Author Archives: Everette Hatcher III

My name is Everette Hatcher III. I am a businessman in Little Rock and have been living in Bryant since 1993. My wife Jill and I have four kids (Rett 24, Hunter 22, Murphey 16, and Wilson 14).

ORWELLIAN: Associated Press Forbids Even Discussing Transgenderism as an Ideology

——

After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl

Spelling Bee Contestant Asks The Definition of “Woman”

——

Activist marches with a sign reading

The Associated Press directs journalists to abide by transgender ideology while denying that such an ideology exists. Pictured: A protester at the Stonewall Inn on Feb. 23, 2017, in the Greenwich Village area of New York City. (Photo: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images)

Forget debates over bathrooms or pronouns. The Associated Press recently released new guidelines suppressing the very concept of transgenderism as an ideology that can be debated, while forcing that ideology on reporters in the name of promoting good journalism.

The AP is the most common stylebook among journalists and news outlets on the Left and Right, including The Daily Signal. The Daily Signal does depart from AP style when the style guide adopts ideological messaging on abortion, transgender identity, and other issues, however.

In a classic example of “1984”-style doublethink, good journalists are required to abide by transgender ideology, while denying that such an ideology exists. AP’s most recent style guide update—published Thursday—instructs them to use a person’s “preferred” pronouns, deny that sex is a biological fact recognized at or before birth, and use the euphemism “gender-affirming care” when describing experimental medical interventions that leave patients stunted, scarred, and infertile.

Reporters are to adopt wholesale the claim that a person’s internal sense of gender overrides his or her biological sex and to discount opposition to these claims.

Yet they are apparently barred from discussing the ideas behind this ideology, or the ideology itself.

The most recent update to the AP style guide is quite clear: “Do not use the term transgenderism, which frames transgender identity as an ideology.”

Yet the entire document is dripping with this ideology.

“Avoid references to a transgender person being born a boy or girl, or phrasing like birth gender,” the guide urges. “Sex assigned at birth is the accurate terminology.” The document goes on to claim that “sex is usually assigned at birth by parents or attendants, sometimes inaccurately.”

While the document acknowledges that gender—not sex—is a “social construct,” the use of the phrase “sex assigned at birth” implies that biological sex is also socially constructed, rather than a central reality of humanity that enables people to reproduce. Transgender ideology relieson muddying the waters in this way, suggesting that transgender identity is the real fact, so changing a person’s body to match a gender identity opposite his or her biological sex is “affirming,” rather than destructive.

This is an extremely controversial claim, but the AP guidelines actively suppress dissent.

The update parrots pro-transgender claims that are hotly debated in the medical community. The document states that children can take “puberty blockers,” which it describes as “fully reversible prescription medication that pauses sexual maturation.” It does not note that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved drugs such as Lupron for that purpose, nor that authorities use Lupron to chemically castrate sex offenders.

It also fails to mention that many doctors have raised alarms about “gender-affirming care,” or that European countries are moving to restrict it for children.

The AP guide accuses “opponents of youth transgender medical treatment” of citing “widely discredited research,” failing to note that many of the studies pro-transgender activists use to endorse experimental interventions have themselves been discredited. For example, doctors have condemned as “fatally flawed” a recent study claiming to show improvements from cross-sex hormones.

Perhaps most horrifically, the much-touted Dutch study that first gave credence to the idea of transgender medical interventions ultimately involved a male subject who died from an infection after surgeons tried to use some of his digestive tract to construct a false vagina.

While the AP guide acknowledges that “all these treatments have potential side effects,” it nonetheless endorses them. It urges reporters to “avoid the word mutilation, a politicized and subjective term often used to mischaracterize surgery.”

The document urges journalists to “avoid terms like biological sex, along with biological male and biological female, which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to refer to transgender women and transgender men, respectively.” AP argues that such terms are “redundant because sex is inherently biological.” Yet opponents of transgenderism use “biological” to emphasize the truth of biology against the very ideology AP insists journalists never mention.

In a few instances, the AP guide rightly discourages obnoxious or outdated terms like “tranny” and “transgendered.” It also urges journalists to avoid the terms “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” or the acronym “TERF,” to refer to critics of transgenderism.

However, the guidelines also discourage reporters from using “gender-critical” to describe those who oppose transgenderism, even though many advocates have consciously embraced that term.

The guidelines also encourage reporters to avoid using the term “groomer,” without acknowledging critics’ concerns that events such as Drag Queen Story Hour and LGBT lessons at young ages make children vulnerable to abuse.

The Associated Press style guide has long urged journalists to adopt a person’s preferred pronouns, regardless of biological sex, but the guide also forbids journalists from referring to “preferred or chosen pronouns,” instead using phrases such as “the pronouns they use, whose pronouns are, who uses the pronouns.”

When it comes to sports, the new AP entry urges journalists to avoid “phrasing that misgenders people or implies doubt, such as former men’s swimmer or currently competes as a woman.”

Journalists should not even imply doubt, much less actually express it.

God forbid they actually use a specific term to discuss this ideology, rather than merely adopting it wholesale.

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.

———

Tucker Carlson speaks during 2022 FOX Nation Patriot Awards.

Then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson—seen here speaking at the 2022 Fox Nation Patriot Awards Nov. 17 in Hollywood, Florida—remains a much-needed voice for civilizational sanity, columnist Josh Hammer says. (Photo: Jason Koerner/ Getty Images)

I attended The Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary Gala on April 21, a sprawling and swanky affair featuring many fine presentations, a surprise Dierks Bentley mini-concert for the country music enthusiasts (yours truly among them) and an extravagant post-dinner fireworks show over the Potomac River.

But the highlight of the evening, bar none, was former Fox News star Tucker Carlson‘s electric keynote address and his (all-too-brief) colloquy on stage afterward with Heritage’s exceptional new president, Kevin Roberts. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

Carlson’s speech was both wildly entertaining and poignant, at times slapstick funny and at other times humorously self-deprecating about his Episcopalian faith. But as Carlson began to reach his peroration, the key substantive takeaway he wished to impart unto his audience became clear.

The relevant political and cultural battle lines in the year 2023 are not those befitting a civil and polite discussion, where both sides are reasonable, both sides pursue their own version of the common good, and the best think tank white paper wins out in the end, Carlson cautioned. No, our current civilizational struggle is not reflective of a refined policy debate between amicable partisans; rather, it is one that implicates fundamentally distinct theological and anthropological visions of mankind—of man’s very biology and his relation with his fellow man, the state, and God Himself.

I immediately hearkened back to an interview Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams did with The Atlantic in October 2021, in which Williams had this provocative (but accurate) line about America’s contemporary fault lines: “Even during the Civil War—I think we’re more divided now than we were then. As Lincoln said, we all prayed to the same God. We all believed in the same Constitution. We just differed over the question of slavery.”

This is the precise sentiment that Carlson was getting at in his keynote speech at the Heritage gala.

We in the audience did not know it yet, at the time of Carlson’s speech—nor did Carlson, for that matter—but the broadcasting star had already given his last searing monologue for Fox News. In a stunning development, Fox News broke the news to their highest-rated host on Monday morning that he was fired.

Hopefully, Carlson will retain something approximating his exceptional level of cultural and political influence in whatever role he next serves, because his witness to truth and civilizational sanity have never been more necessary.

This is perhaps most clearly true when it comes to gender ideology and transgenderism, which is the issue most directly implicated by Carlson’s framing of America’s fundamental divide as a struggle between differing theological and anthropological conceptions of man.

Is sexual dimorphism an obvious empirical reality, rooted in Genesis 1:27, and mandating legal codification for any regime that claims a basis in truth and justice? Or is gender instead “fluid,” wherein man can replace God and change his gender on a lark, and wherein it is contemptible bigotry to deny anyone’s subjective sense of biological or sexual reality?

Tucker Carlson certainly knew his answer: He opened a memorable 2021 interview of Republican Asa Hutchinson by asking the then-governor of Arkansas, who had shamefully vetoed a bill to protect vulnerable children from the predatory scalpels of the woke-besotted medical establishment, why he had “come out publicly as ‘pro-choice’ on the question of chemical castration of children.”

Oof.

That is not a debate where the “best white paper wins.” It is a zero-sum contestation of clashing visions of the human person, rooted in diametrically opposed substantive underpinnings. And, more to the point, the forces of godlessness, paganism, and civilizational arson certainly already treat the debate over gender ideology as a vicious winner-take-all battle.

The recent mini-insurrection in Nashville, Tennessee, which followed the tragic shooting at a Christian school and the temporary expulsions of two insurrection-complicit state lawmakers, can best be understood as one elaborate attempt to distract the public from the real issue: That a transgender lunatic shot up a Christian school, and that law enforcement has thus far been unwilling to defy the transgender lobby’s not-so-thinly-veiled blackmail, opting instead to deep-six the deceased shooter’s presumptively anti-Christian manifesto.

More recently, a similar situation unfolded in Montana, where Republicans who control the state House banned a transgender lawmaker from attending or speaking during floor sessions following the lawmaker’s comment—during the debate over an anti-chemical castration bill similar to the one Hutchinson vetoed in Arkansas—that the lawmaker hoped colleagues would see “blood on [their] hands” when they bowed their heads in prayer.

Numerous protesters were arrested and forcibly removed from the legislature last week, as they agitated in favor of the uncouth transgender lawmaker.

Large swaths of the modern Left have made the fight for gender ideology and transgenderism their foremost hill to die on precisely because they are so infatuated with their own vogue anthropology and “theology” that they view the other side—the side of sanity—as wholly undeserving of the civility and respect that a normal exchange over public policy might entail.

I know this all too well, myself: My writing that invariably elicits the most protests when I speak on university campuses is a short piece I wrote a few years ago praising U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan’s admirable use of biologically correct pronouns in a judicial opinion.

I’d write the same thing again today.

But those protesters, whether in Nashville; Helena, Montana; Stanford Law School or another academic corridor, are not open to rational debate. They are not willing to be reasoned with. Rather, they know their conclusions, because they have fully imbibed a highly fashionable—if false—anthropological and “theological” conception of man.

Those of us on the side of civilizational sanity need all the help we can get in pushing back against the onslaught. Tucker Carlson, please come back soon.

NBC’s Chuck Todd ridiculed for saying ‘gender is a spectrum

Todd made the comment during a spirited interview on Sunday with GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who has argued for limitations on gender affirming treatments for those under the age of 18.

“Below the age of 18, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say that we won’t allow genital mutilation or chemical castration through puberty blockers,” Ramaswamy, the biopharmaceutical mogul and author, told Todd during the interview on Sunday.

“You’re calling it that, but how do you know it’s that?” Todd pressed Ramaswamy.

“Again, how do you know? Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it? Are you confident?”

“I am,” Ramaswamy replied.

“That there isn’t a spectrum?” Todd asked.

Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press"
Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said on Sunday that “gender is a spectrum.”
NBC News

Ramaswamy answered: “I am.”

“Do you know this as a scientist?” Todd asked.

“Well, there’s two X chromosomes if you’re a woman, and an X and a Y that means you’re a man…,” Ramaswamy said.

The two men talk over each other before Todd says: “There is a lot of scientific research that says gender is a spectrum.”

“Chuck, I respectfully disagree,” Ramaswamy said.

The GOP candidate said gender dysphoria — which is characterized by the American Psychiatric Association as “clinically significant distress or impairment related to gender incongruence” — “has been characterized as a mental health disorder and I don’t think it’s compassionate to affirm that.”

<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy on "Meet the Press"
Todd made the remark during an interview with GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy.
NBC News

“I think that’s cruelty,” Ramaswamy said.

“When a kid is crying out for help … you’ve got to ask the question of what else is going wrong at home,” the GOP hopeful said.

“What else is going wrong at school, let’s be compassionate and get to the heart of that rather than playing this game as though we’re actually changing our medical understanding for the last hundred years.”

Todd conceded that “the last thing [parents] want to do is consider something like [gender affirming treatments]” for their children.

<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Chuck Todd.
“Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it?” Todd asked Ramaswamy.
NBC News

“But if that is what they think could help their child pursue happiness or not to kill themselves … why take away that option?” Todd asked.

“Again, why shouldn’t it be up to the parent?”

Ramaswamy replied that “we’ve created a culture that teaches parents that they’re being bigoted or that they’re bad people if they don’t actually take those steps.”

“Gender dysphoria for the rare few people who’ve suffered it, is a condition of suffering,” he added.

“My question is why on Earth are we going out of our way to create even more of it?”

<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy
Ramaswamy has urged a ban on gender affirming treatments for people under the age of 18.
NBC News

Todd’s comments sparked reaction on Twitter.

“Didn’t you know? Cable news pundits became the best TV scientists and physicians during COVID. The government talking points made them experts,” one Twitter user wrote.

Another Twitter user commented: “There is literally no real science suggesting there are more than 2 sex chromosomes.”

“This is very simple to resolve. Show us what the non-male and non-female chromosomes look like on these ‘gender spectrums’,” a Twitter user wrote.

Others on Twitter supported Todd’s assertion, citing a 2018 article by Scientific American which claimed that biologists “now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.”

What do you think? Post a comment.

Republicans have sought to curtail the availability of gender transitioning methods to youngsters while LGBTQ activists said the limitations could place children’s mental health in danger.

Bud Light, the iconic beer brand which is the property of Anheuser-Busch, came under fire for its decision to hire Dylan Mulvaney, a social media influencer who garnered a following of millions who watched as she transitioned from a male to a female during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a pitchwoman.

The Post has sought comment from NBC News.

These 3 Women Tried Transgenderism, and Then Stopped

Jennifer Lahl’s documentary “The Detransition Diaries,” released Monday, tracks the stories of three female detransitioners, including Helena Kerschner. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)

A documentary, released Monday, unveils the stories of three women who previously identified as transgender in a futile attempt to escape depression and suicidal thoughts.

Jennifer Lahl, a former pediatric nurse and current president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, produced her most recent documentary, “The Detransition Diaries,” after a series of films highlighting bioethical issues.

Her film tracks the stories of Helena Kerschner, Grace Lidinsky-Smith, and Cat Cattinson, three women who believed their mental and emotional trauma would be solved by transitioning to the opposite sex. Each woman underwent hormone treatment and one had her breasts removed as well.

“We are following the news and the studies, and the evidence that shows this uptick in rapid-onset gender dysphoria [is something] young girls are particularly prone to,” Lahl told The Daily Signal in a phone call. Gender dysphoria refers to the condition of persistently and painfully identifying as the gender opposite one’s biological sex. “Young girls are getting sucked into this.”

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a recent phenomenon in which children and adolescents are suddenly, and without prior indication, identifying as the opposite sex.

Lahl found that her previous documentary “Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender?” struck a chord with a broad audience. Firsthand accounts of men and women who “believed they were born in the wrong body” and thought gender transition “was the solution to all their problems” resonated with thousands of people, Lahl explained.

“As documentary filmmakers, we made the editorial decision that we are going to focus on women, realizing that this applies to men too,” she remarked on her most recent film.

“The Detransition Diaries” cover. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)

Helena Kerschner, one of the detransitioners featured in Lahl’s film, says she struggled with depression, isolation, self-harm, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts as an early teen. She was introduced to the transgender belief system through Tumblr culture at 13.

Tumblr’s message was: “If you don’t like your body, that’s a sign you’re trans,” she notes.

After she came out as transgender, teachers and adults who never noticed her struggles before suddenly “bent over backward” to accommodate her new-found identity.

She did everything to make herself appear masculine. Eventually, Kerschner was prescribed testosterone at 18 after a single consultation at Planned Parenthood.

After a few weeks, she noticed how irritable she had become. “I couldn’t control myself,” Kerschner recalls in the documentary. When she got angry, she felt she needed to hurt someone—so she hurt herself. She eventually resorted to the emergency room, where staff directed her to the psych unit. Doctors diagnosed her with borderline personality disorder and psychosis, and sent her home with prescriptions for four different medications. She wound up in the hospital a few weeks later.

“My life became a total disaster,” she says. “I wasn’t functioning, I couldn’t hold a job, I wasn’t going to school—I felt like a monster.”

Seventeen months later, she stopped taking testosterone. Her negative symptoms vanished. During this time, not a single medical professional suggested that her hormone treatment was causing these symptoms, she remarks in the film.

Grace Lidinsky-Smith, another detransitioner featured in the film, noted that she felt a rush of energy when she first started testosterone treatment. Though she had some underlying anxiety, she told herself this was “internalized transphobia,” she says to the filmmakers.

Grace Lidinsky-Smith in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)

Cat Cattinson describes a similar euphoric feeling when she first went on testosterone.  It was “one of the better antidepressants I had taken,” she recalls.

Cat Cattinson in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)

Lidinsky-Smith, unlike the other two women, went forward with a double mastectomy. Looking back, she believed she would feel better “because she’d be in a body that fit her better.” After her breasts were removed, she recalls, she looked down at the gashes on her chest. “I had the most awful feeling.”

She found others online also had an “intense, suicidal despair after surgery … and then got over it and felt better.” But the experience planted a seed of doubt, she explains. She found a testimony of another person who had transitioned from female to male. As the person described, a desire for “a small amount of masculinization” led to full-out body dysphoria.

At that point, Lidinsky-Smith stopped testosterone and slowly reversed course, eventually growing comfortable enough to use her birth name. “It became important to just accept myself as myself,” she explains.

Kershner and Cattinson described similar breaking points. Kershner realized: “This is not what I thought it would be,” adding that she believed “once I’m a boy, my confidence is gonna come out.” Instead, as she describes, she became dysfunctional.

As Cattinson explains, three months into her testosterone treatment, she found a dramatic drop in her voice. “Nothing was coming out except air and squeaks,” she describes. She stopped going to social events and performing live.

Like the other women, she found an online community of detransitioners and doctors who revealed the hidden underbelly of the trans movement.

She began questioning the basis of transgender ideology: the “idea that we should define a woman based on what’s in a person’s head,” as she describes it. Does “what you believe in your head … really trump the biological reality of being an adult female?” she wondered.

As the documentary concludes, Lidinsky-Smith notes that she is worried about those who continue to get sucked into gender transition treatment, when they can find the answer to their problems elsewhere.

All three women interviewed suffered from suicidal ideation and depression. Each believed that changing her name, pronouns, appearance, and hormones would solve her problems, yet each found her emotional state dramatically worsened as a result.

“I think the fallout will be severe,” Lidinsky-Smith notes. Remarking on the growing community of detransitioners, she adds, “Our voices can no longer be denied.”

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

—-

After Life on Netflix

——

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!!!!!!

Francis Schaffer in his book THE GOD WHO IS THERE addresses these same issues:

“[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?

Francis and Edith Schaeffer

Brendan O’Neill

Ricky Gervais is guilty of blasphemy

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.

A.F. Branco for Jan 12, 2022

—-

Dennett wearing a button-up shirt and a jacket

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.
Richard Dawkins Cooper Union Shankbone.jpg

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).

Not everyone I have corresponded with is a secular humanist but  many are the top scientists and atheist thinkers of today and hold this same secular views. Many of these scholars have taken the time to respond back to me in the last 20 years and some of the names  included are  Ernest Mayr (1904-2005), George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996),  Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-),  Brian Charlesworth (1945-),  Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), (Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010),  Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-),  Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), and Michael Martin (1932-), Harry Kroto (1939-), Marty E. Martin (1928-), Richard Rubenstein (1924-), James Terry McCollum (1936-), Edward O. WIlson (1929-), Lewis Wolpert (1929), Gerald Holton(1922-), Martin Rees (1942-), Alan Macfarlane (1941-),  Roald Hoffmann (1937-), Herbert Kroemer (1928-), Thomas H. Jukes(1906-1999) and  Ray T. Cragun (1976-). 

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,“

After Life Ricky GervaisRicky 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.

Then in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes Solomon returns to looking above the sun and he says that obeying the Lord is the proper way to live your life. The  answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted. If you need more evidence then go to You Tube and watch the short video:

NOW TO RICKY’S COMEDY:

Brendan O’Neill noted above:

‘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.jpg

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.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

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

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)

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.

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.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“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…

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 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.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

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

Related posts:

John MacArthur on Romans 1 and the Democratic Party

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

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 […]

John MacArthur: Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? (Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of Tyre, video clips)

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 […]

Did God kill someone that I knew? What does I John 5:14-17 mean?

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 […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Carl Sagan Part 22 My first letter to Carl Sagan on 5/15/94 (2nd part of 4) 

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.

Image result for francis schaeffer

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.

On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably further 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.

Image result for adrian rogers

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

Image result for pine bluff arkansas 1983
Pine Bluff, Arkansas

In responding to all four of my letters from 1994 and 1995, Carl Sagan also enclosed the article  “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

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:

Image result for twin towers 911

—-

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.

Sagan is right that “A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth.” But what about those who claim it would be better to abort then have the unwanted child be a victim of child abuse. The answer is to respect life at all stages of life.

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 second portion of my 5-15-94 letter to Carl Sagan is later in this post!


On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

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:

Arif AhmedHaroon Ahmed,  Jim Al-Khalili, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BateSir Patrick BatesonSimon Blackburn, Colin Blakemore, Ned BlockPascal BoyerPatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky, Brian CoxPartha Dasgupta,  Alan Dershowitz, Frank DrakeHubert Dreyfus, John DunnBart Ehrman, Mark ElvinRichard Ernst, Stephan Feuchtwang, Robert FoleyDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Stephen HawkingHermann Hauser, Robert HindeRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodGerard ‘t HooftCaroline HumphreyNicholas Humphrey,  Herbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart KauffmanMasatoshi Koshiba,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George Lakoff,  Rodolfo LlinasElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlaneDan McKenzie,  Mahzarin BanajiPeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  P.Z.Myers,   Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff, David Parkin,  Jonathan Parry, Roger Penrose,  Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceVS RamachandranLisa RandallLord Martin ReesColin RenfrewAlison Richard,  C.J. van Rijsbergen,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerJohn SulstonBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisMax TegmarkNeil deGrasse Tyson,  Martinus J. G. Veltman, Craig Venter.Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, James D. WatsonFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

<a style=”font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;orphans:auto;text-indent:0;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:auto;word-spacing:0;box-sizing:border-box;background-color:transparent;color:#c01823;text-decoration:none;margin:0;padding:0;border:0;font-size:13px;font-family:Lato, ‘Helvetica Neue’, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;transition:color 0.2s linear, background 0.1s linear, border-color 0.1s linear;text-align:left;-webkit-text-size-adjust:100%;” title=”Remember when Carl Sagan trashed Star Wars on late-night TV?” href=”https://lithub.com/remember-when-carl-sagan-trashed-star-wars-on-late-night-tv/”&gt;

Carl Sagan

nitially an associate professor at Harvard, Sagan later moved to Cornell where he would spend the majority of his career as the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences. Sagan published more than 600 scientific papers and articles and was author, co-author or editor of more than 20 books.[5] He wrote many popular science books, such as The Dragons of Eden, Broca’s Brain, Pale Blue Dot and narrated and co-wrote the award-winning 1980 television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. The most widely watched series in the history of American public television, Cosmos, has been seen by at least 500 million people in 60 countries.[6] The book Cosmos was published to accompany the series. He also wrote the 1985 science fiction novel Contact, the basis for a 1997 film of the same name. His papers, containing 595,000 items,[7] are archived at The Library of Congress.[8]

Sagan advocated scientific skeptical inquiry and the scientific method, pioneered exobiology and promoted the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). He spent most of his career as a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, where he directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies. Sagan and his works received numerous awards and honors, including the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the National Academy of SciencesPublic Welfare Medal, the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction for his book The Dragons of Eden, and, regarding Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, two Emmy Awards, the Peabody Award, and the Hugo Award. He married three times and had five children. After suffering from myelodysplasia, Sagan died of pneumonia at the age of 62, on December 20, 1996.

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,”

I would respond that there is evidence that Christianity is true. The accuracy of the Bible has been confirmed by archaeology over and over in the past and one of the amazing finds was in 1948 when the Dead Sea Scrolls had copies from every Old Testament Book except Esther! One of the most powerful recent discoveries involved the bones of the high priest Caiaphas who questioned Christ in 30 AD.

This is the second portion of my 5-15-94 letter to Carl Sagan and last week I posted the first portion and next week I will post the third portion.

SECTION #1 Evolution is discussed by these scholars: H.G.Wells, Antony Flew, Neal Gillespie, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Joseph McCabe, Louis Russell, Leo Hickey, Francis Crick, Michael Ruse, Norman D. Newell, Robert C. Cowen, Jeremy Rifkin, Francis Schaeffer, H.J.Blackham, Paul Churchland, J.W.Burrow, Douglas Futuyma, William Provine, and Bertrand Russell!!!!____________________

__ I am trying in this letter to show that the following statements are true and can not be refuted logically.

.1. Theistic evolution is not rational

.2. Evolution has been considered a fact by the vast majority of leading scholars worldwide for many years now.

3. There  has been a drift from belief to agnosticism caused by science in recent years

..4. The vast majority of leading scientists today do not consider creationism scientific.

5. There are philosophical implications of Darwinism.——————

1. Theistic evolution is not rational.http://creation.mobi/hg-wells-evolution-and-the-gospelH G Wells

Image result for H. G. Wells

‘If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards.’—

Antony Flew pictured below:

Antony Flew

Antony FlewRegister

Image result for antony flew

Antony Flew ”It is obviously impossible to square any evolutionary account of the origin of the species with a substantially literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis.”

2.Evolution has been considered a fact by the vast majority of leading scholars worldwide for many years now.—-

Humanist Manifesto II (1973): Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.— (Paul Kurtz [below] put the Humanist Manifesto II together and I had the opportunity to read his book FORBIDDEN FRUIT and to correspond with him.)

File:Kurtz-1-.color.jpg

Neal Gillespie “Darwin’s rejection of special creation was part of the transformation of biology into a positive science, one committed to thoroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes and the uniformity of nature.”

(Carl Sagan pictured below was quoted in Francis Schaeffer’s first book in 1968 and many times by Adrian Rogers and I result I began reading his books myself out of a curiosity.)

—-

——

Image result for carl sagan

Carl Sagan asserts: ”Evolution is fact, not a theory.”

