Category Archives: Cato Institute

Dan Mitchell: Republican Warfare, Part II: Supply-Side Economics and Government Spending

Republican Warfare, Part II: Supply-Side Economics and Government Spending

As part of a recent discussion at the Adam Smith Institute in London, I explained why advocates of sensible taxation in the U.S. and U.K. need to be serious about controlling government spending.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it will be almost impossible to achieve better tax policy if the spending burden continues to increase and we enter an era of endless deficits and debt.

We presumably won’t get needed policy reforms from the Democratic Party (the era of JFK is long gone, and Bill Clinton’s moderate approach also is a distant memory).

But what about Republicans?

In part I of this series, I argued that Trump’s big-government populism was bad politics as well as bad policy.

But I was not arguing for establishment Republicans such as Bush or Romney.

Instead, I think the GOP needs to return to the era of Reagan-style libertarianism.

That means some things that Trumpies want, such as lower tax rates, but it also means genuine spending restraint. Which we didn’t get during the Trump years.

In part II, let’s contemplate whether this is a realistic hope, at least once we get past the Biden years.

If history is any guide, the answer is yes. Here’s another video, from more than 10 years ago, that shows the fiscal discipline the nation enjoyed under both Reagan and Clinton.

If you want more recent evidence, we also had a five-year spending freeze after the so-called Tea Party Republicans took power in 2010.

What about today? Can Republicans sober up and once again become fiscal hawks,morphing into good supply-siders who want better tax policy and spending restraint?

Or are they the bad supply-siders, meaning they spout rhetoric about tax cuts but don’t take the tough steps (such as entitlement reform) that are needed to make lower tax rates realistic?

I’ll close with a very depressing observation. The current fiscal situation is bad, but remember that things will get much worse because of demographic changes such as population aging.

Those who oppose entitlement reform necessarily are embracing huge tax increases and perpetual economic stagnation. Not to mention handing more power to Democrats.

There is no alternative.

I enjoyed this article below because it demonstrates that the Laffer Curve has been working for almost 100 years now when it is put to the test in the USA. I actually got to hear Arthur Laffer speak in person in 1981 and he told us in advance what was going to happen the 1980’s and it all came about as he said it would when Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts took place. I wish we would lower taxes now instead of looking for more revenue through raised taxes. We have to grow the economy:

What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: ”unexpected.”   But it WASN’T ”unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILUREThey keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASEof revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

________

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

Dan Mitchell: Republican Warfare, Part I: The Trump Problem

——

 

Republican Warfare, Part I: The Trump Problem

I’ve never been a fan of Donald Trump, though my criticism has always focused on his support for bad policies such as wasteful spending, foolish protectionism, and corrupt cronyism.

Today I’m going to change hats and pretend to be a political pundit so I can offer some unsolicited advice to my Republican friends.

If they like to win elections, they need to realize that Donald Trump is bad news.

Yes, he beat a very unpopular Hillary Clinton in 2016, but every subsequent election has produced Republican disappointment.

  • The 2018 midterm elections.
  • The 2020 presidential election.
  • The 2022 midterm elections.

What should most upset the GOP is that Trump has given Democrats control of the Senate twice. First, by depressing Republican turnout in the two Georgia runoff contests with his sore-loser routine about stolen elections in the 2020 cycle. Second, by convincing Republican voters to nominate inferior candidates in the 2022 cycle.

But the fault is not entirely with Trump.

As illustrated by this cartoon, a significant share of Republican voters like Trump and this gives him enormous power over the GOP.

The interesting question to answer is why many rank-and-file Republicans feel so loyal to Trump – even though he often supported bad policies and has helped Democrats gain power in Washington.

I actually answered that question early last year. Here’s some of that column.

One thing that surprised me over the past four yeas is that I found strong support for Trump from grassroots conservative Republicans. Yes, they didn’t like his fiscal profligacy and they mostly didn’t like his protectionism, but they did like the fact that he was a “fighter,” unlike so many (but not all) Republican politicians who get cozy with the DC establishment. They also figured he was worth supporting because he was so reviled by the establishment media (i.e., the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

I think that analysis still applies, but let’s dig deeper. Another problem is that Republican voters think anti-Trump GOP politicians must be bad (closet Democrats, or something like that).

That may be true in some cases, with Mitt Romneybeing an obvious example.

But that binary analysis – the Trump camp vs the every-other-Republican camp – is woefully inadequate.

I think it’s more accurate (though obviously simplified) to look at the Republican Party as having three camps. And here’s a Venn diagram with my amateur depiction of what unites and divides them.

I’m sure many of you already know my conclusion, which is that the Republican Party should opt for Reaganism.

That’s the approach that reflects good policy and good politics.

I’ve written many times why it is good policy, so I’ll conclude by elaborating on why it is good politics.

Simply stated, Trump voters don’t trust establishment Republicans. They view them as proponents of things they don’t like such as bailouts, globalism, and amnesty.

And establishment Republicans obviously don’t like Trump and Trumpie candidates, even if only for stylistic reasons.

Reaganism, by contrast, can unite all the factions. And when I say Reaganism, I’m not just talking about tax cuts. What we need is the full market-friendly Reagan agenda of spending restraint, deregulation, trade expansion, and sound money.

 

Read Everything Donald Trump Said at His First Rally After Mar-a-Lago Raid

 

Below is a full transcript of Trump’s speech, which started with a new video, combining Sean Hannity‘s voice speaking over clips of Biden’s Thursday speech.

donald trump pennsylvania rally transcript full text
A man waves an American flag depicting former President Donald Trump outside the Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania on Saturday ahead of the campaign rally where Trump will support candidates Dr. Mehmet Oz and Doug Mastriano.SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES

Full text of former President Donald Trump’s Pennsylvania speech

Well thank you very much and hello, Pennsylvania. Hi.

I’m thrilled to be back in this incredible Commonwealth with the thousands of proud hardworking American patriots that I have gotten to know so well.

Two months from now, the people of Pennsylvania going to fire the radical left Democrats and you are going to elect, Doug Mastriano is your next governor.

You’re going to send my friend Oz, Oz is a great guy, to the U.S. Senate. you’re going to elect an amazing slate of true America First Republicans to Congress. We are going to end the Nancy Pelosipolitical career, the Biden political career.

Our country is going to hell.

This election is a referendum on skyrocketing inflation, ramping crime, soaring murders, crushing gas prices, millions and millions of illegal aliens pouring across our border, race and gender indoctrination, converting our schools and above all this election is a referendum on the corruption and extremism of Joe Biden and the radical Democrat party.

If you want to stop this destruction of America, you must vote Republican you gotta get out

As you know this week Joe Biden came to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to give the most vicious, hateful and divisive speech ever delivered by an American president, vilifying 75 million citizens, plus another probably 75 to 150.

If we want to be accurate about it, As threats to democracy and as enemies of the state, you’re all enemies of the state. He’s an enemy of the state, you know that? The enemy of the state is him and the group that control him, which is circling around him, ‘Do this. do that Joe, you’re going to do this Joe.”

Right. I think Philadelphia was a great choice to make this speech of hatred and anger. His speech was hatred and anger. By the way, the next morning he forgot what he said, you saw that.

I do like the red lighting behind him, like the devil.

But Philadelphia was a great choice because the city is being devastated under Democrat rules. Devastated. He could tell you, we love Pennsylvania. I went to school in Philadelphia, what’s happening to Philadelphia?

Fourteen people were shot last weekend in Philadelphia, 14, and the fake news will—God, that’s a lot of fake news lately. A lot of fake news.

Well, they’ll go out and check the facts for people were killed last weekend. At one point last month, seven people were shot in the span of just 71 minutes, in Philadelphia this year. Philadelphia has already seen more than 1,400 people shot including numerous beautiful little children.

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={},u=null; function ba(a,b){void 0===b&&(b=0);if(!u){u={};for(var c=”ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789”.split(“”),d=[“+/=”,”+/”,”-_=”,”-_.”,”-_”],e=0;5>e;e++){var f=c.concat(d[e].split(“”));aa[e]=f;for(var g=0;g<f.length;g++){var h=f[g];void 0===u[h]&&(u[h]=g)}}}b=aa[b];c=Array(Math.floor(a.length/3));d=b[64]||””;for(e=f=0;f>2];k=b[(k&3)<>4];l=b[(l&15)<>6];h=b[h&63];c[e++]=g+k+l+h}g=0;h=d;switch(a.length-f){case 2:g= a[f+1],h=b[(g&15)<>2]+b[(a&3)<>4]+h+d}return c.join(“”)};var ca=”undefined”!==typeof Uint8Array;const v=Symbol(void 0);function A(a,b){Object.isFrozen(a)||(v?a[v]|=b:void 0!==a.o?a.o|=b:Object.defineProperties(a,{o:{value:b,configurable:!0,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}}))}function da(a){let b;v?b=a[v]:b=a.o;return null==b?0:b}function B(a){A(a,1);return a}function ea(a){return a?!!(da(a)&2):!1};function C(a){return null!==a&&”object”===typeof a&&!Array.isArray(a)&&a.constructor===Object}let D;var E=Object.freeze(B([]));function fa(a){if(ea(a.j))throw Error(“Cannot mutate an immutable Message”);}function ha(a){return{value:a,configurable:!1,writable:!1,enumerable:!1}};function ia(a){switch(typeof a){case “number”:return isFinite(a)?a:String(a);case “object”:if(a&&!Array.isArray(a)&&ca&&null!=a&&a instanceof Uint8Array)return ba(a)}return a};function na(a,b,c){if(null!=a){if(Array.isArray(a))a=F(a,b,c);else if(C(a)){const d={};for(let e in a)d[e]=na(a[e],b,c);a=d}else a=b(a);return a}}function F(a,b,c){const d=Array.prototype.slice.call(a);c(a,d);for(a=0;a=a.h)return(a.g||(a.g=a.j[a.h+a.i]={}))[b]=c,a;if(void 0!==a.g&&a.h>=a.j.length){const d=a.j.length-1,e=b+a.i;e>=d?(a.j[d]=void 0,a.j[e]=c,a.j.push(a.g)):a.j[e]=c}else a.j[b+a.i]=c;void 0!==a.g&&b in a.g&&delete a.g[b];return a};var ra=class{constructor(a,b,c){a||(a=qa);qa=null;var d=this.constructor.g||0,e=0<d,f=this.constructor.h;a?da(a)&16&&A(a,32):(a=f?[f]:[],A(a,48));e&&0<a.length&&C(a[a.length-1])&&”g”in a[a.length-1]&&(d=0);this.i=(f?0:-1)-d;this.l=void 0;this.j=a;a:{f=this.j.length;d=f-1;if(f&&(f=this.j[d],C(f))){this.g=f;b=Object.keys(f);0<b.length&&Array.prototype.every.call(b,isNaN,void 0)?this.h=Number.MAX_VALUE:this.h=d-this.i;break a}void 0!==b&&-1<b?(this.h=Math.max(b,d+1-this.i),this.g=void 0):this.h=Number.MAX_VALUE}if(!e&& this.g&&”g”in this.g)throw Error(‘Unexpected “g” flag in sparse object of message that is not a group type.’);if(c)for(e=0;e<c.length;e++)b=c[e],b{throw Error(void 0);})});class I extends ta{}Object.defineProperties(I,{[Symbol.hasInstance]:ha(Object[Symbol.hasInstance])});var J=class{constructor(a,b=!1){this.key=a;this.defaultValue=b;this.valueType=”boolean”}};var ua=new J(“100000”),va=new J(“45368259”),wa=new J(“45357156”,!0),xa=new J(“45350890″);var K=(a,b)=>”&adurl=”==a.substring(a.length-7)?a.substring(0,a.length-7)+b+”&adurl=”:a+b;let L=p.dicnf||{};/* SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 */ function M(a,b,c){a.addEventListener&&a.addEventListener(b,c,!1)}function ya(a,b,c){a.removeEventListener&&a.removeEventListener(b,c,!1)};var za=RegExp(“^(?:([^:/?#.]+):)?(?://(?:([^\\/?#]*)@)?([^\\/?#]*?)(?::([0-9]+))?(?=[\\/?#]|$))?([^?#]+)?(?:\?([^#]*))?(?:#([\s\S]*))?$”);function Aa(){if(!globalThis.crypto)return Math.random();try{const a=new Uint32Array(1);globalThis.crypto.getRandomValues(a);return a[0]/65536/65536}catch{return Math.random()}}function Ba(a,b){if(a)for(const c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b(a[c],c,a)}let N=[];const Ca=()=>{const a=N;N=[];for(const b of a)try{b()}catch{}}; var Da=(a,b)=>{“complete”===a.readyState||”interactive”===a.readyState?(N.push(b),1==N.length&&(window.Promise?Promise.resolve().then(Ca):window.setImmediate?setImmediate(Ca):setTimeout(Ca,0))):a.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,b)};function Ea(a=document){return a.createElement(“img”)};function O(a,b,c=null,d=!1){Fa(a,b,c,d)}function Fa(a,b,c,d){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);const e=Ea(a.document);if(c||d){const f=g=>{c&&c(g);if(d){g=a.google_image_requests;const h=Array.prototype.indexOf.call(g,e,void 0);0<=h&&Array.prototype.splice.call(g,h,1)}ya(e,”load”,f);ya(e,”error”,f)};M(e,”load”,f);M(e,”error”,f)}e.src=b;a.google_image_requests.push(e)};let Ga=0;function Ha(a,b=null){return b&&b.getAttribute(“data-jc”)===String(a)?b:document.querySelector(`[${“data-jc”}=”${a}”]`)};function P(a){Ia||(Ia=new Ja);const b=Ia.g[a.key];if(“proto”===a.valueType){try{const c=JSON.parse(b);if(Array.isArray(c))return c}catch(c){}return a.defaultValue}return typeof b===typeof a.defaultValue?b:a.defaultValue}var Ka=class{constructor(){this.g={}}};var Ja=class extends Ka{constructor(){super();var a=Ha(Ga,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){}}},Ia;var La=window;class Ma{constructor(a,b){this.error=a;this.context=b.context;this.msg=b.message||””;this.id=b.id||”jserror”;this.meta={}}};const Ra=RegExp(“^https?://(\w|-)+\.cdn\.ampproject\.(net|org)(\?|/|$)”);var Sa=class{constructor(a,b){this.g=a;this.h=b}},Ta=class{constructor(a,b){this.url=a;this.v=!!b;this.depth=null}};function Q(a,b){const c={};c[a]=b;return[c]}function Ua(a,b,c,d,e){const f=[];Ba(a,function(g,h){(g=Va(g,b,c,d,e))&&f.push(h+”=”+g)});return f.join(b)} function Va(a,b,c,d,e){if(null==a)return””;b=b||”&”;c=c||”,$”;”string”==typeof c&&(c=c.split(“”));if(a instanceof Array){if(d=d||0,d<c.length){const f=[];for(let g=0;ge?encodeURIComponent(Ua(a,b,c,d,e+1)):”…”;return encodeURIComponent(String(a))}function Wa(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 Xa(a,b,c){b=b+”//pagead2.googlesyndication.com”+c;let d=Wa(a)-c.length;if(0>d)return””;a.g.sort(function(f,g){return f-g});c=null;let e=””;for(let f=0;f<a.g.length;f++){const g=a.g[f],h=a.h[g];for(let k=0;k=l.length){d-=l.length;b+=l;e=a.i;break}c=null==c?g:c}}}a=””;null!=c&&(a=e+”trn=”+c);return b+a}class Ya{constructor(){this.i=”&”;this.h={};this.l=0;this.g=[]}};function Za(){var a=R,b=window.google_srt;0=b&&(a.g=b)}function $a(a,b,c,d,e,f){if((d?a.g:Math.random()){var n=g;const m=n.l++;k=Q(l,k);n.g.push(m);n.h[m]=k}));const h=Xa(g,a.h,”/pagead/gen_204?id=”+b+”&”);h&&(“undefined”!==typeof f?O(p,h,f):O(p,h))}catch(g){}}class ab{constructor(){this.h=”http:”===La.location.protocol?”http:”:”https:”;this.g=Math.random()}};let T=null;var bb=()=>{const a=p.performance;return a&&a.now&&a.timing?Math.floor(a.now()+a.timing.navigationStart):Date.now()},cb=()=>{const a=p.performance;return a&&a.now?a.now():null};class db{constructor(a,b){var c=cb()||bb();this.label=a;this.type=b;this.value=c;this.duration=0;this.uniqueId=Math.random();this.taskId=this.slotId=void 0}};const U=p.performance,eb=!!(U&&U.mark&&U.measure&&U.clearMarks),V=function(a){let b=!1,c;return function(){b||(c=a(),b=!0);return c}}(()=>{var a;if(a=eb){var b;if(null===T){T=””;try{a=””;try{a=p.top.location.hash}catch(c){a=p.location.hash}a&&(T=(b=a.match(/bdeid=([d,]+)/))?b[1]:””)}catch(c){}}b=T;a=!!b.indexOf&&0Math.random())}start(a,b){if(!this.g)return null;a=new db(a,b);b=`goog_${a.label}_${a.uniqueId}_start`;U&&V()&&U.mark(b);return a}end(a){if(this.g&&”number”===typeof a.value){a.duration=(cb()||bb())-a.value;var b=`goog_${a.label}_${a.uniqueId}_end`;U&&V()&&U.mark(b);!this.g||2048ib(e,a,()=>b.apply(c,f),d)} class kb{constructor(a=null){this.m=R;this.h=null;this.u=this.l;this.g=a;this.i=!1}l(a,b,c,d,e){e=e||”jserror”;let f;try{const w=new Ya;var g=w;g.g.push(1);g.h[1]=Q(“context”,a);b.error&&b.meta&&b.id||(b=new Ma(b,{message:hb(b)}));if(b.msg){g=w;var h=b.msg.substring(0,512);g.g.push(2);g.h[2]=Q(“msg”,h)}var k=b.meta||{};b=k;if(this.h)try{this.h(b)}catch(x){}if(d)try{d(b)}catch(x){}d=w;k=[k];d.g.push(3);d.h[3]=k;d=p;k=[];let S;b=null;do{var l=d;try{var n;if(n=!!l&&null!=l.location.href)b:{try{t(l.foo); n=!0;break b}catch(x){}n=!1}var m=n}catch{m=!1}m?(S=l.location.href,b=l.document&&l.document.referrer||null):(S=b,b=null);k.push(new Ta(S||””));try{d=l.parent}catch(x){d=null}}while(d&&l!=d);for(let x=0,Na=k.length-1;x<=Na;++x)k[x].depth=Na-x;l=p;if(l.location&&l.location.ancestorOrigins&&l.location.ancestorOrigins.length==k.length-1)for(m=1;m<k.length;++m){var q=k[m];q.url||(q.url=l.location.ancestorOrigins[m-1]||””,q.v=!0)}var r=k;let ja=new Ta(p.location.href,!1);l=null;const ka=r.length-1;for(q= ka;0{var b=”s”;if(a.s&&a.hasOwnProperty(b))return a.s;b=new a;return a.s=b};class mb{constructor(){this.g=()=>[]}};let R,W;const X=new gb;var nb=()=>{window.google_measure_js_timing||(X.g=!1,X.h!=X.i.google_js_reporting_queue&&(V()&&Array.prototype.forEach.call(X.h,fb,void 0),X.h.length=0))};(a=>{R=a??new ab;”number”!==typeof window.google_srt&&(window.google_srt=Math.random());Za();W=new kb(X);W.h=b=>{var c=Ga;0!==c&&(b.jc=String(c),c=(c=Ha(c,document.currentScript))&&c.getAttribute(“data-jc-version”)||”unknown”,b.shv=c)};W.i=!0;”complete”==window.document.readyState?nb():X.g&&M(window,”load”,()=>{nb()})})(); var ob=(a,b,c,d)=>jb(a,b,c,d),pb=(a,b,c,d)=>{const e=lb(mb).g();!b.eid&&e.length&&(b.eid=e.toString());$a(R,a,b,!0,c,d)};const qb=[“FRAME”,”IMG”,”IFRAME”],rb=/^[01](px)?$/;function sb(a){return”string”===typeof a?document.getElementById(a):a}function tb(a){return”IMG”!=a.tagName||!a.complete||a.naturalWidth&&a.naturalHeight?rb.test(a.getAttribute(“width”))&&rb.test(a.getAttribute(“height”)):!0} function vb(a,b){var c;if(a=sb(a)){c||(c=(m,q,r)=>{m.addEventListener(q,r)});var d=!1,e=m=>{d||(d=!0,b(m))};for(var f=0;f<qb.length;++f)if(qb[f]==a.tagName){var g=3;var h=[a];break}h||(h=a.querySelectorAll(qb.join(“,”)),g=2);var k=0,l=0;a=!1;for(f=0;f{k–;k||e(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”,()=>{e(4)});return}e(g)}};function wb(a){const b=a.length;let c=0;return new Y(d=>{if(0==b)d([]);else{const e=[];for(let f=0;f{e[f]=g;++c==b&&d(e)})}})}function xb(){let a;const b=new Y(c=>{a=c});return new yb(b,a)}function zb(a,b){if(!a.h)if(b instanceof Y)b.then(c=>{zb(a,c)});else{a.h=!0;a.i=b;for(b=0;b{zb(this,b)})}then(a){return new Y(b=>{Ab(this,c=>{b(a(c))})})}} var yb=class{constructor(a,b){this.promise=a;this.g=b}};function Z(a){return a.prerendering?3:{visible:1,hidden:2,prerender:3,preview:4,unloaded:5}[a.visibilityState||a.webkitVisibilityState||a.mozVisibilityState||””]||0}function Bb(a){let b;a.visibilityState?b=”visibilitychange”:a.mozVisibilityState?b=”mozvisibilitychange”:a.webkitVisibilityState&&(b=”webkitvisibilitychange”);return b};function Cb(){const a=window;if(a.gmaSdk||a.webkit?.messageHandlers?.getGmaViewSignals)return a;try{const b=window.parent;if(b.gmaSdk||b.webkit?.messageHandlers?.getGmaViewSignals)return b}catch(b){}return null} function Db(a,b={},c=()=>{},d=()=>{},e=200,f,g){const h=String(Math.floor(2147483647*Aa()));let k=0;const l=n=>{try{const m=”object”===typeof n.data?n.data:JSON.parse(n.data);h===m.paw_id&&(window.clearTimeout(k),window.removeEventListener(“message”,l),m.signal?c(m.signal):m.error&&d(m.error))}catch(m){g(“paw_sigs”,{msg:”postmessageError”,err:m instanceof Error?m.message:”nonError”,data:null==n.data?”null”:500{f(903, ()=>{l(n)})()});a.postMessage({paw_id:h,…b});k=window.setTimeout(()=>{window.removeEventListener(“message”,l);d(“PAW GMA postmessage timed out.”)},e)};function Eb(a,b){return H(a,2,b)}function Fb(a,b){return H(a,3,b)}function Gb(a,b){return H(a,4,b)}function Hb(a,b){return H(a,5,b)}function Ib(a,b){return H(a,9,b)}function Jb(a,b){fa(a);let c;if(null!=b){c=B([]);let d=!1;for(let e=0;e{b.uach??(b.uach=c);return c});return b.uach_promise=a} function Sb(a){return Kb(Jb(Hb(Eb(Lb(Gb(Mb(Ib(Fb(new Ob,a.architecture||””),a.bitness||””),a.mobile||!1),a.model||””),a.platform||””),a.platformVersion||””),a.uaFullVersion||””),a.fullVersionList?.map(b=>{var c=new Pb;c=H(c,1,b.brand);return H(c,2,b.version)})||[]),a.wow64||!1)}function Tb(a){return Rb(a)?.then(b=>Sb(b))??null};let Ub=null;function Vb(a,b){/(google|doubleclick).*/pagead/adview/.test(b)&&(b=K(b,`&vis=${Z(a.g)}`));P(va)&&”__google_lidar_radf_”in a.m&&(b=K(b,”&avradf=1″));a.u.then(()=>{0<a.l.length&&(b=K(b,”&uach=”+a.l));0{a:{D=!0;try{var f=JSON.stringify(e.toJSON(),sa);break a}finally{D=!1}f=void 0}e=f;f=[];for(var g=0,h=0;h<e.length;h++){var k=e.charCodeAt(h);255>=8);f[g++]=k}e=ba(f,3);a.l=e}),c&&b.push(d))}if(P(wa))if(c=Cb(),c?.gmaSdk?.getViewSignals){if(c=c.gmaSdk.getViewSignals())a.h=”&ms=”+c}else c?.webkit?.messageHandlers?.getGmaViewSignals&&Db(c?.webkit?.messageHandlers?.getGmaViewSignals,{},d=>{a.h= “&”+d},()=>{},200,ob,pb);L.umi&&(c=new Y(d=>{a.i=d}),b.push(c));if(L.ebrpfa||P(ua)){const d=xb();b.push(d.promise);Da(a.g,()=>{vb(a.g.body,d.g)})}3==Z(a.g)&&3==Z(a.g)&&b.push(Xb(a));a.u=wb(b)}function Xb(a){return new Y(b=>{const c=Bb(a.g);if(c){var d=()=>{3!=Z(a.g)&&(ya(a.g,c,d),b())};Ub&&(d=Ub(521,d));M(a.g,c,d)}})}class Yb{constructor(){this.g=p.document;this.m=p;this.i=null;this.h=this.l=””;Wb(this)}};Ga=40;Ub=ob;window.vu=jb(492,function(a){if(L.ebrpfa||P(ua))a=K(a,”&cbvp=2″);a=a.replace(“&amp;”,”&”);Vb(lb(Yb),a)});window.vv=jb(494,function(){const a=lb(Yb);if(!a.i)throw Error(“aiv::err”);a.i()});}).call(this);vu(“https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/view?xaix3dAKAOjstt_6cjfML0DZS2K40nkK8g84LhCGJBcAnoFpeqfMw-gTf89ceFXb6k30aIwWw4jWUthW0KrOlESVpIBxGdejkZI9Q5exiDZFEs4KBBBcrzPkabmcpHwQCIjfW72XJrVwdU0lDaQ7qKwYkV1orL97gPy34HrKySaFt_pbYYBHgOppv0UFaJZlEa-AwyQuS4rqHuJS-84jPGu1Pfbg0VG0baZgsS_OS91U86uzFVGbIcwzgkE5OWQV_qQTqOwfH_kxEHQErbHPuTxjykCNg1SPXaAXIMgJ4LhhguewXxvzEnK7BLGkBQvmD8xXlFvqGPFlZr6yy_kp226J-0FQx26saix3dAMfl-YQ0QVH1cD0nx0xOyBUVKe8FEbWQmgvVUfuSyza0pFrpbTEQx8f-lVpSBGjFdYXNIMZ4kNg2HYhIU0HK2bUx26sigx3dCg0ArKJSzJmuJ6NchQuDEAEx26uach_mx3d%5BUACH%5Dx26urlfixx3d1x26adurlx3d&#8221;)

