—-

Beatles members Paul McCartney, left, John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr photographed together in April 1969.

My personal favorite is “Here Comes The Sun”

The Bearles most revolutionary song in my view is “A Day In The Life”

I was born in 1961 and only remember hearing two Beatles songs playing on the radio and one of them was “The Long And Winding Road”

The other song I remember hearing on the radio was “Let It Be”

Golden Slumbers / Carry That Weight / The End

The Beatles – Help!

The Beatles – Hey Jude

Let It Be (Remastered 2009)

Come Together (Remastered 2009)

The Beatles – Don’t Let Me Down

The Beatles: every song ranked in order of greatness

Join us with the Fool on the Hill as we wade through Strawberry Fields (forever), looking through a Glass Onion, in search of the Fabs’ best-ever tune By Mark Beaumont–  21st December 2021

If you ever doubt that The Beatles were the greatest band that ever existed, try ranking their songs. Out of 185 self-penned tunes they released commercially during their initial seven-year run – so not including covers, fan club releases, alternative versions or their 1995 reunion songs – you’ll list well over a hundred tracks before you get to anything you wouldn’t call sublime, and hit 150 or so before anything verging on average appears. Of their entire catalogue, only six or seven songs could be classed as ‘shonky’, and most of those have still got something historic going for them.

Among them you’ll find songs which caused seismic shifts in pop, psychedelia and rock and the formative roots of punk, metal and electronica, amongst a panoply of other styles they pioneered and popularised in such a short time. It’s a feat unmatched by any act before or since, and with Peter Jackson’s Get Backreviving interest in their achievements, let’s pile back in to the most magical mystery tour pop music has ever known, with each track ranked in order of greatness.

‘Wild Honey Pie’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

An experimental ‘White Album’ interlude recorded entirely by Paul, ‘Wild Honey Pie’ had a mild element of redneck Grieg menace, but little else to it.

‘Dig It’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

50 seconds of a far longer studio jam, during which Lennon makes random references to the FBI, the CIA, the BBC, BB King, Doris Day and Matt Busby over a pretty dreary rock’n’roll dirge, ‘Dig It’ only really existed to exemplify the fact that The Beatles cut loose a lot during the ‘Let It Be’ sessions. Now we’ve got seven-plus hours of Get Back, it’s rendered superfluous.

‘You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)’ (B-side of ‘Let It Be’, 1970)

“Good evening and welcome to Slaggers…”The Beatles spend an inordinate amount of studio time trying to perfect this frankly silly combo of blues rock, lounge samba, music hall clowning and a bit sung by Crazy Frog’s jazz Granddad. Don’t do drugs, kids.

‘Why Don’t We Do It In The Road?’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Even before Google Street View, Paul’s uber-horny blues squeal about dogging like a champion was at best inadvisable and at worst just plain creepy. Everyone will definitely be watching you, so stop. Think. Don’t do it in the road.

‘Revolution 9’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Of interest as an avant-garde curio exemplifying the fact that The Beatles had entirely dismissed all sonic boundaries by the ‘White Album’, John and Yoko’s epic sound collage of radio interference, studio chatter and orchestral samples is more notable and influential than it’s often given credit for. But you wouldn’t bung it on repeat.

‘Flying’ (‘Magical Mystery Tour’, 1967)

An incidental instrumental to accompany a psychedelic segment of Magical Mystery Tour, ‘Flying’ was little more than 12-bar rock’n’roll played, very stoned, on an organ for two minutes. Some distance from a Welsh male voice choir.

‘Only A Northern Song’ (‘Yellow Submarine’, 1969)

Designed as a piss-taking dig at Northern Songs, the Beatles’ publishing company, which George felt rewarded him pitifully for his songwriting efforts, ‘Only A Northern Song’ is intended to sound weird, wonky and half-baked, even as Harrison came into his own as a songsmith.

‘Ask Me Why’ (‘Please Please Me’, 1963)

A formulaic shake shack ballad of little note other than the sneaking suspicion that Morrissey took his entire vocal style from Lennon’s end-of-chorus flicks.

‘Little Child’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1963)

By-numbers Merseybeat that was one of the few unmemorable originals Lennon and McCartney ever penned.

‘Blue Jay Way’ (‘Magical Mystery Tour’, 1967)

Written by George while waiting for houseguests to arrive at the place he was staying on the titular Hollywood Hills street in 1967. They presumably arrived just after he’d perfected the ominous psychedelic organ mood but before he’d really gotten his teeth into the chorus.

 ‘Not A Second Time’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1963)

A song desperately in search of a hookline, ‘Not A Second Time’ finds John’s voice flapping wildly around the verses as if desperate to find somewhere solid to land.

‘Her Majesty’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

A lightweight folk frippery that sounds particularly throwaway when tacked on the end of ‘Abbey Road’’s monumental side two medley as a secret final track.

‘Run For Your Life’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

As The Beatles shifted away from love songs, John contributed this out-and-out hate song to ‘Rubber Soul’ – a nifty country rocker and arguably the proto-‘Last Train To Clarkesville’, but notorious as The Beatles’ most problematic track. John would claim to regret having written it, calling it his least favourite Beatles song.

‘Don’t Bother Me’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1963)

“I don’t think it’s a particularly good song,” George said of his debut Beatles writing credit, “it mightn’t even be a song at all.” Actually, it’s a pretty nifty homage to the surf rock craze of the time. And definitely a song.

‘For You Blue’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

Standard, formulaic slide guitar blues given a sweetness and light by George’s weightless vocals and exclamation, “Elmore James got nothing on this!”

‘What Goes On’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

Honky-tonk pastiche written by John in 1959 and passed over for several albums before landing half-heartedly on ‘Rubber Soul’. You can actually hear the band lose interest midway through.

‘Thank You Girl’ (B-side to ‘From Me To You’, 1964)

Recorded by John with a heavy cold, it’s perhaps understandable that this thank you letter to their fans – a “hack song”, according to McCartney – sounds muddy and under-developed. On this evidence you’d assume EMI Studios doubled as a bomb shelter.

‘One After 909’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

Plucked from the catalogue of early Lennon/McCartney compositions when the band were short on material for ‘Let It Be’, Paul’s locomotive skiffle knockabout had a retro charm but never really escaped the formula.

‘I Me Mine’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

A lovely choral waltz ballad from George, totally ruined by nobody bothering to write a proper chorus and just bawling the title over some 12-bar sleaze rock riffing instead.

‘I’ll Cry Instead’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Bitterness, heartbreak and romantic revenge; Lennon’s dark side was on show even on the skiffly, tucked-away tracks of the Beatlemania era.

‘Yer Blues’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Passionate, characterful and a raw exorcism of John’s harrowed late-‘60s mindset, certainly. But The Beatles were way past by-numbers blues rock by ‘68 and ‘Yer Blues’ stood out as an unimaginative throwback on the ‘White Album’.

‘When I Get Home’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Formulaic Beatlemania fare in which John gets excited at the prospect of telling his wife about all the screaming girls, drugs and parties on tour. Bet she was thrilled.

‘Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite!’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

For some, John’s cabaret pastiche is the very essence of ‘Sgt. Pepper…’, capturing the sepia carnival vibe in its circus poster lyrics and carousel interlude. To these ears, though, it’s club-footed, corny and unnecessary.

‘I’ll Get You’ (B-side to ‘She Loves You’, 1963)

John’s songwriting sparkles on the B-side of their first single, yet lacks the confidence of more head-waggling numbers of the era.

‘This Boy’ (B-side to ‘All My Loving’)

Faithful homage to the harmony groups of the ‘50s and early ‘60s, and a rare example of a Beatles song that could be mistaken for that of any other band.

‘I’m Down’ (B-side to ‘Help!’)

Nifty Little Richard-style rock’n’roller that doesn’t sound all that “down” at all.

‘Love Me Do’ (single, 1962)

Legendary and all that, being the debut single, but let’s face it: a bit of a plodder.

‘Hold Me Tight’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1963)

Even when rehashing some pretty standard rock’n’roll chord progressions and melodic structures on a song that McCartney himself would call “filler”, The Beatles exuded a fundamental magic that set them apart from the Merseybeat horde.

‘There’s a Place’ (‘Please Please Me’, 1963)

Early signs of spiritual and philosophical musings from John as he tries his hand at Motown.

‘She’s A Woman’ (B-side to ‘I Feel Fine’)

Basic, bluesy rock’n’roller notable for some pretty savage guitar work and McCartney clearly working his way up to the sort of full-throated blues bawls he’d let loose once the ‘60s were ready for them.

‘Misery’ (‘Please Please Me’, 1963)

The exuberance of being in a studio recording ‘Please Please Me’ made this shameless homage to the ‘50s crooners sound like the cheeriest song about existential despair ever recorded. No bad thing.

‘I Call Your Name’ (‘Long Tall Sally EP’, 1964)

A pre-Beatles Lennon tune originally given to British popper Billy J. Kramer. The Beatles’ version swung harder.

‘What You’re Doing’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

George’s proto-indie-pop guitar line lifted one of Paul’s less eventful tunes, but not an un-influential one – somewhere in here is the root of The La’s’ ‘There She Goes’.

‘Octopus’s Garden’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Seemingly envisioning a future in children’s entertainment as The Beatles fell apart, Ringo’s second-ever writing credit involved oompah larks and underwater adventure (sound familiar?), adorned with George making bubble noises by blowing into a glass of milk through a straw.

‘Polythene Pam’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

‘Pinball Wizard’ power chords, nifty solo, broad Scouse accent, low-rent S&M; there was so much going on in John’s throwaway 70-second rocker about a bizarre sexual encounter in Jersey in 1960 (involving beat poet Royston Ellis) that you wish he’d written a chorus for it.

‘You Like Me Too Much’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

It’s baffling that The Beatles only really began recognising and appreciating George’s songwriting come ‘The White Album’, since he was displaying solid melodic chops way back on ‘Help!’.

‘Maxwell’s Silver Hammer’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

You’ve written some of the finest children’s songs of the century, why the hell shouldn’t you try to make a vaudevillian family singalong from the story of an insane, hammer wielding psychopath? Basically Wes Craven’s ‘When I’m Sixty-Four’.

‘Tell Me What You See’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

Sometimes The Beatles’ harmonising could carry an entire song alone, as on this shift towards a more contemplative folk maturity. Includes an entire verse nicked from a religious passage that hung in John’s childhood home.

‘The Ballad Of John And Yoko’ (single, 1969)

The sorry tale of John and Yoko’s troubled and press-hounded attempts to wed at short notice in various European locales, delivered as impassioned country lament.

‘Sun King’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

The Beatles’ impression of The Beach Boysdoing Fleetwood Mac’s ‘Albatross’ (in cod-Spanish) fell between two stools on ‘Abbey Road’; not as plush as ‘Because’ nor as melodically bright as ‘Here Comes The Sun’. Lovely, then, but slight.

‘I Need You’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

Gorgeous flamenco strumble from George, finding his songwriting feet on ‘Help!’.

‘Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Macca Marmite: one either adores the cheery Jamaican lilt of Desmond and Molly’s story and considers it pivotal in attuning British pop culture to ska music or, like Lennon, deems it “more of Paul’s granny music shit”.

‘I’m Happy Just To Dance With You’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

A Lennon/McCartney composition given to George to sing. You likely owe your very existence to this dance hall romance, since it probably gave your Granddad the nerve to chat up your Nanna down the Mecca.

‘I’ll Be Back’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Flamenco-flecked and downbeat, the closer of ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ – rewritten from Del Shannon’s ‘Runaway’ – was an early sign of The Beatles’ sophisticated tonal ambitions within what were, at the time, strictly regimented ‘60s pop structures.

‘The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

The crackle of boy scout campfire virtually enshrouds this charming tale of bravery and derring-do out on the hunt in the days of empire. Twitter would rip it a new arsehole, mind.

