social denial a comparable myth.”
Dr. David Stafford-Clark, Director of Psychological Medicine, Guy’s Hospital. The Times, 12 April 1967.
“Marijuana is not a drug of addiction and is, medically speaking, far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco … It is generally smoked in the company of others and its chief effect seems to be an enhanced appreciation of music and colour and together with a feeling of relaxation and peace. A mystical experience of being at one with the universe is common, which is why the drug has been highly valued in Eastern religions. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not lead to aggressive behaviour, nor is it aphrodisiac. There is no hangover, nor, so far as it is known, any deleterious physical effect.”
Dr. Anthony Storr, Sunday Times, 5 February 1967
“The available evidence shows that marijuana is not a drug of addiction and has no harmful effects … (the problem of marijuana) has been created by an ill-informed society rather than the drug itself.”
Guy’s Hospital Gazette, 17, 1965
“I think we can now say that marijuana does not lead to degeneration, does not affect the brain cells, is not habit-forming, and does not lead to heroin addiction.”
Dr James H. Fox, Director of the Bureau of Drug abuse Control, U.S. Food and Drug administration. Quoted Champaign, Illinois News-Gazette, 25 August 1966
“Cannabis is taken for euphoria, reduction of fatigue, and relief from tension, … (it) is a valuable pleasure-giving drug, probably much safer than alcohol.”
Dr. Joel Fort, Consultant on Drug Addiction to the World Health Organisation, Lecturer in School of Criminology, University of California. From Blum, Richard Ed., Utopiates 1965
“(Smoking cannabis) only occasionally is followed by heroin use, probably in those who would have become heroin addicts as readily without the marijuana.”
Dr L. Bender, Comprehens. Psychiat. 1963, 4, 181-94
The signatories to this petition suggest to the Home Secretary that he implement a five point programme of cannabis reform:
1 THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE RESEARCH INTO ALL ASPECTS OF CANNABIS USE, INCLUDING ITS MEDICAL APPLICATIONS.
2 ALLOWING THE SMOKING OF CANNABIS ON PRIVATE PREMISES SHOULD NO LONGER CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE.
3 CANNABIS SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS LIST AND CONTROLLED, RATHER THAN PROHIBITED, BY A NEW AD HOC INSTRUMENT.
4 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS SHOULD EITHER BE LEGALLY PERMITTED OR AT MOST BE CONSIDERED A MISDEMEANOUR, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ukp10 FOR A FIRST OFFENCE AND NOT MORE THAN ukp25 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENCE.
5 ALL PERSONS NOW IMPRISONED FOR POSSESSION OF CANNABIS OR FOR ALLOWING CANNABIS TO BE SMOKED ON PRIVATE PREMISES SHOULD HAVE THEIR SENTENCES COMMUTED.
Jonathan Aitken
Tariq Ali
David Bailey
Humphrey Berkeley
Anthony Blond
Derek Boshier
Sidney Briskin
Peter Brook
Dr. David Cooper
Dr. Francis Crick, F.R.S.
David Dimbleby
Tom Driberg, M.P.
Dr. Ian Dunbar
Brian Epstein
Dr. Aaron Esterson
Peter Fryer
John Furnival
Tony Garnett
Clive Goodwin
Graham Greene
Richard Hamilton
George Harrison, M.B.E.
Michael Hastings
Dr. J.M. Heaton
David Hockney
Jeremy Hornsby
Dr. S. Hutt
Francis Huxley
Dr. Brian Inglis
The Revd. Dr. Victor E.S. Kenna, O.B.E.
George Kiloh
Herbert Kretzmer
Dr. R.D. Laing
Dr. Calvin Mark Lee
John Lennon, M.B.E.
Dr. D.M. Lewis
Paul McCartney, M.B.E.
David McEwen
Alasdair MacIntyre
Dr. O.D. Macrae-Gibson
Tom Mashler
Michael Abul Malik
George Melly
Dr. Jonathan Miller
Adrian Mitchell
Dr. Ann Mully
P.H. Nowell-Smith
Dr. Christopher Pallis
John Piper
Patrick Procktor
John Pudney
Alastair Reid
L. Jeffrey Selznick
Nathan Silver
Tony Smythe
Michael Schofield
Dr. David Stafford-Clark
Richard Starkey, M.B.E.
Dr. Anthony Storr
Kenneth Tynan
Dr. W. Grey Walter
Brian Walden, M.P.
Michael White
Pat Williams
DISCLAIMER – Signatures should in no way be taken to imply affiliation to SOMA or support of its aims or objectives.
*SOMA is applying for recognition as a company limited by guarantee with Charitable Trusts. It is being formed to examine without prejudice the scientific, medical, legal, moral, social, and philosophical aspects of heightened mental awareness, with special reference to the effects of pleasure-giving drugs. SOMA will sponsor research and discussion on the mechanisms, potentialities and dangers of heightened mental awareness and will publish its findings. Contributions can now be accepted. Cheques and postal orders should be made payable to SOMA, and sent to Michael Henshaw, Accountant, 20, Fitzroy Square, W.1.
Union bosses used the pandemic as an excuse to extort money from taxpayerswhile also fighting to keep schools closed.
Moreover, because of remote education, parents got to see what their children were being taught (or were not taught) and often were not happy.
So rather than throw more money at a failing monopoly, they decided to opt for real reform. Fortunately, politicians in some states have decided to do the right thing (sometimes after a bit of electoral encouragement).
Now we can add another state to our list. Oklahoma’s governor has just signed into law a planthat provides tax credits of between $5,000-$7,500 that parents can use to select the best educational option for their kids. Here are some details from Fox News.
Oklahoma became the 7th state to enact universal school choice on Thursday. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed private and homeschool tax credits that would make school choice universally available to all families. “School choice shouldn’t be just for the rich or those who can afford it,” Stitt said.Now it’s available for every single family in the state of Oklahoma.” …Relations between teachers unions and parents have soured in recent years, particularly in response to academic slowdowns across the U.S. in the wake of COVID-19-related school closures. Widespread calls for school choice and parental rights have emerged after states implemented lockdown measures during the coronavirus pandemic. School choice became a salient issue after the COVID-19-induced lockdowns sparked a conversation on the scope of the government’s authority and the type of content that should be taught to children from public school curricula.
P.S. I can’t wait to see the 2023 version of this report.
P.P.S. For my left-leaning friends, there are very successful school choice systems in Canada, Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.
P.P.P.S. For my right-leaning friends, getting rid of the Department of Education would be a good idea, but the battle for school choice is largely won and lost on the state and local level.
Assuming courts are doing their job, it doesn’t matterif 90 percent of voters support restrictions on free speech.
Assuming courts are doing their job, it doesn’t matter if 90 percent of voters support gun confiscation.
Assuming courts are doing their job, it doesn’t matter if 90 percent of voters support warrantless searches.
That being said, a constitutional republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through elections.
In some cases, that will lead to decisions I don’t like. For instance, the (tragic) 16th Amendment gives the federal government the authority to impose an income tax and voters repeatedly have elected politicians who have opted to exercise that authority.
Needless to say, I will continue my efforts to educate voters and lawmakers in hopes that eventually there will be majorities that choose a different approach. That’s how things should work in a properly functioning democracy.
But not everyone agrees.
A report in the New York Times, authored by Elizabeth Harris and Alexandra Alter, discusses the controversy over which books should be in the libraries of government schools.
The Keller Independent School District, just outside of Dallas, passed a new rule in November: It banned books from its libraries that include the concept of gender fluidity. …recently, the issue has been supercharged by a rapidly growing and increasingly influential constellation of conservative groups.The organizations frequently describe themselves as defending parental rights. …“This is not about banning books, it’s about protecting the innocence of our children,” said Keith Flaugh, one of the founders of Florida Citizens Alliance, a conservative group focused on education… The restrictions, said Emerson Sykes, a First Amendment litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union, infringe on students’ “right to access a broad range of material without political censorship.” …In Florida, parents who oppose book banning formed the Freedom to Read Project.
As indicated by the excerpt, some people are very sloppy with language.
If a school decides not to buy a certain book for its library, that is not a “book ban.” Censorship only exists when the government uses coercion to prevent people from buying books with their own money.
As I wrote earlier this year, “The fight is not over which books to ban. It’s about which books to buy.”
And this brings us back to the issue of democracy.
School libraries obviously don’t have the space or funds to stock every book ever published, so somebody has to make choices. And voters have the ultimate power to make those choices since they elect school boards.
I’ll close by noting that democracy does not please everyone. Left-leaning parents in Alabama probably don’t always like the decisions of their school boards,just like right-leaning parents in Vermont presumably don’t always like the decisions of their school boards.
And the same thing happens with other contentious issues, such as teaching critical race theory.
Which is why school choice is the best outcome. Then, regardless of ideology, parents can choose schools that have the curriculum (and books) that they think will be best for their children.