 

 
window.PWT.renderOWCreative(document,{pwtecp:’0.24′,pwtbst:’1′,pwtcid:’b1073168-fc9b-4417-aedc-649d3b1fe66b’,pwtcurl:’https://ow.pubmatic.com&#8217;,pwtpcapth:’/cache’,pwtsid:’/43459271,22541732127/amp.newsweek/bottom’,pwtpid:’pubmatic’ })

osdlfm();

 

{“uid”:0.6645043197470943,”hostPeerName”:”https://www.newsweek.com”,”initialGeometry”:”{“windowCoords_t”:0,”windowCoords_r”:414,”windowCoords_b”:694,”windowCoords_l”:0,”frameCoords_t”:13612,”frameCoords_r”:357,”frameCoords_b”:13662,”frameCoords_l”:57,”posCoords_t”:7812,”posCoords_b”:7862,”posCoords_r”:357,”posCoords_l”:57,”styleZIndex”:””,”allowedExpansion_r”:114,”allowedExpansion_b”:644,”allowedExpansion_t”:0,”allowedExpansion_l”:0,”yInView”:0,”xInView”:1}”,”permissions”:”{“expandByOverlay”:true,”expandByPush”:true,”readCookie”:false,”writeCookie”:false}”,”metadata”:”{“shared”:{“sf_ver”:”1-0-38″,”ck_on”:1,”flash_ver”:”26.0.0″,”canonical_url”:”https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-donald-trump-said-his-first-rally-after-mar-lago-raid-1739683″,”amp”:{“canonical_url”:”https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-donald-trump-said-his-first-rally-after-mar-lago-raid-1739683″}}}”,”reportCreativeGeometry”:false,”isDifferentSourceWindow”:false,”sentinel”:”0-333107608923055349″,”width”:320,”height”:600,”_context”:{“ampcontextVersion”:”2208172101000″,”ampcontextFilepath”:”https://3p.ampproject.net/2208172101000/ampcontext-v0.js”,”sourceUrl”:”https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-donald-trump-said-his-first-rally-after-mar-lago-raid-1739683?amp=1″,”referrer”:”https://www.google.com/”,”canonicalUrl”:”https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-donald-trump-said-his-first-rally-after-mar-lago-raid-1739683″,”pageViewId”:”5613″,”location”:{“href”:”https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-donald-trump-said-his-first-rally-after-mar-lago-raid-1739683?amp=1″},”startTime”:1662262350401,”tagName”:”AMP-AD”,”mode”:{“localDev”:false,”development”:false,”esm”:false,”test”:false,”rtvVersion”:”012208172101000″},”canary”:false,”hidden”:false,”initialLayoutRect”:{“left”:47,”top”:7537,”width”:320,”height”:600},”domFingerprint”:”3001228878″,”experimentToggles”:{“canary”:false,”a4aProfilingRate”:false,”doubleclickSraExp”:false,”doubleclickSraReportExcludedBlock”:false,”flexAdSlots”:false,”flexible-bitrate”:false,”ios-fixed-no-transfer”:false,”story-ad-placements”:false,”story-disable-animations-first-page”:true,”story-load-inactive-outside-viewport”:true,”amp-sticky-ad-to-amp-ad-v4″:false,”story-video-cache-apply-audio”:false,”amp-story-subscriptions”:true,”amp-story-first-page-max-bitrate”:false,”story-load-first-page-only”:true,”story-ad-page-outlink”:false,”amp-geo-ssr”:true,”story-remote-localization”:true},”sentinel”:”0-333107608923055349″},”initialIntersection”:{“time”:659571,”rootBounds”:{“left”:0,”top”:0,”width”:414,”height”:694,”bottom”:694,”right”:414,”x”:0,”y”:0},”boundingClientRect”:{“left”:47,”top”:1737,”width”:320,”height”:600,”bottom”:2337,”right”:367,”x”:47,”y”:1737},”intersectionRect”:{“left”:0,”top”:0,”width”:0,”height”:0,”bottom”:0,”right”:0,”x”:0,”y”:0},”intersectionRatio”:0}}” width=”300″ height=”50″ frameborder=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no” sandbox=”allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-forms allow-modals allow-pointer-lock allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts” allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen” aria-label=”Advertisement” data-amp-3p-sentinel=”0-333107608923055349″>

Last year, the city set an all time murder record with 560 homicides, and it’s on track to shatter that record. Again in 2022 numbers that nobody’s ever seen other than some other Democrat-run cities. Armed robberies in Philadelphia are up 62 percent. Doug, you have to take care of this. You have to take care of it, and we’ll send you the goods, I’ll send him the goods. You know what the goods are: lots of police officers. That’s what the goods are.

Retail theft is up 59 percent from last year.

There have been more than 750 carjackings this year. Anybody have a nice car, because you’re not gonna have it long. More than triple the average for 2010 to 2019. And it’s heading way up heading up in other cities that are run by Democrats also.

Instead of trying to demonize half of the population, Biden and congressional Democrats should focus on stopping the killing and the bloodshed in Philadelphia and every other Democrat-run city in America where record death and destruction is taking place every single day.

Biden thinks making America great again is bad for our country. Do you believe it? That was in his—Biden says “We got to stop MAGA.” That’s when I defined it, because I don’t think he knows what it meant. It means “make America great again.” We have to stop it. Stop MAGA. Stop making America great again.

He thinks making America great again is a threat to our country. No, making America great again is great for our country.

There’s only one party that’s waging war in American democracy by censoring free speech, criminalizing dissent. You see that happening? Disarming law-abiding citizens, issuing lawless mandates and unconstitutional orders, imprisoning political protesters. That’s what they’re doing, rigging elections. weaponizing the Justice Department and the FBI like never ever before. And raiding and breaking into the homes of their political opponents. I wonder who that could be.

Republicans in the MAGA movement are not the ones trying to undermine our democracy. We are the ones trying to save our democracy very simple. The danger to democracy comes from the radical left, not from the right. Not from the right.

This November, we’re going to stand up to this rising tyranny of sickness, lawlessness And death. And we are going to take back our country. We’re going to take it.

There could be no more vivid example of the very real threats from American freedom. And just a few weeks ago, you saw when we witnessed one of the most shocking abuses of power by any administration in American history, the shameful raid and breaking into my home Mar-a-Lago was a travesty of justice.

That made a mockery of America’s laws, traditions and principles. Before the entire world the entire world was watching and they’re shocked. They’re shocked. South American countries, numerous of them, their leaders said could you imagine if that was ever done in our country? What the United States would be saying about us. The Biden administration invaded the home of their chief political opponent who is absolutely destroying him and everyone else in the polls. I hate to say it.

Even including the Republicans, but we love the Republicans, on a phony pretext getting permission from a highly political magistrate who they hand-picked late in the evening, just days before the break-in. And trampled upon my rights and civil liberties as if our country, that we love so much. We’re a third world nation. We’re like a third world nation.

They rifled through the First Lady’s closet drawers and everything else, and even did a deep and ugly search of the room of my 16-year-old son, leaving everything they touched in far different conditions than it was when they started. Can you believe it?

The FBI and the Justice Department have become vicious monsters. controlled by radical left scoundrels lawyers and the media who tell them what to do—you people right there—and when to do it.

They’re trying to silence me and more importantly, they are trying to silence you. But we will not be silenced, right. We will never stop speaking the truth. We have no choice because we’re not going to have a country love. The evil and malice of this demented persecution of you and me should be obvious to all entities.

Even media companies that are pretty far left have come out and said we can’t believe this is happening in the USA. We are being assaulted by the same groups, the FBI and DOJ, that just a few years ago declared no reasonable prosecutor would charge Crooked Hillary Clintonafter she set up a secret illegal server to hide her family’s pay-for-play schemes. Crammed full of classified information, allowed it to be plundered by foreign hackers. You know that happened? And then deleted 30,000 emails, think of that, 30,000 emails, and what else did she do? Bomb with a hammer, smashed her phone systems to smithereens after receiving the highest level of subpoena from the U.S. Congress. Think of that?

Thank you. That yet, now, the same people, the exact same people are sending the FBI storming through the home of their number one political rival. It’s a disgrace, a disgrace, like possibly never before. Our country has never seen anything like it. They talked about documents not being properly stored. Yet they go in and take documents, dump them on the floor, stage a photoshoot, and pretend that I had done it like I had put them all over the floor.

They took that back. After a lot of product then they put out for public consumption, a picture which is seen all over the world. this is what they do. it’s called disinformation. These are very dishonest, sick people. Very dishonest people.

Americans are sick of the lies sick of the hoaxes and scams, and above all sick of the hypocrisy. But our opponents have badly miscalculated. This egregious abuse of the law is going to produce a backlash the likes of which nobody has ever seen before.

Before our very eyes, our beloved country is being taken over by the very people who turned democracies into dictatorships and into ultimately, ruination. They think they can divide us but they can’t. Can’t divide us.

The MAGA movement is the greatest in the history of our country. And maybe in the history of the world, maybe in the history of the world.

In any event, we have no choice. We are trying to save our country because such bad things are happening to our beautiful, beloved America. We will make America great again. I will never turn my back on you.

And you will never turn your back on me because we love our nation. And we will save our nation from people who are trying to destroy it. It was not just my home that was rated last month. It was the hopes and dreams of every citizen who I’ve been fighting for since the moment I came down the golden escalator in 2015, wanting to represent the people. Wanting to stop the massive corruption in our country and determined to finally in this world, put America first. I want to put America first and we did.

We did.

There’s never been a period of time, both before COVID—or the China virus as we say—and after COVID. From that moment on, I became the enemy of the Washington swamp for six years. The radical Democrat party, the RINOs, the media and the Deep State have tried relentlessly to stop me and you.

First they fabricated the Russia Russia Russia scam you so it was a total fabrication. Now they all admit it. Then we had impeachment hoax number one, impeachment hoax number two, and now the same exact people at Justice and the FBI, the same people along with outside scum, are at it again with the horrific raid of my home.

They just go on and on. And they have to be stopped. We have to spend time on our country, not on defending ourselves against scams.

Think about it, about Russia and the Muller—no collusion, right? Came in no collusion. That was your decision after two and a half years, no collusion. I could have told them that after the first hour. And they could have said that because they had the laptop from hell, which had everything, so they knew immediately.

But it went on—but think of this, you know what, I tell this story on occasion very seldom because it’s too sad to tell. But I tell this story because it’s very important. Russia Russia Russia was a hoax. It was developed by Hillary Clinton and a group of people. Small group around the kitchen table, as a way of explaining why she lost an election that a lot of people thought she would win because the Democrats have an advantage in elections. Because of a lot of things, aside from the fact they cheat like hell.

So when they lost, Hillary Clinton and her people, guys like Adam “Shifty” Schiff , watermelon head. Watermelon Head, he’s a watermelon head, but no dummy.

Think of this, think how bad they are, think how evil they are. We’re all fathers and your mothers and your children are great people, and all of the people are represented here—think how bad they are. They make up a story that’s false. It’s now been admitted to be false. The FBI is the last one to tell us that. But it’s now admitted even in the newspapers, even by the people back there, they will not fight it. They make up now think of this or think of this.

So they make up a story about Russia. Let’s say, you know, I was tougher on Russia than any president before. I’m the one that stopped Nord Stream II, the pipeline. I’m the one that did the big sanctions.

 

And I guarantee you one thing, Putin was not going into Ukraine. I guarantee you that. I guarantee you, nobody was tougher than me, but I also got along with them. That’s a good thing. You know, getting along with other countries. It’s a good thing. Not a bad thing, but think of it. So they make up a story, Russia, Russia. Russia. It was made up so that when they launched, they could say it was Russia.

I’m saying, what the hell did Russia have to deal with? It was Russia. Okay, so Adam Schiff knows it’s a fake story. He made it up with other people. They know it’s a fake and I see Adam Schiff go solemnly to the microphones in the Capitol building, And stand. They’re so sad and say, “Donald Trump Jr. will be going to prison because of what he did with Russia.” Now think of it, he knows the story is a scam. He knows the story’s a fake.

And he wants my son, who’s a good kid, he wants my son to go to prison over something that they made up, that they know is a phony story, and has now been, as they say, fully debunked.

In other words, it was a total lie, and he’s standing before microphones with many of those people standing there and they can’t get enough, saying that my son is going to prison. And I then call my son I say, “Donnie, you okay, what’s going on? What’s going on?”

Think of this. If you’re a parent, think of it. My son’s going to prison on something that they made, which is a total hoax. These are bad people. They’re trying to destroy our country, and we can’t let it go on. Any longer because we have too much work to do.

Whether through activist Attorney Generals, the state attorney generals. If I fly over a state, they send me before a grand jury. “Trump is up there. Let’s see what can we do with the grand jury?”

I’ve been going through this for six years now. Local Democrats and county prosecutors, congressional committees or federal agencies, the radical Democrats are engaging in a desperate attempt to keep me from returning to the White House where they know I will clean this mess up again.

They want to stop us from completing our mission to bring back American values. Secure America’s borders, millions and millions of people are pouring into our country. Nobody has any idea where they’re from. Last month, 129 countries were represented. They’re emptying their prisons into the United States of America

They know we’ll continue to fix America’s trade deals. Continue to lower taxes. Nobody gave tax decreases like Trump, bigger than the Reagan cuts. And lower regulations created all of those jobs, defend and protect our police and our military. We have to protect our police. You know, our police want to protect us. They’re stymied from doing it.

We have to protect our police.

No, we’re going to reclaim our energy independence. We’re going to save our Second Amendment which is under siege.

We’ll build our manufacturing base, just like I was doing. In other words, they know that we’re going to make America great again. You know, we had a different saying because after we did so well we were all set. And we had a statement remember Keep America Great. But after they destroyed it, I’d love to use it. But I must say there’s nothing like MAGA.

I don’t know. I don’t know KAG. KAG wasn’t the same. Keep America Great. The problem I had though wasn’t the fact that KAG can’t compete with MAGA, the real problem I had that.

We can’t use the word Keep America Great because they’ve destroyed our country. So we can’t keep it great because it’s not great. Right now. Our country is a laughingstock. Our leaders are a laughingstock.

You know, we just sent another $13 billion to Ukraine, that gets us close to $80 billion now. Well, it angers me more for a different reason. It would have never happened before, Putin really wouldn’t have done it. Said “Vladimir, you’re not gonna do that, Vladimir.”

