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).
“True Blue” by Madonna is an “unabashed valentine” to Sean Penn, whom she married in 1985
“True Blue” by Madonna is a heartfelt tribute to her then-husband, Sean Penn. Released in 1986, this iconic pop song captures the essence of their passionate and tumultuous relationship. With its catchy melody and sincere lyrics, it’s no wonder the track became an instant hit and a fan favorite.
Madonna’s love for Sean Penn shines through every verse of “True Blue.” The song serves as a declaration of unwavering devotion and loyalty, reflecting the deep connection they shared. It’s a musical expression of the intense emotions that come with being madly in love.
The enchanting blend of Madonna’s powerhouse vocals and the infectious pop beats creates an irresistible anthem of love. “True Blue” remains a timeless reminder of the passionate romance that once defined Madonna’s life. It’s a testament to the power of love to inspire artists and create enduring musical masterpieces.
__________________ A Funny Press Interview of The Beatles in The US (1964) Funny Pictures of The Beatles Published on Oct 23, 2012 funny moments i took from the beatles movie; A Hard Days Night ___________________ Scene from Help! The Beatles Funny Clips and Outtakes (Part 1) The Beatles * Wildcat* (funny) Uploaded on Mar 20, […]
_____________________ Great article on Dylan and Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Cover: A famous album by the fab four – The Beatles – is “Sergeant peppers lonely hearts club band“. The album itself is one of the must influential albums of all time. New recording techniques and experiments with different styles of music made this […]
__________________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview 69 THE BEATLES TWO OF US As a university student, Karl Marx (1818-1883) joined a movement known as the Young Hegelians, who strongly criticized the political and cultural establishments of the day. He became a journalist, and the radical nature of his writings would eventually get him expelled by the […]
____________ Aleister Crowley on cover of Stg. Pepper’s: _______________ 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. […]
Welcome to a captivating journey into the hidden narratives and chilling tales that lie beneath the surface of some of the most beloved songs of the 20th century. Prepare to dive deep into the enigmatic allure of Carly Simon’s “You’re So Vain,” where whispers of a secret inspiration linger. Uncover the heartfelt origins of Dolly Parton’s heartfelt ballad, “I Will Always Love You,” and how it resonated with a world hungry for timeless love. Explore the tumultuous love affair that sparked Eric Clapton’s masterpiece, “Layla,” and discover the profound emotions that fueled its creation. Finally, unravel the poignant history behind Elton John’s poignant tribute, “Candle in the Wind,” as it immortalized a cherished figure.
Join us as we peel back the layers of these captivating stories, shedding light on the hidden truths that have shaped these musical treasures. Continue reading to uncover the fascinating tales behind these famous songs and gain a deeper appreciation for the artists’ journeys and the cultural impact of their creations.
Carly Simon’s iconic song “You’re So Vain” has long been the subject of speculation and intrigue, as its lyrics seemingly allude to a mysterious and self-absorbed individual. While the true identity of the person mentioned in the song remains a closely guarded secret, there have been numerous speculations about who may have inspired the lyrics.
Given the timeframe of the late ’60s and early ’70s, a period known for its vibrant rock and roll scene, many have suggested that the song could be about a well-known rock star or figure from that era. The cryptic nature of the lyrics has allowed listeners to project their own interpretations onto the song, leading to a myriad of theories and guesses.
Carly Simon herself has remained tight-lipped about the true inspiration behind “You’re So Vain,” fueling the intrigue surrounding the song. This deliberate ambiguity has only added to its enduring popularity and captivated audiences for decades
__________________ A Funny Press Interview of The Beatles in The US (1964) Funny Pictures of The Beatles Published on Oct 23, 2012 funny moments i took from the beatles movie; A Hard Days Night ___________________ Scene from Help! The Beatles Funny Clips and Outtakes (Part 1) The Beatles * Wildcat* (funny) Uploaded on Mar 20, […]
_____________________ Great article on Dylan and Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Cover: A famous album by the fab four – The Beatles – is “Sergeant peppers lonely hearts club band“. The album itself is one of the must influential albums of all time. New recording techniques and experiments with different styles of music made this […]
__________________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview 69 THE BEATLES TWO OF US As a university student, Karl Marx (1818-1883) joined a movement known as the Young Hegelians, who strongly criticized the political and cultural establishments of the day. He became a journalist, and the radical nature of his writings would eventually get him expelled by the […]
____________ Aleister Crowley on cover of Stg. Pepper’s: _______________ 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. […]
ARCOLA, Ill., (WCIA) — Officials in Arcola are looking to improve the downtown area.
They’re hoping to put a broom corn palace on the vacant lot near North Locust and East Main Street. Officials at Thomas Monahan Company said the building could potentially attract more tourism to the town.
The inside will have a gift shop, restroom and a broom outlet store. The outside will have broom corn planted around it and the exterior would be covered with brightly colored fiberglass brooms.
Ambassador Pat Monahan said it’s a great way for people to know where broom corn comes from.
“We’re very fortunate that not only but a lot of other good people that love the community and want to see it prosper,” Monahan said. “So, this palace is going to cost $600,000. But, I’m very close to having raised the amount because we have so many good Arcola people that want to see Arcola prosper.”
He said they hope to break ground in July and open the palace next year.
I have been dropping in to see Melvin Pickens since he hasn’t been able to get out the last year or so because of the stroke he had a while back. However, he is out selling brooms again and he will be 83 yrs old on July 14th this year he told me this morning when he came by the factory with his son John to pick up some brooms and mops. If anyone would like to get a hold of him then they can call John at 501-541-9277 and the back up number is 501-838-9348 for Carolyn who is Melvin’s helper. Below is the CBS segment done about Melvin in September of 2013:
Melvin Pickens,
On the Road: 81-year-old salesman sweeps customers off their feet
Published on Sep 20, 2013
As part of our continuing series “On the Road,” Steve Hartman meets an 81-year-old salesman who’s been in business for over six decades selling one simple product that everyone needs.
(CBS News) LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Do you need a new broom? A lot of folks who don’t think they do wind up buying one anyway from the man we met…”on the road.”
“Yeah, I’m doing real good this morning,” said Melvin Pickens, who, at 81, doesn’t need to work. Being legally blind, he never had to work much.
But Melvin still works — as a traveling salesman. “I just can’t sit around and not do nothing,” he explained.
According to family, Melvin Pickens, now 81, started selling brooms around 1950 — worked six days a week to support his wife and their four children at the time.
/CBS News
With the help of a caretaker friend, Melvin goes around to businesses in Little Rock, Arkansas, asking the owners and their customers to buy one of his brooms. That’s basically all he sells — $10 brooms.
“I’d say about 20-25 years,” said Melvin of the number of years he’s been doing this. “Well, I’m just estimating.
However, it may be that Melvin is estimating way off because we heard he’s been doing this 63 years. “It’s hard to say,” said Melvin. “I’ve been doing it so long.”
According to family, Melvin started selling brooms around 1950 and worked six days a week to support his wife and their four children. His wife has since died and the kids are grown, but that work ethic just will not go away.
In fact, some people say he’s the best salesman they’ve ever seen. “He’s got a special magic about him,” said one customer.
One of Melvin Pickens’ customers.
/CBS News
“You just can hardly turn him down,” said another.
Not that people don’t try to say no — they just rarely get away with it.
“I don’t need one today because I’ve already got one,” Mary Clare Brierley told Melvin. “But I may need one next week.”
“You know what, you ought to just buy today,” Melvin told her. “I might not see you next week.”
Sale closed.
“I don’t think you can approach him and not buy one,” Brierley later told us.
She got one and so did another person. At this point, Little Rock has got to be the best swept city in America or maybe just one the kindest.
Or maybe people here simply like having him around as a living example.
“You can’t quit,” said Melvin. “A quitter never wins and a winner never quits, you know.”
To contact On the Road, or to send us a story idea, e-mail us.
I couldn’t be more proud of my good friend Melvin Pickens tonight. He showed how people with handicaps can overcome huge odds and work hard with a positive attitude and do amazing things in their life. At age 81 Melvin is still working hard. Not many people know that he is a cancer survivor too. […]
Lots of people across the USA are wondering what red handle broom Melvin Pickens sells in Little Rock and it is the Airlight made by Little Rock Broom Works! There is a website, http://www.theairlightbroom.com that tells all about the Airlight Broom. Melvin’s family has set up an email for Melvin for those who want brooms […]
Melvin Pickens was featured on CBS EVENING NEWS tonight and he did a great job. Lots of people across the USA are wondering what red handle broom Melvin Pickens sells in Little Rock and it is the Airlight made by Little Rock Broom Works! There is a website, http://www.theairlightbroom.com that tells all about the Airlight […]
Another article on Melvin Pickens the Little Rock Broom Man: Broom Man Talk Business Quarterly 2nd Quarter 2009 By eric Francis TBQ Contributing Writer His name is Melvin Pickins. Many of his most loyal customers don’t even know that. To them he’s the Broom Man. Or the Broom Guy. Or Mister B. “They call me […]
Here is a picture that appeared in Ark Times today: Brian Chilson ON THE JOB: Melvin Pickens strolls Kavanaugh in a 2011 photo. Melvin Pickens has shown up at Little Rock Broom Works almost every afternoon for about 60 years to purchase brooms and then a few months ago he went into the hospital. I […]
Grady Fish Fry Published on Aug 15, 2013 We visit the annual fish fry at Hardin Farms in Grady, Ark., where the hushpuppies are popping, the Cummins band is playing and the politicians are plentiful. We have brief chat with Arkansas House District 16 candidate Ken Ferguson. ____________________ I had a good visit down at the […]
We have written about our friend Melvin Pickens several times before and this article below shows how positive Melvin is. He has gone through so many challenges but he has always looked for the sunny day. Here is a story from channel 11 in Little Rock: Finding the Broom Man; where is he […]
42 Interview – Chadwick Boseman (2013) – Jackie Robinson Movie HD 42 Trailer 42 Interview – Harrison Ford (2013) Jackie Robinson Movie HD 42 Official Trailer #2 You can find more movies and pictures from this link: http://42movie.warnerbros.com/ ’42′ Jackie Robinson Movie Releases New Images Posted on March 22, 2013 by Shawn S. Lealos Great […]
Rice 27 BYU 14 (1997 2nd half) Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012 When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big […]
This is the pregame broadcast of the Arkansas-Texas game at Razorback Stadium in 1985. It features both the Razorback and Lonhorn bands and the 1964 punt return by Ken Hatfield. I got to hear former Arkansas Razorback Football Coach Ken Hatfield speak and it was very encouraging and enjoyable. The “Zone Luncheon” is held the […]
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 biologist, naturalist, 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!!
