Author Archives: Everette Hatcher III

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

Voter ID Laws Boost Confidence, Cause No Downside to Voting, Data Finds

April 4, 2023 – 5:31 pm

—-

If, as the Left has claimed, voter ID is about voter suppression, then it has been a miserable failure. Pictured: An election official hands an ID back to a voter before he casts his ballot at Madison Community Center in the Democratic presidential primary March 3, 2020, in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

The Left continues to object to laws requiring voters to present identification, even as voters support such laws and states enact them. As explained in my book “The Myth of Voter Suppression,” states with voter ID laws typically have higher turnout during elections.

The Ohio Legislature passed a photo ID law this year, while Nebraska voters approved a ballot question on voter ID in November. North Carolina’s photo ID law, previously blocked by a Democrat-controlled state Supreme Court, could get another hearing from the new majority.

Also this year, the latest of many studies—published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—determined that voter ID had no impact on election outcomes or turnout.

What follows is an adapted excerpt from “The Myth of Voter Suppression” about the effectiveness of voter ID laws, which once had bipartisan support.

***

If—as the Left has claimed for decades—voter ID is about voter suppression, then it has been a miserable failure at suppressing the vote. Voter ID laws have made it easier to vote and harder to cheat while increasing confidence in elections, as demonstrated by higher voter participation.

Hillary Clinton spent four years complaining that the 2016 election was stolen from her. She came up with many reasons for her failure over the years, blaming everyone from Russia’s dictator, Vladimir Putin, to former FBI Director James Comey.

Clinton also blamed Republicans for voter suppression, specifically in Wisconsin, where the voter ID law, she whined, depressed turnout by 200,000 votes. Her evidence for this claim was a study by the liberal group CIVIS USA, commissioned by the Democratic fundraising organization Priorities USA. Both organizations publicly supported Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

PolitiFact, which typically bends over backward to give every Democrat the benefit of the doubt, said the study was “Mostly False,” and that “experts…question the methodology of the report and say there is no way to put a number on how many people in Wisconsin didn’t vote because of the ID requirement.”

There was, in fact, a downturn in voter turnout in Wisconsin from 2012 to 2016. And Donald Trump’s victory in the Badger State was key to his winning the presidential election. But the state’s 2016 turnout was still higher than its 2008 turnout—a bit of an anomaly from the national political scene.

The United States Elections Project ranked Wisconsin as having the fifth-highest turnout in the country for 2016—more than many of the states that don’t have voter ID laws. For instance, New York, a state with no voter ID requirement that Clinton represented in the Senate, had a 59.3% turnout—on par with the national average. Wisconsin, by contrast, had a turnout of 69.4%.

Further, nine of the 11 states that added voter ID laws in 2011 had an increase in turnout from the 2012 election to the 2016 election. Conversely, two of the 17 states that had no voter ID in 2016, along with Washington, D.C., finished in the top five.

Voter ID laws can stop multiple types of fraud, such as impersonating someone who is a registered voter. It also can prevent noncitizens from voting, as well as out-of-state residents or someone registered in multiple jurisdictions.

The main source of these recommendations is the Carter-Baker Commission, the bipartisan election reform panel of 2005 named for former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican.

The report underlined that ID was reasonable and ensured security:

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.

Polls consistently show that about 60% of Democrats and about 70% of non-white voters support voter ID; about 80% of voters overall back voter ID.

To look at the factual case in favor of voter ID, let’s turn to academia, including Ivy League professors and federal government data, neither of which are known for espousing right-wing talking points. The facts show that voter ID not only doesn’t suppress votes, but that voter turnout is on the rise across all demographics.

A National Bureau of Economic Research study from 2019 examined 10 years’ worth of turnout data from across the country and concluded that voter ID laws have “no negative effect on registration or turnout overall or for any specific group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”

The NBER study, conducted by Enrico Cantoni at the University of Bologna and Vincent Pons at Harvard Business School, found that voter ID laws don’t decrease voter turnout, including that of minority voters.

The study also determined that ID laws have “no significant effect” on preventing fraud. However, proving any law prevents a crime is always trying to prove a negative. The bottom line is that, according to the study, voter registration and turnout rates didn’t change after voter ID laws were implemented, and there was no statistically observable change in voting behavior before or after.

Most states with voter ID laws enacted them since 2011. One measure of voter turnout tells us this didn’t drive down the vote.

Census Bureau data shows that Black, Hispanic, and Asian voter turnout all increased by double digits from the 2014 midterm election to the 2018 midterm election. Pew Research Center found “historic jumps” in turnout for every racial group in 2018. Black voter turnout rose by 27% nationally. Meanwhile, Asian and Hispanic turnout soared by 50%.

There was a notable exception to this evidence in favor of voter ID laws: A January 2017 study from professors at the University of California San Diego and Bucknell University purported that ID laws disproportionately affect minorities and “diminish the participation of Democrats and those on the left, while doing little to deter the vote of Republicans and those on the right.”

But that one didn’t last long.

Professors from Yale, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania examined the same data and determined that the original study contained measurement errors and misinterpreted data. The Yale-Stanford-Pennsylvania study found there is “no definitive relationship between strict voter ID laws and turnout.”

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.

Georgia voting shattering turnout records after MSNBC, CNN, others ran with ‘Jim Crow’ accusations

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act faced blowback from Democrats, including President Biden

By Nikolas Lanum | Fox News

Democrats, corporations and the liberal media repeatedly decried Georgia’s Republican-passed Election Integrity Act as the next Jim Crow, but the Peach State is now seeing record-breaking turnoutfor early voting ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

Last year, President Biden called the law, known as SB 202, a “blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience,” ascribed it as “Jim Crow in the 21st century” and was supportive of Major League Baseball moving the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta as a response. Biden urged Congress to pass sweeping federal voting laws, including the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Biden, along with Democrats and members of liberal media, argued that the law would deny people the right to vote, especially minority Americans, and could lurch U.S. democracy off balance.

But voting in Georgia is breaking early records despite the state’s “controversial new election law,” as The Washington Post put it.

WASHINGTON POST ADMITS ‘VOTING IS SURGING IN GEORGIA’ DESPITE PREVIOUS REPORTS, CLAIMS ABOUT VOTER SUPPRESSION

Joe Biden speaks about Democrats’ voting legislation in Georgia.(Getty Images)

A 70-year-old Black woman that spoke with the Post said she was surprised at how easily she was able to vote.

“I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any way possible because of the fact that we didn’t go Republican on the last election, when Trump didn’t win. To go in there and vote as easily as I did and to be treated with the respect that I knew I deserved as an American citizen — I was really thrown back,” she said.

According to the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, there have been nearly 800,000 ballots cast by Georgians as of Friday, a number three times that of 2018 and significantly higher than 2020, an election year when voting typically increases.

“Major media outlets joined Stacey Abrams and Joe Biden in saying Georgia’s Election Integrity Act was ‘Jim Crow’ and would suppress voting,” Raffensperger told Fox News Digital. “In fact, SB 202 made common sense reforms that will help ensure confidence in Georgia’s elections. The fact that we are seeing record early vote turnout, including record minority turnout, proves that the Abrams/Biden narrative was always completely false.”

Such information likely came as a surprise to the Post, which last June tweeted that the law signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp “imposes a number of restrictions” on voting and thus earned it comparisons to Jim Crow laws that “effectively blocked Black men and women from voting in the American South.”

An attached article argued in part that the new restrictions are “likely” to make “disproportionately more difficult” for people of color to vote.

The Washington Post admitted that Georgia voting was “surging” after criticizing the “Jim Crow” election law. (Eric Baradat/AFP via Getty Images)

Two months earlier the paper’s editorial board asserted that Republicans had adopted a strategy in many states, including Georgia, of making it more difficult to vote.

“No, that is not a full return to Jim Crow. But it shows a toxic hostility to democracy that no Republican can take pride in,” the board concluded.

The Post was far from the only media organization to tout the Jim Crow narrative.

A March 2021 article from attorney and author Teri Kanefield in MSNBC ran with the title, “Georgia’s ‘Jim Crow’ voter suppression bill is now law. Here’s how Democrats can fight back.”’

‘”Jim Crow in a suit and tie”: Georgia passes massive voter suppression bill,”’ a Vanity Fair headlined blared.

An opinion column from the New York Times asked of the Georgia law, “If it’s not Jim Crow, what is it?”

U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock arrives at a polling station in Atlanta, Georgia, May 6, 2022. (Reuters/Elijah Nouvelage)

It wasn’t just in print media that liberal organizations flooded the airwaves with rabid criticism of the Georgia law, but also on the airwaves.

MSNBC host Joy Reid said early last year that the Republican voting legislation was the “end of democracy” in America and the beginning of a strategy reminiscent of apartheid South Africa.

“It’s old school American, it’s Jim Crow American,” Reid added.

Furthermore, during an appearance on MSNBC, liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson was asked by host Ali Velshi whether he agreed with Biden’s comments comparing the law to Jim Crow.

“Well, I’d say it is,” Robinson replied. “I mean I did grow up under Jim Crow laws.”

“It’s voter suppression, it’s the new Jim Crow,” CNN anchor Don Lemon similarly said of Georgia’s legislation and the filibuster.

CNN political analyst April Ryan took shots directly at the GOP, calling them a party against the “browning of America” and actively “cheating at the polls.”

Speaking with CBSN, New York Times opinion columnist told host Tanya Rivero that the law was at least “Jim Crow-adjacent.”

Georgia GOP Legislators to Coca-Cola: We Want You Out

Cans of Coca Cola are displayed on July 25, 2018 in San Rafael, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty)

By Jim Thomas
Sunday, 04 Apr 2021 5:24 PM

Certain Republican Georgia lawmakers want Coca Cola products removed from their offices after the corporation spoke out against the state’s new election law, reports the Hill.

In a letter to Kevin Perry, president of the Georgia Beverage Association, eight members of the Georgia House of Representatives —Victor Anderson, Clint Crowe, Matt Barton, Jason Ridley, Lauren McDonald III, Stan Gunter, Dewayne Hill and Marcus Wiedower —complained about Coca-Cola.

“Given Coke’s choice to cave to the pressure of an out of control cancel culture, we respectfully request all Coca-Cola Company products be removed from our office suite immediately,” they stated. “Should Coke choose to read the bill, share its true intentions and accept their role in the dissemination of mistruths, we would welcome a conversation to rebuild a working relationship.”

Coca-Cola said in a statement obtained by Newsweek that it had been working with the Metro Atlanta Chamber in “expressing our concerns and advocating for positive change in voting legislation. We, along with our business coalition partners, sought improvements that would enhance accessibility, maximize voter participation, maintain election integrity and serve all Georgians.”

The company stated it would continue to advocate for its position on voting issues in Georgia.

“We will continue to identify opportunities for engagement and strive for improvements aimed at promoting and protecting the right to vote in our home state and elsewhere,” the company said.

Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey publicly attacked Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp for recently signing into law voting legislation Quincey declared as “unacceptable” and “a step backwards.”

The legislation expands early voting opportunities, weekend early voting and extends deadlines for absentee ballot requests. It also creates a state-wide voter ID absentee voting requirement and restricts ballot drop box usage.

Quincey said the new law moves Georgia backwards.

“Let me be crystal clear and unequivocal, this legislation is unacceptable, it is a step backward and it does not promote principles we have stood for in Georgia, around broad access to voting, around voter convenience, about ensuring election integrity, and this is frankly just a step backwards,” Quincey said.

One provision of the new law seems to be of particular interest to the Georgia Beverage Association: the prohibition on handing out either soft drinks or food voters waiting in a line at the polling station to vote, reports the Hill.

Here’s a look at the key myths vs. facts about Georgia’s election reforms, which Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed into law. Pictured: Demonstrators inside the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta show their support March 8 for the legislation. (Photo: Megan Varner/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden and other Democrats, without offering evidence, equate Georgia’s new election law with the Jim Crow era, while many media outlets obligingly repeat Democratic talking points about it.

A headline over a March 25 news report in The New York Times, not an opinion piece, referred to the legislation as a “major law to limit voting.”

Among the most vocal opponents is Stacey Abrams, Georgia Democrats’ 2018 candidate for governor, who now heads a group called Fair Fight Action, which describes itself as a voting rights organization.

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

“From passage of the #SB202 voter suppression bill targeted at Black and brown voters to the arrest of a Black legislator who was advocating for the voting rights of her constituents, today was a reminder of Georgia’s dark past,” Abrams wrote last week in a tweet. “We must fight for the future of our democracy #gapol.”

>>> Read Georgia’s entire new election law here.

The Washington Post stands almost alone in the ocean of mainstream media outlets, noting in a fact-check analysis that Biden earned “four Pinocchios” for making misleading comments about Georgia’s new election law both during his first press conference and in an official presidential statement.

Here’s a look at the key myths vs. facts about Georgia’s election legislation, which Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed into law last Thursday.

1. ‘Restrictions on Casting Absentee Ballots’

In his written statement, Biden said of the new law: “It adds rigid restrictions on casting absentee ballots that will effectively deny the right to vote to countless voters.”

The term “rigid restrictions” is a matter for debate, so a ruling of true or false is difficult here.

The law does require voter ID for individuals who are casting absentee ballots, which previously was not the case. A voter would need to provide a driver’s license number or another state identification number on the absentee ballot form.

The law also requires voters to request absentee ballots 11 days before the election. In its previous form, the law allowed voters to request ballots by the Friday before Election Day.

The deadline is still before Election Day. But the new law allows voters to return applications for absentee ballots online, through the Secretary of State’s Office.

The earliest that Georgia voters may request an application for an absentee ballot will be 77 days before Election Day, down from 180 days, according to Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Kemp said that 96% of Georgia voters already have suitable voter ID, and alternative identification would be provided at no charge to those who need it.

“In order to verify that the absentee ballot was voted by the elector who requested the ballot, the elector shall print the number of his or her Georgia driver’s license number or identification card,” the law states, referring to a voter as “elector” and adding: “The elector shall also print his or her date of birth in the space provided in the outer oath envelope.”

The law goes on to state:

If the elector does not have a Georgia driver’s license or state identification card issued pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Title 40, the elector shall so affirm in the space provided on the outer oath envelope and print the last four digits of his or her Social Security number in the space provided on the outer oath envelope.

If the elector does not have a Georgia driver’s license, identification card issued pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Title 40, or a Social Security number, the elector shall so affirm in the space provided on the outer oath envelope and place a copy of one of the forms of identification set forth in subsection (c) of Code Section 21-2-417 in the outer envelope.

For its part, Fair Fight Action, the group run by Abrams, asserts: “Over 200,000 Georgians lack the appropriate ID under SB 202.”

2. ‘Crime to Provide Water’

Georgia’s law prohibits campaign workers from distributing food or drink, or anything else of value, to waiting voters, and from setting up a table within 150 feet of the building or 25 feet of a voter.

The most prominent talking point to emerge from Biden and other Democrats has been regarding water bottles.

“It makes it a crime to provide water to voters while they wait in line—lines Republican officials themselves have created by reducing the number of polling sites across the state, disproportionately in Black neighborhoods,” Biden said of the new law in his formal statement.

This is false, because the law specifically allows official poll workers, as opposed to campaign workers, to provide water to voters.

Specifically, the law says:

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast: (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

The law goes on to state:

This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted or from making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.

A practice known as the “line warming loophole,” in which campaign operatives provide giveaways to voters while they stand in line, is not a new controversy.

Last year, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger warned against tolerating the practice.

“The right to vote is sacred and fundamental to our democracy, and I am committed to upholding that right for all Georgians,” Raffensperger said in a formal statement. “Political organizations looking to game the system should be forewarned that we will not tolerate efforts to electioneer near polling sites in violation of the law.”

As for Biden’s charge that Republicans are creating long lines to vote, the new law provides “additional voting equipment or poll workers to precincts containing more than 2,000 electors.”

Kemp said this change would lead to shorter lines.

3. ‘It Ends Voting Hours Early’

In his written statement Friday, Biden said: “Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.”

This assertion about voting hours is false.

The new Georgia law does nothing to change Election Day voting hours from 7 a.m to 7 p.m., although it expands weekend voting before Election Day.

The law adds early voting on two Saturdays and one Sunday that previously were not available to Georgians.

Georgia Public Broadcasting, the state affiliate of the left-leaning Public Broadcasting Service (which includes National Public Radio), did an explanatory piece that said: “One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours as optional.”

The law itself states:

Requiring two Saturday voting days and two optional Sunday voting days will dramatically increase the total voting hours for voters across the State of Georgia, and all electors in Georgia will have access to multiple opportunities to vote in person on the weekend for the first time.

The Georgia Public Broadcasting story also says: “Counties can have early voting open as long as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at minimum.”

Previously, some rural counties in Georgia didn’t provide for early voting for eight hours on a work day, the Post reported.

The legislation signed into law by Kemp does limit the time for runoff campaigns from nine weeks after Election Day to four weeks. But it says early voting in these runoff elections should begin “as soon as possible prior to a runoff from any other general primary.”

The law reads:

Voting shall be conducted during normal business hours beginning at 9:00 A.M. and ending at 5:00 P.M. on weekdays, other than observed state holidays, during such period and shall be conducted on the second Saturday and third Saturdays during the hours of 9:00 A.M. through 5:00 P.M. and, if the registrar or absentee ballot clerk so chooses, the second Sunday, the third Sunday, or both the second and third Sundays prior to a primary or election during the hours of 9:00 A.M. through 4:00 P.M. determined by the registrar or absentee ballot clerk, but no longer than 7:00 A.M. through 7:00 P.M.

4. ‘Render Drop Boxes Useless’

Abrams’ Fair Fight Action organization said the law, known as Senate Bill 202, would “render drop boxes ‘useless’ and otherwise harm voters across the state.”

The New York Times, in a March 30 story, referred to the legislation as a “GOP-backed bill that prohibits the use of drop boxes.”

The law actually codifies use of drop boxes. Election officials provided drop boxes for ballots in the presidential election in Georgia based on Kemp’s emergency order to address voting concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But for SB 202, drop boxes would not have to be used in any future Georgia elections.

That said, fewer drop boxes will be available in future elections—presumably operating in the absence of a pandemic—than in the 2020 election.

Each county in Georgia must provide at least one drop box. But boxes will have to be located near early-voting sites and be accessible for dropping off absentee ballots when these polling locations are open.

The law states:

A board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk shall establish at least one drop box as a means for absentee by mail electors to deliver their ballots to the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk.

A board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk may establish additional drop boxes, subject to the limitations of this Code section, but may only establish additional drop boxes totaling the lesser of either one drop box for every 100,000 active registered voters in the county or the number of advance voting locations in the county. Any additional drop boxes shall be evenly geographically distributed by population in the county.

5. ‘Jim Crow 2.0’?

One’s tolerance for hypercharged political rhetoric—and decision to accept something as literal or serious—may determine whether it’s justifiable to claim the new law imposes modern Jim Crow-style restrictions on voting rights.

Upon the Georgia Legislature’s passage of the bill, Abrams, the losing 2018 gubernatorial candidate, said in a public statement:

Republican state leaders willfully undermine democracy by giving themselves authority to overturn results they do not like. Now, more than ever, Americans must demand federal action to protect voting rights as we continue to fight against these blatantly unconstitutional efforts that are nothing less than Jim Crow 2.0.

During his press conference Thursday, Biden appeared to make false assertions about the Georgia legislation that were repeated in his official statement.

“Deciding in some states that you cannot bring water to people standing in line, waiting to vote; deciding that you’re going to end voting at 5 o’clock when working people are just getting off work; deciding that there will be no absentee ballots under the most rigid circumstances,” Biden said at one point to reporters.

The president added: “This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. I mean, this is gigantic what they’re trying to do, and it cannot be sustained.”

Biden later tweeted a similar assertion.

“It’s Jim Crow in the 21st Century—and it must end,” Biden said in the tweet.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted of Kemp: “The Republican who is sitting in Stacey Abrams’ chair just signed a despicable voter suppression bill into law to take Georgia back to Jim Crow.”

Tweets from some reporters and media outlets expressed the same line.

Putting aside what is or isn’t acceptable political hyperbole, Jim Crow has a literal historical legacy.

Factually, the term Jim Crow laws refers to state and local laws in the segregated South that existed from after the Civil War until at least the mid-1960s.

With regard to voting, these laws included requiring poll tests for black voters before they could cast a ballot. These overtly racist laws also restricted employment and educational opportunities for black Americans.

Schools, parks, recreation facilities, and other public buildings routinely were segregatedthroughout the South, as were public restrooms and water fountains. The Jim Crow era included terrorist activity by the Ku Klux Klan, which committed violent and deadly acts against blacks such as lynchings, often with impunity.

“It’s an outrageous historical lie and insulting to those who actually suffered under Jim Crow election laws in the old South, to compare providing ID on absentee ballots with Jim Crow,” Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

6. ‘Legislative Takeover’

Abrams’ Fair Fight Action says Georgia’s new law would “allow legislative takeovers of local boards of elections, and much more.”

This is a dubious political characterization.

The Associated Press reported: “One of the biggest changes [in the law] gives the GOP-controlled legislature more control over election administration. That has raised alarms about potential greater partisan influence.”

The fact is that under the new law, the state Legislature does indeed have an increased role in the State Election Board under the new law.

Meanwhile, Georgia’s secretary of state will have a diminished role. This is the basis for the claim that partisan politics could play a role.

“The secretary of state will no longer chair the State Election Board, becoming instead a non-voting ex-officio member,” Georgia Public Broadcasting explained. “The new chair would be nonpartisan but appointed by a majority of the state House and Senate.”

“The chair would not be allowed to have been a candidate, participate in a political party organization or campaign or [have] made campaign contributions for two years prior to being appointed.”

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

Continue reading →

Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Carl Sagan Part 13 “The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead…” (My 1995 correspondence with Sagan) Instead there appeared an odd pair of men named Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop who entergized millions to march against the 1973 decision!

April 4, 2023 – 1:45 am

—

Carl Sagan, in full Carl Edward Sagan, (born November 9, 1934, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.—died December 20, 1996, Seattle, Washington), American astronomer and science writer. A popular and influential figure in the United States, he was controversial in scientific, political, and religious circles for his views on extraterrestrial intelligence, nuclear weapons, and religion. Sagan wrote the article “life” for the 1970 printing of the 14th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1929–73).

Sagan attended the University of Chicago, where he earned a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in physics in 1955 and 1956, respectively, and a doctorate in astronomy and astrophysics in 1960. From 1960 to 1962 he was a fellow in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, and from 1962 to 1968 he worked at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. His early work focused on the physical conditions of the planets, especially the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter. During that time he became interested in the possibility of lifebeyond Earth and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), a controversial research field he did much to advance. For example, building on earlier work by American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, he demonstrated that amino acids and nucleic acids—the building blocks of life—could be produced by exposing a mixture of simple chemicals to ultraviolet radiation. Some scientists criticized Sagan’s work, arguing that it was unreasonable to use resources for SETI, a fantasy project that was almost certainly doomed to failure.

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

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

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

Harry Kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif Ahmed, Haroon Ahmed, Jim Al-Khalili, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Sir Patrick Bateson, Simon Blackburn, Colin Blakemore, Ned Block, Pascal Boyer, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky, Brian Cox, Partha Dasgupta, Alan Dershowitz, Frank Drake, Hubert Dreyfus, John Dunn, Bart Ehrman, Mark Elvin, Richard Ernst, Stephan Feuchtwang, Robert Foley, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Stephen Hawking, Hermann Hauser, Robert Hinde, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Caroline Humphrey, Nicholas Humphrey, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Masatoshi Koshiba, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Rodolfo Llinas, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Dan McKenzie, Mahzarin Banaji, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, P.Z.Myers, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, David Parkin, Jonathan Parry, Roger Penrose, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, VS Ramachandran, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Colin Renfrew, Alison Richard, C.J. van Rijsbergen, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, John Sulston, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Max Tegmark, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Martinus J. G. Veltman, Craig Venter, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, James D. Watson, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,

In the 1st video below in the 45th clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

–

CARL SAGAN interview with Charlie Rose:

“…faith is belief in the absence of evidence. To believe in the absence of evidence, in my opinion, is a mistake. The idea is to hold belief until there is compelling evidence. If the Universe does not comply with our previous propositions, then we have to change…Religion deals with history poetry, great literature, ethics, morals, compassion…where religion gets into trouble is when it pretends to know something about science,”

I would respond that there is evidence that Christianity is true. The Bible has fulfilled prophecy in it, and 53 historical notable people in the Bible have been confirmed through archaeological evidence! Also there is compelling evidence that the Bible contains sound medical principles that clearly predate their more recent discovery by thousands of years

Carl Sagan asserted, “The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead…” Instead, there appeared an odd pair of men named Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop who entergized millions to march against the 1973 decision!
–

Whatever Happened To The Human Race?