He knew that. He knew it. He knew it. But he did it soon as the election was rigged and it was considered over. I don’t know if it’s ever going to end, if you look at what’s going on, because more and more facts are coming out, like the FBI with Facebook the other day can you believe but you know what?

Our country, it would have been so inappropriate to say Keep America Great, because who the hell wants to keep our country the way it is right now? I don’t know.

But together, we have easily beaten every single witch hunt in the past think of that—the time and the money and the effort it takes. And now we will likewise do that in the future if they continue their craziness, and if they don’t stop they don’t stop that’s all they’re good at is disinformation, they put out disinformation.

 

You know, when I heard about Russia was right after I came down that beautiful golden escalator.

First lady, I said “you’ll be a great first lady.” She has been a great first lady. Great first lady. They love our first lady.

But people would come up to me, this was right at the beginning. Right after the escalator ride, but people have shared, “you know anything about Russia?”

Young guys come up, beautiful, staffers, there a lot of them here right now and here all over the place. That just came up to me. You won Pennsylvania by a lot, sir. That’s right. You’re right about that. I think at nine o’clock in the evening, we went 950,000 votes up with 73 percent of the vote cast. All of a sudden, around 3:02 or something, the equipment closed down. It all closed down. And then you had that massive spike. Remember the spike that went to heaven and came back? It should have gone to hell and come back.

 

And all of a sudden we were tied and then all of a sudden, we lost by a whisper. A rigged election. But the people would come upm some of them are here, “Sir, sir. It’s such an honor to meet you, sir. Sir. Can I ask you a question? You know, what is it? What do you think about Russia?”

No, not really, but I know probably less than you know. But I have a lot of common sense and I know how to defend our country and I’ll end up being friendly with them and will do just fine.

Then a month later another one came up. “Hello, Uncle Sam. Look, send up Uncle Sam.” Great people, great people.

 

And a month later, another young person came up. A little naive, and said, it was really, actually, was cute. He said, “Oh sir, it’s such an honor to go for a couple of minutes.” He said, “Sir, can I ask you one question has been bothering me.” Yeah, what is it? “Do you, what do you think about Russia?”

And then again and again, then after about five or six times you’re gonna think about Russia. When I looked at my people, my help people that are a little older. I said, “What the hell is going on with Russia?”

This is all I knew what was going on. It was a scam. And we took two and a half years to win. But all of that time and effort and money and the corruption and the people that were in charge of that scam are horrible, and they’re the same people that we have now. They never leave. They never leave. And if we would have had an attorney general with courage, instead of somebody that was afraid to be impeached, so I don’t want to be—we would have gotten to the bottom of the very quickly.

We’ve been waiting for Durham for a long time, Durham, please come in and give us your work, please. You’re up, Durham. We gotta get Durham going here.

But this battle is not about me. This is a struggle for the very fate of our republic. Our movement is fighting against a corrupt group of unelected tyrants who believe they can wield absolute power over you, with the help of a willing and very corrupt media.

They think the deep state, not the citizens should be the true masters of this country.

On our watch, we will never let that happen. And we will never let it happen, even though we’re going to be gone. We’re going to set this country up so strong and so powerfully that we may not be here, at least some of the older ones—that I love you all, but we’re going to have the country set up properly. Like it was before the COVID came in, before the China dust came in.

And even after we handed it off where we had a higher stock market, because we did it twice. We had a higher stock market on January 20 than we did—think of it—the so-called handoff. I hate to even use the term it’s so ridiculous. It’s so ridiculous. I have to use that term. But the handoff, we handed it off, the market was higher than it was just prior to COVID coming into our country. We did an incredible job, an incredible job.

But we have no choice in 2022 and 2024. We have to smash the grip of his vile and vindictive political class. We have to clean house in Washington, D.C. and we have to restore government for the people.

If we do not, our republic and, indeed, our country will be destroyed and we will never be able to do what is called a comeback. You won’t be able to do it. It’ll never come back again.

It’s so fragile, you know, it’s so fragile. You will never bring it back again. You remember in the campaign, I used to say if these people get in we’re going to end up with Venezuela on steroids. I said it many many times. I never thought it was much of a possibility. But I never knew people could cheat like that. Not like last week. Weirdo. He’s a weirdo.

Mark Zuckerberg came to the White House, kissed my ass all night. “Sir, I’d love to have dinner, sir. I’d love to have dinner. I’d love to bring my lovely wife.” All right, Mark, come on in. “Sir, you’re number one on Facebook. I’d like to congratulate you.” Thank you very much, Mark. I appreciate it.

Well, Mark Zuckerberg confessed that in 2020, the FBI went to Facebook and the media and gave them the false narratives that the Hunter Biden laptop from Hell was Russian disinformation, even though they knew that was not true. So they went in they said it was Russian disinformation, by the way. The guy that came in with that stuff just got fired. He perp-walked, he was perp-walked out of the FBI on Friday.

But that doesn’t help us, and the election of 2020, that doesn’t help us. They perp-walked him because of all the things he did. So many more than what we’re even talking about. The FBI made it clear that they did not want the truth about the criminality and influence peddling of the Biden family coming out before the election, because that would hurt the chances of Joe Biden who virtually never left his basement winning the election.

You know, he came to Philadelphia, as you know, you know many people they had almost nobody showed up. And we have a lot of people. A lot of people, and we’re not even talking about all the people outside that couldn’t get in, because you have better real estate, right? We got a lot of people outside watching. I hope they’re watching the big screens we put up outside.

You know this place? I think it holds 12,000 people. So we sold out in about 15 seconds and I said what are we going to do? For the people that can’t get in? That’s why a lot of times, I like fields because fields, you could just keep having them. In Alabama, we had 66,000 people. Figure this: Outside of Houston, Texas, we had 89,000 people show up.

But what the FBI did was corruption and election interference on a scale that we have never seen before in our country. According to pollsters, it made a 10 to 20 point difference, not even including all of the other totally determinative evidence of illegality that was found having to do with the 2020 presidential election scam, including ballot stuffing and not adhering to the laws, rules and regulations of state legislatures, which is totally illegal. They just did whatever they wanted to do. And frankly, Republicans locally that ran things in a lot of states—should be ashamed of themselves.

Should be ashamed of yourself. And a guy like Mitch McConnell, who allowed this stuff to happen, should be ashamed. You should be ashamed. The 2020 election was rigged, and now our country is being destroyed by people who got into office through cheating and through fraud.

Now watch, the cameras will all turn off as soon as I say that because they’re not allowed to put the cameras. They’ll all turn off. They don’t want to hear that. They don’t want to hear that. You know why?

But Republican leadership just doesn’t fight because in many cases, they are intimidated. They’re afraid they’re actually afraid, Republicans must get tougher and stronger and fast.

The way I’ll tell you a guy that fought back that’s why he’s here. Today is your nominee. Doug Mastriano. He fought, he fought, but he was dealing with RINOs, all such crap.

Doug, you fought like very few people fought, that’s really why he’s here, because everybody saw that. He fought. You know, after people figured it out. They all ran on the basis of “we’re gonna stop” but they were not there. He was there at the beginning. And the people understood it.

So the big deal—by the way, I saw a poll today, Doug, that you’re tied or up one point. Just so you know, again, all they do well is cheat on elections and use this information. So when he’s running, he’s got a big base, and he won by a lot. He won by even more when I endorsed him, but that’s okay. And you know what?

They said this guy Shapiro, who’s a lightweight, they said the following. They saw he was going to win, he was doing well, he was way up and he had a big base and they don’t like that. So what do they do? “The one we really want to run against is Doug Mastriano. That’s the one.”

Well, they say that one every time, they have somebody that’s going to kick their ass, they go out and they say, “go on, we want to run again.” The one person they didn’t want to run against is Doug Mastriano. This information I kept hearing it, I’d be out I see the people going crazy for Doug, for his incredible wife but it’s true.

He was right there from the beginning, day one, got to fight the Republicans and the Democrats, yet to fight people. American elections should be determined only by the American people. And that did not happen in 2020. and I’m just talking to FBI but there are many, many other things. We won’t go into it.

The Mar-a-Lago raid was a desperate effort to distract from Joe Biden’s record of misery and failure. The many disasters that our country in the world are now suffering would never ever have happened. If I was in the White House, you all know that all of this stuff when you could take the five worst presidents in American history and put them together, and they would not have done the damage Joe Biden has done to our country in less than two years. They could not have done it.

Two years ago when I was in office, gas was $1.87.

We weren’t talking about going to all electric cars which are twice as expensive. I mean, the problem is—a friend of mine wanted to do something for the environment. He went out and bought a electric car and he made a certain trip. I won’t say from where—Kentucky—I won’t say from, and he’s a good person. He wants to do what’s well, now he understands. Not so good.

And he bought an electric car and he made the trip often from Kentucky to Washington, and he made it and he drove down and put the car away and drive back. He was getting like 38 miles a gallon and he was fine. And then he goes to hybrids and all the other things they can do.

But he wanted to go all-electric, because he wants to save our country, wants to save the atmosphere. And he called me, he said “I’m exhausted.” Why? He said, “This damn trip took me forever. I drive for two hours, and then I’d have to have my car charged. And in two cases I couldn’t find a place to charge it, but even if I could, it took me more time to charge the damn car than I could spend in it driving.”

He said, “It took me two and a half times. Please Please let’s get rid of this stuff. Please.” And you see in California, you see what’s happening there, with going all electric cars. Number one, people can’t afford them. Number two, the batteries are made all in China, all the earth, the rare earth comes out of China.

And interesting. We have all the guests, and the guests to leave the gasoline, when it’s refined. We have it all right under us, we don’t have any of the other stuff. And if we did, our environmentalists wouldn’t let us take it. It all comes out of China and a little bit in the Congo, guess who controls the Congo, China.

We play right into their hands you see where I’m getting a lot of great press because I told Germany, don’t make a deal with Russia on the pipeline. And they said, “Oh, that’s so funny.” I actually didn’t during the meeting, G7, I sent, Angela, Angela Merkel, a white flag of surrender. She said, “Donald, Donald, but why’d you send me this white flag?”

I said, “Angela, you’re going to surrender, 75 percent of your energy is coming from Russia. If you look back over the decades, Russia and Germany haven’t done too well together. When there’s a war, when there’s a problem, they’ll just turn it off, Nord Stream II, and Angela, you’re not going to be able to defend yourself.” “Oh, that will never happen.”

Well, that was about two years ago. The only thing, I never thought it was gonna happen this fast. And now they’re giving me great—remember, I made the speech at the United Nations. And the German delegation was all smiling. They thought it was so funny. They’re not smiling. No one said it better than me. They’re not smiling.

But now gas is $5 and $6 and $7. And it’s going to be going up. Think of it, and they brag because it came down slightly. You know, it came down about 42 cents.

We actually had it down to $1.42. Remember that? But I had to get it a little up. We had to let the oil companies make a couple of bucks. I didn’t want to wipe out the oil companies.

But what’s happened is one of the big reasons for inflation is what this guy has done with energy, because energy is so all-encompassing. It’s so big. With the help of Pennsylvania energy workers. Did you get screwed or what? Remember, I told you they were gonna do this to you. He lied during the debate. He said, “No, no, I would never do that.” The first thing he did practically was kill the pipeline. Right? That was like the first thing he did.

And you know, all those workers voted for me, but the head of the Union voted. I wonder if he’s still the head, check it out. He ought to be fired real fast. The Keystone pipeline would have been great. A lot of jobs, would have done a good job, with the help of Pennsylvania energy workers, under my leadership. We had American energy independence for the first time ever, ever.

And within a short period of time, we would have been energy-dominant. We would have been bigger that Russia and Saudi Arabia combined, times two, and now we’re beggars.

We’re like a beggar nation. You think that, we’re energy beggars, we would have been bigger than everybody combined. The two biggest, the biggest energy suppliers combined times two. We’re going to be energy-dominant and figures we gave you the largest tax cuts and regulation cuts in American history. The radical Democrat Congress just passed one of the largest tax hikes in American history, pulverizing the middle class and now you have the privilege of having 87,000 IRS agents go after you. And they’ve actually been approved. I’d never heard of this one. They got approved to carry guns so they can go after you with guns. You know, they don’t want to have guns but it’s okay for the IRS. It’s like an army.

Can you imagine that that was approved? That they allowed that to get through?

And all Mitch McConnell had to do is waive that debt ceiling. I’m not approving anything having to do with debt ceiling, unless you drop all this crap, $4 trillion. Because McConnell folded like a dog, you saw that, and I always said he would, I told you he will, he did. And West Virginia which voted for me—45 points I was up 45 points—West Virginia is not happy with Joe Manchin, because he killed coal, and they put taxes on coal. Clean beautiful coal, he killed it. I can’t imagine he’s going to do well. I don’t know—well, the heck to him.

Under the Trump administration, we had the greatest economy in the history of the world with no inflation. Biden and the Democrat Congress created the worst inflation in 50 years, 9.1 percent. It is gonna go a lot higher. And now they are making it worse with their immoral plan to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars of debt for college graduates. Now think of this. How unfair is it, how unfair is it all of those, people, many of you are here, that paid and worked so hard. I saw they were doing a story about Pocahontas. That’s Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts.

And this big strong guy came up, a really good looking guy. And he looks at he goes, “Hey, well, what’s going on with this debt? You want to cancel the debt? I’ve been working my ass off for 12 years,” he said, “and I’ve almost got my daughter’s debt paid off. I worked weekends for 12 years. My neighbor, he’s my friend but he hasn’t worked at all. And now his debts could have been canceled, but I worked. This is unfair.”

And then he was not doing nice after that. So we’ll forget what he said, that he was not too happy. But you can multiply that times millions and millions of people. They paid for it on the backs of hardworking citizens and they’re raising your taxes. Remember this, you don’t realize it, you’re getting the biggest tax increase in history. So all this information, they’re saying under, under 400,000, You’re getting the biggest tax increase in the history of our country. So enjoy paying it.

And you know what? It’s paying for things like that, but the “Green New Deal,” which is like taking the money and throwing it out the window, and it’s actually worse. It’s actually like taking the money and destroying our country. Because it sets us back. Just like Germany, you know, Germany’s back to building and opening its plants because they got so screwed up with a green new energy.

They got carried away, windmills all over the place, killing all the birds, destroying all the values of homes, destroying the planes and fields, beautiful planes. If you want to see a dead bird cemetery, go under a windmill sometime. It’s not a pretty sight. It’s also the single most expensive form of energy you can get. And all of those big giant turbines are built in China and Germany to a lesser extent.

I rebuilt our military including our nuclear capability and hope to God we never have to use it. And the creation of the Space Force. See what they’re doing with Iran. Iran was dying to make a deal with them, without a deal done, within one week after the election. And now we’re going to pay them hundreds of billions of dollars and they’re gonna have nuclear weapons within a short period of time.

These people are crazy, this figure. I mean, they honestly, they can’t be stupid. They must hate our country. They must hate our country. They surrendered our strength and our wisdom, our everything. They turned Afghanistan into the greatest humiliation our country has ever seen. I believe it was the most humiliating thing, time that our country’s ever gone through.

Thirteen dead soldiers, but they never mentioned those soldiers who lost their legs and arms and face. They were obliterated. Nobody talks about them and there were many. Nobody talks about them. We left American citizens behind. And we left $85 billion worth of the best military equipment in the entire world, planes and tanks and goggles 700,000 rifles and AK-47s.

We left it all behind, figure this, 70,000 vehicles is not a used car lot in the country that has probably 500 vehicles, 70,000 vehicles we left behind. Some of those vehicles cost millions of dollars because they’re armor-plated with six inches of steel. We left it all behind. I built much of it. Because I rebuilt our entire military, think of it, $85 billion worth of military equipment. And you know, I saw a number the other day, the second largest arms dealer in the entire world is Afghanistan.

Because they’re selling their cars. They don’t need 700,000 rifles and guns—700,000—they need 40,000 or 20,000. What were we thinking? You don’t take the military out first. And remember this, in Afghanistan 18 months, we didn’t lose one soldier. You heard the numbers’ Philadelphia, 18 months.

I spoke to Abdul, I said, Abdul don’t do that. Don’t do that. “Why sir. Why do you send me a picture of my house?” I said Abdul, That’s a different story. Don’t go and we were fine. Remember, they said, why is he speaking to the Taliban? Because that’s where the problem was, right. That’s where the problem was.

Eighteen months and Biden, actually a couple of months ago, well, I’ll say one thing. We didn’t lose one soldier in 18 months and they’re screaming at him. You don’t take it back. You’re not supposed to say that, because it’s good. We didn’t lose a soldier in 18 months. They were so afraid. They didn’t want anything. We could have gotten out, I want to get out more than anybody. I’m the one that got it down to 2,000.

But also, we should have kept Bagram because if China—Bagram Airbase costs billions and billions of dollars, years ago, to build. It’s one hour, a day from where China makes its nuclear weapons. We should have never left without keeping Bagram. What a shame.

The most humiliating time I believe, actually, that probably, Putin went in because when he saw the incompetence of that, he said, “This is going to be easier than I thought.” And now we have a war between Russia and Ukraine with potentially hundreds of thousands, and even millions of people, are going to die. That would have never happened if I was your president. Would have never happened. I promise you.

Vladimir, you can’t do that.

Those beautiful golden terrorists in Moscow, Vladimir, I want to leave them alone. Please. You can’t do it, Vladimir. He would never have done it. He would never have done it.

He said “Why should I believe you? You did kill me on Nord Stream.” Nobody thought that was possible. I ended Nord—can you imagine? Biden came in and he opened up the pipeline. I ended it. Then he says, “Oh, Trump was soft on Russia.” I was soft.

The only one that doesn’t think that is Putin. He didn’t think I was too soft with the sanctions. But think of it, the biggest deal they’ve ever done is Nord, that nobody ever heard of until I came along. They were building this massive pipeline. Nobody ever heard of Nord Stream II till I came along.

We created the border in United States history. We ended catch and release, we deported record numbers of illegal aliens, gang members, and we built hundreds and hundreds of miles of border wall. In two and a half years of Democrat-inspired losses, we’re delivered lawsuits. I want every one of them, look, two and a half years that went. And you know, we completely finished our original plan for the wall and they came to me for some other sections. They said, “Let’s do it. Come on. Let’s go fast.” Then we added much more wall, 200 miles, and we almost got that finished on top of what we did. And I figured that this guy would finish it up. And he didn’t!

Not only didn’t finish when Texas wanted to use the stuff that was sitting there ready to be erected, it was going to be erected very quickly. Very quickly. very effectively. Great, great wall. It’s actually what Border Patrol wanted. I said what do you want? This is exactly what, steel. They wanted concrete. They wanted rebar, heavy set rebar. They wanted exactly that, and they have to be able to see through, so we see what’s happening on the other side.

I want to just give a nice big beautiful concrete plank but they didn’t want that. So we gave them exactly what they wanted. And this could have been finished in a few weeks. And not only didn’t they give this free to Texas, Texas could have put it up. They actually took it away, and put it in a secure area. And nobody can take it. That’s just a terrible thing. Three weeks was all it would have taken to complete the job.

Our country is paying a terrible price for the rigged election. I ran twice. I won twice and did much better the second time than I did the first, getting millions and millions more votes in 2020 than we got in 2016.

Doug knows that we got millions of more votes. I tell people, yeah. Oh, what a great job you did. I was being interviewed by this fake news reporter. And he said what happened in 2020? I said, Well, we did much better actually. We got New Orleans, more votes, we get the largest number of votes of any sitting president in history. They said, “You know, I never thought of it that way.” I said why don’t you start thinking about that way. Got a rigged election. And likewise getting more votes than, think of it, there has never been a person as the sitting president got anywhere near. I think we got like 10 million more votes than Obama. You know, so popular.

He’s so popular. They say he’s so handsome. Oh, Obama is such a great speaker. What does he say? He says nothing. And we’re leading Biden, and everyone else including the Republicans, by record numbers in the polls. So I may just have to do it again. You’ll be starting to have to do it again. Do it again. Have to do it again.

But first, we have to win a historic victory for the Republican Party this November.

Among our highest priorities must be to end the nightmare Joe Biden and congressional Democrats have created on our southern border, that nightmare.

Remember this, we had the strongest, best border we ever had two years ago. Now we have the worst border. I believe it’s worse than any border anywhere in the world. Because no country would let people come into the country the way we have. Right here in Pennsylvania, last year two illegal alien criminals allegedly brutalized and bludgeoned women to death. On a busy street corner in Chester County and illegal alien stands accused of grabbing a 33 year old woman by the hair, pulling her down and around the ground and stabbing her to death in front of her 7-year-old daughter.