February 10, 2020
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 wrote you about 6 months ago about your views as a Humanist and the view that we are a result of time and chance. Today I want to talk to you about situational ethics.
Since you have chosen to be identified as a humanist, I wanted to quote from the Humanist Manifesto 2 and 3 and ask you a question about humanistic situational ethics.
Humanist Manifesto 2 (written in 1973) states:
SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.
Humanist Manifesto 2 asserts that our moral choices should not be based on a fear of hell, and Humanist Manifesto 3 (written in 2003) states that our moral choices should be instead based on situational ethics:
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond.
Humanist Manifesto 2 further states:
THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction.
As a Christian I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and as such it gives us an absolute authority to follow. However, lets take a look at your situation ethics approach for a moment.
Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS , is an excellent movie that demonstrates the need of God while making decisions in the area of personal morality. In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality. Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, “The eyes of God are always upon you.” However, Judah later concludes that God doesn’t exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah ‘s respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie.
Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:
“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May
Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”
Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”
Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”
Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”
Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”
Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah ‘s advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life.
Larry King actually mentioned on his show, LARRY KING LIVE, that Chuck Colson had discussed the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with him. Colson asked King if life was just a Darwinian struggle where the ruthless come out on top. Colson continued, “When we do wrong, is that our only choice? Either live tormented by guilt, or else kill our conscience and live like beasts?” (BREAKPOINT COMMENTARY, “Finding Common Ground,” September 14, 1993)
The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15). Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.”
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)
Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)
The Humanist can only give incomplete answers to these questions: How could you have convinced Judah not to kill? On what basis could you convince Judah it was wrong for him to murder? WHAT IN YOUR SYSTEM OF “SITUATION ETHICS” COULD HAVE DONE THE JOB?
As a Christian, I would agree with Judah ‘s father that “The eyes of God are always upon us.” Proverbs 5:21 asserts, “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths.” Revelation 20:12 states, “…And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done (their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors) in accordance with what was recorded in the books” (Amplified Version). The Bible is revealed truth from God. It is the basis for our morality.
——
I had the unique opportunity to discuss this very issue with Robert Lester Mondale and his wife Rosemary on April 14, 1996 at his cabin in Fredricktown, Missouri , and my visit was very enjoyable and informative. Mr. Mondale had the distinction of being the only person to sign all three of the Humanist Manifestos in 1933, 1973 and 2003.
Lester Mondale told me about a Lutheran pastor friend who told him in 1945 about his visit to see the death camps in Europe that were liberated by American troops.
I asked, “If those Nazis escaped to Brazil or Argentina and lived out their lives in peace would they face judgment after they died?”
Mondale responded, “I don’t think there is anything after death.”
I told Mr. Mondale that there is a sense in me that says justice will be given eventually and God will judge those Nazis even if they evade punishment here on earth. I did point out that in Ecclesiastes 4:1 Solomon did note that without God in the picture the scales may not be balanced in this life and power could reign, but at the same time the Bible teaches that all must face the ultimate Judge.
Then I asked him if he got to watch the O.J. Simpson trial and he said that he did and he thought that the prosecution had plenty of evidence too. Again I asked Mr. Mondale the same question concerning O.J. and he responded, “I don’t think there is a God that will intervene and I don’t believe in the afterlife.”
The Bible teaches that there is an afterlife, but is the Bible reliable?
The Bible is affirmed through historical accuracy. Do you remember the story about the handwriting on the wall that is found in the fifth chapter of Daniel? Belshazzar hosted a feast with a thousand of his lords and ladies. Suddenly, a gruesome hand appeared out of nowhere and began to write on a wall. The king was disturbed and asked for someone to interpret the writing. Daniel was found and gave the interpretation. After the interpretation, “Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.” (Daniel 5:29). Basing their opinion on Babylonian records, the historians claim this never happened. According to the records, the last king of Babylon was not Belshazzar, but a man named Nabonidas. And so, they said, the Bible is in error. There wasn’t a record of a king named Belshazzar. Well, the spades of archeologists continued to do their work. In 1853, an inscription was found on a cornerstone of a temple built by Nabonidas, to the god Ur, which read: “May I, Nabonidas, king of Babylon, not sin against thee. And may reverence for thee dwell in the heart of Belshazzar, my first-born favorite son.” From other inscriptions, it was learned that Belshazzar and Nabonidas were co-regents. Nabonidas traveled while Belshazzar stayed home to run the kingdom. Now that we know that Belshazzar and Nabonidas were co-regents, it makes sense that Belshazzar would say that Daniel would be the third ruler.
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
The current attitude in the academic and scientific community is that science and religion are completely incompatible. It is believed that science is a system of knowledge based on experimentation, observation, and logic. Religion, on the other hand, is viewed as a system of faith based on myth, culture, and self-delusion. A researcher is allowed to have a personal religion, but he should never permit it to affect his work or he will no longer be considered a legitimate scientist.
In a recent court case involving the right of the ICR Graduate School to teach science from a Biblical perspective, a physics professor from California State University at Long Beach testified that if Isaac Newton were on the school’s faculty today, his position on creation would prevent the school from being recognized by the State of California. This professor objected to statements such as the following in Mathematica Principia where Newton said:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.“.1
When questioned how this professor could make such a statement about one who is recognized as possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, he replied that if Isaac Newton persisted in maintaining a creationist position as he did in Mathematica Principia, knowing what we know today, he would not be recognized as a credible scientist.2
The reason this antagonism has reached such extreme proportions is because science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed. Phillip Johnson has described this approach well in his recent book when he said:
Theistic or “guided” evolution has to be excluded as a possibility because Darwinists identify science with a philosophical doctrine known as naturalism. Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from “outside.” Naturalism does not explicitly deny the mere existence of God, but it does deny that a supernatural being could in any way influence natural events, such as evolution, or communicate with natural creatures like ourselves. Scientific naturalism makes the same point by starting with the assumption that science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.3
When science is defined in this manner and someone violates the rules of investigation by incorporating a supernatural cause or referring to the Bible, he is determined to be unscientific. The rhetoric can become inflammatory when power structures in the government and societies are involved. For example, the governing board of over 20 scientific societies in the United States have released statements or resolutions expressing their opposition to the teaching of creationism and its identification with science. Such position statments have the effect of blocking acceptance of journal articles from “creationists.”
Most scientists tend to shy away from such controversies. They prefer not to become involved in public arguments or major controversies. By their nature, most scientists tend to be withdrawn and prefer to work in a quiet, noncontroversial environment. They generally eschew political posturing and public pronouncements. Although many scientists are religious or are sympathetic to those who are religious, they are unwilling to reveal their positions for fear of ridicule or reprisals. On the other hand, there are some scientists who are very aggressive about promoting a naturalistic worldview and even some who advocate sanctions against those who would conduct science from a supernatural perspective.
Carl Sagan’s Naturalistic Worldview
Carl Sagan was one of the most articulate spokesmen for a naturalistic worldview. Before he died of cancer in 1997, he had written numerous books about the Cosmos and man’s place in it. He was active in many scientific organizations and in at least one which was aggressively antagonistic toward the mixing of the Bible and science. His willingness to express his views on the origin of life openly in his writings and public speaking was unique, to the point of alienating many of his more reserved colleagues who thought he was no longer functioning as a scientist himself. However, his writing talents were well received by the public and the literary community.
Carl Sagan believed that man was the result of natural processes operating over billions of years in a vast ocean of space. He could become highly sentimental over the immensity of time involved in man’s evolution and the incredible improbability that life had occurred by chance. He had one great hope-to find life existing somewhere else in the universe. I believe his rejection of God as Creator produced a void in his worldview which drove him to this search for life elsewhere in the universe. He searched for almost 30 years for some evidence that we are not alone, but he died with his dream unfulfilled. He made an intriguing statement about 25 years into this search when he said: “We’ve been looking for life beyond the Earth for 25 years now, and we haven’t found it anywhere. There must be something unique about the Earth.”4 I don’t believe he ever realized how incredibly true this statement was.
I had the distinct privilege of meeting Carl Sagan personally at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December, 1994. I had been drawn to his session by a sincere respect for his writing and speaking skills over the years, and I believe the Lord led me to speak with him at that time because he didn’t have long to live. He was to be the first speaker following a 30-minute intermission. I introduced myself and expressed my appreciation for his ability to articulate science in a way that could be understood by the public. He knew of the Institute for Creation Research for whom I work, but had not heard of me personally.
He immediately began asking me a series of leading questions about how a well trained scientist such as myself could have confidence in a book written by a bunch of ignorant sheep herders thousands of years before any real science had been discovered. He was so intent on pursuing our conversation, that the session chairman had to come down from the podium and interrupt our conversation to begin the next session. I was puzzled at the time by his aggressiveness in questioning my reasons for confidence in the Bible.
I later found out that he was to speak to the Commonwealth Club of San Franciso later that evening where he introduced his new book, The Pale Blue Dot. In this book and in an article he later wrote for Parade Magazine in 1995 entitled, “Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death,” Carl Sagan was probably more transparent than he had ever been about his search for God and eternal life. I am certain that the nearness of death was forcing him to reexamine some of the presuppositions on which he had based his life.
