—

Proverbs 16New Living Translation

16 We can make our own plans,
    but the Lord gives the right answer.

² People may be pure in their own eyes,
    but the Lord examines their motives.

³ Commit your actions to the Lord,
    and your plans will succeed.

⁴ The Lord has made everything for his own purposes,
    even the wicked for a day of disaster.

⁵ The Lord detests the proud;
    they will surely be punished.

⁶ Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin.
    By fearing the Lord, people avoid evil.

⁷ When people’s lives please the Lord,
    even their enemies are at peace with them.

⁸ Better to have little, with godliness,
    than to be rich and dishonest.

⁹ We can make our plans,
    but the Lord determines our steps.

¹⁰ The king speaks with divine wisdom;
    he must never judge unfairly.

¹¹ The Lord demands accurate scales and balances;
    he sets the standards for fairness.

¹² A king detests wrongdoing,
    for his rule is built on justice.

¹³ The king is pleased with words from righteous lips;
    he loves those who speak honestly.

¹⁴ The anger of the king is a deadly threat;
    the wise will try to appease it.

¹⁵ When the king smiles, there is life;
    his favor refreshes like a spring rain.

¹⁶ How much better to get wisdom than gold,
    and good judgment than silver!

¹⁷ The path of the virtuous leads away from evil;
    whoever follows that path is safe.

¹⁸ Pride goes before destruction,
    and haughtiness before a fall.

¹⁹ Better to live humbly with the poor
    than to share plunder with the proud.

²⁰ Those who listen to instruction will prosper;
    those who trust the Lord will be joyful.

²¹ The wise are known for their understanding,
    and pleasant words are persuasive.

²² Discretion is a life-giving fountain to those who possess it,
    but discipline is wasted on fools.

²³ From a wise mind comes wise speech;
    the words of the wise are persuasive.

²⁴ Kind words are like honey—
    sweet to the soul and healthy for the body.

²⁵ There is a path before each person that seems right,
    but it ends in death.

²⁶ It is good for workers to have an appetite;
    an empty stomach drives them on.

²⁷ Scoundrels create trouble;
    their words are a destructive blaze.

²⁸ A troublemaker plants seeds of strife;
    gossip separates the best of friends.

²⁹ Violent people mislead their companions,
    leading them down a harmful path.

³⁰ With narrowed eyes, people plot evil;
    with a smirk, they plan their mischief.

³¹ Gray hair is a crown of glory;
    it is gained by living a godly life.

³² Better to be patient than powerful;
    better to have self-control than to conquer a city.

³³ We may throw the dice,^[a]
    but the Lord determines how they fall.

John macarthur – Walking in Wisdom, Part 1 proverbs 1:7, 20; Proverbs 10:21; 12:15, Proverbs 16:22 Proverbs 22:15;

We come to Ephesians 5 verses 15 through 17, three very short verses, however in the first service we only got through verse 15. You know, it’s always hard for me to preach my whole sermon when I get all filled up at some conference and lots of things come out. And you know, believe it or not, people, I think I’m a better preacher than you know. And the reason I say that is because I’ve never really yet preached to you the sermon I planned. The ones I plan are good. The ones you get are mediocre, but that’s because I never finish. See? I have great midpoints and tremendous conclusions that I never get to. All I have is long introductions, because the conclusion I don’t get to becomes the introduction for next week’s message.

Let’s look at verses 15 to 17, Ephesians 5:15-17. “See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore, be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.” Now beloved, there’s no question in my mind but that we live in a world full of fools. It is a fool’s world. In fact, every one born into this world comes in with a terminal state of congenital foolishness, otherwise known as the sin nature. That’s how it is. Man is born a fool. Proverbs 22:15 says, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child.” Man is born in a state of foolishness. Now, you say, “What do you mean by that?” When we think of a fool we think of someone who does irresponsible acts or who speaks irresponsible words, but the Bible defines a fool as one who exists apart from God. A fool is one who exists apart from God. A wise man is one who lives in accord with God’s divine principles. That’s biblical definition for those two concepts. Man, then, is born separated from God. He is born a fool. He is born in a situation where God’s wisdom is absent.

Now let me tell you how that kind of works out. There are characteristics of foolishness and if you’ll look with me at Psalms and Proverbs for a moment I’ll try to show you some that may sum up. Much of the book of Proverbs deals with the fool. In fact, you’d need to do a very detailed study of all 31 chapters to have a comprehensive view, but let me see if I can just extract a few thoughts and also at least one from Psalms and try to paint for you a portrait of a fool. First of all Psalm 14:1 gives us a basic definition for a fool. Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” All right? Now that’s the beginning of it all, and it isn’t necessarily that this is only intellectual. This is what I would call practical atheism. Even though the fool may know in his mind intellectually there is a God, he lives as if there is not and that’s why the next verse or the next line of the same verse says, “They are corrupt. They have done abominable works.” In other words, this kind of atheism results in corruption. It is a practical atheism.