Lee Dembart of the Los Angeles Times commenting on the book by Richard Dawkins called “The Blind Watchmaker”:The book cuts through the nonsense about the origin of life and leaves it for dead….He demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only possible explanation for the world we see around us. In this work Dawkins refutes the argument that the complexity of life cannot be random, this implying a designer or creator.—-

The Blind Watchmaker

Richard Dawkins in 1976, around the time he published his first best-selling book. Credit: Terry Smith/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty

Joseph McCabe in a debate with George Mccready Price:
Something over 50 years ago a great man of science launched the doctrine of evolution upon the world. Generation by generation , decade by decade, scientific men have fought out that issue. I say that there is not an university professor in the world today who does not emphatically endorse the doctrine of evolution ….100 years ago, in the days of Lamarck and Darwin, men looked across that broad river and there was nothing between (man and ape)….Now we men of the Stone Age carrying us nearer to the ape; the pilot down man, and one or two others, going as far again in the direction of the ape.—-Louis S Russell, director, Royal Ontario Museum, It’s completely false to say that there’s a lacking of transitional forms. We have plenty of them —-more than sometimes we can deal with.—-Leo Hickey, former director, Yale Peabody Museum, There are myriad transitional forms. There’s really no problem finding them.—-

Image result for francis crick

250 × 275Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More

Francis Crick: The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is, in fact, to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry.—-

3. There has been a drift from belief to agnosticism caused by science in recent years———————-
Dr Huston Smith: One reason education undoes belief (in God) is it’s teaching of evolution; Darwin’s own drift from orthodoxy to agnosticism was symptomatic.—-

Asa Gray

Asa Gray

(Darwin’s longest running and most significant exchange of correspondence dealing with the subjects of design in nature and religious belief was with the Harvard botanist Asa Gray..The entire extant correspondence, consisting of about 300 letters written between 1854 and 1881.)

Asa Gray (1810-1888), a Harvard professor of botony was a supporter of theistic evolution. He tried to persuade Darwin to adopt the  position of  theistic evolution. Darwin quickly struck down Gray’s  argument, “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make natural selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science. —(Charles Darwin below)

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

Michael Denton “ today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and sceptical outlook of the twentieth century…(It is) a theory that literally changed the world.”

PAGE 2

Vincent Matthew Sarich

Vincent Sarich in a debate with Mr Gish said, “As far as I am concerned it was not God that created man, but quite clearly and obviously man that in ultimate example of his overwhelming pride created an omnipotent God in his own idealized image of himself and in doing so thought to make himself all powerful and independent of any laws but those of his own making.”—

(Michael Ruse who testified in Arkansas Creationism trial in 1982 pictured below)

4. Leading scientists worldwide today do not believe creationism is scientific.

Michael Ruse – “And, I learnt what a hollow sham modern day creationism really is : crude, dogmatic, biblical literal-ism masquerading as  genuine science.”

Norman D. Newell

American Museum of Natural History

January 27, 1909 – April 18, 2005

Norman D. Newell – “Finally I should like to define the word science, and explain why scientific creationism cannot be included in its definition. Science is characterized by the willingness of an investigator to follow evidence wherever it leads.”

Robert C. Cowen – It is this many-faceted on-going science story that should be told in public school biology courses. Creationists want those courses to include the possibility of – and the “scientific” evidence for – a creator as well. There is no such “scientific” evidence. The concept of a supernatural creator is inherently religious. It has no place in a science class.

(Jeremy Rifkin below)

Image result for jeremy rifkin

Jeremy Rifkin – “Evolutionary theory has been enshrined as the centerpiece of our educational system, and elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from unnecessary abuse.”

5. There are philosophical implications of Darwinism.Francis Schaeffer in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? co-authored by C. Everett Koop in 1979 said this, “Humanism: 1. Rejects the doctrine of creation. 2. Therefore rejects the idea that there is anything stable or ‘given’ about human nature. 3. Sees human nature as part of a long, unfolding process of development in which everything is changing. 4. Casts around for some solution to the problem of despair that this determinist-evolutionist vision induces…

Image result for h. j. blackham

The humanist H. J. Blackham has expressed this with a dramatic illustration: On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967). Mr. Schaeffer comments, “One does not have to be highly educated to understand this. It follows directly from the starting point of the humanists’ position, namely, that everything is just matter. That is, that which has exited forever and in ever is only some form of matter or energy, and everything in our world now is this and only this in a more or less complex form.”

Photo of Paul M. Churchland

Paul Churchland – “The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process. If this is the correct account of our origin, then there seems neither need nor room to fit any nonphysical substances or properties into our theoretical accounts of ourselves. We are creatures of matter.”

Photo of J.W. Burrow

J.W.Burrow – “Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance. To some the sense of loss was irrevocable; It was as if an umbilical cord had been cut, and men found themselves part of a cold passionless universe.”

Douglas J. Futuyma
Image result for douglas futuyma

200 × 284Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More

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.”

William B. Provine

William B. Provine (Photo by Donald Dewsbury).

William B. Provine in “The End of Ethics?” article in HARD CHOICES (a magazine companion to the television series HARD CHOICES) wrote:Even though it is often asserted that science is fully compatible with our Judeo-Christian tradition, in fact it is not… To be sure, even in antiquity, the mechanistic view of life–that chance was responsible for the shape of the world– had a few adherents. But belief in overarching order was dominant; it can be seen as easily in such scientists as Newton, Harvey, and Einstein as in the theologians Augustine, Luther, and Tillich. But beginning with Darwin, biology has undermined that tradition. Darwin in effect asserted that all living organisms had been created by a combination of chance and necessity–natural selection.In the twentieth century, this view of life has been reinforced by a whole series of discoveries…Mind is the only remaining frontier, but it would be shortsighted to doubt that it can, one day, be duplicated in the form of thinking robots or analyzed in terms of the chemistry and electricity of the brain. The extreme mechanic view of life, which every new discovery in biology tends to confirm, has certain implications. First, God has no role in the physical world…Second, except for the laws of probability and cause and effect, there is no organizing principle in the world, and no purpose. 

AMS Prizes, Awards, and Fellowships
Image result for bertrand russell

Bertrand Russell – “That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”(Bertrand Russell, Free Man’s Worship)

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 52 THE BEATLES (Part D, There is evidence that the Beatles may have been exposed to Francis Schaeffer!!!) (Feature on artist Anna Margaret Rose Freeman )

______________   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 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 51 THE BEATLES (Part C, List of those on cover of Stg.Pepper’s ) (Feature on artist Raqib Shaw )

  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 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 50 THE BEATLES (Part B, The Psychedelic Music of the Beatles) (Feature on artist Peter Blake )

__________________   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 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 49 THE BEATLES (Part A, The Meaning of Stg. Pepper’s Cover) (Feature on artist Mika Tajima)

_______________ 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 ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________ 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 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

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 ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ 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 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

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 ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ 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 […]

__

__

MUSIC MONDAY The Beatles albums ranked Part 3 “Magical Mystery Tour” (1967)

_—

The Beatles albums ranked

The Beatles discography ranked

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.

3. “Magical Mystery Tour” (1967)

It’s hard to find an underrated album by The Beatles. If such a thing does exist, it is “Magical Mystery Tour.” If “Sgt. Pepper’s” was one of the very first concept albums, this is its untidy follow-up.

The record’s release was accompanied by mistrust from the public. This was largely due to the accompanying movie, a charming if slightly unguided, project. Paul McCartney has called it a “Beatles student film.”

Still, just try getting the scene of Lennon shoveling pasta down the throat of a woman out of your mind!

“Magical Mystery Tour” contains some truly memorable tracks, such as “I Am the Walrus” and “All You Need Is Love.” On no other record, perhaps, was the band working more freely with colorful, psychedelic elements.

The Beatles were at a creative crossroads at this time, and it shows in the somewhat disjointed nature of the album. While there are clear highlights when compared to their more successful releases, it is not relatively as cohesive.

This is no small part due to what was going on in the band members’ personal lives. 1967 was a significant year for The Beatles. Of course, they released their landmark album “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” which was a major critical and commercial success. It is considered one of their greatest works.

Famously, the band also took a trip to Rishikesh, India, in order to study with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Even more importantly, the band’s manager Brian Epstein tragically died of a drug overdose in August of the same year. This had a significant impact on their music and their worldview.

“Magical Mystery Tour” was released later in the year and was accompanied by a television film of the same name, which was a departure from the band’s previous work and featured more experimental and avant-garde elements.

Some reviewers felt that the film was overly experimental and confusing and that it failed to capture the magic of the Beatles’ music. Others thought that the film was an ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful attempt at creating something new and different.

John Lennon provided many of the more important tracks, including the Lewis Carroll-inspired “I Am the Walrus” and the childhood playground-inspired “Strawberry Fields Forever.”

Paul McCartney offered the adventure-theme title track, the lighthearted “Your Mother Should Know,” “The Fool on the Hill,” as well as “Hello, Goodbye,” and “Penny Lane.”

McCartney was also the creative force leading the production of the movie for which these songs were to serve as a psych-rock soundtrack.

George Harrison contributed the trippy “Blue Jay Way.” It’s a tune begging to be played on a loop while sitting in a quiet room.

The Beatles released “Magical Mystery Tour” in 1967. This was, of course, a time of great social and cultural upheaval. The late 1960s were marked by significant events such as the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the counterculture movement.

These events had a major influence on the music and culture of the time. Still, few things were quite as relevant as the rock music made by four lads from Liverpool.

The Beatles were at the forefront of the counterculture movement, and their music reflected the themes of rebellion, social change, and personal freedom that were prevalent during this time.

You may be interested in links to the other posts I have done on the Beatles and you can click on the link below: FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 288, LINKS TO 3 YEARS OF BEATLES POSTS (March of 2015 to Feb of 2018) Featured artist is Mark Dion


The Beatles A Hard Day’s Night sottotitolato in italiano

—-

—-

Pardon me for asking, but who’s that little old man?
-What little old man? -That little old man.
-Oh, that one. That’s my grandfather. -Your grandfather?
-That’s not your grandfather. -It is, you know.
But I’ve seen your grandfather. He lives in your house.
That’s my other grandfather, but he’s my grandfather as well.
How do you reckon that one out?
Everyone’s entitled to two, aren’t they? And that’s my other one.
We know all that, but what’s he doing here?
-Mother thought the trip’d do him good. -How’s that?
He’s nursing a broken heart.
Poor old thing.
Are you nursing a broken heart?
He’s a nice old man, isn’t he?
He’s very clean.
-Hello, Grandfather. -Hello.
He can talk then, can he?
Of course. He’s a human being, isn’t he?
If he’s your grandfather, who knows?
-And we’re looking after him, are we? -I’ll look after meself.
Yeah, that’s what I’m afraid of.
He’s got you worried, then?
Him? He’s a villain, a real mixer.
And he’ll cost you a fortune in breach of promise cases.
-Get on. -No, straight up.
-Hello, Shake. -Hello, Shake.
You got on all right, then?
No.
We’re here. Norm will be along in a minute with the tickets.
Who’s the little old man?
It’s Paul’s grandfather.
-But I thought– -No, That’s his other one.
Oh, that’s all right, then.
Clean though, isn’t he?
Aye. He’s very clean.
Thank God, you all got here. I’ve had a marvelous idea.
Once, let’s all try to behave like ordinary respectable citizens.
Let’s not cause trouble or pull any strokes.
Or do anything I’d be sorry for inj that television theater.*
Are you listening to me, Lennon?
You’re a swine. Isn’t he, George?
Yeah, a swine.
Thanks.
Hey!
Who’s that little old man?
-Well, who is he? -He belongs to Paul.
I’m going down for a cup of coffee. Anyone coming?
We’ll follow you down.
-I want me coffee. -You can come with Shake and me.
And look after him. I don’t want to find you’ve lost him.
Don’t be cheeky. I’ll bind him to me with promises.
Very clean, isn’t he?
Come on, Granddad.
Make up your mind, will you?
Hello. Morning.
All right.
Do you mind if we have it open?
Yes, I do.
Four of us want it open, if it’s all the same to you.
It isn’t. I travel on this train regularly twice a week…
…so I suppose I have some rights.
So have we.
We’ll have that thing off as well.
Knowledge of the Railway Acts tell you I’m within my rights.
But we want to hear it.
We’re a community, majority vote, up the workers and all that stuff.
Then I suggest you take that damn thing into the corridor…
…or some other part of the train where you obviously belong.
Give us a kiss.
Look, we paid for our seats too, you know.
I travel on this train regularly, twice a week.
Knock it off, Paul. You can’t win with his sort.
After all, it’s his train. Isn’t it, mister?
And don’t take that tone with me, young man.
I fought the war for your sort.
I bet you’re sorry you won.
-I shall call the guard. -Ah, but what?
They don’t take kindly to insults, you know.
Let’s go have some coffee and leave the kennel to Lassie.
Hey, mister, can we have our ball back?
Look, mister!
Mister, can we have our ball back?
-You want to watch it! -Well, it’s not my fault.
-You stick to that story, son. -I can’t help it. I’m taller than you.
They always say that.
I’ve got me eye on you.
I’m sorry, Norm. I can’t help being taller than you.
Don’t rub it in. I’ve a good mind to thump you, Shake.
If you have a barney, can I hold your coat?
-He started it. -I did not, you did.
What happened?
The old fellow said could he have these pictures and Norm said no.
I said “Why not be big about it?”
And?
Your grandfather said that Shake was always being taller just to spite me.
I knew it. He started it.
-I should’ve known. -You what?
You two never argue and in two minutes flat he’s got you at it.
He’s a king mixer.
He hates group unity, so he gets everyone at it.
I suggest you just give him the photos and have done with it.
All right, you old devil. Here you are.
Hey, Pauly, would you ever sign one of them for us?
Come on, Shake.
Hey, look at the talent.
-Let’s give them a pull. -Should l?
Don’t rush. None of your five-bar gate jumps.
What’s that supposed to mean?
I don’t know. I thought it just sounded distinguished.
George Harrison, The Scouse of Distinction.
Excuse me, madam.
These young men I’m with wondered if two of us could come over and join you.
I’d ask you meself only I’m shy.
I’m sorry, miss. You mustn’t fraternize with me prisoners.
-Prisoners? -Convicts in transit.
-Typical old lags, the lot of them. -You what?
Get out, ladies! Get out, while you can!
SON OF MAD
He’s been gone a long time.
-Who? -Paul’s grandfather.
-I didn’t notice. Where did he go? -Down the, uh….
-Oh, down the, uh…. -Yeah. Down the, uh….
Give him a couple of minutes, then.
Hey, have you seen Paul’s grandfather?
Of course. He’s concealed about me person.
He must have slipped off somewhere.
-Have you lost him? -Don’t exaggerate.
-You’ve lost him! -Look, put it this way, Pauly….
He’s mislaid him.
Honest, you can’ t trust you with anything, Norm.
-If you’ve lost him, I’ll cripple you. -He can’t have gone far.
Come, lads, let’s look up the sharp end.
What’s the matter with you, then?
It’s his grandfather. He doesn’t like me ’cause I’m little.
You’ve got an inferiority complex.
That’s why I play the drums. It’s me active compensatory factor.
Going in, then?
No. She’ll only reject me in the end and I’ll be frustrated.
You may be lucky this time.
No, I know the psychological pattern. It plays havoc with me drum skins.
-You seen that old man we were with? -We’ve broken out!
The blessed freedom of it all.
Have you got a nail file? These handcuffs are killing me.
I was framed. I’m innocent.
Sorry for disturbing you girls.
I bet you can’t guess what I was in for.
Should we go in here?
No, it’s probably a honeymoon couple or a company director.
I don’t care. I’m going to broaden me outlook.
-Congratulate me, boys. I’m engaged. -Oh, no you’re not.
And to think me own grandson would’ve let them put me behind bars.
Don’t dramatize. You’re lucky to be here.
If they’d have had their own way you’d have been dropped off already.
You’ve got to admit you’ve upset a lot of people.
At least I can keep my eye on you while you’re stuck in here.
Shove up.
-Odds or evens? -Odds.
Don’t worry, son. We’ll get the best lawyer green stamps can buy.
It’s a laugh a line with Lennon.
-Anyway, it’s your fault. -Why me?
Why not you?
God, it’s depressing in here, isn’t it?
Funny. They usually reckon dogs more than people in England.
You’d expect something more palatial.
-Let’s do something, then. -Like what?
Okay.
There’s the girls.
I’ll deal.
The Liverpool Shuffle.
1 for you, 2 for me, 3 for him.
-He’s wearing his lucky rings. -All mine.
They won’t buy you happiness, my son.
Hey! Don’t move, any of you.
They’ve gone potty out there. The place is surging with girls.
Please, sir, can I have one?
No, you can’t.
When I tell you, get out through this door into that big car that’s waiting.
Come on, lads! Go ahead!
-I don’t snore. -You do. Repeatedly.
-Do I snore, John? -Yeah. You’re a window rattler, son.
It’s just your opinion. Do I snore, Paul?
With a trombone hooter like yours it would be unnatural if you didn’t.
No, Pauly. Don’t mock the afflicted.
Come off it. It’s only a joke.
It may be a joke, but it’s his nose.
He can’t help having a hideous, great hooter.
And the poor little head trembling under the weight of it.
John, Paul, George, come on.
Get at it.
The income tax caught up with us at last.
-None for me, then? -Sorry.
This will keep you busy.
It’s your nose, you know. Fans are funny that way.
They take a dislike to things. They’ll pick on a nose.
You pick on your own.
Here.
-Are those yours? -No. They’re for Ringo.
It must have cost you a fortune in stamps, Ringo.
He comes from a large family.
Well.
What’s The Circle Club?
“The Circle Club requests the company of Mr. Richard Starkey”…that’s you–
“…to their gaming rooms. Chemin de fer, baccarat and champagne buffet.”
-They want me. -It’s got round you’re a big spender.
You’re not going.
Quite right. Invites to gambling dens full of easy money and fast women…
…chicken sandwiches and cornets of caviar. Disgusting.
That’s mine.
Get your pens out.
Why?
It’s homework time for you load of college puddings.
I want this lot answered tonight.
I want to go out.
‘ll brook no denial.
You couldn’t get a pen in your foot, you swine.
Chatter on, son, chatter on.
A touch of the writer’s cramp will soon sort you out. Come on, Shake.
For now, then.
-Where you going, then? -He told us to stay, didn’t he?
-Come, lad. -What?
I just got to get me jacket.
-Couldn’t we get a taxi? -No, we couldn’t get a taxi.
Come in.
I’ll clear up, sir.
Suivez.
Alors, monsieur?
Soufflé.
I bet you’re a great swimmer.
My turn?
Bingo!
Pas “Bingo”, monsieur. “Banco.”
I’ll take the little darlings anyway.
Two and one are three, carry one is four.
Bingo!
The manager!
Come on!
Now, come on you lot, get on with it.
-We were gonna do them, but you know. -Aye. Well, now, now, now!
I’m starting.
Hey? Any of you lot put a man in the cupboard?
No.
Well, somebody did.
He’s right, you know.
There you go.
Hey?
What’s all this?
Oh, him. He’s been lurking.
He looks a right lurker, doesn’t he?
You’re undressed. Where are your clothes?
Well, the old gentlemen, he borrowed them to go gambling at the Circ’.
-He’s gone to my club, has he? -Yeah. It’s all your fault.
-What? -Getting invites to gambling clubs.
He’s probably in the middle of some orgy by now.
Orgy!
-Yeah, but what about me? -You’re too old.
Encore du champagne, monsieur?
Oh, yeah. And I’ll have some more champagne as well.
Lord John McCartney, millionaire, lrish peer, filthy rich, of course.
I don’t know. He looks quite clean to me.
Try to act with a bit of decorum. This is a posh place.
We know how to behave. We’ve had lessons.
I’m sorry, sir, members and invited guests only.
Aye, well, uh….
I’m with them. I’m Ringo’s sister.
-Have you got a little old man here? -Do you mean Lord McCartney?
He’s at it again. I’m his grandfather. I mean….
It must be the dolly floor show.
Put me down!
Who are these ruffians?
Before you go, gentlemen, there’s the little matter of the bill.
I’ll take care of that.
-A hundred and eighty pounds?! -I beg your pardon, guineas.
Your winnings, my Lord, one hundred and ninety pounds.
-What about me change? -Cloak room charge.
Ah, well, easy come, easy go.
Well?
Ah, the filthy Englander.
Keep boating, Tiny.
-Go on, George. -Don’t be ridiculous.
-But you said I could. -Me mind boggles at the very idea.
A grown man and you haven’t shaved with a safety razor.
It’s not my fault. I come from a long line of electricians.
-Well, you’re not practicing on me. -All right, then. But show us.
Come on, then.
Rule Britannia! Britannia, rule the–
Put your tongue away. It looks disgusting hanging there.
One slip of the razor and….
Henreich! Headphones!
Help!
Torpedoed again, eh?
The car’s waiting to take you to the studio. Where’s John?
In the bath.
All right, Lennon, let’s have you.
Come on, John, stop larking about.
John?
John? John?
What are you messing around with that boat for?
There’s a car waiting. Come on!
Ready, John? As soon as we draw up, open that door and straight in.
-Can’t be waiting much longer. -I knew they’d be late.
It’s your press conference.
Where have you been?
Give us a couple of shakes to get our breath.
Give us a shout when it’s over.
I have a suit just like him, you know.
This lot means it. They’re even taking hostages.
I don’t like the handkerchief. I have it in me trouser pocket.
You can’t blow your nose on it up there, can you, mister?
No, you can’t.
I’ve always liked that question.
I never notice his nose till about six months ago.
Me mother asked me before we left for America if we wanted any sandwiches.
And when I plugged her in she just blew up.
Tell me, how did you find America?
Turn left at Greenland.
-Has success changed your life? -Yes.
I’d like to keep Britain tidy.
Are you a mod or a rocker?
Um, no. I’m a mocker.
Have you any hobbies?
No, actually we’re just good friends.
Do you think these haircuts have come to stay?
Well, this one has, you know, it’s stuck on good and proper now.
Frightfully nice.
-What would you call that hairstyle? -Arthur.
No, actually we’re just good friends.
Yours are brown, aren’t they?
What do you call that collar?
Oh, a collar.
-Do you often see your father? -No, actually we’re just good friends.
How do you like your girlfriends to dress?
That was a drag. I’m starving.
-Didn’t even get a jam butty. Did you? -No.
Anything left?
We just finished, Pauly.
Hey, George, give us your John Henry on that picture.
-Look at that! -What’s there?
-It’s our set down there. -Should we go down and have a go?
-There’s trees and everything. -That’s a lot of fellows for one set.
-That’s not a tree. -It is.
It’s a bird.
Just passing through.
-Where are they? -On the stage. Down here.
Leave them drums alone.
Surely, I could have just a little touch.
You so much as breathe, I’m out on strike.
Aren’t you being rather arbitrary?
There you go. Hiding behind a smoke screen of bourgeois clichés.
I don’t go messing about with your earphones, do l?
Spoilsport.
Well.
He’s very fussy about his drums, you know. They loom large in his legend.
-What’s up? -He’s sulking again.
I’ll show him.
Pardon, Tiny. I’d like more drums there.
-I think it’s on the third bit. -It sounds like a cover.
On the third bit, more bang!
All right, let’s hear no more about it. You’re probably right.
Look.
If you think I’m unsuitable, let’s be open. I can’t stand backstage politics.
Aren’t you tending to black-and-white the situation somewhat?
Well, quite honestly, I wasn’t expecting a musical arranger…
…to question my ability picture- wise.
I could listen to him for hours.
What’s all this about a musical arranger?
Mr. McCartney, Sr.
Pauly, they’re trying to fob you off with this musical charlatan…
…but I gave him the test.
I’m quite happy to be replaced.
He’s a typical buck-passer.
-I won an award. -A likely story.
It’s on the wall in my office.
Hello, our lot. Everybody happy?
All right. If you don’t need them, I’ll lock them up in the dressing room.
Please do. I’ll not need them for half an hour. Thank you.
Get me a bottle of milk and some tranquilizers.
It’s a I see it all now. It’s a plot.
Tranquilizers.
Come on, I’ve got the key.
Come on, Ringo.
Come on.
Leslie Jackson?
I saw your father in the old Empire in 1 909.
If you’re as good as him, son, you’re all right.
Gear costume.
-Swap? -Cheeky.
Come on, lads. No messing about.
Lennon, put them girls down or I’ll tell your mother.
Stop messing about.
Stay in here until that rehearsal.
If I have to, I’ll put the key in the lock and turn it.
We’re out!
I suppose you realize this is private property.
Sorry we hurt your field, mister.
Not here. Hello, Dicky.
Probably gone to the canteen.
No, that’s too easy for Lennon.
He’s out there somewhere causing trouble, just to upset me.
You’re imagining it, letting it prey on your mind.
No, this is a battle of nerves between John and me.
John hasn’t got any.
-What? -Nerves.
No, that’s just the trouble.
I’ve toyed with the idea of a ball and chain…
…but he’d just rattle them at me.
Sometimes I think he enjoys seeing me suffer.
-Hello! -Hello.
-Don’t tell me you’re– -No, I’m not.
-You are. -I’m not.
I know you are.
I’m not, no.
-You look just like him. -Do l?
You’re the first one that’s said that, ever.
Yes, you do. Look.
No, my eyes are lighter. All right, Noddy.
-The nose. -Yes, your nose is, very.
-Is it? -I would have said so.
-You know him better. -He’s only a casual acquaintance.
-That’s what you say. -What have you heard?
-It’s all over the place. -Is it really?
But I wouldn’t have it. I stuck up for you.
-I knew I could rely on you. -Thanks.
You don’t look like him at all.
She looks more like him than I do.
There will be a full rehearsal in ten minutes.
Ten minutes from now, a full rehearsal.
There you are.
Sorry, I must have made a mistake.
No, you’re just late. Actually, I think he’ll be very pleased with you.
-Really? -You’re quite a feather in the cap.
I’ve got one.
I think so.
Yes, he can talk.
No, and I think you ought to see him.
All right.
Come on.
Sorry.
You don’t see many of these nowadays, do you?
Come on.
Simon, will this do?
Not bad, dolly, not really bad. Turn around, chicky baby.
He’s a definite poss. He’ll look good alongside Susan.
This will be quite painless. Don’t breathe on me, Adrian.
I’m terribly sorry, but there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding.
You can come off it with us.
Don’t do all the old adenoidal glottal stop and carry on for our benefit.
I’m afraid I don’t understand.
-My God, he’s a natural. -I told them not to send real ones.
They know by now, the phonies are much easier to handle.
Still, he’s a good type.
We’d like you to give us your opinion on some clothes for teenagers.
By all means, I’d be quite prepared for that eventuality.
Not your real opinion. You’ll learn it.
-Can he read? -Of course I can.
I mean lines. Can you handle lines?
I’ll have a bash.
Give him whatever it is they drink, a cokerama?
Ta.
At least he’s polite.
Show him the shirts. Adrian.
You’ll like these.
You’ll really dig them. They’re fab and all the other pimply hyperboles.
I wouldn’t be seen dead in them. They’re dead grotty.
-Grotty? -Yeah, grotesque.
Make a note of that word and give it to Susan.
It’s rather touching, really.
This kid is trying to give me his utterly valueless opinion…
…when I know that within a month…
…he’ll be suffering from a violent inferiority complex…
…and loss of status because he isn’t wearing one of these nasty things.
Of course they’re grotty, you wretched nit! That’s why they were designed.
-But that’s what you’ll want. -I won’t.
-You can be replaced, chicky baby. -I don’t care.
And that pose is out too, Sunny Jim.
The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing.
Anyway, if you don’t cooperate, you won’t meet Susan.
And who’s this Susan when she’s at home?
Only Susan Campey, our resident teenager.
You’ll have to love her. She’s your symbol.
You mean that posh bird who gets everything wrong?
I beg your pardon?
The lads frequently sit round the television and watch her for a giggle.
Once we wrote these letters saying how gear she was and all that rubbish.
She’s a trendsetter. It’s her profession.
She’s a drag. A well-known drag.
We turn the sound down on her and say rude things.
-Get him out of here. -Have I said something amiss?
He’s mocking the program’s image.
-Sorry about the shirts. -Get him out!
You don’t think he’s a new phenomenon, do you?
You mean an early clue to the new direction?
Where’s the calendar?
No. It’s all right. He’s just a troublemaker.
The change isn’t due for three weeks yet.
All the same, make a note not to extend Susan’s contract.
Let’s not take any unnecessary chances.
So I explained to my mommy he was a very clean man.
There’s no one here.
Where have they gone?
Surely, that’s wrong, isn’t it? Not you.
Get him out!
Someone’s coming! Quick, hide!
Stop being taller than me.
It’s not my fault.
Right on time.
-What are you doing here? -Hiding.
-You must be soft or something. -We weren’t hiding. We were resting.
I thought I told you lot to stay here.
When I say stay put, I mean stay put.
Don’t cane me, sir. I was led astray.
Shut up, John. They’re waiting for you in the studio.
Gear, I’m dying to do a bit of work.
God bless you, Ringo.
-Teacher’s pet. -Crawler.
-Betrayed the class, eh? -Lay off.
-Temper! -Well!
Get a move on, they’re waiting for you!
Sorry.
I now declare this bridge open.
Where are they?
Where are they?
Where are they?
They’re coming.
They’re coming. I promise you.
If they’re not on this floor in thirty seconds there’ll be trouble.
Understand me?
Trouble.
Standing about?
-Some people have it dead easy. -Once your over thirty, your past it.
It’s a young man’s medium. I just can’t stand the pace.
-As young as that, then? -I was.
There he goes. Look at him. Bet his wife doesn’t know about her.
If he’s got one. Look at his sweater.
You never know. She might have knitted it.
She knitted him.
Run through your number and try not to jiggle out of position.
Hello, three? Coming to you.
Three? Three? Coming to you. Three?
We are on three.
-What? -We’re on three.
Oh, yes.
Music.
Thank you. Very nice.
-Make-up? -Not really. They don’t need any.
-We’ll powder them off for the shine. -Yes.
Norm, take them down to Make-up and powder them off. The shine, you know.
Sure.
You blinked!
Your grandfather’s not talking to me. I think he’s got a sulk on.
It must be catching on. He’s given it to Ringo here.
-Stop picking on him. -I don’t need you to protect me.
Got a touch of the swine fever, haven’t you?
Come on, lads. Sit down.
This is impossible. We’ll never get them all done in time.
Then do us first. It doesn’t matter to them whether they’re made up or not.
By the way, what’s that?
My name’s Betty.
Do you want a punch up your frogged tunic?
John, behave yourself or I’ll murder you.
Shake, take that wig off. It suits you.
Ringo, what are you up to?
Page five.
You always fancied yourself as a guardsman, didn’t you?
“That this too too solid flesh would melt.”
You won’t interfere with the rugged concept of my personality, will you?
QUEEN
He’s reading “The Queen”. That’s an in-joke, you know.
It’s my considered opinion that you’re a bunch of sissies.
You’re just jealous.
Leave him alone, Lennon, or I’ll tell them all the truth about you.
-You wouldn’t. -I would, though.
Lookit, I thought I was supposed to be getting a change of scenery…
…and so far I’ve been in a train and a room…
…and a car and a room and a room and a room.
Maybe that’s all right for a bunch of powdered gewgaws like you.
But I’m feeling decidedly straight-jacketed.
What a clean old man.
Don’t press your luck.
He’s sex-obsessed. The older generation leading this country to galloping ruin.
What’s a pretty girl like you doing in a place like this?
They’re nearly ready for you, lads. Just finishing the band call.
I say, did you go to Harrod’s?
I was there in fifty-eight, you know.
-I can get you on the stage. -How?
Turn right at the corridor and go past the fireplace.
I don’t like yours.
Kids, I got an idea.
Why don’t we do the show right here?
Two, three, four.
Very good, that, George.
We’re trying.
-You’re trying. Let’s go. -That was great, lads.
You’ve got about an hour, but don’t leave the theater.
Where are you going, John?
She’s gonna show me her stamp collection.
So’s mine.
John, I’m talking to you.
This final run-through is important, understand? lmportant!
I want a cup of tea!
Shake?
I gotta adjust the decibels on the imbalance, Norm.
Clever. George?
Ringo, look after him, will you?
Aw, Norm!
Do I have to raise my voice?
All right. Come on, Granddad.
I’m a drummer, not a wet nurse. Why does it have to be me?
Look at him sitting there with his hooter scraping away at that book.
Well, what’s the matter with that?
Have you no natural resources of your own?
Have they even robbed you of that?
You can learn from books.
You can, can you?
Sheeps heads!
You could learn more by getting out there and living.
Out where?
Any old where!
But not our little Richard. Oh, no.
When you’re not thumping them pagan skins…
…you’re tormenting your eyes with that rubbish.
Books are good.
Parading’s better.
Parading?
Parading the streets…
…trailing your coat, bowling along, living!
-Well, I am living. -You? Living?
When was the last time you gave a girl a pink-edged daisy?
When did you last embarrass a sheila with your…
…cool appraising stare?
You’re a bit old for that sort of chat, aren’t you?
At least I’ve got a backlog of memories.
All you’ve got is that book!
Stop picking on me. You’re as bad as the rest of them.
So you are a man after all!
What’s that mean?
Do you think I haven’t noticed?
Do you think I wasn’t aware of the drift?
You poor, unfortunate scruff.
They’ve driven you into books with their cruel, unnatural treatment…
…exploiting your good nature.
I don’t know.
Sure, that lot’s never happier unless they’re jeering you.
Where’d they be without the steady support of your drum beat…
…that’s what I’d like to know.
Yeah, that’s right.
And what’s it all come to in the end?
Yeah, what’s in it for me?
A book.
Yeah, a blooming book!
When you could be out there betraying a rich American widow…
…or sipping palm wine in Tahiti before you’re too old like me.
Funny, being middle-aged and old…
…takes up most of your time, doesn’t it?
You’re only right.
Where are you going?
I’m going parading before it’s too late.
-Do you know what just happened to me? -No, I don’t.
Stop looking so scornful. It’s twisting your face.
Tell you about–
Here he is, the middle-aged boy wonder.
I thought you were looking after the old man.
We’ve only half an hour till the final run-through. He can’t walk out on us.
Can’t he? He’s done it, son.
-You know what happened? -We know.
-Your grandfather stirred him up. -He hasn’t.
Yeah, he filled his head with notions, seemingly.
The old mixer! Come on, we’ll have to put him right.
Can we have all dancers on stage for rehearsal, please?
Split up and look for him.
We’ve become a limited company.
I’ll look in here again.
WE BUY ANYTHING
-Hello, there. -Get out of it, Shorty.
You should have more sense than to go round chucking bricks about!
Southerner!
That’s my hoop! Stop playing with it!
That no hoop, it’s a lethal weapon. Have you got a license for it?
Don’t be so stroppy!
A boy your age bowling hoops at people.
-How old are you? -Eleven.
I bet you’re only ten and a half.
Ten and two-thirds.
There you are, then, and don’t be bowling people.
You can have it. I’m packing it in. It depresses me.
-You what? -It gets on me wick.
-Why aren’t you at school? -I’m a deserter.
Are you, now?
-I’ve blown school out. -Just you?
No. Ginger, Eddie Fallon and Ding Dong.
-Ding Dong bell, eh? -That’s right.
They were supposed to come with us, but they chickened.
They’re your mates?
-Not much cop without them, is it? -It’s all right.
What’re they like?
Ginger’s mad. He says things all the time.
-Eddie’s good at spitting and punching. -How about Ding Dong?
He fancies himself. It’s all right though, he’s one of the gang.
Why aren’t you at work?
I’m a deserter, too.
Charlie!
See you.
Come in, number seven, your time’s up!
I’m sorry, boys. I didn’t mean it, honest.
If he says that again, I’ll strike him.
They’re good lads. They’ll be back.
Yes, but we’ve only twenty minutes to the final run-through.
I meant no harm. I was trying to encourage Ringo to enjoy himself.
God knows what you’ve unleashed on the unsuspecting South.
It’ll be wine, women and song all the way when he gets the taste for it.
That was fresh this morning. Two and nine.
Right! On your way!
-You what? -You heard.
On your way, troublemaker.
Watch it!
-What? -Worry, will you?
That’s it, two minutes to the final run-through.
-They’re bound to miss it now. -I’ll murder that Lennon!
-We could survive a missed run-through. -As long as they head up for the show?
You’re right, I wouldn’t do to miss the show.
Shut up, cheerful.
You don’t think–
-Don’t worry. -They can’t do this to me!
It’s all your fault.
-Me? -Yes, it is.
If they don’t turn up, I wouldn’t be in your shoes–
For all the tea in China. Neither would l.
-You dirty traitor! -Well, of course.
Yes, of course.
-Did you want something? -I could eat the lot of you.
You’d look great with an apple in your gob.
Do you realize you could have missed the final run-through?
We’re sorry about that.
Norm? There’s only three of them.
We were looking for Ringo, but we realized he must have come back here.
Would you realize that we’re on the air…
…live, in front of an audience in 45 minutes and you’re one short?
Control yourself. He must be here somewhere.
We’ll look in the dressing room.
Yes, to the dressing rooms.
Where’s me grandfather?
-He can look after himself. -I suppose so.
Personally signed and hand-written by your own sweet boys!
The chance of a lifetime!
Be the envy of your less fortunate sisters!
Me photos! Where’s me hat?
Break it up! Move up!
Come on, move along.
Why don’t you go?
-Will you just move along? -They’ll take you apart if you stay.
I’ll have the law on you!
Let’s take you in.
Thank you.
Got you! You nasty little person, you.
You what?
I’m Ringo Starr! I’ve got a show to do. I’m on in a few minutes.
You’ve got to let me go. I’m Ringo!
That’s what they all say.
I don’t care who you are. You can save that for the stipendiary.
Here you are, Sarge.
-What is he? -I’ve got a little list here.
“Wandering abroad, malicious intent, acting in a suspicious manner…
…conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace.”
-You name it, he’s done it. -A little savage, is he?
-A proper little aborigine. -I demand to see my solicitor.
What’s his name?
If you’re going to get technical about it.
It’s going to be one of those nights, is it?
Sit Charlie Peace down over there.
You got me here, so do your worst!
But by God, I’ll take one of you with me.
I know your game!
You’ll get me into tiled room and then out come the rubber hoses!
There’s a fire, is there?
You ugly, great brute!
You have sadism stamped all over your bloated British kisser!
I’ll go on hunger strike!
I know your caper.
The kidney punch and the rabbit-clout…
…and the size twelve boot ankle-tap.
What’s he on about?
I’m a soldier of the Republic!
You’ll need a mahogany truncheon on this boy-o.
A nation once again
A nation once again
Get Lloyd George over there next to the mechanic in the cloth cap…
…and I’ll sort this lot out.
Come on, Dad. Sit down over here.
Ringo, me old scout, they grabbed your leg for the iron too.
I’m not exactly a voluntary patient.
Have they roughed you up yet? -What?
They’re a desperate crew of drippings and they’ve fists like matured hams…
…for pounding poor, defenseless lads like you.
One of us has got to escape. I’ll get the boys.
-Hold on, son, I’ll be back for you. -For me?
And if they get you on the floor, watch out for your brisket.
They seem all right to me.
That’s what they want you to think. All coppers are villains.
Would you two like a cup of tea?
You see? Sly villains.
No, thank you, Mister Sergeant, sir.
No, not for me. Please, don’t.
So you just brought the old chap out of the crowd for his own good?
He was getting a bit nasty, so we had to bring him in.
He can’t stop here.
This is the stuff he’s been hawking round?
-Yes, Sarge. Photographs. -Photographs.
Well, son, it’s now or never.
Johnny McCartney will give you a run for your threepence ha’penny!
You forgot your photographs.
Only half an hour and you’re on.
-Can I say something? -Yes, anything.
It seems highly unlikely we’ll be on.
I mean, the law of averages are against it.
If you could get the juggler on with a couple more clubs…
…that would fill in a bit of time.
You can’t go in here.
I’ll have the hides of you lot.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Go home.
-I must see Pauly. -Go home and see him on the telly.
-Can you fix him for me? -Yeah.
Sixpence.
-Each. -In advance.
Mercenaries.
It’s all right. Leave him alone.
What’s happening here?
Paul, where are you?
Granddad, where’s Ringo?
The police have the poor, unfortunate lad in the Bridewell.
-The police station! -He’ll be pulp by now.
-Go get him! -We’ll get him. We’ll fix it, Norm.
We’ve only got twenty minutes.
What is all this?
Hold on until we get our breath.
Are you all right now?
Yeah.
-Yeah? -See you.
Quick, follow them!
I’d have to laugh even when they kick the stool away.
Lads! You’re back, thank goodness. Where’s Ringo?
-There he is. We got him. -Great!
If you hadn’t come back it would have meant…
…the epilogue or the news in Welsh for life.
Aren’t you supposed to be in that box?
Where’s the old mixer?
Here, Pauly.
I’ve got a few words to say to you, two-faced John McCartney.
Leave him alone. He’s back, isn’t he? It’s not his fault he’s old.
What’s old got to do with it? He’s a troublemaker and a mixer.
You’re right, but he’s only asking for attention.
Your trouble is you should have gone west to America.
You would have been a senior citizen of Boston.
You took a wrong turn and you’re a lonely old man from Liverpool.
Well, I’m clean.
Are you?
-Norm? -What?
-I’ve been thinking, it’s not my fault. -What isn’t?
I’m not taller than you are. You’re smaller than I am.
Anyone at home?
Shake, where’s me boot?
-Will you get us some tea? -All right.
Lads, get changed. We’re going out in five minutes.
I’ve got the stuff. Come on, lads.
Aren’t we going–
The office thinks it’s best if we go to Wolverhampton straight away.
-Tonight? We’ll never make it. -You’ve got a midnight matinee.
There’s only one thing I’ve got to say to you, John Lennon.
-What? -You’re a swine.
Come on, you’re hanging up the parade!
Get rid of those things.