I exchanged a half dozen letters with Carl Sagan over the next year and a half. We continued the conversation started there in San Francisco, and I came to care for him as a friend. Probably the most poignant interchange was over a statement he had made in his book, The Pale Blue Dot. After several leading comments about the unreliability of the Bible, he said in this book: “The evidence so far at least and from the laws of nature aside, does not require a Designer. Maybe there is one hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed.”5I responded in one of my letters by saying: “Scientists have the greatest opportunity of all to see the evidence of God’s marvelous provision for man in His creation. Yet, by and large, scientists today tend to be almost totally blinded to the evidences. Because of the kinship I feel toward you about the things of science, I request that you reconsider your relationship to God. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He is not hiding from you. Rather, He is waiting for you to see Him.”6
The final letter I received from Carl Sagan before his death contained the response: “Asking God to reveal himself to me presupposes his existence. Plainly, this would be an inconsistent approach for someone who sees no evidence for such a God.”7 This response has haunted me ever since. Carl Sagan’s wife, Ann Druyan, asserted in the epilogue to his last book, Billions and Billions, that: “Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last-minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife.”8 I still hold out hope that he made peace with his Maker, and I will see him again someday.
It was evident from his writings as well as his membership in the National Center for Science Education (a California group dedicated almost exclusively to the advocacy of evolution and the removal of scientific creationism from society) that Carl Sagan believed Scripture was unreliable and should not be used as a basis for scientific investigation. Unfortunately, the eloquence of his oratory and that of others like him has brought disfavor upon the use of Scripture in any meaningful way in the conduct of science. Funding of research, peer review, publication of research results, and recognition of scientific accomplishments are strongly affected by attitudes developed by people like Carl Sagan. It is not too much to say that scientists in the twentieth century must fear for their professional lives if they rely upon Scriptural support in any of their work. Yet, research conducted from a Biblical perspective by those willing to forego the usual support and recognition is making significant progress and will eventually be recognized for the contribution itis making.
Conclusions
Recognizing the Bible as a reliable source of information for the conduct of science is essential for an effective use of resources and for correct results. Consider Carl Sagan’s search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI). I believe from several lines of argument using the Bible that the only extra-terrestrial intelligences in the universe are God and the angels. If this is true, then the entire SETI program and a major portion of our space program is a complete waste of money.
More importantly, the general acceptance of the theory that elementary chemicals evolved into complex life forms over billions of years by naturalistic processes has led to a wholesale rejection of the Creator God and a generation that is expecting some superior life form suddenly to make contact with the earth. Our current culture is inundated with books, movies, and videos about people, empires, and monsters on other planets, galaxies, and universes. The impact of this evolutionary myth is incalculable. Undoubtedly the most costly aspect to this delusion will be counted in lost souls at the final judgment.
It is time to reclaim science in the name of God. We need committed Christians to train themselves as scientists and counteract this culture of unbelief. Science based on a proper Biblical foundation can help reverse this slide into apostasy and unbelief. If we don’t take action soon, our world will continue to devolve as described in Romans 1:22: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .”
References
1 Newton, Isaac, 1686. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Motte’s translation from the Latin in 1729, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1934, 680 pp. 2 Lerner, Lawrence, 1990. Statements made in deposition during preparation for the trial of ICR Graduate School vs. Honig and the State of California. 3 Johnson, Phillip E., 1991. Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 220 pp. 4 Sagan, Carl, 1992. Statement in a television interview celebrating the 25th anniversary of the SETI program. 5 Sagan, Carl, 1994. Pale Blue Dot. Random House, New York, 429 pp. 6 Vardiman, Larry, 1995. Personal communication to Carl Sagan. 7 Sagan, Carl, 1995. Personal communication to Larry Vardiman. 8 Sagan, Carl, 1997. Billions and Billions. Random House, New York, 214 pp.
* Dr. Vardiman is Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Department at ICR.
Below are Francis Schaeffer and his son Franky:
In 1992 I began to write skeptics letters after reading their books and articles and watching their films and I was introduced to Carl Sagan’s name by a book published in 1968 by Francis Schaeffer.
Francis Schaeffer in his book HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT (Chapter 4) asserts:
Because men have lost the objective basis for certainty of knowledge in the areas in which they are working, more and more we are going to find them manipulating science according to their own sociological or political desires rather than standing upon concrete objectivity. We are going to find increasingly what I would call sociological science, where men manipulate the scientific facts. Carl Sagan (1934-1996),professor of astronomy and space science at Cornell University, demonstrates that the concept of a manipulated science is not far-fetched. He mixes science and science fiction constantly. He is a true follower of Edgar Rice Burroughs (1875-1950). The media gives him much TV prime time and much space in the press and magazine coverage, and the United State Government spent millions of dollars in the special equipment which was included in the equipment of the Mars probe–at his instigation, to give support to his obsessive certainty that life would be found on Mars, or that even large-sized life would be found there. With Carl Sagan the line concerning objective science is blurred, and the media spreads his mixture of science and science fiction out to the public as exciting fact.
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
In the 1st video below in the 45th clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
–
CARL SAGAN interview with Charlie Rose:
“…faith is belief in the absence of evidence. To believe in the absence of evidence, in my opinion, is a mistake. The idea is to hold belief until there is compelling evidence. If the Universe does not comply with our previous propositions, then we have to change…Religion deals with history poetry, great literature, ethics, morals, compassion…where religion gets into trouble is when it pretends to know something about science,”
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Memories of the 59
Uploaded onAug 1, 2008
Al Geiberger (“Mr. 59”) talks about what helped him shoot his record breaking 59 in 1977.
__________________
mr 59
Uploaded onJul 27, 2011
go to view the website http://www.kxxu.com
signed autograph golf balls for sale
by Al Geiberger Mr. 59
______________________
In 1977, two huge events made national news at the now titled “Danny Thomas Memphis Classic.” First, President Gerald Ford made a hole-in-one during Wednesday’s Celebrity Pro-Am. That event is now referred to as the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World.” Two days later, Al Geiberger shocked the golf world with his record low round of 59 on Friday of the tournament. The 13-under-par round still stands as a PGA TOUR record. (Chip Beck and David Duval have since tied the mark.)
I had the chance to hear the roar that came from the crowd that day that President Ford hit the hole in one (on hole #5 at Colonial Country Club in Cordova, TN). Just a few holes later I saw Danny Thomas walking around saying with slurred speech, :”This is the ball, this is the ball” while he held up a golf ball. I thought he was going to fall on me as he passed by.
Then just two days later I saw the last 5 holes of Al Geiberger’s 59. He was walking around with this silly grin on his face because almost every putt was going in.
___________________
This picture above is right after the round of 59 and the picture below after he hit the last putt. I was in the crowd watching him and I was standing right behind the green towards the clubhouse.
_________________
____________
_____________
Fast forward to Sept 13, 2013 where another 59 happened:
Jim Furyk almost made Al Geiberger’s prophecy come true.
Geiberger, the Palm Desert resident and the first player to shoot a 59 on the PGA Tour, has always said some player will be coming down to the last hole needing to birdie the hole to shoot 59, and instead will hole out for an eagle and a 58.
“And he almost did it,” Geiberger said moments after watching Furyk hit an approach shot to just two feet on the last hole, then make the birdie putt to shoot 59 in the second round of the BMW Championship near Chicago on Friday.
Geiberger said he had been getting text messages throughout the afternoon as Furyk made his run at the fabled 59. And the messages were coming in after the round ended, too.
“Here’s one I just got. ‘You’re still the president of the club,’ ” Geiberger laughed.
Furyk birdied two of his last three holes Friday in the BMW Championship to become the sixth player in PGA Tour history to shoot a 59. Needing a birdie on the par-4 ninth hole at Conway Farms, he stuffed a gap wedge into just over 3 feet and calmly knocked it in.
“A very cool card,” Furyk said as he gazed at the scores, which included an eagle when he holed out with a 9-iron.
It was a day he won’t forget, in the same town — the Chicago suburbs, anyway — where he won his lone major at the U.S. Open in 2003.
Standing in the ninth fairway at Conway Farms, 103 yards from a front pin, Furyk didn’t want to let his chance get away from him.
“I said, ‘How many opportunities are you going to have in life to do this again?’ ” he said. “Got to take advantage of it. Tried to knock it in there tight and make it as easy on yourself as you can.”
He made the putt and repeatedly pumped his fist, turning for the gallery in the grandstands to see, and then he hugged caddie Mike “Fluff” Cowan and tapped him on the head.
“I guess the moment kind of struck me the most at No. 9 when I hit it the wedge shot in there close, and the crowd erupted and I started looking around and it just hit me how many people had come over to that side to see the finish,” Furyk said.
There’s work left for the trophy. Furyk was tied on top with Brandt Snedeker, who was nine shots clear of Furyk at the start of the second round.
The six 59s started with Geiberger’s round in the second round of the tour’s Memphis tournament at Colonial Country Club in 1977. Six 59s have also been shot on the Web.com Tour, and Annika Sorenstam is the only golfer to have shot a 59 on the LPGA.
“I always told people there was no room for a bogey in the 59,” Geiberger said of Furyk’s round of 11 birdies, one eagle and one bogey. “This shows that was wrong.”
Throughout the year, Geiberger has watched as a variety of players have made runs at 59, and he admits that the other 59s have brought more attention to his round.
“It’s good. It gives it credibility,” Geiberger said. “I was pulling for Phil (Mickelson) to shoot 59, not necessarily 58, at Phoenix. And Furyk is a good player, so there is credibility.”
Geiberger says he never roots against anyone on the verge of a 59.
“You don’t have any control to start with,” he said. “I didn’t realize it, but once it got past a couple of people, it’s almost been a little better. More and more people have one now. Now they are comparing the rounds, and I know I will win the comparison. Not to be talking, but I know my round stands up.”
Geiberger’s round came on a demanding par-72 course, while other rounds have come on par-72 layouts considered not as tough as Colonial or on par-71 or par-70 courses.
“The first thing my wife said after Furyk’s round was it’s not 13-under and it’s not par-72,” Geiberger joked.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan said a bombshell 2011 note from then-Vice President Joe Biden to his son’s then-business partner, Devon Archer, is solid proof the current president has not been aboveboard in his denials on the matter.