– Revisited


The British (revised edition), 1980, Marshall, Morgan and Scott, London. ISBN 0 551 00830 X	The current US edition, 1983, Crossway Books, Wheaton IL. ISBN 0891072918

This year is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of Whatever Happened To The Human Race? It is a most remarkable book. In a list of ‘the books that changed me’, this unquestionably ranks in my top five. I have just re-read it, with unexpected profit.

The entire project
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? was more than just a book written by a theologian and a doctor, namely, Francis Schaeffer and C Everett Koop. It was an ambitious project that included the book, a series of five films, plus a study guide. The book was first published in the US in 1979, with a British version the following year. The project was launched in the UK in 1980, with a tour of major cities by Schaeffer and Koop. Later that year, we in Aberystwyth, were among the first in the UK to show the films publicly – at the university, over three consecutive Friday evenings.

Cinematographically, they were not great films. While they were technically a vast improvement on Schaeffer’s predecessor, How Should We Then Live?, gaffes and bloomers remained. There were the rather twee shots of Schaeffer in a car junkyard, representing the ugliness of materialistic thinking, and there were the all too healthy-looking ‘slaves’ trudging up the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, depicting the atrocities of slavery. Yet one haunting image did hit the spot – everyone remembers the hundreds of plastic dolls washed up on the shores of the Dead Sea, portraying the horrors of mass abortion.

As literature, the book was never destined to be a classic. It was full of Schaeffer’s jerky style with Koop’s medical addenda all a little too obviously interleaved. Indeed, the two men were not great presenters, either in print, or in public. In fact, they were a genuinely odd couple. Schaeffer was the non-establishment theologian, with a goatee beard, dressed in mountain gear, and founder of a study centre for hippies and others in Switzerland. For this he was vilified and largely ignored by some, while others regarded him as the greatest Christian thinker of the twentieth century. On the other hand, the dapper Koop, with his austere Dutch-style beard and neat bow tie, was straight from the American establishment, a paediatrician of international renown, who was later to become the Surgeon General of the United States under President Reagan. What an unlikely pair!

The message of the project
So, you may ask, what was so impressive about Whatever Happened To The Human Race? Why is it regarded as a landmark in evangelical endeavour? The answer is quite simple – first, it identified a dreadful problem (rampant abortion, covert infanticide and threatening euthanasia), second, it explained the origin of that problem (the advance of secular humanism coupled with the decline of biblical Christianity) and third, it outlined the solution (Christians must believe that the Bible is true and live and act upon its teachings). In other words, it was a total package that was both entirely believable for the brain, and fully satisfying for the heart. And that was Schaeffer’s great gift. He would take you back into history, often to Genesis, to show the development of an argument, and then he would take you forward to show the logical consequences of that argument, whether it was existentialism, or the resurrection, or genetic engineering. Once he had systematically shown you the entirety of the problem, you felt much more obligated to respond. So, forget the weird garb, the squeaky voice and the unpolished prose, it was his rigorously-argued and (usually) convincing content that was king. Here was the man committed to true truth. Like no other Christian leader in the twentieth century, Schaeffer had grasped the zeitgeist and he equipped ordinary Christians to engage with the big issues, as well as with unbelieving men and women.

The opening three chapters of Whatever Happened To The Human Race? deal with abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Twenty-five years ago, this exposé came as a bombshell to many evangelical Christians – we had no idea what was going on in our local hospitals and clinics. The sheer logic of Schaeffer and Koop’s argument – that once a society has accepted abortion of the unborn (as we had in 1967), then it would soon be infanticide for the newborn, and finally euthanasia for the elderly –- was appalling. Yet, twenty-five years on, who can gainsay their prophetic analysis?

The legacy of the project
Furthermore, Whatever Happened To The Human Race? had a credenda and an agenda. Schaeffer and Koop would never be satisfied with us merely tut-tutting and sitting on our hands. They wanted us up and doing. ‘Let those of us who share a high view of people use wisely these days when we have influence and the freedom to strike a great blow for the humanity, dignity, and sanctity of individuals’ (p. 90). Their chapter 6 was entitled ‘Our Personal Response and Social Action’ and it galvanised evangelicals throughout the UK into action, like never before. As a result many of us got involved with pro-life organisations. I co-founded Evangelicals for LIFE, in order to encourage believers into the educational, political and caring work of LIFE, which was generally regarded suspiciously as an admirable, but largely Roman Catholic, organisation. Soon evangelical Christians were becoming local LIFE group treasurers, speakers, carers, chairmen, and so on. Throughout the 1980s we blossomed and LIFE’s approach and expertise became the paradigm for many newly-formed Christian pro-life groups.

This, above all, was the impact of Whatever Happened To The Human Race? It got evangelicals informed and then responding in practical ways. And that legacy is still alive today – look at the proliferation of pro-life publications, pregnancy crisis centres, political lobbying, and so on since 1979. OK, it is still patchy, still insufficient, but without Whatever Happened To The Human Race?, it would be significantly less.

The importance of chapters 4 and 5
Twenty-five years on, re-reading Whatever Happened To The Human Race? I was struck not by the rehearsal of the bioethical issues – they have dominated and changed the course of my life since 1979 – but what I found refreshingly gripping were chapters 4 and 5, ‘The Basis for Human Dignity’ and ‘Truth and History’. I had forgotten them. In these, modern philosophy, and secular humanism in particular, are given a ‘right old kicking’. Schaeffer and Koop demonstrate just how irrational and bankrupt they are, and how they inevitably produce the ghastly dehumanisation that surrounds us today. And twenty-five years on, we have to admit that their thesis was spot on – we do still think that man is nothing more than a machine, we do view ourselves as mere accidents of the universe. One of their grand sweeping, but entirely accurate, assertions is, ‘Suddenly we find ourselves in a more consistent but uglier world – more consistent because people are taking their low view of man to its natural conclusion, and uglier because humanity is drastically dehumanised’ (p. 9).

After their devastating critique of secular humanism, comes the cavalry – the absolutes of historic, biblical Christianity. What a puny, limping thing secular humanism is alongside the robustness of true truth. ‘Where all humanistic systems of thought are unable to give an adequate explanation of things, the Bible as God’s statement is adequate’ (p. 124), and (this is sweet!), ‘God gives the pages, and thus God gives the answers’ (p. 125). Here is evangelism – engaging with modern men and women to show them the paucity of their worldview, and then the genius of Christianity.

The other rousing chapter, entitled ‘Truth and History’ asserts the historicity of the Bible, that is, how Christianity is rooted in history. If you think that Schaeffer was always entangled with abstruse philosophy, then read this. It starts with Abraham (the historicity of Adam and Eve has been established in the previous chapter) and ends with Thomas’ declaration, ‘My Lord and my God!’ In between is an exegesis of ‘… all truth finally rests upon the fact that the infinite-personal God exists …’ (p. 135). Yes, it is heavy-duty apologetic, but also heart-warming exposition.

Whatever Happened To The Human Race?

was a great Christian book. It still is. And a revised US version is currently available, as a paperback, from Crossway Books [ISBN 0-89107-291-8]. No other Christian book, published before or after, has attempted, and succeeded, in developing such a fundamental biblical approach to bioethical issues. My meagre contribution, Responding to the Culture of Death, draws heavily on the Schaeffer and Koop approach, and I gladly acknowledge my indebtedness.

In conclusion …
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? was also a wake-up call to unaware and lethargic Christians. Who would dare say, a generation on, that we do not still need its message? Human life is still cheap, and becoming still cheaper – created in the image of God, destroyed at our convenience.

Let Schaeffer and Koop have the last words. ‘We challenge you to be a person in this impersonal age … put the people in your life first … come to your senses … you and those around you are people, made in the image of the personal God who created all people in His image.’ (p. 89). ‘The only thing that can stem this tide [of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia] is the certainty of the absolute uniqueness and value of people. And the only thing which gives us this is the knowledge that people are made in the image of God.’ (p. 148). ‘In the end we must realise that the tide of humanism, with its loss of humanness, is not merely a cultural ill, but a spiritual ill that Christ alone can cure’ (p. 157).

223 × 373Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More

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

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

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

Francis Schaeffer when he was a young pastor in St. Louis pictured above.

Francis Schaeffer and Adrian Rogers

(both Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer mentioned Carl Sagan in their books and that prompted me to write Sagan and expose him to their views.

Carl Sagan pictured below:

_________

Francis Schaeffer

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

Image result for carl sagan and ann druyan

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

“The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”

by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We believe that many supporters of reproductive freedom are troubled at least occasionally by this question. But they are reluctant to raise it because it is the beginning of a slippery slope. If it is impermissible to abort a pregnancy in the ninth month, what about the eighth, seventh, sixth … ? Once we acknowledge that the state can interfere at any time in the pregnancy, doesn’t it follow that the state can interfere at all times?

Abortion and the slippery slope argument above

This conjures up the specter of predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor women they must bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up; forcing teenagers to bear children they are not emotionally prepared to deal with; saying to women who wish for a career that they must give up their dreams, stay home, and bring up babies; and, worst of all, condemning victims of rape and incest to carry and nurture the offspring of their assailants. Legislative prohibitions on abortion arouse the suspicion that their real intent is to control the independence and sexuality of women…

And yet, by consensus, all of us think it proper that there be prohibitions against, and penalties exacted for, murder. It would be a flimsy defense if the murderer pleads that this is just between him and his victim and none of the government’s business. If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Indeed, one of the chief functions of government is to protect the weak from the strong.

If we do not oppose abortion at some stage of pregnancy, is there not a danger of dismissing an entire category of human beings as unworthy of our protection and respect? And isn’t that dismissal the hallmark of sexism, racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism? Shouldn’t those dedicated to fighting such injustices be scrupulously careful not to embrace another?

Adrian Rogers’ sermon on animal rights refutes Sagan here

There is no right to life in any society on Earth today, nor has there been at any former time… : We raise farm animals for slaughter; destroy forests; pollute rivers and lakes until no fish can live there; kill deer and elk for sport, leopards for the pelts, and whales for fertilizer; entrap dolphins, gasping and writhing, in great tuna nets; club seal pups to death; and render a species extinct every day. All these beasts and vegetables are as alive as we. What is (allegedly) protected is not life, but human life.

Genesis 3 defines being human

And even with that protection, casual murder is an urban commonplace, and we wage “conventional” wars with tolls so terrible that we are, most of us, afraid to consider them very deeply… That protection, that right to life, eludes the 40,000 children under five who die on our planet each day from preventable starvation, dehydration, disease, and neglect.

Those who assert a “right to life” are for (at most) not just any kind of life, but for–particularly and uniquely—human life. So they too, like pro-choicers, must decide what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities–whatever they are–emerge.

The Bible talks about the differences between humans and animals

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

In some animals, an egg develops into a healthy adult without benefit of a sperm cell. But not, so far as we know, among humans. A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg–despite the fact that it’s only potentially a baby–why isn’t it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

Hundreds of millions of sperm cells (top speed with tails lashing: five inches per hour) are produced in an average human ejaculation. A healthy young man can produce in a week or two enough spermatozoa to double the human population of the Earth. So is masturbation mass murder? How about nocturnal emissions or just plain sex? When the unfertilized egg is expelled each month, has someone died? Should we mourn all those spontaneous miscarriages? Many lower animals can be grown in a laboratory from a single body cell. Human cells can be cloned… In light of such cloning technology, would we be committing mass murder by destroying any potentially clonable cells? By shedding a drop of blood?

All human sperm and eggs are genetic halves of “potential” human beings. Should heroic efforts be made to save and preserve all of them, everywhere, because of this “potential”? Is failure to do so immoral or criminal? Of course, there’s a difference between taking a life and failing to save it. And there’s a big difference between the probability of survival of a sperm cell and that of a fertilized egg. But the absurdity of a corps of high-minded semen-preservers moves us to wonder whether a fertilized egg’s mere “potential” to become a baby really does make destroying it murder.

Opponents of abortion worry that, once abortion is permissible immediately after conception, no argument will restrict it at any later time in the pregnancy. Then, they fear, one day it will be permissible to murder a fetus that is unambiguously a human being. Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers (at least some of them) are pushed toward absolutist positions by parallel fears of the slippery slope.

Another slippery slope is reached by those pro-lifers who are willing to make an exception in the agonizing case of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. But why should the right to live depend on the circumstances of conception? If the same child were to result, can the state ordain life for the offspring of a lawful union but death for one conceived by force or coercion? How can this be just? And if exceptions are extended to such a fetus, why should they be withheld from any other fetus? This is part of the reason some pro-lifers adopt what many others consider the outrageous posture of opposing abortions under any and all circumstances–only excepting, perhaps, when the life of the mother is in danger.

By far the most common reason for abortion worldwide is birth control. So shouldn’t opponents of abortion be handing out contraceptives and teaching school children how to use them? That would be an effective way to reduce the number of abortions. Instead, the United States is far behind other nations in the development of safe and effective methods of birth control–and, in many cases, opposition to such research (and to sex education) has come from the same people who oppose abortions.continue on to Part 3

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

The attempt to find an ethically sound and unambiguous judgment on when, if ever, abortion is permissible has deep historical roots. Often, especially in Christian tradition, such attempts were connected with the question of when the soul enters the body–a matter not readily amenable to scientific investigation and an issue of controversy even among learned theologians. Ensoulment has been asserted to occur in the sperm before conception, at conception, at the time of “quickening” (when the mother is first able to feel the fetus stirring within her), and at birth. Or even later.

Different religions have different teachings. Among hunter-gatherers, there are usually no prohibitions against abortion, and it was common in ancient Greece and Rome. In contrast, the more severe Assyrians impaled women on stakes for attempting abortion. The Jewish Talmud teaches that the fetus is not a person and has no rights. The Old and New Testaments–rich in astonishingly detailed prohibitions on dress, diet, and permissible words–contain not a word specifically prohibiting abortion. The only passage that’s remotely relevant (Exodus 21:22) decrees that if there’s a fight and a woman bystander should accidentally be injured and made to miscarry, the assailant must pay a fine.

Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas considered early-term abortion to be homicide (the latter on the grounds that the embryo doesn’t look human). This view was embraced by the Church in the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been repudiated. The Catholic Church’s first and long-standing collection of canon law (according to the leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, John Connery, S.J.) held that abortion was homicide only after the fetus was already “formed”–roughly, the end of the first trimester.

But when sperm cells were examined in the seventeenth century by the first microscopes, they were thought to show a fully formed human being. An old idea of the homunculus was resuscitated–in which within each sperm cell was a fully formed tiny human, within whose testes were innumerable other homunculi, etc., ad infinitum. In part through this misinterpretation of scientific data, in 1869 abortion at any time for any reason became grounds for excommunication. It is surprising to most Catholics and others to discover that the date was not much earlier.

From colonial times to the nineteenth century, the choice in the United States was the woman’s until “quickening.” An abortion in the first or even second trimester was at worst a misdemeanor. Convictions were rarely sought and almost impossible to obtain, because they depended entirely on the woman’s own testimony of whether she had felt quickening, and because of the jury’s distaste for prosecuting a woman for exercising her right to choose. In 1800 there was not, so far as is known, a single statute in the United States concerning abortion. Advertisements for drugs to induce abortion could be found in virtually every newspaper and even in many church publications–although the language used was suitably euphemistic, if widely understood.

But by 1900, abortion had been banned at any time in pregnancy by every state in the Union, except when necessary to save the woman’s life. What happened to bring about so striking a reversal? Religion had little to do with it.Drastic economic and social conversions were turning this country from an agrarian to an urban-industrial society. America was in the process of changing from having one of the highest birthrates in the world to one of the lowest. Abortion certainly played a role and stimulated forces to suppress it.

One of the most significant of these forces was the medical profession. Up to the mid-nineteenth century, medicine was an uncertified, unsupervised business. Anyone could hang up a shingle and call himself (or herself) a doctor. With the rise of a new, university-educated medical elite, anxious to enhance the status and influence of physicians, the American Medical Association was formed. In its first decade, the AMA began lobbying against abortions performed by anyone except licensed physicians. New knowledge of embryology, the physicians said, had shown the fetus to be human even before quickening.

Their assault on abortion was motivated not by concern for the health of the woman but, they claimed, for the welfare of the fetus. You had to be a physician to know when abortion was morally justified, because the question depended on scientific and medical facts understood only by physicians. At the same time, women were effectively excluded from the medical schools, where such arcane knowledge could be acquired. So, as things worked out, women had almost nothing to say about terminating their own pregnancies. It was also up to the physician to decide if the pregnancy posed a threat to the woman, and it was entirely at his discretion to determine what was and was not a threat. For the rich woman, the threat might be a threat to her emotional tranquillity or even to her lifestyle. The poor woman was often forced to resort to the back alley or the coat hanger.

This was the law until the 1960s, when a coalition of individuals and organizations, the AMA now among them, sought to overturn it and to reinstate the more traditional values that were to be embodied in Roe v. Wade.continue on to Part 4

If you deliberately kill a human being, it’s called murder. If you deliberately kill a chimpanzee–biologically, our closest relative, sharing 99.6 percent of our active genes–whatever else it is, it’s not murder. To date, murder uniquely applies to killing human beings. Therefore, the question of when personhood (or, if we like, ensoulment) arises is key to the abortion debate. When does the fetus become human? When do distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge?

Section 8 Sperm journey to becoming Human

We recognize that specifying a precise moment will overlook individual differences. Therefore, if we must draw a line, it ought to be drawn conservatively–that is, on the early side. There are people who object to having to set some numerical limit, and we share their disquiet; but if there is to be a law on this matter, and it is to effect some useful compromise between the two absolutist positions, it must specify, at least roughly, a time of transition to personhood.

Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The momentous meeting of sperm and egg generally occurs in one of the two fallopian tubes. One cell becomes two, two become four, and so on—an exponentiation of base-2 arithmetic. By the tenth day the fertilized egg has become a kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from capillaries. It bathes itself in maternal blood, from which it extracts oxygen and nutrients. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus.By the third week, around the time of the first missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about 2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts. Only at this stage does it begin to be dependent on a rudimentary placenta. It looks a little like a segmented worm.By the end of the fourth week, it’s about 5 millimeters (about 1/5 inch) long. It’s recognizable now as a vertebrate, its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail. It looks rather like a newt or a tadpole. This is the end of the first month after conception.By the fifth week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes are apparent, and little buds appear—on their way to becoming arms and legs.By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeteres (about ½ inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be.By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian but somewhat piglike.By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human. Most of the human body parts are present in their essentials. Some lower brain anatomy is well-developed. The fetus shows some reflex response to delicate stimulation.By the tenth week, the face has an unmistakably human cast. It is beginning to be possible to distinguish males from females. Nails and major bone structures are not apparent until the third month.By the fourth month, you can tell the face of one fetus from that of another. Quickening is most commonly felt in the fifth month. The bronchioles of the lungs do not begin developing until approximately the sixth month, the alveoli still later.

So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood? When its face becomes distinctly human, near the end of the first trimester? When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli–again, at the end of the first trimester? When it becomes active enough to be felt as quickening, typically in the middle of the second trimester? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air?

The trouble with these particular developmental milestones is not just that they’re arbitrary. More troubling is the fact that none of them involves uniquely humancharacteristics–apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance. All animals respond to stimuli and move of their own volition. Large numbers are able to breathe. But that doesn’t stop us from slaughtering them by the billions. Reflexes and motion are not what make us human.

Sagan’s conclusion based on arbitrary choice of the presence of thought by unborn baby

Other animals have advantages over us–in speed, strength, endurance, climbing or burrowing skills, camouflage, sight or smell or hearing, mastery of the air or water. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought–characteristically human thought. We are able to think things through, imagine events yet to occur, figure things out. That’s how we invented agriculture and civilization. Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain–principally in the top layers of the convoluted “gray matter” called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn’t begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy–the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject’s head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy–near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this–however alive and active they may be–lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we’ve rejected the extremes of “always” and “never,” and this puts us–like it or not–on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.

It is, in fact, a very conservative definition: Regular brain waves are rarely found in fetuses. More research would help… If we wanted to make the criterion still more stringent, to allow for occasional precocious fetal brain development, we might draw the line at six months. This, it so happens, is where the Supreme Court drew it in 1973–although for completely different reasons.

Its decision in the case of Roe v. Wade changed American law on abortion. It permits abortion at the request of the woman without restriction in the first trimester and, with some restrictions intended to protect her health, in the second trimester. It allows states to forbid abortion in the third trimester, except when there’s a serious threat to the life or health of the woman. In the 1989 Webster decision, the Supreme Court declined explicitly to overturn Roe v. Wade but in effect invited the 50 state legislatures to decide for themselves.

What was the reasoning in Roe v. Wade? There was no legal weight given to what happens to the children once they are born, or to the family. Instead, a woman’s right to reproductive freedom is protected, the court ruled, by constitutional guarantees of privacy. But that right is not unqualified. The woman’s guarantee of privacy and the fetus’s right to life must be weighed–and when the court did the weighing’ priority was given to privacy in the first trimester and to life in the third. The transition was decided not from any of the considerations we have been dealing with so far…–not when “ensoulment” occurs, not when the fetus takes on sufficient human characteristics to be protected by laws against murder. Instead, the criterion adopted was whether the fetus could live outside the mother. This is called “viability” and depends in part on the ability to breathe. The lungs are simply not developed, and the fetus cannot breathe–no matter how advanced an artificial lung it might be placed in—until about the 24th week, near the start of the sixth month. This is why Roe v. Wade permits the states to prohibit abortions in the last trimester. It’s a very pragmatic criterion.

If the fetus at a certain stage of gestation would be viable outside the womb, the argument goes, then the right of the fetus to life overrides the right of the woman to privacy. But just what does “viable” mean? Even a full-term newborn is not viable without a great deal of care and love. There was a time before incubators, only a few decades ago, when babies in their seventh month were unlikely to be viable. Would aborting in the seventh month have been permissible then? After the invention of incubators, did aborting pregnancies in the seventh month suddenly become immoral? What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus even before the sixth month by delivering oxygen and nutrients through the blood–as the mother does through the placenta and into the fetal blood system? We grant that this technology is unlikely to be developed soon or become available to many. But if it were available, does it then become immoral to abort earlier than the sixth month, when previously it was moral? A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality; for some, it is also an unacceptable morality.

And why, exactly, should breathing (or kidney function, or the ability to resist disease) justify legal protection? If a fetus can be shown to think and feel but not be able to breathe, would it be all right to kill it? Do we value breathing more than thinking and feeling? Viability arguments cannot, it seems to us, coherently determine when abortions are permissible. Some other criterion is needed. Again, we offer for consideration the earliest onset of human thinking as that criterion.

Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester–except in cases of grave medical necessity–it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.What do you think? What have others said about Carl Sagan’s thoughts on

END OF SAGAN’S ARTICLE

Carl Sagan with his wife Ann in the 1990’s

Image result for adrian rogers francis schaeffer

I grew up in Memphis as a member of Bellevue Baptist Church under our pastor Adrian Rogers and attended ECS High School where the books and films of Francis Schaeffer were taught. Both men dealt with current issues in the culture such as the film series COSMOS by Carl Sagan. I personally read several of Sagan’s books. (Francis and Edith Schaeffer pictured below in their home at L’ Abri in Switzerland where Francis taught students for 3 decades.