Elites Manufacture Fake “Hate” Crisis As Pretext For Mass Spying, Blacklists, And Censorship


——

Elites Manufacture Fake “Hate” Crisis As Pretext For Mass Spying, Blacklists, And Censorship

Totalitarian measures spread to California from Germany, New Zealand, and Europe 

MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

MAY 9, 2023

∙ PAID

447

86

California Governor Gavin Newsom and former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden in 2022 [Getty Images]

The public’s hatred of racial, sexual, and religious minorities is so out of control that it imperils our democracy. At least, that’s what influential leaders from Joe Biden and Barack Obama to former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden and California Governor Gavin Newsom want us to believe.

Last week Newsom announced a state initiative for citizens to report disfavored speech (non-criminal “hate incidents”) they see online:

California’s “Civil Rights Department” (CRD) invites citizens to speculate about the motive of the “perpetrator.”

In a statement, Newsom’s office said the legislation was “in direct response to the rise in reported hate crimes in California, which in recent years, reached their highest levels since 2001 – jumping almost 33% from 2020 to 2021.”

Indeed, criminal complaints of hate crimes rose significantly, not just 33% between 2020 and 2021 but also 80% from 2012 to 2021, according to California state data.

But convictions of hate crimes have been flat. In 2012 there were 107 hate crime convictions in California. In 2021, there were 109, according to the same data.

It’s possible that hate crimes really did rise by 80%, and juries decided not to give prosecutors convictions. In San Fransicko, I assemble a large body of evidence to show California residents have become more tolerant of crime.

But it’s also possible that convictions stayed the same because there was no increase in prosecutable hate crimes. And it may be that Californian prosecutors simply labeled more crimes as “hate” crimes because they were primed to do so by the media’s 700% – 1,000% increased focus on racism between 2011 and 2020.

Zach Goldberg, “How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening,” Tablet, August 4, 2020 

Whatever the case, California’s total number of hate crime complaints is trivial. There were just 285 hate crime complaints in California, a state with 39 million people, in 2021. There was an order of magnitude more homicides in California, 2,361, in 2021.

Prejudice still exists in the United States. The California church shooting from May 2022 was motivated by political hatred. And the recent mall shooter in Texas may have been motivated by racist ideology.

But the ideologies don’t line up neatly politically. The California church shooter was Taiwanese and motivated by an obscure political grievance. The Texas shooter may have been racist, but he was also Latino. And the recent shooter in Nashville was trans and targeted Christians.

And in many instances, the political ideology is plainly secondary to mental illness. That was certainly the case with the psychotic and drug-addicted homeless man from Berkeley who attacked the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco last year. And it may have been the case with the shooters in Texas and Nashville.

In truth, acceptance of racial, religious, and sexual differences has never been higher in recorded human history. Never before have same-sex and mixed-race couples have been more accepted across all Western nations, which are far more tolerant than most other nations worldwide.

Trans people are celebrated, with an entire reality show dedicated to documenting in celebratory fashion the sexual reassignment surgery and hormone use of a trans girl named Jazz Jennings. And few places are more celebratory of transgenderism than California.

All of which raises a question. If there’s no evidence that “hate incidents” are rising, abundant evidence that tolerance is rising, and overwhelming evidence that the media created a moral panic about racism, why are nations and nation-sized states like California urging mass spying and creating blacklists?

Pro-Transgender Protesters Occupy 4 State Capitols in a Week

Joshua Arnold  / April 05, 2023

transgender protesters

In one week, thousands of left-wing protesters entered Capitol buildings in four states, disrupting legislative sessions, mostly over bills to protect women and children from the effects of transgender ideology. Pictured: Demonstrators protest the passing of SB 150 on March 29 at the Kentucky State Capitol in Frankfort, Kentucky. SB 150 guarantees student privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms and protects minors from gender transition procedures. (Photo: Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview.

Last week, hundreds or thousands of left-wing protesters entered Capitol buildings in four separate states, disrupting legislative chambers holding session in at least two of them. 

In three out of four incidents, the protesters explicitly opposed legislation to defend children, families, and women from the harmful effects of transgender ideology; in the other incident, a protest for gun control lapsed into pro-transgender overtones. The strange, unprecedented nature of these Capitol occupations renders the media’s near-silence on them only more astounding.

Let’s begin by reviewing the facts, as you likely haven’t seen or heard about these incidents anywhere else.

March 27: Austin, Texas

On Monday afternoon, the open-air rotunda of the Texas Capitol extension was “completely full” with pro-transgender protesters who gathered “to oppose HB 1686,” which would prohibit gender transition procedures on minors “for the purpose of transitioning a child’s biological sex.”

photo shows what appears to be at least hundreds of protesters filling three levels of the rotunda while one account estimated the number at “over a thousand activists.” The extension of the open-air rotunda is available for public events, but the public calendar shows no scheduled events on March 27.

A committee of the Texas legislature heard testimony Monday on numerous bills to protect minors from gender transition procedures and drag shows, among other topics that angered transgender ideologues. Protesters held up paper signs representing 140 bills they opposed.

The activists remained at the open-air rotunda—which appears to be accessed via underground entrances through the Capitol complex—from mid-afternoon until sometime after nightfall, at which point hundreds of activists then entered the Capitol. The activists can be heard chanting, “Shut it down,” as they exited the rotunda, and then echoing through the hallways, “Protect trans kids.”

Apparently more than 2,500 people signed up to testify on HB 1686, but Chairwoman Stephanie Klick, a Republican, ended the testimony at midnight.

In response, the transgender protesters staged a “die-in” in which protesters lie on the ground and pretend to be dead—except for that one girl on her phone. The chant “Protect trans kids” could still be heard as protesters began to lie down on the ground, completely blocking the hallways in violation of the Texas Capitol’s demonstration policy. Legislators and others who testified at the hearing—including detransitioners—were forced to step over the people lying on the ground as they chanted. After the “die-in,” protesters went back to the open-air rotunda and continued their chant for over half an hour.

March 29: Frankfort, Kentucky

Before the Kentucky House and Senate convened at noon to consider a veto override attempt on SB 150, opponents and supporters of the legislation held dueling rallies at the Capitol. SB 150 promotes parental rights in education, guarantees student privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms, and protects minors from gender transition procedures.

Hundreds of pro-transgender activists had gathered early in the morning for a rally on the Capitol steps, including students from more than half a dozen schools.

After the pro-SB 150 rally in the Capitol rotunda concluded, pro-transgender protesters gathered in that space, although some had occupied a second-floor balcony during that rally. A bearded man, grotesquely dressed as either a “clown nun” or a demon, led the mostly teenaged crowd in an ironic chant of “Shame, shame, shame.” They continued to chant for hours outside the Senate chamber as the Senate discussed the veto override.

Around 2 p.m., the Senate voted 29-8 to override the veto. The Senate then sent the bill over to the House chambers, and the House began debate. But before the House could hold an override vote, protesters filled the overhead gallery, carrying signs and chanting loudly. Shortly before 3 p.m., the chanting grew so loud that it drowned out the debate taking place in the chamber below, disrupting the legislature’s proceedings.

Police removed the protesters from the gallery while they chanted, “Trans kids are under attack.” The protesters linked arms in their seats, forcing police to exert considerable force to separate them one by one. The police arrested 19 people in total, charging them with criminal trespassing in the third degree.

All protesters were released from jail by 1 a.m. Thursday.

The House voted 76-23 to override the veto at around 3:30 p.m., after order was restored.

Protesters remained in the Capitol rotunda, chanting, even after both chambers had voted to override the bill—although their chant changed to “Vote them out.”

March 30: Nashville, Tennessee

“Thousands, not hundreds” of protesters, according to one left-wing Twitter account, gathered early Thursday morning at the Tennessee state Capitol “demanding stronger gun laws.” One reporter said the pro-gun control crowd was “flooding into the Tennessee Capitol.”

“Demonstrators entered the Capitol peacefully—but loudly—and climbed to the second floor, where they deafeningly chanted ‘do something’ as lawmakers arrived at both chambers for the day’s legislative business,” said The Tennessean’s Vivian Jones. “State troopers removed a handful of protesters who disrupted House and Senate proceedings.”

Sometime that afternoon, reporters captured footage of half a dozen police officers holding a doorway against a large, screaming crowd pressing against them. In the video, the officers take hold of one protester, discuss among themselves—presumably whether to arrest him—and then return him to the crowd as they chant, “Give him back.”

The reporter who took the video deleted her original tweet and then reposted it to Twitter, explaining: “I deleted the last tweet because I wasn’t as clear. This was a peaceful protest. Students, parents and their supporters went through Capitol security to lobby for gun control in the Capitol. No one was arrested. This shoving started when THP [Tennessee Highway Patrol] needed to make way for lawmakers.”

Breitbart reporter Spencer Lindquist provided additional context to the controversial footage. “Protesters in the Tennessee Capitol blocked a bathroom doorway, preventing a legislator from exiting,” he explained. “That’s the lead up to this widely circulated video.”

The only quiet moment came when protesters held a moment of silence for the six victims of the Nashville shooting. They held up fingers to indicate the number of victims—but with a twist. “There was a disagreement over how many victims the Nashville shooting had,” Lindquist reported. “Some held up six fingers—others held up seven to commemorate the trans shooter as well.”

In the video, an overwhelming majority of protesters appear to be holding up seven fingers, while others can be seen switching their raised fingers from six to seven.

At around 11:50 a.m., three elected representatives joined in the protest. Democrat Reps. Justin Jones, Gloria Johnson, and Justin Pearson commandeered the House lectern with a sign reading, “Protect kids, not guns.”

Jones began leading the protesters in a chant of “No action, no peace” and “Shame, shame, shame” with a bullhorn. “If we don’t quit, we can’t lose. We will not be quiet. We will not be silent. You are being heard. Thank you for being here,” Pearson told the protesters in the gallery.

“House immediately recessed,” said Vivian Jones (no relation to Justin). “Party leaders look like they’re conferring to figure out what to do.”

The House remained in recess until 11:42 a.m., a 52-minute disruption. During the recess, members retired to meet separately as party caucuses.

Further footage shows Minority Leader Karen Camper, a Democrat, apparently scolding the three lawmakers for disregarding the House rules.

This was not the first irregular outburst by the activist members. On Monday of last week, Pearson continued speaking after his mic was cut off when he criticized as “out of order” a House resolution offered earlier this session to defend the Second Amendment.

“These actions are a blatant disregard for house rules & toward the Sgt. At Arms,” vented Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, adding, “Their actions are and will always be unacceptable, and they break several rules of decorum and procedure on the House floor. Their actions and beliefs that they could be arrested on the House floor were an effort, unfortunately, to make themselves the victims.”

The controversy may not be over for the three activist legislators. On April 3, Jones said that he and his comrades had been stripped of committee assignments and that their member ID badges had been shut off. “This is not what democracy looks like,” Jones complained.

Later that day, a resolution was filed to unseat Jones from the Tennessee House, which is scheduled for consideration on April 6. The resolution contends that Jones, Johnson, and Pearson “did knowingly and intentionally bring disorder and dishonor to the House of Representatives through their individual and collective actions.”

It adds that “such disorderly behavior on the part of Representative Jones reflects adversely upon the integrity and dignity of the House of Representatives of the State of Tennessee, places a cloud upon the action of this Honorable Body, and is inconsistent with the duty of a member of this Body.”

It seems that Jones has found it difficult to leave behind his radical activist past. Before his election to the Tennessee House of Representatives, Jones was repeatedly arrested for his left-wing street activism.

In 2017, he (Justin Bautista-Jones) was arrested for disorderly conduct during a vigil for the Charlottesville victims. Police told him “not to jump in front of moving marked police cars,” said the arrest report, and then he “jumped in front of a moving patrol car.”

In 2018, he was arrested for disrupting a rally for then-Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s, R-Tenn., Senate campaign.

In 2019, he allegedly threw a beverage on Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and another House member. He had to post a $4,150 bond and was temporarily banned from the Tennessee Capitol as a condition of his release.

In 2020, it seems Jones was actively leading Black Lives Matter protests in Nashville. He was charged with “felony aggravated rioting” for walking on a police car during a Black Lives Matter protest, although charges were soon dropped.