Just a few weeks ago, an illegal alien murderer was charged with shooting to death a 76-year-old man from Pennsylvania. He took a walk every morning and this guy killed him for no reason whatsoever. He didn’t know, he didn’t know him, didn’t do anything. Just wanted to kill him.

The radical Democrat Congresses turned our country into one giant sanctuary for serious criminal aliens. We protect all of the criminals, we don’t protect our own people. In fact, they raid our people. And the Republican Party. We believe our country should be a sanctuary for law abiding citizens who love America. If we’re going to make America great again, our first pass is to make America safe again. We have to have a safe country.

You know, I told you before, I love the fields, but I like these better because of the air conditioning system, but that conditioning is not working too well. It’s about 100 degrees up here. I’m sweating like a dog but I’m cold. Dr. Oz? Dr. Oz.? Am I okay Doctor? Am I okay? He says yes. I was in Arizona for his show years ago and Dr. Oz, in a second, but I was at a show years ago and he did like an examination of me—I don’t know what the hell they did the show for, I wasn’t like even a politician at that. But he did an examination, and the word he said is extremely healthy. Very, very fine, fit man but he should lose 20 or 25 pounds. I was so angry. I didn’t speak to him. He said he was great but he could lose a couple of pounds.

He’s great. He’s gonna be great.

Under a Democrat, all the streets of our great cities are drenched in the blood of innocent victims. Much of this crime is caused by drug dealers, who during the course of their lives will kill an average of 500 a month. Citizens, every drug dealer is responsible. And that doesn’t include what they’ve done to families of people that haven’t died, but families that are just devastated by what happened to their children and to themselves. Think of it, 500 people the average drug dealer kills. I’m calling for the death penalty for drug dealers which will upon stashes reduce drug distribution in our country on day one by 75 percent.

 

No more blue ribbon committees. What to do, you know, I was setting them up in the White House, is a blue ribbon committee headed by socialites, and they just want—I mean, look, they’re very nice people, but they just want a little publicity for themselves. They can’t deal with the kind of killers that would—We want the death penalty for drug dealers, and you will save millions of lives. You know, we’re gonna lose 250,000 people I think this year, you know, just to go off for a second. Does anybody mind that? I do that.

Is there any perfect place to be on a beautiful Saturday evening than a Trump rally?

But just to go for a second. So you know, I got to know a lot of the foreign leaders and let me tell you, unlike our leader, they’re at the top of their game. There’s no one in like Central Casting that could play the role in Hollywood, all of Hollywood. Nobody can play the role of President Xi of China. Nobody could play the role. He’s a fierce person. Putin, fierce, is smart. You know, a lot of times I’ll say somebody’s smart, and the fake news go, he thought President Xi smart.

He rules with an iron fist 1.5 billion people. Yeah, I’d say he’s smart, wouldn’t you say he’s smart? So I’m with President Xi. And I got along with him to work. I mean, once COVID is yourself, but we made a great trade deal with him, helped our farmers, helped our manufacturers, but I’m with him. And I really had a great relationship with him. And then I asked him a question I said, “President,” he’s president for life, by the way, like thinking as a king. He said, “but I am not a king.” I said, “You are to me, you’re president for life. It’s the same.”

You will be very soon, you know that—another thing by the way. Do you notice a lot of ships are circling Taiwan. That wouldn’t have happened either, by the way. But I said, “President could I ask you a very simple question. Do you have a drug problem?” He looked at me like, what’s wrong with that? “No, of course not.” He goes, “No, no.” He’s like, “What the hell of a stupid question it is. No.”

I said you don’t have a drug problem with 1.5 million people. His big problems, they make the drugs, he sent them into our country. That’s their problem. That would have been their problem and he was stopping it too. But now they’re sending the fentanyl in numbers that you wouldn’t believe, wouldn’t believe it, pouring through that portal. At numbers you wouldn’t believe, I had him very close to stopped. He couldn’t do it. “So President, President, you don’t have a drug problem, but why? But why don’t you have a drug problem?”

“We have quick trial. It’s a what is it quick. We immediately catch the drug dealer. We give him quick trial. And if he is guilty, which I would say probably,” Would you say, Oz, would you say they’re getting 100 percent? Or only 99?

“If the drug dealer is guilty, he is immediately executed. So we have no drug problem.” And they have other countries like that to Singapore, other countries. And if you do that, you know, I’m told this and it’s a hard thing to say, because calling for the death penalty stuff, but think of it.

They kill 500 people during a lot of time, and I think it’s much worse than that. I think that’s only what we hear about who would stop it. If you didn’t get it down, 75 percent. Person said from day one, I’d be surprised and these committees that they set up, it’s laughable, it’s a horrible thing. We would solve that problem so fast and I’m calling on Republicans and Democrats immediately to institute to get to 10, and institute the death penalty for drug dealers. You will no longer have a problem.

Philadelphia has become, as you heard many times over the last short period of time, worse than it’s ever been. It’s become a killing field a few days ago. A 4-year-old boy was shot while getting a haircut. For his first day in school. His mother was so proud of him, is getting a hug. He was shot.

Recently, a mother was shot in the head and horribly murdered, her unborn baby was miraculously saved. Under a Republican Congress. We should pass emergency funding to hire thousands and thousands more police officers nationwide to put violent criminals behind bars and keep them behind bars and also leave our police alone to do their job.

Give them back the respect, they know what to do and nobody can do it better but they’re under siege. They don’t want to lose their house. They don’t want to lose their families. What they do to police officers. What they do to police. You’re always gonna have some bad apples, but they’re very few and we have a country that’s become one of the most unsafe countries in the world.

Think of it, you’re gonna deal with third world nations where they’re much safer than many parts. Think of it. what I said in Afghanistan, we didn’t lose one soldier in 18 months. And yet I just read off numbers in Philadelphia. If you look at Atlanta, I have a district attorney in Atlanta, she’s asking for a perfect phone call. And yet, it’s even worse proportionately than Chicago for killing.

But the district attorney, Trump made a phone call, because he was challenging the election. So they’re after me for perfect—by the way, perfect for you. Be very proud of me. Just like the call to Ukraine was a perfect call. The one in Atlanta was a perfect, perfect call and yet Atlanta is even worse than Chicago. Proportionately restoring safety. Market starts with defeating the Democratic stream. It’s right here in Pennsylvania, your state’s radical Democrat candidate for Senate. John Fetterman is the most dangerous Democrat.

He’s the most dangerous Democrat.

He came to join Congress this year and one of the most fringe far-left freak shows ever to seek election for any offense, at any stage and I’ve watched them over the last couple of years. And I said, “You gotta be kidding.”

Actually I saw Conor Lamb, I don’t know, kind of be a decent politician, you know he can’t pay into the sort of middle Democrat area and he was doing commercials that was so good for me, they people thought that he was a Republican. I like Conor Lamb.

But Fetterman got it. He got it in a landslide. And this guy is a disaster. He comes in with a sweat suit on, I’ve never seen him wear a suit. A dirty dirty, dirty sweat suit. It’s really disgusting. You know, I’m a clean freak. I’m a clean freak, Oz, I don’t like those dirty sweat suits that disgusting.

Fetterman may dress like a teenager getting high in his parents basement. But he’s a raging lunatic, hell bent on springing hardened criminals out of jail in the middle of the worst crime wave in Pennsylvania history. He wants everybody out of jail.

And, by the way, he wants to get rid of the police. Fetterman is a defund the police Marxist who’s just pulling the wool over people’s eyes, who literally said that if he had a magic wand and could fix one thing, he would end life sentences without parole for murderers, cop killers, rapists and other monsters. Criminals. That’s what he said.
He wants him to get them out of jail.

Get addicts? Yeah, let’s put Trump in jail. Let’s get these murderers, let these murderers out, put Trump in jail. That Trump is no damn good. He has worked his ass off for this country through his position on the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons. Fetterman has released a record number of dangerous criminals, back on the streets, many of which have created horrible just atrocious crimes. He supports setting loose one out of every three inmates in your prisons. And he bragged that his goal is to get as many criminals out onto the street as quickly as possible.

Fetterman supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra-lethal fentanyl, and by the way, he takes them himself—which would mean death and despair for every community in Pennsylvania and every community in the United States of America.

Compare that to President Xi of China, a little different, wouldn’t you say? Fetterman openly supports deadly sanctuary cities and he signed a pledge to ban fracking which would demolish almost a million jobs in Pennsylvania. I told them, I told you they were going to do that Pennsylvania, well you did listen to because I won Pennsylvania by a lot.

I can only hold accountable the people that counted the votes. Did you ever hear the statement by, I believe it was Lenin, did anyone ever hear of—many people would say it with less sophistication, Lenin. Lenin, I like the way they say that. Where he said the vote-counter is far more important than the candidate, well that turned out to be true. The vote-counter is far more important than the candidate, said by Lenin.

And while Fetterman wants to raise your taxes, he is a spoiled and entitled socialist loser who leached off his parents’ money, you know he lives on the parents money until he was 49 years old. And on top of it all, he’s too cowardly to even show up and debate. A very nice man. Nice. He’s very nice, and you’ll treat him nicely, right?

Because he knows that his positions are totally indefensible, and in all fairness, you need to be out there and just ripping it for you, otherwise you’re going to lose out to all the other southerners that are going to bring back money to the states, et cetera. And as we’ll do it.

Fetterman is running against a man I’ve known for many years. I told you I had a real problem with him when he said I was a little heavy. I didn’t like that. And of course it was wrong, was he wrong? And who is with our MAGA movement all the way. he’s with us all the way. And you know, some people thought that, “Oh gee, maybe it was a little bit of a controversial thing,” but I know him very well. And he’s a guy that gets it done. He’s a good person, and his wife is a fantastic person, I think I like her even more than I like him, Lisa.

So I’d like to ask Dr. Oz to step forward and say a few words. He’s been an incredibly successful man on television, in medicine. He knows what’s happening, and he’s going to work and fight for Pennsylvania. Thank you.

Dr. Oz: Pennsylvania, we have one question, one important question we have to answer by November 8. Are you ready for it? Is the country headed in the right direction? If your friends say “Yes,” take away their car keys. They should not be driving in that condition, people should stay home. But if the answer is no, we’ve got a big problem. This country has dramatically turned in the wrong direction. I’m the person for change.

I’ll make the change based on our family values here in Pennsylvania, because I believe in the American dream, I am part of the American dream. My whole life has been about hard work, and earning, and supporting kids because that’s what Americans do. I believe we can make safe city streets and communities. I believe we can have a secure border and allow legal immigration but not the fentanyl brought by traffickers bringing human beings and fentanyl from China which took 100,000 lives last year.

And I know people just aren’t hurt by fentanyl. I believe we can have an economy that hurts the American people but most importantly, I believe in each and every one of you and so should you. God bless you.

Donald Trump: We have a great record of endorsement, all of us together. Very close to 90 percent. And I endorsed that guy and I’m telling you, I will always tell you this. I’ll tell you the truth and he’s going to be a phenomenal representative for Pennsylvania. You gotta vote him and you got to vote.

Great guy. And Lisa, thank you very much. Thank you very much for what you have to put up with, Lisa. Thank you very much. You know they spent, just so you know, they spent like $50 million trying to destroy that man. $50 million. Like it was water. And they didn’t come close. This guy is tough and he’s strong and he loves us

This November, you also have to defeat the far left Democrat candidate for governor, Little Josh Shapiro—who is so much like Fetterman, other than he’s about half his height which is fine. It’s fine. I would say it’s absolutely fine as we don’t want to tell height jokes. Not here to tell any jokes today. Not weight jokes, not heighte jokes. I’ve got them all covered.

But he is a disaster for the state. He’s the one that kept saying “Oh, after” after it came out that we have a great man running against him. “Oh, that’s the man I wanted to run against.” No it’s not. Because that’s the man that had a base like I do. He has a base that’s so powerful and so strong. He doesn’t want to run again. As attorney general, he presided over the complete disintegration of law and order and letting things and criminals run wild.

Look at the numbers I just talked to you about in Philadelphia. Well, he’s the guy who knows those numbers are getting worse. There is nothing to stop these animals from continuing, those numbers are gonna get worse, if that’s possible. It’s not even—you would think it’s not possible.

Shapiro supports sanctuary cities, and he sided with Marxist anti-American BLM radicals and Antifa, and he’s a vicious hater of free speech and a hater of your Second Amendment. So he’s gonna let criminals roam your streets, and he’s not gonna let you have a gun to protect yourself. Shapiro is also using his office to shut children’s schools and force masks to be strapped to your children’s faces, doing unimaginable harm.

And like Fetterman, Shapiro is a pro-abortion extremist who supports totally unrestricted abortion on demand. Right through the ninth month. Think of this and you know where I am. You know where I am, the exceptions, I believe in the exceptions. He supports it the right through the ninth month and beyond. You know what beyond means, after the baby is born, after the baby is born. So as I said in my debate with Crooked Hillary Clinton, rip the baby out of the womb at anytime, and if the baby’s already out of the womb, he’s there too. “Just talk to the doctor.”

Now you don’t want that. States will make the decision by the way, the states will make the decision and in Pennsylvania, I have a feeling that decision will be an interesting decision, but it’s up to the states and that’s the way it was always supposed to be. But he wants to let things happen that no civilized person would allow. They don’t allow it in other countries.

No Pennsylvanian should listen to one word on abortion from these two twisted sickos who believe in killing and dismembering babies right up until that that time that time of birth. Shapiro is running against an incredible patriot and a fearless warrior for Pennsylvania workers and Pennsylvania values. Doug Mastriano, who has been with me right from the beginning, I mean right from the beginning. I remember that. They all wanted my endorsement. They all ran.

I know you had the U.S. attorney, nice guy. He was a nice guy, but he didn’t do anything in terms of the election fraud. “No, there was no problem in Pennsylvania, there was no problem.” There was massive problems. And then he wants to run, he said, “Sir, Bill Barr would not let me go after anybody. He wouldn’t let me touch anybody.” What a shame what an opportunity, but he wanted to run. Others wanted to run.

I said the one guy that supported election integrity and supported me right from the beginning. Is Doug Mastriano. One day he came to the White House with a whole group of people. He brought them and he was working like hell, it was really an uphill battle because you had the Democrats. They didn’t want to hear anything. And then you had some bad RINOs that just—somebody, someday, somebody’s going to explain the RINOs. Why are they doing it?

But Doug is a former Army colonel who honorably served our country in uniform for 30 years before going on to fight for you. In the State Senate, he became the most respected person in the Senate and definitely the hardest fighter. He was the relentless person out there fighting against lockdowns and COVID mandates. He didn’t want to destroy real Americans, he got it long before the so-called doctors who weren’t very good, and a true champion for election integrity and tough as hell on a thing called illegal immigration.

We want people to come into our country legally. As your governor, he will back down from nobody, he’ll back down those violent criminals and crack down on violent crime and COVID mandates, protect Pennsylvania oil and gas workers, which right now—enjoy your job for another couple of months, because you’re not gonna have it longer.

And defend your jobs, your rights and your freedoms. Doug is joined by an incredible person who I also got to know because we were in a real fight with a lot of really sick, bad people. Rebby, thank you very much. Thank you, stand up. And she was a big part. She’s a great partner to a man that will be one of the greatest governors in this country. Doug, please come up. Please come up.

Doug Mastriano: Oh, yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Philadelphia loves you and America needs you. Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you for paving the way for people like me and everyone you see out here to fight for freedom. Thank you for taking the shots. And standing boldly and leading by example, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is the Keystone State. On 8 November, we’re taking our state back by storm. That’s right. We’re gonna do it. We’re gonna do it. We’re gonna be the state where people want to come to raise their families, to succeed in business on day one. We’re out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. We’re gonna drill and dig like no tomorrow. That’s right. That’s right. We’re gonna do it. Oh, yeah.

On day one, we’re no longer a sanctuary state. So Joe Biden can have these illegals, we’ll drop them off at his beach house where he spends all his time anyway. You can have them on day one. We’re gonna have the backs of law enforcement on day one, there’s no more mask requirement or COVID jab requirement. That’s right.

We’re gonna walk like free people like never before, Pennsylvania. This is where the light of liberty was lit in 1776, a new birth of freedom in 1863. And something very near and dear to both of our hearts: We’re going to fight like hell for voting integrity, and we’re going to start with voter ID. That’s right. That’s right.

The left, my opponent, is too dangerous, too extreme and too radical. When he can’t even define what a woman is, then the guy is nuts. Pennsylvania is less safe with his six year record of failure as attorney general that all ends on 8 November. Pennsylvania, the key to our nation starts with us. And let’s not forget that on September 11, 2001, and you are a champion on 9/11/2001, Mr. President, and he was. We saw him at the World Trade Center. Meanwhile, Flight 93 over Somerset County, the terrorists had it. Todd Beamer and other people on that flight took action. What did they say?

Pennsylvania, let’s roll!

Donald Trump: You know, Doug said a lot in a few short sentences. One of the things he mentioned was voter ID. The Democrats don’t want voter ID. Actually it’s interesting. The leadership, the people want it, 91 percent Democrats, but the leaders don’t want voter ID, OK. I think the only reason you don’t want voter ID, there’s only one reason because you want it cheap, right. That’s the only reason.

When you had the Democrat National Convention, the last one, they had signs, and the biggest signs, they were like billboards, pictures, fingerprints, everything. You couldn’t get in. But the greatest thing happened over the last few days, Starbucks, this guy Schultz. The one with the extremely thin legs. I think maybe Dr. Oz would have said he’s either really good or very, very, very thin. But he was doing a debate. He was sitting down, I thought his legs—I didn’t think he’d be able to stand up. But Schultz, he’s the head of it.

But he just announced unions are trying to take over stuff. But he will not under any circumstance allow mail-in voting because it’s evil and corrupt. And the process can be corrupted. And yet when he was running for president for about three days before he realized he couldn’t do it, took him about two days. But when he was running for president, he was talking about mail-in ballots. Now that he’s got his company that he’s got a nice piece of, he wants nothing to do with voting by mail-in ballots for unions, because he says you can’t get their vote, and it’s easily corruptible.

When are people going to get smart, and get rid of this mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, killing our country. You’ll do it. We’re also joined tonight by the next congressman from Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district. Jim Bognet. Jim, thank you very much. Good luck. I hear you doing well, these two guys are gonna help you a lot. Thank you, Jim. Great job.

So Jim’s running against radical Democrat socialist Matt Cartwright. That’s another beauty. Who said he’s all on board for the Green New Deal. Greatest waste of money in history. The Green New Deal, why don’t you just throw the money right out the window. And he absolutely supports defunding the police and votes with Biden 100 percent of the time, so you know he can’t be any good. Everybody get out and vote for Jim. Okay.

Also with us, our Pennsylvania treasurer, a very good person, good woman, Stacy Garrity. Hello, Stacy. Thank you, Stacy. Great job you’re doing. Friend of mine—a warrior. Never laid down, always been their representative. Dan Meuser. Dan, thank you. Great job. Great job. Thank you. And also Fred Keller. Another warrior. Fred stand up, what a good guy. Thank you for all your help. He comes to our defense. He gets out there the two of them.

Now a woman is with us. She’s very silent. Very shy. doesn’t believe in using guns to protect yourself. Says anybody can come into my house anytime you’d like. No, no. She did a little ad I saw, her first time, and her ad was something to the effect. “Sure. Anybody can come into my house. He can be big,” and she took this gun. I never saw anybody used this gun. Boom, put it back and she said, “But he might not get out of my house alive.” And I said “I think I like her,” Marjorie Taylor Greene.

A man I’m very proud of. He’s got a tough race. But I’m very proud of this. You have a RINO governor in Maryland. His name is Larry Hogan. I think he wants to run for president. I think he wants to run for president, they said you got to look in the mirror first—it’s not gonna work. Not gonna work. But he’s a real RINO and he doesn’t want this man because this is all for our country.

His name is Dan Cox. And he beat he beat Larry Hogan’s candidate by like 20 points with my endorsement. With my endorsement, and he’s doing fantastically Dan. Congratulations. And Larry Hogan—and this is my fault, I’m sorry, Dan—but Larry Hogan is not going to be supporting you only because I am supporting you. So I don’t know what that means. But I can tell you that Maryland has a great, great man running and I hope you’re going to do well and we’ll be out there helping you.