‘Lovely Rita’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

Of all of Paul’s outlandish character songs, ‘Lovely Rita’, in which our narrator develops affection for a traffic warden, is by far the least believable, but remains charming thanks to some gorgeous band harmonies and nifty work on the paper and comb.

‘I Wanna Be Your Man’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1963)

An energised if one-trick jitterbugger written by Paul on a night out with The Rolling Stones in Richmond. It became The Stones’ second single before The Beatles gave it to Ringo to holler on ‘With The Beatles’.

‘The Word’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

The link between ‘Drive My Car’ and ‘Taxman’, ‘The Word’ added a touch of harmonic funk to ‘Rubber Soul’ as Lennon took a stab at a one-note song in homage to ‘Long Tall Sally’.

‘Old Brown Shoe’ (B-side of ‘The Ballad Of John And Yoko’, 1969)

George in righteous, piano-thumping boogie-woogie mode. Upstaged its own A-side.

‘Piggies’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Tainted in retrospect by Charles Manson’s murderous interpretations, George’s harpsichord satire of the selfish and gluttonous rich, smothered in porcine snorts and grunts, is a stirring but unsettling listen.

‘Fixing A Hole’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

The pot-fixated ‘Fixing A Hole’ makes great use of harpsichord (played by both Paul and George Martin) to give a psychedelic lilt to a music hall pastiche on which Paul makes the utmost of a one-note chorus.

‘If I Needed Someone’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

This fine Merseybeat evolution offers early indications of George’s Indian influence and of the psychedelic storm the band would later kick up on ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’.

‘I’ve Got A Feeling’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

Suitably blustery for a song recorded on a rooftop in January, Paul’s dive into The Band-style bluesy Americana rock is long on feel and passion, short on melodic impact.

‘Think For Yourself’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

Incorporating Motown beats and an open-mindedness gleaned from encounters with Dylan, George’s first major foray out of romantic odes was targeting at society’s regressive and narrow-minded elements, quite possibly in government.

‘You Can’t Do That’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

A tuneful precursor to ‘Run For Your Life’, which also finds John’s jealousy getting the better of him.

‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

Rocking up the title track, the reprise rips off the neon military blazers to expose the Hamburg leathers beneath.

‘Every Little Thing’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

A marriage of the melancholy and upbeat, this was a rare example of John singing a Paul song.

‘Wait’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

The Beatles as pop toreadors. A certain Mediterranean fire creeps into Macca’s plea to Jane Asher to give him at least until the end of tour.

‘I Don’t Want To Spoil The Party’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

John plays the party-pooping wallflower on this beautifully forlorn skiffle lament and a thematic precursor to ‘How Soon Is Now?’.

‘Tell Me Why’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

An all-barrels harmonic doo-wop assault which Paul, in retrospect, thought might have been a window onto John’s troubled marriage to Cynthia.

‘Doctor Robert’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

Perhaps spurred on by The Rolling Stones’ ‘Mother’s Little Helper’ and Donovan’s ‘Candy Man’, Lennon penned his own tribute to a drug-supplying medic, rumoured to be Dr Robert Freymann, known for supplying B-12 injections liberally laced with amphetamine. They kick in on the blissed-out middle-eight, clearly.

‘It’s Only Love’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

One of Lennon’s prettiest early-period tunes (he hated it, natch), built around sumptuous 12-string rhythms and a twee but fan-friendly lyric. Working title: ‘That’s A Nice Hat’.

‘The Inner Light’ (B-side of ‘Lady Madonna’, 1968)

Based on a Taoist poem and recorded with Indian musicians in Bombay, The ‘Lady Madonna’ flipside was one of only four Beatles songs with no Beatles playing on it (quiz compilers: the others are ‘Good Night’, ‘She’s Leaving Home’ and ‘Eleanor Rigby’), but magnificently emulated the serenity of the Transcendental Meditation techniques the band were learning from the Maharishi.

‘Rocky Raccoon’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Cartoonish Wild West soap opera larks and one of Paul’s better novelty tunes, thanks to a popcorn guzzling plot and George Martin’s honky tonk piano solo tumbling past like a saloon fight.

‘Good Night’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

As reward for getting all the way through ‘Revolution 9’, Ringo turned up with a full Busby Berkeley orchestra to tuck you in with this sleepyhead lullaby. Night night, Ringo.

‘When I’m Sixty Four’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

Central, stylistically, to the pre-war cabaret conceit of ‘Sgt. Pepper’s…’, Paul’s cheery/corny bandstand ode to somehow reaching your 60s without murdering your spouse was among the first he ever wrote, aged 16. Now go on, give Nanna a kiss.

‘Oh! Darling’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Updating 1950s US swing for the psychedelic era, McCartney put his all into ‘Oh! Darling’, even coming into the studio early to have one crack at it every day before his voice lost its edge. The song’s part in getting glam underway has gone woefully unrecognised.

‘Yellow Submarine’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

Ringo’s most legendary moment, the quintessential psychedelia ditty and arguably the most overplayed Beatles song of all. You came for the chant-along chorus aged four and stayed until adulthood for the ‘shroom-friendliness and Lennon shouting, “Full speed ahead, Mr Boatswain / Full speed ahead, bop-dibbetty-bip-bop!” Features The Stones’ Brian Jones on ocarina. No shit.

‘Don’t Let Me Down’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

Louche and languid (read: almost certainly on heroin by now), Lennon’s plea to Yoko flits between the vulnerable, optimistic, lovestruck and desperate. Find yourself someone who “does” you like Yoko “done” John.

‘Girl’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

Melding Greek and German music into a mournful mood piece, Lennon pointed the way to The Beatles’ more sophisticated latter period with ‘Girl’, probably the best song ever to have a chorus that’s mostly just inhaling.

‘Dig A Pony’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

One of the more inventive and engaging blues numbers the band worked up for ‘Let It Be’, not least because of Lennon’s acid-fried lyrics. Just exactly how one does “a roadhog” or “syndicate[s] any boat you row” remains unspecified.

‘Things We Said Today’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Idyllic strumbler penned by Paul on a yacht called Happy Days in the Virgin Islands with glamorous new girlfriend Jane Asher. And sounds like it.

‘Do You Want To Know A Secret’ (‘Please Please Me’, 1963)

Inspired by a song from Snow White And The Seven Dwarves, which John’s mother used to sing to him as a child, the strength of ‘Do You Want To Know A Secret’ was in its childlike simplicity and coy teen naivety.

‘Baby’s In Black’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

Hoedown homage so gorgeous it’ll give you an ounce of sympathy for a man trying to pull a hot widow while her husband isn’t yet cold in the ground.

‘The Fool On The Hill’ (‘Magical Mystery Tour’, 1967)

Flutes! Recorder solos! Meditation! The budget for the Magical Mystery Tour TV special was severely stretched when Paul allegedly decided the sequence for his wistful portrait of the Maharishi should be filmed in a beach near Nice.

‘And I Love Her’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Doe-eyed flamenco vibes abound on one of Paul’s early run-ups to ‘Yesterday’.

‘Mean Mr. Mustard’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Blur basically got their entire ‘90s out of John’s engrossing one-minute oompah tune inspired by a newspaper story of a “dirty old” miser – in real life, one John Mustard of Enfield, Middlesex – who hid his money so he wouldn’t be forced to spend it. His level of personal hygiene was unrecorded.

‘Altogether Now’ (‘Yellow Submarine’, 1969)

While ‘Yellow Submarine’ and ‘Octopus’s Garden’ were story time classics, ‘Altogether Now’’s nursery-level track easily stands up as The Beatles’ best children’s song.

‘Hello, Goodbye’ (single, 1967)

Brisk, bright-eyed and boasting one of the best pre-choruses in pop, ‘Hello, Goodbye’ would be the best single in most bands’ careers. It’s the 107th best song The Beatles wrote. That’s how great they were. Strap in: everything from here gets fucking brilliant.

‘Good Morning Good Morning’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

The Beatles did a fine line in rise-and-shine tunes, although John’s compulsive dawn chorus on ‘Sgt. Pepper…’ came with a hearty dollop of cynicism, everyday mundanity and casual adultery.

‘Another Girl’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

The Help! scene set the blueprint for The Monkees‘ entire career, as the band played this Beatlemania cracker on a beach in the Bahamas, with Paul using a bikini-clad girl as a guitar.

‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy)’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

The last song all four Beatles recorded together; you can hear the sheer weight of the occasion. At almost eight minutes and smothered in doomy textures and white noise, it would have seen John invent heavy metal if Paul hadn’t beaten him to it with ‘Helter Skelter’. Instead it invents Pink Floyd’s ‘Meddle’ and provides proof, if any were needed, that stoner rock is basically the blues on military grade tranquilisers.

‘Within You Without You’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

Probably the ultimate expression of George’s Indian immersion, ‘Within You Without You’ opened many a Western third eye to the wonders of ‘world music’ and Eastern philosophies.

‘I’m So Tired’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

When you shout for ‘Help!’ and nobody listens, this is where you end up. Tortured, wasted, exhausted and desperate. Even three weeks of solid insomnia at the Maharishi’s retreat can’t dampen Lennon’s melodic prowess, as he knocks out the perfect song for day three of the prom night that forgot to finish.

‘The End’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Masterful and historic as the climax of the ‘Abbey Road’ medley, even taken in isolation ‘The End’ is exultant mood-making, from Ringo’s drum solo to the gathering gospel storm and Paul’s thought-provoking orchestral coda.

‘Birthday’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Along with Stevie Wonder’s ‘Happy Birthday’, The Beatles’ impassioned 12-bar well-wishing – written and recorded in one night – is usually the best thing about scratching off another year on this godforsaken hellhole of a planet.

‘All I’ve Got To Do’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

A Smokey Robinson homage aimed at the US market – British teens of the ‘60s would never dream of calling a girl up “on the phone”, Lennon later claimed.

‘It’s All Too Much’ (‘Yellow Submarine’, 1969)

The sheer euphoria of George’s peak acid song, floating through a blissed-out clamour of noise rock, trumpet and disintegrating beats, makes us all yearn for the days before you’d pay 50 quid for a bag of blotting paper soaked in balsamic vinegar off the dark web.

‘Baby, You’re A Rich Man’ (B-side of ‘All You Need Is Love’, 1967; ‘Magical Mystery Tour’, 1967)

Because we’re all as loaded as Bezos inside, you dig? Sublimely funky ode to our spiritual wealth that’s still begging the decades-old question: just where in a zoo, exactly, might you stash a bag full of cash?

‘Don’t Pass Me By’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Ringo’s long underrated songwriting debut doesn’t get the credit it deserves for holding its own on ‘The White Album’. The sheer clod-hopping junk shop exuberance (unsurprising, since Ringo had been trying to get it recorded since 1962) makes it an album highlight, along with the fiddle player so drunk he doesn’t realise the song’s finished. A Number One single in Denmark – and don’t think we didn’t consider making it number one in this list too, just for the traffic.

‘She Came In Through The Bathroom Window’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Plush, proto-Wings country rocker inspired by a fan breaking into Paul’s house to steal photographs. Key to the ‘Abbey Road’ medley’s impression that the band had melodic wonders aplenty to toss into the pile.

‘Glass Onion’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Woooah! Meta… A Beatles song about The Beatles. Walruses, Strawberry Fields, Lady Madonna and the Fool on the Hill all reprise their roles in Beatles history as Lennon mocks people reading too much into the band’s lyrics to a chamber rock backing that ELO got at least three early albums out of.

‘Carry That Weight’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

It takes a certain classical majesty to slip a grand orchestral reprise of ‘You Never Give Me Your Money’ into a stonking great lad rock anthem chorus in search of a song.

‘Yes It Is’ (B-side of ‘Ticket To Ride’)

Effortlessly reinvented the blue-eyed crooner genre on a frickin’ B-side. Just try not playing it twice.