Again in 2020, Jones was arrested with 55 other protesters on suspicion of criminal trespassing after “the group physically removed barriers and charged the steps” of the Tennessee Capitol.

The Tennessean reported in 2021 that Jones “faced more than 15 charges ranging from trespassing to assault between June and August 2020,” which were later dropped.

March 31: Tallahassee, Florida

Led by the Student Unity Coalition of South Florida, approximately 200 people (mostly college students) marched from Florida State University over to the state Capitol’s rotunda (within easy walking distance) on Friday. The protesters wore rainbow flags, LGBT pins, and face paint and chanted, “This is what democracy looks like,” and, “Erasers are for blackboards, not for people.”

The Florida House considered a number of bills on Friday, including H.B. 1069, which would expand the Parental Rights in Education Act passed last year, which nationwide left-wingers baselessly dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. 

Passed by a vote of 77-35, the bill would clarify provisions on school libraries, adjudication processes, and the biological basis for its definition of sex. When the bill passed the House, the protesters let out a long, collective scream, “No!” and then broke out into a chant, “Whose schools? Our schools!”

Insurrections? Maybe Not.

Predictably, some voices on the Right invoked comparisons to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

“Leftists storm Tennessee capitol,” tweeted Human Events senior editor Jack Posobiec.

“A group of insurrectionists occupied the Kentucky State Capitol,” said Libs of TikTok.

“This was the second so-called ‘transsurrection’ since the Monday shooting,” wrote World Net Daily.

Just as predictably, these comparisons provided an easy opening to left-wing refutations.

“Right-wing media attacked the legal and pre-planned protest as ‘another insurrection,’ apparently referring to the Jan 6th GOP Insurrection at the nation’s Capitol building that resulted in five deaths and hundreds jailed,” ran a Newsbreak blurb.

A Newsweek fact-check rated the claim as “False,” arguing that the protesters were peaceful and eventually left the Capitol.

As usual, the truth is more complex and nuanced. The protests were, in fact, mostly peaceful; although the shoving of law enforcement officers in Nashville entered a gray area. No injuries, fires, or even vandalism occurred at any of the demonstrations, to my knowledge. Additionally, the vast majority of protesters seem to have entered state Capitol buildings legally.

At the same time, the protesters did seek to disrupt, obstruct, or intimidate lawmakers by their presence. In Kentucky and Tennessee, protesters drowned out legislative debate, and in Tennessee and Texas, they obstructed the thruways of the state Capitol. State law enforcement did remove protesters in Nashville and arrested them in Frankfort.

In all four instances, protesters were extremely loud and disrespectful in the People’s House and sought to unduly influence the people’s elected representatives by their presence. Even media accounts that insist the protests were peaceful also admit that the disruptions to legislative business were “unprecedented.”

Those on the Right cannot correct the media’s hyperbolic narrative about Jan. 6 by committing the same mistake of irresponsibly slapping the label of “insurrection” on incidents that don’t qualify. That doesn’t mean we can’t point out unacceptable behavior and demand accountability. It does mean that we should be accurate in how we describe and characterize it.

An Emerging Pattern

What happened last week at these four Capitols is part of an emerging pattern in left-wing direct action. Activists strategically plan rallies at state Capitols on days when legislation they oppose is scheduled to receive a hearing or a vote. They then organize, show up in force, stay all day, and make as much noise as possible.

Recently, these protests almost always target legislation that aims to protect minors from the ever-expanding agenda of the transgender ideology. And occasionally, the protesters attempt to disrupt the legislature from conducting business as scheduled—and sometimes, they even succeed.

Unfortunately, this pattern is not new, but it is now occurring more frequently. Last year, pro-abortion activists tried to force their way into legislative chambers in Arizona and Indiana. Left-wing protesters also disrupted legislative proceedings in Texas in 2013 and Wisconsin in 2011. Those are two incidents of actual or attempted disruption during the 2010s decade, two incidents in 2022, and three incidents last week alone.

These aren’t the only “trans-centric” Capitol protests that have occurred this year.

On Feb. 6, 150 “trans lives matter” protesters occupied the Capitol rotunda in Oklahoma City to protest legislation to protect young people from gender transition procedures, forcing legislators to pass through the sea of protesters in order to reach the chamber where Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt was scheduled to give his “State of the State” address.

On March 9, more than 100 activists assembled in the rotunda of the Capitol in Charleston, West Virginia, to protest legislation with the same intent (later severely watered down).

When they can’t assemble inside a state Capitol, these LGBT activists will assemble outside. On March 5 (the day of the domestic terrorism arrests in Atlanta), over 2,000 people assembled outside the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines to protest bills protecting children from gender transition procedures, opposite-sex bathroom intrusions, age-inappropriate sexual instruction, and a school’s hiding gender identity from their parents.

On March 29, hundreds of pro-transgender protesters rallied outside the Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City, where lawmakers are also considering a range of bills to protect minors.

Activists for the transgender agenda have the same rights as every other American “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As long as their demonstrations remain (truly) peaceful, then transgender activists are within their rights and within the law.

But, likely driven by a perverse media narrative, pro-transgender demonstrations seem to turn violent abnormally often. When hundreds or thousands of angry protesters, who constantly hear that powerful interests want to erase them from existence, assemble at the site of that power, there’s always a possibility that violence might erupt. So, when a demonstration day concludes peaceably, it’s worth breathing a sigh of relief.

What isn’t clear is how increasing numbers of activists can assemble for extended periods at state Capitols increasingly often. When social conservatives hold a rally, like the supporters of Kentucky’s SB 150, they might assemble for an hour or two and then disperse because they have jobs, kids, and other responsibilities. But the pro-transgender protesters—hundreds or thousands of them—seem determined to camp out all day.

Is someone paying them to protest? Is someone at least providing a stipend to subsidize their travel, lodging, and food? They are predominantly young people who, presumably, aren’t independently wealthy, so it’s highly likely that someone else’s deep pockets are behind the increasing organization of these protests.

What is clear, to use their phrase, is that this isn’t what democracy looks like. Laws that represent the will of the people should be made by the elected representatives of the people, duly seated in the legislature. They should not be dictated by any gathering of several hundred or thousand people who show up. Such direct action to pressure or intimidate legislatures has far more in common with European revolutionary movements (fascism, communism) than with traditional American democracy.

The First Amendment rights to speech, press, assembly, and petition are a part of America’s constitutional system, but they are designed to protect minority groups from the abuses of the majority—in other words, a check on democratic rule. The contradiction in the claims of these pro-transgender protesters is that they are simultaneously claiming to represent an oppressed minority and to represent the will of the people.

In reality, the pro-transgender protesters represent neither the will of the people—hence the overwhelmingly passed state laws—nor an oppressed minority. While they are a minority, they are widely celebrated, from the White House to Hollywood to the Country Music Awards.

The very same day that a transgender-identifying murderer entered a Christian school and killed three children and three adults, pro-transgender activists pretended they were the victims by staging a die-in in the Texas Capitol. This shameful charade then continued all week, as this group with outsized cultural influence shamelessly chanted “shame” because state legislatures sought to protect children from their predation.

“Whose [elementary] schools?” asked Florida college students. “Our schools.”

Nope, they belong to the people of Florida, as represented by the duly elected members of their legislature.

This piece originally appeared in The Washington Stand.

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.

———

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

 • Volume 50, Number 9 • Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion


Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterionand publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator WorldAmerican Greatness, and The Epoch Times. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed AmericaThe Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages ArtTenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”

Notwithstanding all the hysterical rhetoric surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, two critical things stand out. The first is that what happened was much more hoax than insurrection. In fact, in my judgment, it wasn’t an insurrection at all.

An “insurrection,” as the dictionary will tell you, is a violent uprising against a government or other established authority. Unlike the violent riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020—riots that caused some $2 billion in property damage and claimed more than 20 lives—the January 6 protest at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. lasted a few hours, caused minimal damage, and the only person directly killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer. It was, as Tucker Carlson said shortly after the event, a political protest that “got out of hand.”

At the rally preceding the events in question, Donald Trump had suggested that people march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”—these were his exact words—in order to make their voices heard. He did not incite a riot; he stirred up a crowd. Was that, given the circumstances, imprudent? Probably. Was it an effort to overthrow the government? Hardly.

I know this is not the narrative that we have all been instructed to parrot. Indeed, to listen to the establishment media and our political masters, the January 6 protest was a dire threat to the very fabric of our nation: the worst assault on “our democracy” since 9/11, since Pearl Harbor, and even—according to Joe Biden last April—since the Civil War! 

Note that phrase “our democracy”: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and various talking heads have repeated it ad nauseam. But you do not need an advanced degree in hermeneutics to understand that what they mean by “our democracy” is their oligarchy. Similarly, when Pelosi talks about “the people’s house,” she doesn’t mean a house that welcomes riff-raff like you and me.

I just alluded to Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed supporter of Donald Trump who was shot and killed on January 6. Her fate brings me to the second critical thing to understand about the January 6 insurrection hoax. Namely, that it was not a stand-alone event. 

On the contrary, what happened that afternoon, and what happened afterwards, is only intelligible when seen as a chapter in the long-running effort to discredit and, ultimately, to dispose of Donald Trump—as well as what Hillary Clinton might call the “deplorable” populist sentiment that brought Trump to power. 

In other words, to understand the January 6 insurrection hoax, you also have to understand that other long-running hoax, the Russia collusion hoax. The story of that hoax begins back in 2015, when the resources of the federal government were first mobilized to spy on the Trump campaign, to frame various people close to Trump, and eventually to launch a full-throated criminal investigation of the Trump administration. 

From before Trump took office, the Russia collusion hoax was used as a pretext to create a parallel administration shadowing the elected administration. Remember the Steele dossier, the fantastical document confected by the “well-regarded” former British spy Christopher Steele? We know now that it was the only relevant predicate for ordering FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page and other American citizens. 

But in truth, the Steele dossier was just opposition dirt covertly paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. From beginning to end, it was a tissue of lies and fabrications. Everyone involved knew all along it was garbage—rumors and fantasies fed to a gullible Steele by shady Russian sources. But it was nonetheless used to deploy, illegally, the awesome coercive power of the state against a presidential candidate of whom the ruling bureaucracy and its favored candidate disapproved. 

The public learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for the manufactured evidence only because of a court order. James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI, publicly denied knowing who paid for it, but emails from a year earlier prove that he knew all along. And what was the penalty for lying in Comey’s case? He got a huge book deal and toured the country denouncing Trump to the gleeful satisfaction of his anti-Trump audiences. 

What was true of Comey was also true of the entire intelligence apparat, from former CIA Director John Brennan to Congressman Adam Schiff and other Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee to senior members of the FBI. All these people said publicly that they had seen clear evidence of collusion with Russia. But they admitted under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t.

General Michael Flynn, Trump’s original National Security Advisor, had his career ruined and was bankrupted as part of this political vendetta. Meanwhile James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and all the rest of the crew at the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies suffered nothing. When it came to light that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to help get a FISA warrant—in other words, that he doctored evidence to spy on a political opponent, which is a felony—he got probation.

The recent news that Special Counsel John Durham is indicting Michael Sussman, a lawyer who covertly worked for the Clinton campaign and lied to the FBI, is welcome news. But it seems like small beer given the rampant higher-level corruption that saturated the Russia collusion hoax.

At least 74 million citizens voted for Donald Trump in 2020, which is at least 11 million more than voted for him in 2016. Many of those voters are profoundly disillusioned and increasingly angry about this entire story—the years-long Robert Mueller “investigation,” the two impeachments of President Trump, the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the 2020 election, and the many questions that have emerged not only from the January 6 protest at the Capitol, but even more from the government’s response to that protest.

Which brings me back to Ashli Babbitt, the long-serving Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a nervous Capitol Police officer. Babbitt was a useful prop when the media was in overdrive describing the January 6 events as an “armed insurrection” in which wild Trump supporters, supposedly at Trump’s instigation, attacked the Capitol with the intention of overturning the 2020 election.

According to that narrative, five people, including Babbitt, died in the skirmish. Moreover, it was said, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by a raging Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher. That gem of a story about the fire extinguisher, reported in our former paper of record, The New York Times, was instantly picked up by other media outlets and spread like a Chinese virus. 

Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution accords American citizens the right to a speedy trial. But most of the political prisoners of January 6—many of whom have been kept in solitary confinement—are still waiting to be brought to trial. And although the media was full of predictions that they would be found guilty of criminal sedition, none has. 

Indeed, the prosecution’s cases seem to be falling apart. Most of the hundreds who have been arrested are being charged with trespassing. Another charge being leveled against them is “disrupting an official proceeding.” This is a felony charge designed not for ceremonial procedures like the January 6 certification of the vote, but rather for disrupting Congressional inquiries—for example, by shredding documents relevant to a Congressional investigation. It originated during the George W. Bush administration to deal with the Enron case.

The indisputable fact about January 6 is that although five people died at or near the Capitol on that day or soon thereafter, none of these deaths was brought about by the protesters. The shot fired by Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd that hit Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her was the only shot fired at the Capitol that day. No guns were recovered from the Capitol on January 6. Zero.

The liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald further diminished the “armed insurrection” narrative in an important column last February titled “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.” The title says it all. Kevin Greeson, Greenwald notes, was killed not by the protesters but died of a heart attack outside the Capitol. Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke that day. Rosanne Boyland, another Trump supporter, was reported by The New York Times to have been inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.” But later video shows that, far from that, the police pushed protesters on top of Boyland and would not allow other protesters to pull her out.

Four of the five who died, then, were pro-Trump protesters. And the fifth? Well, that was Officer Sicknick—also a Trump supporter, as it turned out—who, contrary to the false report gone viral of The New York Times, went home, told his family he felt fine, but died a day later from, as The Washington Post eventually and grudgingly reported, “natural causes.” No fire extinguishers were involved in his demise.

***

The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

Why, for example, did the government mobilize 26,000 federal troops from all across the country to surround “the people’s house” following January 6? Why were those troops subjected to FBI vetting, with some of them sent packing? 

Why is there some 14,000 hours of video footage of the event on January 6 that the government refuses to release? What are they afraid of letting the public see? More scenes of security guards actually opening doors and politely ushering in protesters? More pictures of FBI informants covertly salted among the crowd?

My own view is that turning Washington into an armed camp was mostly theater. There was no threat that the Washington police could not have handled. But it was also a show of force and an act of intimidation. The message was: “We’re in charge now, rubes, and don’t you forget it.”

In truth, there is little threat of domestic terror in this country. But there is plenty of domestic conservatism. And that conservatism is the real focus of the establishment’s ire.

It is important to note that while the government provides the muscle for this war on dissent, the elite culture at large is a willing accomplice. Consider, for example, the open letter, signed by more than 500 “publishing professionals” (authors, editors, designers, and so on), calling on the industry to reject books written by anyone who had anything to do with the Trump administration. 

These paragons pledged to do whatever they could to stop “enriching the monsters among us.” But here’s their problem: over 74 million people voted for Trump. That’s a lot of monsters. 

Many people have been quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous response when asked what sort of government they had come up with at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.” Right now, it looks like we can’t. It looks as if the American constitutional republic has given way, as least temporarily, to an American oligarchy. 

As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, may well count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election in U.S. history. I know we are not supposed to say that. I know that the heads of Twitter and Facebook and other woke guardians of the status quo call this view “The Big Lie” and do all they can to suppress it. But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was tainted.

The forces responsible for the taint had tried before. Hitherto, their efforts had met with only limited success. But a perfect storm of forces conspired to make 2020 the first oligarchic installation of a president. It would not have happened, I think, absent the panic over the Chinese virus. But that panic, folded in a lover’s embrace by the Democratic establishment, was not only a splendid pretext to clamp down on civil liberties; it also provided an inarguable excuse to alter the rules for elections in several key states.

“Inarguable” is not quite the right word. There could have been plenty of arguments, and many lawsuits, against the way the executive branches in these states usurped the constitutionally guaranteed prerogative of state legislatures to set the election rules when they intervened to allow massive mail-in voting. But the Trump administration, though foreseeing and complaining about the executive interventions, did too little too late to make a difference. 

Among the many sobering realities that the 2020 election brought home is that in our current and particular form of oligarchy, the people do have a voice, but it is a voice that is everywhere pressured, cajoled, shaped, and bullied. The people also have a choice, but only among a roster of candidates approved by the elite consensus. 

The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected president without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the bipartisan oligarchy that governs us. That was his unforgivable offense. Trump was the greatest threat in history to the credentialed class and the globalist administrative state upon which they feed. Representatives of that oligarchy tried for four years to destroy Trump. Remember that the first mention of impeachment came 19 minutes after his inauguration, an event that was met not only by a widespread Democratic boycott and hysterical claims by Nancy Pelosi and others that the election had been hijacked, but also by riots in Washington, D.C. that saw at least six policemen injured, numerous cars torched, and other property destroyed. 

You will search in vain for media or other ruling class denunciations of that violence, or for bulletins from corporate America advising their customers of their solidarity with the newly-installed Trump administration. As the commentator Howie Carr noted, some riots are more equal than others. Some get you the approval of people like Nancy Pelosi and at least the grudging acceptance of oligarchs of the other party. Others get the FBI sweeping the country for “domestic terrorists” and the lords of Big Tech canceling people who defend the protesters’ cause.

Someday—maybe someday soon—this witches’ sabbath, this festival of scapegoating, and what George Orwell called the “hideous ecstasy” of hate will be at an end. Perhaps someday people will be aghast, and some will be ashamed, of what they did to the President of the United States and people who supported him: the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, for instance, proposing to put Senator Ted Cruz on a “no fly” list, and Simon & Schuster canceling Senator Josh Hawley’s book contract. 

Donald Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein (the designated principal enemy of the totalitarian state Oceania in Orwell’s 1984) of the movement. But minor public enemies are legion. Anyone harboring “Trumpist” inclinations is suspect, hence the widespread calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s supporters, who are routinely said to be “marching toward sedition.”

Michael Barone, one of our most perceptive political commentators, got it right when he wrote of the rapid movement “from impeaching incitement to canceling conservatism.” That is the path our oligarchs are inviting us to travel now, criminalizing political dissent and transforming policy differences into a species of heresy. You don’t debate heretics, after all. You seek to destroy them.

Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president were nothing less than stunning. Trump was, and is, a rude force of nature. He accomplished an immense amount. But he lacked one thing. Some say it was self-discipline or finesse. I agree with a friend of mine who suggested that Trump’s critical flaw was a deficit in guile. That sounds odd, no doubt, since Trump is supposed to be the tough guy who mastered “the art of the deal.” But I think my friend is probably right. Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club. 

Maybe Trump understands this now. I have no insight into that question. I am pretty confident, though, that the 74 plus million people who voted for him understand it deeply. It’s another reason that The Club should be wary of celebrating its victory too expansively. 

Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.

I’d be willing to wager that Joseph Hackett, confronted with Hume’s observation, would express similar doubts. I would be happy to ask Mr. Hackett myself, but he is inaccessible. If the ironically titled “Department of Justice” has its way, he will be inaccessible for a long, long time—perhaps as long as 20 years. 

Joseph Hackett, you see, is a 51-year-old Trump supporter and member of an organization called the Oath Keepers, a group whose members have pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The FBI does not like the Oath Keepers—agents arrested its leader in January and have picked up many other members in the months since. Hackett traveled to Washington from his home in Florida to join the January 6 rally. According to court documents, he entered the Capitol at 2:45 that afternoon and left some nine minutes later, at 2:54. The next day, he went home. On May 28, he was apprehended by the FBI and indicted on a long list of charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and illegally entering a restricted building. 

As far as I have been able to determine, no evidence of Hackett destroying property has come to light. According to his wife, it is not even clear that he entered the Capitol. But he certainly was in the environs. He was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was a supporter of Donald Trump. Therefore, he must be neutralized.

Joseph Hackett is only one of hundreds of citizens who have been branded as “domestic terrorists” trying to “overthrow the government” and who are now languishing, in appalling conditions, jailed as political prisoners of an angry state apparat.

Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdomwas to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. In a new preface to the book’s 1956 edition, Hayek noted that one of its “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

 “This means,” Hayek wrote, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

 This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.”

Note the power of that little word “if.” It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer. 

That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.

Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”

Bingo.

Dershowitz Warns Against ‘New McCarthyism’ of Left

alan dershowitz walks downs the steps of the capitol with the dome lit behind him.Attorney Alan Dershowitz, in 2020 when he was a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team. (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)By Newsmax Wires 
Sunday, 14 Feb 2021 1:56 PM

Join in the Discussion!


Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Sunday blasted the “new McCarthyism” of the Democrats’ “hard left.”

In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Dershowitz, a constitutional law expert, said some liberals have become radical censors of free speech.

“Common Cause, which purports to be a liberal, not a radical organization, has now demanded that Facebook keep Donald Trump off its platform,” he said. “We are getting liberals… [calling for] Fox News [to be] taken off the networks. I hated communism but I defended the rights of lawyers to defend accused communists.”

“If any lawyer is the subject of this kind of McCarthyism, I will represent you pro bono, in front of universities and bar associations,” he added. “I will dedicate myself that the new McCarthyism of the hard left doesn’t become American culture.”

Dershowitz called the Senate trial acquittal of former President Donald Trump a “great day” for the Constitution and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., — but “not such a good day” for Trump himself.

“McConnell “taught us a civic’s lesson: You don’t have to support President Trump or Donald Trump, you don’t have to agree with the speech, but support the First Amendment and the Constitution’s limitations on the power of the Senate to put a former president on trial,” he said.

“McConnell accepted the constitutional argument I’ve been making from the very beginning — that Congress has no power to put on trial Citizen Trump.”

On the flip side, Dershowitz said, Saturday was “not such a good day for Donald Trump because McConnell and others criticized him.”

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


Tucker Carlson Tonight 2/10/21 | Tucker Carlson Tonight February 10, 2021

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Dems Making Trump’s Case

By Eric Mack 
Wednesday, 10 Feb 2021 5:35 PM


In laying out a long-running objection to election fraud by former President Donald Trump, House impeachment managers are effectively making the case for the defense because the speech under the microscope is protected, even if they disagree with it, according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.

“Very good theater, terrible constitutional law,” Dershowitz told “The Chris Salcedo Show” of the House Democrats’ opening statements Wednesday.

“The videos make good theater; they’re very riveting,” the noted legal scholar said. “”But they prove President Trump’s constitutional defense.”

House Democrats are emphasizing that Trump had long argued the election was stolen, but then they show how the president challenged it “by all lawful means and all political means,” Dershowitz told host Chris Salcedo.

“The Constitution protects a person that says the Earth is flat as much as a person who says it’s round,” Dershowitz said. “The Constitution protects a Holocaust denier as much as it does a historian who can prove that 6 million Jews were killed.

“And the Constitution, the First Amendment, protects a president who’s wrong about the election as much as a president who’s right.”

Instead of tying the lone article of impeachment — incitement of insurrection — solely on Trump’s Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally speech, which was delivered at a rally just before the Capitol siege, House Democrat impeachment managers are making a case that he’d long objected to a stolen election as a predicate to inciting the storming of the U.S. Capitol Building.

“Matters of opinion cannot be disputed or taken outside of constitutional protections,” Dershowitz said. “So I think the House managers were actually helping the Trump defense by trying to prove that what he said was false.”

Dershowitz did suggest that Democrats’ gaffe might be part of a plan to “lay a trap” for Trump defense lawyers — getting them to argue the validity of a stolen-election claim, which could derail the president’s case.

“That would be a serious mistake, because it would lose a number of senators who are now on their side,” Dershowitz concluded.

Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom Ch. 277, Frontier 615 or Find More Cable Systems – Click Here.

Related Stories:

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

I have read several books by Alan Dershowitz and he is a liberal but he does look at the constitution honestly and here he has made some very insightful observations that I am sure will upset Democrats but nonetheless will not slow them down from impeaching the President a second time because of their hate of all things Trump!

Dershowitz: Senate Rules Would Prevent Impeachment Trial Of Trump

Dershowitz: Senate Rules Would Prevent Impeachment Trial Of TrumpAn image from video of Alan Dershowitz, an attorney for President Donald Trump, walking from the podium after speaking on behalf of the president during the impeachment trial in the Senate on Jan. 27, 2020. (Senate Television via AP)By Newsmax Wires 
Sunday, 10 Jan 2021 2:42 PM

Join in the Discussion!


Harvard law professor and constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Sunday warned an impeachment of President Donald Trump won’t go to trial — but could “lie around like a loaded weapon” for both parties in the future.

In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Dershowitz said a Senate trial of citizen Trump would be unconstitutional.

“It will not go to trial,” he said. “All Democrats can do is impeach the president in House of Representatives, for that you only need a majority vote. 

“The case cannot come to trial in the Senate” because of rules that do no allow it until, “according to the Majority Leader [Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.), until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20” — an hour after Trump leaves office.

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

“Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it’d be a private citizen in Donald Trump or …. Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said. “The jurisdiction is limited to a sitting president and so there won’t be a trial.”

But Dershowitz said he worried more about  is“the impact of impeachment on the First Amendment.”

“For 100 years the Supreme Court and other courts have struggled to develop a juris prudence which distinguishes between advocacy and incitement.”

“To impeach a president for having exercised his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution, it would lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by either party against the other party and that’s not what impeachment nor the 25th amendment were intended to be,” Dershowitz said.

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

Mark Levin Podcast * Mark’s radio show | 08 January 2021

Levin: Media ‘exploiting’ Capitol riot to ‘silence conservatives’ as Democrats work to ‘choke the system’

‘The media have played a huge, huge role in what’s going on in this country,’ says ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ host

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

The mainstream media is “exploiting” Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to “silence” conservatives and Republicans, Mark Levin says on this week’s episode of “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

The host emphasizes that “we should be furious about what happened on Capitol Hill,” but adds that “the media have played a huge, huge role in what’s going on in this country.”

“We need to reject all this violence, but what about the media?” asks Levin before displaying front pages of various newspapers from around the country. 

“The New York Times: ‘Trump Incites Mob’. This is projection,” Levin contends. “This is projection. He never did that. Or The Washington Post: ‘Trump mob storms Capitol’. There were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people there … That’s an awfully broad brush. Or the [New York] Daily News: ‘President Incites Insurrection’ … or USA Today: ‘Pro-Trump Mobs Storm US [sic] Capitol’. How about ‘Thugs Storm U.S. Capitol’? How about ‘Lawbreakers Storm U.S. Capitol’?”

Levin then calls out politicians like Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who he says are also “exploiting the situation.”

“They’re talking about impeaching the president of the United States or [invoking] the 25th Amendment nine days before he leaves office,” the host says. “Do they even know what’s involved in the 25th Amendment?