Okay, thank you. I have a feeling you’ll do very well. A friend of mine who’s a great businessman and a great person, Mr. Woody Johnson and his wife, Suzanne Johnson. Where’s Woody? Stand up, Woody! He’s shy. They own a very small company named Johnson. Johnson, does anybody like Johnson? I want to own a piece of that company, too. Great job. We love your boss. And Cynthia Hughes and Gina Pernod with the Patriot Freedom Project. What a job they do. Where are you? Where are you, stand up for the job. And we all appreciate it. We all appreciate it.

With the help of everybody here today we are going to fight for Pennsylvania. We’re going to win for Pennsylvania this November. One of the first things we will do is stand up for parents’ rights. It’s time to finally and completely break the radical local education cartel. Can you believe like 10 years ago, let’s put yourself back, that somebody would stand up—I can’t believe I’m calling myself a politician. But I guess I am. I don’t know. I can’t stand politicians.

But can you believe that 10 years ago—like put yourself in that position—a politician would be standing up saying we’re going to defend parental rights? I mean, that’s about as basic as it gets, but that’s what we have to do because these people are crazy. Our children are captive to unhinged Marxist educators who are pushing inappropriate sexual, racial and political material on our children from the youngest possible age.

At long last, every parent in America must be empowered to opt out of the indoctrination and send their child to the public, private, charter, religious or home school of their choice. In addition, we will get critical race theory the hell out of our schools, out of our military and out of every part of our federal, state and local government, just like I did two years ago, it was out. We had it out, but they put it right back in.

We will also keep men out of women’s sports. You know those stories that I tell? I love to tell those stories, the woman swimmers, I tell it again, should I, you want me to? Mr. Wall, stand up Wall, please. This is Mr. Irving Q. Wall, you know, it’s so ridiculous. And you know, it’s not politically correct, and a lot of people are afraid to talk about it, but I’m not—men in women sports.

So you have this swimmer, who’s really—I met her the other day, very high quality swimmer and she’s gonna break the record. She’s worked like hell. She’s worked all her life. The big meet is on and she looks to the left and she sees all of those great athletes that she’s been fighting for years. She looks to the right, and she sees this massive human being, he’s looking up, what is he, like 6’6″ or something? He’s got a wingspan bigger than Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt was small by comparison and she looked over, I’ve never seen her before. Anyway, she wanted to break that record she fought so hard to do. And the race started and as you know, she was severely injured. She was injured by windburn because he went by her so fast.

The wind burned the hell out of her. And she didn’t quite make it that day for the record. But he did. He broke the record by 38 seconds. You know, usually you break it by—she wants to break it by 1/8 of a second. But he was far better than her. He broke it by 38 seconds. That’s one that no woman’s ever gonna catch.

And then the better one is the weightlifter. You had a woman she’s gonna lift the 213 pounds and that’s a lot of weight. Do you think I could lift, Oz, you think I could lift 213 pounds and she got up and she was gonna break it. They put it half an ounce and a half an ounce and have these big barbells and dumbbells and she’s up there and she pulls it up and she’s gonna do it—couldn’t do it too. So she was ashamed but she couldn’t do it.

And then this person comes in you know, they actually call it—this is the correct term. A person in a man’s body. That’s what they call it. This is supposed to be politically correct. I hope it is. Otherwise they’ll be very rude to me. The fake news will be very rude.

This guy walks up, they asked him before, did you lift? “No, not too much.” And he gets up—ding—that was the end of that record. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And no teacher should ever be allowed to teach transgender to our children without parental consent.

Another one of our highest priorities under a Republican Congress will be to stop left wing censorship and to restore free speech in America. We don’t have free speech. Go out and sign up, by the way, for Truth Social. Anybody on Truth Social? It’s hot. And it’s much better than Twitter. You see what’s going on with Twitter. Twitter’s not doing do well. Frankly, if we didn’t have Truth we wouldn’t be able to get the word out like they do. We get the word out fast.

The Radical Left Democrat Party is not, in my opinion, a 50 percent party within our country. They’re against God, guns, oil, law enforcement, voter ID, tax cuts, regulation cuts, the Constitution and they’re against our founding fathers. But other than that, actually, they’re quite good. The way they win is to cheat in elections. I really believe that. How can you be against all of those things and for some of the things that therefore and be considered a 50/50 party? I don’t believe it.

They cheat like hell on elections all over the country, and they’re really good at it. Everywhere the Republican Party has the chance, we must pass critical election integrity reforms, including Universal voter ID citizenship confirmation. No more fake drop boxes by Zuckerberg and these people, no private money pouring into local election offices. And ultimately, we need same day voting with only paper ballots. Same day voting. Same day paper.

France just had an election. Big country—35 million people. They hd same day voting, all paper ballots. The election ended at 11 o’clock. They had the vote, that was it. Nobody walked away. Right here in Pennsylvania, Democrats are still trying hard to rig your elections.

Act 77 clearly violates your state Constitution encouraging widespread abuse of mail-in ballots, and your radical left state Supreme Court just violated the Constitution a second time by overturning a decision by an unbiased lower court. Republicans in the state legislature need to get to work immediately to kill Act 77 by a state constitutional amendment, they have to do it immediately.

We are just two months away from the most important midterm election in American history. And we need a landslide so big that the radical left just cannot rig it. You know the more we win by, it gets harder, harder, harder, harder. They can cheat a lot but once you get to a certain level, it gets very hard. This is the year we’re going to take back the House. We’re going to take back the Senate, we’re going to take back America. We’ll take back America.

And in 2024, most importantly, we are going to take back our magnificent White House. Together we will fight for more jobs for Pennsylvania families, fair trade for Pennsylvania workers and more Pennsylvania factories forging more products stamped with those beautiful, beautiful words, “Made in the USA,” right? Made in the USA.

We will shut down Biden’s border disaster, reinstitute our strong Remain in Mexico policy. How good was that, Remain in Mexico? You think it was easy for me to get Remain in Mexico from Mexico, but I got it. I said “You don’t give it to me, you’re gonna pay big tariffs on your cars.” “Oh, we’d love to give it to you.” Strengthen the patriots of ICE and Border Patrol. They’re patriots and they’re great. We will again end catch and release. We will end chain migration, we will end the visa lottery and we will clamp down on illegal immigration. Just like we did less than two years ago when we had the most secure border in our country’s history.

We will stop the crime wave in Democrat-run cities, we will give our police the power they need and the respect they deserve. And we will not take legal protection away from our police. These maniacs want the police officers go out and hire lawyers so they can defend themselves. We won’t do that. We will restore law and order in America. And we will override governors that don’t look for law and order.

We will hold China accountable for unleashing the virus upon the world. We will protect innocent life. We will defend our Constitution. We will defend the Second Amendment and we will proudly uphold the Judeo-Christian values and principles of our nations. We will restore education to our schools and we will teach our children to love their country, honor our history and to always respect our great American flag.

In conclusion, our MAGA movement, Make America Great Again, is by far the greatest political movement in the history of our country. Together we are standing up against some of the most menacing forces, entrenched interests and vicious opponents our people have ever seen. Despite great outside dangers, our greatest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our own country. But no matter how big or powerful the corrupt radical left Democrats are—and they are corrupt and they are powerful. We have to make them much less powerful. We will never allow anyone to forget that this nation does not belong to them. This nation belongs to you. This is your home. This is your heritage.

And our American liberty is your God-given right. From Allentown to Johnstown from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, and from Philadelphia to Scranton, PA. We stand on the shoulders of American legends who poured out their blood, sweat and tears for our rights and for our freedom. They were so great.

Pennsylvania is where our founding fathers declared independence. It’s where the army weathered its brutal winter at Valley Forge, where General George Washington led his men on a daring mission across the Delaware and where our union was saved by immortal heroes at Gettysburg. And this is the state where generations of tough strong Pennsylvania miners, factory workers and steel workers forged the greatest nation in the history of the world.

But now we are a nation in decline. We are a nation that is failing. We are a nation that has the highest inflation in over 50 years and where the stock market just finished the worst first half of the year since 1872. Likewise, we are a nation that has the highest energy costs in its history. We are no longer energy independent or energy-dominant as we just were two short years ago. We are a nation that is begging Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and many others for oil. “Please, please, please help us,” Joe Biden says, but we have liquid gold right under our feet than any other country in the world.

We are a nation that is consumed by the radical left’s Green New Deal, yet everyone knows that the Green New Deal will lead to our destruction. We are a nation that is surrendering all over, but in particular to Afghanistan, leaving behind dead soldiers, American citizens and 85 years’ worth of the finest military equipment anywhere in the world. We are a nation that allowed Russia to devastate a country, Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands of people and it will only get worse.

It would never have happened with me as commander-in-chief. And for four long years, it didn’t happen. Never happen. And China with Taiwan is next. We are a nation that has weaponized its law enforcement against the opposing political party like never before. We’ve got a Federal Bureau of Investigation that won’t allow bad election-changing facts to be presented to the public and a Department of Justice that refuses to investigate egregious acts of voting irregularities and fraud.

And we have a president who is cognitively impaired and in no condition to lead our country and everybody knows it. We are a nation that no longer has a free and fair press. Fake news is all you get and they are truly the enemy of the people. We are a nation where free speech is no longer allowed. Where crime is rampant like never before, where the economy has been collapsing, where more people died of COVID in 2021 than did in 2020.

We are a nation that is allowing Iran to build a massive nuclear weapon, which they are incredibly being allowed to do right now in China to use trillions and trillions of dollars that is taken from us to build a military, to rival our own. And just two years ago we had Iran, China, Russia and North Korea in check. They weren’t going to do a thing against us. And everybody knows it.

And perhaps most importantly, we are a nation that is no longer respected or listened to around the world. We are a nation that in many ways has become a joke. We are a nation that is hostile to liberty, freedom and faith. We are a nation whose economy is floundering, whose stores are not stocked. Whose deliveries are not coming and whose educational system is ranked at the bottom of every single list.

But we are not going to let this continue. Two years ago, we had the greatest election that we’ve ever had. But it was taken away from us. We weren’t allowed to use the power of the people to make America great again. Two years ago, we also had greatness like no one had ever seen. And soon we have that greatness again.

It was hard-working patriots like you who built this country. And it is hard-working patriots like you who are going to save our country. We will stand up to the radical left lunatics, RINOs and we will fight for America like no one has ever fought before.

 
 

———-

 

left undermines America width=

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who exactly is violating federal civil rights legislation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(C)2022 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

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

 

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

 

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

Dear Representative Adam Kinzinger, 

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

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

 • 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)

 

 
More

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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:

  1. 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?  
  1. 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?
  1. How many individuals were incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020? 
  1. 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?
  1. How many of these individuals have been released on bail?
  1. How many of these individuals were released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?
  1. How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?[9]
  1. 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?
  1. 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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  1. How many individuals are incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with the Capitol breach?
  1. 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?
  1. How many of these individuals have been released on bail?
  1. How many of these individuals have been released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?
  1. How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?
  1. How many DOJ prosecutors have been assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach?
  1. 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.

[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
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
 
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.

________________

______________________

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.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

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,

Related posts:

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

 

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

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 […]

 

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

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 […]

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”

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 […]

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”)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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, […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Dan Mitchell: The Six Most Important Ballot Initiatives of 2022

————

The Six Most Important Ballot Initiatives of 2022

Most election watchers are focused on whether Republicans will take control of the House and/or the Senate in today’s midterm election in the United States.

That’s an interesting topic, and I’ll close today’s column with my predictions, but I’m going to continue my long-standing tradition (2010, 2012, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) of highlighting the year’s most important initiatives and referendums.

1. Regular readers already know that the class-warfare initiative in Massachusetts is at the top of my list. The left-controlled state legislature has placed an initiative on the ballot to replace the state’s 5 percent flat tax with a class-warfare system with a top rate of 9 percent. The Wall Street Journalrecently warned, “A proposed millionaire tax would accelerate the exodus of wealth to New Hampshire and Florida” and National Review added that “The Bay State’s economic future is on the ballot.”

2. It has not attracted much attention, but my sentimental favorite is Proposition 132 in Arizona, which would strengthen the state’s constitution by requiring a 3/5ths vote to approve any ballot initiative to increase the tax burden. This would augment the 2/3rds supermajority that already existsfor legislatively enacted tax increases.

3. Speaking of taxes, I can’t imagine that anyone is surprised to learn that there’s an initiative to (further) increase California’s top tax rate. The Tax Foundation explained that, “California Proposition 30 would create a 1.75 percentage point surtax on income above $2 million, which would bring the top marginal rate to 15.05 percent. (Separately, the scheduled uncapping of a 1.1 percent payroll tax in 2024, combined with the passage of Proposition 30, would yield a 16.15 percent top rate on wage income.)” This is so extreme that I’m predicting even California’s crazy voters will vote no.

4. Sticking to taxes, there’s a referendum in Colorado, Proposition 121, to lower the state’s flat tax. The Tax Foundation summarizes what’s at stake: “Colorado Proposition 121 would reduce the state’s flat statutory income tax rate from 4.55 percent to 4.4 percent, effective retroactively for tax year 2022.” Not a huge reduction, but a welcome step in the right direction.

5. For those who follow labor issues, there are two initiatives that merit attention. In Illinois, Amendment 1 would further empower and entrench the power of government bureaucrats. As noted by the Illinois Policy Institute, “Amendment 1 would allow government unions to pass their most unpopular demands at the bargaining table, and voters would have no way to hold them accountable.” By contrast, Tennessee voters will get to vote on whether to enshrine “right-to-work” in the state’s constitution.

6. Last but not least, voters in a couple of California communities will have the opportunity to demonstrate whether they understand economics. To be more specific, an article in Reason explains, “The most sweeping rent control initiative up for a vote next Tuesday is Measure H in Pasadena, California. It would cap rent increases at 75 percent of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index…A handful of other California cities have ballot initiatives that would tighten pre-existing rent caps.”

P.S. My predictions for Congress (which occasionally are accurate) are for Republicans to take the Senate by a 52-48 margin and the House by a 246-189 margin.

House Democrats Block Probe of Biden Family Business Deals, Ask: What About Trump?

Republicans seek 150 documents in which banks flagged suspicious financial activity by Biden family members and associates. Pictured: Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, attends a July 7 ceremony in which his father presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 17 recipients at the White House. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)

 

House Democrats on Tuesday blocked an inquiry into 150 reports of suspicious financial activitysurrounding the international business dealings of Hunter Biden and other Biden family members, which Republicans said could compromise President Joe Biden. 

Democrats on the House Oversight and Reform Committee generally had a disciplined message in opposing oversight of potential conflicts of interest for the president, his son Hunter, and his brother Jim: What about Donald Trump? 

Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., listed matters such as the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., the Constitution’s emoluments clause, and insinuations that Trump didn’t separate his many businesses from his work as president. 

Connolly also brought up Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s president, which House Democrats used as the preface for the 45th president’s first impeachment, among other issues. 

 

“What happened to investigations about Donald Trump?” Connolly asked, with a tone of outrage.  

The Virginia Democrat added: “I don’t know that there is any kind of objective observer who would say there is nothing to see in the Trump years, that it was not a fertile ground for any kind of investigation.”

For about two hours, Connolly and other committee members debated a proposal from ranking member Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., to push the Biden administration to hand over about 150 documents held by the Treasury Department that are categorized as suspicious activity reports regarding Hunter Biden and other Biden family members. 

By a voice vote, the committee opposed sending Comer’s resolution to the floor. 

“I’m going to pose another question to my colleagues across the aisle,” Comer said during the debate. “Does anyone in the majority party dispute our allegations that Hunter Biden was influence peddling with our adversaries? I’m sure they will want to have time to speak to dispute that.” 

The Kentucky Republican added: “We are investigating Hunter Biden because we fear that he has compromised Joe Biden, which is compromising our national security.”

In response, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the “laser focus of the majority” includes “defending a woman’s right to choose against their [Republicans’] theocratic schemes.”

Raskin also talked about the “bipartisan” House select committee investigating the Capitol riot and what he called “Donald Trump’s incitement of domestic violent extremists.” 

Raskin is a member of the House panel looking into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, along with six other Democrats and two Republicans, all appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

After 11 minutes of discussion Tuesday by other members, Comer spoke again. 

“Again, I’m giving the Democrats on this committee every chance to say Hunter Biden was not influence peddling with our adversaries, and I’m hearing nothing but crickets,” Comer said. “The fact that we are hearing crickets shows that we need to provide oversight and we need to conduct investigations.” 

During an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Biden again said that his son’s business activities overseas, including in China and Ukraine, never presented a conflict of interest. 

“I love my son, No. 1. He fought—an addiction problem. He overcame it,” the president said of Hunter Biden in his interview with “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley. “He wrote about it. And no, there’s not a single thing that I’ve observed at all from that [sic] would affect me or the United States relative to my son Hunter.”

Republicans on the committee requested that the Treasury Department provide about 150 suspicious activity reports, called SARs, from banks about the Biden family’s financial activity. Such information had been available upon request to members of Congress, but the Biden Treasury Department reversed the policy and refused to comply with the request, Comer said. 

“There are changes by Joe Biden to the ability of Congress to get suspicious activity reports,” Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., said during the debate. “I am a recovering banker. When we issue suspicious activity reports, it’s not just thrown out like a bag of shells. It’s done for a specific reason, because there are concerns about criminalities surrounding financial transactions.” 

Donalds continued: 

If Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family have more than 100 suspicious activity reports, Congress does need to know about this, because a funny thing is happening at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Joe Biden is president of the United States. His son—who is not a kid, he’s 50 years old—is running around the world cutting deals.

The president’s son is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware. Hunter Biden has said that the probe is about his tax returns, which could extend to his business dealings. 

On May 25, Comer wrote to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen requesting copies of all special activity reports generated because of the financial transactions of Hunter Biden and other Biden associates and family members.

Comer asked again July 6. However, on Sept. 2, the Treasury Department denied his requests for the information related to the Bidens.

House Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., called committee Republicans’ pursuit of information about the suspicious activity reports on the Biden family “nakedly partisan.” 

Maloney then brought up the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and the FBI’s investigation of whether Trump took classified information from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Trump has said he declassified the documents before leaving office, and the former president has not been formally charged with doing anything illegal.

“These same Republicans turned a blind eye when Donald Trump incited a deadly riot in the Capitol and illegally removed highly classified presidential records,” Maloney said. “Today, our Republican friends have chosen to spend our committee’s time on a resolution that seeks to smear President Biden by targeting his family.”

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.

 

 

—-_____

 

left undermines America width=

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who exactly is violating federal civil rights legislation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(C)2022 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

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

 

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

 

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

Dear Representative Adam Kinzinger, 

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

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

 • 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)

 

 
More

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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:

  1. 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?  
  1. 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?
  1. How many individuals were incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with protests in the spring and summer of 2020? 
  1. 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?
  1. How many of these individuals have been released on bail?
  1. How many of these individuals were released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?
  1. How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?[9]
  1. 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?
  1. 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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  1. How many individuals are incarcerated for allegedly committing crimes associated with the Capitol breach?
  1. 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?
  1. How many of these individuals have been released on bail?
  1. How many of these individuals have been released on their own recognizance or without being required to post bond?
  1. How many of these individuals were offered deferred resolution agreements?
  1. How many DOJ prosecutors have been assigned to work on cases involving defendants who allegedly committed crimes associated with the Capitol breach?
  1. 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.

[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
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
 
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.

________________

______________________

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.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

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,

Related posts:

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

 

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

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 […]

 

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

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 […]

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”

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 […]

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”)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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, […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Tom Cotton Slams Merrick Garland for Allowing Illegal Protests at Supreme Court Justices’ Homes

Abortion: When Does Life Begin? – R.C. Sproul

——

Tom Cotton Slams Merrick Garland for Allowing Illegal Protests at Supreme Court Justices’ Homes

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) speaks as Judge Merrick Garland testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to be US Attorney General on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on February 22, 2021. (Photo by Demetrius Freeman / POOL / AFP) (Photo by DEMETRIUS FREEMAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton slammed Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday for allowing illegal protesting to continue outside the homes of Supreme Court justices.

More than six months after the leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion indicating that Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned, pro-abortion activists continue to illegally demonstrate outside justices’ homes.

On Friday evening, 42-year-old Melissa Barlow (under the username Miscreant Mouse) posted videos of her group marching outside of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s home (as they have done for months now), chanting, “Illegitimate and unfit” as they banged on drums.

Federal law prohibits picketing or parading near the home of a justice with the intent of “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,” though President Joe Biden’s Justice Department has yet to enforce this law against the protesters. Both Maryland and Virginia law also prohibit picketing to disrupt or threaten to disrupt that individual’s “tranquility in his home.”

Cotton pointed to President Joe Biden’s recent remarks warning about the death of democracy.

“For all Biden’s screeching about the death of democracy, his Department of Justice continues to let left-wing mobs unlawfully harass Justices,” Cotton said in a Twitter post.