‘P.S. I Love You’ (B-side of ‘Love Me Do’, 1962; ‘Please Please Me’, 1963)

The song The Shadows would have written, had they been the world’s greatest band in the making.

‘Get Back’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

We’ve all seen it chug into life in the documentary of the same name, its simple blues strut brought to life by Billy Preston’s wild-at-heart organ. Still slaps.

‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

Pre-war nostalgia meets counterculture psychedelia explosion to landscape obliterating effect. And all, the story goes, because Paul didn’t know that the ‘S’ and ‘P’ on his in-flight meal pots stood for ‘Salt’ and ‘Pepper’.

‘Michelle’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

In Parisian mood, Paul tries out some schoolboy French to woo a continental bohemian lass. Originally written as a pastiche of a bloke singing a song in French at an art party.

‘Hey Bulldog’ (‘Yellow Submarine’, 1969)

A masterclass in rock dynamism and melodic tension, and testament to the fact that The Beatles buried genius in all corners of their catalogue, smothered in barking noises, ripe for re-evaluation.

‘Any Time At All’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Trying to write another ‘It Won’t Be Long’, Lennon came up with something a touch more mature – an early sign that The Beatles were on a fast-track out of Merseybeat, bound for somewhere rather more Dylanish.

‘Lady Madonna’ (single, 1968)

Marrying his revived interest in 1920s radio jazz (see also: ‘Martha My Dear’, ‘Honey Pie’) to a dirty ‘50s swamp blues rock’n’roll riot, McCartney imagined a gender-swapped version of Fats Domino’s working man blues rocker ‘Blue Monday’ and came up with a song that rocks until the wheels damn near come off.

‘I’m Looking Through You’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

A fine, fond farewell to the ‘old Beatles’ as they approached their giant leap. And yes, that is the riff from The Travelling Wilburys’ ‘End Of The Line’ at the start – nice recycle, George.

‘I’m A Loser’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

Considered the first sign of Dylan’s influence on The Beatles, and one of John’s early cries for help hidden beneath a storming country-pop melody.

‘I Feel Fine’ (single, 1964)

“I’ve written this song, but it’s lousy,” Lennon said to Ringo one day in the studio. We call bullshit. One of the first deliberate uses of feedback on record.

‘The Night Before’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

“Love was in your eyes, ah, the night before / Now today I find you have changed your mind.”She was pissed Paul, but at least you got a definitive slice of ‘60s pop out of it. Perfect for playing at, um, Stonehenge (if Help! is anything to go by).

‘Eight Days A Week’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

A flippant remark Paul’s chauffeur made en route to John’s house in Weybridge inspired, that very afternoon, a timeless pop demand for more weekly loving than is reasonable or realistic. But then, ‘Twice A Week Unless It’s My Birthday’ wouldn’t have been so catchy.

‘No Reply’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

While Paul was in the Virgin Islands with Ringo writing ‘Things We Said Today’, John was in Tahiti with George, knocking together this tropical tale of an unfaithful and unresponsive partner. “You’re getting better now – that was a complete story,” publisher and Beatles pantomime villain Dick James (sssss!) told John on hearing it.

‘I Should Have Known Better’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1965)

Much harmonica jollity as, with Beatlemania in full swing, John bags himself a good ‘un. Nanna probably thought it was written specifically for her.

‘With A Little Help From My Friends’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

Ringo’s finest hour. For once nobody stood up and walked out on him when he sang out this aural hug of a tune, acknowledging his eternal debt to the bandmates without whom he might be slogging the clubs with Merseybeat nostalgia acts to this day.

‘Getting Better’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

With George adding Indian tambura drones and John lumping on world-weary falsetto cynicism (“it can’t get no worse”), another of Paul’s optimistic pop bangers gained deliciously dark edges. Much of the magical frisson of The Beatles can be heard in how clearly John doesn’t want to be singing this one.

‘Honey Pie’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

We can blame the widespread malaise of ‘White Album’ fatigue for the back end of the album being under-appreciated for decades. Case in point: Macca’s utterly charming tribute to the jazz age, complete with authentically crackled gramophone clarinets.

‘I Want To Tell You’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

LSD musings and dissonant rock as George comes into his own as a rounded songwriter circa ’66.

‘It Won’t Be Long’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1963)

Effervescent call-and-response “yeah”s. Chord sequences Dylan would call “outrageous”. The promises of imminent romantic reunion. The opener of ‘With The Beatles’ is almost Fabs-by-numbers – but boy, what numbers.

‘You Never Give Me Your Money’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

If only all fractious business disputes could be argued out like this. With Paul and John looking to lose control of their stakes in their own songs, Paul penned this sublime multi-style paean to manager Allen Klein that basically boiled down to “show me the mon-aaay!”

‘For No One’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

Cracks appear in Paul’s relationship with Jane Asher; hiding in a toilet in a Swiss Alps chalet he writes a lament for “a love that should have lasted years”, his second chamber ballad for ‘Revolver’.

‘Magical Mystery Tour’ (‘Magical Mystery Tour’, 1967)

Roll up (hur-hur!) for the trip of a lifetime (pfffft!). This spaced-out rock freewheeler introduced the weirdest Christmas TV special outside of the Grumpy Cat movie. It’s essentially The Who’s ‘Tommy’ inside of three minutes.

‘You’re Going To Lose That Girl’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

Worst. Wingman. Ever. Lennon lurks at the edges of a shaky relationship waiting to pounce, with an irresistible two-minute doo-wopper between his teeth.

‘Your Mother Should Know’ (‘Magical Mystery Tour’, 1967)

Corny, sure, but McCartney’s vaudevillian Broadway high-kicker was so perfectly crafted it could make the harshest critic want to swing on a sparkly trapeze dressed as a Rockette.

‘Long, Long, Long’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Another undervalued back-end-of-‘The Beatles’ classic, in which George explores the space between drowsy serenity and stark passion and Ringo delivers a dynamic tour de force.

‘Back In The USSR’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

No political comedy Beach Boys pastiche has ever rocked so hard before or since.

‘Savoy Truffle’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

In honour of Eric Clapton’s sweet tooth, George – quite spectacularly – goes full Stax. Mmmm, crème tangerine…

‘Drive My Car’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

Named after an old blues euphemism for shagging – beep beep, and indeed, yeah – ‘Drive My Car’ finds Paul blues-rocking his way to a pretty sweet deal – lifelong partner anddesignated driver.

‘Good Day Sunshine’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

A wonderfully lightweight greet-the-dawn ditty inspired by The Kinks‘ ‘Sunny Afternoon’ and, in turn, inventing ELO‘s ‘Mr Blue Sky’.

‘Love You To’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

George’s first and finest Indian-influenced song, galloping along on compulsive tabla rhythms. Alongside ‘Strawberry Fields…’ and ‘Lucy In The Sky…’, this was the absolute epitome of the psychedelic era. Don’t, however, try to making love while singing songs. Doesn’t go down well.

‘Julia’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

The separations of the ‘White Album’ sessions allowed John to finally broach the subject of his mother in song, utilising the finger-picking style Donovan had taught him in India. “Half of what I say is meaningless, but I say it just to reach you, Julia,” he sings in stunningly intimate manner, imagining her as a siren lost to the sea.

‘Ticket To Ride’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

Said to be about the clean-health certificates received by Hamburg sex workers, ‘Ticket To Ride’ is acclaimed more for its significance than anything – here was where The Beatles left plain old Merseybeat behind to embrace Indian textures, proto-Byrdsian plushness and future-facing drumwork.

‘Day Tripper’ (single, 1965)

Increasingly dabbling with ‘secret’ drug and sex references, ‘Day Tripper’ had a pop at weekend hippies in the shape of a squeaky-clean slice of go-go ‘60s pop. I mean, look how high Ringo is in the video.

‘I’ll Follow The Sun’ (‘Beatles For Sale’, 1964)

Written by Paul at the age of 16. The 1950s clearly missed a trick in not realising there was a school kid in Liverpool surpassing all of its wistful guitar balladry.

‘Revolution’ (B-side of ‘Hey Jude’, 1968)

Delivered as an opiated, horn-blasted shoo-wop shuffle called ‘Revolution 1’ on ‘The Beatles’, the definitive version of Lennon’s most politically direct Beatles number was the ballsy strut on the flip of ‘Hey Jude’. Not saying this is whereMarc Bolan got the idea for glam rock, but, y’know…

‘Because’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Originating from John asking Yoko to play Beethoven’s ‘Moonlight Sonata’ backwards, The Beatles’ merging of Moog synthesiser, harpsichord and triple-tracked harmonies makes for one of the most magical moments of the ‘60s.

‘Please Please Me’ (‘Please Please Me’, 1963)

Second single and the first real sign of The Beatles’ devastating pop brilliance. Lennon originally conceived it as a slow-tempo ballad a la Roy Orbison’s ‘Only The Lonely’, but a more dynamic version made them superstars.

‘If I Fell’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Lennon’s first ballad attempt turned out to be a crooner masterclass.

‘Everybody’s Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Lennon sheds his psychedelic satins and rocks out – fire bells and all – around phrases learned during the Transcendental Meditation retreat – only the monkey bit wasn’t taken verbatim from the lips of the Maharishi. The monkey in question, John would later claim, was Yoko.

‘Cry Baby Cry’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Another under-appreciated side-four-of-‘The White Album’ treasure, wherein John twists the nursery rhyme ‘Sing A Song Of Sixpence’ into an eerie vaudevillian rock piece akin to Lewis Carroll going goth.

‘You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

Arguably the Beatles song showing the greatest Dylan influence – Lennon even lands one of Bob’s trademark backflipping “hey”s in the chorus – ‘You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away’ has been read as either a song about Brian Epstein’s homosexuality or Lennon’s frustration at having to keep his marriage secret.

‘You Won’t See Me’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

More Jane Asher woes from Paul, delivered like a honeymoon serenade.

‘Mother Nature’s Son’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Paul’s balladry could verge on the schmaltzy and sentimental, but the gentle, pastoral tone of this ‘White Album’ favourite about the Maharishi struck a more idyllic note.

‘Sexy Sadie’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

John’s Maharishi tribute, however, wasn’t quite so rosy. The last song he wrote at the retreat in Rishikesh, in the wake of hearing about the spiritual leader’s alleged advances on Mia Farrow, ‘Sexy Sadie’ became a sultry piano-led groover once Lennon had rewritten some of the more expletive-laden original lyrics.

‘I’ve Just Seen A Face’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

Capturing the breathlessness of love at first sight, Paul presumably sang this fantastic bluegrass frenzy while breathing through his ears.

‘I Will’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

“A complete tune,” McCartney said of one of his favourite acoustic ballads, written with Donovan’s help in Rishikesh, throwing back to the rhumba numbers they played in Hamburg and featuring John on maracas.

‘I’m Only Sleeping’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

John Lennon – “the laziest person in England”, according to friend Maureen Cleave – could even turn his lie-ins into melodic gold. Features the first backwards guitar solo in popular song.

‘Happiness Is A Warm Gun’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Instigating a new form of mainstream songwriting in the shape of the multi-sectional song (see also: ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, ‘Paranoid Android’, all prog music ever, etc.), Lennon himself separated the three parts of ‘Happiness…’ into ‘The Dirty Old Man’, ‘The Junkie’ and ‘The Gun Slinger’. All about shagging Yoko, apparently.

‘Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

John relates a luxuriantly appointed – if rather short on furniture – one-night stand gone awry to the point of casual arson, while George introduces the sitar to Western audiences.

‘She Loves You’ (single, 1963)

Cue Beatlemania! The band’s best-selling UK single and the song that launched a billion wobble-headed “woooo!”s (though Little Richard got there first).

‘Dear Prudence’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

The Beatles’ time on the ashram was one of their most productive songwriting periods, producing plenty of ‘White Album’ greats, not least John’s superlative pastoral rock plea to Mia Farrow’s sister Prudence to stop meditating for days on end.