On “The Story” Thursday, anchor Martha MacCallum read from the note, obtained by the New York Post, that Joe Biden said he regretted being unable to speak with Archer at an event where he was hosting then-Chinese President Hu Jintao.
“I apologize for not getting a chance to talk to you at the luncheon yesterday. I was having trouble getting away from hosting President Hu. I hope I get a chance to see you again soon with Hunter. I hope you enjoyed lunch. Thanks for coming,” the letter read.
Biden then reportedly included a handwritten footnote, “Happy you guys are together,” at the bottom of the letter, which was addressed to Hunter’s and Archer’s joint venture at an address on Wisconsin Avenue in the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C.
A graphic from “The Story” shows an excerpt from a letter from Joe Biden to Devon Archer, obtained by the New York Post.(Fox News)
MacCallum reported that Archer and Hunter Biden were, at the time, trying to put together a business that dealt with government regulatory measures and were working to create a private equity fund.
Jordan said the letter is just the latest piece of evidence that the current president did indeed have knowledge of and “connections” with his son’s dealings.
“Remember, two and a half years ago, we had a former business partner, [Tony] Bobulinski, say that the email from the laptop … said ‘10% for the big guy,’” Jordan said.
“He says, ‘the big guy is Joe Biden.’ We have the piece of evidence you just talked about there – this note from 2011. We have the WhatsApp messages.”
Jordan added that Archer testified in last week’s closed-door congressional interview that Hunter Biden’s value in his business dealings was the Biden “brand.”
Hunter Biden’s former business associate, Devon Archer, right, testified at a closed-door hearing last week.(Fox News)
Additionally, MacCallum cited post-Archer interview reaction from Democrats, who said Archer testified that he and Joe Biden only talked about the weather and other niceties when he was put on speakerphone.
She reported the that interview transcript, however, disclosed that such discussions about trivial things like the weather were “signal enough to be powerful” – citing a particular exchange between Archer and Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y.
“Of course,” Jordan replied. “The whole idea was [to] get the vice president of the United States on the phone talking with clients and people we’re doing business with. Well, of course, they’re not going to talk about business. That wasn’t what was needed.”
“What was needed is, ‘Oh, I can get my dad on the phone – who happens to be vice president of the most important country in history, who has a lot of influence in D.C – Hey, everyone, do you want to say hello to the vice president?’”
On “The Story,” Jordan reiterated that the purpose of Joe Biden’s momentary interactions were to prove he was quickly accessible to Hunter.
He also cited the now-president’s own recounting of pressuring to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired who had been investigating an energy company for which Hunter sat on the board.
President Biden was allegedly paid $5 million by an executive of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, where Hunter sat on the board, a confidential human source told the FBI during a June 2020 interview, sources familiar told Fox News Digital in June of this year.
For more Culture, Media, Education, Opinion, and channel coverage, visit foxnews.com/media.
—————
Hunter Biden used dad Joe as leverage in China business dispute: text message
Clinton Lancaster, an attorney for Lunden Roberts, ripped the 53-year-old Hunter in a 12-page discovery motion filed Thursday in Independence County, Arkansas.Lunden Roberts/Facebook
First son Hunter Biden warned a Chinese business associate in a 2017 text message that dad Joe and his political allies would “make certain … that you will regret not following my direction” while negotiating a six-figure business deal.
“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” Hunter Biden wrote Zhao, the director of Harvest Fund Management, according to Shapley.
“Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight,” the now-53-year-old went on. “And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.”
“I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father,” Hunter reiterated to conclude the stunning message.
<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />First son Hunter Biden used his father as leverage while negotiating a six-figure business deal with a Chinese associate in 2017.Hunter threatened in a text message that his associate would “regret not following my direction” as he was “sitting” in the same room with now-President Biden, according to IRS criminal investigators.AP
An August 2020 search warrant revealed the exchange between Hunter and Zhao, which resulted in $100,000 payment to the 53-year-old’s firm Owasco P.C., the whistleblowers said.
The IRS investigators alleged Justice Department prosecutors denied their requests to look further into Hunter’s texts or obtain their location data — and that DOJ attorneys suggested the first son may have been lying about his father being in the room with him.
Shapley singled out Delaware Assistant US Attorney Lesley Wolf as one of the prosecutors who shut down their probe of a multimillion-dollar deal Hunter, first brother James Biden and their associate Rob Walker cashed in on with China’s CEFC Energy, saying “she did not want to ask questions about ‘dad.’”
IRS supervisory agent Gary Shapley (above) and another whistleblower made the stunning admission as part of transcribed interviews that took place over the past two months before the House Ways and Means Committee.CBS Evening News
“When multiple people in the room spoke up and objected that we had to ask, she responded, there’s no specific criminality to that line of questioning,” Shapley said in recounting a Dec. 3, 2020, meeting with US Attorney David Weiss’ team — less than a month after Biden had won the presidential election.
The comment rankled the IRS and FBI agents who were present, all of whom “tried to skirt AUSA Wolf’s direction,” he added.
Hunter and James Biden received $4.8 million from CEFC Energy in 2017 and 2018, The Washington Post confirmed when reviewing the contents of the first son’s abandoned laptop
The whistleblowers alleged Justice Department prosecutors denied their requests to look further into Hunter’s texts or obtain their location data.AP
A May 2017 email about the deal showed the partnership would include a percentage stake of “10 held by H for the big guy,” who has separately been identified as Joe Biden by ex-Hunter associates Tony Bobulinski and James Gilliar.
When quizzed about the “big guy” email, written by Gilliar, Walker told investigators on Dec. 8, 2020: “I think that maybe James was wishful thinking or maybe he was just projecting that, you know, if this was a good relationship and this was something that was going to happen, the VP was never going to run [for president], just protecting that, you know, maybe at some point he would be a piece of it, but he was more just, you know — it looks terrible, but it’s not. I certainly never was thinking at any time the VP was a part of anything we were doing.”
However, according to Shapley, Walker later recalled a CEFC meeting where Joe Biden “stopped in, just said hello to everybody. I don’t even think he drank water. I think Hunter Biden said, ‘I may be trying to start a company or try to do something with these guys and could you?’ And I think he was like, ‘If I’m around,’ and he’d show up.”
In Shapley’s retelling, an FBI agent quizzing Walker asked: “”So you definitely got the feeling that that was orchestrated by Hunter Biden to have like an appearance by his dad at that meeting just to kind of bolster your chances at making a deal work out?”
“Any times when he was in office? Or did you hear Hunter Biden say that he was setting up a meeting with his dad with them while dad was still in office?”
“Yes,” Walker replied again.
“And, inexplicably, the FBI agent changed the subject,” Shapley recalled.
Zhao, who is a Communist Party official, invested in Hunter’s firm Bohai Harvest RST Equity Investment Fund Management Co., also known as BHR Partners, which the first son cofounded with other Chinese entities in 2013 — 12 days after he joined then-Vice President Biden for a trip aboard Air Force Two to Beijing.
During the trip, Biden met the firm’s CEO, Jonathan Li, in China’s capital. The 80-year-old president has since written college recommendation letters for Li’s children.
Hunter Biden as recently as 2021 held a 10% stake in BHR Partners, which holds nearly $2.2 billion in assets, but the White House has refused to answer questions about his current holdings.
Business records show Hunter remains invested. His attorney, Chris Clark, maintains he sold the funds.
The whistleblowers told Ways and Means Committee members that their team pressed for felony charges against Hunter Biden for ducking $2.2 million in back taxes, but were ignored by federal prosecutors.
Hunter pleaded guilty Tuesday for having twice failed to pay taxes on roughly $3 million he earned in 2017 and 2018.Ouzounova / Shutterstock
They also said the Department of Justice refused to let Weiss file tax charges against the first son in the District of Columbia and Southern California — going against sworn testimony by Attorney General Merrick Garland that the US attorney had “full authority” to do so.
Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said Thursday that the whistleblowers’ testimony also showed Hunter’s deals came from “Ukraine, Romania and China totaling $17.3 million from 2014 to 2019,” with the first son having “personally received $8.3 million.”
Hunter pleaded guilty Tuesday for having twice failed to pay taxes on roughly $3 million he earned over 2017 and 2018. He has also agreed to a pretrial diversion program to dodge a felony gun conviction for purchasing a firearm while addicted to crack cocaine.
Hunter Biden appeared in person in an Arkansas courtroom Monday for a hearing in the child support case of his unclaimed 4-year-old daughter born out of wedlock.
Lunden Roberts, the mother of 4-year-old Navy Joan Roberts, had reached an agreement with Hunter Biden in 2020 regarding the child’s paternity and child support payments.
The case was reopened when Biden requested adjustments to the child support payments. In December, Roberts’s lawyers filed a motion to have the girl’s last name changed to Biden.
During Monday’s hearing, Biden’s new attorney, Abbe Lowell, said the president’s son is paying $20,000 a month to the plaintiff.
Independence County Circuit Judge Holly Meyer set deadlines for attorneys to submit discovery and begin depositions.
“I expect this case to move,” she said. “So get it done.”
In court, Biden appeared to blankly stare ahead and had no interaction with Roberts.
Hunter Biden must appear in person for an Arkansas paternity case.(Getty images)
Roberts’ family sat behind her along with Garrett Ziegler, whom Biden’s other attorney, Brent Langdon, described during a hearing last week as a potential expert witness in the case involving the contents of Biden’s laptop, which reportedly includes some income-tax records.
The judge on Monday said the ability to redact information is “being abused” by the Biden team.
Langdon cited last week’s Daily Mail article on the case, claiming it included redacted information in violation of a protective order in exposing income-tax records. Meyer disagreed and said what the press comes up with is out of her control, remarking, “I can’t gag the whole world.”
Roberts’ attorney, Clint Lancaster, told the court he has not talked to Daily Mail, explaining to Ziegler the doom and gloom that would come on him if he discussed the case.