“Merrick Garland should be ashamed of himself,” the senator added.

Barlow, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal, has frequently donated to the Democratic Party and has regularly protested outside the justices’ homes for months.

A longtime protester and activist, she frequently coordinates abortion protests with “Our Rights DC,” an “anti-fascist” organization, and “Downright Impolite.” She has also attended many protests organized by “ShutDownDC,” a group that infamously offered bounties for sightings of the justices.

Barlow, who has said she has participated in Antifa “black bloc” protests, has described Antifa as “passionate about serving the community” (black bloc protestors hide their identities by dressing in black and covering their faces with masks). She also called black bloc a “protective strategy” for avoiding arrest.

She also participated in “Fuck the Police” marches with Black Lives Matter where she and fellow protestors “march through DC neighborhoods and engage in several types of actions” including “Shutting down DC roads,” “noise pollution protests,” and “gathering outside restaurants in gentrified neighborhoods and reading names of POC, often trans, queer, killed by the police.”

In August 2019, the Washington Post described her as having provided much of the video and photo content for “Kremlin Annex,” a group funded by Party Majority PAC, created by former Clinton staffer Adam Parkhomenko, that protested against former President Donald Trump outside the White House in 2018 and 2019.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to request for comments for this story.

——

TUCKER CARLSON: In 2022, whether you’re considered dangerous or not depends on who you voted for

Oct 10, 2022 | 11:06 PM


Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office
January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Abortion: What About Those Who Demand Their Rights? – R.C. Sproul

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

Standing Strong Under Fire: Popular Abortion Arguments and Why They Fail

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

Ben Shapiro Obliterates Every Pro-Abortion Argument

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 3 | Death by Someone’s Choice (2010)

Adrian Rogers: Innocent Blood [#1004] (Audio)

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History (20…

Abortion: What Is Your Verdict? – R.C. Sproul

John MacArthur Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures)

John MacArthur on Romans 13

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.

________________

______________________

September 25, 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.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. 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.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

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 WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

Mr. President, my wife was born in JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Adrian Rogers tells a story about another lady that was born in that same hospital: “They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF?”

_________________

Carl Sagan pictured below:

Image result for carl sagan

_________

_

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.

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer

I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and 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 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.

Image result for Ann Druyan

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

Related image

 “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?

——-

End of Sagan Excerpt

When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson.

Image result for c. everett koop

 

C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below

Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”

James D.Watson

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”

Carl Sagan

On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:

An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN.

I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism.

How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong.

This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.”

Image result for adrian rogers

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

Image result for pine bluff arkansas 1983
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Image result for jefferson county hospital, pine bluff, arkansas
My wife was born in main hospital in Pine Bluff, Arkansas

They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!

Image result for carl sagan humanist of the year 1982
Carl Sagan was elected the HUMANIST OF THE YEAR in 1982 by the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION

Carl Sagan asked, “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?”

This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.

_____________________________

I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks  on a crucial subject that is very important today too.

A great talk by Francis Schaeffer:A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. SchaefferThis address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title._________

Infanticide and youth enthansia ———So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views.

Image result for Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome  FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession…

The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.

Image result for Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome  FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

______________________________________

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 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,

Related posts:

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

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 […]

A man of pro-life convictions: Bernard Nathanson (part4)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 9)(Donald Trump changes to pro-life view)

When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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”

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 […]

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”)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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, […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Doctor Compares Crisis Pregnancy Centers to ‘Terrorists’ During Democrat-Led Hearing

Alexis Sneller, policy analyst at the Pennsylvania Family Institute, told The Daily Signal on Monday that “while pregnancy care centers are providing critical services to tens of thousands of women and families in Pennsylvania, they’re also facing unprecedented attacks by the pro-abortion lobby.” 

“It is shameful that pro-abortion politicians with the [Pennsylvania] Senate Democratic Policy Committee in Harrisburg are designing numerous taxpayer-funded hearings to attack pregnancy care centers that are providing such outstanding pregnancy help,” Sneller added. 

“During these biased hearings,” she continued, “it has been inferred that people working at pregnancy centers are terrorists, along with making a slew of other false claims intended to vilify these essential centers. This should be a call for everyone to enhance their support of your local pregnancy care center.”

The Perelman School of Medicine touts Schreiber’s credentialing as clinical expertise in “family planning,” “miscarriage,” and “ectopic pregnancy.” Penn Medicine also says she has expertise in “transgender care,” including female-to-male sex change surgeries and transgender hormone replacement therapy.

During the hearing, Schreiber further decried state funding directed to crisis pregnancy centers, claiming that the state is funding “fake health care facilities.” She also told a story of a woman who went to a crisis pregnancy center and criticized the pro-life center for showing the pregnant mother ultrasounds of her baby, claiming that the pregnancy center lied about how old the baby was. 

Schreiber repeatedly referred to the unborn baby as a “baby”— noticeable since many of her peers avoid such humanizing terminology. 

In past testimony for the Women’s Law Project, she claimed that abortion “is almost always safer for a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term,” adding that “induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth.” 

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. 

Abortion: When Does Life Begin? – R.C. Sproul

—-

 

Doctor Compares Crisis Pregnancy Centers to ‘Terrorists’ During Democrat-Led Hearing

Courtney Schreiber expressed concerns that pro-life groups are nefariously using private data that they collect from the pregnant women who come to their organizations. (Screenshot of Schreiber via Facebook)

A University of Pennsylvania doctor appeared to compare crisis pregnancy centers to “terrorists” during a Friday hearing, accusing these pro-life centers of harming and targeting mothers.

Courtney Schreiber, chief of the Division of Family Planning at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Perelman School of Medicine, spoke Friday at the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing on “Deceptive Practices of Anti-Abortion Centers II.”

Schreiber repeatedly criticized pro-life crisis pregnancy centers without mentioning that scores of these pro-life organizations have been vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti, attacked, or firebombed since the May leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion indicating that Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned.

She also expressed concerns that pro-life groups are nefariously using private data that they collect from the pregnant women who come to their organizations.

 

Apparently comparing crisis pregnancy centers to terrorists, she asked, “Who knows what they are doing with that information, if they may be selling it, if they may be making data available to other terrorists or activists that can cause harm to patients or the providers to whom they actually wind up going to eventually to seek care.” 

Schreiber and Penn Medicine did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal asking if the doctor stood by these remarks.


Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
 
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office
January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Abortion: What About Those Who Demand Their Rights? – R.C. Sproul

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

Standing Strong Under Fire: Popular Abortion Arguments and Why They Fail

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

 

Ben Shapiro Obliterates Every Pro-Abortion Argument

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 3 | Death by Someone’s Choice (2010)

Adrian Rogers: Innocent Blood [#1004] (Audio)

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History (20…

Abortion: What Is Your Verdict? – R.C. Sproul

John MacArthur Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures)

Arizona Dem gov nominee Katie Hobbs appears to support abortion up to birth

Hobbs accused her Republican opponent Kari Lake of misconstruing her position on late-term abortion, saying the procedure is ‘extremely rare’

Democratic Arizona gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs, during a Sunday appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” appeared to suggest that she was in favor of no limits on abortion.

Host Major Garrett noted that her Republican opponent Kari Lake has labeled Hobbs as an “extremist” for her view on abortion. He asked Hobbs whether she supported the current 15-week ban in Arizona or would seek a higher limit as governor.

Hobbs, who currently serves as Arizona’s Secretary of State, said Lake had misconstrued her position and said late-term abortion is “extremely rare.”

FILE: Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs speaks at a roundtable event in Phoenix, Monday, Sept. 19, 2022.

FILE: Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs speaks at a roundtable event in Phoenix, Monday, Sept. 19, 2022. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

“If it’s being talked about, it’s because something has gone incredibly wrong in the pregnancy. A doctor’s not going to perform an abortion late in pregnancy just because somebody decided they want one. That is ridiculous,” Hobbs said before suggesting that Arizonans would have “government-mandated forced births that risk women’s lives” under a Kari Lake administration.

Asked what her administration’s week limit for abortion access would be, Hobbs evaded answering directly saying that abortion “is a very personal decision that belongs between a woman and her doctor.”

“The government and politicians don’t belong in that decision,” Hobbs said. “We need to let doctors perform the care that they are trained and take an oath to perform.”

DEM GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE KATIE HOBBS FUMBLES QUESTION ON LATINO COMMUNITY IN HARD-TO-WATCH INTERVIEW

“So, if an Arizona voter were to conclude from your previous answer that you do not favor any specific week limit on abortion, would they be correct?” Garrett asked.

Hobbs repeated her initial answer: “I support leaving the decision between a woman and her doctor and leaving politicians entirely out of it.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Hobbs’ campaign for comment.

Arizona gubernatorial candidates Katie Hobbs (D), left, and Kari Lake (R), right.

Arizona gubernatorial candidates Katie Hobbs (D), left, and Kari Lake (R), right. (Reuters)

Arizona doctors stopped performing abortions late last month after a judge in Tucson ruled that prosecutors can enforce a law dating to 1864 that bans abortion unless it’s necessary to save a woman’s life. Arizona also has a law passed this year that bans abortion after 15 weeks, creating speculation about what’s allowed.

Democrats have seized on the ruling, which revived the issue ahead of next month’s midterm elections. Democratic lawmakers sent a letter on Tuesday asking Republican Gov. Doug Ducey to call a special session of the Legislature to repeal the 1864 abortion ban.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Lake has spoken positively of Arizona’s total ban on abortion, which she called “a great law that’s already on the books.” She has called abortion “the ultimate sin,” said abortion pills should be illegal and that she would sign a bill banning abortion as soon as fetal cardiac activity can be detected, usually around six weeks gestational age and before many women know they’re pregnant.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

John MacArthur on Romans 13

 
 
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.

________________

______________________

September 25, 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.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. 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.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

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 WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

Mr. President, my wife was born in JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Adrian Rogers tells a story about another lady that was born in that same hospital: “They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF?”

_________________

Carl Sagan pictured below:

Image result for carl sagan

_________

_

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.

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer

 

I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and 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 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.

 

Image result for Ann Druyan

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

Related image

 “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?

——-

End of Sagan Excerpt

When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson.

Image result for c. everett koop

 

C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below

Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”

 

James D.Watson

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”

 

Carl Sagan

On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:

 

An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN.

I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism.

How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong.

This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.”

Image result for adrian rogers

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

Image result for pine bluff arkansas 1983

 

Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Image result for jefferson county hospital, pine bluff, arkansas

 

My wife was born in main hospital in Pine Bluff, Arkansas

They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!

Image result for carl sagan humanist of the year 1982

 

Carl Sagan was elected the HUMANIST OF THE YEAR in 1982 by the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION

Carl Sagan asked, “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?”

This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.

 

_____________________________

I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks  on a crucial subject that is very important today too.

A great talk by Francis Schaeffer:A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. SchaefferThis address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title._________

Infanticide and youth enthansia ———So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views.

Image result for Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome  FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession…

The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.

Image result for Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome  FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

 

______________________________________

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 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,

 

Related posts:

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

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 […]

A man of pro-life convictions: Bernard Nathanson (part4)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 9)(Donald Trump changes to pro-life view)

When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

 

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

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 […]

 

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

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 […]

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”

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 […]

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”)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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, […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Dan Mitchell: European Fiscal Policy Week, Part V: The European Union, Centralization, and Redistribution

European Fiscal Policy Week, Part V: The European Union, Centralization, and Redistribution

The European Union started as a good idea (unfettered free trade between member nations) and has morphed into a troubling idea (a super-state based on centralization, harmonization, and bureaucratization).

And I fear it is heading further in the wrong direction since many European politicians want European-wide taxes and spending to facilitate more redistribution (on top of all the taxes and spendingby member nations!).

Even if it means breaking existing EU rules in order to make government bigger.

Today, as part of “European Fiscal Policy Week,” let’s assess whether the EU is a positive or negative force.

And I’ll start by observing that the economic data is unfavorable when compared to the United States. Not only are living standards lower in EU nations, but those countries also are continually falling further behind.

It’s possible, of course, that these countries would be even further behind if there was no European Union, but the academic evidence points in the other direction.

In an article for Law & Liberty, Douglas Carswell questions the very existence of the European Union.

Instead of asking if Europe can hold together, we should be asking if Europe should be held together at all. Why is it felt necessary to unify Europe’s disparate peoples in the first place? What is it that compels European leaders to support pan-European systems of governance at all? It is not as if European integration has been a success. …If the Euro was supposed to give Europe a competitive edge, how come the Eurozone lags behind the rest of the worldby almost every measure of output and innovation? …The urge to integrate came about, it is often suggested, to prevent Germany from becoming overbearing… Seriously? Does anyone really believe that if it was not for an army of bureaucrats in Brussels these past thirty years, Germany might have invaded France again? …Maastricht, and indeed the various subsequent EU treaties, need to be seen for what they are: a power grab by Europe’s political elites. …Thirty years after Maastricht, the European Union is no more capable of making the kind of reforms it needs to save itself than it was back then. Rather like the Habsburg Empire, to which it is in many ways the successor, the European Union will stumble on, lurching from crisis to crisis, bits of it breaking away from time to time, as a once-great civilization becomes a cultural and economic backwater.

In a way that appeals to me, Liam Warner explains in National Review that the European Union represents the wrong type of globalism.

The 1957 Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community, for example, was a customs union by which member countries agreed to trade freely with one another and maintain common external tariffs. With the 1993 Treaty of Maastricht,which established the EU, and its subsequent amendments, European integration began to look less like a cooperation of equals and more like a submission to a supranational authority. …internationalism in its modern form has often been a means of…imposing on the world a stultifying monotony… The deep flaws of the present system having been exposed, European leaders must give up their dream…and revisit their ancestors’ healthier forms of globalism.

That “healthier form of globalism” should be based on jurisdictional competition and mutual recognition.

Is that remotely feasible?

A few European leaders realize that there’s too much centralization. Kai Weiss highlighted the views of the Dutch Prime Minster in a column for CapX.

In his Strasbourg speech on the future of Europe, Mark Rutte struck a markedly different tone and delivered an entirely different message to Macron and others. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands has recently come to the fore as one of Europe’s more sceptical voices. Speaking in front of the European Parliament, he once again made it clear that for him, more and more EU is simply not the answer to today’s problems. “For some, ‘ever closer union’ is still a goal in itself. Not for me,” Rutte said… Instead of finding ever new competences and tasks, Rutte argued that Brussels should hold onto the “original promise of Europe”, the “promise of sovereign member states working together to help each other achieve greater prosperity…” For Rutte, this means focusing on the core benefit of the EU: free trade. …the emergence of the Netherlands, as well as Nordic and Baltic states, as vocal critics of Macron’s federalist plans should be the source of much hope for Europe’s future.

I applaud that there are a few leaders and a few governments trying to block further centralization.

But I have three reasons for being a pessimist about the European Union.

  • First, I don’t think there’s any hope for achieving any decentralization. Indeed, the more sensible people in Europe will face endless battles to stop bad ideas.
  • Second, Europe’s demographics are terrible. And that will specifically mean lots of pressure for redistribution by imposing EU-wide taxes and spending.
  • Third, public policy is moving in the wrong direction at the national level. This compounds the damage of bad policies imposed by EU bureaucrats in Brussels.

Here’s a chart, based on the latest edition of Economic Freedom of the World, showing how economic liberty is declining in the nations that dominate the European Union.

P.S. For amusement value, here’s a cartoon showing the future of the European Union.

P.P.S. If you like European-themed satire, click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

P.P.P.S. On a related note, Brexit-themed humor can be found here, here, here, and here.

Max Brantley and Paul Krugman are constantly being critical of the austerity in Europe but in most cases in Europe what we have is tax increases and fake spending cuts. Instead of destroying economic growth with tax increases the right method would be real spending cuts.

We need some austerity in the USA and I don’t mean tax increases. That never helps. However, just like many of the European countries we have run away federal government spending that needs to be cut. Why can’t we learn from others mistakes?

Looking at Austerity in Italy

Posted by Juan Carlos Hidalgo

The Italian economy contracted for a third quarter in a row, deepening the country’s recession and adding to the fire of the euro crisis. Italy is the third largest economy in the Eurozone, and many view it as the endgame of an eventual collapse of the common currency because it is too big to fail. Neither the EU nor the IMF have enough cash to rescue it. If the country defaults, that would probably spell the end of the euro.

Austerity is being blamed for Italy’s economic troubles. Chiara Corsa, an economist at UniCredit, wrote that “The key factor is austerity, which is weighing heavily on consumption and investment.” Recent local elections saw the rise of anti-austerity parties. Paul Krugman warned about this back in December when he described the austerity push of Prime Minister Mario Monti as “self-defeating” and “delusional.”

However, as is the case for Britain, France and Greece, commentators are unclear about what austerity means for Italy, although many seem to imply spending cuts. For example, if Krugman’s criticism about Italian austerity is consistent with his critiques about austerity elsewhere in Europe, we know he means spending cuts. So let’s take a look and see if there has been any:


* Using GDP deflator.
Source: European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs.

Spending in nominal terms increased by a yearly average of 4.1% between 2000 and 2009, and then fell slightly the following year. In 2011 government spending was just 0.14% below its 2009 level. As for spending in real terms, there’s no cut whatsoever. And as a share of the economy, total spending reached a peak in 2009 at 51.6% of GDP, and it fell to 49.6% last year, a decline far from significant.

So what’s austerity all about in Italy so far? According to The Financial Times, the “government’s €30 billion austerity package, passed in December, was heavily oriented towards tax increases rather than spending cuts, an emphasis that is now widely recognized by ministers as having driven Italy deeper into recession.” The FT adds that the Monti administration is facing “intense pressure from business, politicians and the public to shift the burden of austerity away from heavy taxation towards cuts in public spending.” As a result, the Italian Prime Minister announced €4.2 billion in spending cuts starting in June, still less than 1% of total public spending. That doesn’t sound savage to me.

But it’s quite fascinating to see the hysteria surrounding non existent spending cuts and its supposedly negative impact on economic growth. For example, last December The Economist warned:

“But too great an emphasis on austerity in the short run risks sending the continent’s economy into a deep recession; the latest data on Italian industrial production showed an annual fall of 4.1% in October, even before budget cuts were introduced by the new government.”

Interestingly, according to The Economist, spending cuts were somehow responsible for a decline in economic output in Italy even before being implemented!

If austerity is to blame for Italy’s recession, we need to be clear that by austerity we mean mostly tax increases with almost no reduction in government spending.

Related posts:

Austerity has not happened in Italy yet

Max Brantley and Paul Krugman are constantly being critical of the austerity in Europe but in most cases in Europe what we have is tax increases and fake spending cuts. Instead of destroying economic growth with tax increases the right method would be real spending cuts. We need some austerity in the USA and I […]

Austerity not practiced in Britain yet

Uploaded by danmitchellcato on Feb 26, 2012 I wish we would put in real spending cuts in the USA instead of fake ones like the ones in the United Kingdom. Looking at ‘Austerity’ in Britain Posted by Juan Carlos Hidalgo I’m going to jump into the debate about austerity in Europe because it is being […]

Dan Mitchell of Cato Institute: low taxes best for creating jobs

Dan Mitchell on Soaking the Rich There are many economic approaches out there but the one that works best is the free market approach of low taxes and low amounts of government spending and intervention. Daniel in the Lion’s Den: Fighting for Liberty at the United Nations May 18, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I posted yesterday […]

Got to avoid raising taxes if we want the economy to grow and eventually balance the budget

Dan Mitchell on Austerity in Europe 2012 In order to balance the budget we must make deep cuts. Take a look at the study refers to below by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute in his fine article on the French mess. Raising taxes has not worked in the thirty countries studied. Some French Economic Humor […]

Obama brags of progress in USA on economy to G-8 audience

1,000 Days Without A Budget Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jan 24, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org | Today marks the 1,000th day since the United States Senate has passed a budget. While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has […]

If Europe follows Obama’s plan it would go broke even faster

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) waves as French President Francois Hollande looks on following their bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington May 18, 2012. Hollande is in the United States to join other leaders of the major industrial economies and meet for a G8 Summit at Camp David this […]

France today: government spending is at 55 percent of GDP

The liberals in France do not want austerity but more spending but who will pay for their party? Morning Bell: Socialism Rises Again Mike Brownfield May 8, 2012 at 8:55 am Last weekend, the people of France took a sharp turn to the left, and the rest of Europe may be on the brink of […]

Europe has a bleak future because they don’t want austerity

The medicine for the sickness of spending is real budget cuts but no one in liberal europe wants to hear that. Sadly we are on the same road in the USA. Liberals (like my blogger opponent “the Outlier” and others) love to say that austerity has been tried in Europe and it doesn’t work but the truth […]

Dan Mitchell: European Fiscal Policy Week, Part IV: Bad U.K. Monetary Policy Leads to Bad U.K. Fiscal Policy

European Fiscal Policy Week, Part IV: Bad U.K. Monetary Policy Leads to Bad U.K. Fiscal Policy

I was excited about the possibility of pro-growth tax policy during the short-lived reign of Liz Truss as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

However, I’m now pessimistic about the nation’s outlook. Truss was forced to resign and big-government Tories (akin to big-government Republicans) are back in charge.