‘From Me To You’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1963)

The sheer simplicity and familiarity of The Beatles’ early hits often makes us forget how impactful they were – ‘From Me To You’ is so embedded in the bedrock of popular culture precisely because it hit like a pop revolution, set apart from the skiffle, blues, country and croon, and behind formative rock’n’roll. Almost 60 years on, it’s still breath-taking.

‘Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

Not a drug song – I mean, what could possibly give you that idea? – Lennon’s psychedelic calling card was apparently actually inspired by a crazy painting his son Julian brought home from school. Still great on drugs, though.

‘She Said She Said’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

Definitely a drug song, John’s garbled LSD conversation with Peter Fonda, set to three different tunes and two time signatures, lay the blueprint for acid rock which the noble heads of Haight Ashbury would soon follow.

‘Taxman’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

With George, in surprise breadhead mode, slashing out acerbic chords and biting political lyrics, his song-bomb dropped on HMRC has been considered the first punk track. Certainly inspired The Jam’s ‘Start’.

‘Nowhere Man’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

Here’s another truth for you all: the Nowhere Man was John. ‘Rubber Soul’’s harmonic wonder came to him wholesale during a particularly lost and directionless morning. “I was starting to worry about him,” said Paul.

‘She’s Leaving Home’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

The true story of Melanie Coe running away from home, as read by McCartney in the Daily Mirror, and among the most touching and sophisticated ballads of all time.

‘Here, There And Everywhere’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

‘Soppy Paul’ was never more adorable than on this feather bath of a love song. If Radox made records…

‘A Hard Day’s Night’ (‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 1964)

Its opening chord stopped the world and the rest of the title track from their debut film sent it into a breakneck spin. Not bad for a song written and recorded inside a day.

‘Can’t Buy Me Love’ (single, 1964)

Getting his priorities straight early on, Paul defined The Beatles as categorically not in it for the money on their jubilant sixth single, a fact that publisher Dick James had already taken advantage of by screwing them on their contract.

‘Rain’ (B-side of ‘Paperback Writer’, 1966)

“Ja, the god of marijuana,” reportedly gifted John this immaculate piece of drone pop that came to him in a spliff stupor – the-first ever reversed section on a pop record was the result of Lennon accidentally playing his tape backwards. You pull a whitey; Lennon invents psych rock.

‘The Long And Winding Road’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

Even with Phil Spector’s syrupy Golden Age orchestra drowning the track, Paul’s grand rambling anthem remains spectacularly powerful.

‘Come Together’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Even slowing his (ahem) homage to Chuck Berry’s ‘You Can’t Catch Me’ down to a sleazy crawl couldn’t stop ‘Come Together’ garnering Lennon a lawsuit. As part of an agreement with the plaintiff, Morris Levy, he’d have to record an entire album of covers (‘Rock ‘N’ Roll’) in 1975 to shake it off. In the realm of dank blues, though, The Beatles were never better. I’d get that joo-joo eyeball looked at though, mate.

‘I Saw Her Standing There’ (‘Please Please Me’, 1963)

At the very start of their very first album, The Beatles essentially summed up all of rock’n’roll to that point, perfected it – and then swiftly moved on.

‘I Want To Hold Your Hand’ (single, 1963)

Their best-selling single worldwide and the tune that made them the One Direction of their day. Still sounds like a pop revolution in the making.

‘Helter Skelter’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Macca’s depiction of a simple fairground frolic summoned forth heavy metal; the slide must have been built over an ancient burial ground. Written to be as feral as possible in riposte to critics describing him as “the soppy one”.

‘I Am The Walrus’ (‘Magical Mystery Tour’, 1967)

Written to confuse those studying Beatles lyrics, ‘I Am The Walrus’ incorporated three Lennon songs stuck together, lines that came to him during acid trips, an old school song, George’s personal mantra from the Maharishi, references to Lewis Carroll, Hare Krishnas, Allen Ginsberg, Sergeant Pilcher of the British Police’s Drug Squad and a 16-person choir babbling nonsense. Eric Burdon of The Animals has claimed to be the Eggman.

‘Help!’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

John sang it through a smile that was more like a wince – he really was crying for help from the eye of the Beatlemania tornado – but the title track from The Fabs’ second film rattled by with such jubilance that nobody noticed. Also helped instil the belief that John and Paul were so close they could finish each other’s sentences.

‘Two Of Us’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

As The Beatles fractured and frayed during the ‘Let It Be’ sessions, it was heartening to hear Paul and John clearly at the same microphone again, homeward bound, harmonising what sounded like a Simon & Garfunkel style ode to their own friendship: “You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead…” (Spoiler: actually about Linda).

‘Let It Be’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

If ‘Julia’, Lennon’s tribute to his mother, was subdued, McCartney spared no bombast in honouring his own. He wrote her one of the greatest gospel ballads ever put to tape, following a dream in which she told him: “It will be alright. Just let it be.”

‘Penny Lane’ (single, 1967)

Describing the scenes that the young John, Paul and George would witness while waiting for buses en route to each other’s houses ‘Penny Lane’, married to its double A-side ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’, injected a childlike magic into the psychedelic era.

‘All You Need Is Love’ (single, 1967)

Simplistic by design, in order to speak most directly to the global audience of the first international TV satellite broadcast Our World, John’s definitive flower power anthem proved a striking political statement in the age of Vietnam and Cold War hostility.

‘Got To Get You Into My Life’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

An “ode to pot”, as Macca once put it, Motown rocker ‘Get To Get You Into My Life’ was another late-‘Revolver’ statement that, as a studio band, The Beatles of 1966 had discarded any concept of boundary or limitation on their music. Still two-and-a-half of their most thrilling minutes.

‘Across The Universe’ (‘Let It Be’, 1970)

John on a transcendental cosmic trip to the heart of the ‘60s. In 2008 it became the first song ever beamed into deep space when NASA played it at Polaris. Imagine the disappointment of the aliens showing up at the source only to find that LadBaby is Number One.

‘Martha My Dear’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

The best of McCartney’s tributes to the ‘20s on ‘The White Album’, thanks to a string section, marching band and a bit where it forgets itself and almost turns into a sequel to ‘Taxman’. The Martha in question, trivia fans, was Paul’s sheepdog.

‘In My Life’ (‘Rubber Soul’, 1965)

John would call ‘In My Life’ his first major work (although Paul would claim to have written the music) thanks to its reflective and philosophical tone. Inspired a spate of albums featuring harpsichords, despite the solo actually being played on piano, then sped up.

‘Golden Slumbers’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Thomas Dekker’s Elizabethan poem ‘Cradle Song’ had been set to music by four previous composers before McCartney spotted it on some of his father’s sheet music and made up his own epic lullaby to it. Not that it’s too easy to drop off to a 30-piece orchestra going full balls, mind.

‘Yesterday’ (‘Help!’, 1965)

Famously working-titled ‘Scrambled Eggs’, Paul’s most successful Beatles song ($60 million in royalties and counting) came to him in a dream; he spent two weeks playing it to music industry people to try to work out who he’d stolen it from.

‘And Your Bird Can Sing’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

Lennon dismissed the song as “throwaway”, but it’s George’s molten mercury riffs that elevate ‘And Your Bird Can Sing’ into the upper echelon of the Beatles canon. Marianne Faithfullclaimed the song was directed at Mick Jagger,whom she dated in 1966; sadly, the dates don’t match up.

‘Eleanor Rigby’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

Taking loneliness, solemnity and death to the top of the charts, ‘Eleanor Rigby’’s tender, intimate chamber balladry shifted the goalposts in terms of what a pop band could do in 1966.

‘Here Comes The Sun’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

Spotify’s most-streamed Beatles song, written by George in Eric Clapton’s garden during what was, at the time, the sunniest April on record.

‘We Can Work It Out’ (single, 1966)

Paul in optimistic mood amid his increasingly turbulent relationship with Asher, playing off against John’s more pessimistic “life is very short” middle-eight waltz. Damn near to pop perfection.

‘All My Loving’ (‘With The Beatles’, 1964)

Pop perfection, eh? The harmonies coming in on the third verse of ’All My Loving’ did for ‘60s pop what The Wizard Of Oz did for colour cinema.

‘Paperback Writer’ (single, 1966)

Feeling the pain of the world’s wannabe Barbara Cartlands, McCartney penned this fictitious open letter to a publisher, spun into harmonic gold by the staggered – and staggering – vocal intro.

‘Blackbird’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

Paul’s civil rights plea is a ‘White Album’ high-point that remains The Beatles’ most poignant and accomplished folk moment.

‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’ (‘The Beatles’, 1968)

The ascendance of George. Every bit the songwriting equal of his bandmates by ‘The White Album’, his tour-de-force was a captivating treatise on humanity’s unrealised capacity for love, topped off with Eric Clapton’s sensational, uncredited solo.

‘Something’ (‘Abbey Road’, 1969)

The Beatles’ greatest love song and second-most covered track (after ‘Yesterday’), written for Pattie Boyd and very nearly given to Joe Cocker. Elton John would call it “the song I’ve been chasing for 35 years.”

‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ (single, 1967)

Even at a time when The Beatles were crushing musical barriers at every session, ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ was among their most ground-breaking moments. Strapping two different versions of the song together, smothered in Mellotron, tape loops, Indian swarmandal and backwards tomfoolery, they forged a psychedelic masterwork that set the tone and raised the bar for the era.

‘Hey Jude’ (single, 1968)

Won’t somebody think of the children? Well, Paul did, composing The Beatles’ most rousing sing-along to comfort Julian Lennon over the break-up of his parents. Rumour has it that if you put your ear to the ground at Glastonbury’s stone circle, you can hear the “na-na-na” bit from Macca’s set in 2004 still reverberating through the leyline.

‘A Day In The Life’ (‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, 1967)

The internal universe exploded; the everyday made epic. Lennon’s ‘Sgt. Pepper…’ closer viewed a series of newspaper articles – about the death of Guinness heir Tara Browne and road repairs in Lancashire – through LSD specs and came out with a world-beating vision. Includes arguably the most famous crescendo in rock

Tomorrow Never Knows’ (‘Revolver’, 1966)

It’s possible to trace the origins of most modern music, bar rap, back to The Beatles catalogue. But ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’ was perhaps their most influential track of all. In trying to recreate the sound in Lennon’s head of monks chanting in some cosmic mountain retreat, to accompany lines cribbed from the Tibetan Book Of The Dead intended to emulate a transcendental acid high, the band experimented with loops, sampling, drone and tape manipulation, creating not just the epitome of psychedelia and exposing pop audiences to anti-materialist Eastern ideas, but effectively inventing dance music.