630 × 414Images may be subject to copyright.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

March 22, 2015 – 12:30 am

______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Anna Margaret Rose Freeman, George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Ringo Starr, Stg. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band | Edit| Comments (0)

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

March 19, 2015 – 12:21 am

The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Raqib Shaw, Ringo Starr | Edit | Comments (0)

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

March 12, 2015 – 12:16 am

__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Peter Blake, Ringo Starr | Edit | Comments (1)

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

March 5, 2015 – 4:47 am

_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Beatles, Mika Tajima | Edit |Comments (0)

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

February 26, 2015 – 4:57 am

_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Blow Up, David Hemmings,Michelangelo Antonioni, Nancy Holt, Sarah Miles., Vanessa Redgrave | Edit | Comments (0)

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

February 19, 2015 – 5:33 am

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen | Tagged alan alda, Anjelica Huston, mia farrow, Sam Waterston | Edit | Comments (0)

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

February 12, 2015 – 5:00 am

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche,H.G. Wells, jean paul sartre, Kai Nielsen, Richard Taylor, Richard Wurmbrand, Thomas Schütte | Edit| Comments (0)

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

February 5, 2015 – 4:31 am

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen | Tagged Allora & Calzadilla | Edit| Comments (0)

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

January 29, 2015 – 5:01 am

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Trey McCarley | Edit | Comments (0)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged .Alexander Vilenkin, Aaron Ciechanover, Alan Dershowitz, Alan Guth, Alan Macfarlane, Alison Richard, Alva Noe, Arif Ahmed, Barry Supple, Bart Ehrman, Brian Cox, Brian Greene, Brian Harrison, Bruce Hood, C.J. van Rijsbergen, Caroline Humphrey, Carolyn Porco, Colin Blakemore, Colin Renfrew, Craig Venter, Dan McKenzie, David Friend, David J. Gross, David Parkin, Douglas Osheroff, Elizabeth Loftus, Frank Drake, Frank Wilczek, Gareth Stedman Jones, George Lakoff, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Haroon Ahmed, Harry Kroto, Herbert Huppert, Herman Philipse, Hermann Hauser, Horace Barlow, Hubert Dreyfus, Ivar Giaever, J. L. Schellenberg, James D. Watson, Jim Al-Khalili, John Dunn, John Searle, John Sulston, Jonathan Haidt, Jonathan Parry, Lawrence Krauss, Lee Silver, Leonard Mlodinow, Leonard Susskind, Lewis Wolpert, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Mahzarin Banaji, Marcus du Sautoy, Mark Balaguer, Mark Elvin, Martinus J. G. Veltman, Marvin Minsky, Masatoshi Koshiba, Max Tegmark, Michael Bate, Michio Kaku, Ned Block, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Nicholas Humphrey, Noam Chomsky, Oliver Sacks, P.Z.Myers, Partha Dasgupta, Pascal Boyer, Patricia Churchland, Peter Millican, Peter Singer, Raymond Tallis, Rebecca Goldstein, Riccardo Giacconi, Richard Ernst, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Foley, Robert Hinde, Robert M. Price, Rodolfo Llinas, Roger Penrose, Ronald de Sousa, Roy Glauber, Saul Perlmutter, Shelly Kagan, Simon Blackburn, Simon Schaffer, Sir David Attenborough, Sir John Walker, Sir Patrick Bateson, Stephan Feuchtwang, Stephen F Gudeman, Stephen Hawking, Steve Jones, Steven Weinberg, Stuart Kauffman, Susan Greenfield, Theodor W. Hänsch, Victor Stenger, VS Ramachandran, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Yujin Nagasawa | Comments (0)

MUSIC MONDAY Aldous Huxley and the rock band THE DOORS and the song ‘Break On Through (To The Other Side)’

April 3, 2023 – 1:34 am

——

Break On Through Lyrics

Every time when I look in the mirror
All these lines on my face getting clearer
The past is gone
It went by, like dusk to dawn
You know the day destroys the night
Night divides the day
Tried to run
Tried to hide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side, yeah

We chased our pleasures here
Dug our treasures there
But can you still recall
The time we cried
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side

Yeah!
C’mon, yeah

Everybody loves my baby
Everybody loves my baby
She get(s high)
She get(s high)
She get(s high)
She get(s high)

I found an island in your arms
Country in your eyes
Arms that chained us
Eyes that lied
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Break on through, oww!
Oh, yeah!

Made the scene
Week to week
Day to day
Hour to hour
The gate is straight
Deep and wide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Break on through
Break on through
Break on through
Break on through
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

written by Jim Morrison

————

The doors – Break On Through ( To The Other Side )

———

630 × 400Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More

Johnny Cash had a long struggle with drugs and his story was told in an earlier post.

In his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Francis Schaeffer noted:

The man who followed on from that point was English–Aldous Huxley (1894-1963). He proposed drugs as a solution. We should, he said, give healthy people drugs and they can then find truth inside their own heads. All that was left for Aldous Huxley and those who followed him was truth inside a person’s own head. With Huxley’s idea, what began with the existential philosophers – man’s individual subjectivity attempting to give order as well as meaning, in contrast to order being shaped by what is objective or external to oneself – came to its logical conclusion. Truth is in one’s own head. The ideal of objective truth was gone.

This emphasis on hallucinogenic drugs brought with it many rock groups–for example, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Incredible String Band, Pink Floyd, and Jimi Hendrix. Most of their work was from 1965-1958. The Beatles’Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967) also fits here. This disc is a total unity, not just an isolated series of individual songs, and for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. As a whole, this music was the vehicle to carry the drug culture and the mentality which went with it across frontiers which were almost impassible by other means of communication.

Here is a good review of the episode 016 HSWTL The Age of Non-Reason of HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?, December 23, 2007:

Together with the advent of the “drug Age” was the increased interest in the West in the religious experience of Hinduism and Buddhism. Schaeffer tells us that: “This grasping for a nonrational meaning to life and values is the central reason that these Eastern religions are so popular in the West today.” Drugs and Eastern religions came like a flood into the Western world. They became the way that people chose to find meaning and values in life. By themselves or together, drugs and Eastern religion became the way that people searched inside themselves for ultimate truth.

Along with drugs and Eastern religions there has been a remarkable increase “of the occult appearing as an upper-story hope.” As modern man searches for answers it “many moderns would rather have demons than be left with the idea that everything in the universe is only one big machine.” For many people having the “occult in the upper story of nonreason in the hope of having meaning” is better than leaving the upper story of nonreason empty. For them horror or the macabre are more acceptable than the idea that they are just a machine.

Francis Schaeffer has correctly argued:

The universe was created by an infinite personal God and He brought it into existence by spoken word and made man in His own image. When man tries to reduce [philosophically in a materialistic point of view] himself to less than this [less than being made in the image of God] he will always fail and he will always be willing to make these impossible leaps into the area of nonreason even though they don’t give an answer simply because that isn’t what he is. He himself testifies that this infinite personal God, the God of the Old and New Testament is there.
—

The doors – Break On Through ( To The Other Side )

Alice Cooper noted below:

‘Break On Through (To The Other Side)’ – The Doors

Dec 18, 2019 | 7:00 PM

'Break On Through (To The Other Side)' - The Doors

Miami Dade Police Dept.

Photo Credit:

Writers: The Doors

Producer: Paul A. Rothchild

Recorded: Fall 1966 at Sunset Sound Recorders, Hollywood
Released: January 1967

Players:	Jim Morrison — vocals Ray Manzarek — keyboards Robbie Krieger — guitar John Densmore — drums
Album:	The Doors (Elektra, 1967)

The Doors formed in 1965 in the Los Angeles area after Florida transplant Jim Morrison met keyboardist Ray Manzarek in the UCLA Theater Art Department. Manzarek recruited fellow studentJohn Densmore, whom he met at a Transcendental Meditation course, and Densmore brought in Robbie Krieger, who he’d played with in a band called the Psychedelic Rangers.

Morrison named the group The Doors, inspired by William Blake’s poem “The Doors: Open and Closed:” “There are things that are known and things that are unknown/In between are doors,” and the Aldous Huxley book, The Doors Of Perception.

The lyrics deal with the desire to “break on through to the other side” of perception and consciousness, a theme in sync with the late ’60s pop counter-culture.

“Break on Through” was the group’s first single; it received some airplay but did not chart.

Some radio and TV stations forced the group to edit the bridge portion of the song, where Morrison sings “She gets high.” In 1967, such references were shunned by mainstream media. On the edited version of the single, Morrison sings “She gets…”

Thanks to the chart-topping second single, “Light My Fire,” the Doors’ debut album was a smash, peaking at Number 2 on the Billboard Top 200 and selling more than two million copies.

—

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 53 THE BEATLES (Part E, Stg. Pepper’s and John Lennon’s search in 1967 for truth was through drugs, money, laughter, etc & similar to King Solomon’s, LOTS OF PICTURES OF JOHN AND CYNTHIA) (Feature on artist Yoko Ono)

April 2, 2015 – 7:05 am

The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]

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

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

March 22, 2015 – 12:30 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer|Tagged Anna Margaret Rose Freeman, George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Ringo Starr, Stg. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band|Edit|Comments (0)

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

March 19, 2015 – 12:21 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer|Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Raqib Shaw, Ringo Starr|Edit|Comments (0)

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

March 12, 2015 – 12:16 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer|Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Peter Blake, Ringo Starr|Edit|Comments (1)

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

March 5, 2015 – 4:47 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer|Tagged Beatles, Mika Tajima|Edit|Comments (0)

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

February 26, 2015 – 4:57 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer|Tagged Blow Up, David Hemmings,Michelangelo Antonioni, Nancy Holt, Sarah Miles., Vanessa Redgrave|Edit|Comments (0)

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

February 19, 2015 – 5:33 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen|Tagged alan alda, Anjelica Huston, mia farrow, Sam Waterston|Edit|Comments (0)

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

February 12, 2015 – 5:00 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer|Tagged Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche,H.G. Wells, jean paul sartre, Kai Nielsen, Richard Taylor, Richard Wurmbrand, Thomas Schütte|Edit|Comments (0)

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

February 5, 2015 – 4:31 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen|Tagged Allora & Calzadilla|Edit|Comments (0)

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

January 29, 2015 – 5:01 am

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Francis

—

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Dan Mitchell article: Social Security’s $60 Trillion-Plus Problem (plus Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth)

April 2, 2023 – 10:13 pm

–

Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth

Social Security’s $60 Trillion-Plus Problem

The 2023 Social Security Trustees Report was released yesterday, and just like I did last year (and the year before, and the year before that, etc), let’s look at the fiscal status of the retirement program.

There is a lot of data in the Report. But the most important set of numbers can be found in Table VI.G9.

As you can see from this chart, these numbers show the amount of revenue coming into the program each year, adjusted for inflation, as well as the amount of yearly spending. Both are rising rapidly.

Since the orange line (spending) is climbing faster than the blue line (revenue), the obvious takeaway is that Social Security has a deficit.

But that would be an understatement.

As you can see from the second chart, the cumulative deficit over the next 77 years is more than $60 trillion.

You’ll notice, of course, that I added a bit of editorializing to both charts.

That’s because it is reprehensible that Joe Bidenand Donald Trump are opposed to reforms that would modernize the program.

They won’t admit it, but their approach necessarilyand unavoidably means huge tax increases on lower-income and middle-class households.

P.S. If you are not Biden or Trump and want to do what’s best for America, I suggest learning about reforms in Australia, Chile, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Netherlands, the Faroe Islands, Denmark, Israel, and Sweden.

Social Security’s Inevitable Decline

It’s understandable that we’re now paying a lot of attention to Joe Biden’s risky proposals for higher taxes and a bigger welfare state.

After all, it’s a very bad idea to copy the economic policies of nations such as Italy, France, and Greece (unless, of course, you want much lower living standards).

But let’s not forget that that the United States also has some big economic challenges that existed before President Biden ever took office.

Most notably the entitlement programs.

Medicaid and Medicare are the biggest problems, but let’s focus today on Social Security.

Richard Rahn has a column in the Washington Times that summarizes the program’s grim outlook. Here are some excerpts.

Politicians love to talk about the Social Security “trust fund” and assure us that it will not be raided. But the unfortunate fact is the “trust fund” is an accounting fiction without any real assets. In actuality, Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme operated by the government. Benefits that are paid to existing retirees come from the current taxes from those working today and borrowing. …But now, Americans have fewer children, and life expectancies are growing rapidly. …There is no easy way out. Future Social Security benefits will be cut (probably by not fully indexing for inflation), and/or taxes will be greatly and continuously increased until the system collapses.

The fact that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme isn’t necessarily fatal. After all, the government has the ability to coerce new workers into the system.

The problem is that there are fewer and fewer of those new workers to support the growing number of people getting benefits.

Here are the numbers from Richard’s column. As the old saying goes, read ’em and weep.

Richard ends his column by fretting that the United States is on a dangerous path.

The world has seen this play before. In 1906, Argentina on a per-capita income basis was one of the richest countries in the world, rivaling the United States. It has bountiful agricultural and mineral resources and had a relatively well-educated population of mainly European origin. But after a century of fascist/socialist/welfare-state governments, it is now a poor country. Venezuela went from a rich country with civil liberties to a poor oppressed country in only two decades. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples’ money.” The Greeks built a nice welfare state, largely using German taxpayers’ money – the Euro – until the Germans said, “no more.” As a result, the Greeks have seen a drop in real incomes of more than 30 percent in seven or so years.

The good news is that our economic policy won’t be nearly as bad as Argentina and Venezuela, even if some of Biden’s crazy ideas – such a massive per-child handouts – are enacted.

The bad news is that we could become a lot more like Greece.

And that’s where Margaret Thatcher’s famous warning could become an American reality.

There is a solution to this problem, by the way. It’s been implemented in a couple of dozen nations around the world.

Sadly, American politicians are more interested in making the problem worse (with predictable consequences).

P.S. Here are a couple of humorous items about Social Security.

The first one actually understates how bad the trade is because workers actually pay 12.4 percent of their income into the program (the so-called employer share simply means lower pre-tax pay).

And the second item points out that Bernie Madoff was an amateur.

P.P.S. If you want more jokes and cartoons about Social Security, click here. There are other Social Security cartoons here, here, and here. And a Social Security joke if you appreciate grim humor.

Sunk Costs, Inertia, and the Burden of Government Spending

Back in 2009 and 2010, when I had less gray hair, I narrated a four-part series on the economic burden of government spending.

Here’s Part II, which discusses the theoretical reasons why big government reduces prosperity.

I provide eight examples to illustrate how and why government spending can hinder economic growth.

The last item is what I called the “stagnation cost,” which is the tendency of politicians and bureaucrats to throw good money after badbecause there is no incentive to adapt.

When giving speeches, I usually refer to this as the “inertia cost.”

But, regardless of what I call it, I explain that every government program has a group of beneficiaries that are strongly motivated to keep their gravy train moving even if money is being wasted.

And since politicians like getting votes from those beneficiaries, it’s very difficult to derail programs.

In an article for National Review, Sean-Michael Pigeon offers one very plausible explanation for why this happens.

He says politicians fall victim to the fallacy of sunk costs.

…we need an understanding of government inefficiency… One reason government spending is so needlessly costly is somewhat paradoxical: The state is wasteful precisely because people are so concerned about wasting money. …This is a classic sunk-cost fallacy: Costs that can’t be recovered are “sunk,” and therefore irrelevant for future decision-making.But while this fallacy is well known in economics, sunk costs are a big deal in the practical world of politics. Nobody wants to waste money, and politicians don’t want to cause waste directly. No member of Congress wants to be publicly responsible for a half-built bridge, especially when they have to tell taxpayers they still have to foot the bill for it. …Congress’s unwillingness to cut the funding of poorly run projects is a significant reason government projects always spend too much. …Politicians are nervous about cutting ongoing projects because they don’t want to leave taxpayers empty-handed, but stomaching sunk costs is worth it. Not only is it economically sound to stop government agencies from bleeding money, but it also sets the precedent that shoddy work will be held accountable. …to save money, sometimes you have to lose money.

In other words, it would be good to stop the bleeding.

But that’s not politically easy. Mr. Pigeon has examples in his column, but he should have included California’s (supposed) high-speed rail project.

That boondoggle has been draining money from state and federal coffers for about a decade. Cost estimates have exploded (something that almost always happens with government projects), yet construction has barely started.

Yet now Biden wants to increase federal subsidies for that money pit, along with other long-distance rail schemes.

And you won’t be surprised that a big argument from supporters is that we’ve already wasted billions and billions of dollars on the project, so therefore we should continue to waste even more money(sort of like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer because it feels good when you stop).

The big-picture bottom line is that the burden of federal spending should be reduced so that politicians have less ability to waste money.

And that also means that Americans will be able to enjoy more growth and more prosperity.

The targeted bottom line is that we should get Washington out of infrastructure.

Demographic Decline = Fiscal Crisis

As a libertarian, I don’t care if couples have zero children or 10 children.

But as an economist, I’m horrified that big changes in demographics are going to lead to fiscal crises thanks to poorly designed entitlement programs.

Simply stated, modest-sized welfare states are sustainable if more and more new taxpayers enter the system to finance benefits for a burgeoning population of old people.

But that’s not happening any more. In most nations, traditional population pyramids are becoming population cylinders because of falling birthrates and increasing longevity.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that there is growing awareness the demographic changes are happening. Indeed, Damien Cave, Emma Bubola and Choe Sang-Hun have a big article on population decline in the New York Times.

All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore. Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea can’t find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.…Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time. …The strain of longer lives and low fertility, leading to fewer workers and more retirees, threatens to upend how societies are organized — around the notion that a surplus of young people will drive economies and help pay for the old. …The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff. …according to projections by an international team of scientists published last year in The Lancet, 183 countries and territories — out of 195 — will have fertility rates below replacement level by 2100.

Plenty of interesting data, though remarkably little focus on the fiscal implications. Sort of like writing about 1943 France with almost no reference to World War II.

In any event, the article takes a closer look at the challenges in certain nations., including South Korea.

To goose the birthrate, the government has handed out baby bonuses. It increased child allowances and medical subsidies for fertility treatments and pregnancy. Health officials have showered newborns with gifts of beef, baby clothes and toys. The government is also building kindergartens and day care centers by the hundreds. In Seoul, every bus and subway car has pink seats reserved for pregnant women. But this month, Deputy Prime Minister Hong Nam-ki admitted that the government — which has spent more than $178 billion over the past 15 years encouraging women to have more babies — was not making enough progress.

I was struck by the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister that his nation “was not making enough progress”?

That’s a strange way of describing catastrophic decline in birthrates, as noted in the article.

South Korea’s fertility rate dropped to a record low of 0.92 in 2019 — less than one child per woman, the lowest rate in the developed world. Every month for the past 59 months, the total number of babies born in the country has dropped to a record depth.

Maybe, just maybe, government handouts are not the way to boost birthrates.

I’ll conclude by noting that the real problem is tax-and-transfer entitlement programs, not low birth rates.

Both Singapore and Hong Kong have extremely low birth rates, for instance, but they aren’t facing a huge fiscal crisis because they have very small welfare states and workers are obliged to save for their own retirement.

Other Asian jurisdictions, however, made the mistake of copying Western nations, meaning entitlement programs that become mathematically impossible when populations pyramids become population cylinders (or even upside-down pyramids!).

In addition to South Korea, Japan also faces a major challenge.

And the situation is very grim in Europe, even though birth rates haven’t fallen to the same degree (though the numbers is some Eastern European nations are staggeringly bad).

P.S. The United States isn’t far behind.

P.P.S. We know the answer to this crisis, but far too many politicians are focused on trying to make matters worse rather than better.

P.P.P.S. You can read my two-part series on this topic here and here.

Security from CRADLE TO GRAVE never quite works out!!!

Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman

The Entitlement Disaster that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are Ignoring

July 8, 2016 by Dan Mitchell

I’m like a broken record when it comes to entitlement spending. I’ve explained, ad nauseam, that programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security must be reformed.

In part, genuine entitlement reform is a good idea because you get better economic performance when you replace tax-and-transfer schemes with private savings and competitive markets.

But reform also is desperately needed because ofchanging demographics. Simply stated, leaving all the entitlement programs on autopilot is a recipe for a Greek-style fiscal crisis.

If you want a rigorous explanation of the issue, my colleague Jeff Miron has a must-read monograph on the topic. You should peruse the entire study, but here’s the key conclusion if you’re pressed for time.

…this paper projects fiscal imbalance as of every year between 1965 and 2014, using data-supported assumptions about gross domestic product (GDP) growth, revenue, and trends in mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. The projections reveal that the United States has faced a growing fiscal imbalance since the early 1970s, largely as a consequence of continuous growth in mandatory spending. As of 2014, the fiscal imbalance stands at $117.9 trillion, with few signs of future improvement even if GDP growth accelerates or tax revenues increase relative to historic norms. Thus the only viable way to restore fiscal balance is to scale back mandatory spending policies, particularly on large health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Jeff’s report is filled with sobering charts. I’ve picked out three that deserve special attention.

First, here’s a look back in history at the growing fiscal burden of entitlement programs.

Second, here’s a look forward at how the fiscal burden of entitlement programs will get even worse in coming decades.

Keep in mind, by the way, that the two above charts only show the fiscal burden of entitlement programs (sometimes referred to as “mandatory spending” since the laws “mandate” that money be given to anyone who is “entitled” based on various criteria).

When you add discretionary (annually appropriated) spending to the mix, as well as interest that is paid on the national debt, the numbers get even more grim.

Jeff adds everything together and shows, for each year between 1965 and 2014, the “present value” of the gap between what the government is promising to spend and how much revenue it is projected to collect.

These numbers are especially horrific because “present value” is a measure of how much money the government would have to somehow obtain and set aside in order to have a nest egg capable of offsetting future deficits.

Needless to say, the federal government did not have access to $118 trillion (yes, trillion with a “t”) in 2014. And if there were updated numbers for 2015 and 2016 (which would probably be even higher than $118 trillion), the federal government still wouldn’t have access to that amount of money either.

Especially since the total annual output of the American economy is about $18 trillion.

So now you can understand why international bureaucracies like the IMF, BIS, and OECD estimate that the fiscal challenge in the United States may be even bigger than the problems in decrepit welfare states such as France and Italy.

Let’s get another perspective on the issue. James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center warns about the scope of the problem.

Despite what presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have been saying on the campaign trail, the need to reform the nation’s major entitlement programs cannot be wished away. The primary cause of the nation’s fiscal problems, now and in the future, is the rapid rise in entitlement spending. In 1970, spending on Social Security and the major health care entitlement programs was 3.6 percent of GDP. In 2015, spending on these programs was 10.3 percent of GDP. By 2040, CBO expects spending on these programs to reach 14.2 percent of GDP. …entitlement reform is needed to put the federal government’s finances on a more stable foundation.

He outlines his preferred reforms, some of which I heartily embrace and some of what I think are too timid, but the key point is that he succinctly explains the need to act soon to avoid a giant long-term problem.

…reforms are not intended to create budgetary balance in the short-run. Large-scale change cannot be implemented in the major programs without significant transition periods, which means the reforms need to be enacted soon to reduce costs in fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five years. Skeptics may say it’s pointless to worry about fiscal problems that are more than twenty years off. They’re wrong. …The result is a misallocation of resources that undermines long-term economic growth. …Entitlement reform is an absolute necessity, as will soon become evident to everyone, one way or another.

The recent testimony by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute also is must reading.

In just two generations, the government…has effectively become an entitlements machine. …transfers have become a major component in the family budget of the average American household-and our dependence on these government transfers continues to rise. …Fifty years into our great social experiment of massive expansion of entitlement programs, there is ample evidence to indicate that the unintended consequences of this reconfigutation of American political and economic life have been major and adverse.

You should read the entire testimony, which is a comprehensive explanation of how entitlements are eroding American exceptionalism.

And I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in America.

In effect, our “social capital” of self reliance and the work ethic is beingreplaced by an entitlement mentality.

At the risk of understatement, that won’t end well. Heck, I don’t know which part is more depressing, theever-growing burden of spending or the fact that more and more Americans think it’s okay to live off the labor of others.

All I can say for sure is that this combination never was, is not now, and never will be a recipe for national success.

Let’s conclude with some sage observations by George Melloan of theWall Street Journal. He summarizes the problem as being a combination of too much spending and too little political courage. Here’s the too-much-spending part.

…we seem richer than we actually are because we have borrowed so heavily from future generations. …the nation’s slow growth and rising debt are already reducing the opportunities for upward mobility. …Recent projections of the future cost of current government obligations certainly won’t relieve…people’s worries. Those promises have expanded far beyond any reasonable projection of the government’s ability to extract enough revenue to cover them. …The Congressional Budget Office projects a steady rise in “mandatory” (i.e., entitlement) costs as a share of GDP out into the distant future. …The upshot: Americans are deep in debt, mainly thanks to government excesses.

And here’s the too-little-political-courage part.

The only real answer is that the entitlement programs will have to be reformed, and sooner better than later, because the longer reform is postponed the greater the fiscal imbalance will become and the greater its drain will be… Donald Trump is out to lunch on this issue, as he is on most questions that require more than a fatuous sound-bite answer. As for Hillary…, forget about it.

Sigh, how depressing. It seems like America will be “Europeanized.”

For additional background on the issue of debt, unfunded liabilities, and present value, this video is a great tutorial.

P.S. I must have taken LSD or crack earlier this year. That’s the only logical explanation for saying I was optimistic about entitlement reform.

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY More Great Moments in Federal Government Incompetence April 2, 2016 by Dan Mitchell (with video from Milton Friedman)

July 1, 2016 – 12:41 am

The War on Work Testing Milton Friedman: Government Control – Full Video More Great Moments in Federal Government Incompetence April 2, 2016 by Dan Mitchell I used to think the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was the worst federal bureaucracy. After all, these are the pinheads who are infamous for bone-headed initiatives, such as: The EEOC making […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY The Left’s Inequality Fixation Is Economically Foolish and Politically Impotent April 22, 2015 by Dan Mitchell (with videos from Milton Friedman)

June 24, 2016 – 12:30 am

Dr. Walter Williams Highlights from – Testing Milton Friedman Milton Friedman PBS Free to Choose 1980 Vol 8 of 10 Who Protects the Worker The Left’s Inequality Fixation Is Economically Foolish and Politically Impotent April 22, 2015 by Dan Mitchell I don’t understand the left’s myopic fixation on income inequality. If they genuinely care about the […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Walter Williams, Freedom Fighter March 23, 2011 by Dan Mitchell (with videos featuring Walter Williams and Milton Friedman)

June 17, 2016 – 12:24 am

Dr. Walter Williams Highlights from – Testing Milton Friedman Milton Friedman PBS Free to Choose 1980 Vol 8 of 10 Who Protects the Worker Walter E Williams – A Discussion About Fairness & Redistribution Testing Milton Friedman: Equality of Opportunity – Full Video Walter Williams, Freedom Fighter March 23, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I’ve been fortunate […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Three Cheers for Profits and Free Markets April 7, 2015 by Dan Mitchell (with input from Milton Friedman)

June 10, 2016 – 12:04 am

__ Milton Friedman – The Four Ways to Spend Money What establishments are you most unsatisfied with? Probably government organizations like Dept of Motor Vehicles or Public Schools because there is no profit motive and they are not careful in the way they spend our money. Three Cheers for Profits and Free Markets April 7, 2015 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Dan Mitchell on Milton Friedman and Adam Smith’s perspective on spending other people’s money!!!

June 3, 2016 – 12:51 am

Dan Mitchell on Milton Friedman and Adam Smith’s perspective on spending other people’s money!!! Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, and Other People’s Money May 8, 2016 by Dan Mitchell From an economic perspective, too much government spending is harmful to economic performance because politicians and bureaucrats don’t have very good incentives to spend money wisely. More specifically, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY If Milton Friedman was here he would attack Trump’s proposal for a 45 percent tax on Chinese products!

May 27, 2016 – 1:47 am

Milton Friedman – Free Trade vs. Protectionism If Milton Friedman was here he would attack Trump’s proposal for a 45 percent tax on Chinese products! Dissecting Trumponomics March 22, 2016 by Dan Mitchell At this stage, it’s quite likely that Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee. Conventional wisdom suggests that this means Democrats […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY While attacking TRUMP Larry Elder quotes Milton Friedman concerning Protectionism!!!!

May 20, 2016 – 1:07 am

Milton Friedman – Free Trade vs. Protectionism Free to Choose Part 2: The Tyranny of Control (Featuring Milton Friedman Donald Trump: Clueless about free trade Larry Elder rebuts candidate’s ‘they’re taking our jobs’ claim Published: 02/03/2016 at 6:39 PM One of Donald Trump’s talking points and biggest applause lines is how “they” – Japan, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman destroys Donald Trump on issue of PROTECTIONISM!!!

May 13, 2016 – 12:52 am

Milton Friedman – Free Trade vs. Protectionism Free to Choose Part 2: The Tyranny of Control (Featuring Milton Friedman Mark J. Perry@Mark_J_Perry March 5, 2016 9:26 pm | AEIdeas Some economic lessons about international trade for Donald Trump from Milton Friedman and Henry George Carpe Diem Trump vs Friedman – Trade Policy Debate In […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Free Market Conservatives like Dan Mitchell and Milton Friedman would destroy TRUMP and SANDERS in a debate on PROTECTIONISM Part 2

May 6, 2016 – 11:04 pm

Milton Friedman – Free Trade vs. Protectionism Free to Choose Part 2: The Tyranny of Control (Featuring Milton Friedman Eight Questions for Protectionists September 23, 2011 by Dan Mitchell When asked to pick my most frustrating issue, I could list things from my policy field such as class warfare or income redistribution. But based on […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Free Market Conservatives like Dan Mitchell and Milton Friedman would destroy TRUMP and SANDERS in a debate on PROTECTIONISM Part 1

April 29, 2016 – 1:58 am

Milton Friedman – Free Trade vs. Protectionism Free to Choose Part 2: The Tyranny of Control (Featuring Milton Friedman Trump, Sanders, and the Snake-Oil Economics of Protectionism March 19, 2016 by Dan Mitchell John Cowperthwaite deserves a lot of credit for Hong Kong’s prosperity. As a British appointee, he took a hands-off policy and allowed […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)

____

Posted in Cato Institute | Comments (0)

Dan Mitchell article on China Today ( Also Milton Friedman on the earlier miracle of Hong Kong!!)

April 2, 2023 – 8:57 am

–

More Evidence of China’s Faltering Economy

At the risk of oversimplifying, here’s the three-sentence trajectory of Chinese economic policy.

Crippling communist failure and suffering under Mao.
Partial reform during the “Washington Consensus” era.
Backsliding to more statism under President Xi.

So what’s all that mean? Well, when you start with awful policy, then take a few steps in the right direction, only to then move back in the wrong direction, you probably won’t be an economic powerhouse.

And that’s exactly what we see in the data.

Here’s a chart showing that there is a huge gap between per-capita economic output in the United States and China. And that gap exists whether we rely on data from either the IMF, Maddison,* the UN, or World Bank.

That chart is the bad news (and it may be even worse than shown in the above data).

The good news is that China is no longer a miserably poor nation, like it was during the fully communist years under Mao.

But it also looks like China will never become a rich nation.

Especially when the government penalizes success. Which has very negative effects, as reported by the Economist.

Regulatory crackdowns have devastated once-thriving sectors like private education. Officials rage against “money worship”… China’s wealthy…have been looking to leave. …in 2022 some 10,800 high-net-worth individuals, who have an average wealth of $6m, left the country, with the flow accelerating at the end of the year as covid controls eased. …Even more are expected to leave in 2023… In recent years, Singapore has been favoured. The city-state is the top destination for Chinese billionaires considering emigration… According to data from Singapore’s central bank, …it is likely that as many as 750 Chinese family offices were registered in Singapore.

Needless to say, it’s not a good sign when the geese with the golden eggs are flying away.

That being said, the problems in China go well beyond class warfare.

The country has a major problem with cronyism (a.k.a., industrial policy).

But I’ve written many times about that issue, so let’s look at another example of China’s bad policy. Li Yuan has an article in The New York Times about wasteful spending and excessive debt in the nation’s cities.

As part of the ruling Communist Party’s all-in push for economic growth this year, local governments already in debt from borrowing to pay for massive infrastructure are taking on additional debt. They’re building more roads, railways and industrial parks even though the economic returns on that activity are increasingly meager. …China’s local governments..are in fiscal disarray. …According to official data, China’s 31 provincial governments owed around $5.1 trillion at the end of 2022, an increase of 66 percent from three years earlier. An International Monetary Fund report puts the number at $9.5 trillion, equivalent to half the country’s economy. …China is full of wasteful infrastructure that the government likes to brag about but that doesn’t serve the most urgent needs of the public. …The Chinese government likes to say the country has the longest and fastest high-speed railways in the world. But…most lines operate below capacity and at a great loss.

Sounds like Amtrak, but on steroids.

The bottom line is that China’s economy is both weak and fragile.

Which is unfortunate. A thriving China presumably is more likely to be a friendly China.

* The Maddison data is for 2018, and uses $2011 dollars rather than current dollars, which explains why it seems significantly different than the other sources.

P.S. Rather than invade Taiwan, China should copy its economic policies. Or copy the policies of other better-performing Asian Tigers. Heck, the recipe for prosperity is not complicated.

The Harmful Consequences of China’s Leftward Shift

Back in 2019, I divided China’s recent economic history into three periods.

The net result of these three periods is that China did enjoy some growth thanks to partial liberalization. The good news is that the wrenching destitution and suffering of the Mao years is now just an unpleasant memory.

But the bad news is that China is still not a rich nation.

It lags far behind the United States, and I noted just a few months ago that Poland has been out-performing China in recent decades.

And there’s no reason to expect much future progress because of Xi’s misguided policies.

Writing for National Review, Veronique de Rugy noted that Chinese officials are sabotaging the nation with industrial policy – and she warns against similar mistakes in the United States.

…some of us were always skeptical of the notion that China would achieve great economic success after having reversed its move toward market liberalization in 2012 and returned to central planning for its industrial policy. …The idea that a country can become rich through central planning is a myth. …malinvestment, economic distortion, and politically driven policies replete with special-interest-driven handouts, all of which are characteristic features of central planning, eventually inflict a sizeable economic toll that’s impossible to hide. When this happens, the economy slows, companies collapse. …we have a deep historical record that shows repeatedly that state direction of economic activity impoverishes rather than enriches. Many people in America today — on the left and right — still have faith that central planning can work economic marvels, and that we should therefore emulate China’s policies. …Too many politicians, economists, and pundits are invested in the illusion that — equipped with models that can ostensibly predict the future — they can design clever plans to organize the economy.

It’s no surprise that bad policy has bad economic consequences. But it also appears that bad policy has adverse psychological effects as well.

Here are some excerpts from a Washington Postcolumn by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute.

China is in the midst of a quiet but stunning nationwide collapse of birthrates. …China’s nosedive in childbearing is a silent alarm. It signals deep disaffection with the bleak future the regime is engineering for its subjects. In this land without democracy, the birth collapse can be read as a landslide vote of no confidence in President Xi Jinping’s rule. …Since 2013 — the year Xi completed his ascent to power — the rate of first marriages in China has fallen by well over half. Headlong flights from bothchildbearing and marriage are taking place in China today. …Birth shocks of this order almost never occur under stable modern governments during peacetime. …“the birth of a baby,” in the words of the government-run publication People’s Daily, remains “a state affair.” But now Beijing wants morebabies from its subjects. A dictatorship may use bayonets to depress birthrates — but it is much trickier to deploy police state tactics to force birthrates up. …The dictatorship has brought this demographic defiance upon itself.

Unhappy and pessimistic people don’t have children.

And some of them also will vote with their feet, as reported by Jason Douglas, Keith Zhai, and Stella Yifan Xie for the Wall Street Journal.

Well-heeled Chinese are leaving China for Singapore, attracted by the city-state’s low taxes and high-quality education, amid anxiety over China’s direction under leader Xi Jinping. …Around 10,800 wealthy Chinese left the country in 2022, according to estimates from New World Wealth, a research firmthat tracks the movements and spending habits of the world’s high-net-worth citizens.…Singapore…has particular attractions for Chinese citizens. It is relatively close to Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland, Mandarin is widely spoken alongside English, and the city boasts excellent schools and a financial sector heavily focused on wealth management. …permanent residency and a fast-track route to Singaporean citizenship are available for those willing to invest at least 2.5 million Singapore dollars ($1.9 million) in new or existing Singapore businesses. …another factor driving Chinese nationals to move abroad is unease over a darkening climate for accumulating wealth in China, as Mr. Xi talks up the need for greater redistribution in his drive for a more egalitarian society.

I’m not surprised that class warfare discourages entrepreneurs. That’s true everywhere in the world.

The exodus from China also was addressed by Li Yuan in an article for the New York Times.

They went to Singapore, Dubai, Malta, London, Tokyo and New York — anywhere but their home country of China, where they felt that their assets, and their personal safety, were increasingly at the mercy of the authoritarian government. …Many of them are still scarred by the last few years, during which China’s leadership went after the country’s biggest private enterprises, vilified its most celebrated entrepreneurs, decimated entire industries with arbitrary regulation… Singapore works because about three million of its citizens, or three-quarters, are ethnic Chinese, and many speak Mandarin. They also like that it is business-friendly and global-minded and, most of all, upholds the rule of law. …For decades, Hong Kong played the role of safe haven for mainland entrepreneurs because of its autonomy from China. That crumbled after Beijing introduced a national security law in the territory in 2020.

Given that is used to be a role model, the last two sentences about Hong Kong are rather depressing.

I’ll close by observing that China’s economic outlook may be even worse than we think because of dishonest data. And if China follows bad advice from the IMF and OECD, the outlook will become even gloomier.

Testing Milton Friedman: Free Markets – Full Video

Hong Kong and the Miracle of Compounding Long-Run Growth

March 11, 2016 by Dan Mitchell

Hong Kong is a truly remarkable jurisdiction.

Can you name, after all, another government in the world that brags about how little it spends on redistribution programs andhow few people are dependent on government?

And how many jurisdictions adopt private Social Security systems to help make sure the burden of government spending doesn’t climb above 20 percent of GDP?

No wonder Hong Kong routinely is at the top of the rankings in both Economic Freedom of the World and the Index of Economic Freedom.

Here is some additional evidence of Hong Kong’s sensible approach. Below is a slide from a presentation by Hong Kong government officials, quoting the current Financial Secretary and all his predecessors, covering both the period of Chinese sovereignty and British sovereignty. As you can see, the one constant theme is free markets and small government.

For additional background, let’s enjoy the insight of one of these men.

In a column for Reason, my Cato Institute colleague Marian Tupy reminisces on his meeting with John Cowperthwaite, one of the British-appointed economic advisers.

…a young Scottish civil servant named John Cowperthwaite arrived in the colony to oversee its economic development. Some 50 years later, I met Cowperthwaite in St Andrews, Scotland, where I was a student and he was enjoying his retirement. As he told me, “I came to Hong Kong and found the economy working just fine. So, I left it that way.” …Of all the policies that we discussed, one stands out in my mind. I asked him to name the one reform that he was most proud of. “I abolished the collection of statistics,” he replied. Cowperthwaite believed that statistics are dangerous, because they enable social engineers of all stripes to justify state intervention in the economy. At some point during our first conversation I managed to irk him by suggesting that he was chiefly known “for doing nothing.” In fact, he pointed out, keeping the British political busy-bodies from interfering in Hong Kong’s economic affairs took up a large portion of his time.

I especially like Cowperthwaite’s insight about the downside risk of letting governments collect a lot of data.

Something that’s worth considering in a world where governments want to engage in massive data collection and data sharing for purposes of imposing and enforcing bad global tax policy.

But let’s not get sidetracked. Economic freedom in Hong Kong is today’s topic. With that in mind, here’s a chart from Marian’s column. It shows that Hong Kong used to be much poorer than the United Kingdom. But after decades of faster growth (thanks to good policy), Hong Kong is now more prosperous than its former colonial master.

In other words, Hong Kong didn’t just converge with one of the world’s richest countries, which by itself would be a remarkable and unusual achievement. It actually became richer.

This is tremendous evidence on the benefits of good policy and the importance of strong, long-run growth.

Let’s close by looking at this issue of growth and development. Here’s a video from Marginal Revolution, narrated by Professor Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University. You should watch it from start to finish, but if you’re pressed for time, make sure to at least watch the first 2:10.

Puzzle of Growth: Rich Countries and Poor Countries

There are two things that are worth emphasizing from the video.

The productivity of workers (and therefore the pay of workers) is dependent on the quantity and quality of capital.

Entrepreneurs play a key role in figuring out the best ways of mixing labor and capital and this innovation boosts productivity.

By the way, there are two sins of omission in the video. If you watch the whole thing, you’ll notice it mentions that strong economic performance is linked to therule of law, property rights, free trade, and sensible regulation.

All that is true. But what about a stable monetary system? And what about areasonable tax regime and a modest burden of government spending?

But I’m nitpicking. Let’s close with another video from Marginal Revolution. You should once again watch the entire video, but for those in a rush, I adjusted the settings so it starts at the most important part.

Growth Rates Are Crucial

The video uses GDP data that is adjusted for both inflation and population, which is a very useful approach. But the key lesson, as Professor Tabarrok explained, is that even small sustained changes in growth have enormous implications for long-run prosperity.

Indeed, that’s why Hong Kong is now richer than the United Kingdom. And it’s also worth noting that Hong Kong (and Singapore) are passing the United States.

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “The Tyranny of Control” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes)

March 20, 2015 – 1:40 am

Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “The Tyranny of Control” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes) In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount. I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and […]

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

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 7 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “I’m not pro business, I’m pro free enterprise, which is a very different thing, and the reason I’m pro free enterprise”

November 14, 2014 – 1:16 am

In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount. I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong with our schools?” and “Created Equal” and From Cradle to Grave, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 6 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “We are the ones who promote freedom, and free enterprise, and individual initiative, And what do we do? We force puny little Hong Kong to impose limits, restrictions on its exports at tariffs, in order to protect our textile workers”

November 7, 2014 – 1:19 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 5 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “There is no measure whatsoever that would do more to prevent private monopoly development than complete free trade”

October 31, 2014 – 1:13 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 4 of 7 (Transcript and Video) ” What we need are constitutional restraints on the power of government to interfere with free markets in foreign exchange, in foreign trade, and in many other aspects of our lives.”

October 24, 2014 – 1:09 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 3 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “When anyone complains about unfair competition, consumers beware, That is really a cry for special privilege always at the expense of the consumer”

October 17, 2014 – 1:04 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 2 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “As always, economic freedom promotes human freedom”

October 10, 2014 – 1:57 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Tyranny of Control” Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 1 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “Adam Smith’s… key idea was that self-interest could produce an orderly society benefiting everybody, It was as though there were an invisible hand at work”

October 3, 2014 – 1:46 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 654) “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 7 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “I’m not pro business, I’m pro free enterprise, which is a very different thing, and the reason I’m pro free enterprise”

August 22, 2014 – 1:17 am

Open letter to President Obama (Part 654) (Emailed to White House on July 22, 2013) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 650) “The Tyranny of Control” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 6 of 7 (Transcript and Video) “We are the ones who promote freedom, and free enterprise, and individual initiative, And what do we do? We force puny little Hong Kong to impose limits, restrictions on its exports at tariffs, in order to protect our textile workers”

August 18, 2014 – 1:20 am

Open letter to President Obama (Part 650) (Emailed to White House on July 22, 2013) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

_________

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

The Indictment of Donald Trump: The Players and the Cards They’re Playing (Plus: Jesse Watters: This is a dark day for America)

March 31, 2023 – 4:56 am

——

Jesse Watters: This is a dark day for America

———

The legal case brought against former President Donald Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg—seen here holding a press conference on Sept. 8 in New York City, flanked by state Attorney General Letitia James—is not helped by the recent testimony of Robert Costello, Michael Cohen’s former legal adviser. Costello told Fox News that he told the grand jury that Cohen, who would be Bragg’s chief witness on the supposed federal campaign-finance violation, is a “serial liar.” (Photo: David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The widely reported indictment of former President Donald Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, headed by Alvin Bragg, doesn’t come as a surprise.

That lack of surprise, though, isn’t because he’s necessarily guilty of any crimes. Like anyone else accused of a crime, Trump is deemed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by legal and competent evidence.

The lack of surprise stems from the fact that it’s clear he’s been the target of potential prosecution by politically ambitious local district attorneys in New York and Georgia—and by a politicized federal Justice Department—for some time.

Recently, New York Attorney General Letitia James spearheaded a civil investigation into the Trump Organization and many of its business dealings, while the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, led by then-DA Cy Vance, ran a parallel criminal investigation.

Under Vance’s successor, Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg ultimately pled guilty to a tax fraud scheme and he provided testimony against the Trump Organization, which itself was convicted of participating in that scheme.

Indictment Not Yet Released

Trump himself, though, faced no personal liability in those investigations. Now, however, Bragg, the current Manhattan DA, who came into office touting liberal nonprosecution policies, has apparently charged Trump with alleged crimes.

While the indictment itself has not been released, we know that the investigation focused on what has been labeled as “hush money” payments to adult film star Stephanie Clifford, who goes by the name Stormy Daniels.

Daniels claims she had an affair with Trump, which he has denied. Prosecutors allege that in the final days of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump paid her $130,000 in hush money through his then-attorney/fixer Michael Cohen and reimbursed Cohen via monthly payments from his company for legal and other services that were not provided.

Cohen ultimately pled guilty to several federal offenses, including perjury and three relatively minor (when compared with the other charges to which he pled guilty) campaign finance chargesrelated to those payments.

With respect to the campaign finance charges, in essence, the government’s theory was that when Cohen made the initial payment to Daniels, he was doing so “in order to influence the 2016 presidential election” and was, therefore, making a campaign donation in excess of the legal limit, for which he was ultimately reimbursed.

The government also claimed, and Cohen admitted, that Cohen arranged an additional $150,000 to Karen McDougal, a former Playboy Playmate, who also claimed to have had an affair with Trump. Cohen is alleged to have arranged this payment from David Pecker, a friend of Trump’s who, at the time, was the CEO of American Media Inc. and the publisher of the National Enquirer, as part of a “catch and kill” scheme to buy the exclusive rights to McDougal’s story in order to ensure that it would never get published.

Federal prosecutors granted immunity to Pecker in exchange for his cooperation, and it has been reported that Pecker testified twice before the grand jury in connection with Bragg’s investigation. The National Enquirer, however, paid a $187,500 fine to the Federal Election Commission after the FEC concluded that the $150,000 payment was an illegal corporate campaign contribution that had been arranged in coordination with people with the Trump campaign, including Cohen.

At the time of his sentencing, Cohen stated that he “acted in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump when he made and arranged those payments.

Shoehorning Allegations Into a Prosecution

Bragg, it seems, is trying to shoehorn those allegations into a prosecution against Trump for several New York state crimes. Essentially, Bragg is trying to elevate a New York state misdemeanor case for falsifying business records (under Article 175 of the New York Penal Code) related to the hush-money payments to a state felony offense by alleging that Trump acted with an “intent to defraud” by making misleading entries in the company’s business records in order to cover up another crime—in this case, the alleged federal campaign finance violation committed by Cohen to assist the Trump campaign.

As one of us explained in a 2018 article, “Those claiming that this settlement with Stormy Daniels was a campaign-related expense and a violation of campaign finance law don’t have much of a leg to stand on.”