As part of my “European Fiscal Policy Week,” let’s take a closer look at what happened and analyze the pernicious role of the Bank of England (the BoE is their central bank, akin to the Federal Reserve in the U.S.).

Let’s start with a reminder that the Bank of England panicked during the pandemic and (like the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank) engaged in dramatic monetary easing.

That was understandable in the spring of 2020, perhaps, but it should have been obvious by the late summer that the world was not coming to an end.

Yet the BoE continued with its easy-money policy. The balance sheet kept expanding all of 2020, even after vaccines became available.

And, as shown by the graph, the easy-money approach continued into early 2021 (and the most-recent figures show the BoE continued its inflationary policy into mid-2021).

Needless to say, all of that bad monetary policy led to bad results. Not only 10 percent annual inflation, but also a financial system made fragile by artificially low interest rates and excess liquidity.

So how does any of this relate to fiscal policy?

As the Wall Street Journal explained in an editorialon October 10, the BoE’s bad monetary policy produced instability in financial markets and senior bureaucrats at the Bank cleverly shifted the blame to then-Prime Minster Truss’ tax plan.

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey is trying to stabilize pension funds, which are caught on the shoals of questionable hedging strategies as the high water of loose monetary policy recedes. …The BOE is supposed to be tightening policy to fight inflation at 40-year highs and claims these emergency bond purchases aren’t at odds with its plans to let £80 billion of assets run off its balance sheet over the next year.But BOE officials now seem confused about what they’re doing. …No wonder markets doubt the BOE’s resolve on future interest-rate increases. Undeterred, the bank is resorting to the familiar bureaucratic imperative for self-preservation. Mr. Cunliffe’s letter is at pains to blame Mr. Kwarteng’s fiscal plan for market ructions. His colleagues Jonathan Haskel and Dave Ramsden —all three are on the BOE’s policy-setting committee—have picked up the theme in speeches that blame market turbulence on a “U.K.-specific component.” This is code for Ms. Truss’s agenda. …Mr. Bailey doesn’t help his credibility or the bank’s independence by politicizing the institution.

In a column for Bloomberg, Narayana Kocherlakota also points a finger at the BoE.

And what’s remarkable is that Kocherlakota is the former head of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve and central bankers normally don’t criticize each other.

Markets didn’t oust Truss, the Bank of England did — through poor financial regulation and highly subjective crisis management. …The common wisdom is that financial markets “punished” Truss’s government for its fiscal profligacy. But the chastisement was far from universal. Over the three days starting Sept. 23, when the Truss government announced its mini-budget, the pound fell by 2.2% relative to the euro,and the FTSE 100 stock index declined by 2.2% — notable movements, but hardly enough to bring a government to its knees. The big change came in the price of 30-year UK government bonds, also known as gilts, which experienced a shocking 23% drop. Most of this decline had nothing to do with rational investors revising their beliefs about the UK’s long-run prospects. Rather, it stemmed from financial regulators’ failure to limit leverage in UK pension funds. …The Bank of England, as the entity responsible for overseeing the financial system, bears at least part of the blame for this catastrophe. …the Truss government…was thwarted not by markets, but by a hole in financial regulation — a hole that the Bank of England proved strangely unwilling to plug.

Last but not least, an October 18 editorial by the Wall Street Journal provides additional information.

When the history of Britain’s recent Trussonomics fiasco is written, make sure Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey gets the chapter he deserves. …The BOE has been late and slow fighting inflation… Mr. Bailey’s actions in the past month have also politicized the central bank…in a loquacious statement that coyly suggested the fiscal plan would be inflationary—something Mr. Kwarteng would have disputed. …Meanwhile, members of the BOE’s policy-setting committee fanned out to imply markets might be right to worry about the tax cuts. If this was part of a strategy to influence fiscal policy, it worked. …Mr. Bailey may have been taking revenge against Ms. Truss, who had criticized the BOE for its slow response to inflation as she ran to be the Conservative Party leader this summer. Her proposed response was to consider revisiting the central bank’s legal mandate. The BOE’s behavior the past month has proven her right beyond what she imagined.

So what are the implications of the BoE’s responsibility-dodging actions?

  • First, we should learn a lesson about the importance of good monetary policy. None of this mess would have happened if the BoE had not created financial instability with an inflationary approach.
  • Second, we should realize that there are downsides to central bank independence. Historically, being insulated from politics has been viewed as the prudent approach since politicians can’t try to artificially goose an economy during election years. But Bailey’s unethical behavior shows that there is also a big downside.

Sadly, all of this analysis does not change the fact that tax cuts are now off the table in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the new Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer have signaled that they will continue Boris Johnson’s pro-tax agenda.

That’s very bad news for the United Kingdom.

P.S. There used to be at least one sensible central banker in the United Kingdom.

P.P.S. But since sensible central bankers are a rare breed, maybe the best approach is to get government out of the business of money.

We got to grow the economy more than government spending or else we are going to Greece.

I’ve shared BIS and OECD data showing that the United States has a bigger long-run fiscal burden than Europe.

That’s a bit of a strained comparison since “Europe” includes fiscally responsible countries such as Switzerland and Estonia, but also soon-to-be failed states such as Greece and France.

But the one common theme, as I explain in this interview for Fox Business News, is that nations get in trouble because they violate Mitchell’s Golden Rule. In other words, the burden of government spending climbs faster than the private sector’s ability to finance it.

It was almost an afterthought, but I also made a very important point about the risks of using bad monetary policy to finance government spending.

Sort of the same story told more humorously by this special Ben Bernanke toilet paper. Or this video from Bernanke’s childhood.

Which is quite a shame since paper money in the western world was a creation of the private sector and only became a vehicle for bad policy once it was monopolized by the state.

Dan Mitchell: European Fiscal Policy Week, Part II: The Right Response to Italy’s Fiscal Crisis

European Fiscal Policy Week, Part II: The Right Response to Italy’s Fiscal Crisis

I wrote yesterday to speculate about a possible fiscal crisis in Italy.

Today, here are my thoughts on why there should not be a bailout if/when a crisis occurs.

I have moral objections to bailouts, but let’s focus in this column on the practical impact.

And let’s start with this chart, which shows debt levels in Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain (the so-called PIGS) ever since the misguided bailout of Greece about a dozen years ago.

As you can see, OECD data reveals that there’s been no change in these poorly governed nations. They have continued to over-spend and accumulate ever-higher levels of debt.

This certainly seems like evidence of failure, in part because of Greece’s continued bad policy.

But I’m equally concerned about how other Mediterranean nations did not change their behavior.

So why did those nations accumulate more debt, even though they had an up-close look at Greece’s fiscal collapse?

I suspect they figured they could get bailouts, just like Greece. In other words, the IMF and otherscreated a system corrupted by moral hazard.

Defenders of bailouts assert that Greece was forced to engage in “austerity” as a condition of getting a bailout.

I have two problems with that argument.

  • First, notice how Greece’s debt has continued to go up. If that’s a success, I would hate to see an example of failure.
  • Second, the main effect of the so-called austerity is a much higher tax burden and a somewhat higher spending burden.

If there’s a bailout of Italy (or any other nation), I suspect we’ll see the same thing happen. Higher taxes, higher spending, and higher debt.

I’ll close by acknowledging that there are costs to my approach. If Italy is not given a bailout, the country may have a “disorderly default,” meaning the government simply stops honoring its commitments to pay bondholders.

That is bad for individual bondholders, but it also could hurt – or even bankrupt – financial institutions that foolishly decided to buy a lot of Italian government bonds.

But there should be consequences for imprudent choices. Especially if the alternative is bailouts that misallocate global capital and encourage further bad behavior.

The bottom line is that the long-run damage of bailouts is much greater than the long-run damage of defaults.

P.S. Just like it’s a bad idea to provide bailouts to national governments, it’s also a bad idea to provide bailouts to state governments. Or banks. Or student loan recipients.


Federal Spending by the Numbers

Uploaded by on Jun 10, 2010

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/10/new-video-federal-spending-by-the-numbers The Federal Government is addicted to spending. Watch this video from the Heritage Foundation to learn about the trouble we are in and where to find solutions.

_______

Greece going broke before the USA? We got to control the entitlement mentality.

I wrote yesterday that the United Kingdom is doomed because there isn’t a political party with the vision or courage to restrain the welfare state.

At various points, I’ve also expressed pessimism about the future of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland, and even the United States.

Simply stated, almost all western nations suffer from the same toxic combination of dependency, demographic decline, and poorly structured entitlement programs.

But some nations are heading in the wrong direction more rapidly than others, and Greece is best example (perhaps I should say worst example?) of a country that is careening toward catastrophe.

It’s such a basket case that I’m not sure whether the politicians or the people deserve the lion’s share of the blame.

  •  The politicians deserve blame because they treat public office as a tool for self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement, largely by steering taxpayer money to friends, cronies, contributors, and supporters. Sometimes they do this in a search for votes. Sometimes in a search for cash.
  •  The people deserve blame because they view the state as a magical source of freebies and they see no economic or moral problem with using a coercive government to steal from fellow citizens. They realize the system is corrupt, which is why they seek to evade taxes, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to live at the expense of others.

In a best-case scenario, this type of dysfunctional system reduces prosperity. But when the number of people mooching off the state reaches a critical mass (as illustrated by these two cartoons), then you get societal meltdown.

Which is a good description of what’s happening in Greece.

And even when the government is on the verge of collapse and there’s pressure for reform, the political elite somehow figure out how to screw things up.

The latest example is the possible creation of “special economic zones.” When I first glanced at the story excerpted below, I thought this meant the Greek government was going to create something akin to “enterprise zones” featuring lower tax rates and less red tape.

Because I’m a supporter of the law applying equally to everybody, I’m not a big fan of such policies. I want to reduce the burden of government, of course, but I want that approach for entire countries, not just a handful of areas selected by politicians.

But at least the concept is good, right?

Not when Greek politicians are involved. They have taken the worst features of enterprise zones and combined them with the worst features of redistributionism. Here’s some of the story from Ekathimerini.

The government is paving the way for negotiations with the European Commission regarding the creation of special economic zones (SEZ) in Greece, Development Minister Costis Hatzidakis confirmed on Tuesday in Athens. …“SEZ will give a boost to the basis of the real economy,” said Hatzidakis, reiterating that the existing labor legislation will be fully respected. ..This forms part of the 10-point priority plan Hatzidakis announced yesterday aimed at boosting growth. Changes to the investment incentives law and the fast-track regulations will be completed within the next 15 days. The bill to be prepared will include subsidies of up to 80 percent for smaller companies… Public-private partnerships will be used for bolstering regional growth.

So the zones will keep all the bad labor laws, but provide big subsidies and create “public-private partnerships” (i.e., cronyism).

I hate to sound negative all the time, but that sounds precisely like the kind of nonsense that put Greece in a ditch to begin with.

To be fair, the article does talk about targeted tax relief and accelerated procedures for dealing with red tape. But that’s not exactly good news. Targeted tax cuts are a form of discrimination and they create an environment favorable to lobbying and corruption. And while it seems like good news to approve licenses more quickly, why not just get rid of bureaucratic hurdles? After all, this is the country (this is not a joke) that requires stool samples from entrepreneurs seeking to set up online companies.

It’s very hard to have any optimism after reading this type of story. Greece surely is an example of statism run amok, but let’s return to the point I made above about almost all other western nations heading in the same direction. Greece may be closest to the fiscal cliff, but the rest of us are driving in the same direction.

And if you think this is overheated rhetoric (yes, I’m prone to hyperbole), check out these dismal numbers from the Bank for International Settlements and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

P.S. The BIS and OECD numbers show that the United States is in worse shape – in the long run – than every European welfare state. I assume this is largely based on assumptions of health care spending rising more rapidly in America. The bad news is that this is a reasonable assumption (thanks to our third-party payer problem). The good news is that we can easily solve the problem with a combination of entitlement reform (which deals with a direct cause of third-party payer) and tax reform (which deals with an indirect cause of third-party payer).

The Politicization of the Department of Justice

Abortion: When Does Life Begin? – R.C. Sproul

The Politicization of the Department of Justice

Dhillon Law Group, Inc.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on September 16, 2022, in Washington, D.C., at Hillsdale College’s Constitution Day Celebration.

The seal of the U.S. Department of Justice reads, “Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur”—“Who prosecutes for Lady Justice.” Depictions of Lady Justice are as familiar as they are instructive: she stands blindfolded while holding the scales of justice, representing her unyielding devotion to equal justice under the law. Contrary to this ideal, the DOJ today appears to be increasingly motivated by partisanship. Compounding the problem, it has access to the powers of the modern surveillance state. As someone passionate about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I believe there is no higher priority than addressing this danger. 

The tragic events of 9/11 marked a turning point in our nation’s recent civil rights history. First the terrorists attacked us—and then, in the name of national security, we began to attack ourselves. It has become almost cliché to say that we live in a surveillance state, but we do. Ever since Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, enacted the Patriot Act six weeks after the attacks on 9/11, the ever-present eye of the government has been searching for new and creative ways to spy on American citizens. The government has the technology to monitor all of our electronic devices, listen to our phone calls, and read our emails and text messages—all under the auspices of national security. 

This special law designed for an emergency has become a permanent addition to the government’s investigatory toolbox. The unfortunate reality is that the bulk of the actions taken by law enforcement under the Patriot Act have almost nothing to do with combating terrorism. Once-rare applications for surveillance warrants to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have multiplied many times in relative peacetime. Most of the spying conducted under the Patriot Act is for run-of-the-mill crimes that we’ve long expected law enforcement to address without special surveillance authority.

Now, it is bad enough to have a politically-neutral surveillance state controlled by the national security crowd and their DOJ cousins. But take that panopticon and put it in the hands of an executive branch willing to weaponize its reams of information against its perceived political enemies, and we’ve got a frightening problem on our hands.

Laws such as the Patriot Act were designed to fight the unique problem of terrorism. But they quickly morphed into a mechanism by which the government keeps constant tabs on law-abiding Americans and threatens to disrupt their lives if they dare act contrary to those in power. And it’s within this world of omnipotent oversight and control that the U.S. Department of Justice now operates. They have all the tools of the surveillance state at their disposal, and the only thing standing in their way is an independent judiciary willing to enforce our constitutional rights. But we all saw how easy it is to spy on Americans—with virtually no judicial oversight—from the disgraceful episodes of broad surveillance applications, on flimsy and sometimes falsified pretexts, against citizens such as Carter Page.

*** 

Let me discuss three recent examples that illustrate the threats we face from a politicized DOJ: the DOJ raid on Project Veritas journalists, the DOJ raid on Mar-a-Lago, and the DOJ’s efforts to undermine election integrity and chill free speech. 

Project Veritas Raid

In July 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo forbidding federal prosecutors from seizing journalists’ records. He did this with much fanfare, hauteur, and virtue signaling. But even as Mr. Garland was decrying the seizure of journalists’ records as a “wrong” his department would “not let . . . happen,” the DOJ was in the midst of a year-long campaign of spying on Project Veritas—a campaign that involved no fewer than 19 clandestine subpoenas, orders, and warrants obtained from nine magistrate judges. The secrecy of this spying campaign was maintained through the use of wide-ranging gag orders, including at least two that were obtained without notice to the judge overseeing the Project Veritas case. Through this spying campaign, we now know that the DOJ obtained approximately 200,000 Project Veritas emails from Microsoft and countless text messages (and heaven knows what else) from Apple, Google, Uber, and other still unknown companies.   

Only six months after Mr. Garland’s memo was issued, the DOJ raided the homes of three Project Veritas journalists, seizing 47 electronic devices. And how did the world learn about this? Conveniently, someone leaked information about the raids to The New York Times—which Project Veritas happens to be suing. Indeed, The New York Times called Project Veritas for comment as the raids were still in progress.

What was the pretext for the raids? In the fall of 2020, confidential sources had approached Project Veritas journalists with a diary and other materials supposedly belonging to Ashley Biden, the President’s daughter. The sources said that the materials had been in their possession prior to contacting Project Veritas. The Project Veritas journalists proceeded to investigate whether the materials were authentic and whether the allegations they contained against Joe Biden were true. Ultimately, Project Veritas decided it could not sufficiently verify the allegations and that it would not publish the diary’s contents. It then turned the items over to local law enforcement in Florida.

The DOJ claims that Ashley Biden’s belongings were stolen. Project Veritas was told they weren’t, but even this is legally irrelevant. In the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper, the U.S. Supreme Court held unequivocally that as long as journalists did not commit an alleged theft themselves, they were entitled to receive, investigate, and publish (or not publish) supposedly stolen materials. In the more recent case DNC v. Russian Federation, a federal court made it clear that the reporter could even ask for the stolen materials. This is not a crime—it’s called journalism.  

Compare the DOJ’s treatment of Project Veritas to the DOJ’s inaction earlier this year when a Politico reporter was given a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. The Politico reporter behaved precisely with this purloined document as the Project Veritas reporters had behaved with the diary, except that the Politico reporter did decide to publish the draft opinion. The different reactions on the part of the DOJ seemed to hinge entirely on whose ox was being gored.

But to repeat, the Garland Justice Department was rifling through the emails and phone messages of Project Veritas journalists before Project Veritas even knew of Ashley Biden’s diary. These documents contain donor information, source communications—including communications from whistleblowers within the federal government—and attorney-client communications. In its actions, the DOJ was not only ignoring court decisions and its own policies, it was violating the Privacy Protection Act, the common law Reporter’s Privilege, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

The Project Veritas matter is ongoing. Thanks to the DOJ’s leaks to The New York Times, which themselves violate federal law, Judge Analisa Torres overruled the DOJ’s objections and ordered the appointment of a special master to review the seized materials for various privileges. It’s a hollow victory, because Project Veritas has to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, so to speak, of being able to protect its own privileged documents.

Mar-a-Lago Raid

Although I have represented and continue to represent President Trump in several matters, I do not represent him on the matter of the DOJ’s raid on his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago. But that raid is significant and worth some attention.

Consider first the raid’s timing. President Biden’s approval ratings have been abysmal, and it is a mid-term election year. Bloombergreports that the DOJ will likely delay “charging” Trump with anything arising from the raid on his home until after the mid-terms. The effect of this is to create a cloud of perceived guilt running up to November 8, and use that as a political tool to smear pro-Trump voters and candidates. The DOJ hides behind its longstanding policy of not taking politically portentous actions close to an election—but how could the raid itself be construed as anything but such a portentous action? 

President Trump and his lawyers were engaged in a cooperative dialogue with both the DOJ and National Archives representatives on the issue of storing and archiving confidential documents. He went as far as to invite the DOJ to survey the documents he had on his property, and the DOJ seemed to have expressed little urgency in pursuing the matter.

This latest episode of G-men gone wild is not all that different from the FBI strategy before and after Trump’s election in 2016, when the FBI was weaponized to investigate claims of Russian collusion that ultimately proved to have been made up by Democrat operatives. But more importantly, the raid raises serious constitutional objections.

The Fourth Amendment provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The American Founders were intensely concerned about government intrusion. Breaking into the homes of political opponents and depriving them of their possessions was common practice under the rule of the British king in colonial America. The use of general warrants and writs of assistance by the Crown was the ultimate interference with the colonists’ right to political and personal autonomy. Such invasions were so pervasive, and so universally despised, that the Founders saw fit to ensure that the Constitution expressly forbids such practices.

For over 180 years after the Founding, the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment’s protections largely to places and things. Unsurprisingly, this meant that dwellings were given a heightened sense of protection against government intrusion. The Supreme Court has reiterated, in the 1980 case Payton v. New York, that “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

In addition to where and what receives Fourth Amendment protection is the question of howthe government can conduct searches and seizures without offending the Constitution. Searches are only permitted if they are “reasonable,” and a search is generally considered “reasonable” only when the government first obtains a properly issued warrant. “Properly issued” means the warrant must describe with specificity the places to be searched and the things to be seized, must be supported by probable cause, and must be issued by a “neutral and detached magistrate.” Taken together, this is colloquially known as the “warrant requirement”—and it is central to any honest analysis of the Mar-a-Lago raid. 