P.S. If you want to peruse a genuine example of censorship, click here.
In a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Professors David N. Figlio, Cassandra M.D. Hart & Krzysztof Karbownikfound that school choice led to benefits even for kids who remained stuck in government schools.
They enjoyed better academic outcomes, which is somewhat surprising, but even I was pleasantly shocked to see improved behavioral outcomes as well.
School choice programs have been growing in the United States and worldwide over the past two decades, and thus there is considerable interest in how these policies affect students remaining in public schools. …the evidence on the effects of these programs as they scale up is virtually non-existent. Here, we investigate this question using data from the state of Florida where, over the course of our sample period, the voucher program participation increased nearly seven-fold.We find consistent evidence that as the program grows in size, students in public schools that faced higher competitive pressure levels see greater gains from the program expansion than do those in locations with less competitive pressure. Importantly, we find that these positive externalities extend to behavioral outcomes— absenteeism and suspensions—that have not been well-explored in prior literature on school choice from either voucher or charter programs. Our preferred competition measure, the Competitive Pressure Index, produces estimates implying that a 10 percent increase in the number of students participating in the voucher program increases test scores by 0.3 to 0.7 percent of a standard deviation and reduces behavioral problems by 0.6 to 0.9 percent. …Finally, we find that public school students who are most positively affected come from comparatively lower socioeconomic background, which is the set of students that schools should be most concerned about losing under the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program.
It’s good news that competition from the private sector produces better results in government schools.
But it’s great news that those from disadvantaged backgrounds disproportionately benefit when there is more school choice.
Wonkier readers will enjoy Figure A2, which shows the benefits to regular kids on the right and disadvantaged kids on the left.
Since the study looked at results in Florida, I’ll close by observing that Florida is ranked #1 for education freedom and ranked #3 for school choice.
P.S. Here’s a video explaining the benefits of school choice.
P.P.S. There’s international evidence from Sweden, Chile, Canada, and the Netherlands, all of which shows superior results when competition replaces government education monopolies.
———-
Milton Friedman chose the emphasis on school choice and school vouchers as his greatest legacy and hopefully the Supreme Court will help that dream see a chance!
Monopoly government school systems cost a lot of moneyand do a bad job.The interests of the education bureaucracy rank higherthan the educational needs of kids. Poor families are especially disadvantaged.
But 2022 may be a good year as well. That’s because the Supreme Court is considering whether to strike down state laws that restrict choice by discriminating against religious schools.
Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and Walter Womack of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference make the case for a level playing field in a column for the New York Times.
In 2002, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows school choice programs to include schools that provide religious instruction, so long as the voucher program also offers secular options. The question now before the court is whether a state may nevertheless exclude schools that provide religious instruction. The case, Carson v. Makin, …concerns Maine’s tuition assistance program. In that large and sparsely populated state, over half of the school districts have no public high schools. If a student lives in such a district, and it does not contract with another high school to educate its students, then the district must pay tuition for the student to attend the school of her or his parents’ choice. …But one type of school is off limits: a school that provides religious instruction. That may seem unconstitutional, and we argue that it is. Only last year, the Supreme Court, citing the free exercise clause of the Constitution, held that states cannot bar students in a school choice program from selecting religious schools when it allows them to choose other private schools. …The outcome will be enormously consequential for families in public schools that are failing them and will go a long way toward determining whether the most disadvantaged families can exercise the same control over the education of their children as wealthier citizens.
The Wall Street Journaleditorialized on this issue earlier this week.
Maine has one of the country’s oldest educational choice systems, a tuition program for students who live in areas that don’t run schools of their own. Instead these families get to pick a school, and public funds go toward enrollment. Religious schools are excluded, however, and on Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear from parents who have closely read the First Amendment.…Maine argues it isn’t denying funds based on the religious “status” of any school… The state claims, rather, that it is merely refusing to allocate money for a “religious use,” specifically, “an education designed to proselytize and inculcate children with a particular faith.” In practice, this distinction between “status” and “use” falls apart. Think about it: Maine is happy to fund tuition at an evangelical school, as long as nothing evangelical is taught. Hmmm. …A state can’t subsidize tuition only for private schools with government-approved values, and trying to define the product as “secular education” gives away the game. …America’s Founders knew what they were doing when they wrote the First Amendment to protect religious “free exercise.”
What does the other side say?
Rachel Laser, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, doesn’t want religious schools to be treated equally under school choice programs.
…two sets of parents in Maine claim that the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom actually requires the state to fund religious education at private schools with taxpayer dollars — as a substitute for public education. This interpretation flips the meaning of religious freedom on its head and threatens both true religious freedom and public education.…The problem here is even bigger than public funds paying for praying, as wrong as that is. Unlike public schools, private religious schools often do not honor civil rights protections, especially for LGBTQ people, women, students with disabilities, religious minorities and the nonreligious. …If the court were to agree with the parents, it would also be rejecting the will of three-quarters of the states, which long ago enacted clauses in their state constitutions and passed statutes specifically prohibiting public funding of religious education. …It is up to parents and religious communities to educate their children in their faith. Publicly funded schools should never serve that purpose.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The fact that many state constitutions include so-called Blaine amendments actually undermines her argument since those provisions were motivated by a desire to discriminate against parochial schools that provided education to Catholic immigrants.
And it’s definitely not clear why school choice shouldn’t include religious schools that follow religious teachings, unless she also wants to argue that student grants and loans shouldn’t go to students at Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Liberty, and other religiously affiliated colleges.
The good news is that Ms. Laser’s arguments don’t seem to be winning. Based on this report from yesterday’s Washington Post, authored by Robert Barnes, there are reasons to believe the Justices will make the right decision.
Conservatives on the Supreme Court seemed…critical of a Maine tuition program that does not allow public funds to go to schools that promote religious instruction. The case involves an unusual program in a small state that affects only a few thousand students. But it could have greater implications… The oral argument went on for nearly two hours and featured an array of hypotheticals. …But the session ended as most suspected it would, with the three liberal justices expressing support for Maine and the six conservatives skeptical that it protected religious parents from unconstitutional discrimination.
I can’t resist sharing this additional excerpt about President Biden deciding to side with teacher unions instead of students.
The Justice Department switched its position in the case after President Biden was inaugurated and now supports Maine.
Instead, let’s close with some uplifting thoughts about what might happen if we get a good decision from the Supreme Court when decisions are announced next year.
Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I think we’re getting close to a tipping point. As more and more states and communities shift to choice, we will have more and more evidence that it’s a win-win for both families and taxpayers.
Which will lead to more choice programs, which will produce more helpful data.
Libertarians and others are often torn about school choice. They may wish to see the government schooling monopoly weakened, but they may resist supporting choice mechanisms, like vouchers and education savings accounts, because they don’t go far enough. Indeed, most current choice programs continue to rely on taxpayer funding of education and don’t address the underlying compulsory nature of elementary and secondary schooling.
Skeptics may also have legitimate fears that taxpayer-funded education choice programs will lead to over-regulation of previously independent and parochial schooling options, making all schooling mirror compulsory mass schooling, with no substantive variation.
Friedman Challenged Compulsory Schooling Laws
Milton Friedman had these same concerns. The Nobel prize-winning economist is widely considered to be the one to popularize the idea of vouchers and school choice beginning with his 1955 paper, “The Role of Government in Education.” His vision continues to be realized through the important work of EdChoice, formerly the Friedman Foundation for Education Choice, that Friedman and his economist wife, Rose, founded in 1996.
July 31 is Milton Friedman’s birthday. He died in 2006 at the age of 94, but his ideas continue to have an impact, particularly in education policy.
Friedman saw vouchers and other choice programs as half-measures. He recognized the larger problems of taxpayer funding and compulsion, but saw vouchers as an important starting point in allowing parents to regain control of their children’s education. In their popular book, Free To Choose, first published in 1980, the Friedmans wrote:
We regard the voucher plan as a partial solution because it affects neither the financing of schooling nor the compulsory attendance laws. We favor going much farther. (p.161)
They continued:
The compulsory attendance laws are the justification for government control over the standards of private schools. But it is far from clear that there is any justification for the compulsory attendance laws themselves. (p. 162)
The Friedmans admitted that their “own views on this have changed over time,” as they realized that “compulsory attendance at schools is not necessary to achieve that minimum standard of literacy and knowledge,” and that “schooling was well-nigh universal in the United States before either compulsory attendance or government financing of schooling existed. Like most laws, compulsory attendance laws have costs as well as benefits. We no longer believe the benefits justify the costs.” (pp. 162-3)
Still, they felt that vouchers would be the essential starting point toward chipping away at monopoly mass schooling by putting parents back in charge. School choice, in other words, would be a necessary but not sufficient policy approach toward addressing the underlying issue of government control of education.
