It’s difficult to have the albums created by the most important band in the history of music ranked from worst to best. After all, it’s unlikely that you’ll find any band or musical artist unwilling to share their admiration for the Fab Four. Their fingerprints are over everything created in popular music.
The Liverpool quartet recorded albums at a significant pace between 1963 and 1970. Many of these are classics that redefined what pop-rock could be. Most of these are tremendously experimental, adventurous affairs.
Still, which one’s the best? Is there any one album worth avoiding?
I’ve looked at the evidence and listened to the whole discography once more, and I think that I have an answer or two.
For simplicity’s sake, I have only included official UK releases. That means that the early US-released records aren’t on here. Neither are compilations such as “Anthology,” “Rarities,” or “Hey Jude.” “Yellow Submarine” is included as it included mostly unreleased material and was crafted as a studio album.
With this in mind, here’s a quick initiation into the musical world created by John, Paul, George, and Ringo, The Beatles albums ranked.
7. “Help!” (1965)
The fifth album from The Beatles, “Help!” marks a transitional period for the band. It features some great tracks, such as the title track and “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away.”
The band was still honing their songwriting skills at this point, and it is reflected in the somewhat inconsistent nature of the album. However, it’s for the first time that The Beatles include deeply personal details in their lyrics.
By most accounts, the title track is something of a distress signal from Lennon. Meanwhile, “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away” likely references manager and close friend Brian Epstein.
The inconsistency is also due to what had become a manic schedule for the band. This included touring, working on movies, and of course, having to release music at a steady pace.
The record is really a soundtrack to the film of the same name. “Help!” is a classic comedy-adventure film. It was directed by Richard Lester and released in the same year as the album. This was the second film made by the Beatles and features the band in their roles as themselves.
The film’s plot centers around Ringo Starr, who is pursued by a cult that wants to sacrifice him because he wears a sacrificial ring that he can’t remove from his finger. The other Beatles, as well as a number of other characters, try to help Ringo and protect him from the cult.
Fans of the Marx Brothers films and John Lennon could be counted as one and will find similarities between the comedy of the two groups.
“Help!” was a commercial and critical success upon its release and is now considered a classic of British cinema.
John Lennon contributed many of the most important songs to the album. These include the title track, “Ticket to Ride,” and the aforementioned, “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away.” There was a growing air of dissent about Lennon’s writing at this stage.
Paul McCartney provides one of the most famous pop-rock songs of all time, “Yesterday.” It is arguably one of the most famous pop songs of all time. It’s an enduring classic, but not everyone in the band was impressed with it.
In a 1980 interview with David Sheff for Playboy, Lennon said that “Yesterday” was “one of the few songs that I can’t stand to listen to” and that he felt it was “a lousy song, but it was successful.”
George Harrison contributed, “I need you.” He even exceeds the usual quota of one song per album with a second number, “You Like Me Too Much.”
Ringo Starr sang the easygoing “Act Naturally,” something of a prescient song considering Starr’s future work as an actor.
“Help!” is a record that has rightfully earned respect with time. However, considering the quasi-revolutionary releases that came before and after it, “Help!” is not one of The Beatles’ best albums.
Come Together – John Lennon (Live In New York City)
“Real Love” is a song written by John Lennon, and recorded with overdubs by the three surviving Beatles in 1995 for release as part of The Beatles Anthology project. To date, it is the last released record of new material credited to the Beatles.
Lennon made six takes of the song in 1979 and 1980 with “Real Life”, a different song that merged with “Real Love”. The song was ignored until 1988 when the sixth take was used on the documentary soundtrack Imagine: John Lennon.
“Real Love” was subsequently reworked by the three surviving former members of the Beatles (Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr) in early 1995, an approach also used for another incomplete Lennon track, “Free as a Bird“. “Real Love” was released as a Beatles single in 1996 in the United Kingdom, United States and many other countries; it was the opening track on the Beatles’ Anthology 2 album. It is the last “new” credited Beatles song to originate and be included on an album. To date, it is the last single by the group to become a top 40 hit in the US.
The song reached number 4 and number 11, respectively, in the UK and US singles charts, and earned a gold record more quickly than a number of the group’s other singles. The song was not included on the BBC Radio 1 playlist, prompting criticism from fans and British members of parliament. After the release of “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love”, Starr commented: “Recording the new songs didn’t feel contrived at all, it felt very natural and it was a lot of fun, but emotional too at times. But it’s the end of the line, really. There’s nothing more we can do as the Beatles.”[1]
According to Beatles biographer John T. Marck, “Real Love” originated as part of an unfinished stage play that Lennon was working on at the time titled “The Ballad of John and Yoko”. The song was first recorded in 1977 with a hand-held tape recorder on his piano at home. Eventually the work evolved under the title “Real Life”, a song Lennon would record at least six takes of in 1979 and 1980, and then abandoned. The song was eventually combined with elements of another Lennon demo, “Baby Make Love to You”.[2] In June 1978, Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono told the press that they were working on a musical, “The Ballad of John and Yoko”, which had been planned during the previous year.[3] Songs proposed to be included up to this point were “Real Love” and “Every Man Has a Woman Who Loves Him“.[3]
In later versions, Lennon altered portions of the song; for example, “no need to be alone / it’s real love / yes, it’s real love” became “why must it be alone / it’s real / well it’s real life.” Some takes included an acoustic guitar, while the eventual Beatles release features Lennon on piano, with rudimentary double-tracked vocals, and a tambourine. The version released in 1996 most closely reflected the lyrical structure of the early demo takes of the song.[4]
Lennon appears to have considered recording “Real Love” for his and Ono’s 1980 album Double Fantasy. A handwritten draft of the album’s running order places it as the possible opening track on side two.[5] The song remained largely forgotten until 1988, when the take 6 of “Real Love” appeared on the Imagine: John Lennon soundtrack album. The song was also released on the Acoustic album in 2004. The demo with just Lennon on piano was issued in 1998 on John Lennon Anthology and then later on Working Class Hero: The Definitive Lennon.
Before the Anthology project, the closest the Beatles had come to reuniting on record (while all four members were still alive) was for Starr’s Ringo album in 1973, when Lennon, Harrison and Starr collaborated on “I’m the Greatest“. By the early 1990s, the idea of redoing some of Lennon’s old songs was inspired by former Beatles road manager Neil Aspinall and Harrison, who first requested some demos from Ono. In January 1994, McCartney went to New York City for Lennon’s induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. While there, he received at least four songs from Ono. According to Aspinall, it was “two cassettes” which “might have been five or six tracks”. Ono said of the occasion: “It was all settled before then, I just used that occasion to hand over the tapes personally to Paul. I did not break up the Beatles, but I was there at the time, you know? Now I’m in a position where I could bring them back together and I would not want to hinder that.”[6]
In an interview, McCartney remarked:
Yoko said “I’ve got a couple of tracks I’ll play you, you might be interested”. I’d never heard them before but she explained that they’re quite well known to Lennon fans as bootlegs. I said to Yoko, “Don’t impose too many conditions on us, it’s really difficult to do this, spiritually. We don’t know, we may hate each other after two hours in the studio and just walk out. So don’t put any conditions, it’s tough enough. If it doesn’t work out, you can veto it.” When I told George and Ringo I’d agreed to that, they were going, “What? What if we love it?” It didn’t come to that, luckily.[6]
McCartney, Harrison and Starr then focused their attention on four songs: “Free as a Bird“, “Real Love”, “Grow Old with Me” and “Now and Then“. Of these, they liked “Free as a Bird” the most, and worked hard on it. Eventually the song was released as the first new Beatles single since 1970. The remaining Beatles then turned their attention to “Real Love”, which, co-producer Jeff Lynne later remarked, at least “had a complete set of words”.[7]
With George Martin declining to produce the new recording, the Beatles brought in Electric Light Orchestra‘s Jeff Lynne, who had worked extensively with Harrison, including as part of the Traveling Wilburys, and had already co-produced “Free as a Bird”.[1] The first problem that the team had to confront was the low quality of the demo, as Lennon had recorded it on a hand-held tape recorder. Lynne recalled:
We tried out a new noise reduction system, and it really worked. The problem I had with “Real Love” was that not only was there a 60 cycles mains hum going on, there was also a terrible amount of hiss, because it had been recorded at a low level. I don’t know how many generations down this copy was, but it sounded like at least a couple. So I had to get rid of the hiss and the mains hum, and then there were clicks all the way through it … We’d spend a day on it, then listen back and still find loads more things wrong … It didn’t have any effect on John’s voice, because we were just dealing with the air surrounding him, in between phrases. That took about a week to clean up before it was even usable and transferable to a DAT master. Putting fresh music to it was the easy part![1]
Although “Real Love” was more complete than “Free as a Bird”, which had required the addition of some lyrics by McCartney,[6] the song also suffered from problems with Lennon’s timing. Lynne recalled that “it took a lot of work to get it all in time so that the others could play to it.”[7] Lynne emphasised that the three remaining Beatles were keen to ensure the song sounded very “Beatles-y”: “What we were trying to do was create a record that was timeless, so we steered away from using state-of the-art gear. We didn’t want to make it fashionable.”[7]
As with “Free as a Bird”, the Beatles worked at McCartney’s studio in Sussex, with the intention of producing another single. Added to the demo were the sounds of a double bass (originally owned by Elvis Presley’s bassist, Bill Black), Fender Jazz bass guitar, a couple of Fender Stratocaster guitars, one of which was Harrison’s psychedelically-painted “Rocky” Strat (as seen in the “I Am the Walrus” video), as well as a Ludwig drum kit.[7] Other than their regular instruments, a BaldwinCombo Harpsichord (as played by Lennon on the Beatles song “Because“) and a harmonium (which appeared on the band’s 1965 hit single “We Can Work It Out“) were also used. During the recording process, it was decided to speed up the tape, thereby raising the key from D minor to E flat minor.[8]
As their sound engineer, the Beatles opted for Geoff Emerick, who had not only worked with them to a great extent in the 1960s, but is often credited with many of the Beatles’ audio inventions. The assistant engineer was Jon Jacobs, who had worked with McCartney and Emerick since the late 1970s. The attitude in the studio was very relaxed, according to Lynne: “Paul and George would strike up the backing vocals – and all of a sudden it’s the Beatles again! … I’d be waiting to record and normally I’d say, ‘OK, Let’s do a take’, but I was too busy laughing and smiling at everything they were talking about.” Starr said that the lightheartedness was key to ensuring he, Harrison and McCartney could focus on the task: “We just pretended that John had gone on holiday or out for tea and had left us the tape to play with. That was the only way we could deal with it, and get over the hurdle, because [it] was really very emotional.”[7]
The single’s video features shots of the three remaining Beatles recording in Sussex, mixed with shots of the Beatles taken during their career. Geoff Wonfor, who directed the Anthology documentary, filmed the Beatles recording in the studio with a handheld camcorder, as they did not want to be aware of the camera recording. Kevin Godley, who co-directed the music video, said that it was meant to be a “fly on the wall thing”.[1]
Two different versions of the video were made. The first version aired during the second installment of The Beatles Anthology television mini-series on ABC, at the end of the episode. The second version is the more common of the two, and appears on the Anthology DVD set. The most notable difference between the two is in the way the videos begin: the first is presented by a strawberry – possibly a reference to “Strawberry Fields Forever“, although also quite likely a nod to Godley’s “Strawberry Studios” – while the second opens with a piano (the piano chord at the beginning).
Although “Real Love” was released as single in both the UK and US on 4 March 1996, the first time the song was publicly aired was on 22 November 1995, when the American television network, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) aired the second episode of The Beatles Anthology. The single debuted on the British charts on 16 March 1996 at number 4, selling 50,000 copies in its first week.[9] The single’s chart performance was subsequently hindered by BBC Radio 1‘s exclusion of “Real Love” from its playlist. Reuters, which described Radio 1 as “the biggest pop music station in Britain”, reported that the station had declared: “It’s not what our listeners want to hear … We are a contemporary music station.”[10]
Beatles spokesman Geoff Baker responded by saying that the band’s response was “Indignation. Shock and surprise. We carried out research after the Anthology was launched and this revealed that 41% of the buyers were teenagers.”[11] The station’s actions contrasted strongly with what had occurred at the launch of “Free as a Bird” the year before, when Radio 1 became the first station to play the song on British airwaves. The exclusion of “Real Love” provoked a fierce reaction from fans also, and elicited comment from two members of parliament (MPs). Conservative MP Harry Greenway called the action censorship, and urged the station to reverse what he called a ban.[10]
An angry McCartney wrote an 800-word article for British newspaper The Daily Mirror about the alleged ban, in which he stated: “the Beatles don’t need our new single, ‘Real Love’, to be a hit. It’s not as if our careers depend on it … It’s very heartening to know that, while the kindergarten kings of Radio 1 may think the Beatles are too old to come out to play, a lot of younger British bands don’t seem to share that view. I’m forever reading how bands like Oasis are openly crediting the Beatles as inspiration, and I’m pleased that I can hear the Beatles in a lot of the music around today.” The letter was published on 9 March, the day after Radio 1 announced the “ban”.[11][dead link]
The station’s controller, Matthew Bannister, denied that the failure to include “Real Love” was a ban, saying that it merely meant that the song had not been included on the playlist of each week’s 60 most regularly featured songs.[citation needed] The station also hit back by devoting a “Golden Hour” to the group’s music as well as music by bands influenced by the Beatles. This “Golden Hour” concluded with a playing of “Real Love”.[12]
“Real Love” fell out of the British charts in seven weeks, never topping its initial position of number 4. In the US, the single entered the charts on 30 March, and peaked at number 11.[13] After four months, 500,000 copies had been sold in the US.[9][14] The Beatles’ compilation album Anthology 2, which included the song, eventually topped the British and American albums charts.[15][16]
John Lennon’s solo versions appear on several Lennon compilations, the film Imagine: John Lennon, and also in a 2007 ad campaign for J. C. Penney.[17] On 6 November 2015, Apple Records released a new deluxe version of the 1 album in different editions and variations (known as 1+). Most of the tracks on 1 have been remixed from the original multi-track masters by Giles Martin. Martin and Jeff Lynne also remixed “Real Love” for the DVD and Blu-ray releases. The remix of “Real Love” cleans up Lennon’s vocal further, and reinstates a several deleted elements originally recorded in 1995, such as lead guitar phrases and drum fills, as well as making the harpsichord and harmonium more prominent in the mix.
The song’s lyrics have been interpreted by one reviewer to be conveying the message that “love is the answer to loneliness” and “that connection is the antidote to unreality.”[18]
The song has been sped up 12% from the demo, apparently to “effect the … snappy tempo” as Alan W. Pollack has speculated. The tune is nearly completely pentatonic, comprising primarily the notes E, F♯, G♯, B and C♯. The refrain is higher than the verse; while the verse covers a full octave, the refrain, at its peak, is a fifth higher.[19]
The instrumental intro is four measures long, and the verse and refrain are eight measures. The introduction occurs in parallel E minor,[20] with the main thrust of the song being in E major. There are several other occasions where Lennon moves to a chord from the parallel minor, e.g. in the chorus where the progression moves from a major tonic (I) chord to a minor subdominant (iv) chord. The move to minor harmony happens on the words ‘alone’ and ‘afraid’. This combination of lyrics and harmony turning at the same point is a common Beatles device, and helps give the song a wistful feeling. The outro largely comprises the last half of the refrain repeated seven times, slowly fading out.[19]
Recorded at EMI Studios, London, on 26 May and 1 June 1966. A new remix with a previously unreleased “marching” introduction with the sound effects mixed higher in volume throughout.
Recorded at EMI Studios, London, on 16 June 1966. This is a combination of take 7 (a mono mix of the basic track with McCartney’s guide vocal) with a 1995 stereo remix of the harmony vocals as overdubbed onto take 13 superimposed at the end.
In 2014, English singer-songwriter Tom Odell released a cover version of the song. It was released on 6 November 2014 in the United Kingdom as a digital download through Sony. The song was selected as the soundtrack to the John Lewis 2014 Christmas advertisement and was later included on the “Spending All My Christmas With You” EP released in 2016.
Chart performance
On 9 November 2014 (week ending 15 November 2014), “Real Love” debuted at number 21 in the UK Singles Chart with only 3 days of sales, and then reached a new peak of number 7 the following week.
All my little plans and schemes
Lost like some forgotten dreams
Seems that all I really was doing
Was waiting for you
Just like little girls and boys
Playing with their little toys
Seems like all they really were doing
Was waiting for love
Don’t need to be alone
No need to be alone
It’s real love, it’s real
Yes, it’s real love, it’s real
From this moment on I know
Exactly where my life will go
Seems that all I really was doing
Was waiting for love
Don’t need to be afraid
No need to be afraid
It’s real love, it’s real
Yes, it’s real love, it’s real
Thought I’d been in love before
But in my heart, I wanted more
Seems like all I really was doing
Was waiting for you
Don’t need to be alone
Don’t need to be alone
It’s real love, it’s real
It’s real love, it’s real
Yes, it’s real love, it’s real
It’s real love, it’s real
Yes, it’s real love, it’s real
It’s real love, it’s real
Yes, it’s real love, it’s real
It’s real love, it’s real
__________________ A Funny Press Interview of The Beatles in The US (1964) Funny Pictures of The Beatles Published on Oct 23, 2012 funny moments i took from the beatles movie; A Hard Days Night ___________________ Scene from Help! The Beatles Funny Clips and Outtakes (Part 1) The Beatles * Wildcat* (funny) Uploaded on Mar 20, […]
_____________________ Great article on Dylan and Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Cover: A famous album by the fab four – The Beatles – is “Sergeant peppers lonely hearts club band“. The album itself is one of the must influential albums of all time. New recording techniques and experiments with different styles of music made this […]
__________________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview 69 THE BEATLES TWO OF US As a university student, Karl Marx (1818-1883) joined a movement known as the Young Hegelians, who strongly criticized the political and cultural establishments of the day. He became a journalist, and the radical nature of his writings would eventually get him expelled by the […]
____________ Aleister Crowley on cover of Stg. Pepper’s: _______________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. […]
The incident occurred in Destin, Florida, according to Deltaplex News in Arkansas. Mallett was transported from a beach to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival, the outlet reported.
Quarterback Ryan Mallett #15 of the Arkansas Razorbacks poses for a photo on May 19, 2010 in Fayetteville, Arkansas. (Wesley Hitt/Getty Images)
“The NFL family is deeply saddened by the passing of Ryan Mallett. Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones,” the NFL said in a statement as well.
The New England Patriots, who Mallett was drafted by in the third round of the 2011 NFL Draft out of Arkansas, released a statement of their own.
“The New England Patriots are deeply saddened to learn of the sudden and unexpected passing of former quarterback Ryan Mallett,” the team wrote on Twitter with a picture of Mallett in a Patriots uniform. “Our thoughts are with the Mallett family, his former teammates and all who are mourning his loss.”
The NFL world was shocked by the sudden passing of one of their brothers, including recently-retired defensive lineman and Houston Texans legend J.J. Watt. They were teammates together in Houston.
“Horrible news to read about Ryan Mallett. Gone way too soon. Rest in Peace brother,” he wrote on Twitter with a praying hands emoji.
Mallett was an Arkansas Razorbacks legend during his time there in 2009 and 2010. He began his college career at Michigan, but after transferring, he became a star in Fayetteville.