Turn off your mind, relax, and you can hear The Chemical Brothers before The Chemical Brothers were even born…

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 202 the BEATLES’ last song FREE AS A BIRD (Featured artist is Susan Weil )

February 15, 2018 – 1:45 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 200 George Harrison song HERE ME LORD (Featured artist is Karl Schmidt-Rottluff )

February 1, 2018 – 12:00 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 184 the BEATLES’ song REAL LOVE (Featured artist is David Hammonds )

October 5, 2017 – 1:24 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 170 George Harrison and his song MY SWEET LORD (Featured artist is Bruce Herman )

June 29, 2017 – 12:19 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 168 George Harrison’s song AWAITING ON YOU ALL Part B (Featured artist is Michelle Mackey )

June 15, 2017 – 12:39 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 167 George Harrison’s song AWAITING ON YOU Part A (Artist featured is Paul Martin)

June 8, 2017 – 12:28 am

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 133 Louise Antony is UMass, Phil Dept, “Atheists if they commit themselves to justice, peace and the relief of suffering can only be doing so out of love for the good. Atheist have the opportunity to practice perfect piety”

June 6, 2017 – 1:35 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 166 George Harrison’s song ART OF DYING (Featured artist is Joel Sheesley )

June 1, 2017 – 12:13 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 165 George Harrison’s view that many roads lead to Heaven (Featured artist is Tim Lowly)

May 25, 2017 – 12:47 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 164 THE BEATLES Edgar Allan Poe (Featured artist is Christopher Wool)

May 18, 2017 – 12:43 am

PART 163 BEATLES Breaking down the song LONG AND WINDING ROAD (Featured artist is Charles Lutyens )

May 11, 2017 – 1:18 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 162 A look at the BEATLES Breaking down the song ALL WE NEED IS LOVE Part C (Featured artist is Grace Slick)

May 4, 2017 – 1:40 am

PART 161 A look at the BEATLES Breaking down the song ALL WE NEED IS LOVE Part B (Featured artist is Francis Hoyland )

April 27, 2017 – 1:52 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 160 A look at the BEATLES Breaking down the song ALL WE NEED IS LOVE Part A (Featured artist is Shirazeh Houshiary)

April 20, 2017 – 1:00 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 159 BEATLES, Soccer player Albert Stubbins made it on SGT. PEP’S because he was sport hero (Artist featured is Richard Land)

April 13, 2017 – 12:29 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 158 THE BEATLES (breaking down the song WHY DON’T WE DO IT IN THE ROAD?) Photographer Bob Gomel featured today!

April 6, 2017 – 12:25 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 118 THE BEATLES (Why was Tony Curtis on cover of SGT PEP?) (Feature on artist Jeffrey Gibson )

June 30, 2016 – 5:35 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 117 THE BEATLES, Breaking down the song WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU Part B (Featured artist is Emma Amos )

June 23, 2016 – 1:31 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 116 THE BEATLES, Breaking down the song WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU Part A (Featured artist is Faith Ringgold)

June 16, 2016 – 1:34 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 115 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? “Take these broken wings and learn to fly” (Featured artist is Sam Gilliam )

June 9, 2016 – 7:09 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 114 BEATLES (Breaking down the psychedelic song BECAUSE, The composition of the song) (Featured artist is John Baldessari )

June 2, 2016 – 12:34 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 113 BEATLES (Breaking down the psychedelic song BECAUSE, what is the meaning of the song?) (Featured artist is Julian Stanczak )

May 26, 2016 – 12:34 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 112 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? What irrational trips did the Beatles try in order to find meaning in life? (Featured artist is David Bates )

May 19, 2016 – 8:12 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 111 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film “How should we then live?” MAKING NATURE THE MEASURE OF GOODNESS (Featured artist is Dorothea Rockburne )

May 11, 2016 – 11:06 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 110 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Part H The History of Fragmentation in Art and Music leading up to the Beatles! (Artist featured today is Robert Wagner)

May 6, 2016 – 7:55 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 109 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Part G “She (We gave her most of our lives) is leaving (Sacrificed most of our lives) home (We gave her everything money could buy) She’s leaving home after living alone” (Artist featured today is Maggi Hambling )

April 28, 2016 – 12:28 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 108 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Part F The Chance worldview of A DAY IN THE LIFE and the solution it suggests (Artist featured today is Patrick Caulfield )

April 21, 2016 – 7:00 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 107 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Was popularity of OCCULTISM in UK the reason Aleister Crowley appeared on SGT PEP cover? Schaeffer notes, “People put the Occult in the area of non-reason in the hope of some kind of meaning even if it is a horrendous kind of meaning” Part E (Artist featured today is Gerald Laing )

April 14, 2016 – 1:52 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 106 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Part D “Imagine there’s no heaven” (Artist featured today is Allen Jones)

April 7, 2016 – 4:23 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 105 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Part C “Materialism, the philosophic base for Marxist-Leninism, gives no basis for the dignity or rights of man!” (Artist featured today is Peter Findley )

March 31, 2016 – 5:18 am

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 104 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Part B “The church with its liberal theology has left a vacuum.” The Fab Four were victims of religious liberalism and as a result were constantly searching for values!! (Artist featured today is Richard Hamilton)

——

—

Trump Isn’t Only One Facing Double Standards of Justice 

Katrina Trinko  / @KatrinaTrinko / April 07, 2023

Former President Donald Trump exits Trump Tower to attend court for his arraignment on April 4, 2023 in New York City. (Photo: Noam Galai/GC Images/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Katrina Trinko@KatrinaTrinko

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal. Send an email to Katrina.

It’s not just Donald Trump who is experiencing two standards of justice in America these days. 

In a monologue last week, Tucker Carlsonhighlighted other examples of a judicial double standard.

He referred to the case of Douglass Mackey, who posted a satirical meme about voting by text message and is now facing up to 10 years in prison after being convicted by a New York state jury. Then he noted Kristina Wong, who similarly posted a meme about texting your vote, and yet has faced no legal consequences.  

Wong was a Hillary Clinton voter. Mackey was a Trump supporter. 

Another double standard? It’s hard to imagine that if protesters were regularly showing up at the homes of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Jackson Brown, there would be no prosecution. (Especially if, as happened with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of those justices had someone come to their street planning to assassinate them.) 

“Not a single person has been prosecuted for illegally harassing Supreme Court justices outside of their homes,” Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., said last month. “The reason is crystal clear: The Department of Justice has willfully chosen not to enforce federal law.”

At a hearing, “Britt said the DOJ explicitly discouraged U.S. Marshals from enforcing the law against the protesters without coordination with the relevant U.S. attorney’s office, warning that it would be ‘counterproductive’ for the marshals to make arrests on cases that the DOJ ‘will not charge and prosecute,’” reported my colleague Mary Margaret Olohan. 

The U.S. Marshals have been stationed outside Supreme Court justices’ homes in the wake of the ongoing protests.

Another key example of this judicial double standard is the enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a 1994 law intended to protect both abortion clinics and pregnancy resource centers. 

As the Justice Department website states, “The FACE Act is not about abortions. The statute protects all patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services, including pro-life pregnancy counseling services and any other pregnancy support facility providing reproductive health care.” 

But based on the numbers, the FACE Act as currently enforced is “about abortions.” 

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who is leading a group of lawmakers calling for defunding the Justice Department’s enforcement of the FACE act, noted there’s a significant disparity in the current enforcement. 

“In 2022, the FACE Act was used more than two dozen times against pro-life activists, including Mark Houck, Father Fidelis Moscinski, Lauren Handy, Herb Geraghty, and a Holocaust survivor,” wrote Roy in a letter first reported on by The Daily Signal and signed by 11 other House Republicans. “Prior to this year, the FACE Act had never been used to indict individuals related to an attack on a pro-life pregnancy center or house of worship.” 

And that’s not because pregnancy resource centers aren’t facing violence. Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, was leaked last year, there have been 83 attacks on pregnancy centers and pro-life groups, according to a Catholic Vote tracker. 

One center attacked was the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg, Virginia. 

“They had taken crowbars to almost all of our windows, two of our doors, and just shattered all of the glass,” Susan Campbell, the center’s executive director, told The Daily Signal in an interview last year. “They had spray-painted [the shapes of] coat hangers on the sidewalks, on the brick facing of the buildings, and [wrote] political things like ‘Vote blue.’ In red on the stamped concrete, it read ‘If abortion ain’t safe, you ain’t safe.’”  

Yet there have only been four arrests made for the attacks on all pregnancy resource centers, suggesting either that those attacking the pregnancy centers are criminal masterminds, or, more plausibly, it’s a low priority for the Justice Department to track down and charges these individuals.  

That’s not OK. 

Our justice system is supposed to enforce the law without fear or favor, not promote a particular agenda. 

What’s happened to Trump is just the most prominent example of the justice system’scorruption. It’s not an exception to the rule, but an arrest that highlights a very concerning pattern.

Parents Lose Appeal for Custody of Teen Identifying as Transgender, Told They Can’t Discuss Gender Identity With Child Outside of Therapy

Joshua Arnold  / October 27, 2022

The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a trial court decision removing a 17-year-old minor from the custody of his parents for their refusal to affirm him in a female gender identity. Pictured: the Indiana Capitol building. (Photo: Rudy Balasko/ Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Joshua Arnold

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

The Court of Appeals of Indiana on Friday affirmed a trial court decision removing a 17-year-old minor from the custody of his parents for their refusal to affirm him in a female gender identity. The case displays the messy, personal qualities in a gender identity crisis, as well as the disastrous implications of permitting the transgender ideology to gain a foothold in law.

In May 2021, the Indiana Department of Child Services “received a report alleging that Mother was verbally and emotionally abusing then-sixteen-year-old Child by using rude and demeaning language toward Child regarding Child’s transgender identity” (the court used “Mother” and “Child” in place of proper names to protect the minor’s anonymity).

These are serious accusations. But, in an age where some people believe that “misgendering” is a fireable offense, it’s prudent to examine whether the substance of any such charge matches its interpretation. 

The Court of Appeals reproduced only one of the mother’s remarks, which we may take as the most extreme. The mother said, “[Child’s preferred name] is the b—- that killed my son.” Wow. That’s a severe sentiment. At the very least, we could say it’s not a model for how parents should strive to respond when their child “comes out” to them.

But is it abusive? An increasing proportion of Americans, including those in positions of power, would say yes. 

The trial court agreed that the child was a “child in need of services” (CHINS) due to the parent’s actions and removed him from their custody. The Indiana Department of Child Services had argued in court that “Child’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the Parents’ neglect” (CHINS-1) and “due to injury by the Parents’ acts or omissions” (CHINS-2).

Here’s a different interpretation of what happened. The parents were (probably still are) overwrought, paralyzed with grief. They had tried their best in the 18 short years their son lived under their roof to train him to be a man. Now, he had thrown away 16 of those years, telling his parents, “Actually, I’m a girl now. Those 16 years of memories you made with your precious boy were all a lie.” 

No one ever talks about the emotional trauma parents endure when their kids stab them in the back like this; our culture cares way more about the “emotional abuse” the child might endure from parents who continue to lovingly train them despite their rebellion.

It’s not difficult to understand how these parents said things they shouldn’t have. Upset, grief-stricken people are liable to utter rash words they later regret. In fact, “If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body” (James 3:2). 

Unfortunately, families often bear the brunt of unkind words, since they are the ones around when people are off their guard. Without endorsing rash words, we should recognize that they are all too common—even expected in a world peopled with fallen sinners.

It seems, at some point, the Indiana Department of Child Services realized it had a weak case. It added another petition arguing that the child was in need of services because “the Child substantially endangers the Child’s own health” (CHINS-6). 

The court explained, “Child had lost ‘a significant amount of weight,’ Child was throwing away and hiding food and neglecting to eat full meals.” A clinical neuropsychologist “diagnosed Child with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, parent-child relationship problem, and gender dysphoria.” 

Before a November 2021 hearing, “the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement that DCS would dismiss the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, unsubstantiate and expunge the record of any reports related to the Parents, and proceed under the CHINS-6 statute.” 

Essentially, the Department of Child Services abandoned its original line of attack and created a whole new strategy.

Based upon what has happened since, it appears that the department’s pivot duped the parents and their legal team. The government agreed to drop the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, that parental misconduct put the child at risk, in favor of a CHINS-6 allegation, that the child was a risk to himself. 

That seems like great news for the parents, so they didn’t object. However, they did not regain custody of their child. When they appealed, the court dismissed the question as moot because the parents did not object to the CHINS-6 declaration. It’s not obvious why their failure to object rendered the question moot, and they clearly didn’t believe it was so, or they wouldn’t have appealed.

It seems the trial court was attempting to weave together taking the child out of the parents’ custody but not blaming them for it—two incompatible fabrics. It identified “a [nexus] between this discord about the lifestyle and the medical issues” (brackets in original). Nexus is an obscure synonym for “connection,” used here to obscure the issue. 