Vouchers as a First Step
In their book, the Friedmans presented the potential outcomes of their proposed voucher plan, which would give parents access to some or all of the average per-pupil expenditures of a child enrolled in public school. They believed that vouchers would help create a more competitive education market, encouraging education entrepreneurship. They felt that parents would be more empowered with greater control over their children’s education and have a stronger desire to contribute some of their own money toward education. They asserted that in many places “the public school has fostered residential stratification, by tying the kind and cost of schooling to residential location” and suggested that voucher programs would lead to increased integration and heterogeneity. (pp. 166-7)
To the critics who said, and still say, that school choice programs would destroy the public schools, the Friedmans replied that these critics fail to
explain why, if the public school system is doing such a splendid job, it needs to fear competition from nongovernmental, competitive schools or, if it isn’t, why anyone should object to its “destruction.” (p. 170)
What I appreciate most about the Friedmans discussion of vouchers and the promise of school choice is their unrelenting support of parents. They believed that parents, not government bureaucrats and intellectuals, know what is best for their children’s education and well-being and are fully capable of choosing wisely for their children—when they have the opportunity to do so.
They wrote:
Parents generally have both greater interest in their children’s schooling and more intimate knowledge of their capacities and needs than anyone else. Social reformers, and educational reformers in particular, often self-righteously take for granted that parents, especially those who are poor and have little education themselves, have little interest in their children’s education and no competence to choose for them. That is a gratuitous insult. Such parents have frequently had limited opportunity to choose. However, U.S. history has demonstrated that, given the opportunity, they have often been willing to sacrifice a great deal, and have done so wisely, for their children’s welfare. (p. 160).
Today, school voucher programs exist in 15 states plus the District of Columbia. These programs have consistently shown that when parents are given the choice to opt-out of an assigned district school, many will take advantage of the opportunity. In Washington, D.C., low-income parents who win a voucher lottery send their children to private schools.
The most recent three-year federal evaluationof voucher program participants found that while student academic achievement was comparable to achievement for non-voucher students remaining in public schools, there were statistically significant improvements in other important areas. For instance, voucher participants had lower rates of chronic absenteeism than the control groups, as well as higher student satisfaction scores. There were also tremendous cost-savings.
In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program has served over 28,000 low-income students attending 129 participating private schools.
According to Corey DeAngelis, Director of School Choice at the Reason Foundation and a prolific researcher on the topic, the recent analysis of the D.C. voucher program “reveals that private schools produce the same academic outcomes for only a third of the cost of the public schools. In other words, school choice is a great investment.”
In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program was created in 1990 and is the nation’s oldest voucher program. It currently serves over 28,000 low-income students attending 129 participating private schools. Like the D.C. voucher program, data on test scores of Milwaukee voucher students show similar results to public school students, but non-academic results are promising.
Increased Access and Decreased Crime
Recent research found voucher recipients had lower crime rates and lower incidences of unplanned pregnancies in young adulthood. On his birthday, let’s celebrate Milton Friedman’s vision of enabling parents, not government, to be in control of a child’s education.
According to Howard Fuller, an education professor at Marquette University, founder of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, and one of the developers of the Milwaukee voucher program, the key is parent empowerment—particularly for low-income minority families.
In an interview with NPR, Fuller said: “What I’m saying to you is that there are thousands of black children whose lives are much better today because of the Milwaukee parental choice program,” he says. “They were able to access better schools than they would have without a voucher.”
Putting parents back in charge of their child’s education through school choice measures was Milton Friedman’s goal. It was not his ultimate goal, as it would not fully address the funding and compulsion components of government schooling; but it was, and remains, an important first step. As the Friedmans wrote in Free To Choose:
The strong American tradition of voluntary action has provided many excellent examples that demonstrate what can be done when parents have greater choice. (p. 159).
On his birthday, let’s celebrate Milton Friedman’s vision of enabling parents, not government, to be in control of a child’s education.
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)
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)
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)
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)
_________________________ 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)
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)
“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 […]
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 […]
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)
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)
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)
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 […]
LGBTQ+ groups, accustomed to getting their way, are upset that the Walton Arts Center in Fayetteville, Arkansas, has pulled the plug on drag queen shows for children there. Pictured: The pro-family pushback is not limited to Arkansas. Opponents of drag queen story hours for kids gather March 11 outside of a bookshop in Royal Oak, Michigan, that was planning to host such events. (Photo: Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images)
O’Sullivan’s First Law—named after former National Review editor John O’Sullivan, a one-time speechwriter for then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—states that any institution that’s not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time.
The Walton Family Foundation has proved to be a prime example of that rule. For the past decade or more, second- and third-generation heirs of the Walmart fortune have funneled millions of dollarsinto LGBTQ+ initiatives in their home state of Arkansas.
But the recent decision of a Walton-funded institution suggests the foundation might be pumping the brakes on its slide into woke extremism.
The Walton Arts Center in Fayetteville, Arkansas, named after the Walton family for its donations, announced this month that it is no longer hosting drag shows and story hours for kids during the annual LGBTQ+ celebration, Northwest Arkansas Pride.
The LGBTQ+ advocacy group Northwest Arkansas Equality, also funded by the Waltons, sponsors that yearly “pride” celebration and the accompanying “Youth Zone” events at the arts center. Among other things, the “Youth Zone” featured drag queen story time for younger kids and drag shows for teens.
While it’s not clear what went on behind the scenes in the Walton Arts Center board discussions, it could be that it was some bad publicity that factored into the board’s decision.
“Due to the charged nationwide political conversations around drag and minors … , we asked if there was any way we could help NWA Pride reach its intended goals for the Youth Zone without drag performances for minors,” the board of directors explained in a May statement.
“Our concern was not simply around the physical safety surrounding these events, but the policy to not allow parents, guardians, and caregivers into the Youth Zone,” it later wrote.
That seemed like a reasonable concern, but Northwest Arkansas Equality didn’t think so. The group issued a statement calling the art center’s decision “surprising, disappointing, and inconsistent.” Yeah, not having a drag show for unaccompanied minors is really out of left field.
What’s more, the group stated, “These events have included performances by drag celebrities that youth can often only access through television and movies.” Oh, the horror. Kids really should be allowed to witness grown men prancing about in hooker-style costumes in person, preferably without adult supervision. But don’t worry, Northwest Arkansas Equality takes “great care to create age-appropriate content during this event.” Yes, an “age-appropriate” drag show for your child. That’s quite the assurance.
The arts center even tried to reach an agreementwith Northwest Arkansas Equality. The Walton Arts Center would still host “pride” events in June, just not drag story hours and performances by adults specifically for minors.
Northwest Arkansas Equality couldn’t accept any such compromise. The group decided to pause its partnership with the arts center and move its “kid-friendly” drag shows to the Fayetteville Town Center in June.
Seems like it got its way, right?
Not quite—apparently the Walton Arts Center committed such an egregious offense that a gaggle of protesters showed up May 20 and called for the CEO and other arts center executives to resign.
“WAC [Walton Arts Center] is wack. Let the drag queens act,” they chanted. “Say ‘no’ to bigots.” They forgot to add: “Let the drag queens act—in front of your kids.” But then the chant would’ve been less pithy.
As of Tuesday, nine of the 22 Walton Arts Center board members resigned as a result of the decision. One such member said that he “cannot in good conscience remain affiliated with an institution which refuses to acknowledge the harm it has caused to members of our community.”
The Walton Arts Center’s modest decision not to let drag queens perform in front of kids this year elicited reactions that defy all reason. The outrage is revealing: Those pushing for the “Youth Zone” didn’t care about creating a safe and welcoming environment for kids. The nine board members who have walked out thus far didn’t care. Had they cared, they would have reached some compromise with the arts center.
Don’t be fooled: This is about the explicit sexualization of minors. Nothing less.
Kudos to the Walton Arts Center for not yielding to this outrage. It’s a small victory, but it offers a glimmer of hope. Maybe the Waltons will put a pause on their entropy. If they keep it up, they might even reverse the fate O’Sullivan’s First Law ordains.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
The Woke Zone Trilogy
John Stossel takes up for Babylon Bee and notes “Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left!”
Late night hosts like Stephen Colbert, seen speaking during the Montclair Film Festival on Oct. 23, passionately defend leftists to the point of lecturing, rather than providing comedic relief. (Photo: Manny Carabel/Getty Images)
A woman tells the cop who stopped her in a carpool lane she’s allowed to drive there because her pronouns are “they” and “them.”
That’s from a video by a conservative Christian satire site called the Babylon Bee. Their humor gets millions of views.
“Christian conservatives used to … be very dour and self-serious,” says Bee editor-in-chief Kyle Mann in my new video.
Today, he says, it’s the left who are self-serious. “They’re the ones that have trouble laughing at themselves.”
For example, late night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert passionately defend COVID-19 vaccines.
“It is a lecture,” complains Mann.