At its core, the problem with the FBI’s search of President Trump’s home is its inconsistency with the letter and the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. The shroud of secrecy surrounding the probable-cause affidavit used by the FBI to obtain the warrant prevents the public from judging whether the government had a valid reason for this unprecedented search. Even more, the list of places to be searched and things to be seized contained in the warrant application comprised a blanket sweep of the former president’s entire private residence and offices, targeting “any evidence” supporting a potential violation of a handful of federal statutes that are the usual suspects when it comes to politicized prosecutions. 

While this alone doesn’t make the warrant defective, the Justice Department’s “just trust us” approach to support the raid makes it nearly impossible to determine the legitimacy of the government’s unprecedented actions. This leaves us no choice but to speculate. And based on the information publicly available, the DOJ’s actions have all the trappings and appearances of a vindictive and politically-motivated fishing expedition.

As in the Project Veritas case, the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case has issued an order appointing a special master. In doing so, the judge pointedly observed that some of the resultant delay the government complains of is caused by the government’s cutting corners, suggesting implicitly that the government abused the warrant process. 

Election Integrity and Free Speech

As has been widely reported, the DOJ is currently issuing subpoenas to individuals who have dared to question the 2020 election results. This is occurring against the backdrop of President Biden’s vendetta against what he calls “ultra MAGA Republicans.” This is the type of behavior you’d expect in a third-world dictatorship.

Included in the DOJ’s crosshairs are those who participated in the political process as alternate electors; those in Congress who voted against certifying the election results; those who organized or peacefully attended a permitted rally on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, even if they had nothing to do with the activities at the Capitol on that day; and those who have raised funds from donors with a promise to investigate and challenge election fraud. 

All of these activities have long historical precedents in our country and are protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, it was Democrats who challenged the presidential election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Let’s review the evidence.

In 2000, 15 House Democrats objected to counting Florida’s electoral votes. Several members of Congress called the 2000 election “fraudulent,” and Texas Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson vowed that there would be “no peace” because of the allegedly stolen election. 

In 2004, Democrats in Congress forced a vote to recess the joint session of Congress counting electoral votes in order to debate perceived election irregularities in Ohio. Thirty-one House Democrats voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes and were applauded for doing so by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, among others. 

In 2016, several Democrats objected to the certification of Trump electors based on “overwhelming evidence of Russian interference” in the election. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin objected to ten of Florida’s electors based on a Florida statute that prohibits state legislators from being electors. Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee proclaimed, “If in that voting, you have glaring matters that speak to the failure of the electoral system, then it should be challenged.”

No DOJ action was taken in any of these previous years. What has changed, if not the politicization of the Justice Department?

Elections are the engine of our republic. They ensure the peaceful transfer of power and are the primary method for the people to influence their government. And our Constitution’s elections clause—Article I, Section 4, Clause 1—gives states the primary duty of regulating the time, places, and manner of elections for federal office. The DOJ’s role is very limited in this regard. It has the power to administer the Voting Rights Act, a power that was once necessary to push back on Jim Crow laws. But the era of Jim Crow is long gone, and it shouldn’t be up to a politicized DOJ to dictate what election integrity looks like.

The 2020 election was rampant with reports of irregularities. Some of these reports were more accurate than others. But states were right to take appropriate steps to increase the security of their elections in the wake of such reports. And yet, from its first days, the Biden administration has been bent on waging an intimidation campaign against states attempting to bolster election integrity. 

Consider Georgia. The midnight ballot dump that pushed Biden ahead of Trump had all the appearances of manipulative ballot stuffing. That was followed by days of uncertainty about who won. Reports soon surfaced of massive ballot harvesting—illegal in Georgia—as well as deeply concerning evidence that Mark Zuckerberg-funded nonprofits had placed personnel in election operations in blue counties with the effect of decreasing signature-matching efforts. 

Given the backdrop in which the 2020 election took place—with new and expansive vote-by-mail procedures—it’s not surprising that alarms went off and that many citizens questioned the final vote tally. So rather than allow this scenario to repeat itself in future elections, Georgia’s legislature took action, enacting a package of election-reform legislation designed to bolster ballot security. 

President Biden denounced these reforms—which, as many commentators noted, made voting easier than in Biden’s home state of Delaware—as “Jim Crow 2.0.” The DOJ sued Georgia to block the new law and issued two new guidance documents intended to put states including Georgia on notice of potential violations of federal election laws. It has used similar tactics in Arizona and Texas.

***

It is not just political activists who are subject to DOJ intimidation. Attorney General Garland recently issued a guidance document prohibiting DOJ employees from speaking directly to members of Congress. This was plainly in response to at least 14 FBI whistleblowers reaching out to members of Congress—including Ohio Representative Jim Jordan and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley—about misconduct within the DOJ. Garland’s action was highly improper, but it pales in comparison to the intimidation of concerned parents at local school board meetings. 

On October 4, 2021, Garland issued a memorandum directing the FBI to address “threats” at local school board meetings. This was in response to a request from the National School Boards Association that the DOJ leverage the Patriot Act and other counterterrorism tools to investigate moms and dads who were voicing their displeasure with school policies at local school board meetings.

Despite Garland’s sworn testimony denying the use of counterterrorism tools to investigate concerned parents, whistleblower evidence tells a different story. 

On October 20, 2021, Carlton Peeples, the Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Division, sent an email directing FBI personnel to use the tag “EDUOFFICIALS” for all school board-related investigations. Whistleblowers say that the FBI opened investigations into parents in every region of the country. These included an investigation of a “right-wing mom” based on her participation in a “Moms for Liberty” group and personal ownership of a gun. Another investigation was opened when a dad was deemed to “fit the profile of an insurrectionist” after complaining about school mask mandates.

It is time to wake up to the danger.

On November 11, 1762, King George’s men had a warrant when they stormed and raided the home of pamphleteer John Entick. They broke open locked doors, boxes, chests, and drawers and seized his private papers and books—all because the Crown suspected Entick of fomenting political opposition against the King. If the FBI’s raid on Project Veritas journalists’ homes or President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago teaches us anything, it’s that the political oppression of the eighteenth century remains a threat today. But today, in addition to brute force, our government has the power of the modern surveillance state.

As a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, I would be remiss in speaking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without quoting Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “the most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” We must find a way to return our Department of Justice to that central principle of American constitutionalism, as it carries out its duties in the name of Lady Liberty. 


Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)

C. Everett Koop
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
13th Surgeon General of the United States
In office
January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989

Abortion: What About Those Who Demand Their Rights? – R.C. Sproul

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 1 | Abortion of the Human Race (2010)

Standing Strong Under Fire: Popular Abortion Arguments and Why They Fail

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 2 | Slaughter of the Innocents (2010)

Ben Shapiro Obliterates Every Pro-Abortion Argument

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 3 | Death by Someone’s Choice (2010)

Adrian Rogers: Innocent Blood [#1004] (Audio)

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History (20…

Abortion: What Is Your Verdict? – R.C. Sproul

John MacArthur Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures)

Arizona Dem gov nominee Katie Hobbs appears to support abortion up to birth

Hobbs accused her Republican opponent Kari Lake of misconstruing her position on late-term abortion, saying the procedure is ‘extremely rare’

Democratic Arizona gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs, during a Sunday appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” appeared to suggest that she was in favor of no limits on abortion.

Host Major Garrett noted that her Republican opponent Kari Lake has labeled Hobbs as an “extremist” for her view on abortion. He asked Hobbs whether she supported the current 15-week ban in Arizona or would seek a higher limit as governor.

Hobbs, who currently serves as Arizona’s Secretary of State, said Lake had misconstrued her position and said late-term abortion is “extremely rare.”

FILE: Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs speaks at a roundtable event in Phoenix, Monday, Sept. 19, 2022.

FILE: Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs speaks at a roundtable event in Phoenix, Monday, Sept. 19, 2022. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

“If it’s being talked about, it’s because something has gone incredibly wrong in the pregnancy. A doctor’s not going to perform an abortion late in pregnancy just because somebody decided they want one. That is ridiculous,” Hobbs said before suggesting that Arizonans would have “government-mandated forced births that risk women’s lives” under a Kari Lake administration.

Asked what her administration’s week limit for abortion access would be, Hobbs evaded answering directly saying that abortion “is a very personal decision that belongs between a woman and her doctor.”

“The government and politicians don’t belong in that decision,” Hobbs said. “We need to let doctors perform the care that they are trained and take an oath to perform.”

DEM GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE KATIE HOBBS FUMBLES QUESTION ON LATINO COMMUNITY IN HARD-TO-WATCH INTERVIEW

“So, if an Arizona voter were to conclude from your previous answer that you do not favor any specific week limit on abortion, would they be correct?” Garrett asked.

Hobbs repeated her initial answer: “I support leaving the decision between a woman and her doctor and leaving politicians entirely out of it.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Hobbs’ campaign for comment.

Arizona gubernatorial candidates Katie Hobbs (D), left, and Kari Lake (R), right.

Arizona gubernatorial candidates Katie Hobbs (D), left, and Kari Lake (R), right. (Reuters)

Arizona doctors stopped performing abortions late last month after a judge in Tucson ruled that prosecutors can enforce a law dating to 1864 that bans abortion unless it’s necessary to save a woman’s life. Arizona also has a law passed this year that bans abortion after 15 weeks, creating speculation about what’s allowed.

Democrats have seized on the ruling, which revived the issue ahead of next month’s midterm elections. Democratic lawmakers sent a letter on Tuesday asking Republican Gov. Doug Ducey to call a special session of the Legislature to repeal the 1864 abortion ban.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Lake has spoken positively of Arizona’s total ban on abortion, which she called “a great law that’s already on the books.” She has called abortion “the ultimate sin,” said abortion pills should be illegal and that she would sign a bill banning abortion as soon as fetal cardiac activity can be detected, usually around six weeks gestational age and before many women know they’re pregnant.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

John MacArthur on Romans 13

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.

________________

______________________

September 25, 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.

In the past I have spent most of my time looking at this issue from the spiritual side. 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.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

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 WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.

Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 9, 2021

Mr. Everette Hatcher III

Alexander, AR

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter

Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.

Sincerely

Joe Biden

Mr. President, my wife was born in JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Adrian Rogers tells a story about another lady that was born in that same hospital: “They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF?”

_________________

Carl Sagan pictured below:

Image result for carl sagan

_________

_

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.

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer

I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and 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 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.

Image result for Ann Druyan

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

Related image

 “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?

——-

End of Sagan Excerpt

When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson.

Image result for c. everett koop

 

C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below

Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”

James D.Watson

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”

Carl Sagan

On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:

An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN.

I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism.

How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong.

This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.”

Image result for adrian rogers

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

Image result for pine bluff arkansas 1983
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Image result for jefferson county hospital, pine bluff, arkansas
My wife was born in main hospital in Pine Bluff, Arkansas

They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!

Image result for carl sagan humanist of the year 1982
Carl Sagan was elected the HUMANIST OF THE YEAR in 1982 by the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION

Carl Sagan asked, “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?”

This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.

_____________________________

I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks  on a crucial subject that is very important today too.

A great talk by Francis Schaeffer:A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. SchaefferThis address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title._________

Infanticide and youth enthansia ———So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views.

Image result for Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome  FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession…

The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.

Image result for Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome  FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

______________________________________

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 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,

Related posts:

Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice

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 […]

A man of pro-life convictions: Bernard Nathanson (part4)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 9)(Donald Trump changes to pro-life view)

When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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”

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 […]

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”)

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 […]

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)

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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, […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Dan Mitchell: There were times when Reagan’s poll numbers were very bad. And the same is true for Thatcher. But because they pursued good policies, economic growth returned and they reaped political benefits!

The Big Question for Tories (and Republicans): What’s the Alternative to “Free-Market Fundamentalism”?

Because of her support for lower tax rates, I was excited when Liz Truss became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Especially since her predecessor, Boris Johnson, turned out to be an empty-suit populist who supported higher taxes and a bigger burden of government spending.

But I’m not excited anymore.

Indeed, it’s more accurate to say that I’m despondent since the Prime Minister is abandoning (or is being pressured to abandon) key parts of her pro-growth agenda.

For details, check out this Bloomberg report, written by Julian Harris, about the (rapidly disappearing) tax-cutting agenda of the new British Prime Minister.

Westminster’s most hard-line advocates of free markets and lower taxes are looking on in despair as their agenda crumbles… When Liz Truss became prime minister just over five weeks ago, she promised to deliver a radical set of policies rooted in laissez-faire economics — an attempt to boost the UK‘s sluggish rate of growth. Yet her chancellor of the exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, faced a quick reality check when his mini-budget, packed with unfunded tax cuts and unaccompanied by independent forecasts, …triggered mayhem… Truss fired Kwarteng and replaced him with Jeremy Hunt as she was forced into a dramatic u-turn over her tax plans. …Truss conceded…and dropped her plan to freeze corporation tax. …Still, some believers are sticking by “Trussonomics”…Patrick Minford,..a professor at Cardiff University, said..“Liz Truss’s policies for growth are absolutely right, and to be thrown off them by a bit of market turbulence is insane.” …Eamonn Butler, co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute, similarly insisted that Truss “is not the source of the problem — she’s trying to cure the problem.”

Eamonn is right.

The United Kingdom faces serious economic challenges. But the problems are the result of bad government policies that already exist rather than the possibility of some future tax cuts.

In a column for the Telegraph, Allister Heath says the U.K.’s central bank deserves a big chunk of the blame.

Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng have been doubly unlucky. While almost everybody else in Britain remained in denial, they correctly identified this absurd game for the con-trick that it truly was, warned that it was about to implode and pledged to replace it with a more honest system. Instead of a zombie economy based on rising asset prices and fake, debt-fuelled growth, their mission was to encourage Britain to produce more real goods and services, to work harder and invest more by reforming taxes and regulation.What happened next is dispiriting in the extreme. …Truss and her Chancellor moved too quickly and, paradoxically, given their warnings about the rottenness of the system, ended up pulling out the last block from the Jenga tower, sending all of the pieces tumbling down. …they didn’t crash the economy – it was about to come tumbling down anyway – but they had the misfortune of precipitating and accelerating the day of reckoning. …Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England…, has been deeply unimpressive in all of this, helping to keep interest rates too low… The idea, now accepted so widely, that the price of money must be kept extremely low and quantitative easing deployed at every opportunity has undermined every aspect of the economy and society. …Too few people realise how terribly the easy money, high tax, high regulation orthodoxy has failed.

Allister closes with some speculation about possible alternatives. If the Tories in the U.K. decide to reject so-called “free-market fundamentalism,” what’s their alternative?

He thinks the Labour Party will take control, and with very bad results. Jeremy Corbyn will not be in charge, but his economic policies will get enacted.

If Truss is destroyed, the alternative won’t even be social democracy: it will be Labour, the hard Left, the full gamut of punitive taxation, including of wealth and housing, and even more spending, culminating rapidly in economic oblivion.

That is an awful scenario. Basically turning the United Kingdom into Greece.

I want to take a different approach, though, and contemplate what will happen if the Conservative Party rejects the Truss approach and embraces big-government conservatism.

Here are some questions I’d like them to answer:

  • Do you want improved competitiveness and more economic growth?
  • If you want more growth, which of your spending increases will lead to those outcomes?
  • Which of your tax increases will lead to more competitiveness or more prosperity?
  • Will you reform benefit programs to avert built-in spending increases caused by an aging population?
  • If you won’t reform entitlements, which taxes will you increase to keep debt under control?
  • If you don’t plan major tax increases, do you think the economy can absorb endless debt?

I’m asking these questions for two reasons. First, there are no good answers and I’d like to shame big-government Tories into doing the right thing.

Second, these questions are also very relevant in the United States. Even since the Reagan years, opponents of libertarian economic policies have flitted from one trendy idea to another (national conservatism, compassionate conservatism, kinder-and-gentler conservatismcommon-good capitalism, reform conservatism, etc).

To be fair, they usually don’t try to claim their dirigiste policies will produce higher living standards. Instead, they blindly assert that it will be easier to win elections if Republicans abandon Reaganism.

So I’ll close by observing that Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections and his legacy was strong enough that voters then elected another Republican (the same can’t be said for big-government GOPers like Nixon, Bush, Bush, or Trump).

Switching back to the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher repeatedly won election and her legacy was strong enough that voters then elected another Conservative.

The bottom line is that good policy can lead to good political outcomes, whereas bad policy generally leads to bad political outcomes.

P.S. To be sure, there were times when Reagan’s poll numbers were very bad. And the same is true for Thatcher. But because they pursued good policies, economic growth returned and they reaped political benefits. Sadly, it appears that Truss won’t have a chance to adopt good policy, so we will never know if she also would have benefited from a similar economic renaissance.

Tax Cartels Mean Ever-Higher Tax Rates

When President Biden proposed a “global minimum tax” for businesses, I immediately warned that would lead to ever-increasing tax rates.

Ross Kaminsky of KHOW and I discussed how this is already happening.

I hate being right, but it’s always safe to predict that politicians and bureaucrats will embrace policies that give more power to government.

Especially when they are very anxious to stifle tax competition.

For decades, people in government have been upset that the tax cuts implemented by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatchertriggered a four-decade trend of lower tax rates and pro-growth tax reform.

That’s the reason Biden and his Treasury Secretary proposed a 15 percent minimum tax rate for businesses.

And it’s the reason they now want the rate to be even higher.

Though even I’m surprised that they’re already pushing for that outcome when the original pact hasn’t even been approved or implemented.

Here are some passages from a report by Reuters.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will press G20 counterparts this week for a global minimum corporate tax rate above the 15% floor agreed by 130 countries last week…the global minimum tax rate…is tied to the outcome of legislation to raise the U.S. minimum tax rate, a Treasury official said.The Biden administration has proposed doubling the U.S. minimum tax on corporations overseas intangible income to 21% along with a new companion “enforcement” tax that would deny deductions to companies for tax payments to countries that fail to adopt the new global minimum rate. The officials said several countries were pushing for a rate above 15%, along with the United States.

Other kleptocratic governments naturally want the same thing.

A G7 proposal for a global minimum tax rate of 15% is too low and a rate of at least 21% is needed, Argentina’s finance minister said on Monday, leading a push by some developing countries… “The 15% rate is way too low,” Argentine Finance Minister Martin Guzman told an online panel hosted by the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. …”The minimum rate being proposed would not do much to countries in Africa…,” Mathew Gbonjubola, Nigeria’s tax policy director, told the same conference.

Needless to say, I’m not surprised that Argentina is on the wrong side.

And supporters of class warfare also are agitating for a higher minimum rate. Here are some excerpts from a column in the New York Times by Gabriel Zucman and Gus Wezerek.

In the decades after World War II, close to 50 percent of American companies’ earnings went to state and federal taxes. …it was a golden period. …President Biden should be applauded for trying to end the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. But even if Congress approves the 15 percent global minimum corporate tax, it won’t be enough. …the Biden administration to give working families a real leg up, it should push Congress to enact a 25 percent minimum tax, which would bring in about $200 billion in additional revenue each year. …With a 25 percent minimum corporate tax, the Biden administration would begin to reverse decades of growing inequality. And it would encourage other countries to do the same, replacing a race to the bottom with a sprint to the top.

I can’t resist making two observations about this ideological screed.

  1. Even the IMF and OECD agree that the so-called race to the bottom has not led to a decline in corporate tax revenues, even when measured as a share of economic output.
  2. Since companies legally avoid rather than illegally evade taxes, the headline of the column is utterly dishonest – but it’s what we’ve learned to expect from the New York Times.

The only good thing about the Zucman-Wezerek column is that it includes this chart showing how corporate tax rates have dramatically declined since 1980.

P.S. For those interested, the horizontal line at the bottom is for Bermuda, though other jurisdictions (such as Monaco and the Cayman Islands) also deserve credit for having no corporate income taxes.

P.P.S. If you want to know why high corporate tax rates are misguided, click here. And if you want to know why Biden’s plan to raise the U.S. corporate tax rate is misguided, click here. Or here. Or here.

P.P.P.S. And if you want more information about why Biden’s global tax cartel is bad, click here, here, and here.

I enjoyed this article below because it demonstrates that the Laffer Curve has been working for almost 100 years now when it is put to the test in the USA. I actually got to hear Arthur Laffer speak in person in 1981 and he told us in advance what was going to happen the 1980’s and it all came about as he said it would when Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts took place. I wish we would lower taxes now instead of looking for more revenue through raised taxes. We have to grow the economy:

What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: ”unexpected.”   But it WASN’T ”unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILUREThey keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASEof revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

________

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring