Jewish World Review Feb. 2, 2011 / 28 Shevat, 5771

Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough

By Nat Hentoff

	0 https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/viewthroughconversion/994187515/?random=1490036929325&cv=8&fst=1490036929325&num=1&fmt=1&label=gQZVCJXJ8QQQ-7GI2gM&guid=ON&u_h=1080&u_w=1920&u_ah=1040&u_aw=1920&u_cd=24&u_his=19&u_tz=-300&u_java=false&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&frm=0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishworldreview.com%2Fcols%2Fhentoff020211.php3&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishworldreview.com%2Fcols%2Fhentoff1.asp&tiba=Nat%20Hentoff

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |With Egypt and other challenges occupying him, the president and other pro-abortion forces may soon have to deal with another problem: the rising results of a landmark law passed by the Nebraska legislature (44-5) and signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman on Oct. 15, 2010. For the first time in any state legislature, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:

“Prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

As National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch explains the meaning of “pain capable unborn children”: “Given the overwhelming body of evidence showing that unborn children can feel pain by at least 20 weeks postfertilization, states have a compelling interest to step in and protect these children from the excruciating pain of abortion.

“We fully expect that by the end of the spring state legislative session, more states will join Nebraska in prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks” (www.nrlc.org, Jan. 24).

I am a secularist (non-religious) pro-lifer; but I am also a fact-based reporter. For a partial but long list of clinical scientific studies that document these post-20 weeks pain capabilities, I recommend http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/scientific-studies — beginning with a Nov. 19, 1987, New England Journal of Medicine report, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus” by Dr. K.J.S Anand, followed by many later studies.

Preparing for this column, I have now read many of these scientific studies. They bring me back to why and how I became a pro-lifer in the 1980s, to the surprise and anger of some of my journalism colleagues. I had long accepted the pro-choice position of most people I knew until, working on a story about a heated abortion controversy, my research included a non-political, non-polemical medical textbook, “The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment” by Harrison, Globus and Filly, published by W.B. Saunders, a division of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

What first jolted me, forcing me to read it more than once, was: “The concept that the fetus is a patient, an individualwhose maladies are a proper subject for medical treatment as well as scientific observation, is alarmingly modern. Only now are we beginning to consider the fetus seriously, medically, legally and ethically.”

Thus began my controversial path as a pro-lifer. Some women reporters I knew stopped speaking to me. In 1995, when I was astonished to receive the National Press Foundation award for “lifetime distinguished contributions to journalism,” I came to Washington to eagerly accept it.

The head of the foundation had told me the selection committee’s vote was unanimous; but in the elevator on the way to the auditorium, I ran into one of the jurors who laughed when I thanked her for being part of that unanimous recognition.

“Well,” she told me, “there was a very lively session before the final vote.” Immediately guessing what had provoked that lively debate about my being the recipient, I said to the former juror:

“You mean because I’m pro-life?”

She nodded in affirmation. My heresy having been overcome, I took my seat at the table and listened to the introduction from the then editor of the Washington Post’s editorial page, the legendary Meg Greenfield, who had some years before made me a weekly columnist for that paper:

“Nat Hentoff is not chic. Never has been, as those of us who have known him over the centuries can attest. Never will be. He is independent, not tribal in his views. And he is stubborn — not to put too fine a point on it, he is terminally stubborn. He has come to the defense of some of the most loathsome human beings in our society when he knew their fundamental rights — and by extension the rights of all — were being endangered.”

Sitting next to me, my wife, on hearing the “stubborn” reference, vigorously nodded assent. But how could I not have become stubbornly pro-life once I saw the fetus as an individual — medically, legally and ethically. I would think that anyone who has seen a multidimensional sonogram of an actual fetus would find it hard to deny that he or she is an individual, a human person.

There was more to my education. In 1997, as I wrote in my memoir, “Speaking Freely” (Alfred A. Knopf): “I spoke to a number of physicians who do research in prenatal development, and they emphasized that human life is a continuum from fertilization to death. Setting up divisions of this process to justify abortion, for example, is artificial. It is the life of a developing (human) being that is being killed.

“The euphemisms for an aborted fetus — ‘the product of conception’ and ‘a clump of cells’ — are what George Orwell might have called newspeak.” Orwell was a pro-lifer (Crisis Magazine, February 2004).

This year, as versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are introduced in a number of state legislatures, there will obviously be fierce opposition from local, state and national pro-choice organizations and political figures, as well as President Obama. I expect, however, that this Nebraska breakthrough for pro-lifers may well become law in certain states.

One of those laws is likely to come before the Supreme Court. As a civil libertarian, I’m not a fan of the Roberts Court, but Mary Spaulding Balch may be right in declaring: “Although it will be a case of first impression, there are strong grounds to believe that five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court would give serious consideration to Nebraska’s assertion of a compelling interest in preserving the life of an unborn child whom substantial medical evidence indicates is capable of feeling pain during an abortion.”

Who knows? Someone whose life is saved by such a law might someday be on the Supreme Court. Or, if Obamacare is repealed, another survivor may find ways to significantly improve health care for many of us, without rationing it.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider “must-reading”. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It’s free. Just click here.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance”. Comment by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff Archives

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

__

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

August 9, 2016

Nat Hentoff c/o Cato Institute,

Dear Mr. Hentoff,

This is the 5th time I have written in the last three years. I just learned today that your old friend Bob Dylan is going to be in concert in October in nearby Tulsa.  I am very excited about that I am going to be there with my sons and some of their friends too.

I am really hoping that one of the songs Dylan play in Tulsa is A BALLAD OF A THIN MAN which is a song that has a lot of great meaning to it.

I have written about Dylan several times on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org and here is a portion below from a post I did a couple of years ago entitled: FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 25 BOB DYLAN (Part C) Francis Schaeffer comments on Bob Dylan’s song “Ballad of a Thin Man” and the disconnect between the young generation of the 60’s and their parents’ generation (Feature on artist Fred Wilson)

Bob Dylan looked into the modern thought  of the 1960’s and he saw that the educated class did not have the answers and he was looking for the answers to the big questions of life in his writings. Over and over again back then reporters were asking him what his songs meant. Actually his songs were an effort to bring up the big questions but he did not have the answers. In the song “A Ballad of a Thin Man” Dylan ridicules the reporter “Mr. Jones” throughout the song for his lack of understanding of this new generation.  “Oh my God, am I here all alone?” is the feeling that Mr. Jones has after following around Dylan because he doesn’t even to begin to understand the deep seated dissatisfaction of this new generation with the status quo. Every person that ever lived has had this feeling at one time or another and Romans chapter one discusses the inner conscience that everyone has that points them to the God of the Bible that created the world and put them on this earth for a purpose. 