“The left used to be anti-establishment,” adds Bee actress Chandler Juliet. Now, she says, ‘They’ve become the blob. … We’re super happy to be leading the comedic conversation on the right.”
One Babylon Bee video, “The Woke Zone,” makes fun of the way the media ignored violence and arson during the George Floyd protests.
“Do you ever feel gratitude to the left that they give you so much material?” I ask.
“We have to write things that are funnier than things they’re actually doing,” Mann responds. “That makes our job very difficult.”
One Bee sketch portrays its writers struggling to find new material.
“John Kerry warns that the war in Ukraine might distract from climate change!” suggests one.
Can’t do it, explains another. “It actually happened.” Yes, Kerry really did say that.
“Cosmo magazine features a morbidly obese woman on the cover as the picture of health” and, “Math professor says ‘two plus two equals four’ is racist!” are among other ideas that can’t be used as jokes.
“A math professor really said two plus two equals four is racist?” I ask.
It’s “a colonialist, white supremacist idea,” explains Mann.
Today the Bee reaches more people than The Onion. The establishment doesn’t like that, so some people actually sic so-called fact checkers on the Bee.
One article fact-checked by Snopes was titled, “Bernie Sanders Vows To Round Up Remaining ISIS Members, Allow Them To Vote.”
“Does Snopes not understand that you’re making jokes?” I ask.
“I think that they know what our intention is,” answers Juliet. “They just don’t like us.”
Recently, Twitter banned the Bee. Their offense was tweeting an article that named Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine “Babylon Bee’s Man of the Year.”
Levine is a transgender woman. Calling her the man of the year is a joke I wouldn’t make. But it doesn’t need to be censored.
Twitter says they’ll allow the Bee back on the platform only if they delete the tweet. Mann says he won’t.
“Twitter has the capability to just delete the tweet themselves. They want us to bend the knee and be the ones to click, ‘Yes, we acknowledge hateful conduct.’ We’re not going to do that.”
Today, a lot of comedians attract sizable audiences by mocking the left. Some I found funny are JP Sears, Ryan Long and FreedomToons.
The culture is changing.
The highest rating late-night comic these days is often not Colbert, Kimmel or Fallon, but Greg Gutfeld of Fox.
Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left.
“I talk about AIDS, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, pedophilia … the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics,” says Gervais in his recent Netflix special.
Professional media critics trashed him for that. But the special was hugely popular with the public.
The Rotten Tomatoes ratings are revealing. Critics gave Gervais’ special a 29% rating, calling it “terribly unfunny” and “a detestable combination of smug and obtuse.”
Viewers gave it a 92% rating.
The same is true of Chapelle’s latest special, “The Closer.” Critics give it just 40%. The audience gives it 95%.
Clearly, many people are tired of smug, condescending humor.
I’m glad the Babylon Bee, and others, give us an alternative.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
—-
——
Before I get into the fine article by Brendan O’Neill which I present in its entirety, I wanted to quote Francis Schaeffer who spent his life examining the humanism that now Ricky Gervais embraces!
All humans have moral motions and that is why Ricky Gervais knows it is wrong to let biological men use ladies’ bathrooms!!!!!!
“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117
Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?
He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times
I have long thought that if Life of Brian came out today, it wouldn’t be Christians kicking up a fuss about it — it would be trans activists.
When Monty Python’s classic tale of a man mistaken for a Messiah came to cinemas in 1979, people of faith weren’t happy. They saw it as taking the mick out of Christ and they aired their displeasure noisily. Nuns in New York picketed cinemas. In Ireland the film was banned for eight years.
In 2022 I reckon it would be a very different story. It wouldn’t be Monty Python’s ribbing of the gospels that would outrage the chattering classes — it would be their mockery of trans people.
Life of Brian was way ahead of time. It was Terf before Terf was even a thing. There is a brilliantly observed scene in which Stan of the People’s Front of Judea — or is it the Judean People’s Front? — says he wants to become Loretta.
‘I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta’, says Stan, played by Eric Idle. When the others push back and say he can’t just become a woman, he says: ‘It’s my right as a man.’ Which was remarkably perspicacious.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters.
——
Imagine if a film or TV show did something like that today. Showed an aspiring ‘trans woman’ being mocked for not having the right body parts to be a woman. Showed a man who wants to be a woman being told — for laughs, remember — that the only thing he’s struggling against is reality.
The cancel-culture mob would kick into action. There’d be a Change.org petition, maybe even a physical protest outside the offices of the production company or streaming service that was foolish enough to broadcast such trans-poking humour. ‘Jokes kill!’, we would be told, day and night.
Hell, JK Rowling can’t even very politely say ‘men aren’t women’ without being subjected to weeks of hatred and violent threats — so heaven help the film company that tried to air a Stan / Loretta skit in these febrile times.
This week, my theory about Life of Brianin 2022 was kind of proven right. For we had the pretty extraordinary sight of Ricky Gervais getting a very free ride for his God-mocking while being dragged into the Twitter stocks for his gags about trans issues.
In his new Netflix special SuperNature, Gervais vents his atheistic spleen. The Christian God is cruel and perverted, he says. Those Christian fundamentalists who believe Aids is the Almighty’s way of punishing gay sex clearly believe in a God who’s up in heaven thinking, ‘I’m sick of all this bumming’. And so just as God once said ‘Let there be light’, according to Gervais in the 1980s He said, ‘Let there be Aids’. What a rotter.
This isn’t the first time Gervais has made fun of God and those who believe in him. He’s famously an atheist. He talks about it all the time. (Rather too much, in my view.) But God-bashing is fine these days. Cool, even. Christians tend to take it in their stride. Believers have mostly kept their counsel following Gervais’s latest mockery of their wicked, ridiculous God.
The same cannot be said of trans activists and their allies. Not even remotely. They have responded with fury to Gervais’s blasphemy against the new god of genderfluidity.
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Cutting, yes. But also incredibly accurate. Some police forces and courts do indeed refer to rapists as ‘she’ and ‘her’, if that’s how they identify. And, as feminists have pointed out, this results in rape victims being pressured to refer to their rapist with female pronouns. As for the language, anyone who has spent more than five minutes online in recent years will know that that kind of thing is said to gender-critical women all the time.
Like all great blasphemous comics, Gervais is merely shining a light on things that really are said, and things which really do happen, and inviting us, his audience, to laugh and say: ‘Yeah, that is kind of ridiculous.’ Much as Monty Python did with the Bible, in fact.
But, say Gervais’s humourless critics, while the likes of Monty Python were punching up — against God, no less — Gervais is punching down, against vulnerable, marginalised trans people. I don’t buy this at all. Gervais has made it clear that he fully supports rights for trans people. His issue is with the excesses of trans activism and the authoritarianism of identity politics more broadly.
‘I talk about Aids, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, paedophilia’, he says in SuperNature. ‘But no, the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics.’
Absolutely. And that’s because identitarianism is the god of our times. It’s the new religion of the elites, their means of controlling and reprimanding the masses. Ridiculing identity politics is to the 21st century what questioning the authority of God was to the 15th. The woke rage against Gervais really does echo earlier outbursts of intolerant religious fury against anyone who dared to dissent from the Word of God.
—
–
—-
I was referred this subject by a tweet by Daniel Dennett which referenced a fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION and you can read my response at this link.
Ricky Gervais is a secular humanist just like his good friend Richard Dawkins and it is the humanists who have bought into this trans-identity politics and as a result the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION has stripped Dawkins of his 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR award.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979).
Let me make a few points about Ricky personally and then a few about this comedy routine by the secular humanist Ricky Gervais.
Notice below in AFTER LIFE how he suspects Anne of being a Christian when she tells him “We are not just here for us. We are here for others,“
Ricky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)
(Above) Tony (played by Ricky) and Anne on the bench at the graveyard where their spouses are buried.
In the fourth episode of season 1 of AFTER LIFE is the following discussion between Anne and Tony:
Tony: My brother-in-law wants me to try dating again.
Anne: Oh excellent! You need some tips.
Tony: why would I need some tips?
Anne: I imagine you are awful with women…Well all men are awful with women but grumpy selfish ones are the worst.
Tony: Let me take notes. This is dynamite.
Tony: I would just be honest. Tell them my situation and tell them what I am going through. Be honest up front.
Anne: So it is all about you then?
Tony: I can’t win can I? I don’t want to date again. I don’t want to live without Lisa.
Anne: But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are just here for us. We are here for others.
Tony: I don’t do the whole God thing I am afraid.
Anne: Neither do I. It is a load of rubbish. All we got is each other. We have to help each other struggle until we die then we are done. No point in felling sorry for ourselves and making everyone else unhappy too. Might as [kill] yourself if you feel that bad.
Tony: Are you sure you want to work for the Samaritans?
—
Christ came to this world and his followers have changed this world for the better more than any other group that ever existed. When Anne makes the assertions, “But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are not just here for us. We are here for others,” Tony assumes she is a Christian.