It’s also worth noting that neither the Federal Election Commission nor the U.S. Justice Department, which are responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance laws, thought this settlement payment violated federal campaign finance laws. In fact, the Justice Department considered the matter, but ultimately closed its investigation without bringing any charges against Trump.

So did the FEC, when it closed its investigation without any finding of wrongdoing.

The Washington Post said that it “would be unusual for a state prosecutor to use an alleged violation of a federal law, rather than of a state campaign finance law, as grounds to elevate a false-paperwork case from a misdemeanor to a felony.” (Bear in mind that New York state campaign finance laws do not apply to a federal candidate running for the presidency or for Congress.)

And even The New York Times admits that the “case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony.”

Bragg’s case is also not helped by the recent testimony of Robert Costello, Cohen’s former legal adviser. Costello told Fox News that he told the grand jury that Cohen, who would be Bragg’s chief witness on the supposed federal campaign finance violation, is a “serial liar.”

Appealing to Bragg’s Base

Bragg’s pursuit of this case stands in stark contrast to his pledge not to prosecute many other crimes and cases—even violent crimes. Still, it’s not surprising since by filing these charges, Bragg will immediately become a political rock star to some on the Left.

In terms of federal authorities, we know that special counsel Jack Smith, a career prosecutor who most recently prosecuted war crimes at The Hague, is investigating potential crimes allegedly committed by Trump related to the events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and the retention of classified documents after he left office.

While the Justice Department doesn’t comment on pending investigations, we do know that in relation to the Jan. 6 investigation, Smith has seized cellphones and other evidence from Trump advisers and has issued subpoenas for a number of Trump allies, attorneys, and administration officials to appear in front of a grand jury.

Some, such as former Vice President Mike Penceand Trump attorney Evan Corcoran, are fighting the subpoenas based on the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, attorney-client privilege, and other privileges.

Meanwhile, in Atlanta

Like the federal investigation, the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, a Democrat, has focused on Trump’s conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 election. And like the federal investigation, she compelled a number of Trump allies and officials to appear before a special grand jury to give testimony.

At one point, a state court judge barred Willis from targeting a state senator, now the lieutenant governor, after she held a fundraiser for his Democratic opponent, who was running as a candidate for the same office.

That incident is revealing about what might be Willis’ true motivations.

We don’t know much about what evidence this special grand jury collected. Grand jury proceedings, by their nature, are secret, or at least should be. However, we did get a glimpse of what could be coming when the special grand jury’s forewoman gave a series of bizarre interviews hinting that it had recommended indicting multiple people.

Under Georgia law, though, a different grand jury would decide which, if any, indictments to return. Likely charges would include conspiracy to commit election fraud (§21-2-603 of the Georgia Code) or soliciting others to commit election fraud (§21-2-604 of the Georgia Code).

Racketeering?

It has also been rumored that Trump might be charged with violating the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (§16-14-4 of the Georgia Code).

Although modeled after the federal RICO statute, which was created to help combat traditional organized crime, the Georgia statute is significantly broader. For example, while the federal statute requires proof of continuity and an enterprise, the Georgia statute can be used to prosecute individuals who violate (including attempting or conspiring to violate) two or more of the 42 specifically delineated federal and state crimes (which are classified as “racketeering activity” and listed in §16-14-3) over a relatively short period of time “in furtherance of one or more incidents, schemes, or transactions that have the same or similar intent, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents.”

In other words, the two criminal acts have to be part of a pattern of behavior—not isolated acts—done with the same intent, to achieve a common result, or that have other distinguishing, interrelated characteristics.

A conviction under the Georgia RICO statute carries a potential penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $25,000 or three times the amount of any financial gain, whichever is greater.

The genesis of this investigation was an hourlong telephone call that transpired on Jan. 2, 2021, primarily between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Others on the call were Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, three other Trump attorneys (Cleta Mitchell, Alex Kaufman, and Kurt Hilbert), and Raffensperger’s general counsel, Ryan Germany.

That ‘Perfect’ Call

The accusations against Trump include directing Raffensperger to “find” votes for him in order to overturn the results of the election in that state. While the call was not “perfect,” as Trump claims, it’s also not at all clear from the transcript of that call that Trump was doing any such thing.

If anything, it appears as though Trump was telling Raffensperger that all Trump’s attorneys had to do was “find” a sufficient number of votes in order to get the results overturned by a judge in one of the many pending cases that his lawyers had already filed in that state that contested the validity of the election and claimed that fraudulent votes had been submitted and that all of the legitimate ballots cast had not been properly counted.

Trump might also be charged with lying—what the media has labeled “The Big Lie”—about the fact that the election was stolen. It’s not enough, however, to prove that Trump was wrong when he claimed that the election in Georgia (and elsewhere) had been stolen. Georgia prosecutors would have to prove that he knew he was wrong at the time and was, therefore, lying.

While it’s clear that there were many people even within his administration who did not believe the election had been stolen and who were telling Trump that, it’s equally clear that there were other individuals that Trump trusted who were telling him that the election was stolen and that they would ultimately be able to prove that in court and in the court of public opinion.

By relying on the latter group rather than the former, Trump might have been wrong, perhaps egregiously so, but that doesn’t mean that he was lying when he made those claims in the immediate aftermath of the election, or even today.

Even though an indictment has not yet been returned, Trump’s attorney is already fighting back, having filed a lengthy document seeking to quash the special grand jury’s report, disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office from any further involvement, and preclude any prosecuting office from using any of the evidence that was presented to the special grand jury.

Also deeply troubling is the fact that some of the people who have been designated as “targets” by Willis are local Republican Party activists who served as alternate or contingent electors—who opponents have labeled “fake” electors—for Trump.

The idea of alternate electors isn’t new. It happened in 1876 and 1960, when the outcome of particular states’ presidential vote remained unclear. A slate of electors for each candidate met, cast their ballots for their preferred candidate, and waited for the dispute to be resolved.

In the 1960 election, the votes of the alternate slate of electors from Hawaii who cast their votes for John Kennedy ultimately had their votes counted, even though the governor of Hawaii initially certified the votes that had been cast by electors voting for Richard Nixon.

In 2000, then-Rep. Patsy Mink, D-Hawaii, suggested that then-Vice President Al Gore designate a slate of contingent electors who would vote in Florida while litigation in the aftermath of that election was ongoing in that state. If a slate of electors didn’t cast their ballots for Gore on the date prescribed by federal law, Gore wouldn’t have a remedy even if he eventually won his electoral challenge. Gore decided to concede on Dec. 13, five days before the electors met to officially cast their votes.

Dangerous Precedent

Were any of the alternate electors or Mink indicted for attempting to obstruct an election? Of course not. Only now, when these alternate electors—who opponents have labeled “fake” electors—cast their ballots for Trump have they been subjected to potential criminal liability.

That’s a dangerous precedent to set.

Party activists should be allowed—indeed, encouraged—to participate in the hurly-burly of the political process without having to worry about the criminal law being weaponized against them.

Moreover, under §21-2-172 of the Georgia Code, the authority to choose electors is given to the “state party or body chairperson of such political party,” so members of the state Republican Party and its chairman appear to have been acting in compliance with state law in selecting a group of contingent electors as a backup in case any of the election contests were successful in court. Ditto for the candidate and campaign for which those electors cast their ballots.

A judge disqualified Willis from continuing her investigation into one of the alternate electors because she had hosted a fundraiser for his political opponent. As one of us previously wrote, “Think about that: She hosted a fundraiser for someone who was running against an individual whom she had already publicly labeled as a target of a criminal investigation that she was conducting.”

This is all, of course, completely unprecedented. Never before has a former president, much less one who is currently running to regain his old office, been charged with a crime.

While we must wait to see what evidence prosecutors have marshaled to support their charges, it seems clear that the only reason Trump was the focus of these investigations in the first place is because of who he is—not necessarily because of the severity of any violations.

———-

The left praises democracy when elected but claims the right will destroy democracy when it loses. Pictured: Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discusses the 2016 election during her 2017 book tour. (Photo: Bastiaan Slabbers, NurPhoto/Getty Images)

Recently, Democrats have been despondent over President Joe Biden’s sinking poll numbers. His policies on the economy, energy, foreign policy, the border, and COVID-19 all have lost majority support.

As a result, the left now variously alleges that either in 2022, when it expects to lose the Congress, or in 2024, when it fears losing the presidency, Republicans will “destroy democracy” or stage a coup.

A cynic might suggest that those on the left praise democracy when they get elected, only to claim it is broken when they lose. Or they hope to avoid their defeat by trying to terrify the electorate. Or they mask their own revolutionary propensities by projecting them onto their opponents.

After all, who is trying to federalize election laws in national elections contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? Who wishes to repeal or circumvent the Electoral College? Who wishes to destroy the more than 180-year-old Senate filibuster, the over 150-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court, and the more than 60-year-old 50-state union?

Who is attacking the founding constitutional idea of two senators per state?

The Constitution also clearly states that “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” Who slammed through the impeachment of former President Donald Trump without a presiding chief justice?

Never had a president been either impeached twice or tried in the Senate as a private citizen. Who did both?

The left further broke prior precedent by impeaching Trump without a special counsel’s report, formal hearings, witnesses, and cross-examinations.

Who exactly is violating federal civil rights legislation?

New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in December decided to ration new potentially lifesaving COVID-19 medicines, partially on the basis of race, in the name of “equity.”

The agency also allegedly used racial preferences to determine who would be first tested for COVID-19. Yet such racial discrimination seems in direct violation of various title clauses of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

That law makes it clear that no public agency can use race to deny “equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof.” Who is behind the new racial discrimination?

In summer 2020, many local- and state-mandated quarantines and bans on public assemblies were simply ignored with impunity—if demonstrators were associated with Black Lives Matter or protesting the police.

Currently, the Biden administration is also flagrantly embracing the neo-Confederate idea of nullifying federal law.

The Biden administration has allowed nearly 2 million foreign nationals to enter the United States illegally across the southern border—in hopes they will soon be loyal constituents.

The administration has not asked illegal entrants either to be tested for or vaccinated against COVID-19. Yet all U.S. citizens in the military and employed by the federal government are threatened with dismissal if they fail to become vaccinated.

Such selective exemption of lawbreaking non-U.S. citizens, but not millions of U.S. citizens, seems in conflict with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

After entering the United States illegally, millions of immigrants are protected by some 550 “sanctuary city” jurisdictions. These revolutionary areas all brazenly nullify immigration law by refusing to allow federal immigration authorities to deport illegal immigrant lawbreakers.

At various times in our nation’s history—1832, 1861-65, and 1961-63—America was either racked by internal violence or fought a civil war over similar state nullification of federal laws.

In the last five years, we have indeed seen many internal threats to democracy.

Hillary Clinton hired a foreign national to concoct a dossier of dirt against her presidential opponent. She disguised her own role by projecting her efforts to use Russian sources onto Trump. She used her contacts in government and media to seed the dossier to create a national hysteria about “Russian collusion.” Clinton urged Biden not to accept the 2020 result if he lost, and herself claimed Trump was not a legitimately elected president.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has violated laws governing the chain of command. Some retired officers violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by slandering their commander in chief. Others publicly were on record calling for the military to intervene to remove an elected president.

Some of the nation’s top officials in the FBI and intelligence committee have misled or lied under oath either to federal investigators or the U.S. Congress, again, mostly with impunity.

All these sustained revolutionary activities were justified as necessary to achieve the supposedly noble ends of removing Trump.

The result is Third World-like jurisprudence in America aimed at rewarding friends and punishing enemies, masked by service to social justice.

We are in a dangerous revolutionary cycle. But the threat is not so much from loud, buffoonish, one-day rioters on Jan. 6. Such clownish characters did not for 120 days loot, burn, attack courthouses and police precincts, cause over 30 deaths, injure 2,000 policemen, and destroy at least $2 billion in property—all under the banner of revolutionary justice.

Even more ominously, stone-cold sober elites are systematically waging an insidious revolution in the shadows that seeks to dismantle America’s institutions and the rule of law as we have known them.

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

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

The Honorable Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Washington D.C.

Dear Representative Adam Kinzinger,

I noticed that you are a pro-life representative that has a long record of standing up for unborn babies! It was in the 1970’s when I was first introduced to the works of Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop and I wanted to commend their writings and films to you.

I recently read about your impressive pro-life record:

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) joined his House Republican colleagues in a press conference urging Democratic leadership to allow a vote on the Born Alive protections. The proposal would protect babies who survive abortion and provide them with the same medical care that any other premature baby would receive. Yesterday, the Democrats blocked the proposed legislation—for the 17th time—from coming before the House for a vote.

Joining the Congressman and House Republican leaders at the press conference this morning was Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse and pro-life advocate who has witnessed the devastating realities of these pro-abortion laws. The Illinois legislature is currently debating two abortion bills, similar to the extreme pro-abortion agendas in New York and Virginia.

It seems you have a grudge against President Trump while our freedoms under President Biden are being taken away. I recommend to you the article below:

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

September 2021 • Volume 50, Number 9 • Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion

Mr. Kimball concludes his article with these words:

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

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

Bingo.

You can google and get Roger Kimball article “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”

NOW WHAT DID YOU DO TO TURN YOUR BACK ON OUR LIBERTY AND PERPETUATE THE HOAX THAT JANUARY 6TH WAS AN INSURRECTION? Read below!!

9 Republicans voted to hold Trump aide Bannon in contempt of Congress

There were a few Republicans Thursday who surprised observers when they voted in support of holding former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress and referring him to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

Prior to the vote, four Republicans were considered a lock to approve the criminal referral, according to Capitol Hill sources: Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Fred Upton of Michigan and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio.

Cheney and Kinzinger are on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and have for months stood alone as the only two House Republicans willing to speak out against former President Donald Trump’s continued lies about the 2020 election. They were the only two House Republicans to vote for the formation of the select committee on June 30.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formed the select committee after Republicans rejected a bipartisan commission that would have been evenly split between five Democrats and five Republicans. Only 35 Republicans voted for that measure when itpassed the House of Representatives, and it was defeated by a GOP filibuster in the Senate.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 27: (L-R) Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) arrive for the House Select Committee hearing investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol on July 27, 2021 at the Canon House Office Building in Washington, DC. Members of law enforcement will testify about the attack by supporters of former President Donald Trump on the U.S. Capitol. According to authorities, about 140 police officers were injured when they were trampled, had objects thrown at them, and sprayed with chemical irritants during the insurrection. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) — From left: Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a Democrat, and Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois arrive for the House Select Committee hearing investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Upton has served in the House for more than three decades, since 1987, and will face a primary challenge next year because of his willingness to stand up to Trump.

Gonzalez is retiring from Congress next year, after only four years in the House. “While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” Gonzalez said in September when heannounced he would not seek another term.

The remaining five Republicans included three who voted for impeachment — Peter Meijer of Michigan, John Katko of New York and Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington — and two House Republicans who did not vote to impeach Trump: Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.

Do you realize that Americans rights are being taken away from them and would you like an example? I am going to quote Mr. Kimball again. You can google and get Roger Kimball article “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”

Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me recommend that you read this letter below from Senator Ron Johnson and his colleagues:

Sen. Johnson and Colleagues Request Answers from DOJ on Unequal Application of Justice to Protestors

June 7, 2021

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), along with senators Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), sent a letter on Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting information on the unequal application of justice between the individuals who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, and those involved in the unrest during the spring and summer of 2020. The senators sent 18 questions to the attorney general on what steps the DOJ has taken to prosecute individuals who committed crimes during both events, and requested a response by June 21.

“Americans have the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances,” the senators wrote. “This constitutional right should be cherished and protected. Violence, property damage, and vandalism of any kind should not be tolerated and individuals that break the law should be prosecuted. However, the potential unequal administration of justice with respect to certain protestors is particularly concerning.”

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

June 7, 2021

The Honorable Merrick B. Garland

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Garland:

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently dedicating enormous resources and manpower to investigating and prosecuting the criminals who breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. We fully support and appreciate the efforts by the DOJ and its federal, state and local law enforcement partners to hold those responsible fully accountable.

We join all Americans in the expectation that the DOJ’s response to the events of January 6 will result in rightful criminal prosecutions and accountability. As you are aware, the mission of the DOJ is, among other things, to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. Today, we write to request information about our concerns regarding potential unequal justice administered in response to other recent instances of mass unrest, destruction, and loss of life throughout the United States.

During the spring and summer of 2020, individuals used peaceful protests across the country to engage in rioting and other crimes that resulted in loss of life, injuries to law enforcement officers, and significant property damage.[1] A federal court house in Portland, Oregon, has been effectively under siege for months.[2] Property destruction stemming from the 2020 social justice protests throughout the country will reportedly result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion in paid insurance claims.[3]

In June 2020, the DOJ reportedly compiled the following information regarding last year’s unrest:

“One federal officer [was] killed, 147 federal officers [were] injured and 600 local officers [were] injured around the country during the protests, frequently from projectiles.”[4]
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “since the start of the unrest there has been 81 Federal Firearms License burglaries of an estimated loss of 1,116 firearms; 876 reported arsons; 76 explosive incidents; and 46 ATF arrests[.]”[5]

Despite these numerous examples of violence occurring during these protests, it appears that individuals charged with committing crimes at these events may benefit from infrequent prosecutions and minimal, if any, penalties. According to a recent article, “prosecutors have approved deals in at least half a dozen federal felony cases arising from clashes between protesters and law enforcement in Oregon last summer. The arrangements — known as deferred resolution agreements — will leave the defendants with a clean criminal record if they stay out of trouble for a period of time and complete a modest amount of community service, according to defense attorneys and court records.”[6]

DOJ’s apparent unwillingness to punish these individuals who allegedly committed crimes during the spring and summer 2020 protests stands in stark contrast to the harsher treatment of the individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. To date, DOJ has charged 510 individuals stemming from Capitol breach.[7] DOJ maintains and updates a webpage that lists the defendants charged with crimes committed at the Capitol. This database includes information such as the defendant’s name, charge(s), case number, case documents, location of arrest, case status, and informs readers when the entry was last updated.[8] No such database exists for alleged perpetrators of crimes associated with the spring and summer 2020 protests. It is unclear whether any defendants charged with crimes in connection with the Capitol breach have received deferred resolution agreements.

Americans have the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. This constitutional right should be cherished and protected. Violence, property damage, and vandalism of any kind should not be tolerated and individuals that break the law should be prosecuted. However, the potential unequal administration of justice with respect to certain protestors is particularly concerning. In order to assist Congress in conducting its oversight work, we respectfully request answers to the following questions by June 21, 2021:

Spring and Summer 2020 Unrest:

Did federal law enforcement utilize geolocation data from defendants’ cell phones to track protestors associated with the unrest in the spring and summer of 2020? If so, how many times and for which locations/riots?

How many individuals who may have committed crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020 were arrested by law enforcement using pre-dawn raids and SWAT teams?

How many individuals were incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020?

How many of these individuals are or were placed in solitary confinement? What was the average amount of consecutive days such individuals were in solitary confinement?

How many of these individuals have been released on bail?

How many of these individuals were released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?

How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?[9]

How many DOJ prosecutors were assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020?

How many FBI personnel were assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020?

January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol Breach:

Did federal law enforcement utilize geolocation data from defendants’ cell phones to track protestors associated with the January 6, 2021 protests and Capitol breach? If so, how many times and how many additional arrests resulted from law enforcement utilizing geolocation information?
How many individuals who may have committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach were arrested by law enforcement using pre-dawn raids and SWAT teams?

How many individuals are incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with the Capitol breach?

How many of these individuals are or were placed in solitary confinement? What was the average amount of consecutive days such individuals were in solitary confinement?

How many of these individuals have been released on bail?

How many of these individuals have been released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?

How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?

How many DOJ prosecutors have been assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach?

How many FBI personnel were assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach?

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson

United States Senator

Tommy Tuberville

United States Senator

Mike Lee

United States Senator

Rick Scott

United States Senator

Ted Cruz

United States Senator

###

[1] Jennifer Kingson, Exclusive: $1 billion-plus riot damage is most expensive in insurance history, Axios, Sept. 16, 2020, https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html.

[2] Conrad Wilson and Jonathan Levinson, Protesters, federal officers clash outside Portland’s courthouse Thursday, OPB, Mar. 12, 2021, https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/12/protesters-vandalize-portlands-federal-courthouse-again/.

[3] Jennifer Kingson, Exclusive: $1 billion-plus riot damage is most expensive in insurance history, Axios, Sept. 16, 2020, https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html.

[4] Published in the Intercept, Jul. 15, 2020, https://theintercept.com/document/2020/07/15/preventing-violence-and-criminal-activity-in-protection-of-lawful-protest/.

[5] Id.

[6] Josh Gerstein, Leniency for defendants in Portland clashes could affect Capitol riot cases, Politico, Apr. 14, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/14/portland-capitol-riot-cases-481346.

[7] Madison Hall et al., 493 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all., Insider, accessed June 4, 2021, https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1.

[8] Capitol Breach Cases, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, accessed May 21, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases?combine=&order=title&sort=asc.

[9] Josh Gerstein, Leniency for defendants in Portland clashes could affect Capitol riot cases, Politico, Apr. 14, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/14/portland-capitol-riot-cases-481346.

—-

I want to recommend to you a video on YOU TUBE that runs 28 minutes and 39 seconds by Francis Schaeffer entitled because it discusses the founding of our nation and what the FOUNDERS believed:

How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 5 | The Revolutionary Age

Thank you for your time, and again I want to thank you for your support of the unborn little babies!

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, AR 72002, cell 501-920-5733, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org

——————————————————————————————

——

Dr. Francis schaeffer How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 5 | The Revolutionary Age

– Whatever happened to human race? PART 1 Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop


13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents

Francis Schaeffer – Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 3 | Death by Someone’s Choice

Mr. Hentoff with the clarinetist Edmond Hall in 1948 at the Savoy, a club in Boston.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 4 | The Basis for Human Dignity

Image<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64, Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.

________________

______________________

March 23, 2021

President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view. Although we are both Christians and have the Bible as the basis for our moral views, I did want you to take a close look at the views of the pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff too. Hentoff became convinced of the pro-life view because of secular evidence that shows that the unborn child is human. I would ask you to consider his evidence and then of course reverse your views on abortion.

___________________

The pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff wrote a fine article below I wanted to share with you.

Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many cases (Bernard Nathanson, Donald Trump, Paul Greenberg, Kathy Ireland) when other high profile pro-choice leaders have changed their views and this is just another case like those. I have contacted the White House over and over concerning this issue and have even received responses. I am hopeful that people will stop and look even in a secular way (if they are not believers) at this abortion debate and see that the unborn child is deserving of our protection.That is why the writings of Nat Hentoff of the Cato Institute are so crucial.

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

__________________________

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

_____________________________________

Dr. Francis schaeffer – from Part 5 of Whatever happened to human race?) Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – A Christian Manifesto – Dr. Francis Schaeffer Lecture

Francis Schaeffer – A 700 Club Special! ~ Francis Schaeffer 1982

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – 1984 SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Q&A With Francis & Edith Schaeffer

________________

Jewish World Review June 12, 2006/ 16 Sivan, 5766

Insisting on life

http://www.NewsandOpinion.com | A longtime friend of mine is married to a doctor who also performs abortions. At the dinner table one recent evening, their 9-year-old son — having heard a word whose meaning he didn’t know — asked, “What is an abortion?” His mother, choosing her words carefully, described the procedure in simple terms.

“But,” said her son, “that means killing the baby.” The mother then explained that there are certain months during which an abortion cannot be performed, with very few exceptions. The 9-year-old shook his head. “But,” he said, “it doesn’t matter what month. It still means killing the babies.”

Hearing the story, I wished it could be repeated to the justices of the Supreme Court, in the hope that at least five of them might act on this 9-year-old’s clarity of thought and vision.

The boy’s spontaneous insistence on the primacy of life also reminded me of a powerful pro-life speaker and writer who, many years ago, helped me become a pro-lifer. He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: “There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life.

“That,” he continued, “was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore out of your right to be concerned.”

This passionate reverend used to warn: “Don’t let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn’t a human being. That’s how the whites dehumanized us … The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do — and not even feel they’d done anything wrong.”

That preacher was Jesse Jackson. Later, he decided to run for the presidency — and it was a credible campaign that many found inspiring in its focus on what still had to be done on civil rights. But Jackson had by now become “pro-choice” — much to the appreciation of most of those in the liberal base.

The last time I saw Jackson was years later, on a train from Washington to New York. I told him of a man nominated, but not yet confirmed, to a seat on a federal circuit court of appeals. This candidate was a strong supporter of capital punishment — which both the Rev. Jackson and I oppose, since it involves the irreversible taking of a human life by the state.

I asked Jackson if he would hold a press conference in Washington, criticizing the nomination, and he said he would. The reverend was true to his word; the press conference took place; but that nominee was confirmed to the federal circuit court. However, I appreciated Jackson’s effort.

On that train, I also told Jackson that I’d been quoting — in articles, and in talks with various groups — from his compelling pro-life statements. I asked him if he’d had any second thoughts on his reversal of those views.

Usually quick to respond to any challenge that he is not consistent in his positions, Jackson paused, and seemed somewhat disquieted at my question. Then he said to me, “I’ll get back to you on that.” I still patiently await what he has to say.

As time goes on, my deepening concern with the consequences of abortion is that its validation by the Supreme Court, as a constitutional practice, helps support the convictions of those who, in other controversies — euthanasia, assisted suicide and the “futility doctrine” by certain hospital ethics committees — believe that there are lives not worth continuing.

Around the time of my conversation with Jackson on the train, I attended a conference on euthanasia at Clark College in Worcester, Mass. There, I met Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society, and already known internationally as a key proponent of the “death with dignity” movement.

He told me that for some years in this country, he had considerable difficulty getting his views about assisted suicide and, as he sees it, compassionate euthanasia into the American press.

“But then,” Humphry told me, “a wonderful thing happened. It opened all the doors for me.”

“What was that wonderful thing?” I asked.

“Roe v. Wade,” he answered.

The devaluing of human life — as the 9-year-old at the dinner table put it more vividly — did not end with making abortion legal, and therefore, to some people, moral. The word “baby” does not appear in Roe v. Wade — let alone the word “killing.”

And so, the termination of “lives not worth living” goes on.

______________________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband. Now after presenting the secular approach of Nat Hentoff I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith. I respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.

Sincerely,

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

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

May 15, 2013 – 7:46 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]

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

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part U “Do men have a say in the abortion debate?” (includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS and editorial cartoon)

May 14, 2013 – 1:08 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)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part T “Abortion is a dirty business” (includes video “Truth and History” and editorial cartoon)

May 9, 2013 – 7:19 am

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

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Abortion supporters lying in order to further their clause? Window to the Womb (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

April 6, 2013 – 12:01 am

It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]

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

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part D “If you can’t afford a child can you abort?”Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 4 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

April 5, 2013 – 6:30 am

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

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part C “Abortion” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 3 includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

April 3, 2013 – 6:07 am

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

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part B “Gendercide” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes Part 2 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)

April 2, 2013 – 9:30 am

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

SANCTITY OF LIFE SATURDAY “AngryOldWoman” blogger argues that she has no regrets about past abortion

March 30, 2013 – 1:29 am

Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Arkansas Times, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” The Church Awakens: Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (includes the video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

March 9, 2013 – 9:35 am

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]

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

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part H “Are humans special?” includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) Reagan: ” To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all”

April 10, 2013 – 6:43 am

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

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part G “How do moral nonabsolutists come up with what is right?” includes the film “ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE”)

April 9, 2013 – 6:36 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (3)

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)

April 7, 2013 – 6:25 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (2)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 8, 2012 – 12:54 am

E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged francis crick, hitler and stalin, john kenneth galbraith, robert theobald, youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 1, 2012 – 12:51 am

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged free speech movement, paris riots, personal peace., sproul plaza, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 25, 2011 – 12:45 am

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged airplane design, http www youtube, marcel duchamp art, post impressionism, van gogh gauguin | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 18, 2011 – 12:41 am

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged french existentialism, humanist philosophers, humanistic philosophy, natural freedom, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 11, 2011 – 12:37 am

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged biblical foundations., biblical influence, french prose, neo darwinism, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 4, 2011 – 12:33 am

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged christian foundations, freedom of press, freedom of religion, lex rex, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 27, 2011 – 12:26 am

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged authority of the bible, christian humanism, old testament prophets, school of athens., thomas cromwell | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

November 20, 2011 – 10:03 am

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]

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

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 13, 2011 – 12:13 am

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged byzantine art, conservative evangelicalism, gothic architecture., gregorian chants, naturalism in art | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 6, 2011 – 12:01 am

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]

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

Posted in Cato Institute, Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Tagged Nat Hentoff | Comments (0)

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Carl Sagan Part 12 Carl Sagan “The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead… Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences” (My 1995 correspondence with Sagan) The man who had more to do with energizing the evangelical church was the short preacher by the name of Francis Schaeffer!!!!

March 28, 2023 – 3:26 am

—

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

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

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

Harry Kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

In the 1st video below in the 45th clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
Carl Sagan. Credit: NASA

Carl Edward Sagan (/ˈseɪɡən/; SAY-gən; November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996) was an American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, and science communicator. His best known scientific contribution is research on extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation. Sagan assembled the first physical messages sent into space, the Pioneer plaque and the Voyager Golden Record, universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them. Sagan argued the hypothesis, accepted since, that the high surface temperatures of Venus can be attributed to, and calculated using, the greenhouse effect.^[3]

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

–

CARL SAGAN interview with Charlie Rose:

I would respond that there is evidence that Christianity is true. Biblical Archaeology is Silencing the critics! Significantly, even liberal theologians, secular academics, and critics generally cannot deny that archaeology has confirmed thebiblical record at many points. Rationalistic detractors of the Bible can attack it all day long, but they cannot dispute archaeological facts.

Carl Sagan asserted, “The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead… Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences.”

The fight was not over but it was just beginning in 1973 and the man who had more to do with energizing the evangelical church was the short preacher by the name of Francis Schaeffer!!!!

Half a century ago, an American pastor named Francis Schaeffer opened his home in Switzerland to anyone who was struggling with the basic questions of life. It was the beginning of L’Abri, a word meaning “shelter.” Over the years, student backpackers, troubled atheists, and thoughtful Christians found their way to this chalet in the Alps. Here they met biblical truth, explained not only with a sophistication that was then rare in evangelicalism-but lived out.

Many who trekked the Alpine hillsides to L’Abri became Christians and learned how to engage their cultures and to apply their faith to all of life. Two generations on, the influence of Francis and Edith Schaeffer and the ministry of L’Abri is evident among evangelical Christians everywhere in their approach not only to evangelism and the church but also to the sciences, arts, business, and politics.

Schaeffer died of cancer in 1984. But L’Abri continues with branches all over the world: in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, England, Korea, Canada, and two in the United States (in Southborough, Mass., and Rochester, Minn.). These centers for training in Christian philosophy are the legacy of a man who-according to long-time associate and founder of the Francis Schaeffer Institute Jerram Barrs-never considered himself a theologian or philosopher, but simply a pastor and an evangelist.

Schaeffer became a Christian when he was 17, after reading the Bible from beginning to end and finding that it gave answers to questions he struggled with. He studied at Faith Seminary and pastored churches in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and St. Louis.

In St. Louis, Schaeffer and his wife Edith started a ministry, Children for Christ. At the same time, conflicts and schisms in the Presbyterian Church forced him to defend a high view of Scripture against liberal theology. He started the International Council of Christian Churches to counter the World Council of Churches. This took him to Europe, where he settled in Switzerland in 1948.

But L’Abri had its genesis in a spiritual crisis that engulfed Schaeffer in 1950-1951. Depressed by church politics and power struggles, Schaeffer wrestled with the question: “How could people stand for truth and purity and God’s holiness without ugliness and harshness?” He became dissatisfied, too, with his own failures to live out the faith as the Bible describes it, according to Mr. Barrs.

Schaeffer felt these problems so deeply that he began to question whether Christianity, if it has so little effect, could be true. Once again, as he did when he was 17, he plunged into Bible reading in search of answers. He found them, becoming convinced that not only salvation but sanctification and the whole of the Christian’s life are by faith. “The sun came out again,” he said, and he found “a new song in my heart.”

Now, in addition to holding Bible studies in the Schaeffer home and working with children, the Schaeffers began discussion groups for their teenage daughters and friends to hear their questions and to tell about the Bible’s answers.

On June 5, 1955, the Schaeffers drew up a plan to turn their home into a place where people could come to work out their problems and to practice “true spirituality.” Without finances and with no assurance that they would be allowed to stay in Switzerland, the Schaeffers purchased property in Huemoz, a rural village high in the mountains with a spectacular view of the Alps.

Ranald Macaulay, a student at Cambridge who became involved with the Schaeffers in the early days (and later married their daughter Susan), said the founding of L’Abri was consistent with its organizing principle: to live in constant dependence on the grace of God. At a March 11-13 Jubilee for L’Abri Fellowship at the America’s Center in St. Louis, Mr. Macaulay said the Schaeffers resolved to do no advertising for workers, no marketing to attract newcomers, no fundraising, and no planning-principles in stark contrast to most other ministries.

The Schaeffers saw L’Abri as a unique experiment-they did not necessarily recommend this radical dependence on God’s providence as a pattern for other ministries-but the needs always were met. Concerned with reaching individuals, the Schaeffers were content with small numbers. Over time, however, the effect of their work multiplied. Over 1,000 L’Abri alumni attended the jubilee celebration, an event that was equal parts conference and family reunion.

Os Guinness, Harold O.J. Brown, and Chuck Colson-all major evangelical thinkers who were shaped by L’Abri-gave addresses. Screenwriter Brian Godawa, who wrote To End All Wars, gave a workshop on transforming Hollywood. Theologian and cultural critic Vishal Mangalwadi, from India, talked about his upcoming television documentary series on the impact of the Bible, The Book of the Millennium. Book tables overflowed with titles by L’Abri Alumni.

Workshops focused on the various facets of “The Central Themes of L’Abri,” “Transforming All of Life,” and “True Spirituality.” The evenings closed with classical music concerts.

But unlike most idea-packed conferences, the program also scheduled in time for fellowship: an hour and a half devoted to lunch; 30 minutes between sessions; free afternoons and early evenings so people had time to talk. People who had grown close in the Christian community of L’Abri but who had not seen each other for decades hugged and laughed and resumed their conversations. Family members recalled the early days. Mr. Macaulay said the Schaeffers cleared out the furniture, set up chairs, and made elaborate preparations in their chalet, while Schaeffer, wearing a black suit, preached a brilliant sermon-all for three people. Mr. Macaulay remembers thinking, “Oh, if everybody could hear this!” In those days, he said, it was exciting when 10 people showed up at L’Abri.

At first Schaeffer resisted taping the lectures, fearing it would spoil his spontaneity. But one day his daughter Susan surreptitiously hid in an ivy plant a microphone attached to her portable cassette player. The tapes circulated in student groups in England, creating a demand for more tapes and a steady supply of L’Abri pilgrims. Eventually, he turned some of his lectures into books.

More and more people-students, hippies, homosexual priests, drug addicts, and other wanderers trying to “find themselves”-sought out this “shelter” in the mountains. Some stayed for a few weeks, others for several months. By the 1970s, several hundred might be there at a time, staying in chalets built on the expanding property above a switchback mountain road.

Schaeffer exchanged his American preacher’s black suit for lederhosen and a walking stick. He engaged visitors in personal discussions fed also by the growing number of L’Abri workers who joined in the ministry. Visitors took part in the life of the community, eating meals together, doing physical labor, studying the Bible, prizing deep conversations, and walking in the mountains. This remains the pattern today in the L’Abri branches around the world, except that Schaeffer is heard only on tape.

In the course of 50 years, according to Larry Snyder, director of Rochester L’Abri, no one knows how many people went through L’Abri. No one kept records. What mattered then-and is evident now (see sidebar)-is that L’Abri was a life-changing experience.

Schaeffer persuaded nonbelievers to face up to the contradictions in their own worldviews by revealing their inability to account for what is most important in life (love, beauty, meaning). He would, as he described it, “take the roof off,” bringing the nonbeliever almost to the point of despair, to acknowledge his lost condition. Then he applied the gospel of Christ. While conversant in the theology of Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, and Van Til, Schaeffer was captive only to the worldview set forth in the Bible-God’s good creation, man’s fall into sin and its consequences, the redemption through Christ-which he said accords with reality in all of its dimensions. Nonbelievers cannot bring themselves to be completely consistent with their own presuppositions, an inconsistency that is a result of common grace. “Thus, illogically,” he wrote in 1948, “men have in their accepted worldviews various amounts of that which is ours. But, illogical though it may be, it is there and we can appeal to it.”

Even with hostile visitors, Mr. Barrs said, Schaeffer “had an acute sense of people’s brokenness and fallenness,” and “thus would treat them with compassion.”

Out of those encounters grew a body of written work: Escape from Reason (1968), True Spirituality (1971), and He Is There and He Is Not Silent (1972). Schaeffer developed extraordinarily fruitful concepts: how human beings need both “form and freedom”; how people today compartmentalize their lives into a meaningless objective “lower story” (the realm of science and fact) and a mystical, nonrational “upper story” of subjectivity and emotion (which becomes the realm of religion, aesthetics, and morality); how human beings are sinful and broken due to the Fall, yet how at the same time human beings have an intrinsic value and dignity, bearing the image of God.

Those concepts-fueled by practical discussions and communal living at L’Abri-quickly gathered public momentum. Before L’Abri, many conservative Protestants had no problem with legalizing abortion, considering it a Catholic issue and responding out of a knee-jerk anti-Catholicism. But the Schaeffers showed that abortion-along with the growing acceptance of euthanasia and the coming genetic engineering-constitutes a horrible assault on all that it means to be human. With the book and video series How Should We Then Live? (1976) and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1979), Schaeffer’s ideas spread to a broader audience. With A Christian Manifesto (1981), he called evangelicals to the fight against abortion and to political activism to reverse what he saw as the trend toward both moral anarchy and political tyranny.

Such an extended ministry was a partnership with Schaeffer’s wife. “If time allowed, a whole seminar could be devoted to the work of Edith Schaeffer,” author and L’Abri alum Os Guinness told the jubilee crowd. Health problems, including a deteriorating esophagus, prevented Schaeffer’s wife Edith, 92, from attending the St. Louis jubilee. Always an active part of L’Abri and an author herself, she is currently in a Swiss hospital. There, according to Udo Middleman, husband to Schaeffer daughter Debbie, the family is battling the very dangers Schaeffer described as family members insist on active treatment and care for Mrs. Schaeffer against a European medical establishment that is content to withhold treatment and to allow her simply to die.

Those struggles only emphasize that, in many ways, the culture of relativism, irrationalism, and self-centeredness that Schaeffer anticipated is here. “Postmodernists are so focused on I, me, myself that they have trouble focusing on any thing beyond themselves,” said L’Abri Australia leader Frank Stootman. And yet, he said, the Schaeffer method of taking people with their presuppositions to their logical conclusions and showing the superiority of a biblical worldview is still effective.

Per Staffan Johansson, of L’Abri in Sweden, told WORLD that seekers today are less philosophical than they were in the 1960s. Instead of wrestling with questions about the meaning of life and other objective truth, they are more preoccupied with problems of relationships and the meaning of their jobs and professions. “We do more in Sweden with vocation,” he said. “And yet, this is what L’Abri has always done,” relating faith to all of life.

Mr. Guinness said that “the genius of Schaeffer’s apologetics has yet to be fully unwrapped.” When asked about reaching the culture, Mr. Guinness said that one of Schaeffer’s great insights is that we have to reach not cultures but individuals. Each individual has his or her own questions, personal struggles, and moral brokenness. Schaeffer took them all seriously, addressing people one by one, while giving them-sometimes for the first time-a sense of belonging to a community.

Many approaches to evangelism and church growth today are impersonal, relying on manipulative formulas and the techniques of mass marketing and consumerism. L’Abri honors the dignity and the distinct spiritual needs of each individual. Many evangelicals think Christianity needs to be dumbed down and made easier to make it attractive to people today. L’Abri teaches that Christianity has substance and depth, that it has something to offer to thoughtful, educated people, and that-undiluted-biblical Christianity can change their lives.

Fifty years later, evangelicalism once again faces the problem of being negative or ineffectual, worldly, or out of touch. L’Abri remains

223 × 373Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More

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

Francis Schaeffer when he was a young pastor in St. Louis pictured above.

Francis Schaeffer and Adrian Rogers

(both Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer mentioned Carl Sagan in their books and that prompted me to write Sagan and expose him to their views.

Carl Sagan pictured below:

_________

Francis Schaeffer

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

“The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”

by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

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

Abortion and the slippery slope argument above

Adrian Rogers’ sermon on animal rights refutes Sagan here

Genesis 3 defines being human

The Bible talks about the differences between humans and animals

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

Section 8 Sperm journey to becoming Human

Sagan’s conclusion based on arbitrary choice of the presence of thought by unborn baby

END OF SAGAN’S ARTICLE

Carl Sagan with his wife Ann in the 1990’s

630 × 414Images may be subject to copyright.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

March 22, 2015 – 12:30 am

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

March 19, 2015 – 12:21 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Raqib Shaw, Ringo Starr | Edit | Comments (0)

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

March 12, 2015 – 12:16 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Peter Blake, Ringo Starr | Edit | Comments (1)

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

March 5, 2015 – 4:47 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Beatles, Mika Tajima | Edit |Comments (0)

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

February 26, 2015 – 4:57 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Blow Up, David Hemmings,Michelangelo Antonioni, Nancy Holt, Sarah Miles., Vanessa Redgrave | Edit | Comments (0)

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

February 19, 2015 – 5:33 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen | Tagged alan alda, Anjelica Huston, mia farrow, Sam Waterston | Edit | Comments (0)

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

February 12, 2015 – 5:00 am

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

February 5, 2015 – 4:31 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen | Tagged Allora & Calzadilla | Edit| Comments (0)

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

January 29, 2015 – 5:01 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Trey McCarley | Edit | Comments (0)

Fast Facts about the U.S. Federal Debt

March 27, 2023 – 5:40 pm

—-

By Romina Boccia

High and rising government debt slows growth, crowds out private investment, limits the government’s ability to respond to unexpected emergencies, and elevates the risk of a sudden fiscal crisis, where investors would lose confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds and the U.S. dollar. This fact sheet lays out everything legislators and the public need to know about the U.S. federal debt to help them examine the unsustainability of the U.S. budget.

The total or gross federal debt is $31.5 trillion. This is the debt subject to the debt limit.
- At 120 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the gross federal debt exceeds the amount of goods and services produced in the United States every year by one‐fifth.
- The total federal debt burden per U.S. person is $94,000.
- The total federal debt burden per U.S. household is $240,000.
- Total federal debt consists of publicly held debt (borrowed from credit markets, including from individuals, state/local governments, foreign entities, and the Federal Reserve) and intragovernmental debt (borrowed from federal trust funds like Social Security).
The publicly held or public debt is $24.6 trillion. This debt is borrowed in credit markets.
- At 95 percent of gross domestic product, the publicly held debt is approaching the size of the U.S. economy, as measured by all the goods and services produced in the United States in one year.
- Such high levels of debt reduce economic growth. Researchers identified that government debt drags down economic growth beginning at 78 percent of GDP.
- Economists focus on the publicly held debt to assess how government debt affects interest rates and crowding out of private investment, because this debt is mostly held outside the federal government and traded in public markets.
- The public debt will surpass its WWII‐high of 106 percent of GDP by 2028.
- The public debt is projected to grow to 118 percent of GDP by 2032 under CBO’s optimistic scenario and to 130 percent of GDP by 2032 under a more realistic scenario, in which the 2017 middle class tax cuts are extended.
- We owe one‐third of the publicly held debt to foreign entities; two of our biggest foreign bondholders are China and Japan.
- The U.S. Federal Reserve holds about one‐quarter of publicly held debt. When the Fed buys U.S. government debt, this is called quantitative easing, and represents the issuance of new money in the economy. When the money supply increases faster than production, this leads to inflation.
The federal government paid $475 billionin interest costs in 2022. Net interest is the cost of servicing the publicly held debt, paid to foreign and domestic bondholders.
- 10 cents of every taxpayer dollar the federal government collected last year went toward paying the interest on the debt.
- If average annual interest rates were 1 percentage point higher than CBO projects, cumulative interest costs would increase by $4 trillion over 10 years.
The annual federal deficit will more than double over the next 10 years from $1.4 trillion in 2023 to $2.9 trillion in 2033. The annual deficit is the difference between annual government spending and revenues.
- Federal spending is projected to rise to 25 percent of GDP by 2033. That’s 4.4 percentage points above the historical average over the last 50 years.
- Federal revenues will rise to 18 percent of GDP, about 1 percentage point above the historical average.

The 75‐year unfunded obligation, as reported in the Financial Report of the United States Government, is $79.5 trillion. That’s the difference between the present value of total government receipts and total non‐interest government spending over the next 75 years.
- 95 percent of the total non‐interest unfunded obligation is driven by social insurance programs (98 percent by Social Security and Medicare; and less than 0.2 percent by Railroad Retirement and Black Lung Benefits).
- Public debt will reach 200 percent of GDP by 2046 and 566 percent of GDP by 2097.
- According to Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget: “the continuous rise of the debt‐to‐GDP ratio indicates that current fiscal policy is unsustainable.”

Further reading:

The Debt Limit and the High Costs of Debt [Cato]. “High and rising debt slows growth, crowds out private investment, limits the government’s ability to respond to unforeseen emergencies, and elevates the risk of a sudden fiscal crisis where investors would lose confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds and the U.S. dollar.”
The CBO Budget and Economic Outlook in the Post‐COVID Fiscal Era [Cato]. “CBO forecasts a worsening fiscal trajectory characterized by high and rising federal debt [in which] pandemic spending followed by a surge in interest costs [has] accelerated the [unsustainability of the U.S. budget.”
The Impact of Public Debt on Economic Growth [Cato]. Academic research has identified a negative effect of high and rising debt levels on economic growth. “For the 25 studies that provide threshold estimates, [the] mean and median threshold levels [where debt drags down growth] are found at 78 percent and 82 percent of GDP [for advanced countries], respectively.”
Q&A: Gross Debt Versus Debt Held by the Public [CRFB]. “This explainer will lay out everything you need to know about the different measures of debt and what they mean for the government’s fiscal situation.”

Download a printable PDF version of this fact sheet here.

More Evidence for Switzerland’s Spending Cap

Back in 2012, I wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal to highlight the success of Switzerland’s spending cap (also known as the “debt brake”).

Swiss voters voted for this spending cap in 2001 and ever since it took effect in 2003, government spending has increased by an average of 2.2 percent annually, only about half as fast as it was growing in the decades before the cap was imposed.

To show the ongoing success of the debt brake, here’s a map comparing changes in the burden of spending in Switzerland and its four major neighbors (France, Germany, Italy, and Austria). As you can see, IMF data reveals that Switzerland has been more responsible.

I even calculated changes in national spending burdens since the start of the pandemic.

You can see that all governments used the virus as an excuse for more spending, but the fiscal damage was most contained in Switzerland.

Seems like Switzerland is a role model, right?

Professors Steve Hanke and Barry Poulson presumably agree. They have a column in National Review arguing in favor of a similar spending cap for the United States.