The court implies that the parents’ religious beliefs caused the child’s other medical issues, while abstaining from saying so outright, which would be an accusation. While claiming neutrality, “not taking any issue with the child’s views or the parent[s’] views,” the court subtly imputes blame to the parents’ religious beliefs by alleging an undefined “nexus” between them and their child’s medical issues.

But Jennifer Bauwens, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Family Studies, refuted that alleged connection. 

“People who identify as transgender have many more issues than just gender dysphoria,” whether they are affirmed or not, she said. “People who are ideologically driven on this matter want us to think that one of the reasons why people have all these other mental health issues is what’s called the Minority Stress Framework, which means society doesn’t accept you.” But she said that argument is undercut by the fact that many minority groups are far less likely to harm themselves than people who identity as transgender.

Instead, clinicians “should be looking for what is contributing to the gender dysphoria,” Bauwens proposed. Those other mental health issues “merit a clinical exploration. But if someone comes and says, ‘Gender dysphoria is my issue,’ then everything else gets set aside, and there’s no room to get at the root issues.” 

The real problem, Bauwens added, is that “counseling has become so politicized. Gender dysphoria has become the root issue for some psychologists, and those other issues are going to be secondary to anything that presents in the realm of gender dysphoria.” 

It’s possible these Indiana parents had encountered a counselor with just such a bias. Per the court, “Child had been in therapy, but the Parents had discontinued it.” If it were my child, I would discontinue it, too, if it were a type of therapy likely to do more harm than good.

After poorly concealing its illogical decision, the court went on to reject all the parents’ claims regarding fundamental rights. First was parental rights, which the court acknowledged and then overruled. “A parent has a fundamental right to raise his or her child without undue influence by the state,” it justly acknowledged. However, it added, “the State has a compelling interest in protecting Child’s welfare.” That statement itself is less problematic than the reason it gave for it, “the unchallenged CHINS-6 adjudication.” 

Did the parents know they were effectively signing away their parental rights by refusing to challenge it? Are fundamental rights so flimsy that they can be sacrificed to a legal loophole? This case raises concerning questions.

Next, the court steamrolled the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The parents refused to use their child’s preferred pronouns “based on their sincerely held religious beliefs,” and the court never objects to those on the surface. Rather, the child was taken from the home “based on Child’s medical and psychological needs and not on the Parents’ disagreement with Child’s transgender identity.” Yet the court found a “nexus between this discord about the lifestyle and the medical issues,” so the parents’ religious beliefs were ultimately the reason. 

The court takes away their child because of their religious beliefs, just like it would if it were because they were guilty of gross negligence or abuse; the court then denies this action is a punishment, or that it is based on their religious beliefs. The court demonstrates so much talent for verbal gymnastics it could create oceanfront plats in Arizona.

To add insult to injury, the court even squelched the parents’ freedom of speech, forbidding the parents “from discussing Child’s transgender identity during visitation,” but they could discuss it in family therapy. Once again, it grounded its reasoning in the claim that “Child’s eating disorder and self-isolation were connected to the discord at home regarding Child’s transgender identity” (at least it forsook “nexus”)—which, again, is code for, “We think it’s the parents’ fault.” 

The court of appeals further explained that private speech deserves less protection from the First Amendment than public speech and, under Indiana case law, that permits courts to restrict parents from discussing topics of disagreement with their children.

At least four implications follow from this shallow dismissal of the right to free speech.

First, this seems patently unhealthy. Parents and teens don’t have space to construct a healthy relationship with an elephant in the room. 

Second, this appears to be a further encroachment on parental authority. If courts can dictate off-limit topics to parents, how can parents maintain the authority to direct the upbringing of the children? 

Third, surely children can game the system. If they can figure out how to exploit differences between mother and father, two people who have learned to live together for years on end, surely children are clever enough to exploit differences between parents and state in the adversarial environment of a courtroom.

Fourth and most important, matters of identity are too important to be restricted. Unlike disputes over bedtime, music volume, carpooling, and homework (purely private matters), discussions of identity are fundamental to who we are as human beings and how we relate to one another. This is why they so frequently become public matters (as the culture war skirmishes in states nationwide illustrate). 

Never is this more important to discuss than in the teenage years, shortly before an adolescent leaves home. They desperately need a solid grounding in their own identity, and no one is better suited than parents to help them attain this. In fact, this is one of the chief responsibilities of parents in those final years before their children fly the coop. For the state to positively ban parents from carrying out this vital function does a disservice not only to the parents, but to the child as well.

Why has The Washington Stand chosen to highlight this sad situation and messy legal setback? Conservative media has often highlighted religious freedom victories, featuring the most accomplished legal teams representing clients of impeccable integrity. But by definition, not everyone can expect above-average outcomes. Everyone has flaws and a legal spotlight often exposes them. 

This situation, featuring imperfect parents trying to care for their struggling teen and imperfect lawyers trying to represent them, paints a far more realistic portrait for the legal struggles ordinary families will face as the transgender tidal wave sweeps away everything in its path.

Just this month, a Virginia state delegate planned to reintroduce legislation that would take children who identify as transgender away from non-affirming parents by criminalizing the parents’ refusal to affirm their child’s preferred gender (she later backtracked after criticism). Meanwhile, in Indiana, courts and social workers are obtaining the same outcome under existing law. 

Progressives are clear about their legislative objectives, but by twisting a few definitions, the present legal structure can suit them just fine. “This is not even a slippery slope; it’s a cliff—that we would have ideological removals of children from their parents,” Bauwens warned.

And remember, we aren’t talking about a progressive stronghold here; this is Indiana. If this could happen in the Hoosier State without any changes to the law, then parents in any red pocket of the country could find themselves at risk.

There is no “live and let live” with the transgender ideology. Inflamed with its conquests, it rushes imperiously on to more. It’s targeting children, and it won’t allow parents to stand in its way. The only sound strategy of resistance is to cut off the head of the snake. 

We must argue—patiently, persistently, persuasively, and powerfully—that any gender identity contradicting the biological reality of a person’s genetically determined sex is fiction, a mental delusion that must be treated, not coddled.

Originally published in The Washington Stand

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. 

i have read articles for years from Dan Barker, but recently I just finished the book Barker wrote entitled LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which was prompted by Rick Warren’s book PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE which I also read several years ago.

Dan Barker is the  Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, And co-host of Freethought Radio and co-founder of The Clergy Project.

On March 19, 2022, I got an email back from Dan Barker that said:

Thanks for the insights.

Have you read my book Life Driven Purpose? To say there is no purpose OF life is not to say there is no purpose IN life. Life is immensely meaningful when you stop looking for external purpose.

Ukraine … we’ll, we can no longer blame Russian aggression on “godless communism.” The Russian church, as far as I know, has not denounced the war.

db

—

In the next few weeks I will be discussing the book LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which I did enjoy reading. Here is an assertion that Barker makes that I want to discuss:

Think about sexuality. The bible says that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). It is assumed that Adam and Eve were heterosexual, because they were commanded to “replenish the earth.” Jesus made the same assumption: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (This is also sexist, from the male point of view.)

Sexiest? Sounds like you are modern day woke and you will end up turning on your buddy Richard Dawkins?

TRANSGENDERISM SEEN BELOW

——

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

——

——

I was referred this fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION by a tweet by Daniel Dennett.

As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979). Actually I just attended the retirement party held for my high school Bible teacher Mark Brink of EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL of Cordova, Tennessee on May 19th and he introduced me to the works of Francis Schaeffer and it was Schaeffer’s works that eventually help topple ROE v WADE!!! Ironically Mr Brink had a 49 year career that spanned 1973 to 2022 which was the same period that ROE v WADE survived!!!

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

Let me make a few points about this fine article below by the humanist Robyn E. Blumner. 

Robyn is trying to use common sense on people that “GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind.” Romans 1 states:

²⁸ And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, ²⁹ being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,

Identitarianism Is Incompatible with Humanism

Robyn E. Blumner

From: Volume 42, No. 4
June/July 2022

Share

Tweet

Identitarian: A person or ideology that espouses that group identity is the most important thing about a person, and that justice and power must be viewed primarily on the basis of group identity rather than individual merit. (Source: Urban Dictionary)

“The Affirmations of Humanism”: We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity and strive to work together for the common good of humanity. (Paul Kurtz, Free Inquiry, Spring 1987)

The humanist project is at a dangerous crossroads. I fear that our cohesion as fellow humanists is being torn apart by a strain of identitarianism that is making enemies of long-standing friends and opponents of natural allies.

Just at a time when it is essential for all of us to come together to work arm-in-arm against Christian Nationalism and the rise of religious privilege in law, humanism is facing a schism within its own movement. It is heartbreaking to watch and even more disheartening to know that the continued breach seems destined to grow.

The division has to do with a fundamental precept of humanism, that enriching human individuality and celebrating the individual is the basis upon which humanism is built. Humanism valorizes the individual—and with good reason; we are each the hero of our own story. Not only is one’s individual sovereignty more essential to the humanist project than one’s group affiliation, but fighting for individual freedom—which includes freedom of conscience, speech, and inquiry—is part of the writ-large agenda of humanism. It unleashes creativity and grants us the breathing space to be agents in our own lives.

Or at least that idea used to be at the core of humanism.

Today, there is a subpart of humanists, identitarians, who are suspicious of individuals and their freedoms. They do not want a free society if it means some people will use their freedom to express ideas with which they disagree. They see everything through a narrow affiliative lens of race, gender, ethnicity, or other demographic category and seek to shield groups that they see as marginalized by ostensible psychic harms inflicted by the speech of others.

This has given rise to a corrosive cultural environment awash in controversial speakers being shouted down on college campuses; even liberal professors and newspaper editors losing their jobs for tiny, one-off slights; the cancellation of great historical figures for being men of their time; and a range of outlandish claims of microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and other crimes against current orthodoxy.

It has pitted humanists who stand for foundational civil liberties principles such as free speech and equal protection under the law against others on the political Left who think individual freedoms should give way when they fail to serve the interests of select identity groups. The most important feature of the symbol of justice is not her sword or scales; it is her blindfold. Identitarians would pull it off so she could benefit certain groups over others.

Good people with humanist hearts have been pilloried if they don’t subscribe to every jot and tittle of the identitarian gospel. A prime example is the decision last year by the American Humanist Association (AHA) to retract its 1996 award to Richard Dawkins as Humanist of the Year. The man who has done more than anyone alive to advance evolutionary biology and the public’s understanding of that science, who has brought the light of atheism to millions of people, and whose vociferous opposition to Donald Trump and Brexit certainly must have burnished his liberal cred became radioactive because of one tweet on transgender issues that the AHA didn’t like.

Apparently decades of past good works are erased by 280 characters. Just poof. No wonder a New York Times poll¹ recently found that 84 percent of adults say it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

This is what identitarians have wrought. Rather than lifting up individuals and imbuing them with autonomy and all the extraordinary uniqueness that flows from it, identitarians would divide us all into racial,  ethnic,  and  gender-based groups and make that group affiliation our defining characteristic. This has the distorting effect of obliterating personal agency, rewarding group victimhood, and incentivizing competition to be seen as the most oppressed.

In addition to being inherently divisive, this is self-reinforcing defeatism. It results in extreme examples, such as a draft plan in California to deemphasize calculus as a response to persistent racial gaps in math achievement.² Suddenly a subject as racially neutral as math has become a flashpoint for identitarians set on ensuring equality of outcomes for certain groups rather than the far-more just standard of equality of opportunity. In this freighted environment, reducing the need for rigor and eliminating challenging standards becomes a feasible solution. The notion of individual merit or recognition that some students are better at math than others becomes racially tinged and suspect.

Not only does the truth suffer under this assault on common sense, but we start to live in a Harrison Bergeron world where one’s natural skills are necessarily sacrificed on the altar of equality or, in today’s parlance, equity.