If you found yourself in a dark alley late at night, with a group of rough-looking, burly young men walking swiftly toward you, would you feel better knowing they were coming from a Bible study?
If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
I highly recommend Ricky Gervais series AFTER LIFE which is running on NETFLIX because it reminds me of King Solomon trying to find meaning in life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture!!!
God put Solomon’s story in Ecclesiastes in the Bible with the sole purpose of telling people like Ricky that without God in the picture you will find out the emptiness one feels when possessions are trying to fill the void that God can only fill.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters….
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Ricky is trying to use common sense (through sarcasm) on people that “GOD GAVE…OVER to depraved [minds]. Romans 1 states:
26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural…
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
—
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History
First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]
Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]
Sexually explicit books will be prohibited in Texas public schools under legislation headed to the governor’s desk. Pictured: The covers of four sexually explicit books—“The Color Blue,” “Ready For It,” “Gender Queer,” and “Let’s Talk About It”—are superimposed over a photo of an April 4 meeting of the Texas Senate’s Education Committee. (Photos: Brandon Bell/Getty Images/Tony Kinnett/The Daily Signal)
Tony Kinnett is an investigative columnist for The Daily Signal.
A bipartisan bill banning sexually explicit content in public school libraries has passed the Texas Senate and is on its way to the governor’s desk.
HB 900, dubbed The READER Act, specifies what “sexual content” is and prescribes actions by Texas public schools to ensure that children aren’t given access to pornographic, sexually explicit, or other age-inappropriate materials.
The bill, cosponsored by four Republicans and a Democrat, passed the Texas House on April 19 by a vote of 95-52, with support from 82 Republicans and 13 Democrats. All of the “no” votes were from Democrats.
The Texas Senate passed HB 900 on Tuesday with a vote of 19-12 along party lines.
Now the bill goes to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, who was expected to sign the bill into law shortly.
Assuming it is enacted, curriculum vendors in Texas would be required toassign ratings to books based on the level of age-appropriateness for sexual references and depictions.
A book or graphic novel (a story told in comic-book format) containing “patently offensive” material such as depictions of pornography and rape would be required to be labeled as “sexually explicit,” prohibiting placement of those books in any K-12 school library.
Although existing Texas law already bans the sale and distribution of sexually explicit books to minors, it included an exception for educational settings such as K-12 classrooms and school libraries.
The discovery of dozens of sexually explicit and highly disturbing material in the libraries of several Texas public schools shocked parents and drove Republicans and Democrats alike in the Texas House to pass HB 900.
Texas GOP officials told The Daily Signal that excerpts from books such as “Let’s Talk About It,” “Ready for It,” “Goblin Slayer,” “Gender Queer,” and “Blue Is the Warmest Color” were sent to elected representatives from both parties—many of whom said they had no idea the books were in school libraries in their legislative districts.
These books contained material so disturbing that The Daily Signal had to issue content warnings in my previous report on the books.
Under the legislation awaiting Abbott’s signature, vendors caught selling sexually explicit books such as these to Texas public schools would be prohibited from selling to that district in the future. Vendors and teachers unions vehemently protested that provision.
Fifteen speakers testified in favor of the bill May 15 before the state Senate’s Education Committee, including representatives of Bookpeople, the Association of American Publishers, The Texas Library Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Educational Book & Media Association, the Texas State Teachers Association, and the Texas Association of School Psychologists.
Several individuals who testified against HB 900 identified themselves as employees of the publishing companies Pearson, Penguin, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, but The Daily Signal could not verify that before publication.
Texas parents praised HB 900, sending hundreds of emails and social media messages to legislators in support of the bill, state Republican Party officials told The Daily Signal.
State Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, an author of the bill, told The Daily Signal in a written statement:
The READER Act is model legislation because it was written with input from those who have fought this issue— Texas moms. I am so proud to be a voice for them in Austin. Parents deserve to have sexually explicit materials removed, a say on other relevant content, and to have book vendors held accountable for the filth they are pushing on our kids.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
The drama surrounding the library started to heat up when the Saline County Quorum Court passed a resolution a few weeks ago that will allow certain books to be moved in the library if they are found too inappropriate for children.
Mary Lewis with Saline County Republican Women said now the goal of Saline County Republicans and Saline County Republican Women is to inform everyone coming into town what is going on in the county library.
“Our children do not need to be groomed,” Lewis said. “Our children do not need to see things that they are not allowed to see at movie theatres.”
The sign advertises a website, SalineLibrary.com, that lists several books considered inappropriate by the Republican groups. Lewis said those books are either sexually explicit or have messages that are not age-appropriate for kids.
“It is not about different orientations or things like that,” Lewis stated. “It is really about protecting our children from any kind of sex act.”
It is so maddening,” Hector said. “We have an award-winning library and all we deal with is hate…and FOIAs.”
Hector said books that come into the library are approved by a board and are there for educational purposes, sometimes even used by therapists for children who have experienced trauma.
“There is nothing wrong with those books, we buy books for everyone in this community, and every child should be heard and seen and supported and not marginalized because they are not white or straight or Christian,” Hector said.
The fight is striking a nerve with some in northeast Arkansas, like Dean MacDonald, as well.
Dean, along with others, have helped raise more than $3,500 to put another billboard up in Saline County that fights back against the current one.
MacDonald said based on his experiences in Jonesboro with the county library there, he is concerned about what he is seeing in Saline County.
Saline County Republicans have maintained that their intention has never been to defund the library, rather to move certain books out of arms reach of kids if they are found to not be age appropriate.
Still, MacDonald said a billboard to balance out the messaging is in the works. While the message is in the works, the theme is clear.
“How they can support the library, and how they can push back,” MacDonald said.
Since April 17, 2023 when this resolution was passed you would think that something horrible had happened if you read the local press reports!!! Read it for yourself:
SALINE COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 2023-_______
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SALINE COUNTY LIBRARY ENSURE THAT MATERIALS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CHILDREN’S SECTION OF THE LIBRARY ARE SUBJECT MATTER AND AGE APPROPRIATE.
WHEREAS, the Saline County Library (“Library”) has been an integral part of the Saline County community for decades; and
WHEREAS, the Library is visited by individuals of all ages, backgrounds, and beliefs; and
WHEREAS, the Library currently has many children visit who may be exposed to materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, such as sexual content or imagery, that their parents or the public do not deem to be appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Directors and Library employees have a responsibility to ensure that materials contained at the Library, particularly within the children’s section, regardless of the legal definition of obscenity, are age appropriate for children; and
WHEREAS, while the Arkansas Legislature passed Senate Bill 81, now Act 372 of 2023, which may have an impact on the Library, and the Library should proactively take steps to ensure that materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate, such as those that contain sexual content or imagery, are not located in areas where children’s materials are located; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINE COUNTY QUORUM COURT THAT:
SECTION I: The Library should enact policies to relocate materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, due to their sexual content or imagery, to an area that is not accessible to children.
SECTION II: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.
THIS RESOLUTION adopted this 17 th day of April 2023 APPROVED: ______________________ SPONSORS: JIM WHITLEY, CLINT CHISM, EVERETTE HATCHER
Saline County justices of the peace approved a resolution “requesting” the Saline County Library to relocate certain material “due to their sexual content or imagery” on Monday evening.
The resolution, titled “A resolution requesting the Saline County Library ensure that materials contained within the children’s section of the library are subject matter and age appropriate,” is listed as “Exhibit ‘E’” at the 6:30 p.m. quorum court meeting. Its sponsors are Jim Whitley, a justice of the peace representing District 10, and Clint Chism, a justice of the peace who represents District 11.
The resolution states, “The library should enact policies to relocate materials that are not subject matter or age appropriate for children, due to their sexual content or imagery, to an area that is not accessible to children.”
During discussion by the justices of the peace, Whitley said he wanted to dispel “rumors and innuendo” surrounding the resolution. He said that people have accused the resolution of being related to defunding the library system.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Whitley said, emphasizing that there was no intent to defund the library in the resolution.
He also rejected claims that the library wanted to remove sexual material from the library at large. Instead, the resolution is “very specific to the children’s section of the library.”
Whitley said children are “inundated daily with sexual language, imagery content that is really inappropriate for them.”
Literature is at the core of America’s democracy, the justice of the peace said, adding that he supports the library system.
However, he said he doesn’t want children to come to the library and “read things they’re too immature to process.”
Chism said that, in the past three days, “I’ve come under a lot of anger.” He read a prepared statement, in which he expressed surprise at their response.
Laws already “do that sort of thing,” he said, adding that movies are rated, and that games and music have warning labels.
“I don’t understand why it’s even being a debate,” Chism said. “Why would you want your children to look at something like that?”
Keith Keck, a justice of the peace representing District 13, proposed an amendment that states “parents or legal guardians are ultimately responsible for the children’s use of the library and for determining the appropriate library materials for their children to have access to.”