From the Biden team, Lancaster requested information on the value of Biden’s art, the president son’s salary/employment for past 5 years, estates/funds from foreign persons/domestic persons/family members, flight/hotel payments, the reason for a promissory note from top Hollywood lawyer, Kevin Morris, and documents on business done with a Chinese firm.
In response, Langdon claimed his team has already turned over more than 490 documents. Biden’s attorney also requested Roberts’ tax returns, information on “fringe benefits” from her employer father, bank statements and Ziegler’s witness statements.
The deadline for discovery was set for May 12 at 5 p.m.
Ziegler’s deposition is to take place on May 22 at Lancaster’s office in Little Rock.
A status conference hearing will be held on May 23 to address discovery requests, any contempt filings, and a potential request to push back trial date. Deposition for both parties and witnesses will take place from June 13-16 at Lancaster’s office.
As of now, the trial start date is still set for July 24.
Last week, the judge ruled that Biden and Roberts must be present for every future hearing in the case.
“The Biden name is now synonymous with being well-educated, successful, financially acute, and politically powerful,” Roberts’ attorneys wrote in the December name-change motion.
In rebuttal, Biden’s attorney demanded “strict proof thereof that such request is in the best interest of the child.”
In a January 2020 order, Meyer declared “with near scientific certainty” that Biden is the father of the girl, referred to in court documents as “Baby Doe,” following a DNA test.
The girl was born in August 2018, and a paternity suit was initially filed in May 2019.
President Biden has refused to acknowledge the granddaughter born out of wedlock. Last Christmas season, first lady Jill Biden hung stockings for six of their grandchildren at the White House, excluding Navy. Those recognized were Naomi, 27, Finnegan, 21, Maisy, 20, Natalie, 17, Robert Hunter Biden II, 15, and little Beau, 1.
Fox News’ Lindsey Reese contributed to this report.
Danielle Wallace is a reporter for Fox News Digital covering politics, crime, police and more. Story tips can be sent to danielle.wallace@fox.com and on Twitter: @danimwallace.
“I think retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers is unacceptable. They serve a very, very important role in our system,” FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies Thursday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
FBI Director Christopher Wray referred to “malign foreign influence with, potentially, public corruption” during a Senate committee hearing Thursday where participants described Hunter Biden’s alleged misconduct in overseas business dealings in a hypothetical manner.
When asked specifically about the case of President Joe Biden’s son, Wray described it as an “ongoing investigation that I expect our folks to pursue aggressively.”
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised the Hunter Biden issue early in the hearing by talking about efforts—reported by FBI whistleblowers—to close down an investigation into the president’s son ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
“In August 2020, the FBI supervisory intelligence analysts opened an assessment. This August 2020 assessment served as a vehicle by which the FBI headquarters team falsely labeled Hunter Biden information as you-know-what disinformation,” Grassley said, referring to partisan Democrats’ claim of Russian interference in the election.
“In October 2020, an avenue of reporting on Hunter Biden was ordered closed,” the Iowa Republican added. “That Hunter Biden information related to potential criminal activity. According to whistleblowers, the reporting was either verified or verifiable, via criminal search warrants. But it was shut down on the basis of it being at risk of disinformation.”
Grassley asked Wray about “politically exposed” individuals involved with allegedly improper or illegal foreign financial transactions.
“I’m not asking about a case here. … If the FBI received information that foreign persons had evidence of improper or unlawful financial payments paid to elected officials or other politically exposed persons, would that pose a national security concern?” Grassley asked the FBI director.
Wray stressed that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
“The kind of conduct you’re describing is typically something we would look at very closely through our efforts at malign foreign influence. It starts to shade into a blend of what we call malign foreign influence with, potentially, public corruption, and it’s something we take seriously,” Wray said.
The hearing came a week after Grassley wrote a letter to Wray and his boss, Attorney General Merrick Garland, about reports from whistleblowers who reported on politicized efforts by the FBI to suppress a probe of Hunter Biden, and falsely characterize anything negative about the president’s son as “Russian disinformation.”
U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss is leading an investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals, conducted both while his father was vice president and afterward. Federal prosecutors are looking at possible charges over taxes and lying to investigators, according to recent news reports.
“What steps should the FBI take to vet or more fully investigate evidence of improper or unlawful financial payment paid to elected officials and other politically exposed persons?” Grassley asked.
Wray replied: “There could be an assessment. There could be an investigation. There could be any number of steps that would be taken to make sure that there is not a national security risk.”
To date, the younger Biden has not been charged with anything.
During the question-and-answer session between Grassley and Wray, both seemed to support protecting whistleblowers.
“Do you agree that any retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers must be disciplined?” the Iowa lawmaker said.
Wray responded: “I think retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers is unacceptable. They serve a very, very important role in our system.”
After information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business activities in Ukraine, Russia, China, and other countries surfaced in 2019, two Senate committee chairmen at the time—Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Grassley on Judiciary—opened an investigation in 2020.
“In August 2020, Sen. Johnson and I received an unsolicited and unnecessary briefing from the FBI. This briefing reportedly was related to our [Hunter] Biden investigation. In the end, the briefing had nothing to do with it,” Grassley said, adding:
The briefing was instituted after the FBI received pressure from my Democrat colleagues to do just that. The content of that briefing [was] later leaked in order to falsely paint the Grassley-Johnson investigation as advancing you-know-what Russian disinformation.
That briefing was held the very same month the FBI opened the assessment that was used to label Hunter Biden’s information as you-know-what disinformation. Considering the timing of events, the timing draws very serious concern. The FBI’s credibility is on the line.
By contrast, Grassley said, the FBI greenlighted a long investigation into then-President Donald Trump and “Russian collusion” with his presidential campaign based on scant evidence. Yet the bureau closed down a probe of Hunter Biden, he said.
Later in the hearing, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked about the two cases.
“Americans look at what they perceive to be, and I think rightly so, a ton of money that was wasted on the Russia collusion investigation. So, do you agree that the allegation of secret collusion between President Trump and Russia was a hoax?”
Wray responded, “I don’t think that’s the terminology I would use.”
Blackburn then asked, “Do you agree that the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russia disinformation?”
Wray replied: “Now you are asking about an ongoing investigation that I expect our folks to pursue aggressively, and I can’t comment on that.”
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 left praises democracy when elected but claims the right will destroy democracy when it loses. Pictured: Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discusses the 2016 election during her 2017 book tour. (Photo: Bastiaan Slabbers, NurPhoto/Getty Images)
Recently, Democrats have been despondent over President Joe Biden’s sinking poll numbers. His policies on the economy, energy, foreign policy, the border, and COVID-19 all have lost majority support.
As a result, the left now variously alleges that either in 2022, when it expects to lose the Congress, or in 2024, when it fears losing the presidency, Republicans will “destroy democracy” or stage a coup.
A cynic might suggest that those on the left praise democracy when they get elected, only to claim it is broken when they lose. Or they hope to avoid their defeat by trying to terrify the electorate. Or they mask their own revolutionary propensities by projecting them onto their opponents.
After all, who is trying to federalize election laws in national elections contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? Who wishes to repeal or circumvent the Electoral College? Who wishes to destroy the more than 180-year-old Senate filibuster, the over 150-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court, and the more than 60-year-old 50-state union?
Who is attacking the founding constitutional idea of two senators per state?
The Constitution also clearly states that “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” Who slammed through the impeachment of former President Donald Trump without a presiding chief justice?
Never had a president been either impeached twice or tried in the Senate as a private citizen. Who did both?
The left further broke prior precedent by impeaching Trump without a special counsel’s report, formal hearings, witnesses, and cross-examinations.
Who exactly is violating federal civil rights legislation?
New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in December decided to ration new potentially lifesaving COVID-19 medicines, partially on the basis of race, in the name of “equity.”
The agency also allegedly used racial preferences to determine who would be first tested for COVID-19. Yet such racial discrimination seems in direct violation of various title clauses of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
That law makes it clear that no public agency can use race to deny “equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof.” Who is behind the new racial discrimination?
In summer 2020, many local- and state-mandated quarantines and bans on public assemblies were simply ignored with impunity—if demonstrators were associated with Black Lives Matter or protesting the police.
Currently, the Biden administration is also flagrantly embracing the neo-Confederate idea of nullifying federal law.
The Biden administration has allowed nearly 2 million foreign nationals to enter the United States illegally across the southern border—in hopes they will soon be loyal constituents.
The administration has not asked illegal entrants either to be tested for or vaccinated against COVID-19. Yet all U.S. citizens in the military and employed by the federal government are threatened with dismissal if they fail to become vaccinated.
Such selective exemption of lawbreaking non-U.S. citizens, but not millions of U.S. citizens, seems in conflict with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
After entering the United States illegally, millions of immigrants are protected by some 550 “sanctuary city” jurisdictions. These revolutionary areas all brazenly nullify immigration law by refusing to allow federal immigration authorities to deport illegal immigrant lawbreakers.
At various times in our nation’s history—1832, 1861-65, and 1961-63—America was either racked by internal violence or fought a civil war over similar state nullification of federal laws.
In the last five years, we have indeed seen many internal threats to democracy.
Hillary Clinton hired a foreign national to concoct a dossier of dirt against her presidential opponent. She disguised her own role by projecting her efforts to use Russian sources onto Trump. She used her contacts in government and media to seed the dossier to create a national hysteria about “Russian collusion.” Clinton urged Biden not to accept the 2020 result if he lost, and herself claimed Trump was not a legitimately elected president.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has violated laws governing the chain of command. Some retired officers violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by slandering their commander in chief. Others publicly were on record calling for the military to intervene to remove an elected president.
Some of the nation’s top officials in the FBI and intelligence committee have misled or lied under oath either to federal investigators or the U.S. Congress, again, mostly with impunity.
All these sustained revolutionary activities were justified as necessary to achieve the supposedly noble ends of removing Trump.
The result is Third World-like jurisprudence in America aimed at rewarding friends and punishing enemies, masked by service to social justice.