Of course, the identitarians’ focus is not just on racial issues. Gender divisions also play out on center stage. I was at a secular conference recently when a humanist leader expressed the view that if you don’t have a uterus, you have no business speaking about abortion.

Really? Only people with female reproductive organs should be heard on one of the most consequential issues of the day? Such a call, itself, is a form of lamentable sexism. And it seems purposely to ignore the fact that plenty of people with a uterus are actively opposed to the right to choose, while plenty of people without a uterus are among our greatest allies for abortion rights. Why should those of us who care about reproductive freedom cut fully half of all humanity from our roster of potential vocal supporters and activists?

As has been said by others perplexed and disturbed by such a narrow-minded view, you don’t have to be poor to have a valid opinion on ways to alleviate poverty. You don’t have to be a police officer to have a valid opinion on policing. And, similarly, you don’t have to be a woman to have a valid opinion on abortion rights.

If the Affirmation quoted at the beginning of this article that rejects “divisive parochial loyalties” based on facile group affiliations isn’t a rejection of identitarianism, I don’t know what is. In his 1968 essay “Humanism and the Freedom of the Individual,” Kurtz stated bluntly:

Any humanism that does not cherish the individual, I am prepared to argue, is neither humanistic nor humanitarian. … Any humanism worthy of the name should be concerned with the preservation of the individual personality with all of its unique idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. We need a society in which the full and free development of every individual is the ruling principle. The existence of individual freedom thus is an essential condition for the social good and a necessary end of humanitarianism.

The individual is the most important unit in humanism. When our individuality is stripped away so we can be fitted into prescribed identity groups instead, something essential to the humanist project is lost. Those pushing for this conception of society are misconstruing humanism, diminishing human potential and self-actualization, and driving a wedge between good people everywhere.

Notes

1. The New York Times/Siena College Research Institute February 9–22, 2022 1,507 United States Residents Age 18+. Available online at https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/free-speech-poll-nyt-and-siena-college/ef971d5e78e1d2f9/full.pdf.

Jacey Fortin, “California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash,” New York Times, November 4, 2021. Available online at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html.

Robyn E. Blumner

Robyn E. Blumner is the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason &, Science. She was a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) for sixteen years.

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER LGBTQ+ SCHISM

—-

Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.

Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur

–

A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:

²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…²⁶ For this reason ^(M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, ²⁷ and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.²⁸ And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, ²⁹ being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; ³² but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions

‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee

By Jessica Chasmar | Fox News

A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”

“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.

“Yes,” Arrambide replied.

The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)

“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”

“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)

“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”

“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.

“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.

“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.

“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.

Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…

First is what Romans says:

Romans 1:18-32

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Unbelief and Its Consequences

¹⁸ For ^(A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who ^(B)suppress the truth ^[a]in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because ^(C)that which is known about God is evident ^[b]within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For ^(D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, ^(E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not ^[c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became ^(F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ^22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and ^(H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and ^[d]crawling creatures.

²⁴ Therefore ^(I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be ^(J)dishonored among them. ²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for ^[e]a ^(K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, ^(L)who is blessed ^[f]forever. Amen.

²⁶ For this reason ^(M)God gave them over to ^(N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is ^[g]unnatural, ²⁷ and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, ^(O)men with men committing ^[h]indecent acts and receiving in ^[i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

²⁸ And just as they did not see fit ^[j]to acknowledge God any longer, ^(P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, ²⁹ being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are ^(Q)gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, ^[k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, ^(S)disobedient to parents, ³¹ without understanding, untrustworthy, ^(T)unloving, unmerciful; ³² and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of ^(U)death, they not only do the same, but also ^(V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!

God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation

Helen Pashgian on Georges de La Tour | Artists on Art

FEATURED ARTIST IS DE LA TOUR

GEORGES DE LA TOUR (1593-1652)

The influence of Caravaggio is evident in De la Tour, whose use of light and shadows is unique among the painters of the Baroque era.

—

Francis Schaeffer

How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 7 | The Age of Non-Reason

How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 8 | The Age of Fragmentation

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human…

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 4 | The Basis for Human D…

1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaefer

Related posts:

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part F “Carl Sagan’s views on how God should try and contact us” includes film “The Basis for Human Dignity”

April 8, 2013 – 7:07 am

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

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

Carl Sagan v. Nancy Pearcey

March 18, 2013 – 9:11 am

On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Adrian Rogers, Atheists Confronted, Current Events|TaggedBen Parkinson, Carl Sagan|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

May 24, 2012 – 1:47 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists Confronted, Current Events, President Obama|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

May 23, 2012 – 1:43 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists Confronted, Current Events, President Obama|Edit|Comments (0)

Carl Sagan versus RC Sproul

January 9, 2012 – 2:44 pm

At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Adrian Rogers, Atheists Confronted, Current Events, Francis Schaeffer|Tagged Bill Elliff, Carl Sagan, Jodie Foster, RC Sproul|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)jh68

November 8, 2011 – 12:01 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ This is a review I did a few years ago. THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists Confronted, Current Events|Edit|Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

November 4, 2011 – 12:57 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I was really enjoyed this review of Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot.” Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists Confronted, Current Events|Edit|Comments (0)

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died jh47

May 19, 2011 – 10:30 am

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Atheists Confronted|Edit|Comments (2)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 18 “Michelangelo’s DAVID is the statement of what humanistic man saw himself as being tomorrow” (Feature on artist Paul McCarthy)

April 25, 2014 – 8:26 am

In this post we are going to see that through the years  humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic.   In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer|Tagged David Leeds, J.I.PACKER, Joe Carter, Massimiliano Gioni, Michelangelo, Michelangelo’s DAVID, Michelangelo’s Florence Pietà, Paul McCarthy, Renaissance, Rick Pearcey, Rush Limbaugh, Tony Bartolucci|Edit|Comments (0)

Was Antony Flew the most prominent atheist of the 20th century?

April 25, 2014 – 1:59 am

_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Current

—

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

—-

A Major Victory for Students in Florida

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

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

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

• Iowa has approved statewide school choice
• Utah has approved statewide school choice
• Arkansas has approved statewide school choice

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

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

Their bad year just got much worse.

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

Here’s some of the coverage from Tampa.

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

And here’s a report from Orlando.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milton Friedman – Educational Vouchers

Censorship, School Libraries, Democracy, and Choice

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

• Assuming courts are doing their job, it doesn’t matterif 90 percent of voters support restrictions on free speech.
• Assuming courts are doing their job, it doesn’t matter if 90 percent of voters support gun confiscation.
• Assuming courts are doing their job, it doesn’t matter if 90 percent of voters support warrantless searches.

That being said, a constitutional republic is a democratic form of government. And if government is staying within proper boundaries, political decisions should be based on majority rule, as expressed through elections.

In some cases, that will lead to decisions I don’t like. For instance, the (tragic) 16th Amendment gives the federal government the authority to impose an income tax and voters repeatedly have elected politicians who have opted to exercise that authority.

Needless to say, I will continue my efforts to educate voters and lawmakers in hopes that eventually there will be majorities that choose a different approach. That’s how things should work in a properly functioning democracy.

But not everyone agrees.

A report in the New York Times, authored by Elizabeth Harris and Alexandra Alter, discusses the controversy over which books should be in the libraries of government schools.

The Keller Independent School District, just outside of Dallas, passed a new rule in November: It banned books from its libraries that include the concept of gender fluidity. …recently, the issue has been supercharged by a rapidly growing and increasingly influential constellation of conservative groups.The organizations frequently describe themselves as defending parental rights. …“This is not about banning books, it’s about protecting the innocence of our children,” said Keith Flaugh, one of the founders of Florida Citizens Alliance, a conservative group focused on education… The restrictions, said Emerson Sykes, a First Amendment litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union, infringe on students’ “right to access a broad range of material without political censorship.” …In Florida, parents who oppose book banning formed the Freedom to Read Project.

As indicated by the excerpt, some people are very sloppy with language.

If a school decides not to buy a certain book for its library, that is not a “book ban.” Censorship only exists when the government uses coercion to prevent people from buying books with their own money.

As I wrote earlier this year, “The fight is not over which books to ban. It’s about which books to buy.”

And this brings us back to the issue of democracy.

School libraries obviously don’t have the space or funds to stock every book ever published, so somebody has to make choices. And voters have the ultimate power to make those choices since they elect school boards.

I’ll close by noting that democracy does not please everyone. Left-leaning parents in Alabama probably don’t always like the decisions of their school boards,just like right-leaning parents in Vermont presumably don’t always like the decisions of their school boards.

And the same thing happens with other contentious issues, such as teaching critical race theory.

Which is why school choice is the best outcome. Then, regardless of ideology, parents can choose schools that have the curriculum (and books) that they think will be best for their children.

P.S. If you want to peruse a genuine example of censorship, click here.

More Academic Evidence for School Choice

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

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

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

In a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Professors David N. Figlio, Cassandra M.D. Hart & Krzysztof Karbownikfound that school choice led to benefits even for kids who remained stuck in government schools.

They enjoyed better academic outcomes, which is somewhat surprising, but even I was pleasantly shocked to see improved behavioral outcomes as well.

School choice programs have been growing in the United States and worldwide over the past two decades, and thus there is considerable interest in how these policies affect students remaining in public schools. …the evidence on the effects of these programs as they scale up is virtually non-existent. Here, we investigate this question using data from the state of Florida where, over the course of our sample period, the voucher program participation increased nearly seven-fold.We find consistent evidence that as the program grows in size, students in public schools that faced higher competitive pressure levels see greater gains from the program expansion than do those in locations with less competitive pressure. Importantly, we find that these positive externalities extend to behavioral outcomes— absenteeism and suspensions—that have not been well-explored in prior literature on school choice from either voucher or charter programs. Our preferred competition measure, the Competitive Pressure Index, produces estimates implying that a 10 percent increase in the number of students participating in the voucher program increases test scores by 0.3 to 0.7 percent of a standard deviation and reduces behavioral problems by 0.6 to 0.9 percent. …Finally, we find that public school students who are most positively affected come from comparatively lower socioeconomic background, which is the set of students that schools should be most concerned about losing under the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program.

It’s good news that competition from the private sector produces better results in government schools.

But it’s great news that those from disadvantaged backgrounds disproportionately benefit when there is more school choice.

Wonkier readers will enjoy Figure A2, which shows the benefits to regular kids on the right and disadvantaged kids on the left.

Since the study looked at results in Florida, I’ll close by observing that Florida is ranked #1 for education freedom and ranked #3 for school choice.

P.S. Here’s a video explaining the benefits of school choice.

P.P.S. There’s international evidence from Sweden, Chile, Canada, and the Netherlands, all of which shows superior results when competition replaces government education monopolies.

———-

Milton Friedman chose the emphasis on school choice and school vouchers as his greatest legacy and hopefully the Supreme Court will help that dream see a chance!

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

The case for school choice is very straightforward.

• Monopoly government school systems cost a lot of moneyand do a bad job.The interests of the education bureaucracy rank higherthan the educational needs of kids. Poor families are especially disadvantaged.
• School choice puts parents in charge. Lots of evidence, including from overseas, shows choice improves educational outcomes. And private schools cost less, so taxpayers also win.

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

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

But 2022 may be a good year as well. That’s because the Supreme Court is considering whether to strike down state laws that restrict choice by discriminating against religious schools.

Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and Walter Womack of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference make the case for a level playing field in a column for the New York Times.