Francis Schaeffer in his film series THE AGE OF PERSONAL PEACE AND AFFLUENCE  made the following points concerning the young people of the 1960’s:

I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought

II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism

Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed Values

A. General acceptance of selfish values (personal peace and affluence) accompanied rejection of Christian consensus.

1. Personal peace means: I want to be left alone, and I don’t care what happens to the man across the street or across the world. I want my own life-style to be undisturbed regardless of what it will mean — even to my own children and grandchildren.

2. Affluence means things, things, things, always more things — and success is seen as an abundance of things.

B. Students wish to escape meaninglessness of much of adult society.

1. Watershed was Berkeley in 1964.

Bob Dylan also was writing in his music about the disconnect between the young generation of the 1960’s and their parents’ generation. Francis Schaeffer noted: It is called “A Ballad of a a Thin Man” and it apparently was written by Bob Dylan himself. Last time I read you the back cover of the album and I pointed out that when you go to the museums and also in the Theater and  in the pop records you see this same message. This is far from nothing. The very music is tremendous. It is great communication. It is like pop art. It is very destructive and just like the Theatre of the absurd although it destroys everything and leaves you with nonsense seemingly yet when you listen to the words with great care it has made a very selective destruction. Let me read the words.

You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say who is that man?
You try so hard
But you don’t understand
Just what you would’ve said
When you get home

Something is happening
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You sneak into the window
And you say, “Is this where it is?”
Somebody points his finger at you
And says, “It’s his”
And you say, “What’s mine?”
Someone else says, “Where what is?”
And you say, “Oh my God, am I here all alone?”

Something is happening
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You hand in your ticket
And you go see the geek
Who walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, “How does it feel
To be such a freak?”
And you say, “Impossible”
As he hands you a bone

Something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You have many contacts
Out there among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When someone attacks your imagination
But no one has any respect
Anyway they just expect
You to hand over your check
To tax deductible charity organizations

The sword swallower walks up to you
And he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
Asks you how it feels
And says, “Here’s your throat back
Thanks for the loan”

Something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You crawl into the room
Like a camel and you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And you put your nose into the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin’ around
You got to be made
To be wearing a telephone

But something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

Something is happening here
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

Songwriters
Bob Dylan

Francis Schaeffer observed:

In the June 28, 1966 issue of Look Magazine in the article on California the writer concludes, “It may seem ironical that a highly technical society demands a means for mystically exploration and this is LSD.” All of these may sound different. LSD and Bob Dylan may sounds miles apart. A tremendous art work in one of our great museums and the kids in a concert listening to Bob Dylan but in reality the message is the same. The tension is that according to all logic and rationality ALL IS ABSURD, yet man at the same time can not live with this and he is in this tremendous tension. He just can’t get away from being human. This is exactly what Paul was talking about in the Book of Romans and that man really knows about God and he knows about God in his conscience and from God’s external [creative] works.

_____________

At one point in his life Bob Dylan did come to the same final conclusion that Solomon did so long ago in the Book of Ecclesiastes  when he observed the world around him and Dylan expressed this same conclusion in his song “Gotta Serve Somebody” back in the early 1980’s.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

I have a good friend who is a street preacher who preaches on the Santa Monica Promenade in California and during the Q/A sessions he does have lots of atheists that enjoy their time at the mic. When this happens he  always quotes Romans 1:18-19 (Amplified Bible) ” For God’s wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness REPRESS and HINDER the truth and make it inoperative. For that which is KNOWN about God is EVIDENT to them and MADE PLAIN IN THEIR INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, because God  has SHOWN IT TO THEM,”(emphasis mine). Then he  tells the atheist that the atheist already knows that God exists but he has been suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness. This usually infuriates the atheist.

My friend draws some large crowds at times and was thinking about setting up a lie detector test and see if atheists actually secretly believe in God. He discussed this project with me since he knew that I had done a lot of research on the idea about 20 years ago.

Nelson Price in THE EMMANUEL FACTOR (1987) tells the story about Brown Trucking Company in Georgia who used to give polygraph tests to their job applicants. However, in part of the test the operator asked, “Do you believe in God?” In every instance when a professing atheist answered “No,” the test showed the person to be lying. My pastor Adrian Rogers used to tell this same story to illustrate Romans 1:19 and it was his conclusion that “there is no such thing anywhere on earth as a true atheist. If a man says he doesn’t believe in God, then he is lying. God has put his moral consciousness into every man’s heart, and a man has to try to kick his conscience to death to say he doesn’t believe in God.”

It is true that polygraph tests for use in hiring were banned by Congress in 1988.  Mr and Mrs Claude Brown on Aug 25, 1994  wrote me a letter confirming that over 15,000 applicants previous to 1988 had taken the polygraph test and EVERY TIME SOMEONE SAID THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, THE MACHINE SAID THEY WERE LYING.

It had been difficult to catch up to the Browns. I had heard about them from Dr. Rogers’ sermon but I did not have enough information to locate them. Dr. Rogers referred me to Dr. Nelson Price and Dr. Price’s office told me that Claude Brown lived in Atlanta. After writing letters to all 9 of the entries for Claude Brown in the Atlanta telephone book, I finally got in touch with the Browns.

Adrian Rogers also pointed out that the Bible does not recognize the theoretical atheist.  Psalms 14:1: The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”  Dr Rogers notes, “The fool is treating God like he would treat food he did not desire in a cafeteria line. ‘No broccoli for me!’ ” In other words, the fool just doesn’t want God in his life and is a practical atheist, but not a theoretical atheist. Charles Ryrie in the The Ryrie Study Bible came to the same conclusion on this verse.