WATCH ‘LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN’ SUNDAYS AT 8 PM ET ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL

“So they double down, they triple down, they quadruple down. They’re not going to change at all. On one side of their mouth, they talk about unity. Out of the other side of their mouth, they spit on people,” he goes on. “Seventy-four million [Trump-voting] people and more, they’re not going away. Their concerns still exist.”

Meanwhile, Levin says, House Democrats are working toward their goal to “choke the system even further” by passing a rules package for the 117th Congressthat makes it “virtually impossible for Republicans to even propose legislation or amend legislation, even though [they] only has a 10- or 11-person majority in the House.”

“Nancy Pelosi … eliminated 100 years of tradition …”, the host argues, “and the media are trying to intimidate conservatives and constitutionalists by projecting onto them the violence that occurred by reprobates and others who need to be tracked down and punished.

“So it seems that the lessons have not been learned,” Levin concludes. “They certainly haven’t been learned by the left, they certainly haven’t been learned by the media, and they certainly haven’t been learned by the Never Trumpers.”

—-

December 13, 2020

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

Dear President Obama,

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

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

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

The story of how this postwar consensus broke down—starting with LBJ’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his prediction that it would lead to the South’s wholesale abandonment of the Democratic Party—has been told many times before. The realignment Johnson foresaw ended up taking longer than he had expected. But steadily, year by year—through Vietnam, RIOTS…and Nixon’s southern strategy; through busing, Roe v. Wade, urban crime, and white flight; through affirmative action, the Moral Majority, union busting, and Robert Bork; through assault weapons bans and the rise of Newt Gingrich…and the Clinton impeachment—America’s voters and their representatives became more and more polarized.

During 2020 I have noticed lots of riots and looting across the USA and I wanted to ask you why it is always the liberals doing that? AND WHY DIDN’T ANYONE CONDEMN THESE ACTIONS AT THE 2020 CONVENTION AND DIDN’T YOU SPEAK AT THE CONVENTION TOO?

Philadelphia Riots Another Case of Street Violence Used to Advance Radical Political Agendas

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/28/philadelphia-riots-are-another-case-of-street-violence-used-to-advance-radical-political-agendas/embed/#?secret=TeMODTeKco

Philadelphia Riots Are Another Case of Street Violence Used to Advance Radical Political Agendas

James Carafano @JJCarafano / October 28, 2020 / 4 Comments

Philadelphia Riots

In Kenosha, Portland, Seattle, and Chicago, city officials have tolerated criminal activity performed by mobs for politically motivated reasons. Philadelphia appears to be the next hotspot for mob violence to go unchecked. Pictured: A barricade is set on fire during a night of looting and violence in Philadelphia on Oct. 27. (Photo: Gabriella Audi/AFP/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

James Carafano@JJCarafano

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research.

Like the replay of a bad movie, a law enforcement incident in Philadelphia triggered an excuse for violence and looting. It remains to be seen whether the City of Brotherly Love will become the next “Kenosha,” where city officials moved quickly to restore order and seek state and federal support—though sadly after 48 hours of opportunistic looting, violence, and destruction devastated the city.

Or perhaps Philadelphia will be the next PortlandSeattle, or Chicago, where systemic attacks seem to be a daily occurrence.

Police in Philadelphia are fully capable of restoring peace. The open question is whether the mayor and Larry Krasner, the former defense attorney-turned elected rogue prosecutor, will do their job and hold people accountable for their crimes.

When local, state, and federal governments work together, act quickly, and demonstrate no tolerance for organized violence to advance radical agendas, communities are kept safe and equal protection under the law is afforded for all citizens.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

On the other hand, when local officials, the media, and politicians ignore, excuse, normalize, and enable violence, everyday Americans pay the price.

There is a plague sweeping this country that many don’t want to talk about: The deliberate use of street violence to advance radical political agendas, often under a smoke screen of campaigning for civil liberties. The evidence of organized criminal activity at the root of the outbreaks in American cities is mounting.

The list of people enabling this violence sadly includes some public officials, who are principally responsible for ensuring public safety. For example, a growing threat to peaceful communities is “rogue prosecutors,” former criminal defense attorneys recruited and funded by liberal billionaire backers, who—once elected—abuse their office by refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes.

These rogue prosecutors are usurping the power of the legislature in the process, and ignoring victim’s rights—all to advance their politics.

Baltimore is a perfect  example. Since being sworn into office, under the watch of Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby.

Rogue prosecutors fuel street violence by refusing to prosecute rioters and looters. When confronted with the rising crimes rates, Mosby called the statistics “rhetoric.”

The only way to break the cycle of violence is for local and state officials to work with each other, and if necessary, the federal government. They need to stop enabling the destruction of property and lives on their streets, and start investigating and prosecuting the individuals (and organizations) behind the riots.

It’s time to start shaming and calling out the media, politicians, and advocates who excuse and normalize the violence.

There is a proven action plan for making our streets safe. It is past time for officials to start following this blueprint.

There is no time—zero time to waste. There are already fears of more violence in our streets, regardless of the outcome of the national elections.

In my hometown of Washington, D.C., downtown buildings are already boarding up in anticipation of violence on our streets after the election. If Trump wins, violence. If Biden wins, violence. This makes no sense, and it’s time for it to stop.

It is time for every official and public figure, every political party, in every part of the country to publically reject violence on American streets as a legitimate form of protected speech. Violence is not protected speech, period.

The notion of deliberately destroying the lives and property of our neighbors to advance a radical political agenda is abhorrent. American leaders—of all stripes—should stand up now as one and reject these violent acts. It has gone on for too long, well before the death of George Floyd.

Leaders in Philadelphia and across America must take a principled stand to demand the end to this violence, and they need to do it before the election. In one voice, they should demand: “Leave our streets alone.”

Sincerely,

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

Related posts:

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

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

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

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

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

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

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

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

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

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

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

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

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

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

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

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

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

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

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

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

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

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding FathersFrancis SchaefferProlife | Edit |Comments (1)

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

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

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

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

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

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

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

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

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

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

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian RogersFrancis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

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

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—-

“So, a pregnant straight woman for @GlamourMagUK’s Pride month cover. That makes complete sense these days. Pride month has become a competition amongst trans panderers to see who can most completely lose the plot about what Pride was created to commemorate and celebrate,” gay rights activist Fred Sargeant tweeted.

Fashion magazine cover featuring pregnant transgender man sparks outrage: ‘Could not sink any lower’

Transgender author declares, ‘I’m a pregnant trans man and I do exist’

By Yael Halon | Fox News

A topless pregnant transgender man featured on the cover of Glamour U.K.’s June issue ignited a fierce reaction from online critics Thursday.

Author Logan Brown, a 27-year-old who was born female but now identifies as a transgender man, posed as the cover star of British Glamour Magazine’s digital issue celebrating Pride Month in a painted-on suit, showcasing a large baby bump. Brown unexpectedly became pregnant with partner Bailey J Mills, a non-binary drag performer in the U.K., while taking a break from testosterone treatments due to health reasons, the fashion magazine said.

CAN COMPANIES COME BACK FROM WOKE PUBLICITY STUNT FLOPS? ‘WOKE INC’ AUTHOR SAYS YES

The interview, conducted, by Glamour’s Chloe Laws two weeks before Brown gave birth to a daughter, details Brown’s “accidental” pregnancy experience as a transgender man. In her introduction, Laws wrote that Brown and Mills were thrust into the spotlight after they were subjected to “rampant transphobia” from people online who repeatedly commented that “men can’t get pregnant” on Brown’s social media posts.

“I’ve been brought up in a very close-knit family, and so to bring a baby into the world in a queer relationship is the best feeling ever,” Brown said in the interview. “I feel like we’ll be able to love and appreciate each other, and my daughter will be able to grow up knowing that she’ll always be loved and accepted for whoever she is. And I think that’s a really important thing for her to be around.”

Brown, who is writing a children’s book called “My Daddy’s Belly: The Miracle of Male Birth,” described suffering from “really bad mental health” issues as a child. After coming out as lesbian, Brown wanted to explore an “identity of being trans” and now identifies as queer.

NON BINARY DR PHIL GUEST CLAIMS ‘JUST BECAUSE I GAVE BIRTH DOESN’T MAKE ME A WOMAN OR A MOTHER’

Brown was on a break from testosterone treatmentsbut had “this weird feeling” about the possibility of being pregnant.

“I took a pregnancy test and it was positive…it was like my whole world just stopped. That everything, all my manlihood that I’ve worked hard for, for so long, just completely felt like it was erased,” Brown said.

“It was really hard because how do you tell your partner, ‘Oh, I’m pregnant, but oh, I’m also your boyfriend as well,’” Brown added. “The reaction was mixed emotions for both of us.”

Pride Progress flag

A photo of a Pride Progress flag, which includes colors from the Transgender Pride Flag, in London. (Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)

“I spent so much time feeling shame and being hard on myself until I thought, ‘You can enjoy this process or make it really difficult for yourself.’ I’m a pregnant man, and we’re very lucky, and I’m proud to do what we’re doing.”

Brown documented the pregnancy journey on a blog and social media. The Glamour cover model told Laws about receiving support from the LGBTQ community, but not being surprised by the negative reaction online because “obviously, this is not a usual everyday thing.”

But, Brown declared, “We’re real living people. And at the end of the day, I am a trans pregnant man and I do exist. No matter what anyone says, I am literally living proof.”

The interview, and especially the images, ignited a strong reaction online, with some calling for Bud Light-style boycotts and others slamming the language of the interview, calling out phrases like “he gave birth.”

Former trans influencer and detransition activist Oli London tweeted, “Just when you thought Woke Companies could not sink any lower- Glamour UK magazine has featured this ‘pregnant man’ on the cover to kick off Pride Month. Time to BudLight @GlamourMagUK.” 

Breitbart reporter Wendell Husebo called the feature “an example of the West’s rapid decline.”

“So, a pregnant straight woman for @GlamourMagUK’s Pride month cover. That makes complete sense these days. Pride month has become a competition amongst trans panderers to see who can most completely lose the plot about what Pride was created to commemorate and celebrate,” gay rights activist Fred Sargeant tweeted.

Piers Morgan reacted, “Living proof of what? Logan’s a biological female who got pregnant, as hundreds of millions of biological females do each year… why are you presenting this as a man getting pregnant which is biologically impossible?” 

Author Helen Joyce responded, “Every single baby ever born was gestated within a woman’s body. But there’s only one way to get on the cover of a magazine for performing this everyday miracle.”

“Hey look, a pregnant woman with an elective mastectomy who can’t breastfeed her child because she’s cosplaying as a man,” conservative influencer Classically Abby wrote.

Sen. Josh Hawley’s, R-Mo., communications director Abigail Monroe tweeted out a photo of Brown’s forthcoming book.

“A biological woman is pregnant but thinks she’s a man and wrote this book. The elites and media clap like seals promoting it. Is no one brave enough to pause and say, ‘Wait. This is insane,” she wrote.

“To answer the question, ‘What is a woman?’ I think we first need to understand a woman can be a man who is no longer a woman but can get pregnant like a woman but is a man,” author Dr. Jebra Faushay tweeted sarcastically along with a Glamour U.K. TikTok video featuring Brown.

Deborah Joseph, GLAMOUR’s European Editorial Director said in a statement obtained by the Intercept, “When we first met Logan and heard his incredible story, we were blown away by his strength and courage. We knew he would be the perfect cover star for our June Pride issue, as a shining example of empowerment, inclusivity and equality.

“Logan and his partner Bailey bringing their beautiful baby into the world is a story of love and acceptance;” Joseph added, “things that we are sadly often reminded that the world could use a little more of.”

Transgender flag gender affirming care

A transgender flag unfurled on a pole.  (Getty)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The fashion magazine wrote in the introduction that the Pride issue focuses on “the allyship that exists between women (cisgender or not) and transgender people through our shared experiences – in particular pregnancy, healthcare and childbirth – something that is not often talked about with regard to the transgender community.”

Yael Halon is a reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to yael.halon@fox.com


Rachel Levine Targets Transgender Heresy for Big Tech Suppression

Tyler O’Neil  @Tyler2ONeil / December 29, 2022

Blond man with long hair and glasses

Dr. Rachel Levine urged state medical boards to pressure Big Tech to silence “misinformation” opposing “gender-affirming care” in May. Pictured: Levine testifies at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Feb. 25, 2021. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Tyler O’Neil@Tyler2ONeil

Tyler O’Neil is managing editor of The Daily Signal and the author of “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Dr. Rachel Levine, a man who identifies as a woman, urged doctors at state medical boards to pressure Big Tech to stifle “medical misinformation” right after he declared that there is no “scientific or medical dispute” about the benefits of using experimental drugs and surgeries to force male bodies to resemble female bodies or vice versa.

Levine, the assistant secretary of health at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, presented an extremely dubious worldview as the established position of science, and acted as though no rational person would dare dissent. 

His worldview posits that many biological males are actually female and vice versa, and that these people are likely to commit suicide unless doctors pump them with drugs to delay puberty, introduce a hormone disease into their bodies, and perhaps even remove healthy body parts and reshape them into facsimiles of the opposite sex’s organs.

Levine, who graduated from Tulane University School of Medicine, said that any dispute about the value of such “treatments” constitutes dangerous “misinformation” that must be purged from social media.

His support for such digital censorship arguably amounts to a modern inquisition into suppressing heresy against the transgender worldview, dressed up in scientific language to appear professional.

Levine supported online censorship in a virtual address to the Federation of State Medical Boards in May in a speech about the COVID-19 pandemic. (The speech has attracted renewed attention online in the past few days.) After addressing medical misinformation related to the pandemic, Levine turned to “another area of substantial misinformation that is directly impacting health equity in our nation, and that is the health equity of sexual and gender minorities.”

“There is substantial misinformation about gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals,” he said. “We are in this nation facing an onslaught of anti-LGBTQI+ actions at the state levels across the United States, and they are dangerous to the public health. They target and politicize evidence-based treatments that should be considered the standard of care and actually aim to criminalize, criminalize medical providers, including physicians providing care to their patients.”

“The positive value of gender-affirming care for youth and adults is not in scientific or medical dispute,” Levine claimed. “So, we all need to work together to get our voices out in the front line, we need to get our voices in the public eye, and we know how effective our medical community can be talking to communities, whether it’s at town halls, schools, conversations with others, and we need to use our clinicians’ voice to collectively advocate for our tech companies to create a healthier, cleaner information environment.”

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to The Daily Signal‘s request for comment on how Levine responds to criticism and whether he stands by his call for censorship.

Rather than explaining the kind of medical interventions Levine supports, he used the euphemism “gender-affirming care.” This term refers to various attempts to make a biologically male body resemble the body of a female or vice versa, in the pursuit of a nebulous “gender identity” that often—although not always—corresponds to the gender opposite that of a person’s biological sex. 

For young children, it encompasses so-called puberty blockers such as Leuprorelin, which suppresses precocious puberty, but which is also used to perform “chemical castration” on violent sex offenders. For those entering puberty, it encompasses cross-sex hormones—estrogen for males and testosterone for females—in an attempt to change secondary sex characteristics. For some later teens and adults, it encompasses the removal or alteration of body parts—gonads, breast tissue, facial structure, and the Adam’s apple—in order to make males appear female or vice versa. 

In an attempt to back up his claim, Levine cited a Feb. 25 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finding 60% lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality among 104 youths between 13 and 20 who had received so-called puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones over a 12-month period. 

Yet this study does not come close to proving Levine’s claim that experimental medical interventions are “not in scientific or medical dispute.” Although many national health organizations support “gender-affirming care,” the Florida Board of Medicine and the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine last month approved a new rule banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transgender surgeries for minors.

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo had warned that the state “must do more to protect children from politics-based medicine. Otherwise, children and adolescents in our state will continue to face a substantial risk of long-term harm.”

“While some professional organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, recommend these treatments for ‘gender-affirming’ care, the scientific evidence supporting these complex medical interventions is extraordinarily weak,” Ladapo wrote to the Florida Board of Medicine.

The Florida Department of Public Health determined in April that “systematic reviews on hormonal treatment for young people show a trend of low-quality evidence, small sample sizes, and medium to high risk of bias.” It cited an International Review of Psychiatry study stating that 80% of those seeking clinical care will lose their desire to identify with the opposite sex.

This trend extends far beyond Florida. Karolinska Hospital in Sweden announced in May 2021 that it would not prescribe hormonal treatments to minors under 16.

In June 2021, Finland released medical guidelines opposing such drugs for minors, noting: “Cross-sex identification in childhood, even in extreme cases, generally disappears during puberty.” The Finnish guidelines add, “The first-line treatment for gender dysphoria is psychosocial support and, as necessary, psychotherapy and treatment of possible comorbid psychiatric disorders.”

In April 2021, Britain’s National Institute of Health and Care Excellence concluded that the evidence for using puberty-blocking drugs to treat young people is “very low” and that existing studies of the drugs were small and “subject to bias and confounding.”

Many people who mutilated their bodies in the pursuit of a transgender identity have spoken out against the “cult” that ensnared them.

“I’m a real, live 22-year-old woman, with a scarred chest and a broken voice, and five o’clock shadow because I couldn’t face the idea of growing up to be a woman. That’s my reality,” Cari Stella said in a disturbing YouTube video.

Other detransitioners have supported the states that have banned drugs that would stunt and potentially sterilize minors. “I believe every state needs to pass a law that protects our youth in this way,” Chloe Cole, a woman who desisted from a male gender identity, said about the Arkansas law.

Is it indeed “compassionate” to encourage an identity that is false to a person’s physical body? Would it be compassionate to tell an anorexic girl who wrongly thinks she is fat that she is right to starve herself? Would such a “treatment” for anorexia be right if major medical institutions endorsed it?

Surely, medical associations cannot be wrong, correct? History suggests they can be very wrong. “Progressive” scientists once endorsed eugenics and lobotomies as the height of medicine. The inventor of the lobotomy received a Nobel Prize, and many Nobel laureates supported eugenics.  

It is not “misinformation” to question the value of “treatments” that will leave children stunted, scarred, and infertile, especially when such “care” aims to reverse the biological sex written in the DNA of every cell in a person’s body.

Yet Levine’s transgender worldview will not brook heresy, and he aims to enlist doctors to pressure Big Tech to silence anyone who would dare criticize his experimental “treatments.” Perhaps he’s terrified to hear that he himself might be misinformed.

November 17, 2022


Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming,
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming,

I have written on this before to your fellow Republican Mitt Romney of Utah.

This is an OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, on the NOVEMBER 16, 2022 CONCERNING THE SENATOR’S “YES” VOTE IN SENATE TO  PASS BILL THAT “provides statutory authority for same-sex…marriages,” repealing provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman!

I am familiar with your church and their traditional view on marriage. Here is a summary of it:

QUESTION: In light of all the recent publicity about same-sex marriage, where does The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod stand on the issue?

ANSWER: God gave marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church (Eph. 5:32). Homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments (Lev. 18:22, 24, 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9–20; 1 Tim. 1:10) as contrary to the Creator’s design (Rom. 1:26–27).

The LCMS affirms that such behavior is “intrinsically sinful” and that, “on the basis of Scripture, marriage [is] the lifelong union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:2-24; Matt. 19:5-6)” (2004 Res. 3-05A).

It has also urged its members “to give a public witness from Scripture against the social acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual ‘marriage’ ” (2004 Res. 3-05A).

At the same time, the Synod firmly believes “the redeeming love of Christ, which rescues humanity from sin, death, and the power of Satan, is offered to all through repentance and faith in Christ, regardless of the nature of their sinfulness” (1992 Res. 3-12A).

—-

Your church’s view is the view the Bible takes and I want to say that I am glad you belong to a Bible affirming church that respects the truth about what the Bible says about homosexuality. Maybe you don’t fully understand fully what the Bible says about homosexuality and that is why you voted the way you did on November 16th?

 I heard Greg Koukl talk on this subject and he did a great job. Especially notice the section entitled, “Natural Desire or Natural Function?”

The first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans contains what most readers consider the Bible’s clearest condemnation of same-sex relations.  Recent scholarship reads the same text and finds just the opposite.  Who is right?

Paul, Romans and Homosexuality

 by Greg Koukl

      To most readers, the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans contains the Bible’s clearest condemnation of same-sex relations–both male and female.  Recent scholarship, though, reads the same text and finds just the opposite–that homosexuality is innate and therefore normal, moral, and biblical.

Reconstructing Romans

In Romans, Paul seems to use homosexuality as indicative of man’s deep seated rebellion against God and God’s proper condemnation of man.  New interpretations cast a different light on the passage.

Paul, the religious Jew, is looking across the Mediterranean at life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture.  Homosexuality in itself is not the focus of condemnation.  Rather, Paul’s opprobrium falls upon paganism’s refusal to acknowledge the true God.

It’s also possible Paul did not understand the physiological basis of genuine homosexuality.  John Boswell, professor of history at Yale, is among those who differ with the classical interpretation.  In Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexualityhe writes:

The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual:  what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons….It is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual behavior.  It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that–whether or not he was aware of their existence–Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.[1]  [emphasis in the original]

Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural sexual orientation, Boswell contends, those who go against their own natural desire:  “‘Nature’ in Romans 1:26, then, should be understood as the personal nature of the pagans in question.”[2]  [emphasis in the original]

Since a homosexual’s natural desire is for the same sex, this verse doesn’t apply to him.  He has not chosen to set aside heterosexuality for homosexuality; the orientation he was born with is homosexual.  Demanding that he forsake his “sin” and become heterosexual is actually the kind of violation of one’s nature Paul condemns here.

Romans 1:18-27

Both views can’t be correct.  Only a close look at the text itself will give us the answer.  The details of this passage show why these new interpretations are impossible:[3]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 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.

Let me start by making two observations.  First, this is about God being mad:  “For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men….”

Second, there is a specific progression that leads to this “orgy” of anger.  Men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (v. 18).  They exchanged “the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25).  Next, “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…” (v. 24).  They “exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural (v. 26).  Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v. 18); they are without excuse (v. 20).

This text is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality by the Apostle Paul in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation.  Paul is not speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution that’s part of life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture.  He is talking about a universal condition of man.

Regarding the same-sex behavior itself, here are the specific words Paul uses:  a lust of the heart, an impurity and dishonoring to the body (v. 24); a degrading passion that’s unnatural (v. 29); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).

There’s only one way the clear sense of this passage can be missed:  if someone is in total revolt against God.  According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against one’s Creator.  Verse 32 shows it’s rooted in direct, willful, aggressive sedition against God–true of all so-called Christians who are defending their own homosexuality.  God’s response is explicit:  “They are without excuse” (v. 20).

Born Gay?

What if one’s “natural” desire is for the same sex, though.  What if his homosexuality is part of his physical constitution?  There are four different reasons this is a bad argument.  The first three are compelling; the fourth is unassailable.

First, this rejoinder assumes there is such a thing as innate homosexuality.  The scientific data is far from conclusive, though.  Contrary to the hasty claims of the press, there is no definitive evidence that homosexuality is determined by physiological factors (see “Just Doing What Comes Naturally,” Clear Thinking, Spring, 1997).

There’s a second problem.  If all who have a desire for the same sex do so “naturally,” then to whom does this verse apply?  If everybody is only following their natural sexual desires, then which particular individuals fall under this ban, those who are not aroused by their own gender, but have sex anyway?  Generally, for men at least, if there is no arousal, there is no sex.  And if there is arousal, according to Boswell et al, then the passion must be natural.

Third, this interpretation introduces a whole new concept–constitutional homosexuality–that is entirely foreign to the text.  Boswell himself admits that it was “in fact unlikely that many Jews of [Paul’s] day recognized such a distinction,” and that possibly even Paul himself was in the dark.

If Paul did not understand genuine homosexuality, though, then how can one say he excepted constitutional homosexuals when he wrote that they “exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”?  This argument self-destructs.

Further, if Paul spoke only to those violating their personal sexual orientation, then wouldn’t he also warn that some men burned unnaturally towards women, and some women towards men?  Wouldn’t Paul warn against both types of violation–heterosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the same sex, and homosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the opposite sex?

What in the text allows us to distinguish between constitutional homosexuals and others?  Only one word:  “natural.”  A close look at this word and what it modifies, though, leads to the most devastating critique of all.

Natural Desire or Natural Function?

Paul was not unclear about what he meant by “natural.”  Homosexuals do not abandon natural desires; they abandon natural functions:  “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another…” (1:26-27)

The Greek word kreesis, translated “function” in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time.  According to the standard Greek language reference A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other  Early Christian Literature,[4] the word means “use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse.”

Paul is not talking about natural desires here, but natural functions.  He is not talking about what one wants sexually, but how one is built to operatesexually.  The body is built to function in a specific way.  Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.

This conclusion becomes unmistakable when one notes what men abandon in verse 27, according to Paul.  The modern argument depends on the text teaching that men abandoned their own natural desire for woman and burned toward one another.  Men whose natural desire was for other men would then be exempted from Paul’s condemnation.  Paul says nothing of the kind, though.

Paul says men forsake not their own natural desire (their constitutional make-up), but rather the “natural function of the woman..”  They abandoned the female, who was built by God to be man’s sexual compliment.

The error has nothing to do with anything in the male’s own constitution that he’s denying.  It is in the rejection of the proper sexual companion God has made for him–a woman:  “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts….” (v. 27)

Natural desires go with natural functions.  The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a   man and a man is what Paul calls a degrading passion.

Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship:  “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].’?”  (Matthew 19:4-5)

Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment God has ordained for him:  a woman.  That was Paul’s view.  If it was Paul’s view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God’s view.  And if it is God’s view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.


[1]John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality(Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 109.

[2]Ibid., p. 111.

[3]Citations are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1977, The Lockman Foundation.

[4]Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (University of Chicago Press).

I want to object to your recent vote on November to do away with traditional marriage special position in our laws!!! Take a look at this letter I wrote to President Obama that applies to you!!!

Francis Schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer.jpg

December 28, 2020

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

Dear President Obama,

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

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

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

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

On page 286 you talk about speaking at the 2009 National Prayer Breakfast and in fact you spoke at 2 of those in 2009 and one each February you were President!! Let me quote from one of those speeches of yours below!

                                 June 19, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE ESPERANZA NATIONAL HISPANIC PRAYER BREAKFAST
J.W. Marriott
Washington, D.C: “At a time when there’s no shortage of challenges to occupy our time, it’s even more important to step back, and to give thanks, and to seek guidance from each other — but most importantly, from God. That’s what we’ve come here to do.”

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE FROM GOD’S WORD OR FROM OTHER SOURCES LIKE LIBERAL THEOLOGIANS DO?

As a Christian I accept that the Bible is the word of God and inerrant. I understand that you take a much more liberal view of the Bible. Your church denomination includes very liberal theologians and Paul Tillich is probably the most prominent in the past. 

Schaeffer went on to analyze how neo-orthodoxy ultimately gives way to radical mysticism:

Karl Barth opened the door to the existentialistic leap in theology… He has been followed by many more, men like Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, Bishop John Robinson, Alan Richardson and all the new theologians. They may differ in details, but their struggle is still the same—it is the struggle of modern man who has given up [rationality]. As far as the theologians are concerned … their new system is not open to verification, it must simply be believed.10

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACEThere is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.

You want some evidence that indicates that the Bible is true? Here is a good place to start and that is taking a closer look at the archaeology of the Old Testament times. Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem, 2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism), 4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites, 6.Shishak Smiting His Captives, 7. Moabite Stone, 8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.


A fine message below
in which John MacArthur reminds us:

As Francis Schaeffer warned nearly thirty years ago in The God Who Is There, the church is following the irrationality of secular philosophy. Consequently, reckless faith has overrun the evangelical community. Many are discarding doctrine in favor of personal experience.

The War Against Reason
by John MacArthur
True discernment has suffered a horrible setback in the past few decades because reason itself has been under attack within the church. As Francis Schaeffer warned nearly thirty years ago in The God Who Is There, the church is following the irrationality of secular philosophy. Consequently, reckless faith has overrun the evangelical community. Many are discarding doctrine in favor of personal experience. Others say they are willing to disregard crucial biblical distinctives in order to achieve external unity among all professing Christians. True Christianity marked by intelligent, biblical faith seems to be declining even among the most conservative evangelicals.THE ABANDONMENT OF OBJECTIVE TRUTHThe visible church in our generation has become astonishingly tolerant of aberrant teaching and outlandish ideas—and frighteningly intolerant of sound teaching. The popular evangelical conception of “truth” has become almost completely subjective. Truth is viewed as fluid, always relative, never absolute. To suggest that any objective criterion might be used to distinguish truth from error is to be egregiously out of step with the spirit of the age. In some circles, Scripture itself has been ruled out as a reliable test of truth. After all, the Bible can be interpreted in so many different ways—who can say which interpretation is right? And many believe there is truth beyond the Bible.All this relativity has had disastrous effects on the typical Christian’s ability to discern truth from error, right from wrong, good from evil. The plainest teachings of the Bible are being questioned among people who declare themselves believers in the Bible. For example, some Christians are no longer certain whether homosexuality should be classed as a sin. Others argue that the feminist agenda is compatible with biblical Christianity. “Christian” television, radio, books, and magazines serve up a preposterous smorgasbord of ideas from the merely capricious to the downright dangerous—and the average Christian is woefully ill-equipped to sort out the lies from the truth.Even to suggest that a sorting between lies and truth is necessary is viewed by many as perilously intolerant. There is a notion abroad that any dispute over doctrine is inherently evil. Concern for orthodoxy is regarded as incompatible with Christian unity. Doctrine itself is labeled divisive and those who make doctrine an issue are branded uncharitable. No one is permitted to criticize anyone else’s beliefs, no matter how unbiblical those beliefs seem to be. A recent article in Christianity Today exemplifies the trend. The article, titled “Hunting for Heresy,” profiled two well-known Christian leaders who had “come under withering attack for controversial writings.”1One is a popular speaker on the college lecture circuit and a bestselling author. He wrote a book in which he encouraged homosexuals to establish permanent live-together relationships (albeit celibate ones). He suggests the evangelical community suffers from “homophobia.” He is convinced that permanent living arrangements between homosexuals are the only alternative to loneliness for people he believes are “born with a homosexual orientation.” This man’s wife has published an article in a homosexual magazine in which she enthusiastically affirms” monogamous sexual relationships between homosexuals. The speaker-author says he has a “very, very strong” disagreement with his wife’s approval of homosexual sex, but his own view seems to allow homosexuals to engage in other kinds of physical intimacy short of actual intercourse.The other Christian leader profiled in the Christianity Today article is a woman who, with her husband, is a featured speaker for a popular, nationally-syndicated radio and television ministry. Their ministry is not a weird offshoot from some fringe cult, but an established, well-respected mainstay from the evangelical heartland. She also serves as chairperson of one of the largest evangelical student organizations in the world. This woman has written a book in which she chronicles some rather peculiar spiritual experiences. She dedicates the book to her male alter ego, an imaginary person named “Eddie Bishop” who romances her in her dreams. This woman says she also has visions of “the Christ child that is within” her. He appears to her as a drooling, emaciated, barefoot “idiot child” in a torn undershirt—”its head totally bald and lolled to one side.” The woman has engaged the services of a Catholic nun who serves as her “spiritual director,” helping to interpret her dreams and fantasies. The book mingles mysticism, Jungian psychology, out-of-body experiences, feminist ideas, subjective religious experience, and this woman’s romantic fantasies into an extraordinary amalgam. The book is frankly so bizarre that it is disturbing to read.The remarkable thing about the Christianity Today article is that the story was not written to expose the aberrant ideas being taught by these two leading evangelicals. Instead, what the magazine’s editors deemed newsworthy was the fact that these people were under attack for their views.In the world of modern evangelicalism, it is allowable to advocate the most unconventional, unbiblical doctrines—as long as you afford everyone else the same privilege. About the only thing that is taboo nowadays is the intolerance of those who dare to point out others’ errors. Anyone today who is bold enough to suggest that someone else’s ideas or doctrines are unsound or unbiblical is dismissed at once as contentious, divisive, unloving, or unchristian. It is all right toespouse any view you wish, but it is not all right to criticize another person’s views—no matter how patently unbiblical those views may be.When tolerance is valued over truth, the cause of truth always suffers. Church history shows this to be so. Only when the people of God have mounted a hardy defense of truth and sound doctrine has the church flourished and grown strong. The Reformation, the Puritan era, and the Great Awakenings are all examples of this. The times of decline in the history of the church have always been marked by an undue emphasis on tolerance—which leads inevitably to carelessness, worldliness, doctrinal compromise, and great confusion in the church.ADRIFT ON A SEA OF SUBJECTIVITYThat the church would lose her moorings in this particular age, however, poses greater dangers than ever. For in the past hundred years or so, the world has changed in a dramatic and very frightening way. People no longer look at truth the way they used to. In fact, we live under a prevailing philosophy that has become hostile to the very idea of absolute truth.From the beginning of recorded history until late last century, virtually all human philosophy assumed the necessity of absolute truth. Truth was universally understood as that which is true, not false; factual, not erroneous; correct, not incorrect; moral, not immoral; just, not unjust; right, not wrong. Practically all philosophers since the time of Plato assumed the objectivity of truth. Philosophy itself was a quest for the highest understanding of truth. Such a pursuit was presumed to be possible, even necessary, because truth was understood to be the same for every person. This did not mean that everyone agreed what truth was, of course. But virtually all agreed that whatever was true was true for everyone.That all changed in the nineteenth century with the birth of existentialism. Existentialism defies precise definition, but it includes the concept that the highest truth is subjective (having its source in the individual’s mind) rather than objective (something that actually exists outside the individual). Existentialism elevates individual experience and personal choice, minimizing or ruling out absolute standards of truth, goodness, morality, and such things. We might accurately characterize existentialism as the abandonment of objectivity. Existentialism is inherently anti-intellectual, against reason, irrational.Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard first used the term “existential.” Kierkegaard’s life and philosophy revolved around his experiences with Christianity. Christian ideas and biblical terminology reverberate in many of his writings. He wrote much about faith and certainly regarded himself as a Christian. Many of his ideas began as a legitimate reaction against the stale formalism of the Danish Lutheran state church. He was rightly offended at the barren ritualism of the church, properly outraged that people who had no love for God called themselves Christians just because they happened to be born in a “Christian” nation.But in his reaction against the lifeless state church, Kierkegaard set up a false antithesis. He decided that objectivity and truth were incompatible. To counter the passionless ritualism and lifeless doctrinal formulas he saw in Danish Lutheranism, Kierkegaard devised an approach to religion that was pure passion, altogether subjective. Faith, he suggested, means the rejection of reason and the exaltation of feeling and personal experience. It was Kierkegaard who coined the expression “leap of faith.” Faith to him was an irrational experience, above all a personal choice. He recorded these words in his journal on August 1, 1835: “The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.”2Clearly, Kierkegaard had already rejected as inherently worthless the belief that truth is objective. His journal continues with these words:What would be the use of discovering so-called objective truth …. What good would it do me if truth stood before me, cold and naked, not caring whether I recognized her or not, and producing in me a shudder of fear rather than a trusting devotion? … I am left standing like a man who has rented a house and gathered all the furniture and household things together, but has not yet found the beloved with whom to share the joys and sorrows of his life…. It is this divine side of man, his inward action, which means everything—not a mass of [objective] information.3Having repudiated the objectivity of truth, Kierkegaard was left longing for an existential experience, which he believed would bring him a sense of personal fulfillment. He stood on the precipice, preparing to make his leap of faith. Ultimately, the idea he chose to live and die for was Christianity, but it was a characteristically subjective brand of Christianity that he embraced.Though Kierkegaard was virtually unknown during his lifetime, his writings have endured and have deeply influenced all subsequent philosophy. His idea of “truth that is true for me” infiltrated popular thought and set the tone for our generations radical rejection of all objective standards.Kierkegaard knew how to make irrationalism sound profound. “God does not exist; He is eternal,” he wrote. He believed Christianity was full of “existential paradoxes,” which he regarded as actual contradictions, proof that truth is irrational.Using the example of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19), Kierkegaard suggested that God called Abraham to violate moral law in slaying his son. For Kierkegaard, Abraham’s willingness to “suspend” his ethical convictions epitomized the leap of faith that is demanded of everyone. Kierkegaard believed the incident proved that “the single individual [Abraham] is higher than the universal [moral law].”4 Building on that conclusion, the Danish philosopher offered this observation: “Abraham represents faith…. He acts by virtue of the absurd, for it is precisely [by virtue of] the absurd that he as the single individual is higher than the universal.”5 “[I] cannot understand Abraham,” Kierkegaard declared, “even though in a certain demented sense I admire him more than all others.”6It is not difficult to see how such thinking thrusts all truth into the realm of pure subjectivity—even to the point of absurdity or dementia. Everything becomes relative. Absolutes dematerialize. The difference between truth and nonsense becomes meaningless. All that matters is personal experience.And one person’s experience is as valid as another’s—even if everyone’s experiences lead to contradictory conceptions of truth. “Truth that is true for me” might be different from someone else’s truth. In fact, our beliefs might be obviously contradictory, yet another person’s “truth” in no way invalidates mine. Because “truth”is authenticated by personal experience, its only relevance is for the individual who makes the leap of faith. That is existentialism.Existentialism caught on in a big way in secular philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, also rejected reason and emphasized the will of the individual. Nietzsche probably knew nothing of Kierkegaard’s works, but their ideas paralleled at the key points. Unlike Kierkegaard, however, Nietzsche never made the leap of faith to Christianity. Instead, he leapt to the conclusion that God is dead. The truth that was “true for him,” it seems, turned out to be the opposite of the truth Kierkegaard chose. But their epistemology (the way they arrived at their ideas) was exactly the same.Later existentialists, such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre, refined Kierkegaard’s ideas while following the atheism of Nietzsche. Heidegger and Sartre both believed that reason is futile and life basically meaningless. Those ideas have been a powerful force in twentieth-century thought. As the world continues to grow more atheistic, more secular, and more irrational, it helps to understand that it is being propelled in that direction by strong existentialist influences.EXISTENTIALISM INVADES THE CHURCH But don’t get the idea that existentialism’s influence is limited to the secular world. From the moment Kierkegaard wedded existentialist ideas with Christianity, neo-orthodox theology was the inevitable outcome.Neo-orthodoxy is the term used to identify an existentialist variety of Christianity. Because it denies the essential objective basis of truth—the absolute truth and authority of Scripture—neo-orthodoxy must be understood as pseudo-Christianity. Its heyday came in the middle of the twentieth century with the writings of Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Paul Tillich, and Reinhold Niebuhr. Those men echoed the language and the thinking of Kierkegaard, speaking of the primacy of “personal authenticity,” while downplaying or denying the significance of objective truth. Barth, the father of neo-orthodoxy, explicitly acknowledged his debt to Kierkegaard.7Neo-orthodoxy’s attitude toward Scripture is a microcosm of the entire existentialist philosophy: the Bible itself is not objectively the Word of God, but it becomes the Word of God when it speaks to me individually. In neo-orthodoxy, that same subjectivism is imposed on all the doctrines of historic Christianity. Familiar terms are used, but are redefined or employed in a way that is purposely vague—not to convey objective meaning, but to communicate a subjective symbolism. After all, any “truth” theological terms convey is unique to the person who exercises faith. What the Bible means becomes unimportant. What it means to me is the relevant issue. All of this resoundingly echoes Kierkegaard’s concept of “truth that is true for me.”Thus while neo-orthodox theologians often sound as if they are affirming traditional beliefs, their actual system differs radically from the historic understanding of the Christian faith. By denying the objectivity of truth, they relegate all theology to the realm of subjective relativism. It is a theology perfectly suited for the age in which we live.And that is precisely why it is so deadly.Francis Schaeffer’s 1968 work The God Who Is There included a perceptive analysis of Kierkegaard’s influence on modern thought and modern theology.8 Schaeffer named the boundary between rationality and irrationality “the line of despair.” He noted that existentialism pushed secular thought below the line of despair sometime in the nineteenth century. Religious neo-orthodoxy was simply a johnny-come-lately response of theologians who were jumping on the existentialist bandwagon, following secular art, music, and general culture: “Neo-orthodoxy gave no new answer. What existential philosophy had already said in secular language, it now said in theological language…. [With the advent of neo-orthodoxy,] theology too has gone below the line of despair.”9Schaeffer went on to analyze how neo-orthodoxy ultimately gives way to radical mysticism:Karl Barth opened the door to the existentialistic leap in theology… He has been followed by many more, men like Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, Bishop John Robinson, Alan Richardson and all the new theologians. They may differ in details, but their struggle is still the same—it is the struggle of modern man who has given up [rationality]. As far as the theologians are concerned … their new system is not open to verification, it must simply be believed.10Such a system, Schaeffer points out, has no integrity. Those who espouse it cannot live with the repercussions of their own illogic. “In practice a man cannot totally reject [rationality], however much his system leads him to it, unless he experiences … some form of mental breakdown.” Thus people have been forced to an even deeper level of despair: “a level of mysticism with nothing there.”11MYSTICISM: IRRATIONALITY GONE TO SEEDMysticism is the idea that spiritual reality is found by looking inward. Mysticism is perfectly suited for religious existentialism; indeed, it is its inevitable consequence. The mystic disdains rational understanding and seeks truth instead through the feelings, the imagination, personal visions, inner voices, private illumination, or other purely subjective means. Objective truth becomes practically superfluous. Mystical experiences are therefore self-authenticating; that is, they are not subject to any form of objective verification. They are unique to the person who experiences them. Since they do not arise from or depend upon any rational process, they are invulnerable to any refutation by rational means.Arthur L. Johnson writes,The experience convinces the mystic in such a way, and to such a degree, that lie simply cannot doubt its value and the correctness of what he believes it “says.”…In its crudest form this position says that believing something to be so makes it so. The idea is that ultimate reality is purely mental; therefore one is able to create whatever reality one wishes. Thus the mystic “creates” truth through his experience. In a less extreme form, the view seems to be that there are “alternate realities,” one as real as another, and that these “break in upon” the mystic in his experiences. Whatever form is taken, the criterion of truth is again a purely private and subjective experience that provides no means of verification and no safeguard against error. Nevertheless, it is seen by the mystic as being above question by others.The practical result of all this is that it is nearly impossible to reason with any convinced mystic. Such people are generally beyond the reach of reason.12Mysticism is therefore antithetical to discernment. It is an extreme form of reckless faith.Mysticism is the great melting pot into which neo-orthodoxy, the charismatic movement, anti-intellectual evangelicals, and even some segments of Roman Catholicism have been synthesized. It has produced movements like the Third Wave (a neo-charismatic movement with excessive emphasis on signs, wonders, and personal prophecies); Renovaré (an organization that blends teachings from monasticism, ancient Catholic mysticism, Eastern religion, and other mystical traditions); the spiritual warfare movement (which seeks to engage demonic powers in direct confrontation); and the modern prophecy movement (which encourages believers to seek private, extrabiblical revelation directly ftom God). The influx of mysticism has also opened evangelicalism to New-Age concepts like subliminal thought- control, inner healing, communication with angels, channeling, dream analysis, positive confession, and a host of other therapies andpractices coming directly from occult and Eastern religions. The face of evangelicalism has changed so dramatically in the past twenty years that what is called evangelicalism today is beginning to resemble what used to be called neo-orthodoxy. If anything, some segments of contemporary evangelicalism are even more subjective in their approach to truth than neo-orthodoxy ever was.It could be argued that evangelicalism never successfully resisted neo-orthodoxy. Twenty years ago evangelicals took a heroic stand against neo-orthodox influences on the issue of biblical inerrancy. But whatever victory was gained in that battle is now being sacrificed on the altar of mysticism. Mysticism renders biblical inerrancy irrelevant. After all, if the highest truth is subjective and comes from within us, then it doesn’t ultimately matter if the specifics of Scripture are true or not. If the content of faith is not the real issue, what does it really matter if the Bible has errors or not?In other words, neo-orthodoxy attacked the objective inspiration of Scripture. Evangelical mysticism attacks the objective interpretation of Scripture. The practical effect is the same. By embracing existential relativism, evangelicals are forfeiting the very riches they fought so hard to protect. If we can gain meaningful guidance from characters who appear in our fantasies, why should we bother ourselves with what the Bible says? If we are going to disregard or even reject the biblical verdict against homosexuality, what difference does it make if the historical and factual matter revealed in Scripture is accurate or inaccurate? If personal prophecies, visions, dreams, and angelic beings are available to give us up-to-the-minute spiritual direction—”fresh revelation” as it is often called—who cares if Scripture is without error in the whole or in the parts?Mysticism further nullifies Scripture by pointing people away from the sure Word of God as the only reliable object of faith. Warning of the dangers of mysticism, Schaeffer wrote,Probably the best way to describe this concept of modern theology is to say that it is faith in faith, rather than faith directed to an object which is actually there…. A modern man cannot talk about the object of his faith, only about the faith itself. So he can discuss the existence of his faith and its “size” as it exists against all reason, but that is all. Modern man’s faith turns inward…. Faith is introverted, because it has no certain object … it is rationally not open to discussion. This position, I would suggest, is actually a greater despair and darkness than the position of those modern men who commit suicide.13The faith of mysticism is an illusion. “Truth that is true for me” is irrelevant to anyone else, because it lacks any objective basis. Ultimately, therefore, existential faith is impotent to lift anyone above the level of despair. All it can do is seek more experiences and more feelings. Multitudes are trapped in the desperate cycle of feeding off one experience while zealously seeking the next. Such people have no real concept of truth; they just believe. Theirs is a reckless faith.MEANWHILE, AT THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM…Mysticism, however, is not the only form of reckless faith that threatens the contemporary church. A new movement has been gaining strength lately. Evangelicals are leaving the fold and moving into Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and liturgical high-church Protestantism. Rejecting the ever-changing subjectivism of a free- wheeling existential Protestantism, they seek a religion with historical roots. Turned off by the shallow silliness that has overrun the evangelical movement, they desire a more magisterial approach. Perhaps sensing the dangers of a religion that points people inward, they choose instead a religion that emphasizes external ceremonies and dogmatic hierarchical authority.I listened to the taped testimony of one of these converts to Roman Catholicism, a former Protestant minister. He said he had graduated with highest honors from a leading Protestant seminary. He told his audience that as a student he was rabidly anti-Catholic and fully committed to Protestant Reformed doctrine (although he refuted this himself by admitting he had already rejected the crucial doctrine of justification by faith). After college he began to read Roman Catholic writings and found himself drawn to Catholic theology and liturgy. He described his initial resistance to the doctrines of purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, transubstantiation, and prayers to Mary and the saints. All of those doctrines are easily disproved by the Bible.14 But this man—acknowledging that he could find no warrant anywhere in Scripture for praying to Mary—nevertheless completely changed his outlook on such matters after he tried praying the rosary and received an answer to a very specific prayer. He concluded that it must have been Mary who answered his prayer and immediately began praying regularly to her. Ultimately, he decided the Bible alone was not a sufficient rule of faith for believers, and he put his faith in papal authority and church tradition.That man’s leap of faith may not have been of the existential variety, but it was a blind leap nonetheless. He chose the other extreme of reckless faith, the kind that makes extrabiblical religious tradition the object of one’s faith.This kind of faith is reckless because it subjugates the written Word of God to oral tradition, church authority, or some other human criterion. It is an uncritical trust in an earthly religious authority—the pope, tradition, a self-styled prophet like David Koresh, or whatever. Such faith rarely jettisons Scripture altogether—but by forcing God’s Word into the mold of religious tradition, it invalidates the Word of God and renders it of no effect (cf. Matt. 15:6).The man whose taped testimony I heard is now an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church. He speaks to Catholic congregations and tells them how to counter biblical arguments against Catholicism. At the end of his testimony tape, he deals briefly with the official Catholic attitude toward Scripture. He is eager to assure his listeners that the modern Roman Catholic Church has no objection if Catholic people want to read Scripture for themselves. Even personal Bible study is all right, he says—but then hastens to add that it is not necessary to go overboard. “A verse or two a day is enough.” This man, a seminary graduate, surely should be aware that a comment like that seriously understates the importance of the written Word of God. We are commanded to meditate on Scripture day and night (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:2). We are to let it fill our hearts at all times (Deut. 6:6-9). We must study it diligently and handle it rightly (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible alone is able to give us the wisdom that leads to salvation, then adequately equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:15-17).Discernment depends on a knowledge of Scripture. Those who are content to listen gullibly to some voice of human authority rather than hearing God’s Word and letting it speak for itself cannot be discerning. Theirs is a reckless, irrational faith.We identified the inward-looking extreme of reckless faith as mysticism. We could call this other variety rote tradition. In Isaiah 29:13, that is precisely how God Himself characterized it: “This people their lip service, but draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote” (emphasis added).Scripture has nothing but condemnation for rote tradition. Barren religious ritual, sacerdotal formalism, or liturgy out of a book are not the same as worship. Real worship, like faith, must engage the mind. Jesus said, “The true worshipers … worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:23).Did you realize that rote tradition was the very error for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees? He told them,“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me. teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:6-9).Rote tradition is not unlike mysticism in that it also bypasses the mind. Paul said this of the Jews who were so absorbed in their empty religious traditions:I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:2-4).Their problem was not a lack of zeal. It was not that they were short on enthusiasm, emotionally flat, or slothful about religious observances. The issue was that the zeal they displayed was rote tradition, “not in accordance with knowledge.” They were not sufficiently discerning, and therefore their faith itself was deficient.Paul is specific in stating that their ignorance lay in trying to establish their own righteousness rather than submitting to the righteousness of God. This passage comes at the culmination of Paul’s doctrinal discussion in Romans. In context it is very clear that he was talking about the doctrine ofjustification by faith. He had thoroughly expounded this subject beginning in chapter 3. He said we are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (3:24). Justification is “by faith apart from works of the Law” (v.28). “God reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6).But instead of seeking the perfect righteousness of Christ, which God reckons to those who believe, the unbelieving Jews had set out to try to establish a righteousness of their own through works. That is where rote tradition always leads. It is a religion of works. Thus the ritualistic, unbelieving Pharisees are an exact parallel to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most forms of ritual-laden Protestantism. All of them deny justification by faith.If the Pharisees or their followers had used the Scriptures as their standard of truth rather than rabbinical tradition, they would have known that God justifies sinners by faith. Repeatedly, Jesus said things to them like “Did you never read in the Scriptures . . . ?” (Matt. 21:42); “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God” (22:29); and, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?” (John 3:10). What He continually chided them for was their ignorance of the Scriptures. They had set rote tradition in place of the written Word of God (Matt. 15:6), and they were condemned for it.Contrast the way Luke commended the Bereans for their noblemindedness: “For they received the word [the New Testament gospel from the apostles] with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures [the Old Testament books] daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:1 1). What made the Bereans worthy of commendation? Their eagerness to be discerning. They rightly refused to blindly accept anyone’s teaching (even that of the apostles) without clear warrant from God’s Word.Spiritual discernment is, I believe, the only antidote to the existentialism of our age. Until’Christians regain the will to test everything by the rule of Scripture, reject what is false, and hold fast to what is true, the church will struggle and falter, and our testimony to a world in sin will be impaired.But if the church will rise up and stand for the truth of God’s Word against all the lies of this evil world, then we will begin to see the power of truth that sets people free (John 8:32).Endnotes1. John W. Kennedy, “Hunting for Heresy,” Christianity Today (16 May 1994).2. Robert Bretall, cd., A Kierkegaard Anthology (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1946), 5 (emphasis in original).3. Ibid.4. Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong, trans. (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1983), 55.5. Ibid.6. Ibid., 57.7. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, Edwyn C. Hoskyns, trans. (London: Oxford University Press, 1933). Barth cites Kierkegaard repeatedly in this, one of his earliest works.8. Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Volume I (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1982).9. Ibid., 53.10. Ibid., 55.11. Ibid., 58.12. Arthur L. Johnson, Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), 31-32.13. Schaeffer, 64-65, emphasis added.14. Purgatory: Luke 23:42-43 and 2 Cor. 5:8 indicate that believers go immediately to be with Christ at death. Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Matt. 1:25 states that Joseph kept Mary a virgin only until Jesus’ birth, and John 2:12 and Acts 1:14 reveal that Jesus had brothers. Transubstantiation: Heb. 7:27 and 10:12 teach that Christ made one sacrifice for sins forever; there is no need for the daily sacrifice of the Mass. Prayers to Mary and the saints: prayers, adoration, and spiritual veneration offered to anyone but God is expressly forbidden by the first commandment and elsewhere throughout Scripture (Ex. 20:3; Matt. 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; Rev. 22:8-9).Excerpt from Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern, © 1994 by John MacArthur.We do pray this article has blessed you in some way.  Our prayer is that you will use this message to better understand what is happening in our churches today.Blessings,
Robert Wise

Sincerely,

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

END OF LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!

The United States Senate voted November 16, 2022 to advance the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.

HR 8404, which passed the House of Representatives in July, “provides statutory authority for same-sex…marriages,” repealing provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman. YOU VOTED YES!!!!

Senator I bet don’t like to be compared to President Obama but why did you vote like he would have done on this vote!!!!

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, everettehatcher@gmail.com,

Related posts:

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

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

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

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

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

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

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

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

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

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

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

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

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

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

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

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

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

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

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

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

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

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding FathersFrancis SchaefferProlife | Edit |Comments (1)

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

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

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

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

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

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

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

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

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

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

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian RogersFrancis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

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

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—-

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Education Freedom Is on the Move

Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System

Published on May 9, 2012 by

JANUARY 24, 2023 3:48PM
File:President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan in The East Room Congratulating Milton Friedman Receiving The Presidential Medal of Freedom.jpg

Education Freedom Is on the Move

Published January 31, 2023

Somewhere, the late Milton Friedman is beaming. The godfather of school choice and all-around genius had a vision in 1955 to extricate the government from administering education by giving parents vouchers that they could use for specified educational services.

It took a while to get off the ground, but today Friedman’s plan is flying high. According to EdChoice (formerly the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice), 32 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have some form of private school choice law in place.

At the same time that parental freedom is advancing, the naysayers are having conniptions. In The New RepublicDavid Marques fumes about the just completed National School Choice Week, referring to it as “that annual right-wing P.R. campaign to defund public schools that pretends to really just care about the children.

His fulmination is loaded with all the usual bogus tropes – that private schools are “unaccountable” and “unregulated,” and that the goal of National School Choice Week is to “gut public education, destroy teachers’ unions, and enrich unregulated private education companies.”

Not to be outdone, former teacher and uber-grinch Peter Greene wrote a blog post in which he summarizes the move to parental choice in his final paragraph. “It’s all about the three D’s—disrupt, defund, and dismantle. Call the voucher system whatever you would like, but it is about reducing education from a public good and shared societal responsibility to a simple consumer good.”

In Oklahoma, Duncan school superintendent Tom Deighan said supporters of taxpayer-funded school choice aim to “dismantle all public schools.

The belly-achers also insist that not only will school choice kill the government-run variety, but they also claim that choice is racist, and will lead to significant societal intolerance.

But study after study shows that the government monopolists are dead wrong.  Researcher Greg Forster looked at 34 studies on the effects of school choice on government-run schools, and found that in 32, school choice improves academic outcomes in public schools affected by the program, while one saw no visible difference, and just one found a negative impact.

Forster also reports that of 11 empirical studies, 8 found private schools in choice programs produced stronger tolerance and civic values than public schools, while three found no visible difference. Additionally, he asserts that ten empirical studies have examined private school choice programs on segregation, and nine found that the programs reduced it, while one found no visible difference. Not one showed that choice leads to racial discrimination. Also, concerning race, a recent poll shows that when given a fair description of school choice types, a great majority of minority parents are in favor of it.

The prophets of gloom also claim that rural areas would be devastated by school choice measures. But in fact, rural families benefit from school choice like everyone else. When parents are given a choice, new private education providers emerge to meet demand.

Florida is a good case in point. Ron Matus, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Florida’s Step Up For Students, explains, “Rural families in Florida are getting the best of both worlds. The overwhelming majority still choose traditional public schools, which in many cases have ably helped anchor rural communities. (Sixteen of the 30 rural districts earned A or B grades from the state this year; the rest earned C’s.) At the same time, families who need something different are able to access it.”

Perhaps the best endorsement for educational freedom of all comes from public school teachers. A survey released in 2016 by Education Next found that “no less than 20% of teachers with school-age children, but only 13% of non-teachers, have sent one or more of their children to private school.” And not surprisingly, 42% of teachers who don’t send their kids to a traditional public school back vouchers, compared to only 23% of the teachers who send their children to traditional public schools.

These results are similar to a 2004 Fordham Institute study that looked at 50 American cities and found that 21.5% of urban school teachers send their kids to private schools, while 17.5% of non-teachers do. Digging a little deeper, we learn that the disparity is considerably greater for larger urban areas. In Philadelphia, 44% of public school teachers’ kids attend a private school, Chicago 39%, San Francisco-Oakland 34%, and in New York City, 33%.

Polls invariably show widespread support for school choice. A recent survey of roughly 2,000 registered voters conducted online found that 62% of respondents would be interested in such an option, some 30% very much so.

The new year bodes well for educational freedom. In Iowa, Gov. Kim Reynolds just signed the Students First Act, whereby parents can control the portion of education dollars the state appropriates, approximately $7,600 annually. The legislation sets some caps for the first two years but removes them in 2025-26, making the educational savings account (ESA) program available to anyone. (ESAs allow parents to receive a deposit of public funds into a government-authorized savings account with restricted, but multiple uses. Those funds can cover private school tuition and fees, online learning programs, private tutoring, community college costs, higher education expenses, and other approved customized learning services and materials.)

In Utah, Gov. Spencer Cox has just signed a law creating an ESA for all children in the state. Students are eligible to receive $8,000 per year for qualified education expenses, including private school tuition, therapies, tutors, and curriculum.

Additionally, just a month into the new year, ten states are gearing up to add choice programs or increase their existing ones. Idaho lawmakers are expected to introduce a bill to create a universal ESA in the state. In Florida, a Republican proposal would extend the state’s already extensive choice programs to any student in the state.

While educational freedom is typically a red state phenomenon, this could change. Democratic Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro was elected governor after campaigning hard for school choice. Also, Illinois Democrat J.D. Pritzker supported his state’s tax credit scholarship program during his campaign.

Do you go to the government-run supermarket near your home to feed your family? Of course not. You find a local, privately-run store with the food you want at the best price. Just imagine if the government forced you to buy food from that awful government market down the street that sold contaminated meat, overripe fruit, and moldy bread, and was staffed by incompetent store employees.

We have had universal grocery choice forever. It is now time to implement educational freedom for all.

First published at For Kids and Country.

Milton Friedman, School Choice Pioneer


As our new School Choice Timeline shows, calls for public funding to follow students to a variety of educational options date back centuries. However, Nobel Prize‐​winning economist Milton Friedman is often considered the father of the modern school choice movement.

In a 1955 essay, The Role of Government in Education, Friedman acknowledged some justifications for government mandates and funding when it comes to education. However, he said it’s difficult to justify government administration of education. He suggested governments could provide parents with vouchers worth a specified maximum sum per child per year to be spent on “approved” educational services.

Friedman would return to this idea repeatedly over the years in his writings and his popular Free to Choose television series. But he did more than just write and talk about his idea. In 1996, he and his wife Rose, who was also a noted economist, started the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Their original plan included the eventual removal of their name from the foundation, which happened in 2016; the organization is now known as EdChoice and is the go‐​to source for up‐​to‐​date information on school choice in America.

Milton Friedman had a remarkable life. He was born in Brooklyn in 1912 to parents who emigrated to the U.S. from eastern Europe. His father died during his senior year in high school, leaving his mother and older sisters to support the family. He managed to attend Rutgers University through a combination of scholarships and various jobs. After earning a degree in economics, he was awarded a scholarship to pursue a graduate degree at the University of Chicago, where he met his future wife, Rose. The Friedmans had two children, a son and a daughter.

Friedman’s list of accomplishments is astonishingly long. In addition to his 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science in 1988. He was a Senior Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1977 to 2006, a distinguished economics professor at the University of Chicago from 1946 to 1976, and a researcher at the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1937 to 1981. He was a prolific writer of newspaper and magazine columns, essays, and books.

Milton Friedman’s focus on education choice made perfect sense in light of his other work. He had a consistent focus on preserving and expanding individual freedom. He saw parental control and the ability to choose the environment that worked best for individual children as essential to a quality education. His 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom included chapters on economic and political freedom, trade, fiscal policy, occupational licenses, and poverty, along with his earlier essay on the role of government in education.

In 1980, Milton and Rose released Free to Choose, a discussion of economics and freedom, as a book and a television series. One segment/​chapter asked, “What’s Wrong with Our Schools?” and then explained the importance of parents being able to choose what works for their individual children.

When the Friedman Foundation was launched, there were five education choice programs in the U.S. with fewer than 10,000 students participating. Today, according to EdChoice, there are 74 programs in 32 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, with 670,000 students participating.

While there is a long and deep history of individuals and organizations calling for various forms of school choice, it is clear that Milton Friedman played an enormous role in its advance in the U.S. He helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the programs in place today, and his relatable writings and videos helped explain his ideas to parents, policymakers, and thought leaders. As we celebrate National School Choice Week—and Cato’s new School Choice Timeline—it’s a great time to commemorate Milton Friedman’s important contributions to the movement.

The School Choice Revolution

It’s time to celebrate another victory for school choice.

  • In 2021, West Virginia adopted statewide school choice.
  • In 2022, Arizona adopted statewide school choice.
  • In 2023, Iowa adopted statewide school choice.

Now Utah has joined the club, with Governor Spencer Cox approving a new law that will give families greater freedom to choose the best educational options for their children.

Here are some details from Marjorie Cortez, reporting for the Deseret News.

The Utah Senate gave final passage to legislation that will provide $8,000 scholarships to qualifying families for private schools and other private education options…The bill passed by a two-thirds margin in each legislative house, which means it cannot be challenged by referendum. …The bill creates the Utah Fits All Scholarship, which can then be used for education expenses like curriculum, textbooks, education, software, tutoring services, micro-school teacher salaries and private school tuition.

As you might expect, teacher unions and their allies are very disappointed – which is a very positive sign.

…the Utah Education Association…opposed HB215… The bill was also opposed by the Utah State Board of Education, Utah PTA, school superintendents, business administrators and school boards. The Alliance for a Better Utah was pointed in its reaction… “Conservative lawmakers just robbed our neighborhood schools of $42 million. Private school vouchers have been and continue to be opposed by Utahns but these lawmakers are instead pursuing a national agenda to ‘destroy public education.’

The Wall Street Journal opined on this great development.

School choice is gaining momentum across the country, and this week Utah joined Iowa in advancing the education reform cause. …Utah’s bill, which the Senate passed Thursday, 20-8, makes ESAs of $8,000 available to every student. There’s no income cap on families who can apply, though lower-income families receive preference and the program is capped at $42 million. The funds can be used for private school tuition, home-schooling expenses, tutoring, and more.

But the best part of the editorial is the look at other states that may be poised to expand educational freedom.

About a dozen other state legislatures have introduced bills to create new ESA programs, and several want to expand the ones they have. In Florida a Republican proposal would extend the state’s already robust scholarship programs to any student in the state. The bill would remove income limits that are currently in place for families who want to apply, though lower-income applicants would receive priority. …South Carolina legislators are mulling a new ESA program for lower-income students. In Indiana, a Senate bill would make state ESAs available to more students. An Ohio bill would remove an income cap and other eligibility rules for the state’s school vouchers. Two Oklahoma Senate bills propose new ESA programs… ESA bills are in some stage of moving in Nebraska, New Hampshire, Texas and Virginia.

Let’s hope there is more progress.

School choice is a win-win for both students and taxpayers.

P.S. Here’s a must-see chart showing how more and more money for the government school monopoly has produced zero benefit.

P.P.S. There are very successful school choice systems in CanadaSwedenChile, and the Netherlands.

P.P.P.S. Getting rid of the Department of Education would be a good idea, but the battle for school choice is largely going to be won and lost on the state and local level.

The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions

Published on Sep 4, 2012 by

America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children.

That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more money for unions and more donations for politicians.

For decades, teachers’ unions have been among our nation’s largest political donors. As Reason Foundation’s Lisa Snell has noted, the National Education Association (NEA) alone spent $40 million on the 2010 election cycle (source: http://reason.org/news/printer/big-education-and-big-labor-electio). As the country’s largest teachers union, the NEA is only one cog in the infernal machine that robs parents of their tax dollars and students of their futures.

Students, teachers, parents, and hardworking Americans are all victims of this political machine–a system that takes money out of taxpayers’ wallets and gives it to union bosses, who put it in the pockets of politicians.

Our kids deserve better.

“The Machine” is 4:17 minutes.

Written and narrated by Evan Coyne Maloney. Produced by the Moving Picture Institute in partnership with Reason TV.

Visit http://www.MovingPictureInstitute.org to learn more.

No one did more to advance the cause of school vouchers than Milton and Rose Friedman. Friedman made it clear in his film series “Free to Choose” how sad he was that young people who live in the inner cities did not have good education opportunities available to them.

I have posted often about the voucher system and how it would solve our education problems. What we are doing now is not working. Milton Friedman’s idea of implementing school vouchers was hatched about 50 years ago.

Poor families are most affected by this lack of choice. As Friedman noted, “There is no respect in which inhabitants of a low-income neighborhood are so disadvantaged as in the kind of schooling they can get for their children.” It is a sad statement quantified by data on low levels of academic achievement and attainment. Take a look at this article below.

Lindsey Burke

September 25, 2012 at 5:46 pm

SAT scores among the nation’s test-takers are at a 40-year low.

As The Washington Post reports:

Reading scores on the SAT for the high school class of 2012 reached a four-decade low, putting a punctuation mark on a gradual decline in the ability of college-bound teens to read passages and answer questions about sentence structure, vocabulary and meaning on the college entrance exam.

The decline over the decades has been significant. The average reading (verbal) score is down 34 points since 1972. Sadly, the historically low SAT scores are only the latest marker of decline. Graduation rates have been stagnant since the 1970s, reading and math achievement has been virtually flat over the same time period, and American students still rank in the middle of the pack compared to their international peers.

On the heels of the news about the SAT score decline, President Obama filmed a segment with NBC’s Education Nation earlier today. The President notably praised the concept of charter schools and pay for performance for teachers.

But those grains of reform were dwarfed by his support of the status quo. During the course of the interview, President Obama suggested hiring 100,000 new math and science teachers and spending more money on preschool. He also stated that No Child Left Behind had good intentions but was “under-resourced.”

Efforts by the federal government to intervene in preschool, most notably through Head Start, have failed—despite a $160 billion in spending on the program since 1965. And No Child Left Behind is far from “under-resourced.” The $25 billion, 600-page law has been on the receiving end of significant new spending every decade since the original law was first passed nearly half a century ago.

President Obama was also pressed on the issue of education unions by host Savannah Guthrie:

Some people think, President Obama gets so much support from the teachers’ unions, he can’t possibly have an honest conversation about what they’re doing right or wrong. Can you really say that teachers’ unions aren’t slowing the pace of reform?

President Obama responded: “You know, I just really get frustrated when I hear teacher-bashing as evidence of reform.”

Criticizing education unions for standing in the way of reform should not be conflated with criticizing teachers, as the President does in the interview. The unions have blocked reforms such as performance pay and charter schools (which the President supports), have opposed alternative teacher certification that would help mid-career professionals enter the classroom, and have consistently fought the implementation of school choice options for children.

If we ever hope to move the needle on student achievement—or see SAT scores turn in the right direction again—we’ll need to implement many of those exact reforms, particularly school choice.

And as he has in the past, President Obama stated that his Administration wants to “use evidenced-based approaches and find out what works.” We know what works: giving families choices when it comes to finding schools that best meet their children’s needs. Instead of continuing to call for more spending and more Washington intervention in education, let’s try something new: choice and freedom.

Related posts:

Milton Friedman remembered at 100 years from his birth (Part 4)

I ran across this very interesting article about Milton Friedman from 2002: Friedman: Market offers poor better learningBy Tamara Henry, USA TODAY By Doug Mills, AP President Bush honors influential economist Milton Friedman for his 90th birthday earlier this month. About an economist Name:Milton FriedmanAge: 90Background: Winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize for economic science; […]

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 11

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 11 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 117.3)

A Taxing Distinction for ObamaCare Published on Jun 28, 2012 by catoinstitutevideo http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/it-now-falls-congress http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/taxing-decision http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/supreme-court-unlawfully-rewrites-obamacare-to… http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/congress-its-not-a-tax-scotus-yes-it-is/ The Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Michael F. Cannon, Michael D. Tanner and Trevor Burrus evaluate today’s ruling on ObamaCare at the Supreme Court. Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg. ____________ President Obama c/o The […]

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 10

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 10 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 9

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 9 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]

Milton Friedman’s biography (Part 2)(Interview by Charlie Rose of Milton Friedman part 3)

Biography Part 2 In 1977, when I reached the age of 65, I retired from teaching at the University of Chicago. At the invitation of Glenn Campbell, Director of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, I shifted my scholarly work to Hoover where I remain a Senior Research Fellow. We moved to San Francisco, purchasing […]

Milton Friedman at Hillsdale College 2006 (part 2)

Milton Friedman at Hillsdale College 2006 July 2006 Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman Milton Friedman Economist Milton Friedman is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946-1976. Dr. Friedman received the Nobel Memorial […]

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 8

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 8 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]

Milton Friedman remembered at 100 years from his birth (Part 2)

Testing Milton Friedman – Preview Uploaded by FreeToChooseNetwork on Feb 21, 2012 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth. His work and ideas continue to make the world a better place. As part of Milton Friedman’s Century, a revival of the ideas featured in the landmark television series Free To Choose are being […]

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

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 […]

Free or equal? 30 years after Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (Part 1)

Free or Equal?: Johan Norberg Updates Milton & Rose Friedman’s Free to Choose I got this below from Reason Magazine: Swedish economist Johan Norberg is the host of the new documentary Free or Equal, which retraces and updates the 1980 classic Free to Choose, featuring Milton and Rose Friedman. Like the Friedmans, Norberg travels the globe […]

Reason Magazine’s rightly praises Milton Friedman but makes foolish claim along the way

I must say that I have lots of respect for Reason Magazine and for their admiration of Milton Friedman. However, I do disagree with one phrase below. At the end of this post I will tell you what sentence it is. Uploaded by ReasonTV on Jul 28, 2011 There’s no way to appreciate fully the […]

Video clip:Milton Friedman discusses his view of numerous political figures and policy issues in (Part 1)

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2 Uploaded by PenguinProseMedia on Oct 25, 2011 Says Federal Reserve should be abolished, criticizes Keynes. One of Friedman’s best interviews, discussion spans Friedman’s career and his view of numerous political figures and public policy issues. ___________________ Two Lucky People by Milton and Rose Friedman […]

Milton Friedman remembered at 100 years from his birth (Part 1)

What a great man Milton Friedman was. The Legacy of Milton Friedman November 18, 2006 Alexander Tabarrok Great economist by day and crusading public intellectual by night, Milton Friedman was my hero. Friedman’s contributions to economics are profound, the permanent income hypothesis, the resurrection of the quantity theory of money, and his magnum opus with […]

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 7

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 7 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]

Transcript and video of Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (Part 1)

Below is a discussion from Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. February 10, 1999 | Recorded on February 10, 1999 audio, video, and blogs » uncommon knowledge PRESIDENTIAL REPORT CARD: Milton Friedman on the State of the Union with guest Milton Friedman Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Nobel Laureate in […]

Dan Mitchell’s article on Chili and video clip on Milton Friedman’s influence

Milton Friedman and Chile – The Power of Choice Uploaded by FreeToChooseNetwork on May 13, 2011 In this excerpt from Free To Choose Network’s “The Power of Choice (2006)”, we set the record straight on Milton Friedman’s dealings with Chile — including training the Chicago Boys and his meeting with Augusto Pinochet. Was the tremendous […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY A Good Year for Milton Friedman = a Bad Year for Teacher Unions

Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System – Failures in Educatio…

—-

A Good Year for Milton Friedman = a Bad Year for Teacher Unions

Back in 2013, I shared some research showing how school choice produced good results. Not just in terms of student achievement, but also benefits for taxpayers as well.

Since then, I’ve shared additional research showing how school choice generates good outcomes.

It seems that some lawmakers have learned the right lessons from these studies. Over the past three years, statewide school choice has been enacted in West VirginiaArizonaIowaUtahArkansas, and Florida.

In his Wall Street Journal column, Bill McGurn celebrates this wave of victories.

It’s been a good year for Milton Friedman. The Nobel Prize-winning economist has been dead for nearly two decades. But the moment has come for the idea that may prove his greatest legacy: Parents should decide where the public funds for educating their children go. Already this year, four states have adopted school choice for everyone—and it’s only April.…Florida is the most populous state to embrace full school choice. It follows Iowa, Utah and Arkansas, which passed their own legislation this year. These were preceded by West Virginia in 2021 and Arizona in 2022. More may be coming. Four other states—Oklahoma, Ohio, Wyoming and Texas—have legislation pending. …Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow with the American Federation for Children, says the mood has shifted. …“I wish Milton Friedman were alive today to see his ideas finally come to fruition,” Mr. DeAngelis says. “The dominos are falling and there’s nothing Randi Weingarten and the teachers unions can do about it.”

My fingers are crossed that Texas approves school choice in the few days, but rest assured I’ll celebrate if Oklahoma, Ohio, or Wyoming is the next domino.

P.S. I’m writing today about school choice in part because I’m in Europe as part of the Free Market Road Show and one of the other speakers is Admir Čavalić, who is both an academic and a member of parliament from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Along with two other scholars, Damir Bećirović, and Amela Bešlagić, he did research on support for school choice in the Balkans. Here are some of the responses from parents.

It’s very encouraging to find Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians agreeing on an issue. Maybe their governments eventually will adopt school choice, thus joining  SwedenChileCanada, and the Netherlands.

A Major Victory for Students in Florida

I almost feel sorry for the union bosses at the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

They were upset when West Virginia adopted statewide school choice in 2021 and they got even angrier when Arizona did the same thing in 2022.

So you can only imagine how bitter they are about what’s happened so far in 2023.

But notice I started this column by stating that “I almost felt sorry” for union bosses.

In reality, I’m actually overjoyed that they are having a very bad year. Teacher unions are the leading political force in trying to keep kids trapped in bad schools, an approach that is especially harmful to minorities.

Their bad year just got much worse.

That’s because Florida just expanded its school choice program so that all children will be eligible.

Here’s some of the coverage from Tampa.

A massive expansion of Florida’s school-choice programs that would make all students eligible for taxpayer-backed vouchers is headed to Gov. Ron DeSantis… DeSantis already has pledged to sign the proposal, which includes removing income-eligibility requirements that are part of current voucher programs. …Under the bill, students would be eligible to receive vouchers if they are “a resident of this state” and “eligible to enroll in kindergarten through grade 12” in a public school.

And here’s a report from Orlando.

The Florida Senate gave final approval Thursday to a bill creating universal school vouchers… Republican state lawmakers, who hold a supermajority in the Legislature, want to open state voucher programsthat currently provide scholarships to more than 252,000 children with disabilities or from low-income families to all of the 2.9 million school-age children in Florida… The bill would give any parent the choice to receive a voucher for their child to be used for private school tuition or homeschooling services and supplies — as long as that student was not enrolled in public school. DeSantis has been a supporter of the programs.

Let’s conclude with some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal editorial.

Florida has long been a leader on K-12 choice, vying with Arizona to offer the most expansive options in the nation. On Thursday Florida caught up with Arizona’s universal education savings account program by making its existing school choice offerings available to any student in the state.…The legislation…would remove income eligibility limits on the state’s current school voucher programs. It would also expand the eligible uses for the roughly $7,500 accounts to include tutoring, instructional materials and other education expenses, making these true ESAs rather than simply tuition vouchers. The bill prioritizes lower-income families and provides for home-schooled students to receive funds. Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has greatly advanced school choice in his state, is expected to sign.

By the way, the WSJ notes that Georgia may fall short in the battle to give families better educational options. As a rabid Georgia Bulldog who likes nothing better than stomping on the Florida Gators, it galls me that a handful of bad Republican legislators in the Peach State are standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door.

I’ll close by noting that there already are many reasons for Americans to migrate to Florida, such as no state income tax.

School choice means that there will be another big reason to move to the libertarian-friendly Sunshine State.

P.S. I can’t wait to see what this map looks like next year.

Milton Friedman – Educational Vouchers

Censorship, School Libraries, Democracy, and Choice

A big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the majority.”

  • 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.

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.


More Academic Evidence for School Choice

Since teacher unions care more about lining their pockets and protecting their privileges rather than improving education, I’ll never feel any empathy for bosses like Randi Weingarten.

That being said, the past couple of years have been bad news for Ms Weingarten and her cronies.

Not only is school choice spreading – especially in states such as Arizona and West Virginia, but we also are getting more and more evidence that competition produces better results for schoolkids.

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 SwedenChileCanada, and the Netherlands, all of which shows superior results when competition replaces government education monopolies.

———-

Portrait of Milton Friedman.jpg

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!

Educational Choice, the Supreme Court, and a Level Playing Field for Religious Schools

The case for school choice is very straightforward.

The good news is that there was a lot of pro-choice reform in 2021.

West Virginia adopted a statewide system that is based on parental choice. And many other states expanded choice-based programs.

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 Journal editorialized 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.

Here’s some of her column in the Washington Post.

…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.

But let’s not dwell on Biden’s hackery (especially since that’s a common affliction on the left).

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.

Lather, rinse, repeat. No wonder the (hypocriticalteacher unionsare so desperate to stop progress.

P.S. There’s strong evidence for school choice from nations such as SwedenChile, and the Netherlands.

Free To Choose 1980 – Vol. 06 What’s Wrong with Our Schools? – Full Video
https://youtu.be/tA9jALkw9_Q



Why Milton Friedman Saw School Choice as a First Step, Not a Final One

On his birthday, let’s celebrate Milton Friedman’s vision of enabling parents, not government, to be in control of a child’s education.

Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Kerry McDonald
Kerry McDonald

EducationMilton FriedmanSchool ChoiceSchooling

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.

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.

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).

Sign-Up: Receive Kerry’s Weekly Parenting and Education Newsletter!

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.

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.

Kerry McDonald

Milton Friedman

Related posts:

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

March 16, 2012 – 12:25 am

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

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

March 9, 2012 – 12:29 am

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

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

March 2, 2012 – 12:26 am

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

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

February 24, 2012 – 12:21 am

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

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

February 17, 2012 – 12:12 am

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

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

February 10, 2012 – 12:09 am

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

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

February 3, 2012 – 12:07 am

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

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 1-5

Debate on Milton Friedman’s cure for inflation

September 29, 2011 – 7:24 am

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

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

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

April 19, 2013 – 1:14 am

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

What were the main proposals of Milton Friedman?

February 21, 2013 – 1:01 am

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

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

December 7, 2012 – 5:55 am

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

Defending Milton Friedman

July 31, 2012 – 6:45 am

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

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Arkansas is putting Milton Friedman’s School Voucher idea to the test! Perhaps the boldest component of the initiative is the creation of Educational Freedom Accounts, which are similar to education savings account (ESA) policies in 11 other states. With an ESA, families can pay for private school tuition, tutoring, textbooks, homeschool curriculums, online learning, special-needs therapy, and more. ESAs empower families to choose the learning environments that align with their values and best meet their children’s individual learning needs!

Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System – Failures in Educatio…

Milton Friedman – Educational Vouchers


Arkansas’ Sanders Signs Ambitious Education Reform Agenda of School Choice, Anti-Indoctrination

Jason Bedrick  @JasonBedrick / March 09, 2023

Arkansas’ new governor, Sarah Sanders, on Wednesday signed into state law a major education-reform initiative. Pictured: Then still a candidate for governor, Sanders addresses the America First Policy Institute Agenda Summit in Washington last July 26. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Jason Bedrick@JasonBedrick

Jason Bedrick is a research fellow with The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Wednesday signed into law what she called “the largest overhaul of the state’s education system in Arkansas history.”

The “Arkansas LEARNS” initiative is an ambitious reform agenda that expands school choice, modernizes school transportation, restructures teacher compensation to pay more for performance, provides supplemental education for struggling students, and prohibits Arkansas public schools from indoctrinating students. 

“We’ve seen how the status quo condemns Arkansans to a lifetime of poverty, and we’re tired of sitting at the bottom of national education rankings,” Sanders said. “We know that if we don’t plant this seed today, then there will be nothing for our kids to reap down the line.”

Perhaps the boldest component of the initiative is the creation of Educational Freedom Accounts, which are similar to education savings account (ESA) policies in 11 other states. With an ESA, families can pay for private school tuition, tutoring, textbooks, homeschool curriculums, online learning, special-needs therapy, and more. ESAs empower families to choose the learning environments that align with their values and best meet their children’s individual learning needs.

Eligibility for the ESAs phases in over three years. In the third year of the ESA program’s operation, all K-12 students will be eligible. In the first year of the ESA program (the 2023-24 academic year), all incoming kindergarten students in Arkansas will be eligible. So will students with disabilities, homeless students, children in foster care, the children of active-duty military personnel, students assigned to low-performing district schools, or children enrolled in one of Arkansas’s other school choice programs.

According to a recent Morning Consult survey, 7 in 10 Arkansans support an ESA policy. Support is even higher among parents of school-aged children, 78% of whom support ESAs.

The Arkansas LEARNS initiative will significantly improve the state’s national standing on education issues. Last year, Arkansas ranked No. 18 in the nation for education choice on The Heritage Foundation’s Education Freedom Report Card. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

The enactment of a universal ESA would have boosted Arkansas to No. 5 in the nation, assuming other states’ policies remained constant. Of course, competition for the top five will be fierce as states such as Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas are also considering adopting universal education choice policies.

Arkansas’ initiative also takes important steps to protect school students from being exposed to indoctrination or discrimination.

The law requires the Arkansas Department of Education to review its “rules, policies, materials, and communications” to ensure that they are in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and do not “conflict with the principle of equal protection under the law or encourage students to discriminate against someone based on the individual’s color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law.”

The law also prohibits school faculty and staff or guest speakers from compelling students to “adopt, affirm, or profess an idea in violation” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such as that people of one race or ethnicity are inherently superior or inferior to anyone else, or that individuals should “be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex” or other characteristics protected by law.

The statute makes clear that it does not prohibit the discussion of ideas and or the teaching of history.

Students in Arkansas will still learn about the ugly aspects of American history, such as slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. However, the law will appropriately prohibit lessons that divide students into “oppressors” or “oppressed,” based solely on skin color or that associate certain traits with particular skin colors.

As Tony Kinnett recently reported in The Daily Signal, there are recorded instances of such lessons in critical race theory in Arkansas classrooms, despite the best efforts of mainstream media outlets to deny it.

With the enactment of the Arkansas LEARNS initiative, Sanders has raised the bar for conservative education reform. Arkansas will now be among the top states that empower families to choose the learning environments that work best for their kids.

Arkansas has also taken an important step to ensure that traditional public schools are focused on education, not indoctrination.

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 Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

JANUARY 27, 2023 3:28PM

Friday Feature: School Choice Milestones

By Colleen Hroncich


SHARE

As we wrap up our National School Choice Week look at the history of school choice, I’m going to explore some notable milestones in the U.S. over the years. For more in‐​depth coverage, be sure to check out our new School Choice Timeline.

When we talk about school choice, we generally mean a program where public funding follows students to nonpublic schools. This becomes particularly important after the mid‐​1800s, when state governments began to mandate taxpayers fund and children attend specific schools established and run by local government entities. Prior to that, education was typically a private or local concern—the domain of parents or small communities.

The oldest school choice program in the U.S. is Vermont’s town tuitioning program. Vermont’s founding constitution, adopted in 1777, required the legislature to establish a school in each town. As the state grew and the population became more dispersed, some towns could not support a public school. In 1869, the legislature passed a law allowing students from a town without a public school to attend any public or private school in or outside of Vermont, with the sending town paying the receiving school’s tuition. Originally, parents could choose religious private schools, but that option was removed by the state’s supreme court in 1961. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Carson v. Makin overturned a similar ban on religious schools in Maine’s town tuitioning program. In response, the Vermont Secretary of Education notified superintendents that “School districts may not deny tuition payments to religious” schools that otherwise meet the criteria for the program.

The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, created in 1990, is the country’s first modern private school choice program. Right in line with Milton Friedman’s 1955 idea for a tuition voucher, the program offers private school vouchers to low‐ and middle‐​income families who live in Milwaukee. In its first year, 341 students used vouchers to attend seven private schools in the city. This year, 129 schools in the metro Milwaukee area are participating in the program, enrolling nearly 29,000 students. The value of the voucher increases when state aid to school districts increases. Today there are 26 voucher programs running in 15 states plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico.

Arizona introduced the Individual Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program, the nation’s first tax credit scholarship, in 1997. It provides tax credits to individuals who donate to school tuition organizations that provide scholarships for private school tuition. While the tax credits are worth 100% of the donation, they’re capped at $611 per donor. There is no cap on scholarship values, students can receive multiple scholarships, and every K–12 student in the state is eligible to participate in the program. There are now 26 tax credit scholarship programs in 21 states.

While I’ve long known that Milton Friedman is considered the father of school vouchers, I only recently learned he later suggested “partial vouchers”—which sound a lot like education savings accounts (ESAs). Here’s how he described them in a 2006 EducationNext interview:

Moreover, there’s no reason to expect that the future market will have the shape or form that our present market has. How do we know how education will develop? Why is it sensible for a child to get all his or her schooling in one brick building? Why not add partial vouchers? Why not let them spend part of a voucher for math in one place and English or science somewhere else? Why should schooling have to be in one building? Why can’t a student take some lessons at home, especially now, with the availability of the Internet? Right now, as a matter of fact, one of the biggest growth areas has been home schooling. There are more children being home schooled than there are in all of the voucher programs combined. 

Friedman’s words proved prophetic when Arizona created the nation’s first ESA in 2011: the Empowerment Scholarship Account program. Originally limited to students with special needs, the program allows parents who opt out of public school to receive a portion of state education funding in an account that can be used for a variety of approved educational purchases—like private school tuition, tutoring, or education therapies.

Other states adopted similar ESAs that were restricted to various populations (students with special needs, military families, economically disadvantaged families, children assigned to low‐​performing public schools, etc.). In 2021, West Virginia made a huge jump forward with Hope Scholarships, an ESA that’s open to every child in public schools (93% of kids in the state). Last year, Arizona re‐​claimed the ESA crown by becoming the first state with universal eligibility. Already this year, Iowahas joined the universal ESA club and Utahis on the verge. Other states are poised to follow suit. After decades of baby steps, universal school choice is on the march.

Our coverage this week—Neal’s introductory post, my look at Milton Friedman, Neal’s exploration of religion and school choice, and my piece on school choice and the courts—has been designed to highlight Cato’s new School Choice Timeline. There are a lot of misconceptions about the origins and goals of school choice. We hope the timeline adds clarity to conversations around school choice so it can be debated on its merits rather than with false attacks about its origins.

Censorship, School Libraries, Democracy, and Choice

A big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the majority.”

  • 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.

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.


More Academic Evidence for School Choice

Since teacher unions care more about lining their pockets and protecting their privileges rather than improving education, I’ll never feel any empathy for bosses like Randi Weingarten.

That being said, the past couple of years have been bad news for Ms Weingarten and her cronies.

Not only is school choice spreading – especially in states such as Arizona and West Virginia, but we also are getting more and more evidence that competition produces better results for schoolkids.

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 SwedenChileCanada, and the Netherlands, all of which shows superior results when competition replaces government education monopolies.

———-

Portrait of Milton Friedman.jpg

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!

Educational Choice, the Supreme Court, and a Level Playing Field for Religious Schools

The case for school choice is very straightforward.

The good news is that there was a lot of pro-choice reform in 2021.

West Virginia adopted a statewide system that is based on parental choice. And many other states expanded choice-based programs.

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 Journal editorialized 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.

Here’s some of her column in the Washington Post.

…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.

But let’s not dwell on Biden’s hackery (especially since that’s a common affliction on the left).

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.

Lather, rinse, repeat. No wonder the (hypocriticalteacher unionsare so desperate to stop progress.

P.S. There’s strong evidence for school choice from nations such as SwedenChile, and the Netherlands.

Free To Choose 1980 – Vol. 06 What’s Wrong with Our Schools? – Full Video
https://youtu.be/tA9jALkw9_Q



Why Milton Friedman Saw School Choice as a First Step, Not a Final One

On his birthday, let’s celebrate Milton Friedman’s vision of enabling parents, not government, to be in control of a child’s education.

Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Kerry McDonald
Kerry McDonald

EducationMilton FriedmanSchool ChoiceSchooling

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.

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.

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).

Sign-Up: Receive Kerry’s Weekly Parenting and Education Newsletter!

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.

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.

Kerry McDonald

Milton Friedman

Related posts:

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

March 16, 2012 – 12:25 am

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

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

March 9, 2012 – 12:29 am

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

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

March 2, 2012 – 12:26 am

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

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

February 24, 2012 – 12:21 am

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

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

February 17, 2012 – 12:12 am

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

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

February 10, 2012 – 12:09 am

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

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

February 3, 2012 – 12:07 am

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

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 1-5

Debate on Milton Friedman’s cure for inflation

September 29, 2011 – 7:24 am

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

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

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

April 19, 2013 – 1:14 am

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

What were the main proposals of Milton Friedman?

February 21, 2013 – 1:01 am

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

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

December 7, 2012 – 5:55 am

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

Defending Milton Friedman

July 31, 2012 – 6:45 am

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

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 478 My Correspondence with Edward O.Wilson from 1994 to 2021 My 2/2/17 letter quotes him “AND AS FOR YOU, PAUL GAUGUIN, why did you write those lines on your painting? Of course, the ready answer I suppose is that you wanted to be very clear about the symbolization of the great range of human activity depicted in your Tahitian panorama, just in case someone might miss the point. But I sense there was something more. Perhaps you asked the three questions in such a way to imply that no answers exist…Let me suggest yet another reason for the mystery you left us, one not necessarily in conflict with these other conjectures. I think what you wrote is an exclamation of triumph” I DON’T THINK SO! FEATURED ARTIST IS Hieronymus Bosch

E. O. Wilson | The Meaning of Human Existence

E.O. Wilson: Science, Not Philosophy, Will Explain the Meaning of Existence


I don’t know if he ever listened to the casette tapes I sent him.

 My second cassette tape that I sent to Antony Flew and EO Wilson and George Wald was Adrian Rogers’ sermon on evolution and here at this link you can watch that very sermon on You Tube  Carl Sagan also took time to correspond with me about a year before he died. 

(Francis Schaeffer’s books and films were introduced to me in the 1970’s by my high school teacher Mark Brink of EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL and  pictured below is Francis Schaeffer.

Adrian Rogers pictured below

I have posted on Adrian Rogers’ messages on Evolution beforebut here is a complete message on it.

Evolution: Fact of Fiction? By Adrian Rogers

1. Four Bridges that the Evolutionist Cannot Cross

Now, I said I rejected evolution. The first reason is for logical reasons. There are four bridges that the evolutionist cannot cross; and, I want to mention these, and this is all under the heading of logical reasons.

c. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The third bridge that the evolutionist cannot logically cross is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? This law says that energy is never destroyed. Everything tends to wear out, to run down, to disintegrate, and, ultimately, to die, but energy just moves to some other form. All processes, by definition, involve change, but the change—now, listen very carefully—is not in the upward direction of complexity, as the evolutionist declares. But, change left to itself is always in disintegration, not in integration. Now, that’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It’s called…—to itself, everything collapses, deteriorates, grows old, and dies, sooner or later—it’s called entropy.

Well, why would that be? Well, I preached on that, this morning. We have a creation that is under judgment. And, because it’s under judgment, it involves decay and death. Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” Left to themselves, things do not organize; they disorganize. They collapse; they deteriorate. They grow old; they die. They wear out. You can have a beautiful garden. Leave it alone—what happens to it? Leave your body alone; don’t exercise. Don’t take care of it, and see what will happen to it. Take a brand new automobile; park it in the woods. Go off, and come back in a few years; and, see what has happened to it. Or, even a boy’s bedroom—leave it alone; see what is going to happen to it.

Now, the evolutionist says, given enough time, these molecules are going to organize themselves; they’re going to synthesize themselves. The parts are going to come together from simplicity to intricacy.

Well, if you would take the parts of a new automobile, and fly at the height of 10,000 feet, and dump them out, would they assemble themselves into an automobile, before they hit the ground? Suppose I drop the disassembled parts of a car from an airplane at 10,000 feet. Would they assemble themselves before they hit the ground? “Well,” you say, “of course not. They’d be just spread out all over.” Well, the evolutionist would say, “Well, you just don’t have enough time.” Okay, rather than 10,000 feet, let’s take it up to 100,000 feet. Now, is it going to be more organized or less organized?

You see, the more that time goes on, the more disintegration you have. Everything we see disintegrates, not integrates, when left alone by itself. That is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

d. The Non-Physical Properties Found in Creation
Now, here’s the fourth bridge that the evolutionists cannot logically cross, and that is the non-physical properties found in creation. Now, what do I mean by the non-physical properties found in creation? Music, Brother Ken—the love of music, art, beauty, a hunger for God, worship. What is there in the survival of the fittest—what is there in the evolutionary process—that would produce these things? How can they be accounted for under the survival of the fittest? Where do these things come from? Genesis 1, verse 26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26). You see, we have these inner things—this love for beauty, for art, for truth, for eternity. That didn’t come from some primordial ooze; that came from the God who created us.

Now, I’ve mentioned all of this under one heading. It’s the first of three reasons; all of this is the first of three reasons. I reject evolution for logical reasons. There are four bridges that the evolutionists cannot cross, has not crossed, will not cross.

The Social Conquest of Earth | Edward O. Wilson

Edward O. Wilson The Meaning of Human Existence Audiobook


Professor E.O. Wilson in his office, at a table in front of a bookshelf, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Harvard University Professor E.O. Wilson in his office at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA. USACredit: Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty.


Francis A. Schaeffer
Founder of the L’Abri community

C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg


Francis Schaeffer mentioned Edward O. Wilson in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? co-authored by C.Everett Koop on pages 289-291 (ft note 6 0n page 504). That was when I was first introduced to Dr. Wilson’s work. Wikipedia notes, Edward Osborne Wilson (June 10, 1929 – December 26, 2021) was an American biologistnaturalist, and writer. His specialty was myrmecology, the study of ants, on which he was called the world’s leading expert,[3][4] and he was nicknamed Ant Man.[5][6][7][8]

I was honored to correspond with Dr. Wilson from 1994 to 2021!!

Paul Gauguin,  Nihilism, Woody Allen and Ecclesiastes Mailed 2-2-17

“Ned, I would love to stand here and talk with you… but I’m not going to.”

“What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn’t one today.”

Bill Murray punching clock groundhog day alarm

“This is pitiful. A thousand people freezing their butts off waiting to worship a rat. What a hype.”

“There is no way this winter is ever going to end, as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don’t see any other way out. He’s got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.”

_________

2-2-17

Dr. Edward O. Wilson, Museum of Comparative Zoology Faculty Emeritus
Pellegrino University Professor, Emeritus c/o Museum of Comparative Zoology
Harvard University
26 Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Dr. Wilson,

I know that I just wrote you recently but I have read your book THE MEANING OF HUMAN EXISTENCE 4 times now and it keeps bringing me back to the Book of Ecclesiastes. Today is February 2nd, GROUNDHOG DAY and I am reminded of the Bill Murray movie GROUNDHOG DAY. In that movie he can’t get out of Groundhog Day until he gets it all figured out and that is how I feel about your book THE MEANING OF HUMAN EXISTENCE. In both that book and THE SOCIAL CONQUEST OF EARTH you discuss Paul Gauguin.

Here are your conclusions on Gauguin’s journey:

AND AS FOR YOU, PAUL GAUGUIN, why did you write those lines on your painting? Of course, the ready answer I suppose is that you wanted to be very clear about the symbolization of the great range of human activity depicted in your Tahitian panorama, just in case someone might miss the point. But I sense there was something more. Perhaps you asked the three questions in such a way to imply that no answers exist, either in the civilized world you rejected and left behind or in the primitive world you adopted in order to find peace. Or again, perhaps you meant that art can go no further than what you have done; and all that was left for you to do personally was express the troubling questions in script. Let me suggest yet another reason for the mystery you left us, one not necessarily in conflict with these other conjectures. I think what you wrote is an exclamation of triumph. You had lived out your passion to travel far, to discover and embrace novel styles of visual art, to ask the questions in a new way, and from all that createan authentically original work. In this sense your career is one for the ages; it was not paid out in vain. In our own time, by bringing rational analysis and art together and joining science and humanities in partnership, we have drawn closer to the answers you sought.

I have to accept your first conclusion concerning Gauguin and that is the pessimistic  and nihilistic one. The speculation that possibly Gauguin wrote an “exclamation of triumph” is not realistic at all because he was looking UNDER THE SUN for answers to these 3 big questions and they must be given spiritual answers. The ironic thing is that if the spiritual quest finds fulfilling answers then a more abundant life can be lived on this earth.

Gauguin’s conclusion is logical, and Francis Schaeffer says that Woody Allen has come to this same nihilistic conclusion.

Schaeffer noted: 
One of the most striking developments in the last half-century is the growth of a profound pessimism among both the well-educated and less-educated people. The thinkers in our society have been admitting for a long time that they have no final answers at all. Take Woody Allen, for example. Most people know his as a comedian, but he has thought through where mankind stands after the “religious answers” have been abandoned. In an article in Esquire (May 1977), he says that man is left with:
… alienation, loneliness [and] emptiness verging on madness…. The fundamental thing behind all motivation and all activity is the constant struggle against annihilation and against death. It’s absolutely stupefying in its terror, and it renders anyone’s accomplishments meaningless. As Camus wrote, it’s not only that he (the individual) dies, or that man (as a whole) dies, but that you struggle to do a work of art that will last and then you realize that the universe itself is not going to exist after a period of time. Until those issues are resolved within each person – religiously or psychologically or existentially – the social and political issues will never be resolved, except in a slapdash way.
Allen sums up his view in his film Annie Hall with these words: “Life is divided into the horrible and the miserable.”
Many would like to dismiss this sort of statement as coming from one who is merely a pessimist by temperament, one who sees life without the benefit of a sense of humor. Woody Allen does not allow us that luxury. He speaks as a human being who has simply looked life in the face and has the courage to say what he sees. If there is no personal God, nothing beyond what our eyes can see and our hands can touch, then Woody Allen is right: life is both meaningless and terrifying. As the famous artist Paul Gauguin wrote on his last painting shortly before he tried to commit suicide: “Whence come we? What are we? Whither do we go?” The answers are nowhere, nothing, and nowhere.

_______________________________________

Have you ever had the chance to hear the song  DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS? It  was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”

Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life.  FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can  face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.

Then after looking at life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture, Solomon brings God back in during the last part of ECCLESIASTES and declares in chapter 12:

Now all has been heard.
    Let us hear the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
    for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring every deed into judgment,
    including every secret thing,
    whether good or evil

Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgrenfirst tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same  interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible ChurchDAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.

The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.

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

FEATURED ARTIST IS Hieronymus Bosch

Of what did Bosch dream? Of Christ’s Passion,
Of the wickedness and stupidity of the soldiers,
Of the vanity and transience of this earthly life,
Of Hell with its instruments of torture,
Of the temptation against which the holy men are capable of putting up little resistance.

André Breton

Jacques Le Boucq - Jheronimus Bosch

Jacques Le Boucq – Jheronimus Bosch

Few “old” masters provoke as much fascination in the modern world as Hieronymus Bosch. A painter endowed with an overwhelming fantasy, original and unique in his time, creator of visual universes inhabited by naive sinners, seductive young women, and vengeful infernal demons, his works may have lost strength in their moralizing message, but their visual force continues to have an impact today.

Image: Attributed to Jacques Le Boucq: “Posthumous portrait of Hieronymus Bosch”, c.1500

Such is the fascination that Bosch’s imaginative work provoked during the 20th century that the painter is often regarded as a more than debatable precedent for modern movements and avant-gardes such as Surrealism. Walter Bosing, who considers that idea “anachronistic“, warns that “Bosch did not intend to evoke the viewer’s unconscious, but to convey certain moral and spiritual truths” (Walter Bosing, “Bosch”, 1973). In this sense, rather than as a precedent to later movements, Bosch could be seen as the culmination of the humorous and somewhat grotesque tradition of various Flemish miniatures of the 15th century which, as in Bosch’s works, reflect -again in Bosing’s words – “the hopes and fears of a Middle Ages that were drawing to a close“.

Little is known about the early life of Jheronimus van Aken / Hieronymus Bosch. His father was a painter, of modest fame, and it was in his workshop that the young Hieronymus must have been trained. It is possible that his earliest works date from the 1470s, and in fact an “Adoration of the Magi” preserved in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York is generally attributed to the artist, with an approximate date of around 1475. In the following decade he joined the religious congregation of the Illustrious Brotherhood of Our Lady. Other works of more or less clear authorship date from before the end of the century, such as “Christ Crowned with Thorns” in the National Gallery in London or “St. John the Baptist in Meditation” in the Lázaro Galdiano Foundation in Madrid, as well as his first known triptych, “Adoration of the Magi” in the Prado Museum. 

Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights Triptych -1500 - Oil of oak panels - El Prado Museum - Madrid
Hieronymus Bosch - Haywain Triptych

Hieronymus Bosch: “The Garden of Earthly Delights”, c.1500-1505. Oil on panel, 220 x 386 cm. Prado Museum, Madrid ·· Hieronymus Bosch: “The Haywain Triptych”, c.1500-1516. Oil on panel, 135 x 200 cm. Prado Museum, Madrid

His most famous work, and one of the most admired paintings in Western art, is the triptych of “The Garden of Earthly Delights preserved in the Prado Museum, whose dating is subject to debate, although the date of 1500-1505 is generally accepted as the most probable. Around that time, Bosch received an important commission from the Duke of Burgundy, Philip “the Fair”, to execute a monumental “Last Judgment“. Although there are several triptychs by Bosch with this theme (in Vienna and Bruges), none of them match the description of this commission, so it is considered a lost work. 

It is believed that some famous works date from the last years of Bosch’s life, such as the triptych of “The Temptations of St. Anthony“, now in the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga in Lisbon, or the triptych of “The Haywain“, also in the Prado Museum.

It is known that the painter died in 1516, being buried on August 9 of that year. Today, the attribution of Bosch’s works remains problematic, as the artist’s success led to the appearance of numerous imitators and followers. King Philip II was an admirer of the work of Hieronymus Bosch, which is why today the best collection of his works is in the Prado Museum, including the aforementioned triptych of “The Garden of Earthly Delights“.

G. Fernández · theartwolf.com

My Homage to the Late Harvard Biologist EO Wilson (THE SAAD TRUTH_1351)

How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 6 | The Scientific Age

How Did Writer & Biologist EO Wilson Die | The Life and Sad Ending Edwar…

Edward O Wilson has passed away 💔|| his last moment before death so touc…

Remembering the life of renowned biologist and Alabama native E.O. Wilson

How Should We Then Live (1977) | Full Movie | Francis Schaeffer | Edith …

A Tribute to E. O. Wilson: A Life in Nature

How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 9 | The Age of Personal Pea…


Related posts:

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part F “Carl Sagan’s views on how God should try and contact us” includes film “The Basis for Human Dignity”

April 8, 2013 – 7:07 am

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

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

Carl Sagan v. Nancy Pearcey

March 18, 2013 – 9:11 am

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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Adrian RogersAtheists ConfrontedCurrent Events|TaggedBen ParkinsonCarl Sagan|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

May 24, 2012 – 1:47 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists ConfrontedCurrent EventsPresident Obama|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

May 23, 2012 – 1:43 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists ConfrontedCurrent EventsPresident Obama|Edit|Comments (0)

Carl Sagan versus RC Sproul

January 9, 2012 – 2:44 pm

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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Adrian RogersAtheists ConfrontedCurrent EventsFrancis Schaeffer|Tagged Bill ElliffCarl SaganJodie FosterRC Sproul|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)jh68

November 8, 2011 – 12:01 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ This is a review I did a few years ago. THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists ConfrontedCurrent Events|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

November 4, 2011 – 12:57 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I was really enjoyed this review of Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot.” Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists ConfrontedCurrent Events|Edit|Comments (0)

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died jh47

May 19, 2011 – 10:30 am

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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists Confronted|Edit|Comments (2)

My correspondence with George Wald and Antony Flew!!!

May 12, 2014 – 1:14 am

January 8, 2015 – 5:23 am

January 1, 2015 – 4:14 am

December 25, 2014 – 5:04 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 38 Woody Allen and Albert Camus “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide” (Feature on artist Hamish Fulton Photographer )

December 18, 2014 – 4:30 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 37 Mahatma Gandhi and “Relieving the Tension in the East” (Feature on artist Luc Tuymans)

December 11, 2014 – 4:19 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 36 Julian Huxley:”God does not in fact exist, but act as if He does!” (Feature on artist Barry McGee)

December 4, 2014 – 4:10 am

SCOREBOOK LIVE STORY by Nate Olson: “Bryant (Arkansas) football coach Buck James leaving for league rival Conway”

Bryant Hornet Head Coach Buck James

“Jerry ‘Buck’ James 

Bryant (Arkansas) football coach Buck James leaving for league rival Conway

James departs in the midst of a 53-game in-state win streak and a run of five Class 7A state championships

By Nate Olson | Photo by Tommy Land 

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

Hornets hold off Cabot on homecoming

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

salt-bowl-benton-vs-bryant

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!!!!

SALT BOWL Benton 14, Bryant 14

Benton, Bryant solve nothing

By Jeff Reed Special to the Democrat-Gazette

This article was published September 6, 2014 at 2:55 a.m.

bentons-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

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.

Sports on 09/06/2014

Print Headline: Benton, Bryant solve nothing

Related posts:

Outland Trophy winner Barrett Jones comes to Fayetteville for second time

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 […]

Barrett Jones of Alabama

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 […]

Barrett Jones and Tim Tebow are very similar

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 […]

Barrett Jones wins Outland Trophy

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 […]

Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide (Part 1 of series “Christians in Athletics”)

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 […]