In 2002, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows school choice programs to include schools that provide religious instruction, so long as the voucher program also offers secular options. The question now before the court is whether a state may nevertheless exclude schools that provide religious instruction. The case, Carson v. Makin, …concerns Maine’s tuition assistance program. In that large and sparsely populated state, over half of the school districts have no public high schools. If a student lives in such a district, and it does not contract with another high school to educate its students, then the district must pay tuition for the student to attend the school of her or his parents’ choice. …But one type of school is off limits: a school that provides religious instruction. That may seem unconstitutional, and we argue that it is. Only last year, the Supreme Court, citing the free exercise clause of the Constitution, held that states cannot bar students in a school choice program from selecting religious schools when it allows them to choose other private schools. …The outcome will be enormously consequential for families in public schools that are failing them and will go a long way toward determining whether the most disadvantaged families can exercise the same control over the education of their children as wealthier citizens.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized on this issue earlier this week.

Maine has one of the country’s oldest educational choice systems, a tuition program for students who live in areas that don’t run schools of their own. Instead these families get to pick a school, and public funds go toward enrollment. Religious schools are excluded, however, and on Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear from parents who have closely read the First Amendment.…Maine argues it isn’t denying funds based on the religious “status” of any school… The state claims, rather, that it is merely refusing to allocate money for a “religious use,” specifically, “an education designed to proselytize and inculcate children with a particular faith.” In practice, this distinction between “status” and “use” falls apart. Think about it: Maine is happy to fund tuition at an evangelical school, as long as nothing evangelical is taught. Hmmm. …A state can’t subsidize tuition only for private schools with government-approved values, and trying to define the product as “secular education” gives away the game. …America’s Founders knew what they were doing when they wrote the First Amendment to protect religious “free exercise.”

What does the other side say?

Rachel Laser, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, doesn’t want religious schools to be treated equally under school choice programs.

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

…two sets of parents in Maine claim that the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom actually requires the state to fund religious education at private schools with taxpayer dollars — as a substitute for public education. This interpretation flips the meaning of religious freedom on its head and threatens both true religious freedom and public education.…The problem here is even bigger than public funds paying for praying, as wrong as that is. Unlike public schools, private religious schools often do not honor civil rights protections, especially for LGBTQ people, women, students with disabilities, religious minorities and the nonreligious. …If the court were to agree with the parents, it would also be rejecting the will of three-quarters of the states, which long ago enacted clauses in their state constitutions and passed statutes specifically prohibiting public funding of religious education. …It is up to parents and religious communities to educate their children in their faith. Publicly funded schools should never serve that purpose.

These arguments are not persuasive.

The fact that many state constitutions include so-called Blaine amendments actually undermines her argument since those provisions were motivated by a desire to discriminate against parochial schools that provided education to Catholic immigrants.

And it’s definitely not clear why school choice shouldn’t include religious schools that follow religious teachings, unless she also wants to argue that student grants and loans shouldn’t go to students at Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Liberty, and other religiously affiliated colleges.

The good news is that Ms. Laser’s arguments don’t seem to be winning. Based on this report from yesterday’s Washington Post, authored by Robert Barnes, there are reasons to believe the Justices will make the right decision.

Conservatives on the Supreme Court seemed…critical of a Maine tuition program that does not allow public funds to go to schools that promote religious instruction. The case involves an unusual program in a small state that affects only a few thousand students. But it could have greater implications… The oral argument went on for nearly two hours and featured an array of hypotheticals. …But the session ended as most suspected it would, with the three liberal justices expressing support for Maine and the six conservatives skeptical that it protected religious parents from unconstitutional discrimination.

I can’t resist sharing this additional excerpt about President Biden deciding to side with teacher unions instead of students.

The Justice Department switched its position in the case after President Biden was inaugurated and now supports Maine.

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

Instead, let’s close with some uplifting thoughts about what might happen if we get a good decision from the Supreme Court when decisions are announced next year.

Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I think we’re getting close to a tipping point. As more and more states and communities shift to choice, we will have more and more evidence that it’s a win-win for both families and taxpayers.

Which will lead to more choice programs, which will produce more helpful data.

Lather, rinse, repeat. No wonder the (hypocritical) teacher unionsare so desperate to stop progress.

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Kerry McDonald

EducationMilton FriedmanSchool ChoiceSchooling

Libertarians and others are often torn about school choice. They may wish to see the government schooling monopoly weakened, but they may resist supporting choice mechanisms, like vouchers and education savings accounts, because they don’t go far enough. Indeed, most current choice programs continue to rely on taxpayer funding of education and don’t address the underlying compulsory nature of elementary and secondary schooling.

Skeptics may also have legitimate fears that taxpayer-funded education choice programs will lead to over-regulation of previously independent and parochial schooling options, making all schooling mirror compulsory mass schooling, with no substantive variation.

Friedman Challenged Compulsory Schooling Laws

Milton Friedman had these same concerns. The Nobel prize-winning economist is widely considered to be the one to popularize the idea of vouchers and school choice beginning with his 1955 paper, “The Role of Government in Education.” His vision continues to be realized through the important work of EdChoice, formerly the Friedman Foundation for Education Choice, that Friedman and his economist wife, Rose, founded in 1996.

July 31 is Milton Friedman’s birthday. He died in 2006 at the age of 94, but his ideas continue to have an impact, particularly in education policy.

Friedman saw vouchers and other choice programs as half-measures. He recognized the larger problems of taxpayer funding and compulsion, but saw vouchers as an important starting point in allowing parents to regain control of their children’s education. In their popular book, Free To Choose, first published in 1980, the Friedmans wrote:

We regard the voucher plan as a partial solution because it affects neither the financing of schooling nor the compulsory attendance laws. We favor going much farther. (p.161)

They continued:

The compulsory attendance laws are the justification for government control over the standards of private schools. But it is far from clear that there is any justification for the compulsory attendance laws themselves. (p. 162)

The Friedmans admitted that their “own views on this have changed over time,” as they realized that “compulsory attendance at schools is not necessary to achieve that minimum standard of literacy and knowledge,” and that “schooling was well-nigh universal in the United States before either compulsory attendance or government financing of schooling existed. Like most laws, compulsory attendance laws have costs as well as benefits. We no longer believe the benefits justify the costs.” (pp. 162-3)

Still, they felt that vouchers would be the essential starting point toward chipping away at monopoly mass schooling by putting parents back in charge. School choice, in other words, would be a necessary but not sufficient policy approach toward addressing the underlying issue of government control of education.

Vouchers as a First Step

In their book, the Friedmans presented the potential outcomes of their proposed voucher plan, which would give parents access to some or all of the average per-pupil expenditures of a child enrolled in public school. They believed that vouchers would help create a more competitive education market, encouraging education entrepreneurship. They felt that parents would be more empowered with greater control over their children’s education and have a stronger desire to contribute some of their own money toward education. They asserted that in many places “the public school has fostered residential stratification, by tying the kind and cost of schooling to residential location” and suggested that voucher programs would lead to increased integration and heterogeneity. (pp. 166-7)

To the critics who said, and still say, that school choice programs would destroy the public schools, the Friedmans replied that these critics fail to

explain why, if the public school system is doing such a splendid job, it needs to fear competition from nongovernmental, competitive schools or, if it isn’t, why anyone should object to its “destruction.” (p. 170)

What I appreciate most about the Friedmans discussion of vouchers and the promise of school choice is their unrelenting support of parents. They believed that parents, not government bureaucrats and intellectuals, know what is best for their children’s education and well-being and are fully capable of choosing wisely for their children—when they have the opportunity to do so.

They wrote:

Parents generally have both greater interest in their children’s schooling and more intimate knowledge of their capacities and needs than anyone else. Social reformers, and educational reformers in particular, often self-righteously take for granted that parents, especially those who are poor and have little education themselves, have little interest in their children’s education and no competence to choose for them. That is a gratuitous insult. Such parents have frequently had limited opportunity to choose. However, U.S. history has demonstrated that, given the opportunity, they have often been willing to sacrifice a great deal, and have done so wisely, for their children’s welfare. (p. 160).

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

Voucher Programs Today

Today, school voucher programs exist in 15 states plus the District of Columbia. These programs have consistently shown that when parents are given the choice to opt-out of an assigned district school, many will take advantage of the opportunity. In Washington, D.C., low-income parents who win a voucher lottery send their children to private schools.

The most recent three-year federal evaluationof voucher program participants found that while student academic achievement was comparable to achievement for non-voucher students remaining in public schools, there were statistically significant improvements in other important areas. For instance, voucher participants had lower rates of chronic absenteeism than the control groups, as well as higher student satisfaction scores. There were also tremendous cost-savings.

In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program has served over 28,000 low-income students attending 129 participating private schools.

According to Corey DeAngelis, Director of School Choice at the Reason Foundation and a prolific researcher on the topic, the recent analysis of the D.C. voucher program “reveals that private schools produce the same academic outcomes for only a third of the cost of the public schools. In other words, school choice is a great investment.”

In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program was created in 1990 and is the nation’s oldest voucher program. It currently serves over 28,000 low-income students attending 129 participating private schools. Like the D.C. voucher program, data on test scores of Milwaukee voucher students show similar results to public school students, but non-academic results are promising.

Increased Access and Decreased Crime

Recent research found voucher recipients had lower crime rates and lower incidences of unplanned pregnancies in young adulthood. On his birthday, let’s celebrate Milton Friedman’s vision of enabling parents, not government, to be in control of a child’s education.

According to Howard Fuller, an education professor at Marquette University, founder of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, and one of the developers of the Milwaukee voucher program, the key is parent empowerment—particularly for low-income minority families.

In an interview with NPR, Fuller said: “What I’m saying to you is that there are thousands of black children whose lives are much better today because of the Milwaukee parental choice program,” he says. 
“They were able to access better schools than they would have without a voucher.”

Putting parents back in charge of their child’s education through school choice measures was Milton Friedman’s goal. It was not his ultimate goal, as it would not fully address the funding and compulsion components of government schooling; but it was, and remains, an important first step. As the Friedmans wrote in Free To Choose:

The strong American tradition of voluntary action has provided many excellent examples that demonstrate what can be done when parents have greater choice. (p. 159).

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

Related posts:

 

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

March 16, 2012 – 12:25 am

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

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

March 9, 2012 – 12:29 am

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

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

March 2, 2012 – 12:26 am

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

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

February 24, 2012 – 12:21 am

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

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

February 17, 2012 – 12:12 am

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

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

February 10, 2012 – 12:09 am

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

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

February 3, 2012 – 12:07 am

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

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 1-5

Debate on Milton Friedman’s cure for inflation

September 29, 2011 – 7:24 am

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

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

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

April 19, 2013 – 1:14 am

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

What were the main proposals of Milton Friedman?

February 21, 2013 – 1:01 am

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

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

December 7, 2012 – 5:55 am

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

Defending Milton Friedman

July 31, 2012 – 6:45 am

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

——

Pro-Transgender Protesters Occupy 4 State Capitols in a Week

Joshua Arnold  / April 05, 2023

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

COMMENTARY BY

Joshua Arnold

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

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

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

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

March 27: Austin, Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 29: Frankfort, Kentucky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 30: Nashville, Tennessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 31: Tallahassee, Florida

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

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

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

Insurrections? Maybe Not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Emerging Pattern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This piece originally appeared in The Washington Stand.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. 

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com, and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

———

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

September 2021 • Volume 50, Number 9 • Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo.

Dershowitz Warns Against ‘New McCarthyism’ of Left

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, in 2020 when he was a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team. (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)By Newsmax Wires 
Sunday, 14 Feb 2021 1:56 PM

Join in the Discussion!

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Stories:

• Alan Dershowitz: Impeachment Divisive, ‘Tactical Mistake’
• Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Trump Defense Not ‘Frivolous’

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

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

Dershowitz: Senate Rules Would Prevent Impeachment Trial Of Trump

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

Join in the Discussion!

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—-

December 13, 2020

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

Dear President Obama,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY BY

James Carafano@JJCarafano

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Related posts:

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

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

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

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

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

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

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

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

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

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

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

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

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

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

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

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

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

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

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

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

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

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

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

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

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

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

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

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

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

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

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

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

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

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

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

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

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

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

—-

—