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

In about A.D. 60, a Jew who was a Christian and who also knew the Greek and Roman thinking of his day wrote a letter to those who lived in Rome. Previously, he had said the same things to Greek thinkers while speaking on Mars Hill in Athens. He had spoken with the Acropolis above him and the ancient marketplace below him, in the place where the thinkers of Athens met for discussion. A plaque marks that spot today and gives his talk in the common Greek spoken in his day. He was interrupted in his talk in Athens, but his Letter to the Romans gives us without interruption what he had to say to the thinking people of that period.

He said that the integration points of the Greek and Roman world view were not enough to answer the questions posed either by the existence of the universe and its form, or by the uniqueness of man. He said that they deserved judgment because they knew that they did not have an adequate answer to the questions raised by the universe or by the existence of man, and yet they refused, they suppressed, that which is the answer. To quote his letter:

The retribution of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known of God is evident within them [that is, the uniqueness of man in contrast to non-man], for God made it evident to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made [that is, the existence of the universe and its form], even his eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse. [Roman 1:18ff.]

Here he is saying that the universe and its form and the mannishness of man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail. That this God exists and that he has not been silent but has spoken to people in the Bible and through Christ was the basis for the return to a more fully biblical Christianity in the days of the Reformers. It was a message of the possibility that people could return to God on the basis of the death of Christ alone. But with it came many other realities, including form and freedom in the culture and society built on that more biblical Christianity. The freedom brought forth was titanic, and yet, with the forms given in the Scripture, the freedoms did not lead to chaos. And it is this which can give us hope for the future. It is either this or an imposed order.

As I have said in the first chapter, people function on the basis of their world view more consistently than even they themselves may realize. The problem is not outward things. The problem is having, and then acting upon, the right world view — the world view which gives men and women the truth of what is.

Actually the answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 7222

Featured artist is Gerard ‘t Hooft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gerard ‘t Hooft
November 2008
Born	July 5, 1946 (age 70) Den Helder, Netherlands
Nationality	Dutch
Fields	Theoretical physics
Institutions	Utrecht University
Alma mater	Utrecht University
Doctoral advisor	Martinus J. G. Veltman
Doctoral students	Robbert Dijkgraaf Herman Verlinde
Known for	Quantum field theory, Quantum gravity, ‘t Hooft–Polyakov monopole, ‘t Hooft symbol, ‘t Hooft operator, Holographic principle, Renormalization, Dimensional regularization
Notable awards	Heineman Prize (1979) Wolf Prize (1981) Lorentz Medal (1986) Spinoza Prize (1995) Franklin Medal (1995) Nobel Prize in Physics (1999) Lomonosov Gold Medal (2010)

This is a Dutch name; the family name is ‘t Hooft, not Hooft.

Gerardus (Gerard) ‘t Hooft (Dutch: [ˌɣeːrɑrt ət ˈɦoːft]; born July 5, 1946) is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman “for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions“.

His work concentrates on gauge theory, black holes, quantum gravity and fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. His contributions to physics include a proof that gauge theories are renormalizable, dimensional regularization, and the holographic principle.

Contents

 [hide] 

• 1Personal life
• 2Biography
  • 2.1Early life
  • 2.2Education
  • 2.3Career
• 3Honors
• 4Research
  • 4.1Gauge theories in elementary particle physics
  • 4.2Quantum gravity and black holes
  • 4.3Fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics
• 5Bibliography
  • 5.1Popular publications
• 6See also
• 7References
• 8External links

Personal life[edit]

He is married to Albertha Schik (Betteke) and has two daughters, Saskia and Ellen.

Biography[edit]

Early life[edit]

Gerard ‘t Hooft was born in Den Helder on July 5, 1946, but grew up in The Hague, the seat of government of the Netherlands. He was the middle child of a family of three. He comes from a family of scholars. His grandmother was a sister of Nobel prize laureate Frits Zernike, and was married to Pieter Nicolaas van Kampen, who was a well-known professor of zoology at Leiden University. His uncle Nico van Kampen was an (emeritus) professor of theoretical physics at Utrecht University, and while his mother did not opt for a scientific career because of her gender,^[1] she did marry a maritime engineer.^[1] Following his family’s footsteps, he showed interest in science at an early age. When his primary school teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, he boldly declared, “a man who knows everything.”^[1]

After primary school Gerard attended the Dalton Lyceum, a school that applied the ideas of the Dalton Plan, an educational method that suited him well. He easily passed his science and mathematics courses, but struggled with his language courses. Nonetheless, he passed his classes in English, French, German, classical Greek and Latin. At the age of sixteen he earned a silver medal in the second Dutch Math Olympiad. ^[1]

Education[edit]

After Gerard ‘t Hooft passed his high school exams in 1964, he enrolled in the physics program at Utrecht University. He opted for Utrecht instead of the much closer Leiden, because his uncle was a professor there and he wanted to attend his lectures. Because he was so focused on science, his father insisted that he join the Utrechtsch Studenten Corps, an elite student association, in the hope that he would do something else besides studying. This worked to some extent, during his studies he was a coxswain with their rowing club “Triton” and organized a national congress for science students with their science discussion club “Christiaan Huygens”.

In the course of his studies he decided he wanted to go into what he perceived as the heart of theoretical physics, elementary particles. His uncle had grown to dislike the subject and in particular its practitioners, so when it became time to write his ‘doctoraalscriptie’ (Dutch equivalent of a master’s thesis) in 1968, ‘t Hooft turned to the newly appointed professor Martinus Veltman, who specialized in Yang–Mills theory, a relatively fringe subject at the time because it was thought that these could not be renormalized. His assignment was to study the Adler–Bell–Jackiw anomaly, a mismatch in the theory of the decay of neutral pions; formal arguments forbid the decay into photons, whereas practical calculations and experiments showed that this was the primary form of decay. The resolution of the problem was completely unknown at the time, and ‘t Hooft was unable to provide one.

In 1969, ‘t Hooft started on his PhD with Martinus Veltman as his advisor. He would work on the same subject Veltman was working on, the renormalization of Yang–Mills theories. In 1971 his first paper was published.^[2] In it he showed how to renormalize massless Yang–Mills fields, and was able to derive relations between amplitudes, which would be generalized by Andrei Slavnov and John C. Taylor, and become known as the Slavnov–Taylor identities.

The world took little notice, but Veltman was excited because he saw that the problem he had been working on was solved. A period of intense collaboration followed in which they developed the technique of dimensional regularization. Soon ‘t Hooft’s second paper was ready to be published,^[3] in which he showed that Yang–Mills theories with massive fields due to spontaneous symmetry breaking could be renormalized. This paper earned them worldwide recognition, and would ultimately earn the pair the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics.