Quarterback Ryan Mallett #15 of the Baltimore Ravens walks off the field after a game on December 17, 2017 against the Cleveland Browns at FirstEnergy Stadium in Cleveland, Ohio. Baltimore won 27-10. (Nick Cammett/Diamond Images/Getty Images)
He threw for 3,624 yards with 30 touchdowns to seven interceptions in 2009 and followed that up with 3,869 yards with 32 touchdowns to 12 interceptions in 2010.
He would declare for the Draft after his junior season and the Patriots took him to study under Tom Brady.
But that didn’t last too long as he was quickly moved to the Texans, where he would spend a season and a half before joining the Baltimore Ravens. Mallett was with the Ravens for the 2016 and 2017 seasons before his short time in the league was over.
Mallett accumulated just eight starts over his 21 games of NFL experience.
Ryan Mallett #15 of the New England Patriots warms up before NFL game action against the Buffalo Bills at Ralph Wilson Stadium on September 8, 2013 in Orchard Park, New York. (Tom Szczerbowski/Getty Images)
In February 2022, Mallett took over as the head football coach at White Hall High School in Arkansas.
Scott Thompson is a sports writer for Fox News Digital.
Yesterday I got to hear Lloyd Carr speak to the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Below is how the Arkansas Democrat Gazette covered it.
LITTLE ROCK — Lloyd Carr coached Tom Brady at the beginning of his 13-year tenure as Michigan’s head coach and Ryan Mallett at the end.
Now, Brady and Mallett are New England Patriots quarterbacks — Brady, the NFL superstar who has three Super Bowl rings, and Mallett, the rookie backup.
Carr spoke fondly of both quarterback during Monday’s Little Rock Touchdown Club luncheon at the Embassy Suites hotel.
“If I knew Ryan was going to leave Michigan, I wouldn’t have retired,” Carr, 66, said jokingly as he stepped in front of the audience, which included Mallett’s parents, Jim and Debbie. “I remember working very hard to recruit Ryan. I know our assistant coach Scott Loeffler must have made about 30 trips to Texarkana to see him and he was exactly what we needed to be a championship team at Michigan.”
Mallett played one season at Michigan before transferring to Arkansas after Rich Rodriguez replaced Carr, but Mallett left his mark as a true freshman, throwing for 892 yards with 7 touchdowns and 5 interceptions while seeing action in 11 games, including a 3-0 record as a starter in relief of an injured Chad Henne.
Carr talked about how Mallett took over after Michigan opened 2007 with a 34-32 loss to Appalachian State and a 39-7 loss to Oregon, during which Henne was injured.
“So the next week [against Notre Dame], we were starting a freshman in Ryan Mallett and he played well in a 38-0 victory,” Carr said. “A week later vs. Penn State, he made two or three plays to help us win the game.”
Carr said he is glad to see Mallett at New England, because he said he knows Mallett won’t have to be rushed into the lineup. “He’ll be everything that the Patriots need,” Carr said. Brady played behind Brian Griese— who led the Wolverines to the 1997 national championship — and had to split time with Drew Henson his last two years before becoming a sixth-round draft pick in the 2000 NFL draft.
Brady became New England’s starter when Drew Bledsoe was injured in the 2001 season.
“When Tom was a sophomore, he thought about transferring so I told him to talk to his dad and come back and see me tomorrow. When he came back, I thought he was going to leave, but he told me he was going to stay and prove he is a good quarterback,” Carr said. “He proved when you make up your mind, you can do a lot of good things.”
Brady led the Wolverines to a 45-31 victory over Arkansas in the 1999 Citrus Bowl.
This article was published today at 4:44 a.m.Sports, Pages 19 on 09/20/2011
It’s difficult to have the albums created by the most important band in the history of music ranked from worst to best. After all, it’s unlikely that you’ll find any band or musical artist unwilling to share their admiration for the Fab Four. Their fingerprints are over everything created in popular music.
The Liverpool quartet recorded albums at a significant pace between 1963 and 1970. Many of these are classics that redefined what pop-rock could be. Most of these are tremendously experimental, adventurous affairs.
Still, which one’s the best? Is there any one album worth avoiding?
I’ve looked at the evidence and listened to the whole discography once more, and I think that I have an answer or two.
For simplicity’s sake, I have only included official UK releases. That means that the early US-released records aren’t on here. Neither are compilations such as “Anthology,” “Rarities,” or “Hey Jude.” “Yellow Submarine” is included as it included mostly unreleased material and was crafted as a studio album.
With this in mind, here’s a quick initiation into the musical world created by John, Paul, George, and Ringo, The Beatles albums ranked.
6. “Rubber Soul” (1965)
“Rubber Soul” was The Beatles’ sixth album. Like Revolver, it’s a record that practically rewrites the pop-music rulebook. It’s surely a massive departure from the band’s earlier, more straightforward rock and pop songs.
Suddenly, number 1 singles could be written about profound personal experiences and could simply include phantasmagoric elements. As always, The Beatles were setting the pace for everyone else.
The album was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in London. As with almost all released by the band, the record was produced by George Martin.
Martin and the band experimented with new recording technologies and techniques, such as multitrack recording and the use of non-traditional instruments. The goal was to create a truly unique and distinctive sound for the album.
“Rubber Soul” is a cultural landmark. The album was released in 1965, at a time when The Beatles were at the height of their popularity and cultural influence.
Also, “Rubber Soul” reached number one on the Billboard 200 chart and stayed there for six weeks. It was also a commercial success in the United Kingdom, where it reached number one on the charts and became the band’s sixth consecutive number-one album.
Highlights include “Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown),” which was written for the most part by John Lennon. It was inspired by an affair he was having at the time. The song is notable for being one of the first to use the sitar in a rock context.
“In My Life” is one of the most heavily covered songs by The Beatles. “Nowhere Man” might be one of Lennon’s best songs about his ambivalence toward fame.
Meanwhile, “Michelle” and “Drive My Car” prove that McCartney had well and truly become the premier pop songwriter of the era.
The Beatles would revolutionize the pop-rock landscape a few times over. This was, however, the first time that they’d manage to bring commercial tendencies with serious art together in a perfect union.
Come Together – John Lennon (Live In New York City)
The Beatles Anthology project was a huge undertaking and to complement the historical and archival material that was made available both on CD and on video, the band recorded two new tracks. Released in December 1995, ‘Free As A Bird’ was the first of the new songs. Instead of recording a completely new composition together, Paul, George and Ringo created a track based on John’s 1977 demo, recorded at his and Yoko’s home in the Dakota in New York City.
Jeff Lynne, a good friend of George Harrison’s and a fellow member of the Travelling Wilburys, was drafted in to help with production. The ‘Free As A Bird’ video had it’s first public outing on America’s ABC TV on Sunday November 19th 1995, and the track was subsequently aired on BBC Radio 1 the day after – the day before Anthology came out. The single release followed two weeks later and made No.2 on the UK charts, while in the US ‘Free As A Bird’ enjoyed an 11-week run on the best-seller list, peaking at No.5.
Joe Pytka, a talented American filmmaker who had made several music videos with Michael Jackson, directed the beautiful video. The visual concept was a ‘bird’s-eye-view’ of countless Beatles songs.
This article is about the Beatles song. For the album by Supertramp, see Free as a Bird (album). For the Lynyrd Skynyrd song, see Free Bird. For the concept in Germanic law, see Vogelfrei.
The single was released as part of the promotion for The Beatles Anthology video documentary and the band’s Anthology 1compilation album. For the Anthology project, McCartney asked Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono for unreleased material by Lennon to which the three remaining ex-Beatles could contribute. “Free as a Bird” was one of two such songs (along with “Real Love“) for which McCartney, Harrison, and Starr contributed additional instrumentation, vocals, and arrangements. Jeff Lynne of Electric Light Orchestra, who had worked with Harrison on Harrison’s album Cloud Nine and as part of the Traveling Wilburys, was asked to co-produce the record.
The Dakota building, where Lennon lived and composed, and where he recorded a demo of the song on cassette
McCartney, Harrison and Starr originally intended to record some incidental background music, as a trio, for the Anthology project, but later realised, according to Starr, that they wanted to record “new music”.[2] According to Harrison, they had always agreed that if one of them was not in the band, the others would never replace them and, “… go out as the Beatles”, and that the “only other person that could be in it was John.”[3]
McCartney then asked Ono if she had any unreleased recordings by Lennon, so she sent him cassette tapes of four songs.[4] “Free as a Bird” was recorded by Lennon in 1977,[5] in his and Ono’s Dakota building apartment in New York City, but was not complete. Lennon introduced the song on the cassette by imitating a New York accent and saying, “Free—as a boid” (bird).[6][7][8] The other songs were “Grow Old With Me“, “Real Love“, and “Now and Then“.[9] Ono says that it was Harrison and former Beatles road manager Neil Aspinall who initially asked her about the concept of adding vocals and instrumentation to Lennon’s demo tapes. Ono stated: “People have said it was all agreed when Paul came over to New York to induct John into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but it was all settled before then. I just used that occasion to hand over the tapes personally to Paul.”[10]
McCartney went to Ono’s home after the induction ceremony at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to listen to, and receive, the Lennon demo tapes; he recalls the meeting with Ono:
She was there with Sean … and she played us a couple of tracks. There were two newies on mono cassettes which he did at home … [s]o I checked it out with Sean, because I didn’t want him to have a problem with it. He said, “Well, it’ll be weird hearing a dead guy on lead vocal. But give it a try.” I said to them both, “If it doesn’t work out, you can veto it.” When I told George and Ringo I’d agreed to that they were going, “What? What if we love it?” It didn’t come to that, luckily. I said to Yoko, “Don’t impose too many conditions on us, it’s really difficult to do this, spiritually. We don’t know, we may hate each other after two hours in the studio and just walk out. So don’t put any conditions, it’s tough enough.”[11]
During an interview for the Anthology project, McCartney revealed that he was surprised to learn that Lennon’s demos of “Grow Old With Me” and “Real Love” had already been released and were well known by Lennon fans.[6][12] Starr admitted that when he first listened to the recording he found it very emotional.[13]
George Martin, who had produced most of the Beatles’ 1960s recordings, turned down an invitation to produce “Free as a Bird” due to hearing problems (though he subsequently managed to produce and direct the Anthology series). Harrison, in turn, suggested Lynne as producer (co-producer of his 1987 album, Cloud Nine) and work commenced at McCartney’s studio in February 1994.[14]Geoff Emerick and Jon Jacobs were chosen to engineer the new tracks.
The original 1977 tape of Lennon singing the song was recorded on a mono cassette, with vocals and piano on the same track.[15] They were impossible to separate, so Lynne had to produce the track with voice and piano together, but commented that it was good for the integrity of the project, as Lennon was not only singing occasional lines, but also playing on the song.[16]
Although Lennon had died in 1980, Starr said that the three remaining Beatles agreed they would pretend that Lennon had “gone for lunch”, or had gone for a “cup of tea”.[17] The remaining Beatles recorded a track around Lennon’s basic song idea, but which had gaps they had to fill in musically.[18] Some chords were changed, and the arrangement was expanded to include breaks for McCartney and Harrison to sing extra lines. Harrison played slide guitar in the solo.[19]
The Beatles’ overdubs and production were recorded between February and March 1994 in Sussex, England, at McCartney’s home studio.[20] It ends with a slight coda including a strummed ukulele by Harrison (an instrument he was known to have played often) and the voice of John Lennon played backwards.[21] The message, when played in reverse, is “Turned out nice again”, which was the catchphrase of George Formby.[8] The final result sounds like “made by John Lennon”, which, according to McCartney, was unintentional and was only discovered after the surviving Beatles reviewed the final mix.[22] When Starr heard McCartney and Harrison singing the harmonies, and later the finished song, he said that it sounded just like them [the Beatles]. He explained his comment by saying that he looked at the project as “an outsider”.[23] Lynne fully expected the finished track to sound like the Beatles, as that was his premise for the project, but Harrison added: “It’s gonna sound like them if it is them… It sounds like them now.”[24]
McCartney, Harrison and Starr all agreed that the recording process was more pleasurable than when they later recorded “Real Love” (the second song chosen for release); as it was almost finished, they had very little input, and felt like sidemen for Lennon.[25]
The music video for “Free as a Bird” was produced by Vincent Joliet and directed by Joe Pytka and depicts, from the point of view of a bird in flight, many references to Beatles songs, such as “Penny Lane”, “Paperback Writer”, “A Day in the Life”, “Eleanor Rigby”, “Helter Skelter”, “Piggies”, “The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill”, “Strawberry Fields Forever”, “Doctor Robert”, and “The Fool on The Hill”. Between 80 and 100 allusions to the Beatles’ story, music and lyrics in the video have been estimated.[26] Although the bird can be heard at the beginning of the video, it is never seen. Neil Aspinall (Apple Records executive at the time) said that this was because no-one could agree on what kind of bird it should be.[27] Pytka had to send his ideas to McCartney, Harrison and Starr, as well as Ono, to make sure they all agreed before he could proceed with the filming of the video. Derek Taylor (ex-Apple Records executive) sent a two-page letter to Pytka confirming that he could proceed, and personally encouraged and supported Pytka’s ideas.[28] The video was filmed in as many authentic locations as possible: Penny Lane was made by Pytka’s art department to look as it was in the 1950s, and other locations filmed were The Liver Building, and Liverpool Docks (as a reference to Lennon’s father Alfred Lennon).[29]
Although Pytka fixed the ideas on a storyboard, he abandoned it as soon as filming began, and followed ideas based on what angles and perspectives the steadycam camera produced. One instance was the filming of the car crash, which Pytka filmed for hours from above, but realised that a steadycam shot on the ground was a much better idea.[30] Archive footage was used by imposing it on scenes shot by Pytka, who utilised a greenscreen stage to digitally blend it into the finished film, such as Paul’s Old English Sheepdog in the graveyard, and the elephant in the ballroom procession scene.[31] The elephant was put in last, as Aspinall phoned Pytka and said that Starr liked the scene, but insisted an elephant be put in it, which Pytka later did, as he had already put a sitar in at the request of Harrison.[32] Apart from the steadycam shots, Pytka used a Russian-made Akil-crane for sweeping overhead shots, such as the Abbey Road zebra crossing shot at the end, as well as a remote-controlled toy helicopter with a camera added to it for intricate aerial shots.[33] To make it more interesting, two Blue Meanies make cameos.
Harrison played the ukulele in the studio for the song, and asked to appear as the ukulele player seen only from behind at the very end of the video. Pytka resisted this, as he felt it would be wrong for any contemporary members of the Beatles to appear on screen. Pytka later stated that it was “heartbreaking” that Harrison had not played the role, particularly after Harrison’s death in 2001 and upon discovering that the ukulele was not a sample of an old song as Pytka had assumed.[34] The video won the Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video in 1997.[8]
On 6 November 2015, Apple Records released a new deluxe version of the 1 album in different editions and variations (known as 1+). Most of the tracks on 1 have been remixed from the original multi-track masters by Giles Martin. Giles Martin, with Jeff Lynne also remixed “Free as a Bird” to accompany the music video for the DVD and Blu-ray releases. The remix of “Free as a Bird” cleans up Lennon’s vocal further, and uses a different take of Harrison’s vocal phrase, replacing the lyric “whatever happened to the life that we once knew” with “whatever happened to love that we once knew”. Towards the end of the track, this version also contains a clip of Lennon stating the phrase “turned out nice again” played forward – which was played backwards in the original mix of the song. McCartney’s lead vocal, buried in the original mix to serve as a double track for Lennon’s own vocal, can now be heard more prominently in the second verse.
“Free as a Bird” was premiered on BBC Radio 1 in the early hours of 20 November 1995.[35] It was released as a single in the UK on 4 December 1995, two weeks after its appearance on the Anthology 1 album. The single sold 120,000 copies in its first week, entering the UK Singles Chart at No. 2. It remained on the chart for eight weeks.[36] In the US, the song reached No. 6 on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming The Beatles’ 34th Top 10 single in America.[7][37] It was the group’s first Top 10 song in the U.S. in nineteen and a half years, the longest span for the group between Top 10 hits since first charting in America in 1964.
“Free as a Bird” marked the first time a single containing new material had been released under the Beatles’ name since “The Long and Winding Road” in the United States in 1970.[6][7] The promotional video was broadcast during episode one of The Beatles Anthology that aired on ITV in the UK and ABC in the US.[38][39]
“Free as a Bird” was greeted with mixed reviews. Its release was criticised by Caroline Sullivan in The Guardian as a publicity gimmick, exploiting the Beatles brand, and owing less to the Beatles than to Lynne.[40] Andy Gill in The Independent called the song “disappointingly low-key. … George’s guitar weeps gently enough when required, but the overall effect is of a dirge.”[41]Ian MacDonald, writer of Revolution in the Head, declared it to be a “dreary song” that stood no comparison with the Beatles’ sixties music.[14]Chris Carter, now the host of Breakfast with the Beatles, commented: “I would value any song (especially if it was great) performed by John, Paul, George and Ringo, no matter how (or when) it was recorded.”[42] “Free as a Bird” later won the 1997 Grammy Award for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal.[7]
This version (take 9) was recorded after the version released on the album Please Please Me (take 1). The introductory count-in from take 9 was edited onto the start of take 1 for the album.
Sawyers, June Skinner (editor) (2006). Read the Beatles: Classic and New Writings on the Beatles, Their Legacy, and Why They Still Matter. USA: Penguin (Non-Classics). ISBN978-0-14-303732-3.
Free as a bird
It’s the next best thing to be
Free as a bird
La, la, la, la
Home and dry
Like a homing bird I fly
As a bird on wings
Whatever happened to the life that we once knew Can we really live without each other? Where did we lose the touch That seemed to mean so much It always made me feel so
Free as a bird
It’s the next best thing to be
Free as a bird
La, la, la, la
Home and dry
Like a homing bird I fly
As a bird on wings
Whatever happened to
The life that we once knew?
Always made me feel so free
Free as a bird
It’s the next best thing to be
Free as a bird
__________________ A Funny Press Interview of The Beatles in The US (1964) Funny Pictures of The Beatles Published on Oct 23, 2012 funny moments i took from the beatles movie; A Hard Days Night ___________________ Scene from Help! The Beatles Funny Clips and Outtakes (Part 1) The Beatles * Wildcat* (funny) Uploaded on Mar 20, […]
_____________________ Great article on Dylan and Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Cover: A famous album by the fab four – The Beatles – is “Sergeant peppers lonely hearts club band“. The album itself is one of the must influential albums of all time. New recording techniques and experiments with different styles of music made this […]
__________________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview 69 THE BEATLES TWO OF US As a university student, Karl Marx (1818-1883) joined a movement known as the Young Hegelians, who strongly criticized the political and cultural establishments of the day. He became a journalist, and the radical nature of his writings would eventually get him expelled by the […]
____________ Aleister Crowley on cover of Stg. Pepper’s: _______________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. […]
Liam Morrison, 12, covered up the words “TWO GENDERS” on his T-shirt with the word “CENSORED,” but got sent home from school for that message too. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)
Score one for the woke scolds, who now get to dictate what kinds of messages nonwoke students are permitted to express in school.