We are in a dangerous revolutionary cycle. But the threat is not so much from loud, buffoonish, one-day rioters on Jan. 6. Such clownish characters did not for 120 days loot, burn, attack courthouses and police precincts, cause over 30 deaths, injure 2,000 policemen, and destroy at least $2 billion in property—all under the banner of revolutionary justice.
Even more ominously, stone-cold sober elites are systematically waging an insidious revolution in the shadows that seeks to dismantle America’s institutions and the rule of law as we have known them.
(C)2022 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
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 Honorable Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Washington D.C.
Dear Representative Adam Kinzinger,
I noticed that you are a pro-life representative that has a long record of standing up for unborn babies! It was in the 1970’s when I was first introduced to the works of Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop and I wanted to commend their writings and films to you.
Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) joined his House Republican colleagues in a press conference urging Democratic leadership to allow a vote on the Born Alive protections. The proposal would protect babies who survive abortion and provide them with the same medical care that any other premature baby would receive. Yesterday, the Democrats blocked the proposed legislation—for the 17th time—from coming before the House for a vote.
Joining the Congressman and House Republican leaders at the press conference this morning was Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse and pro-life advocate who has witnessed the devastating realities of these pro-abortion laws. The Illinois legislature is currently debating two abortion bills, similar to the extreme pro-abortion agendas in New York and Virginia.
It seems you have a grudge against President Trump while our freedoms under President Biden are being taken away. I recommend to you the article below:
Roger Kimball Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion
Mr. Kimball concludes his article with these words:
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.”
There were a few Republicans Thursday who surprised observers when they voted in support of holding former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress and referring him to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
Prior to the vote, four Republicans were considered a lock to approve the criminal referral, according to Capitol Hill sources: Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Fred Upton of Michigan and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio.
Cheney and Kinzinger are on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and have for months stood alone as the only two House Republicans willing to speak out against former President Donald Trump’s continued lies about the 2020 election. They were the only two House Republicans to vote for the formation of the select committee on June 30.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formed the select committee after Republicans rejected a bipartisan commission that would have been evenly split between five Democrats and five Republicans. Only 35 Republicans voted for that measure when itpassed the House of Representatives, and it was defeated by a GOP filibuster in the Senate.
From left: Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a Democrat, and Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois arrive for the House Select Committee hearing investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
More
Upton has served in the House for more than three decades, since 1987, and will face a primary challenge next year because of his willingness to stand up to Trump.
Gonzalez is retiring from Congress next year, after only four years in the House. “While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” Gonzalez said in September when heannounced he would not seek another term.
The remaining five Republicans included three who voted for impeachment — Peter Meijer of Michigan, John Katko of New York and Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington — and two House Republicans who did not vote to impeach Trump: Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
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 beenbranded 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.
Let me recommend that you read this letter below from Senator Ron Johnson and his colleagues:
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), along with senators Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), sent a letter on Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting information on the unequal application of justice between the individuals who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, and those involved in the unrest during the spring and summer of 2020. The senators sent 18 questions to the attorney general on what steps the DOJ has taken to prosecute individuals who committed crimes during both events, and requested a response by June 21.
“Americans have the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances,” the senators wrote. “This constitutional right should be cherished and protected. Violence, property damage, and vandalism of any kind should not be tolerated and individuals that break the law should be prosecuted. However, the potential unequal administration of justice with respect to certain protestors is particularly concerning.”
The full text of the letter can be found here and below.
June 7, 2021
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Garland:
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently dedicating enormous resources and manpower to investigating and prosecuting the criminals who breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. We fully support and appreciate the efforts by the DOJ and its federal, state and local law enforcement partners to hold those responsible fully accountable.
We join all Americans in the expectation that the DOJ’s response to the events of January 6 will result in rightful criminal prosecutions and accountability. As you are aware, the mission of the DOJ is, among other things, to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. Today, we write to request information about our concerns regarding potential unequal justice administered in response to other recent instances of mass unrest, destruction, and loss of life throughout the United States.
During the spring and summer of 2020, individuals used peaceful protests across the country to engage in rioting and other crimes that resulted in loss of life, injuries to law enforcement officers, and significant property damage.[1] A federal court house in Portland, Oregon, has been effectively under siege for months.[2] Property destruction stemming from the 2020 social justice protests throughout the country will reportedly result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion in paid insurance claims.[3]
In June 2020, the DOJ reportedly compiled the following information regarding last year’s unrest:
“One federal officer [was] killed, 147 federal officers [were] injured and 600 local officers [were] injured around the country during the protests, frequently from projectiles.”[4]
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “since the start of the unrest there has been 81 Federal Firearms License burglaries of an estimated loss of 1,116 firearms; 876 reported arsons; 76 explosive incidents; and 46 ATF arrests[.]”[5]
Despite these numerous examples of violence occurring during these protests, it appears that individuals charged with committing crimes at these events may benefit from infrequent prosecutions and minimal, if any, penalties. According to a recent article, “prosecutors have approved deals in at least half a dozen federal felony cases arising from clashes between protesters and law enforcement in Oregon last summer. The arrangements — known as deferred resolution agreements — will leave the defendants with a clean criminal record if they stay out of trouble for a period of time and complete a modest amount of community service, according to defense attorneys and court records.”[6]
DOJ’s apparent unwillingness to punish these individuals who allegedly committed crimes during the spring and summer 2020 protests stands in stark contrast to the harsher treatment of the individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. To date, DOJ has charged 510 individuals stemming from Capitol breach.[7] DOJ maintains and updates a webpage that lists the defendants charged with crimes committed at the Capitol. This database includes information such as the defendant’s name, charge(s), case number, case documents, location of arrest, case status, and informs readers when the entry was last updated.[8] No such database exists for alleged perpetrators of crimes associated with the spring and summer 2020 protests. It is unclear whether any defendants charged with crimes in connection with the Capitol breach have received deferred resolution agreements.
Americans have the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. This constitutional right should be cherished and protected. Violence, property damage, and vandalism of any kind should not be tolerated and individuals that break the law should be prosecuted. However, the potential unequal administration of justice with respect to certain protestors is particularly concerning. In order to assist Congress in conducting its oversight work, we respectfully request answers to the following questions by June 21, 2021:
Spring and Summer 2020 Unrest:
Did federal law enforcement utilize geolocation data from defendants’ cell phones to track protestors associated with the unrest in the spring and summer of 2020? If so, how many times and for which locations/riots?
How many individuals who may have committed crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020 were arrested by law enforcement using pre-dawn raids and SWAT teams?
How many individuals were incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020?
How many of these individuals are or were placed in solitary confinement? What was the average amount of consecutive days such individuals were in solitary confinement?
How many of these individuals have been released on bail?
How many of these individuals were released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?
How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?[9]
How many DOJ prosecutors were assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020?
How many FBI personnel were assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020?
January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol Breach:
Did federal law enforcement utilize geolocation data from defendants’ cell phones to track protestors associated with the January 6, 2021 protests and Capitol breach? If so, how many times and how many additional arrests resulted from law enforcement utilizing geolocation information?
How many individuals who may have committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach were arrested by law enforcement using pre-dawn raids and SWAT teams?
How many individuals are incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with the Capitol breach?
How many of these individuals are or were placed in solitary confinement? What was the average amount of consecutive days such individuals were in solitary confinement?
How many of these individuals have been released on bail?
How many of these individuals have been released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?
How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?
How many DOJ prosecutors have been assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach?
How many FBI personnel were assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach?
I want to recommend to you a video on YOU TUBE that runs 28 minutes and 39 seconds by Francis Schaeffer entitled because it discusses the founding of our nation and what the FOUNDERS believed:
Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.
________________
______________________
March 23, 2021
President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view. Although we are both Christians and have the Bible as the basis for our moral views, I did want you to take a close look at the views of the pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff too. Hentoff became convinced of the pro-life view because of secular evidence that shows that the unborn child is human. I would ask you to consider his evidence and then of course reverse your views on abortion.
___________________
The pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff wrote a fine article below I wanted to share with you.
Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many cases (Bernard Nathanson, Donald Trump, Paul Greenberg, Kathy Ireland) when other high profile pro-choice leaders have changed their views and this is just another case like those. I have contacted the White House over and over concerning this issue and have even received responses. I am hopeful that people will stop and look even in a secular way (if they are not believers) at this abortion debate and see that the unborn child is deserving of our protection.That is why the writings of Nat Hentoff of the Cato Institute are so crucial.
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.
Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION
_____________________________________
Dr. Francis schaeffer – from Part 5 of Whatever happened to human race?) Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – A Christian Manifesto – Dr. Francis Schaeffer Lecture
Francis Schaeffer – A 700 Club Special! ~ Francis Schaeffer 1982
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – 1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaeffer
http://www.NewsandOpinion.com | A longtime friend of mine is married to a doctor who also performs abortions. At the dinner table one recent evening, their 9-year-old son — having heard a word whose meaning he didn’t know — asked, “What is an abortion?” His mother, choosing her words carefully, described the procedure in simple terms.
“But,” said her son, “that means killing the baby.” The mother then explained that there are certain months during which an abortion cannot be performed, with very few exceptions. The 9-year-old shook his head. “But,” he said, “it doesn’t matter what month. It still means killing the babies.”
Hearing the story, I wished it could be repeated to the justices of the Supreme Court, in the hope that at least five of them might act on this 9-year-old’s clarity of thought and vision.
The boy’s spontaneous insistence on the primacy of life also reminded me of a powerful pro-life speaker and writer who, many years ago, helped me become a pro-lifer. He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: “There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life.
“That,” he continued, “was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore out of your right to be concerned.”
This passionate reverend used to warn: “Don’t let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn’t a human being. That’s how the whites dehumanized us … The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do — and not even feel they’d done anything wrong.”
That preacher was Jesse Jackson. Later, he decided to run for the presidency — and it was a credible campaign that many found inspiring in its focus on what still had to be done on civil rights. But Jackson had by now become “pro-choice” — much to the appreciation of most of those in the liberal base.