These two papers formed the basis of ‘t Hooft’s dissertation, The Renormalization procedure for Yang–Mills Fields, and he obtained his PhD in 1972. In the same year he married his wife, Albertha A. Schik, a student of medicine in Utrecht.^[1]

Career[edit]

Gerard ‘t Hooft at Harvard

After obtaining his doctorate ‘t Hooft went to CERN in Geneva, where he had a fellowship. He further refined his methods for Yang–Mills theories with Veltman (who went back to Geneva). In this time he became interested in the possibility that the strong interaction could be described as a massless Yang–Mills theory, i.e. one of a type that he had just proved to be renormalizable and hence be susceptible to detailed calculation and comparison with experiment. According to his calculations, this type of theory possessed just the right kind of scaling properties (asymptotic freedom) that this theory should have according to deep inelastic scattering experiments. This was contrary to popular perception of Yang–Mills theories at the time, that like gravitation and electrodynamics, their intensity should decrease with increasing distance between the interacting particles; such conventional behaviour with distance was unable to explain the results of deep inelastic scattering, whereas ‘t Hooft’s calculations could. When he mentioned his results at a small conference at Marseilles in 1972, Kurt Symanzik urged him to publish this result.^[1] He did not, and the result was eventually rediscovered and published by Hugh David Politzer, David Gross, and Frank Wilczek in 1973, which led to them earning the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.^[4][5]

In 1974, ‘t Hooft returned to Utrecht where he became assistant professor. In 1976, he was invited for a guest position at Stanford and a position at Harvard as Morris Loeb lecturer. His eldest daughter, Saskia Anne, was born in Boston, while his second daughter, Ellen Marga, was born in 1978 after he returned to Utrecht, where he was made full professor.^[1]

In 2007 ‘t Hooft became editor-in-chief for Foundations of Physics, where he sought to distance the journal from the controversy of ECE theory.^[6] ‘t Hooft held the position until 2016.

On July 1, 2011 he was appointed Distinguished professor by Utrecht University.^[7]

 

Categories:

• 1946 births
• Living people
• Dutch physicists
• Members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences
• Nobel laureates in Physics
• Dutch Nobel laureates
• Utrecht University alumni
• Utrecht University faculty
• Wolf Prize in Physics laureates
• Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion
• Officiers of the Légion d’honneur
• Lorentz Medal winners
• Recipients of the Lomonosov Gold Medal
• People from Den Helder
• People from Utrecht (city)
• Members of the French Academy of Sciences
• Institute for Advanced Study visiting scholars
• Spinoza Prize winners
• Theoretical physicists
• Mars One
• People associated with CERN

________

Link

1 2 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Explanations:
1,2,3 ( 316 kb), 4,5: Spheres shining with color and reflecting a window.
6: Pythagoras’ Tree.
7: The 3-4-5 Triangle and its Fractal.
8: A Fractal Leaf.
9 ( 1,632 kb) and 10: Trees as 3 dimensional Fractals.
11: Tiling of the Plane with 7-fold Rotational Symmetry – a Mathematical Impossibility.
Then a 3 dimensional fractal produced from dodecaeders, followed by some 3-dimensional curved surfaces.
18:  my original design for the cover of my book “The Ultimate Building Blocks”. Unfortunately, the Editor didn’t like it. See my home page for what they did make.

These pictures have been reduced in size. Some of the pictures can be clicked to see the full resolution.
Poster format files (>10 times higher resolution) of all pictures can be obtained from Gerard ’t Hooft.

______________________________

Insight

Not only did Obama lose (hooray Constitution), but so did abortion

Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff111214.php3#o6YYILugwaycHgyD.99

In addition to rescuing the Constitution from Barack Obama, there was another vitally essential issue addressed in the midterm elections. Last week, Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president, triumphantly explained:”As we witnessed Tuesday, in election after election, National Right to Life and its network of 50 state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters helped provide the margin of victory for pro-life candidates” (“Polling Shows Impact of Abortion Issue in Mid-Term Election,” nationalrighttolifenews.org, Nov. 6).

For example, National Right to Life, which describes itself as working “through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia,” summarizes the midterms as such: “Despite being vastly overspent by pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List, pro-life candidates won … by significant margins. There were 26 races in which a candidate supported by National Right to Life was running against a candidate supported by the pro-abortion (and pro-Obama) PAC EMILY’s List. Nineteen (73 percent) of the National Right to Life candidates won.”

Readers who were heretofore unaware should know by this point that I’m a pro-life atheist, and I’ll explain how I came to have these views as we go on.

Now dig this, which was largely unreported by the media covering the midterm elections: “National Right to Life’s political committees were actively involved in 74 races. In those races, 53 (72 percent) pro-life candidates prevailed, including pro-life Senate candidates in Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia.”

Connecting abortion with the ending of “innocent human life” describes why pro-lifers throughout America have opposed Obama from even before he was elected president.

When he was a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama voted three times against versions of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which did not pass until 2005. This legislation mandated that if a live baby fully emerged as a result of a failed abortion, its life would be saved.

I am convinced that disobeying that law is tantamount to infanticide, and I have been writing about it in this column and other publications over the past few years. As I reported in the Winter-Spring 2009 issue of Human Life Review about Obama’s unyielding support of abortion, including the high percentage of abortions among black women (“President Obama and ‘Black Genocide'”), I spoke with a registered nurse who worked in the Labor and Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, and had involuntarily taken part in a botched abortion.

Some of what she told me about these babies who were abandoned after “‘live-birth’ abortions” also appeared in a September 2000 House Judiciary Committee report on the proposed Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000 (Report 106-835, gpo.gov). (This bill was passed in 2002.)

One of the babies “was left to die on the counter of the soiled utility room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.”

Another nurse “happened to walk into a soiled utility room and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs.”

But what was Obama’s reaction to Illinois’ Born-Alive Infant Protection Act?

As I reported two years ago, the state senator “opposed what he called the view that ‘you have to keep alive even a pre-viable child'” (“Election Day: I’ll Not Vote for Pro-Death President,” Oct. 3, 2012).

Therefore, “the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act interfered with a woman’s reproductive rights.”