Liam Morrison, a 12-year-old from Massachusetts, was sent home from school for wearing a T-shirt declaring in all capital letters: “THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS.”
The reason? Liam was told that his shirt made other students feel “unsafe.”
Several months later, a federal trial judge ruledthat the school likely was within its rights to do so.
Liam’s attorneys at the public interest law firm Alliance Defending Freedom requested that the court prevent Nichols Middle School from prohibiting Liam from wearing such shirts to school while the case proceeds.
Liam’s lawyers claim that school officials’ censorship of his message and the school speech policy on which that censorship was based violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution as a form of viewpoint discrimination.
“This isn’t about a T-shirt; this is about a public school telling a seventh grader that he isn’t allowed to hold a view that differs from the school’s preferred orthodoxy,” ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said. “Public school officials can’t censor Liam’s speech by forcing him to remove a shirt that states a scientific fact. Doing so is a gross violation of the First Amendment.”
Liam Morrison, 12, wears the T-shirt that got him sent home from school in Middleborough, Massachusetts. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)
Judge Indira Talwani, however, concluded June 16 in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough that wearing such a shirt would infringe upon other “students’ rights to be ‘secure and to be let alone’ during the school day.”
In doing so, Talwani, appointed by President Barack Obama, may have engaged in some acrobatic judicial interpretation.
Two cases help provide an understanding of how student speech is regulated in public schools.
In West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court ruled that symbolic speech is protected within the free speech clause of the First Amendment, and that requiring all public school students to salute the American flag regardless of their individual moral or religious objections violated the First Amendment.
Some years later, in Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), the Supreme Court extended and further clarified speech protections for students. In that case, the high court famously wrote that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
In Tinker, the Supreme Court found that the school administration unconstitutionally restricted the speech rights of students who wanted to wear black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War.
The court also held that school officials could prohibit student speech only if the speech was likely to disrupt the learning environment, stating that speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.”
In the case at hand, Talwani acknowledged the Tinker case, but in her opinion and order denying Liam’s request to prevent his school from censoring his symbolic speech, she wrote:
Plaintiff … is unable to counter Defendants’ showing that enforcement of the Dress Code was undertaken to protect the invasion of the rights of other students to a safe and secure educational environment. School administrators were well within their discretion to conclude that the statement ‘THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS’ may communicate that only two gender identities—male and female—are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent, and to conclude that students who identify differently, whether they do so openly or not, have a right to attend school without being confronted by messages attacking their identities. As Tinker explained, schools can prohibit speech that is in ‘collision with the rights of others to be secure and be let alone.’
Importantly, the portion of the Tinker opinionfrom which Talwani pulls that last sentence reads in full:
The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners’ interference, actual or nascent, with the schools’ work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.
Liam—in protest of the nation’s growing obsession with gender identity—also silently and passively expressed his opinion, “unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.”
It’s hard to see exactly how his simple wearing of a T-shirt would not fit within the framework of the Supreme Court’s Tinker decision.
Talwani also seems to have missed this distinction from the Tinker court: “[F]or … school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”
The “discomfort and unpleasantness” experienced by any LGBTQ+ students at Liam’s middle school seems to be the real issue in his case.
More than just an exercise in judicial activism on the part of the judge, Liam’s case illustrates vividly how even noncontroversial, mainstream positions have become increasingly restricted in the space of gender identity and transgender “rights.” (Other attorneys have joined with this one in criticizing Talwani’s ruling, including hereand here.)
Real debate—not government mandate—is required when it comes to gender identity.
This entire episode is a reminder of how easily “hate speech” arguments and “safe space” demands can mute the bravery and common sense of students such as Liam Morrison—who did not, as the Supreme Court remarked in Tinker, shed his constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
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 Woke Zone Trilogy
John Stossel takes up for Babylon Bee and notes “Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left!”
Late night hosts like Stephen Colbert, seen speaking during the Montclair Film Festival on Oct. 23, passionately defend leftists to the point of lecturing, rather than providing comedic relief. (Photo: Manny Carabel/Getty Images)
A woman tells the cop who stopped her in a carpool lane she’s allowed to drive there because her pronouns are “they” and “them.”
That’s from a video by a conservative Christian satire site called the Babylon Bee. Their humor gets millions of views.
“Christian conservatives used to … be very dour and self-serious,” says Bee editor-in-chief Kyle Mann in my new video.
Today, he says, it’s the left who are self-serious. “They’re the ones that have trouble laughing at themselves.”
For example, late night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert passionately defend COVID-19 vaccines.
“It is a lecture,” complains Mann.
“The left used to be anti-establishment,” adds Bee actress Chandler Juliet. Now, she says, ‘They’ve become the blob. … We’re super happy to be leading the comedic conversation on the right.”
One Babylon Bee video, “The Woke Zone,” makes fun of the way the media ignored violence and arson during the George Floyd protests.
“Do you ever feel gratitude to the left that they give you so much material?” I ask.
“We have to write things that are funnier than things they’re actually doing,” Mann responds. “That makes our job very difficult.”
One Bee sketch portrays its writers struggling to find new material.
“John Kerry warns that the war in Ukraine might distract from climate change!” suggests one.
Can’t do it, explains another. “It actually happened.” Yes, Kerry really did say that.
“Cosmo magazine features a morbidly obese woman on the cover as the picture of health” and, “Math professor says ‘two plus two equals four’ is racist!” are among other ideas that can’t be used as jokes.
“A math professor really said two plus two equals four is racist?” I ask.
It’s “a colonialist, white supremacist idea,” explains Mann.
Today the Bee reaches more people than The Onion. The establishment doesn’t like that, so some people actually sic so-called fact checkers on the Bee.
One article fact-checked by Snopes was titled, “Bernie Sanders Vows To Round Up Remaining ISIS Members, Allow Them To Vote.”
“Does Snopes not understand that you’re making jokes?” I ask.
“I think that they know what our intention is,” answers Juliet. “They just don’t like us.”
Recently, Twitter banned the Bee. Their offense was tweeting an article that named Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine “Babylon Bee’s Man of the Year.”
Levine is a transgender woman. Calling her the man of the year is a joke I wouldn’t make. But it doesn’t need to be censored.
Twitter says they’ll allow the Bee back on the platform only if they delete the tweet. Mann says he won’t.
“Twitter has the capability to just delete the tweet themselves. They want us to bend the knee and be the ones to click, ‘Yes, we acknowledge hateful conduct.’ We’re not going to do that.”
Today, a lot of comedians attract sizable audiences by mocking the left. Some I found funny are JP Sears, Ryan Long and FreedomToons.
The culture is changing.
The highest rating late-night comic these days is often not Colbert, Kimmel or Fallon, but Greg Gutfeld of Fox.
Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left.
“I talk about AIDS, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, pedophilia … the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics,” says Gervais in his recent Netflix special.
Professional media critics trashed him for that. But the special was hugely popular with the public.
The Rotten Tomatoes ratings are revealing. Critics gave Gervais’ special a 29% rating, calling it “terribly unfunny” and “a detestable combination of smug and obtuse.”
Viewers gave it a 92% rating.
The same is true of Chapelle’s latest special, “The Closer.” Critics give it just 40%. The audience gives it 95%.
Clearly, many people are tired of smug, condescending humor.
I’m glad the Babylon Bee, and others, give us an alternative.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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.
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
—-
——
Before I get into the fine article by Brendan O’Neill which I present in its entirety, I wanted to quote Francis Schaeffer who spent his life examining the humanism that now Ricky Gervais embraces!
All humans have moral motions and that is why Ricky Gervais knows it is wrong to let biological men use ladies’ bathrooms!!!!!!
“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117
Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?
He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times
I have long thought that if Life of Brian came out today, it wouldn’t be Christians kicking up a fuss about it — it would be trans activists.
When Monty Python’s classic tale of a man mistaken for a Messiah came to cinemas in 1979, people of faith weren’t happy. They saw it as taking the mick out of Christ and they aired their displeasure noisily. Nuns in New York picketed cinemas. In Ireland the film was banned for eight years.
In 2022 I reckon it would be a very different story. It wouldn’t be Monty Python’s ribbing of the gospels that would outrage the chattering classes — it would be their mockery of trans people.
Life of Brian was way ahead of time. It was Terf before Terf was even a thing. There is a brilliantly observed scene in which Stan of the People’s Front of Judea — or is it the Judean People’s Front? — says he wants to become Loretta.
‘I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta’, says Stan, played by Eric Idle. When the others push back and say he can’t just become a woman, he says: ‘It’s my right as a man.’ Which was remarkably perspicacious.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters.
——
Imagine if a film or TV show did something like that today. Showed an aspiring ‘trans woman’ being mocked for not having the right body parts to be a woman. Showed a man who wants to be a woman being told — for laughs, remember — that the only thing he’s struggling against is reality.
The cancel-culture mob would kick into action. There’d be a Change.org petition, maybe even a physical protest outside the offices of the production company or streaming service that was foolish enough to broadcast such trans-poking humour. ‘Jokes kill!’, we would be told, day and night.
Hell, JK Rowling can’t even very politely say ‘men aren’t women’ without being subjected to weeks of hatred and violent threats — so heaven help the film company that tried to air a Stan / Loretta skit in these febrile times.
This week, my theory about Life of Brianin 2022 was kind of proven right. For we had the pretty extraordinary sight of Ricky Gervais getting a very free ride for his God-mocking while being dragged into the Twitter stocks for his gags about trans issues.
In his new Netflix special SuperNature, Gervais vents his atheistic spleen. The Christian God is cruel and perverted, he says. Those Christian fundamentalists who believe Aids is the Almighty’s way of punishing gay sex clearly believe in a God who’s up in heaven thinking, ‘I’m sick of all this bumming’. And so just as God once said ‘Let there be light’, according to Gervais in the 1980s He said, ‘Let there be Aids’. What a rotter.
This isn’t the first time Gervais has made fun of God and those who believe in him. He’s famously an atheist. He talks about it all the time. (Rather too much, in my view.) But God-bashing is fine these days. Cool, even. Christians tend to take it in their stride. Believers have mostly kept their counsel following Gervais’s latest mockery of their wicked, ridiculous God.
The same cannot be said of trans activists and their allies. Not even remotely. They have responded with fury to Gervais’s blasphemy against the new god of genderfluidity.
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Cutting, yes. But also incredibly accurate. Some police forces and courts do indeed refer to rapists as ‘she’ and ‘her’, if that’s how they identify. And, as feminists have pointed out, this results in rape victims being pressured to refer to their rapist with female pronouns. As for the language, anyone who has spent more than five minutes online in recent years will know that that kind of thing is said to gender-critical women all the time.
Like all great blasphemous comics, Gervais is merely shining a light on things that really are said, and things which really do happen, and inviting us, his audience, to laugh and say: ‘Yeah, that is kind of ridiculous.’ Much as Monty Python did with the Bible, in fact.
But, say Gervais’s humourless critics, while the likes of Monty Python were punching up — against God, no less — Gervais is punching down, against vulnerable, marginalised trans people. I don’t buy this at all. Gervais has made it clear that he fully supports rights for trans people. His issue is with the excesses of trans activism and the authoritarianism of identity politics more broadly.
‘I talk about Aids, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, paedophilia’, he says in SuperNature. ‘But no, the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics.’
Absolutely. And that’s because identitarianism is the god of our times. It’s the new religion of the elites, their means of controlling and reprimanding the masses. Ridiculing identity politics is to the 21st century what questioning the authority of God was to the 15th. The woke rage against Gervais really does echo earlier outbursts of intolerant religious fury against anyone who dared to dissent from the Word of God.
—
–
—-
I was referred this subject by a tweet by Daniel Dennett which referenced a fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION and you can read my response at this link.
Ricky Gervais is a secular humanist just like his good friend Richard Dawkins and it is the humanists who have bought into this trans-identity politics and as a result the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION has stripped Dawkins of his 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR award.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979).
Let me make a few points about Ricky personally and then a few about this comedy routine by the secular humanist Ricky Gervais.
Notice below in AFTER LIFE how he suspects Anne of being a Christian when she tells him “We are not just here for us. We are here for others,“
Ricky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)
(Above) Tony (played by Ricky) and Anne on the bench at the graveyard where their spouses are buried.
In the fourth episode of season 1 of AFTER LIFE is the following discussion between Anne and Tony:
Tony: My brother-in-law wants me to try dating again.
Anne: Oh excellent! You need some tips.
Tony: why would I need some tips?
Anne: I imagine you are awful with women…Well all men are awful with women but grumpy selfish ones are the worst.
Tony: Let me take notes. This is dynamite.
Tony: I would just be honest. Tell them my situation and tell them what I am going through. Be honest up front.
Anne: So it is all about you then?
Tony: I can’t win can I? I don’t want to date again. I don’t want to live without Lisa.
Anne: But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are just here for us. We are here for others.
Tony: I don’t do the whole God thing I am afraid.
Anne: Neither do I. It is a load of rubbish. All we got is each other. We have to help each other struggle until we die then we are done. No point in felling sorry for ourselves and making everyone else unhappy too. Might as [kill] yourself if you feel that bad.
Tony: Are you sure you want to work for the Samaritans?
—
Christ came to this world and his followers have changed this world for the better more than any other group that ever existed. When Anne makes the assertions, “But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are not just here for us. We are here for others,” Tony assumes she is a Christian.
If you found yourself in a dark alley late at night, with a group of rough-looking, burly young men walking swiftly toward you, would you feel better knowing they were coming from a Bible study?
If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
I highly recommend Ricky Gervais series AFTER LIFE which is running on NETFLIX because it reminds me of King Solomon trying to find meaning in life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture!!!
God put Solomon’s story in Ecclesiastes in the Bible with the sole purpose of telling people like Ricky that without God in the picture you will find out the emptiness one feels when possessions are trying to fill the void that God can only fill.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters….
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Ricky is trying to use common sense (through sarcasm) on people that “GOD GAVE…OVER to depraved [minds]. Romans 1 states:
26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural…
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
—
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History
First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]
Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]
The big fiscal debate in the United States is whether the United States should become a European-style welfare state, which is something that automatically will happen over the next few decades in the absence of genuine entitlement reform.
My response is usually to ask why the United States should copy Europe when there is a wealth of evidence that living standards are substantially lower on that side of the Atlantic Ocean.
At the risk of understatement, copying European fiscal policy seems like a big mistake.
If you’re still not convinced, here’s some more evidence. In his column for the U.K.-based Financial Times, Gideon Rachman compares the U.S. economy to what’s happening in Europe.
The US economy is now considerably richer and more dynamic than the EU or Britain — and the gap is growing. …In 2008, the EU and the US economies were roughly the same size. But since the global financial crisis, their economic fortunes have dramatically diverged.As Jeremy Shapiro and Jana Puglierin of the European Council on Foreign Relations point out: “In 2008 the EU’s economy was somewhat larger than America’s: $16.2tn versus $14.7tn. By 2022, the US economy had grown to $25tn, whereas the EU and the UK together had only reached $19.8tn. America’s economy is now nearly one-third bigger. It is more than 50 per cent larger than the EU without the UK.” …Europe may never summon the will to reverse its inexorable decline in power, influence and wealth.
To address the final point in the above excerpt, we know the policies that would enable a European economic renaissance.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Remember the debt? That $17 trillion problem? Some in Washington seem to think it’s gone away.
The Washington Post reported that “the national debt is no longer growing out of control.” Lawmakers and liberal inside-the-Beltway organizations are floating the notion that it’s not a high priority any more.
We beg to differ, so we came up with 17 reasons that $17 trillion in debt is still a big, bad deal.
Some families and businesses won’t be able to borrow money because of high interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and more – the dream of starting a business could be out of reach.
5.High debt and high spending won’t help the economy.
8. Jeopardizes the stability of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
Millions of people depend on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but these programs are also the main drivers of the growing debt. Congress has yet to take the steps needed to make these programs affordable and sustainable to preserve benefits for those who need them the most.
9. Washington collects a lot, and then spends a ton. Where are your tax dollars going?
In 2012, Washington collected $2.4 trillion in taxes—more than $20,000 per household. But it wasn’t enough for Washington’s spending habits. The federal government actually spent $3.5 trillion.
College students from all over the country got together in February at a “Millennial Meetup” to talk about how the national debt impacts their generation.
14. Makes us more vulnerable to the next economic crisis.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook, “growing federal debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis.”
15. Washington racked up $300 billion in more debt in less than four months.
“The credit of the United States ‘is not a bargaining chip,’ Obama said on 1-14-13. However, President Obama keeps getting our country’s credit rating downgraded as he raises the debt ceiling higher and higher!!!! Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict Just spend more, don’t know how to cut!!! Really!!! That is not […]
We got to stop all the red ink. New Video Is a Strong Indictment of Obama’s Dismal Record on Spending August 13, 2012 by Dan Mitchell The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. But this progress didn’t last long. Thanks […]
In One Year, Spending on Interest on the National Debt Is Greater Than Funding for Most Programs Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. In 2010, the U.S. spent more on interest on the national debt than […]
National Debt Set to Skyrocket Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. In the past, wars and the Great Depression contributed to rapid but temporary increases in the national debt. Over the next few decades, runaway spending […]
Each American’s Share of National Debt Is Growing Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. As Washington continues to spend more than it can afford, future generations of taxpayers will be on the hook for increasing levels […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on May 9, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
Uploaded by PBS on Jan 4, 2008 Thousands of media outlets descended on Iowa, erecting a powerful wall of TV cameras and reporters between the voters and candidates. Bill Moyers talks with Ron Paul who knows well the power of the press to set expectations and transform the agenda. ____________________________ We should not be running […]
Liam Fox Issues a Warning to America Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 28, 2012 Britain’s Liam Fox has a warning for America: Fix the debt problem now or suffer the consequences of less power on the world stage. The former U.K. secretary of state for defense visited Heritage to explain why the America’s debt is […]
Liam Fox Issues a Warning to America Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 28, 2012 Britain’s Liam Fox has a warning for America: Fix the debt problem now or suffer the consequences of less power on the world stage. The former U.K. secretary of state for defense visited Heritage to explain why the America’s debt is […]
Each American’s Share of National Debt Is Growing Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. As Washington continues to spend more than it can afford, future generations of taxpayers will be on the hook for increasing levels […]
The Swiss have opportunities to engage in direct democracy, and over and over and over again they make sensible choices.
And it just happened again. Voters in Geneva were just asked whether they wanted to increase the Canton’s wealth tax.
Bastian Benrath of Bloomberg reported on the conclusive rejection of the class-warfare scheme.
Geneva voters rejected a “solidarity” tax hike for the richest 1% living in Switzerland’s second-largest city. The measure failed with 55.12% of people voting against, according to final government results published on Sunday. The plan to temporarily lift the wealth tax from 1% to 1.5% for individuals with assets worth more than 3 million francs ($3.4 million) -— proposed by a coalition of leftist lawmakers, unions and activists…Business groups had also warned that the city’s richest inhabitants might move to neighboring states with lower rates. This had happened in Norway, where a wealth-tax increase to between 1% and 1.1% — notably lower than that proposed in Geneva — spurred millionaires to leave the country. Cantonal wealth-tax data show more than 19,000 of Geneva’s about 500,000 inhabitants reach the millionaire threshold. A smaller number, somewhere between 4,200 and 10,000, would have been affected by the proposal.
By the way, it’s not just Geneva voters that reject class warfare. The entire nation overwhelmingly voted against class-warfare proposals in 2010 and 2021.
Nonetheless, the French-speaking part of Switzerland leans to the left (at least by Swiss standards), so I was relieved that the people of Geneva made the right choice.
Please explain to me if you ever do plan to balance the budget while you are President? I have written these things below about you and I really do think that you don’t want to cut spending in order to balance the budget. It seems you ever are daring the Congress to stop you from spending more.
“The credit of the United States ‘is not a bargaining chip,’ Obama said on 1-14-13. However, President Obama keeps getting our country’s credit rating downgraded as he raises the debt ceiling higher and higher!!!!
Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict
Just spend more, don’t know how to cut!!! Really!!! That is not living in the real world is it?
Making more dependent on government is not the way to go!!
Why is our government in over 16 trillion dollars in debt? There are many reasons for this but the biggest reason is people say “Let’s spend someone else’s money to solve our problems.” Liberals like Max Brantley have talked this way for years. Brantley will say that conservatives are being harsh when they don’t want the government out encouraging people to be dependent on the government. The Obama adminstration has even promoted a plan for young people to follow like Julia the Moocher.
Imagine standing a baby carrot up next to the 25-story Stephens building in Little Rock. That gives you a picture of the impact on the national debt that federal spending in Arkansas on Medicaid expansion would have, while here at home expansion would give coverage to more than 200,000 of our neediest citizens, create jobs, and save money for the state.
Here’s the thing: while more than a billion dollars a year in federal spending would represent a big-time stimulus for Arkansas, it’s not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to the national debt.
Currently, the national debt is around $16.4 trillion. In fiscal year 2015, the federal government would spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.2 billion to fund Medicaid expansion in Arkansas if we say yes. That’s about 1/13,700th of the debt.
It’s hard to get a handle on numbers that big, so to put that in perspective, let’s get back to the baby carrot. Imagine that the height of the Stephens building (365 feet) is the $16 trillion national debt. That $1.2 billion would be the length of a ladybug. Of course, we’re not just talking about one year if we expand. Between now and 2021, the federal government projects to contribute around $10 billion. The federal debt is projected to be around $25 trillion by then, so we’re talking about 1/2,500th of the debt. Compared to the Stephens building? That’s a baby carrot.
______________
Here is how it will all end if everyone feels they should be allowed to have their “baby carrot.”
How sad it is that liberals just don’t get this reality.
While living in Europe in the 1760s, Franklin observed: “in different countries … the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee(15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) was a Scottish lawyer, writer, and professor. Tytler was also a historian, and he noted, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
[Jefferson affirms that the main purpose of society is to enable human beings to keep the fruits of their labor.— TGW]
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.
[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 14:466.]
_______
Jefferson pointed out that to take from the rich and give to the poor through government is just wrong. Franklin knew the poor would have a better path upward without government welfare coming their way. Milton Friedman’s negative income tax is the best method for doing that and by taking away all welfare programs and letting them go to the churches for charity.
_____________
_________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
We got to act fast and get off this path of socialism. Morning Bell: Welfare Spending Shattering All-Time Highs Robert Rector and Amy Payne October 18, 2012 at 9:03 am It’s been a pretty big year for welfare—and a new report shows welfare is bigger than ever. The Obama Administration turned a giant spotlight […]
We need to cut Food Stamp program and not extend it. However, it seems that people tell the taxpayers back home they are going to Washington and cut government spending but once they get up there they just fall in line with everyone else that keeps spending our money. I am glad that at least […]
Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ Liberals argue that the poor need more welfare programs, but I have always argued that these programs enslave the poor to the government. Food Stamps Growth […]
Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on May 11, 2012 by LibertyPen In this 1968 interview, Milton Friedman explained the negative income tax, a proposal that at minimum would save taxpayers the 72 percent of our current welfare budget spent on administration. http://www.LibertyPen.com Source: Firing Line with William F Buckley Jr. ________________ Milton […]
Dan Mitchell Commenting on Obama’s Failure to Propose a Fiscal Plan Published on Aug 16, 2012 by danmitchellcato No description available. ___________ After the Welfare State Posted by David Boaz Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer, who is lecturing about freedom in Slovenia and Tbilisi this week, asked me to post this announcement of his […]
Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law? Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform Amy Payne August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful […]
Thomas Sowell – Welfare Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform By Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. February 6, 2003 Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. […]
Uploaded by ForaTv on May 29, 2009 Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/18/James_Bartholomew_The_Welfare_State_Were_In Author James Bartholomew argues that welfare benefits actually increase government handouts by ‘ruining’ ambition. He compares welfare to a humane mousetrap. —– Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. In the controversial […]
Thomas Sowell If the welfare reform law was successful then why change it? Wasn’t Bill Clinton the president that signed into law? Obama Guts Welfare Reform Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley July 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm Today, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 10, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
But I usually include an all-important caveat that profits are only good if earned in a competitive marketplace.
At the risk of understatement, I get angry when big companies get money because of special favors from government. That’s because goodies from politicians and bureaucrats unavoidably come at the expense of consumers, taxpayers, and small businesses.
Sadly, there are many examples of big business and big government being in bed together.
Now we can add to the list. In a column for the Washington Examiner, Tim Carney shines a light on a new case study of big business using big government to thwart choice and innovation.
He starts by describing a development in the air travel industry that most people would see as a good thing.
SkyWest is a small air carrier that operates flights for some of the big airlines. They want to branch into a new field: operating regularly scheduled flights on small planes from private terminals. JSX Air is one company that already offers this product.Legally known as a “public charter” or “scheduled charter” operator, JSX flies small planes out of private terminals, but at fares far closer to commercial coach than to private air travel. …The main advantage is a more reasonable boarding process — particularly, no TSA security theater. …it also allows you to bring on your own snacks, drinks, and jars of local marmalade — all of which our Transportation Security Agency has deemed too dangerous to fly.
But not everyone approves.
The massive legacy airlines hate this, because it is a competitor who is more much pleasant to fly, operating at about the same costs. Thus the airlines and their pilot union are trying to get Uncle Sam to clamp down on public charters.
And what are their arguments?
The unions have hired revolving-door former congressman Peter DeFazio as their lobbyist, opposing this license. Their argument includes attacking the business model already used by JSX. …Their main argument is that SkyWest and JSX would be allowed to use veteran pilots who are over 65 — which is the mandatory retirement age for pilots of larger aircraft. Also, pilots who don’t yet have 1,500 flying time are allowed to captain smaller planes but not large planes, and so SkyWest could use these slightly greener pilots, too. The pilots and the airlines will make safety arguments against the expansion of public charters, but these fall short. Already rich people can fly without TSA screening out of private terminals, and already rich people can charter jets with 66-year-old pilots or captains with only 10,000 miles. So the big airlines’ argument amounts to: This is safe enough for rich people, but not for our potential customers.
Is it possible that it is marginally more dangerous to fly on a plane with an older pilot or a pilot with fewer than 1,500 hours of flying time?
I have no idea, but I think consumers, shareholders, Boards of Directors, and insurance companies should be the ones driving the decision, not bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, or rival companies.
Tim identifies the real issue.
The anti-SkyWest and anti-JSX campaign is really about using the government to outlaw competition.
President Biden c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Please explain to me if you ever do plan to balance the budget while you are President? I have written these things below about you and I really do think that you don’t want to cut spending in order to balance the budget. It seems you ever are daring the Congress to stop you from spending more.
“The credit of the United States ‘is not a bargaining chip,’ Obama said on 1-14-13. However, President Obama keeps getting our country’s credit rating downgraded as he raises the debt ceiling higher and higher!!!!
Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict
Just spend more, don’t know how to cut!!! Really!!! That is not living in the real world is it?
Making more dependent on government is not the way to go!!
Why is our government in over 16 trillion dollars in debt? There are many reasons for this but the biggest reason is people say “Let’s spend someone else’s money to solve our problems.” Liberals like Max Brantley have talked this way for years. Brantley will say that conservatives are being harsh when they don’t want the government out encouraging people to be dependent on the government. The Obama adminstration has even promoted a plan for young people to follow like Julia the Moocher.
Imagine standing a baby carrot up next to the 25-story Stephens building in Little Rock. That gives you a picture of the impact on the national debt that federal spending in Arkansas on Medicaid expansion would have, while here at home expansion would give coverage to more than 200,000 of our neediest citizens, create jobs, and save money for the state.
Here’s the thing: while more than a billion dollars a year in federal spending would represent a big-time stimulus for Arkansas, it’s not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to the national debt.
Currently, the national debt is around $16.4 trillion. In fiscal year 2015, the federal government would spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.2 billion to fund Medicaid expansion in Arkansas if we say yes. That’s about 1/13,700th of the debt.
It’s hard to get a handle on numbers that big, so to put that in perspective, let’s get back to the baby carrot. Imagine that the height of the Stephens building (365 feet) is the $16 trillion national debt. That $1.2 billion would be the length of a ladybug. Of course, we’re not just talking about one year if we expand. Between now and 2021, the federal government projects to contribute around $10 billion. The federal debt is projected to be around $25 trillion by then, so we’re talking about 1/2,500th of the debt. Compared to the Stephens building? That’s a baby carrot.
______________
Here is how it will all end if everyone feels they should be allowed to have their “baby carrot.”
How sad it is that liberals just don’t get this reality.
While living in Europe in the 1760s, Franklin observed: “in different countries … the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee(15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) was a Scottish lawyer, writer, and professor. Tytler was also a historian, and he noted, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
[Jefferson affirms that the main purpose of society is to enable human beings to keep the fruits of their labor.— TGW]
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.
[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 14:466.]
_______
Jefferson pointed out that to take from the rich and give to the poor through government is just wrong. Franklin knew the poor would have a better path upward without government welfare coming their way. Milton Friedman’s negative income tax is the best method for doing that and by taking away all welfare programs and letting them go to the churches for charity.
_____________
_________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733
We got to act fast and get off this path of socialism. Morning Bell: Welfare Spending Shattering All-Time Highs Robert Rector and Amy Payne October 18, 2012 at 9:03 am It’s been a pretty big year for welfare—and a new report shows welfare is bigger than ever. The Obama Administration turned a giant spotlight […]
We need to cut Food Stamp program and not extend it. However, it seems that people tell the taxpayers back home they are going to Washington and cut government spending but once they get up there they just fall in line with everyone else that keeps spending our money. I am glad that at least […]
Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ Liberals argue that the poor need more welfare programs, but I have always argued that these programs enslave the poor to the government. Food Stamps Growth […]
Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on May 11, 2012 by LibertyPen In this 1968 interview, Milton Friedman explained the negative income tax, a proposal that at minimum would save taxpayers the 72 percent of our current welfare budget spent on administration. http://www.LibertyPen.com Source: Firing Line with William F Buckley Jr. ________________ Milton […]
Dan Mitchell Commenting on Obama’s Failure to Propose a Fiscal Plan Published on Aug 16, 2012 by danmitchellcato No description available. ___________ After the Welfare State Posted by David Boaz Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer, who is lecturing about freedom in Slovenia and Tbilisi this week, asked me to post this announcement of his […]
Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law? Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform Amy Payne August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful […]
Thomas Sowell – Welfare Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform By Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. February 6, 2003 Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. […]
Uploaded by ForaTv on May 29, 2009 Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/18/James_Bartholomew_The_Welfare_State_Were_In Author James Bartholomew argues that welfare benefits actually increase government handouts by ‘ruining’ ambition. He compares welfare to a humane mousetrap. —– Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. In the controversial […]
Thomas Sowell If the welfare reform law was successful then why change it? Wasn’t Bill Clinton the president that signed into law? Obama Guts Welfare Reform Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley July 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm Today, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 10, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
A California father is boycotting his daughters’ school, saying he is “fed up” with school officials after they reportedly ignored parents’ concerns about a Pride event.
Protests erupted in North Hollywood on Friday as angry parents collided with counter-protesters outside Saticoy Elementary School, the same day of the planned assembly that spurred a community uproar.
Father of four Manuk Grigoryan was one of the parents who took to the streets with other parents to protest the school, and he said he is refusing to send his children back until he can speak directly with school officials.
“They’re too young. It wasn’t about the issue of the book itself only because after the book was supposed to be read, they were supposed to turn around and have a discussion about what they just read and heard,” Grigoryan said during “Fox & Friends” Monday.
Protests erupted outside Saticoy Elementary School on Friday over a Pride Month event.
“When we want to speak with them and have these discussions, they totally ignore us, and they just don’t want to talk to us, and I’m fed up, and the school is not safe for my children,” he continued.
“I’m not going to take my kids back until they come out and talk to us.”
Some parents took issue with the reading of the book, “The Great Big Book of Families,” which includes depictions of various types of families, including some with LGBTQ+ parents. It was read during the planned assembly.
The Associated Press reported those demonstrating against the assembly outnumbered those in support. Some of those protesters wore T-shirts with phrases like “No Pride in Grooming” and “Leave our kids alone.”
Grigoryan said he takes issue with his 8-year-old twin daughters being exposed to such materials without parental consent.
“We found out about this assembly back in early May, and we have made numerous attempts to contact school officials and have a meeting with them,” Grigoryan said.
“We did have a meeting with the principal, but she couldn’t be helpful. So we asked to speak with [L.A. Schools Superintendent Alberto] Carvalho. We made numerous attempts to contact him, but he ignored every opportunity that we had to speak with him. He just didn’t want to acknowledge us, and we had no choice but to take it to the streets.”
The school district released a statement in response saying, “Los Angeles Unified remains committed to maintaining a safe, inclusive and supportive environment for all students. We are also committed to ensuring diversity and inclusivity… In addition, out of an abundance of caution, the Los Angeles School Police Department will be providing additional patrols around the campus.”
However, Grigoryan said he remains committed to getting answers and will continue to speak out.
“I will fight this fight as long as I have to,” Grigoryan said.
“We will not be silenced no matter how big they are, we will not be silenced.”
Numerous fights broke out Friday as protesters clashed with LGBTQ activists.
Spelling Bee Contestant Asks The Definition of “Woman”
The Associated Press directs journalists to abide by transgender ideology while denying that such an ideology exists. Pictured: A protester at the Stonewall Inn on Feb. 23, 2017, in the Greenwich Village area of New York City. (Photo: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images)
Forget debates over bathrooms or pronouns. The Associated Press recently released new guidelines suppressing the very concept of transgenderism as an ideology that can be debated, while forcing that ideology on reporters in the name of promoting good journalism.
The AP is the most common stylebook among journalists and news outlets on the Left and Right, including The Daily Signal. The Daily Signal does depart from AP style when the style guide adopts ideological messaging on abortion, transgender identity, and other issues, however.
In a classic example of “1984”-style doublethink, good journalists are required to abide by transgender ideology, while denying that such an ideology exists. AP’s most recent style guide update—published Thursday—instructs them to use a person’s “preferred” pronouns, deny that sex is a biological fact recognized at or before birth, and use the euphemism “gender-affirming care” when describing experimental medical interventions that leave patients stunted, scarred, and infertile.
Reporters are to adopt wholesale the claim that a person’s internal sense of gender overrides his or her biological sex and to discount opposition to these claims.
Yet they are apparently barred from discussing the ideas behind this ideology, or the ideology itself.
The most recent update to the AP style guide is quite clear: “Do not use the term transgenderism, which frames transgender identity as an ideology.”
Yet the entire document is dripping with this ideology.
“Avoid references to a transgender person being born a boy or girl, or phrasing like birth gender,” the guide urges. “Sex assigned at birth is the accurate terminology.” The document goes on to claim that “sex is usually assigned at birth by parents or attendants, sometimes inaccurately.”
While the document acknowledges that gender—not sex—is a “social construct,” the use of the phrase “sex assigned at birth” implies that biological sex is also socially constructed, rather than a central reality of humanity that enables people to reproduce. Transgender ideology relieson muddying the waters in this way, suggesting that transgender identity is the real fact, so changing a person’s body to match a gender identity opposite his or her biological sex is “affirming,” rather than destructive.
This is an extremely controversial claim, but the AP guidelines actively suppress dissent.
The update parrots pro-transgender claims that are hotly debated in the medical community. The document states that children can take “puberty blockers,” which it describes as “fully reversible prescription medication that pauses sexual maturation.” It does not note that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved drugs such as Lupron for that purpose, nor that authorities use Lupron to chemically castrate sex offenders.
The AP guide accuses “opponents of youth transgender medical treatment” of citing “widely discredited research,” failing to note that many of the studies pro-transgender activists use to endorse experimental interventions have themselves been discredited. For example, doctors have condemned as “fatally flawed” a recent study claiming to show improvements from cross-sex hormones.
Perhaps most horrifically, the much-touted Dutch study that first gave credence to the idea of transgender medical interventions ultimately involved a male subject who died from an infection after surgeons tried to use some of his digestive tract to construct a false vagina.
While the AP guide acknowledges that “all these treatments have potential side effects,” it nonetheless endorses them. It urges reporters to “avoid the word mutilation, a politicized and subjective term often used to mischaracterize surgery.”
The document urges journalists to “avoid terms like biological sex, along with biological male and biological female, which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to refer to transgender women and transgender men, respectively.” AP argues that such terms are “redundant because sex is inherently biological.” Yet opponents of transgenderism use “biological” to emphasize the truth of biology against the very ideology AP insists journalists never mention.
In a few instances, the AP guide rightly discourages obnoxious or outdated terms like “tranny” and “transgendered.” It also urges journalists to avoid the terms “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” or the acronym “TERF,” to refer to critics of transgenderism.
However, the guidelines also discourage reporters from using “gender-critical” to describe those who oppose transgenderism, even though many advocates have consciously embraced that term.
The guidelines also encourage reporters to avoid using the term “groomer,” without acknowledging critics’ concerns that events such as Drag Queen Story Hour and LGBT lessons at young ages make children vulnerable to abuse.
The Associated Press style guide has long urged journalists to adopt a person’s preferred pronouns, regardless of biological sex, but the guide also forbids journalists from referring to “preferred or chosen pronouns,” instead using phrases such as “the pronouns they use, whose pronouns are, who uses the pronouns.”
When it comes to sports, the new AP entry urges journalists to avoid “phrasing that misgenders people or implies doubt, such as former men’s swimmer or currently competes as a woman.”
Journalists should not even imply doubt, much less actually express it.
God forbid they actually use a specific term to discuss this ideology, rather than merely adopting it wholesale.
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.
Then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson—seen here speaking at the 2022 Fox Nation Patriot Awards Nov. 17 in Hollywood, Florida—remains a much-needed voice for civilizational sanity, columnist Josh Hammer says. (Photo: Jason Koerner/ Getty Images)
I attended The Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary Gala on April 21, a sprawling and swanky affair featuring many fine presentations, a surprise Dierks Bentley mini-concert for the country music enthusiasts (yours truly among them) and an extravagant post-dinner fireworks show over the Potomac River.
But the highlight of the evening, bar none, was former Fox News star Tucker Carlson‘s electric keynote address and his (all-too-brief) colloquy on stage afterward with Heritage’s exceptional new president, Kevin Roberts. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Carlson’s speech was both wildly entertaining and poignant, at times slapstick funny and at other times humorously self-deprecating about his Episcopalian faith. But as Carlson began to reach his peroration, the key substantive takeaway he wished to impart unto his audience became clear.
The relevant political and cultural battle lines in the year 2023 are not those befitting a civil and polite discussion, where both sides are reasonable, both sides pursue their own version of the common good, and the best think tank white paper wins out in the end, Carlson cautioned. No, our current civilizational struggle is not reflective of a refined policy debate between amicable partisans; rather, it is one that implicates fundamentally distinct theological and anthropological visions of mankind—of man’s very biology and his relation with his fellow man, the state, and God Himself.
I immediately hearkened back to an interview Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams did with The Atlantic in October 2021, in which Williams had this provocative (but accurate) line about America’s contemporary fault lines: “Even during the Civil War—I think we’re more divided now than we were then. As Lincoln said, we all prayed to the same God. We all believed in the same Constitution. We just differed over the question of slavery.”
This is the precise sentiment that Carlson was getting at in his keynote speech at the Heritage gala.
We in the audience did not know it yet, at the time of Carlson’s speech—nor did Carlson, for that matter—but the broadcasting star had already given his last searing monologue for Fox News. In a stunning development, Fox News broke the news to their highest-rated host on Monday morning that he was fired.
Hopefully, Carlson will retain something approximating his exceptional level of cultural and political influence in whatever role he next serves, because his witness to truth and civilizational sanity have never been more necessary.
This is perhaps most clearly true when it comes to gender ideology and transgenderism, which is the issue most directly implicated by Carlson’s framing of America’s fundamental divide as a struggle between differing theological and anthropological conceptions of man.
Is sexual dimorphism an obvious empirical reality, rooted in Genesis 1:27, and mandating legal codification for any regime that claims a basis in truth and justice? Or is gender instead “fluid,” wherein man can replace God and change his gender on a lark, and wherein it is contemptible bigotry to deny anyone’s subjective sense of biological or sexual reality?
Tucker Carlson certainly knew his answer: He opened a memorable 2021 interview of Republican Asa Hutchinson by asking the then-governor of Arkansas, who had shamefully vetoed a bill to protect vulnerable children from the predatory scalpels of the woke-besotted medical establishment, why he had “come out publicly as ‘pro-choice’ on the question of chemical castration of children.”
Oof.
That is not a debate where the “best white paper wins.” It is a zero-sum contestation of clashing visions of the human person, rooted in diametrically opposed substantive underpinnings. And, more to the point, the forces of godlessness, paganism, and civilizational arson certainly already treat the debate over gender ideology as a vicious winner-take-all battle.
The recent mini-insurrection in Nashville, Tennessee, which followed the tragic shooting at a Christian school and the temporary expulsions of two insurrection-complicit state lawmakers, can best be understood as one elaborate attempt to distract the public from the real issue: That a transgender lunatic shot up a Christian school, and that law enforcement has thus far been unwilling to defy the transgender lobby’s not-so-thinly-veiled blackmail, opting instead to deep-six the deceased shooter’s presumptively anti-Christian manifesto.
More recently, a similar situation unfolded in Montana, where Republicans who control the state House banned a transgender lawmaker from attending or speaking during floor sessions following the lawmaker’s comment—during the debate over an anti-chemical castration bill similar to the one Hutchinson vetoed in Arkansas—that the lawmaker hoped colleagues would see “blood on [their] hands” when they bowed their heads in prayer.
Numerous protesters were arrested and forcibly removed from the legislature last week, as they agitated in favor of the uncouth transgender lawmaker.
Large swaths of the modern Left have made the fight for gender ideology and transgenderism their foremost hill to die on precisely because they are so infatuated with their own vogue anthropology and “theology” that they view the other side—the side of sanity—as wholly undeserving of the civility and respect that a normal exchange over public policy might entail.
I know this all too well, myself: My writing that invariably elicits the most protests when I speak on university campuses is a short piece I wrote a few years ago praising U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan’s admirable use of biologically correct pronouns in a judicial opinion.
I’d write the same thing again today.
But those protesters, whether in Nashville; Helena, Montana; Stanford Law School or another academic corridor, are not open to rational debate. They are not willing to be reasoned with. Rather, they know their conclusions, because they have fully imbibed a highly fashionable—if false—anthropological and “theological” conception of man.
Those of us on the side of civilizational sanity need all the help we can get in pushing back against the onslaught. Tucker Carlson, please come back soon.
“You’re calling it that, but how do you know it’s that?” Todd pressed Ramaswamy.
“Again, how do you know? Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it? Are you confident?”
“I am,” Ramaswamy replied.
“That there isn’t a spectrum?” Todd asked.
Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said on Sunday that “gender is a spectrum.”NBC News
Ramaswamy answered: “I am.”
“Do you know this as a scientist?” Todd asked.
“Well, there’s two X chromosomes if you’re a woman, and an X and a Y that means you’re a man…,” Ramaswamy said.
The two men talk over each other before Todd says: “There is a lot of scientific research that says gender is a spectrum.”
“Chuck, I respectfully disagree,” Ramaswamy said.
The GOP candidate said gender dysphoria — which is characterized by the American Psychiatric Association as “clinically significant distress or impairment related to gender incongruence” — “has been characterized as a mental health disorder and I don’t think it’s compassionate to affirm that.”
<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />Todd made the remark during an interview with GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy.NBC News
“I think that’s cruelty,” Ramaswamy said.
“When a kid is crying out for help … you’ve got to ask the question of what else is going wrong at home,” the GOP hopeful said.
“What else is going wrong at school, let’s be compassionate and get to the heart of that rather than playing this game as though we’re actually changing our medical understanding for the last hundred years.”
Todd conceded that “the last thing [parents] want to do is consider something like [gender affirming treatments]” for their children.
<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />“Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it?” Todd asked Ramaswamy.NBC News
“But if that is what they think could help their child pursue happiness or not to kill themselves … why take away that option?” Todd asked.
“Again, why shouldn’t it be up to the parent?”
Ramaswamy replied that “we’ve created a culture that teaches parents that they’re being bigoted or that they’re bad people if they don’t actually take those steps.”
“Gender dysphoria for the rare few people who’ve suffered it, is a condition of suffering,” he added.
“My question is why on Earth are we going out of our way to create even more of it?”
<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />Ramaswamy has urged a ban on gender affirming treatments for people under the age of 18.NBC News
Todd’s comments sparked reaction on Twitter.
“Didn’t you know? Cable news pundits became the best TV scientists and physicians during COVID. The government talking points made them experts,” one Twitter user wrote.
Another Twitter user commented: “There is literally no real science suggesting there are more than 2 sex chromosomes.”
“This is very simple to resolve. Show us what the non-male and non-female chromosomes look like on these ‘gender spectrums’,” a Twitter user wrote.
Others on Twitter supported Todd’s assertion, citing a 2018 article by Scientific American which claimed that biologists “now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.”
Jennifer Lahl’s documentary “The Detransition Diaries,” released Monday, tracks the stories of three female detransitioners, including Helena Kerschner. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
A documentary, released Monday, unveils the stories of three women who previously identified as transgender in a futile attempt to escape depression and suicidal thoughts.
Jennifer Lahl, a former pediatric nurse and current president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, produced her most recent documentary, “The Detransition Diaries,” after a series of films highlighting bioethical issues.
Her film tracks the stories of Helena Kerschner, Grace Lidinsky-Smith, and Cat Cattinson, three women who believed their mental and emotional trauma would be solved by transitioning to the opposite sex. Each woman underwent hormone treatment and one had her breasts removed as well.
“We are following the news and the studies, and the evidence that shows this uptick in rapid-onset gender dysphoria [is something] young girls are particularly prone to,” Lahl told The Daily Signal in a phone call. Gender dysphoria refers to the condition of persistently and painfully identifying as the gender opposite one’s biological sex. “Young girls are getting sucked into this.”
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a recent phenomenon in which children and adolescents are suddenly, and without prior indication, identifying as the opposite sex.
Lahl found that her previous documentary “Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender?” struck a chord with a broad audience. Firsthand accounts of men and women who “believed they were born in the wrong body” and thought gender transition “was the solution to all their problems” resonated with thousands of people, Lahl explained.
“As documentary filmmakers, we made the editorial decision that we are going to focus on women, realizing that this applies to men too,” she remarked on her most recent film.
“The Detransition Diaries” cover. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Helena Kerschner, one of the detransitioners featured in Lahl’s film, says she struggled with depression, isolation, self-harm, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts as an early teen. She was introduced to the transgender belief system through Tumblr culture at 13.
Tumblr’s message was: “If you don’t like your body, that’s a sign you’re trans,” she notes.
After she came out as transgender, teachers and adults who never noticed her struggles before suddenly “bent over backward” to accommodate her new-found identity.
She did everything to make herself appear masculine. Eventually, Kerschner was prescribed testosterone at 18 after a single consultation at Planned Parenthood.
After a few weeks, she noticed how irritable she had become. “I couldn’t control myself,” Kerschner recalls in the documentary. When she got angry, she felt she needed to hurt someone—so she hurt herself. She eventually resorted to the emergency room, where staff directed her to the psych unit. Doctors diagnosed her with borderline personality disorder and psychosis, and sent her home with prescriptions for four different medications. She wound up in the hospital a few weeks later.
“My life became a total disaster,” she says. “I wasn’t functioning, I couldn’t hold a job, I wasn’t going to school—I felt like a monster.”
Seventeen months later, she stopped taking testosterone. Her negative symptoms vanished. During this time, not a single medical professional suggested that her hormone treatment was causing these symptoms, she remarks in the film.
Grace Lidinsky-Smith, another detransitioner featured in the film, noted that she felt a rush of energy when she first started testosterone treatment. Though she had some underlying anxiety, she told herself this was “internalized transphobia,” she says to the filmmakers.
Grace Lidinsky-Smith in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Cat Cattinson describes a similar euphoric feeling when she first went on testosterone. It was “one of the better antidepressants I had taken,” she recalls.
Cat Cattinson in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Lidinsky-Smith, unlike the other two women, went forward with a double mastectomy. Looking back, she believed she would feel better “because she’d be in a body that fit her better.” After her breasts were removed, she recalls, she looked down at the gashes on her chest. “I had the most awful feeling.”
She found others online also had an “intense, suicidal despair after surgery … and then got over it and felt better.” But the experience planted a seed of doubt, she explains. She found a testimony of another person who had transitioned from female to male. As the person described, a desire for “a small amount of masculinization” led to full-out body dysphoria.
At that point, Lidinsky-Smith stopped testosterone and slowly reversed course, eventually growing comfortable enough to use her birth name. “It became important to just accept myself as myself,” she explains.
Kershner and Cattinson described similar breaking points. Kershner realized: “This is not what I thought it would be,” adding that she believed “once I’m a boy, my confidence is gonna come out.” Instead, as she describes, she became dysfunctional.
As Cattinson explains, three months into her testosterone treatment, she found a dramatic drop in her voice. “Nothing was coming out except air and squeaks,” she describes. She stopped going to social events and performing live.
Like the other women, she found an online community of detransitioners and doctors who revealed the hidden underbelly of the trans movement.
She began questioning the basis of transgender ideology: the “idea that we should define a woman based on what’s in a person’s head,” as she describes it. Does “what you believe in your head … really trump the biological reality of being an adult female?” she wondered.
As the documentary concludes, Lidinsky-Smith notes that she is worried about those who continue to get sucked into gender transition treatment, when they can find the answer to their problems elsewhere.
All three women interviewed suffered from suicidal ideation and depression. Each believed that changing her name, pronouns, appearance, and hormones would solve her problems, yet each found her emotional state dramatically worsened as a result.
“I think the fallout will be severe,” Lidinsky-Smith notes. Remarking on the growing community of detransitioners, she adds, “Our voices can no longer be denied.”
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 Woke Zone Trilogy
John Stossel takes up for Babylon Bee and notes “Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left!”
Late night hosts like Stephen Colbert, seen speaking during the Montclair Film Festival on Oct. 23, passionately defend leftists to the point of lecturing, rather than providing comedic relief. (Photo: Manny Carabel/Getty Images)
A woman tells the cop who stopped her in a carpool lane she’s allowed to drive there because her pronouns are “they” and “them.”
That’s from a video by a conservative Christian satire site called the Babylon Bee. Their humor gets millions of views.
“Christian conservatives used to … be very dour and self-serious,” says Bee editor-in-chief Kyle Mann in my new video.
Today, he says, it’s the left who are self-serious. “They’re the ones that have trouble laughing at themselves.”
For example, late night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert passionately defend COVID-19 vaccines.
“It is a lecture,” complains Mann.
“The left used to be anti-establishment,” adds Bee actress Chandler Juliet. Now, she says, ‘They’ve become the blob. … We’re super happy to be leading the comedic conversation on the right.”
One Babylon Bee video, “The Woke Zone,” makes fun of the way the media ignored violence and arson during the George Floyd protests.
“Do you ever feel gratitude to the left that they give you so much material?” I ask.
“We have to write things that are funnier than things they’re actually doing,” Mann responds. “That makes our job very difficult.”
One Bee sketch portrays its writers struggling to find new material.
“John Kerry warns that the war in Ukraine might distract from climate change!” suggests one.
Can’t do it, explains another. “It actually happened.” Yes, Kerry really did say that.
“Cosmo magazine features a morbidly obese woman on the cover as the picture of health” and, “Math professor says ‘two plus two equals four’ is racist!” are among other ideas that can’t be used as jokes.
“A math professor really said two plus two equals four is racist?” I ask.
It’s “a colonialist, white supremacist idea,” explains Mann.
Today the Bee reaches more people than The Onion. The establishment doesn’t like that, so some people actually sic so-called fact checkers on the Bee.
One article fact-checked by Snopes was titled, “Bernie Sanders Vows To Round Up Remaining ISIS Members, Allow Them To Vote.”
“Does Snopes not understand that you’re making jokes?” I ask.
“I think that they know what our intention is,” answers Juliet. “They just don’t like us.”
Recently, Twitter banned the Bee. Their offense was tweeting an article that named Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine “Babylon Bee’s Man of the Year.”
Levine is a transgender woman. Calling her the man of the year is a joke I wouldn’t make. But it doesn’t need to be censored.
Twitter says they’ll allow the Bee back on the platform only if they delete the tweet. Mann says he won’t.
“Twitter has the capability to just delete the tweet themselves. They want us to bend the knee and be the ones to click, ‘Yes, we acknowledge hateful conduct.’ We’re not going to do that.”
Today, a lot of comedians attract sizable audiences by mocking the left. Some I found funny are JP Sears, Ryan Long and FreedomToons.
The culture is changing.
The highest rating late-night comic these days is often not Colbert, Kimmel or Fallon, but Greg Gutfeld of Fox.
Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left.
“I talk about AIDS, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, pedophilia … the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics,” says Gervais in his recent Netflix special.
Professional media critics trashed him for that. But the special was hugely popular with the public.
The Rotten Tomatoes ratings are revealing. Critics gave Gervais’ special a 29% rating, calling it “terribly unfunny” and “a detestable combination of smug and obtuse.”
Viewers gave it a 92% rating.
The same is true of Chapelle’s latest special, “The Closer.” Critics give it just 40%. The audience gives it 95%.
Clearly, many people are tired of smug, condescending humor.
I’m glad the Babylon Bee, and others, give us an alternative.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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.
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
—-
——
Before I get into the fine article by Brendan O’Neill which I present in its entirety, I wanted to quote Francis Schaeffer who spent his life examining the humanism that now Ricky Gervais embraces!
All humans have moral motions and that is why Ricky Gervais knows it is wrong to let biological men use ladies’ bathrooms!!!!!!
“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117
Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?
He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times
I have long thought that if Life of Brian came out today, it wouldn’t be Christians kicking up a fuss about it — it would be trans activists.
When Monty Python’s classic tale of a man mistaken for a Messiah came to cinemas in 1979, people of faith weren’t happy. They saw it as taking the mick out of Christ and they aired their displeasure noisily. Nuns in New York picketed cinemas. In Ireland the film was banned for eight years.
In 2022 I reckon it would be a very different story. It wouldn’t be Monty Python’s ribbing of the gospels that would outrage the chattering classes — it would be their mockery of trans people.
Life of Brian was way ahead of time. It was Terf before Terf was even a thing. There is a brilliantly observed scene in which Stan of the People’s Front of Judea — or is it the Judean People’s Front? — says he wants to become Loretta.
‘I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta’, says Stan, played by Eric Idle. When the others push back and say he can’t just become a woman, he says: ‘It’s my right as a man.’ Which was remarkably perspicacious.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters.
——
Imagine if a film or TV show did something like that today. Showed an aspiring ‘trans woman’ being mocked for not having the right body parts to be a woman. Showed a man who wants to be a woman being told — for laughs, remember — that the only thing he’s struggling against is reality.
The cancel-culture mob would kick into action. There’d be a Change.org petition, maybe even a physical protest outside the offices of the production company or streaming service that was foolish enough to broadcast such trans-poking humour. ‘Jokes kill!’, we would be told, day and night.
Hell, JK Rowling can’t even very politely say ‘men aren’t women’ without being subjected to weeks of hatred and violent threats — so heaven help the film company that tried to air a Stan / Loretta skit in these febrile times.
This week, my theory about Life of Brianin 2022 was kind of proven right. For we had the pretty extraordinary sight of Ricky Gervais getting a very free ride for his God-mocking while being dragged into the Twitter stocks for his gags about trans issues.
In his new Netflix special SuperNature, Gervais vents his atheistic spleen. The Christian God is cruel and perverted, he says. Those Christian fundamentalists who believe Aids is the Almighty’s way of punishing gay sex clearly believe in a God who’s up in heaven thinking, ‘I’m sick of all this bumming’. And so just as God once said ‘Let there be light’, according to Gervais in the 1980s He said, ‘Let there be Aids’. What a rotter.
This isn’t the first time Gervais has made fun of God and those who believe in him. He’s famously an atheist. He talks about it all the time. (Rather too much, in my view.) But God-bashing is fine these days. Cool, even. Christians tend to take it in their stride. Believers have mostly kept their counsel following Gervais’s latest mockery of their wicked, ridiculous God.
The same cannot be said of trans activists and their allies. Not even remotely. They have responded with fury to Gervais’s blasphemy against the new god of genderfluidity.
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Cutting, yes. But also incredibly accurate. Some police forces and courts do indeed refer to rapists as ‘she’ and ‘her’, if that’s how they identify. And, as feminists have pointed out, this results in rape victims being pressured to refer to their rapist with female pronouns. As for the language, anyone who has spent more than five minutes online in recent years will know that that kind of thing is said to gender-critical women all the time.
Like all great blasphemous comics, Gervais is merely shining a light on things that really are said, and things which really do happen, and inviting us, his audience, to laugh and say: ‘Yeah, that is kind of ridiculous.’ Much as Monty Python did with the Bible, in fact.
But, say Gervais’s humourless critics, while the likes of Monty Python were punching up — against God, no less — Gervais is punching down, against vulnerable, marginalised trans people. I don’t buy this at all. Gervais has made it clear that he fully supports rights for trans people. His issue is with the excesses of trans activism and the authoritarianism of identity politics more broadly.
‘I talk about Aids, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, paedophilia’, he says in SuperNature. ‘But no, the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics.’
Absolutely. And that’s because identitarianism is the god of our times. It’s the new religion of the elites, their means of controlling and reprimanding the masses. Ridiculing identity politics is to the 21st century what questioning the authority of God was to the 15th. The woke rage against Gervais really does echo earlier outbursts of intolerant religious fury against anyone who dared to dissent from the Word of God.
—
–
—-
I was referred this subject by a tweet by Daniel Dennett which referenced a fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION and you can read my response at this link.
Ricky Gervais is a secular humanist just like his good friend Richard Dawkins and it is the humanists who have bought into this trans-identity politics and as a result the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION has stripped Dawkins of his 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR award.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979).
Let me make a few points about Ricky personally and then a few about this comedy routine by the secular humanist Ricky Gervais.
Notice below in AFTER LIFE how he suspects Anne of being a Christian when she tells him “We are not just here for us. We are here for others,“
Ricky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)
(Above) Tony (played by Ricky) and Anne on the bench at the graveyard where their spouses are buried.
In the fourth episode of season 1 of AFTER LIFE is the following discussion between Anne and Tony:
Tony: My brother-in-law wants me to try dating again.
Anne: Oh excellent! You need some tips.
Tony: why would I need some tips?
Anne: I imagine you are awful with women…Well all men are awful with women but grumpy selfish ones are the worst.
Tony: Let me take notes. This is dynamite.
Tony: I would just be honest. Tell them my situation and tell them what I am going through. Be honest up front.
Anne: So it is all about you then?
Tony: I can’t win can I? I don’t want to date again. I don’t want to live without Lisa.
Anne: But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are just here for us. We are here for others.
Tony: I don’t do the whole God thing I am afraid.
Anne: Neither do I. It is a load of rubbish. All we got is each other. We have to help each other struggle until we die then we are done. No point in felling sorry for ourselves and making everyone else unhappy too. Might as [kill] yourself if you feel that bad.
Tony: Are you sure you want to work for the Samaritans?
—
Christ came to this world and his followers have changed this world for the better more than any other group that ever existed. When Anne makes the assertions, “But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are not just here for us. We are here for others,” Tony assumes she is a Christian.
If you found yourself in a dark alley late at night, with a group of rough-looking, burly young men walking swiftly toward you, would you feel better knowing they were coming from a Bible study?
If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
I highly recommend Ricky Gervais series AFTER LIFE which is running on NETFLIX because it reminds me of King Solomon trying to find meaning in life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture!!!
God put Solomon’s story in Ecclesiastes in the Bible with the sole purpose of telling people like Ricky that without God in the picture you will find out the emptiness one feels when possessions are trying to fill the void that God can only fill.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters….
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Ricky is trying to use common sense (through sarcasm) on people that “GOD GAVE…OVER to depraved [minds]. Romans 1 states:
26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural…
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
—
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History
First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]
Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]
Transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, picked by Bud Light to promote the beer brand, isn’t just a left-wing political activist. He specializes in marketing to young kids. Pictured: Mulvaney attends opening night for “A Transparent Musical” on May 31 at Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. (Photo: Emma McIntyre/Getty Images)
Left-wing nutballs have had the upper hand in America’s culture wars for a long time. They are hyperaggressive and focused on pushing America in a radical direction. They push their agenda on school boards, in local and national political venues, and on many corporations.
To date, resistance has been isolated to a small number of dedicated conservative activists. Most Americans just want to get along whenever possible, not fight about sensitive social issues if they can help it and, most of all, not be mean to people. That’s a laudable attitude in general, but when up against radical, ideologically driven opponents, oftentimes you have to push back. If you don’t, they won’t stop.
As we have now seen, just trying to get along can end in pure insanity. That’s precisely how we ended up with little kids being taught about supersensitive sexual topics at ages when they should be playing in sandboxes.
The upper echelons of corporate America have been occupied by executives with radical political agendas. Trained in increasingly left-wing elite colleges, these managerial-class leftists have continually pushed big companies further to the left. Senior managers often go along because they don’t want the fight or because they see it as good for business.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, until now there was no real business peril in appeasing the nuts. The only consumer pressure was driven from the Left. Companies could annoy the Right without paying a price. That all seems to be changing. Normal Americans, for the very first time, seem to be screaming, “Stop!”
Anheuser-Busch and its parent company InBev, out of Belgium, are keepers of the iconic American beer brand Bud Light. If there were ever a beer associated with the American everyman, Bud Light was probably it—either that or Miller Lite. Each brewer’s marketing team knew this for decades, and they developed hilarious and creative ad campaigns to celebrate and cultivate this image.
More recently, InBev hired some younger woke American marketing executives who found all this embarrassing. In their efforts to revamp the Bud Light brand, they engaged Dylan Mulvaney, a famous transgender activist, in a marketing campaign. As of today, it looks like this move may have forever changed the dynamic between the liberals running most huge American companies and their consumers.
A few things touched a nerve with the Bud Light/Mulvaney incident. First, Mulvaney isn’t just a left-wing political activist. Mulvaney specialized in marketing to young kids. Using Barbie dolls and singing songs about being a young girl were squarely in Mulvaney’s wheelhouse. There’s something seriously wrong with that; almost any normal person would agree.
Second, soon after the controversy erupted, the beer marketing head who set it off was seen in an online video trashing Bud Light’s fratty marketing campaigns of the past and, by direct inference, trashing their very customers. The Bud Light drinkers of America had had enough. This was their brand, something that helped define them. And now the lefties couldn’t leave even that alone.
Not only that, but the corporate chieftains didn’t care enough about them to stop it. For the first time in recent memory, a mass-scale boycott from right-leaning people took hold. The revolt was on.
Sales of Bud Light have tanked by over 25%. Meanwhile, sales of rival brands are up by huge margins. Anheuser-Busch’s stock itself is down 20%. Shares for rival conglomerate Molson Coors have gone up 19% in the same period. Shifts this large for brands this huge are unheard of. And the carnage extends to other Anheuser-Busch products as well.
Where does all this end? Nobody knows. Anheuser-Busch notably has placed the marketing geniuses behind this sales carnage on leave. They still have jobs. Someone at corporate headquarters must think they can sneak them back in.
It’s not clear why someone would want to do that, given all the damage the marketers have caused to the brand and the entire company. They must be afraid of the Left, but that’s telling in itself. What happened to “know your customer”? For those of us sitting back and enjoying the show, the drama upon reinstating these failed marketing officers will be a hilarious next act.
Most interestingly with all this, it seems that regular Americans have learned just how powerful a bloc they can be. For the first time, they seem to be flexing their muscles in the marketplace.
The normal people’s revolt is now moving on to other brands. Clothing retailers Target and Kohl’s have stocked shelves with kids’ LGBTQ clothing and supported radical interest groups pushing gender transition on young children. Their customers are making them pay a price. Sales are down, and stocks are taking a huge hit. Same with Disney stock, which is down 33% since the entertainment company’s feud with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis began.
The Right was asleep at the switch as they allowed radical, left-wing activists to thoroughly take over American schools and universities. Somebody should have guessed that the result would be a takeover of the corporate management suites. But all of a sudden, there’s a price to pay for companies getting too political.
Regular Americans have had enough. They are not haters. Quite the contrary—they genuinely want to get along. But the craziness levels have gone too high, especially when it comes to the Left’s targeting young kids with overly politicized or sexual topics at a young age. That’s going to have to stop now or there will be a price to pay.
Then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson—seen here speaking at the 2022 Fox Nation Patriot Awards Nov. 17 in Hollywood, Florida—remains a much-needed voice for civilizational sanity, columnist Josh Hammer says. (Photo: Jason Koerner/ Getty Images)
I attended The Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary Gala on April 21, a sprawling and swanky affair featuring many fine presentations, a surprise Dierks Bentley mini-concert for the country music enthusiasts (yours truly among them) and an extravagant post-dinner fireworks show over the Potomac River.
But the highlight of the evening, bar none, was former Fox News star Tucker Carlson‘s electric keynote address and his (all-too-brief) colloquy on stage afterward with Heritage’s exceptional new president, Kevin Roberts. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Carlson’s speech was both wildly entertaining and poignant, at times slapstick funny and at other times humorously self-deprecating about his Episcopalian faith. But as Carlson began to reach his peroration, the key substantive takeaway he wished to impart unto his audience became clear.
The relevant political and cultural battle lines in the year 2023 are not those befitting a civil and polite discussion, where both sides are reasonable, both sides pursue their own version of the common good, and the best think tank white paper wins out in the end, Carlson cautioned. No, our current civilizational struggle is not reflective of a refined policy debate between amicable partisans; rather, it is one that implicates fundamentally distinct theological and anthropological visions of mankind—of man’s very biology and his relation with his fellow man, the state, and God Himself.
I immediately hearkened back to an interview Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams did with The Atlantic in October 2021, in which Williams had this provocative (but accurate) line about America’s contemporary fault lines: “Even during the Civil War—I think we’re more divided now than we were then. As Lincoln said, we all prayed to the same God. We all believed in the same Constitution. We just differed over the question of slavery.”
This is the precise sentiment that Carlson was getting at in his keynote speech at the Heritage gala.
We in the audience did not know it yet, at the time of Carlson’s speech—nor did Carlson, for that matter—but the broadcasting star had already given his last searing monologue for Fox News. In a stunning development, Fox News broke the news to their highest-rated host on Monday morning that he was fired.
Hopefully, Carlson will retain something approximating his exceptional level of cultural and political influence in whatever role he next serves, because his witness to truth and civilizational sanity have never been more necessary.
This is perhaps most clearly true when it comes to gender ideology and transgenderism, which is the issue most directly implicated by Carlson’s framing of America’s fundamental divide as a struggle between differing theological and anthropological conceptions of man.
Is sexual dimorphism an obvious empirical reality, rooted in Genesis 1:27, and mandating legal codification for any regime that claims a basis in truth and justice? Or is gender instead “fluid,” wherein man can replace God and change his gender on a lark, and wherein it is contemptible bigotry to deny anyone’s subjective sense of biological or sexual reality?
Tucker Carlson certainly knew his answer: He opened a memorable 2021 interview of Republican Asa Hutchinson by asking the then-governor of Arkansas, who had shamefully vetoed a bill to protect vulnerable children from the predatory scalpels of the woke-besotted medical establishment, why he had “come out publicly as ‘pro-choice’ on the question of chemical castration of children.”
Oof.
That is not a debate where the “best white paper wins.” It is a zero-sum contestation of clashing visions of the human person, rooted in diametrically opposed substantive underpinnings. And, more to the point, the forces of godlessness, paganism, and civilizational arson certainly already treat the debate over gender ideology as a vicious winner-take-all battle.
The recent mini-insurrection in Nashville, Tennessee, which followed the tragic shooting at a Christian school and the temporary expulsions of two insurrection-complicit state lawmakers, can best be understood as one elaborate attempt to distract the public from the real issue: That a transgender lunatic shot up a Christian school, and that law enforcement has thus far been unwilling to defy the transgender lobby’s not-so-thinly-veiled blackmail, opting instead to deep-six the deceased shooter’s presumptively anti-Christian manifesto.
More recently, a similar situation unfolded in Montana, where Republicans who control the state House banned a transgender lawmaker from attending or speaking during floor sessions following the lawmaker’s comment—during the debate over an anti-chemical castration bill similar to the one Hutchinson vetoed in Arkansas—that the lawmaker hoped colleagues would see “blood on [their] hands” when they bowed their heads in prayer.
Numerous protesters were arrested and forcibly removed from the legislature last week, as they agitated in favor of the uncouth transgender lawmaker.
Large swaths of the modern Left have made the fight for gender ideology and transgenderism their foremost hill to die on precisely because they are so infatuated with their own vogue anthropology and “theology” that they view the other side—the side of sanity—as wholly undeserving of the civility and respect that a normal exchange over public policy might entail.
I know this all too well, myself: My writing that invariably elicits the most protests when I speak on university campuses is a short piece I wrote a few years ago praising U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan’s admirable use of biologically correct pronouns in a judicial opinion.
I’d write the same thing again today.
But those protesters, whether in Nashville; Helena, Montana; Stanford Law School or another academic corridor, are not open to rational debate. They are not willing to be reasoned with. Rather, they know their conclusions, because they have fully imbibed a highly fashionable—if false—anthropological and “theological” conception of man.
Those of us on the side of civilizational sanity need all the help we can get in pushing back against the onslaught. Tucker Carlson, please come back soon.
“You’re calling it that, but how do you know it’s that?” Todd pressed Ramaswamy.
“Again, how do you know? Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it? Are you confident?”
“I am,” Ramaswamy replied.
“That there isn’t a spectrum?” Todd asked.
Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said on Sunday that “gender is a spectrum.”NBC News
Ramaswamy answered: “I am.”
“Do you know this as a scientist?” Todd asked.
“Well, there’s two X chromosomes if you’re a woman, and an X and a Y that means you’re a man…,” Ramaswamy said.
The two men talk over each other before Todd says: “There is a lot of scientific research that says gender is a spectrum.”
“Chuck, I respectfully disagree,” Ramaswamy said.
The GOP candidate said gender dysphoria — which is characterized by the American Psychiatric Association as “clinically significant distress or impairment related to gender incongruence” — “has been characterized as a mental health disorder and I don’t think it’s compassionate to affirm that.”
Todd made the remark during an interview with GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy.NBC News
“I think that’s cruelty,” Ramaswamy said.
“When a kid is crying out for help … you’ve got to ask the question of what else is going wrong at home,” the GOP hopeful said.
“What else is going wrong at school, let’s be compassionate and get to the heart of that rather than playing this game as though we’re actually changing our medical understanding for the last hundred years.”
Todd conceded that “the last thing [parents] want to do is consider something like [gender affirming treatments]” for their children.
“Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it?” Todd asked Ramaswamy.NBC News
“But if that is what they think could help their child pursue happiness or not to kill themselves … why take away that option?” Todd asked.
“Again, why shouldn’t it be up to the parent?”
Ramaswamy replied that “we’ve created a culture that teaches parents that they’re being bigoted or that they’re bad people if they don’t actually take those steps.”
“Gender dysphoria for the rare few people who’ve suffered it, is a condition of suffering,” he added.
“My question is why on Earth are we going out of our way to create even more of it?”
Ramaswamy has urged a ban on gender affirming treatments for people under the age of 18.NBC News
Todd’s comments sparked reaction on Twitter.
“Didn’t you know? Cable news pundits became the best TV scientists and physicians during COVID. The government talking points made them experts,” one Twitter user wrote.
Another Twitter user commented: “There is literally no real science suggesting there are more than 2 sex chromosomes.”
“This is very simple to resolve. Show us what the non-male and non-female chromosomes look like on these ‘gender spectrums’,” a Twitter user wrote.
Others on Twitter supported Todd’s assertion, citing a 2018 article by Scientific American which claimed that biologists “now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.”
Jennifer Lahl’s documentary “The Detransition Diaries,” released Monday, tracks the stories of three female detransitioners, including Helena Kerschner. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
A documentary, released Monday, unveils the stories of three women who previously identified as transgender in a futile attempt to escape depression and suicidal thoughts.
Jennifer Lahl, a former pediatric nurse and current president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, produced her most recent documentary, “The Detransition Diaries,” after a series of films highlighting bioethical issues.
Her film tracks the stories of Helena Kerschner, Grace Lidinsky-Smith, and Cat Cattinson, three women who believed their mental and emotional trauma would be solved by transitioning to the opposite sex. Each woman underwent hormone treatment and one had her breasts removed as well.
“We are following the news and the studies, and the evidence that shows this uptick in rapid-onset gender dysphoria [is something] young girls are particularly prone to,” Lahl told The Daily Signal in a phone call. Gender dysphoria refers to the condition of persistently and painfully identifying as the gender opposite one’s biological sex. “Young girls are getting sucked into this.”
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a recent phenomenon in which children and adolescents are suddenly, and without prior indication, identifying as the opposite sex.
Lahl found that her previous documentary “Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender?” struck a chord with a broad audience. Firsthand accounts of men and women who “believed they were born in the wrong body” and thought gender transition “was the solution to all their problems” resonated with thousands of people, Lahl explained.
“As documentary filmmakers, we made the editorial decision that we are going to focus on women, realizing that this applies to men too,” she remarked on her most recent film.
“The Detransition Diaries” cover. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Helena Kerschner, one of the detransitioners featured in Lahl’s film, says she struggled with depression, isolation, self-harm, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts as an early teen. She was introduced to the transgender belief system through Tumblr culture at 13.
Tumblr’s message was: “If you don’t like your body, that’s a sign you’re trans,” she notes.
After she came out as transgender, teachers and adults who never noticed her struggles before suddenly “bent over backward” to accommodate her new-found identity.
She did everything to make herself appear masculine. Eventually, Kerschner was prescribed testosterone at 18 after a single consultation at Planned Parenthood.
After a few weeks, she noticed how irritable she had become. “I couldn’t control myself,” Kerschner recalls in the documentary. When she got angry, she felt she needed to hurt someone—so she hurt herself. She eventually resorted to the emergency room, where staff directed her to the psych unit. Doctors diagnosed her with borderline personality disorder and psychosis, and sent her home with prescriptions for four different medications. She wound up in the hospital a few weeks later.
“My life became a total disaster,” she says. “I wasn’t functioning, I couldn’t hold a job, I wasn’t going to school—I felt like a monster.”
Seventeen months later, she stopped taking testosterone. Her negative symptoms vanished. During this time, not a single medical professional suggested that her hormone treatment was causing these symptoms, she remarks in the film.
Grace Lidinsky-Smith, another detransitioner featured in the film, noted that she felt a rush of energy when she first started testosterone treatment. Though she had some underlying anxiety, she told herself this was “internalized transphobia,” she says to the filmmakers.
Grace Lidinsky-Smith in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Cat Cattinson describes a similar euphoric feeling when she first went on testosterone. It was “one of the better antidepressants I had taken,” she recalls.
Cat Cattinson in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Lidinsky-Smith, unlike the other two women, went forward with a double mastectomy. Looking back, she believed she would feel better “because she’d be in a body that fit her better.” After her breasts were removed, she recalls, she looked down at the gashes on her chest. “I had the most awful feeling.”
She found others online also had an “intense, suicidal despair after surgery … and then got over it and felt better.” But the experience planted a seed of doubt, she explains. She found a testimony of another person who had transitioned from female to male. As the person described, a desire for “a small amount of masculinization” led to full-out body dysphoria.
At that point, Lidinsky-Smith stopped testosterone and slowly reversed course, eventually growing comfortable enough to use her birth name. “It became important to just accept myself as myself,” she explains.
Kershner and Cattinson described similar breaking points. Kershner realized: “This is not what I thought it would be,” adding that she believed “once I’m a boy, my confidence is gonna come out.” Instead, as she describes, she became dysfunctional.
As Cattinson explains, three months into her testosterone treatment, she found a dramatic drop in her voice. “Nothing was coming out except air and squeaks,” she describes. She stopped going to social events and performing live.
Like the other women, she found an online community of detransitioners and doctors who revealed the hidden underbelly of the trans movement.
She began questioning the basis of transgender ideology: the “idea that we should define a woman based on what’s in a person’s head,” as she describes it. Does “what you believe in your head … really trump the biological reality of being an adult female?” she wondered.