After discussion, the amendment was voted down 9-4.
Keck also recommended an amendment that would add an additional reference to Act 372, but withdrew the motion after discussion.
The effort from Whitley and Chism references Act 372, a state law signed March 30 that exposes library personnel to criminal charges for “knowingly” distributing material found to be obscene. Such efforts add to the wave of recent pressure placed on Arkansas libraries to remove children’s books that address sexual subjects.
Act 372 removes existing language from state law that shields library personnel as well as school employees from prosecution for disseminating obscene material.
A person who loans out from a public library material found to be obscene could be charged with a Class D felony under the law. The legislation also creates a new Class A misdemeanor offense for knowingly furnishing a “harmful item” to a minor.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR RESPONDS
In an interview before the quorum court meeting, Saline County Library Director Patty Hector, Saline County Library said she didn’t believe the county resolution was necessary.
The library board has already voted to update standards for Act 372, and their books are in “the appropriate age section,” according to Hector.
Act 372 establishes parameters for citizens to challenge the appropriateness of material available to the public that is held in school or public libraries. Successful challenges could result in material being relocated to an area not accessible to minors.
Decisions not to relocate the challenged material could be appealed to a school district’s board, in the case of a school library, or the governing body of a city or county, in the case of municipal or county libraries.
Anyone wanting to make an official challenge over a book should fill out a form and speak with Hector, the director said. If the complainant wants to continue with their challenge, their complaint will go to a committee of library staff, who will discuss the book. After the committee reports back to the complainant, that person can choose to take the challenge to the quorum court.
However, Hector said that, in the seven years she has been director of the system, “I haven’t had a book challenge in all that time.”
According to the director, library staff read professional reviews of books to determine whether the works are “right” for the library. Staff in the children’s section get together if they feel “the least bit concerned” about a book for kids, she said.
Hector said the library system also doesn’t buy books from groups pushing self-published works, or works that aren’t from a well-known publisher.
“We want things that are vetted by a publisher.”
Hector said she doesn’t think anything will need to be moved or relocated, because she believes her staff bought appropriate books.
OTHER EFFORTS
In addition to Act 372, Hector pointed to other similar efforts to regulate the availability of certain books in Crawford County, Siloam Springs, Craighead County.
A late September post on the website of the conservative education and research group Family Council lists libraries with children’s and young adult books containing what it calls “graphic sexual content.” Crawford County is listed among them, though neither the Saline County Library nor the Craighead County Jonesboro Library systems are mentioned.
The post states that people can take steps to remove material they find objectionable by using a form that asks libraries to remove offensive materials and call on their elected officials to pass laws that regulate “objectionable material” in libraries.
In February, Crawford County Library System Director Deidre Grzymala announced her resignation following criticisms of the inclusion and public display of children’s books with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning themes at the library.
The Craighead County Jonesboro Library lost half its revenue in November, after residents voted to decrease the library’s 2.0 mill tax to 1.0 mill.
The Siloam Springs Library has had at least 10 of its books challenged.
Similar efforts have also been taking place in other states.
Attempts to ban books “nearly doubled” in 2022, compared against the previous year, a March 22 news release from the American Library Association states. Nationwide, there were 1,269 “demands to censor library books and resources in 2022,” according to the association.
In Saline County, other new business on the quorum court’s Monday agenda included a “resolution recognizing public safety communicators as first responders,” a “resolution authorizing continuation of ICJR grant,” an “emergency ordinance designating planning services as professional services,” an “emergency ordinance establishing Saline County Litter Control Fund” and an “ordinance amending the 2023 Saline County budget ordinance 2022-36.”
Information for this article was contributed by Will Langhorne of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Doug Thompson of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
I have read articles for years from Dan Barker, but recently I just finished the book Barker wrote entitled LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which was prompted by Rick Warren’s book PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE which I also read several years ago.
Dan Barker is the Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, And co-host of Freethought Radio and co-founder of The Clergy Project.
On March 19, 2022, I got an email back from Dan Barker that said:
Thanks for the insights.
Have you read my book Life Driven Purpose? To say there is no purpose OF life is not to say there is no purpose IN life. Life is immensely meaningful when you stop looking for external purpose.
Ukraine … we’ll, we can no longer blame Russian aggression on “godless communism.” The Russian church, as far as I know, has not denounced the war.
db
—
In the next few weeks I will be discussing the book LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which I did enjoy reading. Here is an assertion that Barker makes that I want to discuss:
Think about sexuality. The bible says that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). It is assumed that Adam and Eve were heterosexual, because they were commanded to “replenish the earth.” Jesus made the same assumption: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (This is also sexist, from the male point of view.)
Sexiest? Sounds like you are modern day woke and you will end up turning on your buddy Richard Dawkins?
TRANSGENDERISM SEEN BELOW
——
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
During a recent interview with British journalist Piers Morgan, famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkinsdeclared, “there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it.”
He added that LGBTQ activists looking to discredit the reality of two biological sexes are pushing “utter nonsense.”
Dawkins further noted that those going after Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her commitment to the reality of two sexes are “bullies.”
Famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins strongly defends the reality of biological sex during an interview with Piers Morgan.(Screenshot/Piers Morgan Uncensored)
The famous critic of religion spoke with Morgan during a recent episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored.” The host prompted Hawkins by mentioning how “extraordinary” it is that LGBTQ activists and woke ideologues “want to what they call, de-gender and neutralize language.”
Piers was referring to a recent list of problematic words put out by the “EBB Language Project,” a collection of academics looking to police words that could potentially be found to be politically incorrect. The proposed list contained gendered words, such as “male, female, man, woman, mother, father,” U.K. outlet The Telegraph reported.
Dawkins had commented on the project last month, telling the paper, “The only possible response is contemptuous ridicule. I shall continue to use every one of the prohibited words. I am a professional user of the English language. It is my native language.”
During their interview, Morgan trashed such language policing and the idea there aren’t two sexes, He declared, “I mean, it’s incontrovertible. There’s no scientific doubt about this.” He also noted that a “small group of people have been quite successful actually in reshaping vast swathes of the way society talks and is allowed to talk.”
Dawkins immediately discredited the entire movement, saying, “It’s bullying.” Mentioning famous people who have been demonized for going against these activists, the renowned researcher added, “And we’ve seen the way J.K. Rowling has been bullied, Kathleen Stock has been bullied. They’ve stood up to it. But it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse and really talk errant nonsense.”
Richard Dawkins rose to fame for his books on religion and biology, but he has locked horns with woke orthodoxy over issues such as gender ideology. (Mark Renders/Getty Images)
Upon Morgan asking Dawkins how to combat the “nonsense,” Dawkins simply replied, “Science.”
He then said, “There are two sexes. You can talk about gender if you wish, and that’s subjective.” Morgan asked him about people who claim there are “a hundred genders,” though Dawkins claimed, “I’m not interested in that.”
He said bluntly, “As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it.”
Subsequently, the host mentioned how Dawkins has had his career and reputation dinged for simply asking questions about inconsistencies in the left’s dogmas on gender and identity.
Morgan said, “You had a humanist award stripped in 2021 because of your comments about of this kind of thing.” He cited the tweet that cost him, which stated, “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of the NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Morgan mentioned, “You had your award stripped because you were effectively doing what J.K. Rowling and others have said – you were just espousing a biological fact.”
Dawkins shot back, “I wasn’t even doing that. I was asking people to discuss. Discuss! That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities.”
Demonstrators protest in support of rights for transgender youth. (Fox News )
Morgan asked Dawkins why society has “lost that ability to actually have an open and frank debate.”
The scientist replied, “There are people for whom the word discuss doesn’t mean discuss, it means you’ve taken a position, which I hadn’t… I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss.”
Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital.
——-
I was referred this fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION by a tweet by Daniel Dennett.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979). Actually I just attended the retirement party held for my high school Bible teacher Mark Brink of EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL of Cordova, Tennessee on May 19th and he introduced me to the works of Francis Schaeffer and it was Schaeffer’s works that eventually help topple ROE v WADE!!! Ironically Mr Brink had a 49 year career that spanned 1973 to 2022 which was the same period that ROE v WADE survived!!!
Let me make a few points about this fine article below by the humanist Robyn E. Blumner.
Robyn is trying to use common sense on people that “GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind.” Romans 1 states:
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
Identitarian:A person or ideology that espouses that group identity is the most important thing about a person, and that justice and power must be viewed primarily on the basis of group identity rather than individual merit.(Source: Urban Dictionary)
“The Affirmations of Humanism”:We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.(Paul Kurtz,Free Inquiry, Spring 1987)
The humanist project is at a dangerous crossroads. I fear that our cohesion as fellow humanists is being torn apart by a strain of identitarianism that is making enemies of long-standing friends and opponents of natural allies.
Just at a time when it is essential for all of us to come together to work arm-in-arm against Christian Nationalism and the rise of religious privilege in law, humanism is facing a schism within its own movement. It is heartbreaking to watch and even more disheartening to know that the continued breach seems destined to grow.
The division has to do with a fundamental precept of humanism, that enriching human individuality and celebrating the individual is the basis upon which humanism is built. Humanism valorizes the individual—and with good reason; we are each the hero of our own story. Not only is one’s individual sovereignty more essential to the humanist project than one’s group affiliation, but fighting for individual freedom—which includes freedom of conscience, speech, and inquiry—is part of the writ-large agenda of humanism. It unleashes creativity and grants us the breathing space to be agents in our own lives.
Or at least that idea used to be at the core of humanism.
Today, there is a subpart of humanists, identitarians, who are suspicious of individuals and their freedoms. They do not want a free society if it means some people will use their freedom to express ideas with which they disagree. They see everything through a narrow affiliative lens of race, gender, ethnicity, or other demographic category and seek to shield groups that they see as marginalized by ostensible psychic harms inflicted by the speech of others.
This has given rise to a corrosive cultural environment awash in controversial speakers being shouted down on college campuses; even liberal professors and newspaper editors losing their jobs for tiny, one-off slights; the cancellation of great historical figures for being men of their time; and a range of outlandish claims of microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and other crimes against current orthodoxy.
It has pitted humanists who stand for foundational civil liberties principles such as free speech and equal protection under the law against others on the political Left who think individual freedoms should give way when they fail to serve the interests of select identity groups. The most important feature of the symbol of justice is not her sword or scales; it is her blindfold. Identitarians would pull it off so she could benefit certain groups over others.
Good people with humanist hearts have been pilloried if they don’t subscribe to every jot and tittle of the identitarian gospel. A prime example is the decision last year by the American Humanist Association (AHA) to retract its 1996 award to Richard Dawkins as Humanist of the Year. The man who has done more than anyone alive to advance evolutionary biology and the public’s understanding of that science, who has brought the light of atheism to millions of people, and whose vociferous opposition to Donald Trump and Brexit certainly must have burnished his liberal cred became radioactive because of one tweet on transgender issues that the AHA didn’t like.
Apparently decades of past good works are erased by 280 characters. Just poof. No wonder a New York Times poll1 recently found that 84 percent of adults say it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.
This is what identitarians have wrought. Rather than lifting up individuals and imbuing them with autonomy and all the extraordinary uniqueness that flows from it, identitarians would divide us all into racial, ethnic, and gender-based groups and make that group affiliation our defining characteristic. This has the distorting effect of obliterating personal agency, rewarding group victimhood, and incentivizing competition to be seen as the most oppressed.
In addition to being inherently divisive, this is self-reinforcing defeatism. It results in extreme examples, such as a draft plan in California to deemphasize calculus as a response to persistent racial gaps in math achievement.2 Suddenly a subject as racially neutral as math has become a flashpoint for identitarians set on ensuring equality of outcomes for certain groups rather than the far-more just standard of equality of opportunity. In this freighted environment, reducing the need for rigor and eliminating challenging standards becomes a feasible solution. The notion of individual merit or recognition that some students are better at math than others becomes racially tinged and suspect.
Not only does the truth suffer under this assault on common sense, but we start to live in a Harrison Bergeron world where one’s natural skills are necessarily sacrificed on the altar of equality or, in today’s parlance, equity.
Of course, the identitarians’ focus is not just on racial issues. Gender divisions also play out on center stage. I was at a secular conference recently when a humanist leader expressed the view that if you don’t have a uterus, you have no business speaking about abortion.
Really? Only people with female reproductive organs should be heard on one of the most consequential issues of the day? Such a call, itself, is a form of lamentable sexism. And it seems purposely to ignore the fact that plenty of people with a uterus are actively opposed to the right to choose, while plenty of people without a uterus are among our greatest allies for abortion rights. Why should those of us who care about reproductive freedom cut fully half of all humanity from our roster of potential vocal supporters and activists?
As has been said by others perplexed and disturbed by such a narrow-minded view, you don’t have to be poor to have a valid opinion on ways to alleviate poverty. You don’t have to be a police officer to have a valid opinion on policing. And, similarly, you don’t have to be a woman to have a valid opinion on abortion rights.
If the Affirmation quoted at the beginning of this article that rejects “divisive parochial loyalties” based on facile group affiliations isn’t a rejection of identitarianism, I don’t know what is. In his 1968 essay “Humanism and the Freedom of the Individual,” Kurtz stated bluntly:
Any humanism that does not cherish the individual, I am prepared to argue, is neither humanistic nor humanitarian. … Any humanism worthy of the name should be concerned with the preservation of the individual personality with all of its unique idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. We need a society in which the full and free development of every individual is the ruling principle. The existence of individual freedom thus is an essential condition for the social good and a necessary end of humanitarianism.
The individual is the most important unit in humanism. When our individuality is stripped away so we can be fitted into prescribed identity groups instead, something essential to the humanist project is lost. Those pushing for this conception of society are misconstruing humanism, diminishing human potential and self-actualization, and driving a wedge between good people everywhere.
Robyn E. Blumner is the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason &, Science. She was a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) for sixteen years.
FRANCIS SCHAEFFER LGBTQ+ SCHISM
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade. John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent Psalm 19 Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276). 2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.” 3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63). Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks? I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6 God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation
Helen Pashgian on Georges de La Tour | Artists on Art
FEATURED ARTIST IS DE LA TOUR
GEORGES DE LA TOUR (1593-1652)
The influence of Caravaggio is evident in De la Tour, whose use of light and shadows is unique among the painters of the Baroque era.
—
Francis Schaeffer
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 7 | The Age of Non-Reason
How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 8 | The Age of Fragmentation
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human…
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 4 | The Basis for Human D…
1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaefer
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
In this post we are going to see that through the years humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic. In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]
_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
According to the Maddison data shown in this chart, Singapore has vaulted ahead in the past two decades.
I included the United States for purposes of comparison. And it is remarkable how both Singapore and Hong Kong used to be very poor by comparison.
But let’s get back to the main focus of today’s column.
A recent article in the U.K.-based Economistcompares Singapore and Hong Kong.
In economic dynamism, the state of the urban fabric and the vibrancy of civic life, which city comes top: Hong Kong or Singapore? Until not long ago, it was obvious…that Hong Kong won hands down. But recently the balance shifted. There is clearly no contest anymore. It is game over in favour of Singapore. …Hong Kong and Singapore, once dirt-poor, have astonishing success stories to tell.Both are hubs for international finance, trade, transport and tourism. Both have attracted the brightest professional minds. …The imposition of a draconian national-security law in 2020 marked the obvious break in Hong Kong’s trajectory. …Some 200,000 expatriates have left Hong Kong in the past three years, along with even more Hong Kongers. By contrast, in 2022 the number of foreign professionals in Singapore grew by 16%… In 1997, the year of Hong Kong’s return to China, the two cities’ GDP per person was remarkably similar ($26,376 in Singapore, $27,330 in Hong Kong). Today Singapore’s is 1.7 times higher than Hong Kong’s. Singapore’s economy has grown by one-seventh since 2017; Hong Kong’s not at all. …Singapore is at a crossroads. Hong Kong has hit a dead end.
The bottom line is that China’s takeover of Hong Kong has had a negative effect.
As I noted in the video clip, economic policy has not moved significantly in the wrong direction, but entrepreneurs and investors do not trust Beijing.
So what’s all that mean? Well, when you start with awful policy, then take a few steps in the right direction, only to then move back in the wrong direction, you probably won’t be an economic powerhouse.
And that’s exactly what we see in the data.
Here’s a chart showing that there is a huge gap between per-capita economic output in the United States and China. And that gap exists whether we rely on data from either the IMF, Maddison,* the UN, or World Bank.
That chart is the bad news (and it may be even worse than shown in the above data).
The good news is that China is no longer a miserably poor nation, like it was during the fully communist years under Mao.
But it also looks like China will never become a rich nation.
Especially when the government penalizes success. Which has very negative effects, as reported by the Economist.
Regulatory crackdowns have devastated once-thriving sectors like private education. Officials rage against “money worship”… China’s wealthy…have been looking to leave. …in 2022 some 10,800 high-net-worth individuals, who have an average wealth of $6m, left the country, with the flow accelerating at the end of the year as covid controls eased. …Even more are expected to leave in 2023… In recent years, Singapore has been favoured. The city-state is the top destination for Chinese billionaires considering emigration… According to data from Singapore’s central bank, …it is likely that as many as 750 Chinese family offices were registered in Singapore.
That being said, the problems in China go well beyond class warfare.
The country has a major problem with cronyism (a.k.a., industrial policy).
But I’ve written many times about that issue, so let’s look at another example of China’s bad policy. Li Yuan has an article in The New York Times about wasteful spending and excessive debt in the nation’s cities.
As part of the ruling Communist Party’s all-in push for economic growth this year, local governments already in debt from borrowing to pay for massive infrastructure are taking on additional debt. They’re building more roads, railways and industrial parks even though the economic returns on that activity are increasingly meager. …China’s local governments..are in fiscal disarray. …According to official data, China’s 31 provincial governments owed around $5.1 trillion at the end of 2022, an increase of 66 percent from three years earlier. An International Monetary Fund report puts the number at $9.5 trillion, equivalent to half the country’s economy. …China is full of wasteful infrastructure that the government likes to brag about but that doesn’t serve the most urgent needs of the public. …The Chinese government likes to say the country has the longest and fastest high-speed railways in the world. But…most lines operate below capacity and at a great loss.
The bottom line is that China’s economy is both weak and fragile.
Which is unfortunate. A thriving China presumably is more likely to be a friendly China.
* The Maddison data is for 2018, and uses $2011 dollars rather than current dollars, which explains why it seems significantly different than the other sources.
The net result of these three periods is that China did enjoy some growth thanks to partial liberalization. The good news is that the wrenching destitution and suffering of the Mao years is now just an unpleasant memory.
But the bad news is that China is still not a rich nation.
Writing for National Review, Veronique de Rugy noted that Chinese officials are sabotaging the nation with industrial policy – and she warns against similar mistakes in the United States.
…some of us were always skeptical of the notion that China would achieve great economic success after having reversed its move toward market liberalization in 2012 and returned to central planning for its industrial policy. …The idea that a country can become rich through central planning is a myth. …malinvestment, economic distortion, and politically driven policies replete with special-interest-driven handouts, all of which are characteristic features of central planning, eventually inflict a sizeable economic toll that’s impossible to hide. When this happens, the economy slows, companies collapse. …we have a deep historical record that shows repeatedly that state direction of economic activity impoverishes rather than enriches. Many people in America today — on the left and right — still have faith that central planning can work economic marvels, and that we should therefore emulate China’s policies. …Too many politicians, economists, and pundits are invested in the illusion that — equipped with models that can ostensibly predict the future — they can design clever plans to organize the economy.
It’s no surprise that bad policy has bad economic consequences. But it also appears that bad policy has adverse psychological effects as well.
Here are some excerpts from a Washington Postcolumn by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute.
China is in the midst of a quiet but stunning nationwide collapse of birthrates. …China’s nosedive in childbearing is a silent alarm. It signals deep disaffection with the bleak future the regime is engineering for its subjects. In this land without democracy, the birth collapse can be read as a landslide vote of no confidence in President Xi Jinping’s rule. …Since 2013 — the year Xi completed his ascent to power — the rate of first marriages in China has fallen by well over half. Headlong flights from bothchildbearing and marriage are taking place in China today. …Birth shocks of this order almost never occur under stable modern governments during peacetime. …“the birth of a baby,” in the words of the government-run publication People’s Daily, remains “a state affair.” But now Beijing wants morebabies from its subjects. A dictatorship may use bayonets to depress birthrates — but it is much trickier to deploy police state tactics to force birthrates up. …The dictatorship has brought this demographic defiance upon itself.
Unhappy and pessimistic people don’t have children.
And some of them also will vote with their feet, as reported by Jason Douglas, Keith Zhai, and Stella Yifan Xie for the Wall Street Journal.
Well-heeled Chinese are leaving China for Singapore, attracted by the city-state’s low taxes and high-quality education, amid anxiety over China’s direction under leader Xi Jinping. …Around 10,800 wealthy Chinese left the country in 2022, according to estimates from New World Wealth, a research firmthat tracks the movements and spending habits of the world’s high-net-worth citizens.…Singapore…has particular attractions for Chinese citizens. It is relatively close to Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland, Mandarin is widely spoken alongside English, and the city boasts excellent schools and a financial sector heavily focused on wealth management. …permanent residency and a fast-track route to Singaporean citizenship are available for those willing to invest at least 2.5 million Singapore dollars ($1.9 million) in new or existing Singapore businesses. …another factor driving Chinese nationals to move abroad is unease over a darkening climate for accumulating wealth in China, as Mr. Xi talks up the need for greater redistribution in his drive for a more egalitarian society.
I’m not surprised that class warfare discourages entrepreneurs. That’s true everywhere in the world.
The exodus from China also was addressed by Li Yuan in an article for the New York Times.
They went to Singapore, Dubai, Malta, London, Tokyo and New York — anywhere but their home country of China, where they felt that their assets, and their personal safety, were increasingly at the mercy of the authoritarian government. …Many of them are still scarred by the last few years, during which China’s leadership went after the country’s biggest private enterprises, vilified its most celebrated entrepreneurs, decimated entire industries with arbitrary regulation… Singapore works because about three million of its citizens, or three-quarters, are ethnic Chinese, and many speak Mandarin. They also like that it is business-friendly and global-minded and, most of all, upholds the rule of law. …For decades, Hong Kong played the role of safe haven for mainland entrepreneurs because of its autonomy from China. That crumbled after Beijing introduced a national security law in the territory in 2020.
I’ll close by observing that China’s economic outlook may be even worse than we think because of dishonest data. And if China follows bad advice from the IMF and OECD, the outlook will become even gloomier.
Testing Milton Friedman: Free Markets – Full Video
Can you name, after all, another government in the world that brags about how little it spends on redistribution programs andhow few people are dependent on government?
And how many jurisdictions adopt private Social Security systems to help make sure the burden of government spending doesn’t climb above 20 percent of GDP?
Here is some additional evidence of Hong Kong’s sensible approach. Below is a slide from a presentation by Hong Kong government officials, quoting the current Financial Secretary and all his predecessors, covering both the period of Chinese sovereignty and British sovereignty. As you can see, the one constant theme is free markets and small government.
For additional background, let’s enjoy the insight of one of these men.
In a column for Reason, my Cato Institute colleague Marian Tupy reminisces on his meeting with John Cowperthwaite, one of the British-appointed economic advisers.
…a young Scottish civil servant named John Cowperthwaite arrived in the colony to oversee its economic development. Some 50 years later, I met Cowperthwaite in St Andrews, Scotland, where I was a student and he was enjoying his retirement. As he told me, “I came to Hong Kong and found the economy working just fine. So, I left it that way.” …Of all the policies that we discussed, one stands out in my mind. I asked him to name the one reform that he was most proud of. “I abolished the collection of statistics,” he replied. Cowperthwaite believed that statistics are dangerous, because they enable social engineers of all stripes to justify state intervention in the economy. At some point during our first conversation I managed to irk him by suggesting that he was chiefly known “for doing nothing.” In fact, he pointed out, keeping the British political busy-bodies from interfering in Hong Kong’s economic affairs took up a large portion of his time.
I especially like Cowperthwaite’s insight about the downside risk of letting governments collect a lot of data.
But let’s not get sidetracked. Economic freedom in Hong Kong is today’s topic. With that in mind, here’s a chart from Marian’s column. It shows that Hong Kong used to be much poorer than the United Kingdom. But after decades of faster growth (thanks to good policy), Hong Kong is now more prosperous than its former colonial master.
In other words, Hong Kong didn’t just converge with one of the world’s richest countries, which by itself would be a remarkable and unusual achievement. It actually became richer.
This is tremendous evidence on the benefits of good policy and the importance of strong, long-run growth.
Let’s close by looking at this issue of growth and development. Here’s a video from Marginal Revolution, narrated by Professor Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University. You should watch it from start to finish, but if you’re pressed for time, make sure to at least watch the first 2:10.
Puzzle of Growth: Rich Countries and Poor Countries
There are two things that are worth emphasizing from the video.
By the way, there are two sins of omission in the video. If you watch the whole thing, you’ll notice it mentions that strong economic performance is linked to therule of law, property rights, free trade, and sensible regulation.
But I’m nitpicking. Let’s close with another video from Marginal Revolution. You should once again watch the entire video, but for those in a rush, I adjusted the settings so it starts at the most important part.
Growth Rates Are Crucial
The video uses GDP data that is adjusted for both inflation and population, which is a very useful approach. But the key lesson, as Professor Tabarrok explained, is that even small sustained changes in growth have enormous implications for long-run prosperity.
Indeed, that’s why Hong Kong is now richer than the United Kingdom. And it’s also worth noting that Hong Kong (and Singapore) are passing the United States.
Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “The Tyranny of Control” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes) 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 […]
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, […]
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, […]
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, […]
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, […]
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, […]
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, […]
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, […]
Open letter to President Obama (Part 654) (Emailed to White House on July 22, 2013) 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 […]
Open letter to President Obama (Part 650) (Emailed to White House on July 22, 2013) 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 […]
–
Ricky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)
The Daily Hatch 