President Biden’s budget proposal for 2024 makes it clear that the U.S. needs a budget straitjacket sooner rather than later. …Switzerland has been arguably the most successful country in reining in budget deficits and its debt burden. …The Swiss debt brake requires that expenditures be brought into balance with revenues.A cap is imposed on spending based on expected revenue, and revenue is projected based on long-term trends in the real growth of national income. Expenditures may exceed the cap in response to extraordinary events such as war, but if that’s the case, eventually, revenues from budget surpluses must be generated and set aside to offset this excess expenditure. We propose a debt brake for the U.S. that would initially be more stringent than the Swiss debt brake…a spending limit (read: cap) be calculated each year, and that the cap be reduced by 1 percent.

Interestingly, they want a spending cap that is stricter than the Swiss version.

That would be ideal (the tighter the cap, the greater the progress), but I’d settle for the Swiss approach. Why? Because here’s the data comparing US profligacy and Swiss prudence.

When I contemplate these numbers, my disdain for Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden becomes even more intense.

They all put political ambition about what’s best for America.

But I’m digressing. Let’s put the focus back on the success of the Swiss spending cap.

It’s worth noting, for instance, that Switzerland also is out-performing the United States when comparing changes in government debt.

And the Swiss also have been enjoying better economic performance since they imposed a spending cap on their politicians.

I’ll close by observing that a spending cap would have prevented massive debt accumulation in the United States. And the same is true for other nationsas well.

P.S. Colorado has a very successful spending capknown as TABOR.

P.P.S. There’s plenty of academic evidence for Switzerland’s debt brake. But what’s more surprising are that pro-spending cap studies from the International Monetary Fund (here and here), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (here and here) and the European Central Bank (here and here).

Open letter to President Obama (Part 704)

(Emailed to White House on 6-25-13.)

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.

The federal government debt is growing so much that it is endangering us because if things keep going like they are now we will not have any money left for the national defense because we are so far in debt as a nation. We have been spending so much on our welfare state through food stamps and other programs that I am worrying that many of our citizens are becoming more dependent on government and in many cases they are losing their incentive to work hard because of the welfare trap the government has put in place. Other nations in Europe have gone down this road and we see what mess this has gotten them in. People really are losing their faith in big government and they want more liberty back. It seems to me we have to get back to the founding principles that made our country great. We also need to realize that a big government will encourage waste and corruption. The recent scandals in our government have proved my point. In fact, the jokes you made at Ohio State about possibly auditing them are not so funny now that reality shows how the IRS was acting more like a monster out of control. Also raising taxes on the job creators is a very bad idea too. The Laffer Curve clearly demonstrates that when the tax rates are raised many individuals will move their investments to places where they will not get taxed as much.

______________________

17 Reasons the large national debt is a big deal!!!

We got to stop spending so much money and start paying off our national debt or the future of our children and grandchildren will be very sad indeed. Everyone knows that entitlement spending must be cut but it seems we are not brave enough to do it. I have contacted my Congressmen and Senators over and over but nothing is getting done!!! At least there are 66 conservative Republicans in the House that have stood up and voted against raising the debt ceiling.

Morning Bell: 17 Reasons the $17 Trillion Debt Is Still a Big Deal

Kelsey Harris

June 17, 2013 at 7:13 am

Remember the debt? That $17 trillion problem? Some in Washington seem to think it’s gone away.

The Washington Post reported that “the national debt is no longer growing out of control.” Lawmakers and liberal inside-the-Beltway organizations are floating the notion that it’s not a high priority any more.

We beg to differ, so we came up with 17 reasons that $17 trillion in debt is still a big, bad deal.

1. $53,769 – Your share of the national debt.

As Washington continues to spend more than it can afford, every American will be on the hook for this massive debt burden.

SHARE this graphic.

2. Personal income will be lower.

The skyrocketing debt could cause families to lose up to $11,000 on their income every year. That’s enough to send the kids to a state college or move to a nicer neighborhood.

3. Fewer jobs and lower salaries.

High government spending with no accountability eliminates opportunities for career advancement, paralyzes job creation, and lowers wages and salaries.

4. Higher interest rates.

Some families and businesses won’t be able to borrow money because of high interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and more – the dream of starting a business could be out of reach.

5. High debt and high spending won’t help the economy.

Journalists should check with both sides before committing pen to paper, especially those at respectable outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times. A $17 trillion debt only hurts the economy.

6. What economic growth?

High-debt economies similar to America’s current state grew by one-third less than their low-debt counterparts.

7. Eventually, someone has to pay the nation’s $17 trillion credit card bill, and Washington has nominated your family.

It’s wildly irresponsible to never reduce expenses, yet Washington continues to spend, refusing to acknowledge the repercussions.

>>>Watch this video to see how scary $17 trillion really is for your family.

8. Jeopardizes the stability of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.

Millions of people depend on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but these programs are also the main drivers of the growing debt. Congress has yet to take the steps needed to make these programs affordable and sustainable to preserve benefits for those who need them the most.

9. Washington collects a lot, and then spends a ton. Where are your tax dollars going?

In 2012, Washington collected $2.4 trillion in taxes—more than $20,000 per household. But it wasn’t enough for Washington’s spending habits. The federal government actually spent $3.5 trillion.

>>> Reality check: See where your tax dollars really went.

10. Young people face a diminished future.

College students from all over the country got together in February at a “Millennial Meetup” to talk about how the national debt impacts their generation.

>>>Shorter version: They’re not happy. Watch now.

11. Without cutting spending and reducing the debt, big-government corruption and special interests only get bigger.

The national debt is an uphill battle in a city where politicians too often refuse to relinquish power, to the detriment of America.

12. Harmful effects are permanent.

Astronomical debt lowers incomes and well-being permanently, not just temporarily. A one-time major increase in government debt is typically a permanent addition, and the dragging effects on the economy are long-lasting.

13. The biggest threat to U.S. security.

Even President Obama’s former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks so:

SHARE this graphic.

14. Makes us more vulnerable to the next economic crisis.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook, “growing federal debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis.”

15. Washington racked up $300 billion in more debt in less than four months.

Our nation is on a dangerous fiscal course, and it’s time for lawmakers to steer us out of the coming debt storm.

16. High debt makes America weaker.

Even Britain’s Liam Fox warns America: Fix the debt problem now, or suffer the consequences of less power on the world stage.

17. High debt crowds out the valuable functions of government.

By disregarding the limits on government in the Constitution, Congress thwarts the foundation of our freedoms.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

_____________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

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

Let’s spend someone else’s money to solve our problems!!! That is the number one reason we have a national debt so high!!!

January 14, 2013 – 2:29 pm

“The credit of the United States ‘is not a bargaining chip,’ Obama said on 1-14-13. However, President Obama keeps getting our country’s credit rating downgraded as he raises the debt ceiling higher and higher!!!! Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict Just spend more, don’t know how to cut!!! Really!!! That is not […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Economist Dan Mitchell, Max Brantley, Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

New Video shows how Obama has run up the national debt

August 14, 2012 – 9:39 am

We got to stop all the red ink. New Video Is a Strong Indictment of Obama’s Dismal Record on Spending August 13, 2012 by Dan Mitchell The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. But this progress didn’t last long. Thanks […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

In One Year, Spending on Interest on the National Debt Is Greater Than Funding for Most Programs

July 20, 2012 – 7:24 am

In One Year, Spending on Interest on the National Debt Is Greater Than Funding for Most Programs Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. In 2010, the U.S. spent more on interest on the national debt than […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

National Debt Set to Skyrocket

June 28, 2012 – 12:01 am

National Debt Set to Skyrocket Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. In the past, wars and the Great Depression contributed to rapid but temporary increases in the national debt. Over the next few decades, runaway spending […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Each American’s Share of National Debt Is Growing

June 3, 2012 – 5:57 pm

Each American’s Share of National Debt Is Growing Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. As Washington continues to spend more than it can afford, future generations of taxpayers will be on the hook for increasing levels […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response (on spending and national debt) May 9, 2012 (part 6)

May 11, 2012 – 6:53 am

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on May 9, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

How can the Federal Reserve buy trillions dollars of our national debt without any money?

April 24, 2012 – 2:39 pm

Uploaded by PBS on Jan 4, 2008 Thousands of media outlets descended on Iowa, erecting a powerful wall of TV cameras and reporters between the voters and candidates. Bill Moyers talks with Ron Paul who knows well the power of the press to set expectations and transform the agenda. ____________________________ We should not be running […]

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 58) “Our national debt threatens our security”

April 17, 2012 – 11:41 am

Liam Fox Issues a Warning to America Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 28, 2012 Britain’s Liam Fox has a warning for America: Fix the debt problem now or suffer the consequences of less power on the world stage. The former U.K. secretary of state for defense visited Heritage to explain why the America’s debt is […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

________

NO TIME TO DIE | Final US Trailer

007 : James Bond : Theme

Goldfinger Theme Song – James Bond

Diamonds Are Forever Theme Song – James Bond

Moonraker Theme Song – James Bond

Adele – Skyfall (Lyric Video)

—-

Billie Eilish – No Time To Die

——

Sam Smith – Writing’s On The Wall (from Spectre) (Official Video)

—-

Thunderball Theme Song – James Bond

Nancy Sinatra – You Only Live Twice (HQ)

The Man with the Golden Gun Opening Title Sequence

—-

The spy who loved me (1977) INTRO HD

Sheena Easton • For Your Eyes Only – James Bond/007

—-

James Bond – Octopussy – Theme Song

–

A View to a Kill Opening Title Sequence

–

A-ha • The Living Daylights – James Bond 007

LICENCE TO KILL HIGH DEFINITION

-—

James Bond – Goldeneye Opening Theme (HQ)

—

Sheryl Crow – Tomorrow Never Dies

—

Barry, Beatles, Billie: 60 years of Bond tunes

By: 38 mins ago

<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” /> Barry, Beatles, Billie: 60 years of Bond tunes

British actor Daniel Craig poses during a photocall to promote the 24th James Bond film ‘Spectre’ on February 18, 2015 at Rome’s city hall. AFP PHOTO / TIZIANA FABI (Photo by VINCENZO PINTO and TIZIANA FABI / AFP)

Paris, France — Ever since the twanging guitar of John Barry’s theme song first appeared in “Dr No” in 1962, music has been crucial to the James Bond phenomenon.

The songs written for each title sequence have become a way of marking out the evolution of pop music through the past 60 years, from the classics of Shirley Bassey and Paul McCartney to Adele and Billie Eilish.

Nobody remembers Monty

Many assume the original theme was written by John Barry, in part because he became so closely associated with the Bond franchise, composing the soundtrack for 11 of the films.

In fact, Barry only arranged and performed the theme tune.

The famous dung-digger-dung-dung line was actually written by theater composer Monty Norman, developed from an unused Indian-themed score he had written for an adaptation of VS Naipaul’s “A House for Mr Biswas.”

It was Barry’s job to jazz it up, adding the blaring horns that made it so dramatic.

While Norman was given a one-off payment of just £250, Barry built a Hollywood career that has included five Oscars and classic soundtracks to “Midnight Cowboy,” “Out of Africa,” and many more.

Golden girl Shirley Bassey

Bassey became almost as closely linked to Bond as Barry — the only singer to deliver three title tracks: “Goldfinger” (1964), “Diamonds are Forever” (1971), and “Moonraker” (1979).

The first two are considered the most memorable in Bond history, the latter less so — Bassey later admitted she hated the “Moonraker” song and only did it as a favor to Barry.

“Goldfinger” made her a star, but the recording sessions were grueling, with Barry insisting that Bassey, then 27, hold the last belting note for seven full seconds.

“I was holding it and holding it — I was looking at John Barry and I was going blue in the face and he’s going — hold it just one more second. When it finished, I nearly passed out,” she later recalled.

A new Beatles beginning

The first Bond film without Barry on the baton was “Live and Let Die” in 1973.

For this, the producers turned to another famous “B” – The Beatles.

The group’s producer George Martin took over composing duties and brought in Paul McCartney and his band Wings for the theme song.

It became another classic and spawned a famous cover by Guns’N’Roses in later years.

From this point on, the Bond title song became its own mini-industry, without the involvement of the composer.

Big pop tie-ins followed, ranging from the not-so-successful (Lulu’s “The Man with the Golden Gun”) to classics like Carly Simon’s “Nobody Does it Better” and Duran Duran’s “A View to a Kill.”

<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” /> Barry, Beatles, Billie: 60 years of Bond tunes

FILE PHOTO: Auctioneer specialists hold a rare intact James Bond ‘Thunderball’ (1965) film poster (estimate £8,000-£12,000), featuring two panels of poster illustrations on the left by Frank McCarthy and two on the right by Robert McGinnis, at Ewbank’s Auctioneers, ahead of an upcoming sale, in Woking, Britain, April 7, 2021. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

The next generation

After a few desultory outings during the Pierce Brosnan years, the Bond genre got a shot of adrenaline with Adele’s “Skyfall” in 2012, which was the first to win an Oscar for best song.

Image: Twitter/@007

The following year’s “Writing’s on the Wall” by Sam Smith also won an Oscar, though it got a more mixed critical reception.

The latest incarnation is pop princess Billie Eilish with “No Time to Die,” which she co-wrote with her brother Finneas.

It already has a thumbs-up from the doyenne of the Bond theme world, with Bassey telling The Big Issue: “She did a good job.”

Golden girl Shirley Bassey Bassey became almost as closely linked to Bond as Barry -- the only singer to deliver three title tracks: "Goldfinger" (1964), "Diamonds are Forever" (1971), and "Moonraker" (1979). The first two are considered the most memorable in Bond history, the latter less so -- Bassey later admitted she hated the "Moonraker" song and only did it as a favor to Barry.

The latest James Bond movie “Skyfall” stars Daniel Craig. 007 boozed so much that in all reality he would have had the tremulous hands of a chronic alcoholic, according to an offbeat study published by the British Medical Journal. PHOTO FROM FACEBOOK.COM/JAMESBONDOO7

Live And Let Die Theme Song – James Bond

window.dicnf = {};(function(){/* Copyright The Closure Library Authors. SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 */ ‘use strict’;var p=this||self;function t(a){t[” “](a);return a}t[” “]=function(){};var aa={},v=null; function y(a,b){void 0===b&&(b=0);if(!v){v={};for(var c=”ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789”.split(“”),d=[“+/=”,”+/”,”-_=”,”-_.”,”-_”],f=0;5>f;f++){var e=c.concat(d[f].split(“”));aa[f]=e;for(var g=0;g<e.length;g++){var h=e[g];void 0===v[h]&&(v[h]=g)}}}b=aa[b];c=Array(Math.floor(a.length/3));d=b[64]||””;for(f=e=0;e>2];k=b[(k&3)<>4];l=b[(l&15)<>6];h=b[h&63];c[f++]=g+k+l+h}g=0;h=d;switch(a.length-e){case 2:g=a[e+ 1],h=b[(g&15)<>2]+b[(a&3)<>4]+h+d}return c.join(“”)};var z=”function”===typeof Uint8Array;function ba(a,b,c){return”object”===typeof a?z&&!Array.isArray(a)&&a instanceof Uint8Array?c(a):ca(a,b,c):b(a)}function ca(a,b,c){if(Array.isArray(a)){var d=Array(a.length);for(var f=0;f “number”===typeof b?isFinite(b)?b:String(b):b,b=>y(b))}const da=Symbol(“IS_REPEATED_FIELD”); function A(a){Array.isArray(a)&&!Object.isFrozen(a)&&(a[da]=!0);return a}let B;let fa;function C(){var a=void 0,b=ha,c=fa;fa=null;a||(a=c);c=this.constructor.u;a||(a=c?[c]:[]);this.h=c?0:-1;this.g=a;a:{c=this.g.length;a=c-1;if(c&&(c=this.g[a],!(null===c||”object”!=typeof c||Array.isArray(c)||z&&c instanceof Uint8Array))){this.j=a-this.h;this.i=c;break a}this.j=Number.MAX_VALUE}if(b)for(a=0;a<b.length;a++)if(c=b[a],c=a.j?(ma(a),a.i[b]=c):a.g[b+a.h]=c;return a}C.prototype.toJSON=function(){const a=this.g;return B?a:ea(a)};function na(a,b){switch(typeof b){case “number”:return isFinite(b)?b:String(b);case “object”:if(z&&null!=b&&b instanceof Uint8Array)return y(b)}return b}C.prototype.toString=function(){return this.g.toString()};class oa{constructor(a){this.key=a}}var F=class extends oa{constructor(a){super(a);this.defaultValue=!1}};var pa=new F(“100000”),qa=new F(“45357156”),ra=new F(“45350890″);var G=(a,b)=>”&adurl=”==a.substring(a.length-7)?a.substring(0,a.length-7)+b+”&adurl=”:a+b;let H=p.dicnf||{};/* Copyright 2021 The Safevalues Authors SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 */ function I(a,b,c){a.addEventListener&&a.addEventListener(b,c,!1)}function J(a,b,c){a.removeEventListener&&a.removeEventListener(b,c,!1)};var sa=RegExp(“^(?:([^:/?#.]+):)?(?://(?:([^\/?#]*)@)?([^\/?#]*?)(?::([0-9]+))?(?=[\/?#]|$))?([^?#]+)?(?:?([^#]*))?(?:#([sS]*))?$”);function K(a){try{var b;if(b=!!a&&null!=a.location.href)a:{try{t(a.foo);b=!0;break a}catch(c){}b=!1}return b}catch(c){return!1}}function ta(){var a=window;if(!a.crypto)return Math.random();try{const b=new Uint32Array(1);a.crypto.getRandomValues(b);return b[0]/65536/65536}catch(b){return Math.random()}}function ua(a,b){if(a)for(const c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b.call(void 0,a[c],c,a)}let L=[];const M=()=>{const a=L;L=[];for(const b of a)try{b()}catch(c){}}; var va=(a,b)=>{“complete”===a.readyState||”interactive”===a.readyState?(L.push(b),1==L.length&&(window.Promise?Promise.resolve().then(M):window.setImmediate?setImmediate(M):setTimeout(M,0))):a.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,b)};function N(a,b,c=null){wa(a,b,c)}function wa(a,b,c){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);const d=a.document.createElement(“img”);if(c){const f=e=>{c&&c(e);J(d,”load”,f);J(d,”error”,f)};I(d,”load”,f);I(d,”error”,f)}d.src=b;a.google_image_requests.push(d)};let xa=0;function ya(a,b=null){return b&&b.getAttribute(“data-jc”)===String(a)?b:document.querySelector(`[${“data-jc”}=”${a}”]`)};function O(a){za||(za=new Aa);const b=za.g[a.key];if(a instanceof F)return”boolean”===typeof b?b:a.defaultValue;throw Error();}var Ba=class{constructor(){this.g={}}};var Aa=class extends Ba{constructor(){super();var a=ya(xa,document.currentScript);a=a&&a.getAttribute(“data-jc-flags”)||””;try{const b=JSON.parse(a)[0];a=””;for(let c=0;c<b.length;c++)a+=String.fromCharCode(b.charCodeAt(c)^”u0003u0007u0003u0007bu0004u0004u0006u0005u0003″.charCodeAt(c%10));this.g=JSON.parse(a)}catch(b){}}},za;var Ca=document,Da=window;var Ea=!!window.google_async_iframe_id;let P=Ea&&window.parent||window;class Fa{constructor(a,b){this.error=a;this.context=b.context;this.msg=b.message||””;this.id=b.id||”jserror”;this.meta={}}};const Ga=RegExp(“^https?://(w|-)+.cdn.ampproject.(net|org)(?|/|$)”);var La=class{constructor(a,b){this.g=a;this.h=b}},Ma=class{constructor(a,b){this.url=a;this.s=!!b;this.depth=null}};function Q(a,b){const c={};c[a]=b;return[c]}function Na(a,b,c,d,f){const e=[];ua(a,function(g,h){(g=Oa(g,b,c,d,f))&&e.push(h+”=”+g)});return e.join(b)} function Oa(a,b,c,d,f){if(null==a)return””;b=b||”&”;c=c||”,$”;”string”==typeof c&&(c=c.split(“”));if(a instanceof Array){if(d=d||0,d<c.length){const e=[];for(let g=0;g f?encodeURIComponent(Na(a,b,c,d,f+1)):”…”;return encodeURIComponent(String(a))}function Pa(a){let b=1;for(const c in a.h)b=c.length>b?c.length:b;return 3997-b-a.i.length-1} function Qa(a,b,c){b=b+”//pagead2.googlesyndication.com”+c;let d=Pa(a)-c.length;if(0>d)return””;a.g.sort(function(e,g){return e-g});c=null;let f=””;for(let e=0;e<a.g.length;e++){const g=a.g[e],h=a.h[g];for(let k=0;k=l.length){d-=l.length;b+=l;f=a.i;break}c=null==c?g:c}}}a=””;null!=c&&(a=f+”trn=”+c);return b+a}class Ra{constructor(){this.i=”&”;this.h={};this.j=0;this.g=[]}};function Sa(a,b,c,d,f,e){if((d?a.g:Math.random()){var n=g,m=n.j++;k=Q(l,k);n.g.push(m);n.h[m]=k}));const h=Qa(g,a.h,”/pagead/gen_204?id=”+b+”&”);h&&(“undefined”!==typeof e?N(p,h,e):N(p,h))}catch(g){}}class Ta{constructor(){this.h=”http:”===Da.location.protocol?”http:”:”https:”;this.g=Math.random()}};let S=null;var Ua=()=>{const a=p.performance;return a&&a.now&&a.timing?Math.floor(a.now()+a.timing.navigationStart):Date.now()},Va=()=>{const a=p.performance;return a&&a.now?a.now():null};class Wa{constructor(a,b){var c=Va()||Ua();this.label=a;this.type=b;this.value=c;this.duration=0;this.uniqueId=Math.random();this.slotId=void 0}};const T=p.performance,Xa=!!(T&&T.mark&&T.measure&&T.clearMarks),U=function(a){let b=!1,c;return function(){b||(c=a(),b=!0);return c}}(()=>{var a;if(a=Xa){var b;if(null===S){S=””;try{a=””;try{a=p.top.location.hash}catch(c){a=p.location.hash}a&&(S=(b=a.match(/bdeid=([d,]+)/))?b[1]:””)}catch(c){}}b=S;a=!!b.indexOf&&0Math.random())}start(a,b){if(!this.g)return null;a=new Wa(a,b);b=`goog_${a.label}_${a.uniqueId}_start`;T&&U()&&T.mark(b);return a}end(a){if(this.g&&”number”===typeof a.value){a.duration=(Va()||Ua())-a.value;var b=`goog_${a.label}_${a.uniqueId}_end`;T&&U()&&T.mark(b);!this.g||2048ab(f,a,()=>b.apply(c,e),d)} class cb{constructor(){var a=db;this.i=X;this.h=null;this.o=this.l;this.g=void 0===a?null:a;this.j=!1}pinger(){return this.i}l(a,b,c,d,f){f=f||”jserror”;let e;try{const u=new Ra;var g=u;g.g.push(1);g.h[1]=Q(“context”,a);b.error&&b.meta&&b.id||(b=new Fa(b,{message:$a(b)}));if(b.msg){g=u;var h=b.msg.substring(0,512);g.g.push(2);g.h[2]=Q(“msg”,h)}var k=b.meta||{};b=k;if(this.h)try{this.h(b)}catch(w){}if(d)try{d(b)}catch(w){}d=u;k=[k];d.g.push(3);d.h[3]=k;d=p;k=[];b=null;do{var l=d;if(K(l)){var n=l.location.href; b=l.document&&l.document.referrer||null}else n=b,b=null;k.push(new Ma(n||””));try{d=l.parent}catch(w){d=null}}while(d&&l!=d);for(let w=0,Ha=k.length-1;w<=Ha;++w)k[w].depth=Ha-w;l=p;if(l.location&&l.location.ancestorOrigins&&l.location.ancestorOrigins.length==k.length-1)for(n=1;n<k.length;++n){var m=k[n];m.url||(m.url=l.location.ancestorOrigins[n-1]||””,m.s=!0)}var q=k;let R=new Ma(p.location.href,!1);l=null;const ia=q.length-1;for(m=ia;0<=m;–m){var r=q[m];!l&&Ga.test(r.url)&&(l=r);if(r.url&&!r.s){R= r;break}}r=null;const nb=q.length&&q[ia].url;0!=R.depth&&nb&&(r=q[ia]);e=new La(R,r);if(e.h){q=u;var x=e.h.url||””;q.g.push(4);q.h[4]=Q(“top”,x)}var ja={url:e.g.url||””};if(e.g.url){var ka=e.g.url.match(sa),D=ka[1],Ia=ka[3],Ja=ka[4];x=””;D&&(x+=D+”:”);Ia&&(x+=”//”,x+=Ia,Ja&&(x+=”:”+Ja));var Ka=x}else Ka=””;D=u;ja=[ja,{url:Ka}];D.g.push(5);D.h[5]=ja;Sa(this.i,f,u,this.j,c)}catch(u){try{Sa(this.i,f,{context:”ecmserr”,rctx:a,msg:$a(u),url:e&&e.g.url},this.j,c)}catch(R){}}return!0}};let X,W;if(Ea&&!K(P)){let a=”.”+Ca.domain;try{for(;2 {if(!V.google_measure_js_timing){var a=db;a.g=!1;a.h!=a.i.google_js_reporting_queue&&(U()&&Array.prototype.forEach.call(a.h,Ya,void 0),a.h.length=0)}};X=new Ta;”number”!==typeof V.google_srt&&(V.google_srt=Math.random());var fb=X,gb=V.google_srt;0=gb&&(fb.g=gb);W=new cb; W.h=a=>{var b=xa;0!==b&&(a.jc=String(b),b=(b=ya(b,document.currentScript))&&b.getAttribute(“data-jc-version”)||”unknown”,a.shv=b)};W.j=!0;”complete”==V.document.readyState?eb():db.g&&I(V,”load”,()=>{eb()});var hb=(a,b,c,d)=>bb(a,b,c,d);function ib(){var a,b;const c=window;if(c.gmaSdk||(null===(a=c.webkit)||void 0===a?0:a.messageHandlers.getGmaViewSignals))return c;try{const d=window.parent;if(d.gmaSdk||(null===(b=d.webkit)||void 0===b?0:b.messageHandlers.getGmaViewSignals))return d}catch(d){}return null} function jb(a,b={},c=()=>{},d=()=>{}){const f=String(Math.floor(2147483647*ta()));let e=0;const g=h=>{try{const k=”object”===typeof h.data?h.data:JSON.parse(h.data);f===k.paw_id&&(window.clearTimeout(e),window.removeEventListener(“message”,g),k.signal?c(k.signal):k.error&&d(k.error))}catch(k){Sa(X,”paw_sigs”,{msg:”postmessageError”,err:k instanceof Error?k.message:”nonError”},!0,void 0,void 0)}};window.addEventListener(“message”,hb(903,h=>{g(h)}));a.postMessage(Object.assign({paw_id:f},b));e=window.setTimeout(()=> {window.removeEventListener(“message”,g);d(“PAW GMA postmessage timed out.”)},200)};const kb=[“FRAME”,”IMG”,”IFRAME”],lb=/^[01](px)?$/;function mb(a){return”IMG”!=a.tagName||!a.complete||a.naturalWidth&&a.naturalHeight?lb.test(a.getAttribute(“width”))&&lb.test(a.getAttribute(“height”)):!0} function ob(a,b){var c;if(a=”string”===typeof a?document.getElementById(a):a){c||(c=(m,q,r)=>{m.addEventListener(q,r)});var d=!1,f=m=>{d||(d=!0,b(m))};for(var e=0;e<kb.length;++e)if(kb[e]==a.tagName){var g=3;var h=[a];break}h||(h=a.querySelectorAll(kb.join(“,”)),g=2);var k=0,l=0;a=!1;for(e=0;e{k–;k||f(g);q&&l–};c(m,”load”,r);q&&(l++,c(m,”error”,r))}}}h=null;if(0===k&&!a&&”complete”===p.document.readyState)g=5;else if(k||!a){c(p,”load”,()=>{f(4)});return}f(g)}};function pb(a){const b=a.length;let c=0;return new Y(d=>{if(0==b)d([]);else{const f=[];for(let e=0;e{f[e]=g;++c==b&&d(f)})}})}function qb(){let a;const b=new Y(c=>{a=c});return new rb(b,a)}function sb(a,b){if(!a.h)if(b instanceof Y)b.then(c=>{sb(a,c)});else{a.h=!0;a.i=b;for(b=0;b{sb(this,b)})}then(a){return new Y(b=>{tb(this,c=>{b(a(c))})})}} var rb=class{constructor(a,b){this.promise=a;this.g=b}};function Z(a){return{visible:1,hidden:2,prerender:3,preview:4,unloaded:5}[a.visibilityState||a.webkitVisibilityState||a.mozVisibilityState||””]||0}function ub(a){let b;a.visibilityState?b=”visibilitychange”:a.mozVisibilityState?b=”mozvisibilitychange”:a.webkitVisibilityState&&(b=”webkitvisibilitychange”);return b};var vb=class extends C{},ha=[6];const wb=”platform platformVersion architecture model uaFullVersion bitness”.split(” “);var xb=a=>a.navigator&&a.navigator.userAgentData&&”function”===typeof a.navigator.userAgentData.getHighEntropyValues?a.navigator.userAgentData.getHighEntropyValues(wb).then(b=>{var c=new vb;c=E(c,1,b.platform);c=E(c,2,b.platformVersion);c=E(c,3,b.architecture);c=E(c,4,b.model);c=E(c,5,b.uaFullVersion);return E(c,9,b.bitness)}):null;var zb=()=>{var a=yb;if(a.m&&a.hasOwnProperty(“m”))return a.m;const b=new a;return a.m=b};let Ab=null;function Bb(a,b){/(google|doubleclick).*/pagead/adview/.test(b)&&(b=G(b,`&vis=${Z(a.g)}`));a.o.then(()=>{0<a.j.length&&(b=G(b,”&uach=”+a.j));0 {a:{B=!0;try{var h=JSON.stringify(g.toJSON(),na);break a}finally{B=!1}h=void 0}g=h;h=[];for(var k=0,l=0;l<g.length;l++){var n=g.charCodeAt(l);255>=8);h[k++]=n}g=y(h,3);a.j=g}),c&&b.push(e))}if(O(qa)){c=ib();var d;if(null!=(null==c?void 0:null==(d=c.gmaSdk)?void 0:d.getViewSignals)){var f;if(d=null==c?void 0:null==(f=c.gmaSdk)?void 0:f.getViewSignals())a.h=”&ms=”+d}else{let e;if(null!= (null==c?void 0:null==(e=c.webkit)?void 0:e.messageHandlers.getGmaViewSignals)){let g;jb(null==c?void 0:null==(g=c.webkit)?void 0:g.messageHandlers.getGmaViewSignals,{},h=>{a.h=”&”+h})}}}H.umi&&(f=new Y(e=>{a.i=e}),b.push(f));if(H.ebrpfa||O(pa)){const e=qb();b.push(e.promise);va(a.g,()=>{ob(a.g.body,e.g)})}3==Z(a.g)&&3==Z(a.g)&&b.push(Db(a));a.o=pb(b)}function Db(a){return new Y(b=>{const c=ub(a.g);if(c){var d=()=>{3!=Z(a.g)&&(J(a.g,c,d),b())};Ab&&(d=Ab(521,d));I(a.g,c,d)}})} class yb{constructor(){this.g=p.document;this.l=p;this.i=null;this.h=this.j=””;Cb(this)}};xa=40;Ab=hb;window.vu=bb(492,function(a){if(H.ebrpfa||O(pa))a=G(a,”&cbvp=2″);a=a.replace(“&”,”&”);Bb(zb(),a)},void 0,void 0);window.vv=bb(494,function(){const a=zb();if(!a.i)throw Error(“aiv::err”);a.i()},void 0,void 0);}).call(this);vu(“https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/view?xaix3dAKAOjssFCVW2cjv7oIyDxKELdwFXGYEfEkJFhswBuSW1e2Q7-hDYPPQj5W3KoeH3SY-ujDFziB_9UDTUR6kc16g9TnLrqRPKZcEJ9oely9RgIN5TzLDLOL8OrdHnthqUnywbS4zeDSi-_0js-pHrYgPSFx71jms4YVazKRzFfRBqq_PbC3UQRPbhFX91bopAfOlq6ShkwEgBsCKaAlGGwqIiwfJnNG3ib-x6XQg1rQ8G02hMUMZ9utRL4CXaHSZCSr_jQWKRVksAB-lH7NmV_ac4sUESX_hr09CQENAh4wamFXwyTObJYCu6-AUZ_LMjfXQ2DynNoc4EH0yk0UnTJ4u0jZhnIFBEXZ4vMsnXm-fHn237mcEx26saix3dAMfl-YTNT6ZGFguatyrWrgmzGg4-SWqyUfp7laVAtj88NaCYcrgsJs6dWCsNO6zeQYJ4senZDWV03P2kA8tSZ6K1SLNqisXvle41E_WpPxQx26sigx3dCg0ArKJSzHILklOLrZenEAEx26urlfixx3d1x26adurlx3d”)

//cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/prebid-universal-creative@latest/dist/creative.js
var ucTagData = {};
ucTagData.adServerDomain = ”;
ucTagData.pubUrl = ‘https://entertainment.inquirer.net/422441/barry-beatles-billie-60-years-of-bond-tunes’;
ucTagData.targetingMap = {“hb_bidder”:[“openx”],”hb_bidder_appnexus”:[“appnexus”],”hb_bidder_openx”:[“openx”],”hb_bidder_pubmatic”:[“pubmatic”],”hb_cache_host”:[“prebid.lax1.adnxs-simple.com”],”hb_cache_host_appnex”:[“prebid.lax1.adnxs-simple.com”],”hb_cache_host_openx”:[“prebid.lax1.adnxs-simple.com”],”hb_cache_host_pubmat”:[“prebid.lax1.adnxs-simple.com”],”hb_cache_id”:[“8e2ff093-16b3-4d8d-b07f-4fc57abdcfbd”],”hb_cache_id_appnexus”:[“13c3218e-44ff-494a-adc1-c3a9683aef3b”],”hb_cache_id_openx”:[“8e2ff093-16b3-4d8d-b07f-4fc57abdcfbd”],”hb_cache_id_pubmatic”:[“42950dec-f249-452c-a041-de431a55cfcb”],”hb_cache_path”:[“/pbc/v1/cache”],”hb_cache_path_appnex”:[“/pbc/v1/cache”],”hb_cache_path_openx”:[“/pbc/v1/cache”],”hb_cache_path_pubmat”:[“/pbc/v1/cache”],”hb_pb”:[“0.66″],”hb_pb_appnexus”:[“0.00″],”hb_pb_openx”:[“0.66″],”hb_pb_pubmatic”:[“0.01″],”hb_size”:[“300×250″],”hb_size_appnexus”:[“300×250″],”hb_size_openx”:[“300×250″],”hb_size_pubmatic”:[“300×250″],”mnetct”:[“0″],”mnetdnb”:[“1″],”pagetype”:[“entertainment_story”]};
try {
ucTag.renderAd(document, ucTagData);
} catch (e) {
console.log(e);
}

https://www.googletagservices.com/activeview/js/current/rx_lidar.js?cache=r20110914osdlfm();

Paul McCartney Uncle Albert Rare Studio Demo

Paul McCartney; Uncle AlbertAdmiral Halsey. (RAM 1971)

Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey”

Single by Paul and Linda McCartney

from the album Ram

B-side

“Too Many People“

Released

2 August 1971 (US only)

Format

7″

Recorded

6 November 1970

Genre

Length

4:49

Label

Apple

Writer(s)

Paul and Linda McCartney

Producer(s)

Paul and Linda McCartney

Paul and Linda McCartney singles chronology

“Another Day“
(1971)

“Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey“
(1971)

“The Back Seat of My Car“
(1971)

Ram track listing

[show]12 tracks

“Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” is a song by Paul and Linda McCartney from the album Ram. Released in the United States as a single on 2 August 1971,^[1] but premiering on WLS the previous week (as a “Hit Parade Bound” (HPB)),^[2] it reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 on 4 September 1971,^[3]^[4] making it the first of a string of post-Beatles, McCartney-penned singles to top the US pop chart during the 1970s and 1980s. Billboard ranked it number 22 on its Top Pop Singles of 1971 year-end chart.^[5]

[hide]

Elements and interpretation[edit]

https://youtu.be/XI6C7L66zq8
“Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” is composed of several unfinished song fragments that McCartney stitched together similar to the medleys from the Beatles‘ album Abbey Road.^[6] The song is noted for its sound effects, including the sounds of a thunderstorm, with rain, heard between the first and second stanza, the sound of a telephone ringing, and a message machine, heard after the second stanza, and a sound of chirping sea birds and wind by the seashore. Linda’s voice is heard in the harmonies as well as the bridge section of the “Admiral Halsey” portion of the song.

McCartney said “Uncle Albert” was based on his uncle. “He’s someone I recall fondly, and when the song was coming it was like a nostalgia thing.”^[7] McCartney also said, “As for Admiral Halsey, he’s one of yours, an American admiral”, referring to Fleet Admiral William “Bull” Halsey (1882–1959).^[7] McCartney has described the “Uncle Albert” section of the song as an apology from his generation to the older generation, and Admiral Halsey as an authoritarian figure who ought to be ignored.^[8]

Despite the disparate elements that make up the song, author Andrew Grant Jackson discerns a coherent narrative to the lyrics, related to McCartney’s emotions in the aftermath of the Beatles’ breakup.^[9] In this interpretation, the song begins with McCartney apologizing to his uncle for getting nothing done, and being easily distracted and perhaps depressed in the lethargic “Uncle Albert” section.^[9] Then, after some sound effects reminiscent of “Yellow Submarine,” Admiral Halsey appears to him calling him to action, although McCartney remains more interested in “tea and butter pie.” McCartney stated that he put the butter in the pie so that it would not melt at all.^[9] Jackson sees a possible sinister allusion in the use of Admiral Halsey as a character in the song, since Halsey was famous for fighting the Japanese in World War II and claiming that “after the war, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell,” and McCartney’s ex-Beatle partner John Lennon had recently married a Japanese woman, Yoko Ono.^[9] The “hands across the water” section which follows could be taken as evocative of the command “All hands on deck!”, rousing McCartney to action, perhaps to compete with Lennon.^[9] The song then ends with the “gypsy” section, in which McCartney resolves to get back on the road and perform his music, now that he was on his own without his former bandmates who no longer wanted to tour.^[9]

Reception[edit]

Paul McCartney won the Grammy Award for Best Arrangement Accompanying Vocalists in 1971 for the song.^[10]^[11] The single was certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America for sales of over one million copies.^[12]

According to Allmusic critic Stewart Mason, fans of Paul McCartney’s music are divided in their opinions of this song.^[13] Although some fans praise it as “one of his most playful and inventive songs” others criticize it for being “exactly the kind of cute self-indulgence that they find so annoying about his post-Beatles career.”^[13] Mason himself considers it “churlish” to be annoyed by the song, given that song isn’t intended to be completely serious, and praises the “Hands across the water” section as being “lovably giddy.”^[13]

On the US charts, the song set a songwriting milestone as the all-time songwriting record (at the time) for the most consecutive calendar years to write a #1 song. This gave McCartney eight consecutive years (starting with “I Want to Hold Your Hand“), leaving behind Lennon with only seven years.

Later release[edit]

“Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” also appears on Wings Greatest from 1978, even though Ram was not a Wings album, and again on the US version of McCartney’s 1987 compilation, All the Best!, as well as the 2001 compilation Wingspan: Hits and History.

Personnel[edit]

Paul McCartney – lead, harmony and backing vocals, piano, bass
Linda McCartney – harmony and backing vocals
David Spinozza – guitar
Hugh McCracken – guitar
Denny Seiwell – drums
Marvin Stamm – flugelhorn
New York Philharmonic – orchestral arrangement

Song uses[edit]

The song was used in the episode “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Uncle” of the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses, where the character of Uncle Albert leaves home.
Harry Shearer uses a looped sample of “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” for the “Apologies of the Week” segment of Le Show, with emphasis on McCartney saying “sorry”.
The film Greenberg includes a scene in which the character Florence, drunk on champagne, sings along to the song which Greenberg included on a mix-CD for her.
Jazz trumpeter Freddie Hubbard covered the song on his 1971 album First Light.
The song is mentioned in the lyrics of the song “Hillcrest” by New Zealand band The Changing Same.

Charts[edit]

Peak positions[edit]

Chart (1971)	Position
Australian Kent Music Report^[14]	5
Canadian RPM Top 100 Singles^[15]	1
Mexican Singles Chart^[16]	3
U.S. Billboard Hot 100^[4]	1
West German Media Control Singles Chart^[17]	30

Year-end charts[edit]

Chart (1971)	Position
Canadian RPM Singles Chart^[18]	14
U.S. Billboard Top Pop Singles^[16]	22

Certifications[edit]

Region	Certification
United States (RIAA)^[19]	Gold

Notes[edit]

Jump up^ McGee 2003, p. 195.
Jump up^ “89WLS Hit Parade”. 1971-08-02. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
Jump up^ Billboard.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b “Allmusic: Paul McCartney: Charts & Awards”. allmusic.com. Retrieved 2 May 2013.
Jump up^ “Top Pop 100 Singles” Billboard December 25, 1971: TA-36
Jump up^ Blaney, J. (2007). Lennon and McCartney: together alone: a critical discography of their solo work. Jawbone Press. pp. 46, 50. ISBN 978-1-906002-02-2.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b McGee 2003, p. 196.
Jump up^ Benitez, V.P. (2010). The Words and Music of Paul McCartney: The Solo Years. Praeger. pp. 30–31. ISBN 978-0-313-34969-0.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Jackson, A.G. (2012). Still the Greatest: The Essential Songs of The Beatles’ Solo Careers. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0810882225.
Jump up^ “Past Winners Search”. National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 2 May 2014.
Jump up^ “1971 Grammy Awards”.
Jump up^ riaa.com
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Mason, S. “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey”. Allmusic. Retrieved 2013-12-25.
Jump up^ Kent, David (1993). Australian Chart Book 1970–1992. St Ives, NSW: Australian Chart Book. ISBN 0-646-11917-6.
Jump up^ “Top Singles – Volume 16, No. 5”. RPM. 18 September 1971. Retrieved 5 May 2013.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Nielsen Business Media, Inc (25 December 1971). Billboard – Talent in Action 1971. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
Jump up^ “Single Search: Paul and Linda McCartney – “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey”” (in German). Media Control. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
Jump up^ “RPM 100 Top Singles of 1971”. RPM. 8 January 1972. Retrieved 11 March 2014.
Jump up^ “American single certifications – Paul Mc Cartney – Uncle Albert”. Recording Industry Association of America. If necessary, click Advanced, then click Format, then select Single, then click SEARCH

References[edit]

McGee, Garry (2003). Band on the Run: A History of Paul McCartney and Wings. New York: Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 0-87833-304-5.

Preceded by “How Can You Mend a Broken Heart” by Bee Gees	Billboard Hot 100 number-one single 4 September 1971 (one week)	Succeeded by “Go Away Little Girl” by Donny Osmond
Preceded by “Sweet Hitch-Hiker” by Creedence Clearwater Revival	Canadian “RPM” Singles Chart number-one single 18 September 1971 – 2 October 1971 (three weeks)	Succeeded by “Maggie May” by Rod Stewart

[show] Paul McCartney

Categories:

MUSIC MONDAY I’m Waiting for the Man sung by Nico in 1982 (about waiting for drug fix)

July 13, 2015 – 11:48 am

I’m Waiting for the Man sung by Nico in 1982 (about waiting for drug fix) __________ Nico Icon documentary part 3 Nico Icon documentary part 4 NICO – I’m Waiting For The Man – (1982, Warehouse, Preston, UK) One of the top 10 songs from The Velvet Underground and Nico is the song “I’m Waiting […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Nico’s sad story of drugs and her interaction with Jim Morrison

July 6, 2015 – 1:16 am

Nico’s sad story of drugs and her interaction with Jim Morrison Nico – These Days The Doors (1991) – Movie Trailer / Best Parts The Doors Movie – Back Door Man/When The Music’s Over/Arrest of Jim Morrison Uploaded on Jul 30, 2009 A clip from “The Doors” movie with “Back Door Man”, “When The Music’s […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Christian Singer’s Controversial Journey Revealed in New Documentary: ‘I Placed Homosexuality on Jesus’ Shoulders’ Oct. 2, 2014 2:23pm Billy Hallowell

June 29, 2015 – 1:00 am

Dennis Jernigan – You Are My All In All Uploaded on Oct 18, 2009 Dennis Jernigan – You Are My All In All __________________________________________ Christian Singer’s Controversial Journey Revealed in New Documentary: ‘I Placed Homosexuality on Jesus’ Shoulders’ Oct. 2, 2014 2:23pm Billy Hallowell Singer-songwriter Dennis Jernigan has been making Christian music for decades, recording […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Cole Porter’s songs “De-Lovely” and “Let’s misbehave”

June 22, 2015 – 12:50 am

Cole Porter’s songs “De-Lovely” and “Let’s misbehave” ‘At Long Last Love’: Let’s Misbehave/De-Lovely Uploaded on Apr 1, 2009 Burt Reynolds and Cybil Shepherd give an extraordinarily charming performance of Cole Porter’s songs in Peter Bogdanovich’s absolutely wonderful tribute to the golden age of film musicals, ‘At Long Last Love’. _____________________ De-Lovely From Wikipedia, […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Cole Porter’s song’s “My Heart Belongs to Daddy”

June 15, 2015 – 12:12 am

________ _______ Cole Porter’s song’s “My Heart Belongs to Daddy” My Heart Belongs To Daddy Uploaded on Jun 20, 2010 Mary Martin became popular on Broadway and received attention in the national media singing “My Heart Belongs to Daddy”. “Mary stopped the show with “My Heart Belongs to Daddy”. With that one song in the […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Cole Porter’s song “Love for Sale”

June 8, 2015 – 1:32 am

______________ Love For Sale (De-Lovely) Love for Sale (song) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008) “Love for Sale“ Written by Cole Porter Published 1930 Form […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Cole Porter’s song “Ev’ry Time We Say Goodbye”

June 1, 2015 – 12:15 am

Cole Porter’s song “Ev’ry Time We Say Goodbye” _________________ Natalie Cole – Ev’ry Time We Say Goodbye Ev’ry Time We Say Goodbye From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Cole Porter’s song “So in Love”

May 25, 2015 – 12:08 am

Cole Porter’s song “So in Love” __________________ So in love – De-lovely So in Love From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For the song by Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, see So in Love (OMD song). For the song by Jill Scott, see So in Love (Jill Scott song). Not to be […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY Cole Porter’s song “Night and Day”

May 18, 2015 – 12:01 am

____________________ Cole Porter’s song “Night and Day” Cole Porter´s Day and Night by Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers Night and Day (song) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article […]

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

MUSIC MONDAY John Lennon and Bob Dylan Conversation mention Johnny Cash and his song “Big River”

May 11, 2015 – 12:00 am

Johnny Cash – Big River Uploaded on Jan 16, 2008 Grand Ole Opry, 1962 _______________________________ John Lennon and Bob Dylan Conversation mention Johnny Cash and his song “Big River” _______________________ Big River (Johnny Cash song) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. No […]

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

Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Dan Mitchell article: A Major Victory for Students in Florida

March 25, 2023 – 10:22 pm

—

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

Education Milton Friedman School Choice Schooling

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.

“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 […]

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

	SLIMJIM on FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART…
	mosckerr on RFK Jr: “If Trump is kep…
	mosckerr on “Now whether the 14th Am…
	Everette Hatcher III on “Now whether the 14th Am…
	Everette Hatcher III on RFK Jr: “If Trump is kep…