As the documentary concludes, Lidinsky-Smith notes that she is worried about those who continue to get sucked into gender transition treatment, when they can find the answer to their problems elsewhere.
All three women interviewed suffered from suicidal ideation and depression. Each believed that changing her name, pronouns, appearance, and hormones would solve her problems, yet each found her emotional state dramatically worsened as a result.
“I think the fallout will be severe,” Lidinsky-Smith notes. Remarking on the growing community of detransitioners, she adds, “Our voices can no longer be denied.”
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 Woke Zone Trilogy
John Stossel takes up for Babylon Bee and notes “Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left!”
Late night hosts like Stephen Colbert, seen speaking during the Montclair Film Festival on Oct. 23, passionately defend leftists to the point of lecturing, rather than providing comedic relief. (Photo: Manny Carabel/Getty Images)
A woman tells the cop who stopped her in a carpool lane she’s allowed to drive there because her pronouns are “they” and “them.”
That’s from a video by a conservative Christian satire site called the Babylon Bee. Their humor gets millions of views.
“Christian conservatives used to … be very dour and self-serious,” says Bee editor-in-chief Kyle Mann in my new video.
Today, he says, it’s the left who are self-serious. “They’re the ones that have trouble laughing at themselves.”
For example, late night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert passionately defend COVID-19 vaccines.
“It is a lecture,” complains Mann.
“The left used to be anti-establishment,” adds Bee actress Chandler Juliet. Now, she says, ‘They’ve become the blob. … We’re super happy to be leading the comedic conversation on the right.”
One Babylon Bee video, “The Woke Zone,” makes fun of the way the media ignored violence and arson during the George Floyd protests.
“Do you ever feel gratitude to the left that they give you so much material?” I ask.
“We have to write things that are funnier than things they’re actually doing,” Mann responds. “That makes our job very difficult.”
One Bee sketch portrays its writers struggling to find new material.
“John Kerry warns that the war in Ukraine might distract from climate change!” suggests one.
Can’t do it, explains another. “It actually happened.” Yes, Kerry really did say that.
“Cosmo magazine features a morbidly obese woman on the cover as the picture of health” and, “Math professor says ‘two plus two equals four’ is racist!” are among other ideas that can’t be used as jokes.
“A math professor really said two plus two equals four is racist?” I ask.
It’s “a colonialist, white supremacist idea,” explains Mann.
Today the Bee reaches more people than The Onion. The establishment doesn’t like that, so some people actually sic so-called fact checkers on the Bee.
One article fact-checked by Snopes was titled, “Bernie Sanders Vows To Round Up Remaining ISIS Members, Allow Them To Vote.”
“Does Snopes not understand that you’re making jokes?” I ask.
“I think that they know what our intention is,” answers Juliet. “They just don’t like us.”
Recently, Twitter banned the Bee. Their offense was tweeting an article that named Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine “Babylon Bee’s Man of the Year.”
Levine is a transgender woman. Calling her the man of the year is a joke I wouldn’t make. But it doesn’t need to be censored.
Twitter says they’ll allow the Bee back on the platform only if they delete the tweet. Mann says he won’t.
“Twitter has the capability to just delete the tweet themselves. They want us to bend the knee and be the ones to click, ‘Yes, we acknowledge hateful conduct.’ We’re not going to do that.”
Today, a lot of comedians attract sizable audiences by mocking the left. Some I found funny are JP Sears, Ryan Long and FreedomToons.
The culture is changing.
The highest rating late-night comic these days is often not Colbert, Kimmel or Fallon, but Greg Gutfeld of Fox.
Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left.
“I talk about AIDS, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, pedophilia … the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics,” says Gervais in his recent Netflix special.
Professional media critics trashed him for that. But the special was hugely popular with the public.
The Rotten Tomatoes ratings are revealing. Critics gave Gervais’ special a 29% rating, calling it “terribly unfunny” and “a detestable combination of smug and obtuse.”
Viewers gave it a 92% rating.
The same is true of Chapelle’s latest special, “The Closer.” Critics give it just 40%. The audience gives it 95%.
Clearly, many people are tired of smug, condescending humor.
I’m glad the Babylon Bee, and others, give us an alternative.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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.
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
—-
——
Before I get into the fine article by Brendan O’Neill which I present in its entirety, I wanted to quote Francis Schaeffer who spent his life examining the humanism that now Ricky Gervais embraces!
All humans have moral motions and that is why Ricky Gervais knows it is wrong to let biological men use ladies’ bathrooms!!!!!!
“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117
Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?
He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times
I have long thought that if Life of Brian came out today, it wouldn’t be Christians kicking up a fuss about it — it would be trans activists.
When Monty Python’s classic tale of a man mistaken for a Messiah came to cinemas in 1979, people of faith weren’t happy. They saw it as taking the mick out of Christ and they aired their displeasure noisily. Nuns in New York picketed cinemas. In Ireland the film was banned for eight years.
In 2022 I reckon it would be a very different story. It wouldn’t be Monty Python’s ribbing of the gospels that would outrage the chattering classes — it would be their mockery of trans people.
Life of Brian was way ahead of time. It was Terf before Terf was even a thing. There is a brilliantly observed scene in which Stan of the People’s Front of Judea — or is it the Judean People’s Front? — says he wants to become Loretta.
‘I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta’, says Stan, played by Eric Idle. When the others push back and say he can’t just become a woman, he says: ‘It’s my right as a man.’ Which was remarkably perspicacious.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters.
——
Imagine if a film or TV show did something like that today. Showed an aspiring ‘trans woman’ being mocked for not having the right body parts to be a woman. Showed a man who wants to be a woman being told — for laughs, remember — that the only thing he’s struggling against is reality.
The cancel-culture mob would kick into action. There’d be a Change.org petition, maybe even a physical protest outside the offices of the production company or streaming service that was foolish enough to broadcast such trans-poking humour. ‘Jokes kill!’, we would be told, day and night.
Hell, JK Rowling can’t even very politely say ‘men aren’t women’ without being subjected to weeks of hatred and violent threats — so heaven help the film company that tried to air a Stan / Loretta skit in these febrile times.
This week, my theory about Life of Brianin 2022 was kind of proven right. For we had the pretty extraordinary sight of Ricky Gervais getting a very free ride for his God-mocking while being dragged into the Twitter stocks for his gags about trans issues.
In his new Netflix special SuperNature, Gervais vents his atheistic spleen. The Christian God is cruel and perverted, he says. Those Christian fundamentalists who believe Aids is the Almighty’s way of punishing gay sex clearly believe in a God who’s up in heaven thinking, ‘I’m sick of all this bumming’. And so just as God once said ‘Let there be light’, according to Gervais in the 1980s He said, ‘Let there be Aids’. What a rotter.
This isn’t the first time Gervais has made fun of God and those who believe in him. He’s famously an atheist. He talks about it all the time. (Rather too much, in my view.) But God-bashing is fine these days. Cool, even. Christians tend to take it in their stride. Believers have mostly kept their counsel following Gervais’s latest mockery of their wicked, ridiculous God.
The same cannot be said of trans activists and their allies. Not even remotely. They have responded with fury to Gervais’s blasphemy against the new god of genderfluidity.
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Cutting, yes. But also incredibly accurate. Some police forces and courts do indeed refer to rapists as ‘she’ and ‘her’, if that’s how they identify. And, as feminists have pointed out, this results in rape victims being pressured to refer to their rapist with female pronouns. As for the language, anyone who has spent more than five minutes online in recent years will know that that kind of thing is said to gender-critical women all the time.
Like all great blasphemous comics, Gervais is merely shining a light on things that really are said, and things which really do happen, and inviting us, his audience, to laugh and say: ‘Yeah, that is kind of ridiculous.’ Much as Monty Python did with the Bible, in fact.
But, say Gervais’s humourless critics, while the likes of Monty Python were punching up — against God, no less — Gervais is punching down, against vulnerable, marginalised trans people. I don’t buy this at all. Gervais has made it clear that he fully supports rights for trans people. His issue is with the excesses of trans activism and the authoritarianism of identity politics more broadly.
‘I talk about Aids, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, paedophilia’, he says in SuperNature. ‘But no, the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics.’
Absolutely. And that’s because identitarianism is the god of our times. It’s the new religion of the elites, their means of controlling and reprimanding the masses. Ridiculing identity politics is to the 21st century what questioning the authority of God was to the 15th. The woke rage against Gervais really does echo earlier outbursts of intolerant religious fury against anyone who dared to dissent from the Word of God.
—
–
—-
I was referred this subject by a tweet by Daniel Dennett which referenced a fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION and you can read my response at this link.
Ricky Gervais is a secular humanist just like his good friend Richard Dawkins and it is the humanists who have bought into this trans-identity politics and as a result the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION has stripped Dawkins of his 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR award.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979).
Let me make a few points about Ricky personally and then a few about this comedy routine by the secular humanist Ricky Gervais.
Notice below in AFTER LIFE how he suspects Anne of being a Christian when she tells him “We are not just here for us. We are here for others,“
Ricky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)
(Above) Tony (played by Ricky) and Anne on the bench at the graveyard where their spouses are buried.
In the fourth episode of season 1 of AFTER LIFE is the following discussion between Anne and Tony:
Tony: My brother-in-law wants me to try dating again. Anne: Oh excellent! You need some tips. Tony: why would I need some tips?
Anne: I imagine you are awful with women…Well all men are awful with women but grumpy selfish ones are the worst.
Tony: Let me take notes. This is dynamite.
Tony: I would just be honest. Tell them my situation and tell them what I am going through. Be honest up front. Anne: So it is all about you then?
Tony: I can’t win can I? I don’t want to date again. I don’t want to live without Lisa.
Anne: But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are just here for us. We are here for others.
Tony: I don’t do the whole God thing I am afraid.
Anne: Neither do I. It is a load of rubbish. All we got is each other. We have to help each other struggle until we die then we are done. No point in felling sorry for ourselves and making everyone else unhappy too. Might as [kill] yourself if you feel that bad. Tony: Are you sure you want to work for the Samaritans? —
Christ came to this world and his followers have changed this world for the better more than any other group that ever existed. When Anne makes the assertions, “But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are not just here for us. We are here for others,” Tony assumes she is a Christian.
If you found yourself in a dark alley late at night, with a group of rough-looking, burly young men walking swiftly toward you, would you feel better knowing they were coming from a Bible study?
If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
I highly recommend Ricky Gervais series AFTER LIFE which is running on NETFLIX because it reminds me of King Solomon trying to find meaning in life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture!!!
God put Solomon’s story in Ecclesiastes in the Bible with the sole purpose of telling people like Ricky that without God in the picture you will find out the emptiness one feels when possessions are trying to fill the void that God can only fill.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters….
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Ricky is trying to use common sense (through sarcasm) on people that “GOD GAVE…OVER to depraved [minds]. Romans 1 states:
26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural…
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
—
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade. John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent Psalm 19 Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276). 2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.” 3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63). Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks? I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6 God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History
First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]
Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]
The Associated Press directs journalists to abide by transgender ideology while denying that such an ideology exists. Pictured: A protester at the Stonewall Inn on Feb. 23, 2017, in the Greenwich Village area of New York City. (Photo: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images)
Forget debates over bathrooms or pronouns. The Associated Press recently released new guidelines suppressing the very concept of transgenderism as an ideology that can be debated, while forcing that ideology on reporters in the name of promoting good journalism.
The AP is the most common stylebook among journalists and news outlets on the Left and Right, including The Daily Signal. The Daily Signal does depart from AP style when the style guide adopts ideological messaging on abortion, transgender identity, and other issues, however.
In a classic example of “1984”-style doublethink, good journalists are required to abide by transgender ideology, while denying that such an ideology exists. AP’s most recent style guide update—published Thursday—instructs them to use a person’s “preferred” pronouns, deny that sex is a biological fact recognized at or before birth, and use the euphemism “gender-affirming care” when describing experimental medical interventions that leave patients stunted, scarred, and infertile.
Reporters are to adopt wholesale the claim that a person’s internal sense of gender overrides his or her biological sex and to discount opposition to these claims.
Yet they are apparently barred from discussing the ideas behind this ideology, or the ideology itself.
The most recent update to the AP style guide is quite clear: “Do not use the term transgenderism, which frames transgender identity as an ideology.”
Yet the entire document is dripping with this ideology.
“Avoid references to a transgender person being born a boy or girl, or phrasing like birth gender,” the guide urges. “Sex assigned at birth is the accurate terminology.” The document goes on to claim that “sex is usually assigned at birth by parents or attendants, sometimes inaccurately.”
While the document acknowledges that gender—not sex—is a “social construct,” the use of the phrase “sex assigned at birth” implies that biological sex is also socially constructed, rather than a central reality of humanity that enables people to reproduce. Transgender ideology relieson muddying the waters in this way, suggesting that transgender identity is the real fact, so changing a person’s body to match a gender identity opposite his or her biological sex is “affirming,” rather than destructive.
This is an extremely controversial claim, but the AP guidelines actively suppress dissent.
The update parrots pro-transgender claims that are hotly debated in the medical community. The document states that children can take “puberty blockers,” which it describes as “fully reversible prescription medication that pauses sexual maturation.” It does not note that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved drugs such as Lupron for that purpose, nor that authorities use Lupron to chemically castrate sex offenders.
The AP guide accuses “opponents of youth transgender medical treatment” of citing “widely discredited research,” failing to note that many of the studies pro-transgender activists use to endorse experimental interventions have themselves been discredited. For example, doctors have condemned as “fatally flawed” a recent study claiming to show improvements from cross-sex hormones.
Perhaps most horrifically, the much-touted Dutch study that first gave credence to the idea of transgender medical interventions ultimately involved a male subject who died from an infection after surgeons tried to use some of his digestive tract to construct a false vagina.
While the AP guide acknowledges that “all these treatments have potential side effects,” it nonetheless endorses them. It urges reporters to “avoid the word mutilation, a politicized and subjective term often used to mischaracterize surgery.”
The document urges journalists to “avoid terms like biological sex, along with biological male and biological female, which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to refer to transgender women and transgender men, respectively.” AP argues that such terms are “redundant because sex is inherently biological.” Yet opponents of transgenderism use “biological” to emphasize the truth of biology against the very ideology AP insists journalists never mention.
In a few instances, the AP guide rightly discourages obnoxious or outdated terms like “tranny” and “transgendered.” It also urges journalists to avoid the terms “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” or the acronym “TERF,” to refer to critics of transgenderism.
However, the guidelines also discourage reporters from using “gender-critical” to describe those who oppose transgenderism, even though many advocates have consciously embraced that term.
The guidelines also encourage reporters to avoid using the term “groomer,” without acknowledging critics’ concerns that events such as Drag Queen Story Hour and LGBT lessons at young ages make children vulnerable to abuse.
The Associated Press style guide has long urged journalists to adopt a person’s preferred pronouns, regardless of biological sex, but the guide also forbids journalists from referring to “preferred or chosen pronouns,” instead using phrases such as “the pronouns they use, whose pronouns are, who uses the pronouns.”
When it comes to sports, the new AP entry urges journalists to avoid “phrasing that misgenders people or implies doubt, such as former men’s swimmer or currently competes as a woman.”
Journalists should not even imply doubt, much less actually express it.
God forbid they actually use a specific term to discuss this ideology, rather than merely adopting it wholesale.
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.
Then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson—seen here speaking at the 2022 Fox Nation Patriot Awards Nov. 17 in Hollywood, Florida—remains a much-needed voice for civilizational sanity, columnist Josh Hammer says. (Photo: Jason Koerner/ Getty Images)
I attended The Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary Gala on April 21, a sprawling and swanky affair featuring many fine presentations, a surprise Dierks Bentley mini-concert for the country music enthusiasts (yours truly among them) and an extravagant post-dinner fireworks show over the Potomac River.
But the highlight of the evening, bar none, was former Fox News star Tucker Carlson‘s electric keynote address and his (all-too-brief) colloquy on stage afterward with Heritage’s exceptional new president, Kevin Roberts. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Carlson’s speech was both wildly entertaining and poignant, at times slapstick funny and at other times humorously self-deprecating about his Episcopalian faith. But as Carlson began to reach his peroration, the key substantive takeaway he wished to impart unto his audience became clear.
The relevant political and cultural battle lines in the year 2023 are not those befitting a civil and polite discussion, where both sides are reasonable, both sides pursue their own version of the common good, and the best think tank white paper wins out in the end, Carlson cautioned. No, our current civilizational struggle is not reflective of a refined policy debate between amicable partisans; rather, it is one that implicates fundamentally distinct theological and anthropological visions of mankind—of man’s very biology and his relation with his fellow man, the state, and God Himself.
I immediately hearkened back to an interview Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams did with The Atlantic in October 2021, in which Williams had this provocative (but accurate) line about America’s contemporary fault lines: “Even during the Civil War—I think we’re more divided now than we were then. As Lincoln said, we all prayed to the same God. We all believed in the same Constitution. We just differed over the question of slavery.”
This is the precise sentiment that Carlson was getting at in his keynote speech at the Heritage gala.
We in the audience did not know it yet, at the time of Carlson’s speech—nor did Carlson, for that matter—but the broadcasting star had already given his last searing monologue for Fox News. In a stunning development, Fox News broke the news to their highest-rated host on Monday morning that he was fired.
Hopefully, Carlson will retain something approximating his exceptional level of cultural and political influence in whatever role he next serves, because his witness to truth and civilizational sanity have never been more necessary.
This is perhaps most clearly true when it comes to gender ideology and transgenderism, which is the issue most directly implicated by Carlson’s framing of America’s fundamental divide as a struggle between differing theological and anthropological conceptions of man.
Is sexual dimorphism an obvious empirical reality, rooted in Genesis 1:27, and mandating legal codification for any regime that claims a basis in truth and justice? Or is gender instead “fluid,” wherein man can replace God and change his gender on a lark, and wherein it is contemptible bigotry to deny anyone’s subjective sense of biological or sexual reality?
Tucker Carlson certainly knew his answer: He opened a memorable 2021 interview of Republican Asa Hutchinson by asking the then-governor of Arkansas, who had shamefully vetoed a bill to protect vulnerable children from the predatory scalpels of the woke-besotted medical establishment, why he had “come out publicly as ‘pro-choice’ on the question of chemical castration of children.”
Oof.
That is not a debate where the “best white paper wins.” It is a zero-sum contestation of clashing visions of the human person, rooted in diametrically opposed substantive underpinnings. And, more to the point, the forces of godlessness, paganism, and civilizational arson certainly already treat the debate over gender ideology as a vicious winner-take-all battle.
The recent mini-insurrection in Nashville, Tennessee, which followed the tragic shooting at a Christian school and the temporary expulsions of two insurrection-complicit state lawmakers, can best be understood as one elaborate attempt to distract the public from the real issue: That a transgender lunatic shot up a Christian school, and that law enforcement has thus far been unwilling to defy the transgender lobby’s not-so-thinly-veiled blackmail, opting instead to deep-six the deceased shooter’s presumptively anti-Christian manifesto.
More recently, a similar situation unfolded in Montana, where Republicans who control the state House banned a transgender lawmaker from attending or speaking during floor sessions following the lawmaker’s comment—during the debate over an anti-chemical castration bill similar to the one Hutchinson vetoed in Arkansas—that the lawmaker hoped colleagues would see “blood on [their] hands” when they bowed their heads in prayer.