The last time I saw Jackson was years later, on a train from Washington to New York. I told him of a man nominated, but not yet confirmed, to a seat on a federal circuit court of appeals. This candidate was a strong supporter of capital punishment — which both the Rev. Jackson and I oppose, since it involves the irreversible taking of a human life by the state.
I asked Jackson if he would hold a press conference in Washington, criticizing the nomination, and he said he would. The reverend was true to his word; the press conference took place; but that nominee was confirmed to the federal circuit court. However, I appreciated Jackson’s effort.
On that train, I also told Jackson that I’d been quoting — in articles, and in talks with various groups — from his compelling pro-life statements. I asked him if he’d had any second thoughts on his reversal of those views.
Usually quick to respond to any challenge that he is not consistent in his positions, Jackson paused, and seemed somewhat disquieted at my question. Then he said to me, “I’ll get back to you on that.” I still patiently await what he has to say.
As time goes on, my deepening concern with the consequences of abortion is that its validation by the Supreme Court, as a constitutional practice, helps support the convictions of those who, in other controversies — euthanasia, assisted suicide and the “futility doctrine” by certain hospital ethics committees — believe that there are lives not worth continuing.
Around the time of my conversation with Jackson on the train, I attended a conference on euthanasia at Clark College in Worcester, Mass. There, I met Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society, and already known internationally as a key proponent of the “death with dignity” movement.
He told me that for some years in this country, he had considerable difficulty getting his views about assisted suicide and, as he sees it, compassionate euthanasia into the American press.
“But then,” Humphry told me, “a wonderful thing happened. It opened all the doors for me.”
“What was that wonderful thing?” I asked.
“Roe v. Wade,” he answered.
The devaluing of human life — as the 9-year-old at the dinner table put it more vividly — did not end with making abortion legal, and therefore, to some people, moral. The word “baby” does not appear in Roe v. Wade — let alone the word “killing.”
And so, the termination of “lives not worth living” goes on.
______________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband. Now after presenting the secular approach of Nat Hentoff I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith. I respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]
In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
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.
12. “A Hard Day’s Night” (1964)
This is the third album from The Beatles. “A Hard Day’s Night” is a classic release featuring a number of memorable tracks and, for the most part, a jangly folk-rock. These include the title track and “Can’t Buy Me Love.”
At this point in their career, Lennon and McCartney were truly hitting their stride as songwriters. This is reflected in the tight, focused nature of the album. However, it would be eclipsed by later releases regarding innovation or originality.
This is the first soundtrack album by The Beatles. It accompanies the Richard Lester-directed comedy of the same name.
In a 1980 interview for Playboy, Lennon said that A Hard Day’s Night was “a brilliant film” and that it was “the one film of ours where you can see what we were really like.”
Despite Lennon’s positive assessment of the film, the making of “A Hard Day’s Night” was a demanding and intense experience. Lennon has also spoken about the stresses and challenges that the band members faced during the filming process.
John Lennon contributes several standout tracks, including the title track and “I Should Have Known Better.” “I’ll be back” is another gorgeously sung tune reminiscent of the pop-rock of the 1950s.
Paul McCartney sings on the lively “Can’t Buy Me Love” as well as on “And I Love Her.” “Things We Said Today” is another noteworthy McCartney-penned tune.
Come Together – John Lennon (Live In New York City)
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.
Demonstrators listen to a speaker at an “Our Bodies, Our Sports” rally for the 50th anniversary of Title IX at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. The June 23, 2022, rally—organized by several women’s athletic groups—was held to call on President Joe Biden to put restrictions on transgender “women” and “advocate to keep women’s sports female.” (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Armstrong Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and host of “The Armstrong Williams Show,” a nationally syndicated TV program.
Jess Hilarious, a well-known comedian and personality, has recently created quite a stir in the world of social media. She dared to voice her opinion on a trending video where a transgender“woman” claimed that “womanhood” and menstruation were not exclusive to biological women.
Hilarious responded with the simple truth that only biological women can menstruate and bear children, and quite rightly so.
Comedienne Jess Hilarious—seen here performing onstage at a taping Wednesday of iHeartRadio’s “Living Black 2023 Block Party” in Inglewood, California—isn’t buying into the transgender “woman” ideology. (Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images)
Let’s not tiptoe around the facts. Biological men, or in layman’s terms, individuals born with male genitalia, can never and will never have the capacity to give birth to children or menstruate. It’s not an opinion or a debate, but a cold, hard fact of biology. We need to face reality, instead of diving deeper into an abyss of unscientific thinking.
What is truly confounding is the muddled state of the discourse surrounding women’s identity. Women, throughout history, have fought countless battles for recognition and rights. And now, we’re embroiled in a debate questioning the very definition of what constitutes a woman. Have we suddenly discarded centuries of biological understanding and scientific knowledge in favor of a more subjective, individualistic interpretation?
What’s the future holding for us, then? Should we expect more such redefinitions? If an individual identifies as another race, alters their skin color, and claims they’re “transracial,” will we accept it without question?
Suppose someone identifies as wealthy without having a single dime in their bank account. Are we to consider them “trans-wealthy”? And where does this end? If a person starts identifying as a dog, a cat, or any other creature, will we be required to play along and call them “trans-animal”? The fundamental issue is this: The intensity of your feelings, however genuine they may be, cannot change reality.
Consider this hypothetical scenario: A century from now, an archeologist excavates the skeletal remains of a transgender “woman.” Scientific analysis, independent of any subjective biases, would incontrovertibly reveal the skeleton to belong to a biological man. Yet, in our current culture, we’re asked to suspend our disbelief and affirm that a person who identifies as a woman is, indeed, a woman. Are we not treading on treacherous ground?
The situation is undoubtedly confusing, even frustrating. However, it’s vital to maintain perspective and not let absurdity take root. A biological man, regardless of the quantities of estrogen he consumes, regardless of the breast or buttock implants he acquires, regardless of wigs, fake eyelashes, name changes or women’s clothes, will never be a biological woman.
Is that too difficult to grasp? Or has society become so immersed in this collective delusion that we’ve forgotten the simplest of truths? We need to pause, step back, and scrutinize the path we’re treading. Do we want a world governed by feelings over facts, where reality can be reshaped according to individual whims and wishes?
It’s time to reaffirm our commitment to biological realities and reject the sociocultural illusions that threaten to subvert them. Let us not blur those lines for the sake of momentary societal trends. Being a woman is not merely a matter of identification, but a concrete, biological reality that we need to acknowledge and uphold.
The idea that our biological identities can be overwritten by personal feelings sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines the empirical facts of our existence, breeding confusion and potentially harming societal progress in the long run.
It’s imperative that we maintain balance in our approach to this discussion. We should stand firm and remain grounded in biological realities. It’s about recognizing that while everyone has the right to identify as they wish, there are some truths that simply cannot be altered.
We need to draw the line between affirming one’s identity and denying biological facts, lest we risk veering into a realm where anything and everything is subject to personal interpretation and feelings. We must face the challenge head-on, with a robust commitment to truth and reason.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM
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 Daily Wire is alleging that after just a 22-minute phone call, an undercover reporter posing as a trans-identifying patient allegedly received a letter of support for the removal of his testicles. (Photo: Getty Images)
After just a 22-minute phone call, an undercover reporter posing as a transgender-identifyingpatient allegedly received a letter of support for the removal of his testicles.
Gregg Re, formerly a producer for “Tucker Carlson Tonight” who now works for Matt Walsh and The Daily Wire, allegedly used the fake legal name “Chelsea Bussey” on his intake form with Plume Clinic. The clinic boasts about providing “gender-affirming health care for trans and nonbinary people,” over its patients’ phones.
Without even attempting to pass as a woman, Re obtained a letter of approval from Plume, according to Walsh—a letter necessary for insurance companies to cover the medical expenses for this procedure (Plume did not respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal).
Photo of Gregg Re, courtesy of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is highlighting that Walsh’s and Re’s joint exposé raises questions about the standards of care employed by “gender-affirming care” practitioners as well as the insurance approval process, warning that there’s “big money” behind the processes for obtaining trans surgeries.
Walsh posted video footage showing Re in an apparent FaceTime video interview with an alleged nurse practitioner, whose name and photograph are blurred out for privacy reasons. Though Re stated he had never experienced gender dysphoria for six months or more (meaning, under the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, that he doesn’t have gender dysphoria), Plume allegedly scheduled him for a video interview, anyway.
“He didn’t even attempt to pass,” Walsh said. “He badly mispronounced the name of the surgery he wanted. He made it clear he didn’t know what effect the surgery would have. Nevertheless, Plume’s nurse practitioner said she wanted to write the most ‘solid’ letter possible to justify surgery. Gregg tells her that he once wrote an essay in school about being a woman, which everyone thought was ridiculous.”
“Gregg also tells Plume’s nurse practitioner that his father has been prescribing him hormones for years,” Walsh continued. “The nurse doesn’t question this in any way. Instead, she says that arrangement is ‘perfect.’”
After three days, according to Walsh, Re’s alias Chelsea Bussey received a letter stating that he was experiencing “significant, ongoing gender dysphoria” and recommending him for testicle removal. The letter notes that since Plume operates on a virtual basis, for a “pre-operative risk assessment or for post-operative care, patients will need to see their primary care provider or surgeon.”
When Re followed up to ask why he had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, according to Walsh, Plume allegedly admitted that they used letter templates that had been provided to them by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
WPATH did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“I know we write letters based on WPATH templates, but I can ask your provider if it is necessary to have it, and if not perhaps it can be removed,” a Plume care coordinator allegedly said.
But Walsh said that Re would later be told by the Plume nurse practitioner that “in order for the surgery to be paid for,” the dysphoria diagnosis would need to remain in place.
“At the same time, the nurse appeared confused as to why ‘Chelsea Bussey’ had requested testicle removal in the first place,” Walsh added.
Walsh also highlighted that the transgender telehealth service Folx Health said the group “instructs patients that even if they don’t ‘fit’ the definition of gender dysphoria, the diagnosis is ‘needed’ so that insurers pay out.” Folx advertises that “it’s quite possible patients will receive a letter indicating that they have a gender dysphoria diagnosis even if they don’t actually have gender dysphoria, Walsh said.
“This scam is the cutting-edge of ‘trans healthcare,’” The Daily Wire host said. “After launching just a couple of years ago, Plume now operates in 41 states. Folx is in 47 states. How is it possible they’ve expanded so quickly?”
Rachel Levine Targets Transgender Heresy for Big Tech Suppression
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)
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
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?
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.
[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
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 BREAKFASTJ.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
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 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!!!!
President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
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 Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)
Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)
America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)
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)
I do not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his father was. However, I do think he was involved in the early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
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)
Michelle: You are the grandfather of school vouchers. Do you feel victorious?
Mr. Friedman: Far from victorious, but very optimistic and hopeful. We are at the beginning of the task because as of the moment vouchers are available to only a very small amount of children. Our goal is to have a system in which every family in the U.S. will be able to choose for itself the school to which its children go. We are far from that ultimate result. If we had that, a system of free choice, we would also have a system of competition, innovation, which would change the character of education. You know our educational system is one of the most backwards things in our society in the way we teach people they did 200 years ago. There is a person in the front of the room. There are children sitting down at the bottom, and they are being talked to. Can you name any other industry in the U.S. which is as technologically backward? I can name one and only one: the legislature for the same reason. Both are monopolies. The elementary and secondary school system is the single most socialist industry in the U.S. leaving aside the military, but aside from the military it’s a major socialist industry; it is centralized and the control comes from the center and the difficulty of having a monopoly in which people cannot choose has been exacerbated by the fact that it has been largely taken over by teachers’ unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers and the unions. Understandably, I do not blame them, but they are interested in the welfare of their members, not the welfare of the children, and the result is they have introduced a degree of rigidity, which makes it impossible to reform the public school system from within. Reform has to come through competition from the outside and the only way you can get competition is by making it possible for parents to have the ability to choose.
Michelle: Give to me a model, an example of how it would work.
Mr. Friedman: Very simple, take the extreme the government says we are willing to finance schooling for every child. The government compels children. If you look at the role of government in education there are three different levels. There is a level of compulsory. The government says every child must go to school until such and such and age. That is the equivalent of saying if you are going to drive a car you must have a license. The second stage is funding. Not only do we require you to have an education, but the government is willing to pay for that schooling. That would be equivalent to saying the government is willing to pay for your car that you drive. The third level is running the educational industry. That would be the equivalent of the government manufacturing the automobile or, to put it in a different image, consider food stamps today. Food stamps are funds provided by the government. But if that were to be runned (sic) like the schools, they would say everybody has to use these food stamps at a government grocery and each person with food stamps is assigned to a particular government grocer. So the only way you can get your food stamps is by going to that grocer. Do you think those groceries would be very good? We know what the situation is in schooling. People say why now and not 50-75 years ago? Well, when I went to high school that was a long time ago. In the 1920s there were 150,000 school districts in the U.S and the population was half what it is now. Today, there are fewer than 15,000 school districts. So it used to be that you really did have competition cause you had small school districts and parents had a good deal of control over those school districts, but increasingly we have shifted to very large school districts, to centralized control, to a system in which the governmental officials, in which the educational professionals control it. And like every socialist industry, it produces a product that is very expensive and of very low quality. Of course it is not uniform. There are some very good schools do not misunderstand me, but there are also some very bad ones.
Michelle: I interviewed some folks who are against school vouchers and they say that if you really want to help out a school what you should do is provide high-quality early childhood education, small classes, small schools, summer school available to children who want it. Put money to those items, which they claim would work.
Mr. Friedman: They don’t, we have been doing that. The amount of money spent per child adjusted for inflation has something like doubled or tripled over the last 20 years. Twenty years ago we had this report A Nation at Risk that pointed out all of the difficulties I just referred to and which pointed out this was a first generation that was going to be less schooled than its parents. We are now in the next generation and will be even less well schooled. We have had every possible effort you could have from reform from within. It is not just in schools; it is in any area. Reform has to come from outside. It has to come from competition. Let me illustrate that from within the school system. The United States from all accounts ranks number one in higher education. People from all over the world regard the United States’ colleges and universities the best and most varied. On the other hand in every other international comparison we rank near the bottom in elementary and secondary education. Why the difference? One word: choice. The elementary and secondary education, the school picks the child; it picks its customer. In higher education, the customer picks its school, you have choice that makes all the difference in the world. It means competition forces product. Look over the rest of the economy. Is there any area in the U.S. in which progress has not required progress from the outside? Look at the telephone industry when it was broken down into the little bells and opened up the competition. It started a period of rapid innovation and development. The key word is competition and the question is how can you get competition. Only by having the customer choosing.
Michelle: There is concern that money is going to religious schools. That the majority of the students in voucher programs that exist use them to attend schools with religious affiliation?
Mr. Friedman: Why? Because the vouchers are so small in some cases. It is true that of the private schools in the U.S. the great bulk of them are religious. That is for one simple reason. Here is someone selling something for nothing. Somebody down the street is giving away chocolate and you want to get into the business of selling chocolate. That is kind of tough isn’t it? Here at schools, children can attend them. They are not free. They are paying for it in the form of taxes, but there is no specific charge for going to that school. Somebody else is going to offer it. The churches, the religious organizations have had a real advantage in that they were the only ones around who were in a position to subsidize the education and keep the fees down low. If you open it wide, the most recent case was Ohio, Cleveland case. The voucher that they had had a max value of $2,500. Now it is not easy to provide a decent education at $2,500 and make money at it. Make it pay. At the same time the state of Ohio was spending something like over $7,000 per child on schooling. If that voucher had been $7,000 instead of $2,500 I have no doubt that there would have been a whole raft of new private, non-profit, both profit and non-profit schools. That is what has happened in Milwaukee. Milwaukee has a voucher system and today the fraction of the voucher users in Milwaukee going to religious schools is less than the fraction going to religious schools was before this system started because there have been new schools developed and some of them have been religious but many of them are not. In any event, the Supreme Court has settled that issue. They have said that if it is the choice of the parent, if there are alternatives available, there are government schools, charter schools, private non-denominational schools, private denominational schools, so long as the choice is in the hands of the parent that is not a violation of the First Amendment.
Michelle: You have a friend and an ally in the White House when it comes to vouchers.
Mr. Friedman: I should say. Mr. Bush has always been in favor. He is in favor of free choice. Remember vouchers are a means not an end. The purpose of vouchers is to enable parents to have free choice, and the purpose of having free choice is to provide competition and allow the educational industry to get out of the 17th century and get into the 21st century and have more innovation and more evolvement. There is no reason why you cannot have the same kind of change in the provision of education as you have had in industries like the computer industry, the television industry and other things.
Michelle: Is it refreshing to have a president that, Bill Clinton was firmly against vouchers.
Mr. Friedman: No, it is a case of circumstances. When he was governor of Arkansas, he was not against vouchers. He was in favor, but when he became president he came out against vouchers. I should say he did not oppose vouchers as governor and he did as president and that was for political reasons. People don’t recognize how powerful politically the teachers’ unions are. Something like a quarter of all the delegates at the Democratic National Convention are from the teachers’ union. They are probably the most powerful pressure group in the U.S., very large funds, very large number of people and very active politically.
Michelle: We talk in the office about how President Bush has some very Friedmanesqe ideas.
Mr. Friedman: They are not Freidmanesqe. They are just good ideas. I hope that is true anyway. I think very highly of President Bush, and I think in these areas, don’t misunderstand me, that is not a blanket statement. There are some things he has done that I disagree with, but taken as a whole he has been moving in the right direction of trying to move toward a smaller more limited government, trying to provide more freedom and more initiative in all areas. His philosophy on Medicare is the same as his philosophy in schools.
Michelle: Is that refreshing?
Mr. Friedman: It is an interesting thing, if you look at the facts, the one area, the area in which the low-income people of this country, the blacks and the minority, are most disadvantaged is with respect with the kinds of schools they can send their children to. The people who live in Harlem or the slums or the corresponding areas in LA or San Francisco, they can go to the same stores, shop in the same stores everybody else can, they can buy the same automobiles, they can go to supermarket, but they have very limited choice of schools. Everybody agrees that the schools in those areas are the worst. They are poor. Yet, here you have a Democrat who allege their interest is to help the poor and the low-income people. Here you have to take a different point. Every poll has shown that the strongest supporters of vouchers are the low-income blacks, and yet hardly a single black leader has been willing to come out for vouchers. There were some exceptions, Paul Williams in Milwaukee who was responsible for that, and a few others.
Michelle: Why do you think that is?
Mr. Friedman: For obvious reasons, political. It has been to the self interest to the leaders. The school system, as long as it’s governmental it’s a source of power and jobs to hand around and funds to dispose of. If it is privatized that disappears. And the other aspect of it is the power of the teachers’ unions. Right now those of us that are in the upper-income classes have freedom of choice for our children in various ways. We can decide where to live and we can choose places to live that have good schools or we can afford to pay twice for schooling once by taxes and once by paying tuition at a private school. It seems to me utterly unfair that those opportunities should not be open to everybody at all levels of income. If you had a system, the kind I would like to see, the government would say we require every child to get a certain number of years of schooling and in order to make that possible we are going to provide for every parent a voucher equal to a certain number of dollars, which they can use only for schooling, can’t use it for anything else. They can add to it, but they cannot subtract from it. Those will be, those can be used in government schools. Let the government run the school, but force them to be in competition so that all government schools charge tuition, but can be paid for by that voucher. But that same voucher can also be used in private schools of all kinds and then you would have an open; the teachers’ union complained and they insist they are doing a good job. If they are doing a good job then why are they so afraid of some competition?
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.
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.
…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 Journalopined 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 […]
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 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 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 […]
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 […]
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?: 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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
Melvin Pickens,
Clinton Lancaster, an attorney for Lunden Roberts, ripped the 53-year-old Hunter in a 12-page discovery motion filed Thursday in Independence County, Arkansas.
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,
The Daily Hatch 