My reactions even appeared in a column on LifeNews.com: “Liberal Nat Hentoff: I’m Not Voting for the Abortion President” (Steven Ertelt, Oct. 3, 2012).

But it should be noted that I do not vote against all pro-choice candidates, to say the least. I have voted for those with whom I agree on First and Fourth Amendment matters and other constitutional rights. Yet I can’t imagine any of them having opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and gone for infanticide.

So how did I become a pro-lifer, the most controversial position I have ever taken?

Just about all my conclusions about any issue have come from fact-based reporting. On this one, practically everyone I knew was pro-choice, but I became curious when more physicians — not pro-lifers, doctors — became involved in prenatal care. During my research, I read such standard texts as “The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment,” by Michael R. Harrison, Mitchell S. Globus and Roy A. Gilly (W.B. Saunders, a division of Reed Elsevier).

They wrote: “The concept that the fetus is a patient, an individual whose maladies are a proper subject for medical treatment as well as scientific observation, is alarmingly modern.

“Only now are we beginning to consider the fetus seriously, medically, legally and ethically.”

But in neither this nor other medical textbooks was God mentioned. And, hey, I even learned each fetus has DNA of its own!

Sadly, Obama has supported all abortions — however late or accidental.

Comment by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance”.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff111214.php3#o6YYILugwaycHgyD.99
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff111214.php3#o6YYILugwaycHgyD.99

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

__

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

10-30-14

To Nat Hentoff c/o Cato Institute,

I spoke to my friend Dan Greenberg on October 20th about you the other day. Dan is a former State Representative and his father Paul is the Editorial Page Editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Newspaper here in Little Rock. I told him that I was intrigued by your writings and he corrected me in the way I was saying your first name. I had added an “e” and made you “Nate” which is a common name down here. We discussed how you were an atheist but yet pro-life.  With that in mind I was prompted to write you again after I heard my pastor’s sermon this last Sunday on October 26, 2014 by Brandon Barnard.

One of my favorite messages by Adrian Rogers is called  “WHO IS JESUS?”and he goes through the Old Testament and looks at the scriptures that describe the Messiah.  I want to encourage you to listen to this audio message which I will send to anyone anywhere anytime. I have given thousands of these CD’s away over the years that contain this message and they all contain the following story from Adrian Rogers.  Here is how the story goes:

Years ago Adrian Rogers counseled with a NASA scientist and his severely depressed wife. The wife pointed to her husband and said, “My problem is him.” She went on to explain that her husband was a drinker, a liar, and an adulterer. Dr. Rogers asked the man if he were a Christian. “No!” the man laughed. “I’m an atheist.”

“Really?” Dr. Rogers replied. “That means you’re someone who knows that God does not exist.”

“That’s right,” said the man.

“Would it be fair to say that you don’t know all there is to know in the universe?”

“Of course.”

“Would it be generous to say you know half of all there is to know?”

“Yes.”

“Wouldn’t it be possible that God’s existence might be in the half you don’t know?”

“Okay, but I don’t think He exists.”

“Well then, you’re not an atheist; you’re an agnostic. You’re a doubter.”

“Yes, and I’m a big one.”

“It doesn’t matter what size you are. I want to know what kind you are.”

“What kinds are there?”

“There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.”

“I want to know the truth.”

“Would you like to prove that God exists?”

“It can’t be done.”

“It can be done. You’ve just been in the wrong laboratory. Jesus said, ‘If any man’s will is to do His will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority’ (John 7:17). I suggest you read one chapter of the book of John each day, but before you do, pray something like this, ‘God, I don’t know if You’re there, I don’t know if the Bible is true, I don’t know if Jesus is Your Son. But if You show me that You are there, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is Your Son, then I will follow You. My will is to do your will.”

The man agreed. About three weeks later he returned to Dr. Rogers’s office and invited Jesus Christ to be his Savior and Lord.

When I was 15 I joined my family on an amazing trip with our pastor Adrian Rogers to the land of Israel in 1976 and the most notable event to me was our visit to the Western Wall (or Wailing Wall) where hundreds of orthodox Jews were praying and kissing the wall. At the time we were visiting the wall I noticed that Dr. Rogers was visibly moved to tears because he knew that these Jews had missed the true messiah who had come and died on a cross almost 2000 years before. They were still looking for the messiah to come for the first time sometime in the future.

That one event encouraged my interest in presenting the gospel to the Jews.  At about the same time in Little Rock two Jews by the names of Dr. Charles Barg and Dr. Jack Sternberg were encountering that gospel message.   I have posted before about their life stories and they can be easily found on the internet.

I THOUGHT OF YOU ON  10-26-14 WHEN OUR TEACHING PASTOR BRANDON BARNARD AT FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH IN LITTLE ROCK TAUGHT ON JESUS’ MESSAGE TO THOSE JEWS SKEPTICAL OF HIS CLAIMS TO BE THE MESSIAH AND THE SON OF GOD.  After hearing this message I went straight to our church bookstore and asked for any books that deal with Jewish skeptics and I bought the books BETWEEN TWO FATHERS by Dr. Charles Barg and CHRISTIANITY: IT’S JEWISH ROOTS by Dr. Jack Sternberg.  I highly recommend both of these books.

If  someone is truly interested in investigating the Old Testament Scriptures then all they have to do is google “Bible Evidence Archaeology” or  click on the links on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org and the evidence is there showing that Christ is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. Here are some of my past posts on this subject, 1. My correspondence with Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol about the rebirth of Israel!!!!, 2. My personal visit with Bill Kristol on 7-18-14 in Hot Springs, Arkansas!!!!, 3. Simon Schama’s lack of faith in Old Testament Prophecy, 4. Who are the good guys: Hamas or Israel?, 5. “A Jewish Doctor Speaks Out: Why I Believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah” written by Dr. Jack Sternberg (author of the book CHRISTIANITY: THE JEWISH ROOTS), and 6.  Jesus Christ in the Old Testament by Adrian Rogers,

Brandon’s sermon started with these words from Jesus to the Jewish skeptics of his day:

John 5:18-47 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Jesus’ Equality with God

¹⁸ For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

¹⁹ Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever^[a]the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. ²⁰ For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Himgreater works than these, so that you will marvel. ²¹ For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. ²² For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, ²³ so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

²⁴ “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Two Resurrections

²⁵ Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. ²⁶ For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; ²⁷ and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is ^[b]the Son of Man. ²⁸ Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, ²⁹ and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

³⁰ “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

³¹ “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not ^[c]true. ³² There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.

Witness of John

³³ You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. ³⁴ But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. ³⁵ He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for ^[d]a while in his light.

Witness of Works

³⁶ But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.

Witness of the Father

³⁷ And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. ³⁸ You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

Witness of the Scripture

^39 [e]You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it isthese that testify about Me; ⁴⁰ and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. ⁴¹ I do not receive glory from men; ⁴² but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. ⁴³ I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. ⁴⁴ How can you believe, when youreceive ^[f]glory from one another and you do not seek the ^[g]glory that is from the one andonly God? ⁴⁵ Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶ For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. ⁴⁷ But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Then Brandon gave the quote below from C.S. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
     We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.

Quotes from Mere Christianity, Part 20
For enquiring minds, see the Wikipedia article: Lewis’s trilemma
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; Harper Collins: 2001) 52-53.

In this passage from John Jesus gives his identity (Son of God verse 25) and his authority (v.27-28 to judge and give life). It also discusses the four witnesses in Christ behalf. Then Brandon asked, “How does the identity and authority of Jesus affect you? He asserted, “It is impossible to honor God apart from honoring Jesus Christ.”

Brandon’s last point of the sermon was this:

PEOPLE DON’T DESIRE THE GLORY OF GOD BECAUSE THEY WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES.

______________

If someone truly wants to worship the Jewish Messiah of the Old Testament then they should take a close look at what the Old Testament says about that Messiah. Both Dr. Barg and Dr. Sternberg found the Old Testament prophecies very convincing and they both are now members of my church in Little Rock which is Fellowship Bible Church. Take a look at some of these verses which are mentioned in Adrian Rogers’ short article below.

Jesus Christ in the Old Testament

Acts 10:43

“Digging Deeper” into Scripture, you’re going to find that all of the Bible—Old Testament as well as New—is about Jesus Christ.  Yes, He appears in the Old Testament—if you know how to find Him there. The Lord Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, is found throughout the Old Testament in prophecy, types and shadows.

In this study we’ll see how that occurs.

Did you know there are about 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about the coming Messiah? Professor Peter Stoner was chairman of the mathematics and astronomy departments at Pasadena City College until 1953, then was Chairman of the Science Department at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. He wrote a book titled Science Speaks. He proved that it is impossible, by the law of mathematical probability, for Jesus Christ not to be the one true Messiah of Israel and the Son of God

Later in this study we’re going to look at that, so keep reading.

But first let’s begin with something the apostle Peter said, confirming Jesus’ presence in the Old Testament:

1. Turn to Acts 10:43.  Peter, testifying in the household of Cornelius about Jesus, says:       “To Him,” [to Jesus,] “give all the prophets witness.”

When Peter made this statement, the New Testament had not yet been written. So when Peter says “the prophets,” who is he talking about?

Peter wanted Cornelius, a Roman officer, to know that throughout the Old Testament, the prophets were looking ahead, predicting and proclaiming the arrival of the Messiah.

When we get to the New Testament, we find the fulfillment.

• In the gospels, we see Jesus as the Prophet preaching the kingdom of God.
• In the epistles and Acts you see Jesus Christ, the ascended Priest, interceding for the people of God.
• In the book of Revelation, you see Jesus Christ as the King, coming to rule and reign.

Each of these offices is a portrait of Jesus Christ.
All of the Old Testament pictures Jesus as prophet, priest, and king.
All of the New Testament shows Jesus as the fulfillment.
He is the Prophet, Priest, and King.

Portraits of Jesus in the Old Testament:

Jesus is the second Adam because the first Adam prophesied Him.
Jesus is a beloved, rejected, exalted son and world bread supplier like Joseph.
Jesus is that root out of dry ground, born of a virgin. (Is. 53:2)
Jesus is a priest like Aaron and Melchizedek because they prefigured Him.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah (the same
mount as Mt. Calvary, where Jesus literally died.)
Jesus is the Passover lamb.
Jesus is a prophet like Moses because Moses typified Him.
Jesus is the water that came from the rock in the wilderness.
Jesus is the manna that fell from the sky.
Jesus is the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness.
Jesus is the scapegoat bearing away the sins of the people.
Jesus is pictured in the Ark of the Covenant.
Jesus is the mercy seat where the shekinah glory of God dwells.
Jesus is the sacrifice upon the brazen altar in the tabernacle and the temple.
Jesus is a champion like Joshua, whose name literally means “Jesus.”
Jesus is a king like David.
Jesus is a wise counselor like Solomon.
Jesus is the lion of Judah.
Jesus is the good shepherd, “The Lord is my shepherd.”
Jesus is the fruitful branch.
Jesus is that one without form or comeliness yet altogether lovely. (Is 53:2)

_________

Prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament

Fulfilled prophecy is one of the great proofs of the Deity of Jesus Christ.

God began to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus with a multitude of prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Him. There can be no mistake that Jesus is the Messiah. As Professor Peter Stoner pointed out, the law of mathematical probability makes it totally impossible that anyone other than Jesus else could be the Messiah.

The law of probability is not an abstract law. Life insurance policies, for example, are based on mathematical probability.

Let’s look at just 8 out of 108 Old Testament prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

1. The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2)
Fulfillment: Luke chapter 2 and Matthew 2:1

2. The Messiah will have a forerunner. (Malachi 3:1)
“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple…”

Fulfillment: Matthew 3:1-3 “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.’”

3. The Messiah would make His triumphant entry riding on a donkey (now what king does that?)
Zechariah 9:9 “Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a ___________, Even on a colt, the foal of a ___________.

Fulfillment: Matthew 21:7, John 12:14-16

4. The Messiah would die by crucifixion. (Psalm 22, especially vv. 11-18)
“…for dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they have pierced  my hands  and feet.”

Fulfillment: Luke 23:33, Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24 John 19:23

5. Those who arrested Him would cast lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18)
“They part my garments among them, and _______ ______ upon my vesture.

Fulfillment: Luke 23:34
34 “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted His raiment, and cast lots.” Also John 19:23, Mark 15:24, and
Matthew 27:35, “and parted His garments, casting lots.”

6. Messiah would be betrayed by one of His own friends. (Zechariah 11:6)
6 “And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will say, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my ___________.’

Fulfillment: Matthew 26:14-16, “14 Then ____ of the __________, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests…” Also Mark 14:10-11, John 18:2

7. Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)

Fulfillment: Matthew 26:15-16
15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they covenanted with him for _________ pieces of _________. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.

8. The Messiah will remain silent when He is accused and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:7)
“He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not his mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth.”

Fulfillment: Mark 14:61, 61 But He held his peace, and answered nothing.”
1 Peter 2:23 23 Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously:”

These are just 8 examples of Old Testament prophecies Jesus fulfilled. There are at least 108, many of which He had no control over, if He were only a human being (such as the place of His birth and the prophesied “flight to Egypt” when He was a child.)

The odds of any one person being able by accident to fulfill even 8 of the 108 prophecies is a number so astronomical, our minds cannot conceive of it. Professor Stoner calculated it to be 1in 1017 or 1 in 100 quadrillion.

Is Jesus Christ found in the Old Testament? He is found in type and shadow in every book of the Old Testament.

Thank you for taking time to read this and feel free to contact me back at everettehatcher@gmail.com or 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002

__________________________________

Brandon Barnard pictured below:

Dr. Charles Barg’s book below:

Dr. Jack Sternberg below:

Dancing at the Wailing Wall in 1967:

Picture of Wailing Wall from 1863

Source: Earthly Footsteps of the Man of Galilee, p. 147.

Adrian Rogers in the White House pictured with President Ronald Reagan below:

_____

Featured artist:Gail Norfleet

_______

Gail Norfleet Short

Jimmy Kimmel & President George W. Bush Sketch Each Other

Published on Mar 3, 2017

President Bush came on the show to promote his book “Portraits of Courage” which benefits veterans. Since Jimmy also shares a love for drawing, he and the former president put their artistic skills to the test and sketched each other.

Alec Baldwin on Playing Donald Trump https://youtu.be/TYjoSD8bXoQ

SUBSCRIBE to get the latest #KIMMEL: http://bit.ly/JKLSubscribe

Watch the latest Halloween Candy Prank: http://bit.ly/KimmelHalloweenCandy

Watch Mean Tweets: http://bit.ly/JKLMeanTweets8

Connect with Jimmy Kimmel Live Online:

Visit the Jimmy Kimmel Live WEBSITE: http://bit.ly/JKLWebsite
Like Jimmy Kimmel Live on FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/JKLFacebook
Follow Jimmy Kimmel Live on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/JKLTwitter
Follow Jimmy Kimmel Live on INSTAGRAM: http://bit.ly/JKLInstagram

About Jimmy Kimmel Live:
Jimmy Kimmel serves as host and executive producer of Emmy-winning “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” ABC’s late-night talk show.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live” is well known for its huge viral video successes with 2.5 billion views on YouTube alone.
Some of Kimmel’s most popular comedy bits include – Mean Tweets, Lie Witness News, Jimmy’s Twerk Fail Prank, Unnecessary Censorship, YouTube Challenge, The Baby Bachelor, Movie: The Movie, Handsome Men’s Club, Jimmy Kimmel Lie Detective and music videos like “I (Wanna) Channing All Over Your Tatum” and a Blurred Lines parody with Robin Thicke, Pharrell, Jimmy and his security guard Guillermo.

Now in its fifteenth season, Kimmel’s guests have included: Johnny Depp, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Halle Berry, Harrison Ford, Jennifer Aniston, Will Ferrell, Katy Perry, Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, George Clooney, Larry David, Charlize Theron, Mark Wahlberg, Kobe Bryant, Steve Carell, Hugh Jackman, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Bridges, Jennifer Garner, Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Jamie Foxx, Amy Poehler, Ben Affleck, Robert Downey Jr., Jake Gyllenhaal, Oprah, and unfortunately Matt Damon.

Jimmy Kimmel & President George W. Bush Sketch Each Other
https://youtu.be/sriYmFBvOsE

IN THE AIR

See Paintings by George W. Bush’s Art Teacher on View at the Dallas Art Fair

APRIL 15, 2013

• 
• 
• 
• 

Unfortunately but not surprisingly, last week’s Dallas Art Fair did not feature the city’s most talked-about local artist, George W. Bush. (In case you’ve been hiding under a rock recently, news of the 43rd president’s new hobby went viral earlier this month after pictures of two of his self-portraits leaked online.) We here at ARTINFO searched high and low to find the next best thing, however, and we succeeded. Feast your eyes on paintings by George W. Bush’s teacher, Gail Norfleet.Bush called on Norfleet, a Southern Methodist University graduate and local Dallas artist, over a year ago when he first decided he wanted to try his hand at painting. Since then, she’s given him lessons about once a week, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Two of Norfleet’s recent works — both depicting her studio and paintings-in-process — were on display at the Dallas Art Fair this weekend at the booth of Dallas’s own Valley House Gallery & Sculpture Garden.

The most recent of the two canvases, the 2013 oil on canvas “Palette” (above), shares its off-kilter, not-quite-bird’s eye perspective with Bush’s oft-reproduced leaked self-portrait in the bathtub (below). Both compositions hover about 45 degrees above the picture plane, a point of view reminiscent of Matisse. The compositions simultaneously provide depth and acknowledge the canvas’s flatness. (Okay, formal analysis over.)

The Dallas Art Fair, meanwhile, is not the only place Bush’s new hobby is making its making its mark on the city — at least indirectly. ARTINFO hears that local collector extraordinaire Deedie Rose has a George W. Bush original painting on view in her home, a portrait of her dogs. Perhaps it was painted under the tutelage of Norfleet?

— Julia Halperin

(Captions: Gail Norfleet, “The Blue Studio,” 2012, photo collage and acrylic enamel on two Lucite panels, 23 1/2 x 23 1/2 inches and “Palette,” 2013, oil on panel, 30 x 24 inches, both courtesy Valley House Gallery & Sculpture Garden.)

 

 

________

Featured artist is Jim Woodson

President Bush’s Powerful Veteran Portraits

__

Fort Worth’s Woodson Named State Painter

For as long as 71-year-old painter Jim Woodson ’65 can remember, his hands were always clutching a pencil, poised to draw something.

Anything.

If he didn’t know that he was destined to become an artist, his childhood pals in his native Waco didn’t hesitate to remind him.

“My classmates kept on saying, ‘Jim draws all the time. He is bound to be an artist when he grows up,’” recalls Woodson, who retired in May after 39 years in the TCU School of Art.

His school chums were prophetic: Woodson not only has become an acclaimed painter and teacher, but, this year, the Texas Commission on the Arts announced him as the Legislature’s official state visual artist for two-dimensional work.

“I remember thinking how really nice it is just to be nominated,” Woodson says from his home away from Fort Worth, near Abiquiu, N.M. “But honestly, I didn’t think I had much of a shot because there were so many other good artists being considered.”

But Woodson did nab the statewide honor. In fact, the State Artist distinction amounts to a lifetime achievement commendation for Woodson’s decades of canvases that capture, in a transcendent way, new facets of Texas and New Mexico’s endless high desert landscape.

Woodson has shown his work in all corners of Texas, from the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth to the compact Old Jail Art Center in Albany. Laura Bush has purchased a Woodson, while seven of his pieces are on view at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway offices in Fort Worth. In September, Woodson completed a successful first show in the prestigious Wade Wilson Art gallery in Santa Fe.

Today, when asked for his take on the evolution of his prize-winning painting style, Woodson admits his earliest landscapes were spare, bereft of trees, yet full of undulating Palomino-colored hills of Northern California. Upon his return to Texas, in his early 30s, he was more influenced by those artists who were manipulating the landscape to create their work.

“In some extreme instances, I would actually build a three-dimensional form and bury it into the landscape, all to be as inventive as I could with the landscape,” says Woodson. “Pretty soon, I began imposing my own fantastical architectural or even interior shapes and spaces into the landscape in my mind and would then paint them. The landscape becomes an activity, not at all dead, but constantly in flux.”

Since 1982, Cheryl Vogel has been the chief curator of the Valley House Gallery and Sculpture Garden in Dallas, which has, since 1998, acted as Woodson’s primary DFW gallery representative and agent.

What first excited Vogel about Woodson’s artistry was his accomplished brush work and brash scale of a typical Woodson canvas. Many of his works average four-by-five feet.

“He always has such a sense of air and movement and energy in his paintings,” says Vogel. “They are never static.”

Even more appealing to Vogel is Woodson’s avowed refusal to burden the landscape with any obsessive, photographic meticulousness.

“He means his works to be paintings, though they are as far away from calendar paintings as you can get,” says Vogel. “They are muscular and masculine. His colors peer out between his final strokes, yet he is not impressionistic by nature. He wants to paint, as he says, ‘a verb not a noun.’ Meaning: He wants action in there.”

All in all, it’s the kind of singular artistic sensibility that, according to Vogel, prices Woodson’s work at $600 for graphite drawings, $2,000-$4,000 for works on paper, and $4,000-$25,000 for oil paintings. A standard four-by-five-foot Woodson oil will often fetches over $12,000.

* * *

That would have been a king’s ransom to the financially strapped household Woodson called home in Waco. Woodson’s father was a broom-maker, with an 8th-grade education, and his mother a school secretary. The 6-year-old Woodson passed the days by seeking out any flat surface on which to draw, usually with the blunt graphite of a humble pencil.

A self-styled little “terrorist” in high school, Woodson cultivated a greasy-haired, James Dean-like rebel image.

“I think I was just bored with everything going in class,” says Woodson who, despite his lackadaisical affect, was still elected president of his school’s art club. “I now feel bad that I must have caused my art teacher as much grief as I did.”

A very green college student, Woodson was the first in his family to ever get more than a high school education. He was lucky enough to encounter an inspirational painting teacher named Joe Farrell Hobbs while a sophomore at Arlington State College (now University of Texas at Arlington).

“The thing about Joe,” recalls Woodson, “is that he was such a solid example of how someone could actually make a living – pay his bills, have a family — while teaching and making art. At the time, I didn’t have a clue how I could manage to do that.

“While Prof. Hobbs taught us a pretty standard painting class,” continues Woodson, “he also taught us not only about using the core material properly, but about being in the world as a vital, working, living artist.”

Upon graduating from TCU in 1965 (Woodson transferred there from Arlington State), he enrolled in the Masters of Fine Arts program at the University of Texas at Austin. Unhappy with the excessively theoretical and academic bent of the art program at UT, the freshly married Woodson was itching to leave Austin.

And with a massive sale of his accumulated art, Woodson, his wife, Linda, and their dog, piled into their car and took off for San Francisco, arriving there in 1967’s “Summer of Love.”

“Suddenly, I was an artist caught in the hippy world,” says Woodson. “It was a wonderful time. I even got to hear Janis Joplin and the Grateful Dead in Golden Gate Park.”

A series of less-than-satisfying jobs, including one at the California Historical Society and at a plastic sign factory, would eventually chase Woodson from his perceived California nirvana back to Fort Worth.

An old teacher-acquaintance from TCU, Harry Geffert, had contacted Woodson about returning to his alma mater to apply for several open painting teaching positions.

So, one plane ride later in 1974, and the 33-year old Woodson was back at TCU, assuming a one-year appointment as a visiting artist, teaching painting and drawing.

Thirty-nine years later, up until his official retirement this past spring, Woodson was still “visiting.”

“I always felt very confident as a teacher,” Woodson says. “I’ve always known I had something to offer the kids.”

Throughout his years at TCU, Woodson’s teaching philosophy evolved into one of not wanting to fill up his students’ heads with too much theory.

“Sometimes getting out of the students’ way is one of the best things you can do,” admits Woodson. “Sure, I can improve their work with color and help them with some ideas and concepts, but what I fundamentally try to convey is how seriously they must be committed to being an artist. That’s what inspirational art teachers did for me.”

It must be uplifting for Woodson when he gets that occasional invite to a splashy art show featuring one of his former students. That would seem to be the ultimate validation of a job well done in launching a viable artist into the world.

“Whenever I see evidence of one of my students’ success,” says Woodson, “I think back to what my art teachers told me: ‘If you really feel like you have a choice to be an artist, then don’t do it. Because being an artist is not about having a choice.’ You’ve got to do it. For me it was totally clear.”

Exhibit:
The works of Jim Woodson will be shown at the Moudy Art Gallery in an exhibition from September 16 to October 11.

PREVIOUS STORY