Numerous protesters were arrested and forcibly removed from the legislature last week, as they agitated in favor of the uncouth transgender lawmaker.
Large swaths of the modern Left have made the fight for gender ideology and transgenderism their foremost hill to die on precisely because they are so infatuated with their own vogue anthropology and “theology” that they view the other side—the side of sanity—as wholly undeserving of the civility and respect that a normal exchange over public policy might entail.
I know this all too well, myself: My writing that invariably elicits the most protests when I speak on university campuses is a short piece I wrote a few years ago praising U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan’s admirable use of biologically correct pronouns in a judicial opinion.
I’d write the same thing again today.
But those protesters, whether in Nashville; Helena, Montana; Stanford Law School or another academic corridor, are not open to rational debate. They are not willing to be reasoned with. Rather, they know their conclusions, because they have fully imbibed a highly fashionable—if false—anthropological and “theological” conception of man.
Those of us on the side of civilizational sanity need all the help we can get in pushing back against the onslaught. Tucker Carlson, please come back soon.
“You’re calling it that, but how do you know it’s that?” Todd pressed Ramaswamy.
“Again, how do you know? Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it? Are you confident?”
“I am,” Ramaswamy replied.
“That there isn’t a spectrum?” Todd asked.
Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said on Sunday that “gender is a spectrum.”NBC News
Ramaswamy answered: “I am.”
“Do you know this as a scientist?” Todd asked.
“Well, there’s two X chromosomes if you’re a woman, and an X and a Y that means you’re a man…,” Ramaswamy said.
The two men talk over each other before Todd says: “There is a lot of scientific research that says gender is a spectrum.”
“Chuck, I respectfully disagree,” Ramaswamy said.
The GOP candidate said gender dysphoria — which is characterized by the American Psychiatric Association as “clinically significant distress or impairment related to gender incongruence” — “has been characterized as a mental health disorder and I don’t think it’s compassionate to affirm that.”
<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />Todd made the remark during an interview with GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy.NBC News
“I think that’s cruelty,” Ramaswamy said.
“When a kid is crying out for help … you’ve got to ask the question of what else is going wrong at home,” the GOP hopeful said.
“What else is going wrong at school, let’s be compassionate and get to the heart of that rather than playing this game as though we’re actually changing our medical understanding for the last hundred years.”
Todd conceded that “the last thing [parents] want to do is consider something like [gender affirming treatments]” for their children.
<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />“Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it?” Todd asked Ramaswamy.NBC News
“But if that is what they think could help their child pursue happiness or not to kill themselves … why take away that option?” Todd asked.
“Again, why shouldn’t it be up to the parent?”
Ramaswamy replied that “we’ve created a culture that teaches parents that they’re being bigoted or that they’re bad people if they don’t actually take those steps.”
“Gender dysphoria for the rare few people who’ve suffered it, is a condition of suffering,” he added.
“My question is why on Earth are we going out of our way to create even more of it?”
<img class=”i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer” role=”presentation” src=”data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />Ramaswamy has urged a ban on gender affirming treatments for people under the age of 18.NBC News
Todd’s comments sparked reaction on Twitter.
“Didn’t you know? Cable news pundits became the best TV scientists and physicians during COVID. The government talking points made them experts,” one Twitter user wrote.
Another Twitter user commented: “There is literally no real science suggesting there are more than 2 sex chromosomes.”
“This is very simple to resolve. Show us what the non-male and non-female chromosomes look like on these ‘gender spectrums’,” a Twitter user wrote.
Others on Twitter supported Todd’s assertion, citing a 2018 article by Scientific American which claimed that biologists “now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.”
Jennifer Lahl’s documentary “The Detransition Diaries,” released Monday, tracks the stories of three female detransitioners, including Helena Kerschner. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
A documentary, released Monday, unveils the stories of three women who previously identified as transgender in a futile attempt to escape depression and suicidal thoughts.
Jennifer Lahl, a former pediatric nurse and current president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, produced her most recent documentary, “The Detransition Diaries,” after a series of films highlighting bioethical issues.
Her film tracks the stories of Helena Kerschner, Grace Lidinsky-Smith, and Cat Cattinson, three women who believed their mental and emotional trauma would be solved by transitioning to the opposite sex. Each woman underwent hormone treatment and one had her breasts removed as well.
“We are following the news and the studies, and the evidence that shows this uptick in rapid-onset gender dysphoria [is something] young girls are particularly prone to,” Lahl told The Daily Signal in a phone call. Gender dysphoria refers to the condition of persistently and painfully identifying as the gender opposite one’s biological sex. “Young girls are getting sucked into this.”
Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a recent phenomenon in which children and adolescents are suddenly, and without prior indication, identifying as the opposite sex.
Lahl found that her previous documentary “Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender?” struck a chord with a broad audience. Firsthand accounts of men and women who “believed they were born in the wrong body” and thought gender transition “was the solution to all their problems” resonated with thousands of people, Lahl explained.
“As documentary filmmakers, we made the editorial decision that we are going to focus on women, realizing that this applies to men too,” she remarked on her most recent film.
“The Detransition Diaries” cover. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Helena Kerschner, one of the detransitioners featured in Lahl’s film, says she struggled with depression, isolation, self-harm, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts as an early teen. She was introduced to the transgender belief system through Tumblr culture at 13.
Tumblr’s message was: “If you don’t like your body, that’s a sign you’re trans,” she notes.
After she came out as transgender, teachers and adults who never noticed her struggles before suddenly “bent over backward” to accommodate her new-found identity.
She did everything to make herself appear masculine. Eventually, Kerschner was prescribed testosterone at 18 after a single consultation at Planned Parenthood.
After a few weeks, she noticed how irritable she had become. “I couldn’t control myself,” Kerschner recalls in the documentary. When she got angry, she felt she needed to hurt someone—so she hurt herself. She eventually resorted to the emergency room, where staff directed her to the psych unit. Doctors diagnosed her with borderline personality disorder and psychosis, and sent her home with prescriptions for four different medications. She wound up in the hospital a few weeks later.
“My life became a total disaster,” she says. “I wasn’t functioning, I couldn’t hold a job, I wasn’t going to school—I felt like a monster.”
Seventeen months later, she stopped taking testosterone. Her negative symptoms vanished. During this time, not a single medical professional suggested that her hormone treatment was causing these symptoms, she remarks in the film.
Grace Lidinsky-Smith, another detransitioner featured in the film, noted that she felt a rush of energy when she first started testosterone treatment. Though she had some underlying anxiety, she told herself this was “internalized transphobia,” she says to the filmmakers.
Grace Lidinsky-Smith in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Cat Cattinson describes a similar euphoric feeling when she first went on testosterone. It was “one of the better antidepressants I had taken,” she recalls.
Cat Cattinson in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)
Lidinsky-Smith, unlike the other two women, went forward with a double mastectomy. Looking back, she believed she would feel better “because she’d be in a body that fit her better.” After her breasts were removed, she recalls, she looked down at the gashes on her chest. “I had the most awful feeling.”
She found others online also had an “intense, suicidal despair after surgery … and then got over it and felt better.” But the experience planted a seed of doubt, she explains. She found a testimony of another person who had transitioned from female to male. As the person described, a desire for “a small amount of masculinization” led to full-out body dysphoria.
At that point, Lidinsky-Smith stopped testosterone and slowly reversed course, eventually growing comfortable enough to use her birth name. “It became important to just accept myself as myself,” she explains.
Kershner and Cattinson described similar breaking points. Kershner realized: “This is not what I thought it would be,” adding that she believed “once I’m a boy, my confidence is gonna come out.” Instead, as she describes, she became dysfunctional.
As Cattinson explains, three months into her testosterone treatment, she found a dramatic drop in her voice. “Nothing was coming out except air and squeaks,” she describes. She stopped going to social events and performing live.
Like the other women, she found an online community of detransitioners and doctors who revealed the hidden underbelly of the trans movement.
She began questioning the basis of transgender ideology: the “idea that we should define a woman based on what’s in a person’s head,” as she describes it. Does “what you believe in your head … really trump the biological reality of being an adult female?” she wondered.
As the documentary concludes, Lidinsky-Smith notes that she is worried about those who continue to get sucked into gender transition treatment, when they can find the answer to their problems elsewhere.
All three women interviewed suffered from suicidal ideation and depression. Each believed that changing her name, pronouns, appearance, and hormones would solve her problems, yet each found her emotional state dramatically worsened as a result.
“I think the fallout will be severe,” Lidinsky-Smith notes. Remarking on the growing community of detransitioners, she adds, “Our voices can no longer be denied.”
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 Woke Zone Trilogy
John Stossel takes up for Babylon Bee and notes “Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left!”
Late night hosts like Stephen Colbert, seen speaking during the Montclair Film Festival on Oct. 23, passionately defend leftists to the point of lecturing, rather than providing comedic relief. (Photo: Manny Carabel/Getty Images)
A woman tells the cop who stopped her in a carpool lane she’s allowed to drive there because her pronouns are “they” and “them.”
That’s from a video by a conservative Christian satire site called the Babylon Bee. Their humor gets millions of views.
“Christian conservatives used to … be very dour and self-serious,” says Bee editor-in-chief Kyle Mann in my new video.
Today, he says, it’s the left who are self-serious. “They’re the ones that have trouble laughing at themselves.”
For example, late night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert passionately defend COVID-19 vaccines.
“It is a lecture,” complains Mann.
“The left used to be anti-establishment,” adds Bee actress Chandler Juliet. Now, she says, ‘They’ve become the blob. … We’re super happy to be leading the comedic conversation on the right.”
One Babylon Bee video, “The Woke Zone,” makes fun of the way the media ignored violence and arson during the George Floyd protests.
“Do you ever feel gratitude to the left that they give you so much material?” I ask.
“We have to write things that are funnier than things they’re actually doing,” Mann responds. “That makes our job very difficult.”
One Bee sketch portrays its writers struggling to find new material.
“John Kerry warns that the war in Ukraine might distract from climate change!” suggests one.
Can’t do it, explains another. “It actually happened.” Yes, Kerry really did say that.
“Cosmo magazine features a morbidly obese woman on the cover as the picture of health” and, “Math professor says ‘two plus two equals four’ is racist!” are among other ideas that can’t be used as jokes.
“A math professor really said two plus two equals four is racist?” I ask.
It’s “a colonialist, white supremacist idea,” explains Mann.
Today the Bee reaches more people than The Onion. The establishment doesn’t like that, so some people actually sic so-called fact checkers on the Bee.
One article fact-checked by Snopes was titled, “Bernie Sanders Vows To Round Up Remaining ISIS Members, Allow Them To Vote.”
“Does Snopes not understand that you’re making jokes?” I ask.
“I think that they know what our intention is,” answers Juliet. “They just don’t like us.”
Recently, Twitter banned the Bee. Their offense was tweeting an article that named Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine “Babylon Bee’s Man of the Year.”
Levine is a transgender woman. Calling her the man of the year is a joke I wouldn’t make. But it doesn’t need to be censored.
Twitter says they’ll allow the Bee back on the platform only if they delete the tweet. Mann says he won’t.
“Twitter has the capability to just delete the tweet themselves. They want us to bend the knee and be the ones to click, ‘Yes, we acknowledge hateful conduct.’ We’re not going to do that.”
Today, a lot of comedians attract sizable audiences by mocking the left. Some I found funny are JP Sears, Ryan Long and FreedomToons.
The culture is changing.
The highest rating late-night comic these days is often not Colbert, Kimmel or Fallon, but Greg Gutfeld of Fox.
Even a few left-leaning comedians like Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle are mocking the intolerant left.
“I talk about AIDS, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, pedophilia … the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics,” says Gervais in his recent Netflix special.
Professional media critics trashed him for that. But the special was hugely popular with the public.
The Rotten Tomatoes ratings are revealing. Critics gave Gervais’ special a 29% rating, calling it “terribly unfunny” and “a detestable combination of smug and obtuse.”
Viewers gave it a 92% rating.
The same is true of Chapelle’s latest special, “The Closer.” Critics give it just 40%. The audience gives it 95%.
Clearly, many people are tired of smug, condescending humor.
I’m glad the Babylon Bee, and others, give us an alternative.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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.
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
—-
——
Before I get into the fine article by Brendan O’Neill which I present in its entirety, I wanted to quote Francis Schaeffer who spent his life examining the humanism that now Ricky Gervais embraces!
All humans have moral motions and that is why Ricky Gervais knows it is wrong to let biological men use ladies’ bathrooms!!!!!!
“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117
Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?
He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times
I have long thought that if Life of Brian came out today, it wouldn’t be Christians kicking up a fuss about it — it would be trans activists.
When Monty Python’s classic tale of a man mistaken for a Messiah came to cinemas in 1979, people of faith weren’t happy. They saw it as taking the mick out of Christ and they aired their displeasure noisily. Nuns in New York picketed cinemas. In Ireland the film was banned for eight years.
In 2022 I reckon it would be a very different story. It wouldn’t be Monty Python’s ribbing of the gospels that would outrage the chattering classes — it would be their mockery of trans people.
Life of Brian was way ahead of time. It was Terf before Terf was even a thing. There is a brilliantly observed scene in which Stan of the People’s Front of Judea — or is it the Judean People’s Front? — says he wants to become Loretta.
‘I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta’, says Stan, played by Eric Idle. When the others push back and say he can’t just become a woman, he says: ‘It’s my right as a man.’ Which was remarkably perspicacious.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters.
——
Imagine if a film or TV show did something like that today. Showed an aspiring ‘trans woman’ being mocked for not having the right body parts to be a woman. Showed a man who wants to be a woman being told — for laughs, remember — that the only thing he’s struggling against is reality.
The cancel-culture mob would kick into action. There’d be a Change.org petition, maybe even a physical protest outside the offices of the production company or streaming service that was foolish enough to broadcast such trans-poking humour. ‘Jokes kill!’, we would be told, day and night.
Hell, JK Rowling can’t even very politely say ‘men aren’t women’ without being subjected to weeks of hatred and violent threats — so heaven help the film company that tried to air a Stan / Loretta skit in these febrile times.
This week, my theory about Life of Brianin 2022 was kind of proven right. For we had the pretty extraordinary sight of Ricky Gervais getting a very free ride for his God-mocking while being dragged into the Twitter stocks for his gags about trans issues.
In his new Netflix special SuperNature, Gervais vents his atheistic spleen. The Christian God is cruel and perverted, he says. Those Christian fundamentalists who believe Aids is the Almighty’s way of punishing gay sex clearly believe in a God who’s up in heaven thinking, ‘I’m sick of all this bumming’. And so just as God once said ‘Let there be light’, according to Gervais in the 1980s He said, ‘Let there be Aids’. What a rotter.
This isn’t the first time Gervais has made fun of God and those who believe in him. He’s famously an atheist. He talks about it all the time. (Rather too much, in my view.) But God-bashing is fine these days. Cool, even. Christians tend to take it in their stride. Believers have mostly kept their counsel following Gervais’s latest mockery of their wicked, ridiculous God.
The same cannot be said of trans activists and their allies. Not even remotely. They have responded with fury to Gervais’s blasphemy against the new god of genderfluidity.
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Cutting, yes. But also incredibly accurate. Some police forces and courts do indeed refer to rapists as ‘she’ and ‘her’, if that’s how they identify. And, as feminists have pointed out, this results in rape victims being pressured to refer to their rapist with female pronouns. As for the language, anyone who has spent more than five minutes online in recent years will know that that kind of thing is said to gender-critical women all the time.
Like all great blasphemous comics, Gervais is merely shining a light on things that really are said, and things which really do happen, and inviting us, his audience, to laugh and say: ‘Yeah, that is kind of ridiculous.’ Much as Monty Python did with the Bible, in fact.
But, say Gervais’s humourless critics, while the likes of Monty Python were punching up — against God, no less — Gervais is punching down, against vulnerable, marginalised trans people. I don’t buy this at all. Gervais has made it clear that he fully supports rights for trans people. His issue is with the excesses of trans activism and the authoritarianism of identity politics more broadly.
‘I talk about Aids, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, paedophilia’, he says in SuperNature. ‘But no, the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics.’
Absolutely. And that’s because identitarianism is the god of our times. It’s the new religion of the elites, their means of controlling and reprimanding the masses. Ridiculing identity politics is to the 21st century what questioning the authority of God was to the 15th. The woke rage against Gervais really does echo earlier outbursts of intolerant religious fury against anyone who dared to dissent from the Word of God.
—
–
—-
I was referred this subject by a tweet by Daniel Dennett which referenced a fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION and you can read my response at this link.
Ricky Gervais is a secular humanist just like his good friend Richard Dawkins and it is the humanists who have bought into this trans-identity politics and as a result the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION has stripped Dawkins of his 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR award.
As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979).
Let me make a few points about Ricky personally and then a few about this comedy routine by the secular humanist Ricky Gervais.
Notice below in AFTER LIFE how he suspects Anne of being a Christian when she tells him “We are not just here for us. We are here for others,“
Ricky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)
(Above) Tony (played by Ricky) and Anne on the bench at the graveyard where their spouses are buried.
In the fourth episode of season 1 of AFTER LIFE is the following discussion between Anne and Tony:
Tony: My brother-in-law wants me to try dating again.
Anne: Oh excellent! You need some tips.
Tony: why would I need some tips?
Anne: I imagine you are awful with women…Well all men are awful with women but grumpy selfish ones are the worst.
Tony: Let me take notes. This is dynamite.
Tony: I would just be honest. Tell them my situation and tell them what I am going through. Be honest up front.
Anne: So it is all about you then?
Tony: I can’t win can I? I don’t want to date again. I don’t want to live without Lisa.
Anne: But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are just here for us. We are here for others.
Tony: I don’t do the whole God thing I am afraid.
Anne: Neither do I. It is a load of rubbish. All we got is each other. We have to help each other struggle until we die then we are done. No point in felling sorry for ourselves and making everyone else unhappy too. Might as [kill] yourself if you feel that bad.
Tony: Are you sure you want to work for the Samaritans?
—
Christ came to this world and his followers have changed this world for the better more than any other group that ever existed. When Anne makes the assertions, “But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are not just here for us. We are here for others,” Tony assumes she is a Christian.
If you found yourself in a dark alley late at night, with a group of rough-looking, burly young men walking swiftly toward you, would you feel better knowing they were coming from a Bible study?
If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
I highly recommend Ricky Gervais series AFTER LIFE which is running on NETFLIX because it reminds me of King Solomon trying to find meaning in life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture!!!
God put Solomon’s story in Ecclesiastes in the Bible with the sole purpose of telling people like Ricky that without God in the picture you will find out the emptiness one feels when possessions are trying to fill the void that God can only fill.
‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters….
He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’
What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’
Ricky is trying to use common sense (through sarcasm) on people that “GOD GAVE…OVER to depraved [minds]. Romans 1 states:
26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural…
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,
—
—-
Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.
Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur
–
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee
A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions.
Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.
“Yes,” Arrambide replied.
The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”
Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020. (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)
“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”
“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.
Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)
“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”
“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.
“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.
“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”
“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.
Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…
18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are(Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.
I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”
Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.
WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!
God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.
Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History
First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]
Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]
_by_David_Shankbone.jpg)
–
Ricky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)
The Daily Hatch 