So the first thing that is characteristic of a fool is that he lives a life which by its function denies God. It is an anti-God way of living and that is the way it is with people. They come into the world and they live anti-God life. They cannot know the things of God. In fact, to a fool, 1 Corinthians 2:14 says the things of God are – what? – foolishness. “The natural man understandeth not the things of God, they are foolishness to him.” You see to a fool foolishness is wisdom and wisdom is foolishness. And so the first characteristic of a fool is that he practically denies God. In other words, God has no binding force on him. The law of God does not bind the conscience of a fool. He is pragmatically atheistic. He lives apart from God.

The second thing: No man can live without a god. It isn’t a question of do you worship; it is only a question of whom do you worship? Everybody bows somewhere. And so if there is no true God, man will inevitably substitute a false god, which in all cases will tend to be a god of his own creation. That is Proverbs 12:15, the second characteristic of a fool because he denies the true God he inevitably becomes his own god. Proverbs 12:15, says, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.” And so he then becomes the one who determines truth and error. He then becomes the one who articulates for his own way of living right and wrong.

Now as a result of this, as a result of denying God, as a result of setting himself up as God, he will inevitably mock sin. He will mock sin. In 14:9 of Proverbs, “Fools make a mock of sin.” Fools make a mock of sin. He makes his own rules; and he wants to justify his own behavior; and he wants to make sure he’s going to be all right in the end, so he eliminates sin with its consequences. A fool then begins by practically living as if there were no God substituting himself as God and suggesting his own style of life, and then denying that there is such a thing as sin because he cannot tolerate guilt.

Now, inevitably a fool goes one step further. Not only does he deny God in himself, become his own God in himself, mocks sin in himself, but he has a dramatic effect on other people, because when he talks he always talks about his own opinions. chapter 15:2, “The tongue of the wise uses knowledge aright, but the mouth of fools pours out foolishness.” I mean, let’s face it, you got a bitter fountain you’re going to get bitter water. Right? You got a rotten tree you’re going to get rotten fruit. And when a fool opens his mouth you’re not going to get wisdom, you’re going to get foolishness. And so this is talking not so much about his own attitude internally, but his effect, and so there is a propagation of foolishness. He denies God; he becomes his own God; he mocks sin, and he speaks on his own authority. He generates his own opinions, and that we see all around us. The world is full of the opinion of fools. Fools who have denied God in their living, who have become their own gods and who mock sin as to its reality and its consequences.

And then in chapter 16 verse 22 of Proverbs it says that he is busy instructing others in the same foolishness. At the end of verse 22, “The instruction of fools is folly.” The instruction of fools is folly. Here you have the picture of the unregenerate man as he is described as a fool. He is a fool because he denies God practically. He is a fool because he becomes his own god, the ultimate sin; he has broken the commandment of God. He is a fool because he mocks sin. He is a fool because he lives life based on his opinion, and he is a fool in the greater sense, because he contaminates the rest of society with the same foolishness which damns his own soul. He leaves it as a legacy to his own children. He leaves it as a legacy to his friends. He leaves it as a legacy to the classes of people that he teaches. He leaves it as a legacy to all those who fall under of the influence of his folly.

Now summing this up I think there is a good word in Proverbs chapter 1 and this just sums it up very simply. Verse 7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but” – here it is – “fools despise wisdom.” Let me stop right there. That is the heart of the matter. You see, wisdom in Proverbs means living by divine standards. That’s what it means, and it implies accepting divine truth. Wisdom implies that you accept divine truth and you live by it. It is living by divine standards. But a fool hates that. He rejects that. He despises that.

You say, well what happens to a fool? What happens to one who denies God, substitutes himself, mocks sin, spins out his own opinions and contaminates others, who ultimately and in summary fashion rejects divine wisdom, does not live by divine standards? What happens to him? Look down at verse 20, Proverbs 1. “Wisdom cries outside, she utters her voice in the streets, she cries in the chief place of concourse in the openings of the gates. In the city she uttereth her words saying, ‘How long, ye simple ones, will you love simplicity and scoffers delight in their scoffing, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof. Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.’” In other words here is a great invitation. Here is God – as it were, here is Christ in the New Testament – in the streets of the city of Jerusalem crying out of wisdom, crying out of an invitation to the fools and the simpletons and the scoffers. But verse 24 says, “But because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded. But ye have set at naught all my counsel.” In other words, you have made it zero, you have rendered it useless. “And you would have none of my reproof, then I will laugh at your calamity. I will mock when your fear comes. When your fear cometh as desolation and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer. They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me, because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would have none of my counsel. They despised all my reproof. Therefore, shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.” That is the end of it all. That is to die a fool.

Solomon said it in Proverbs 10:21, “Fools die for lack of wisdom.” We hear and could hear more at grave after grave after grave, funeral after funeral after funeral, the words of David over dead Abner, “Died he as a fool dies,” because men die as fools. They live; they die as fools – congenital, terminal foolishness. You say, well what can be done about it? Well as we saw in Proverbs 1, wisdom cries out for people to turn. There is available wisdom. Solomon or the preacher of Ecclesiastes in chapter 9:1 says the wise are in the hand of God. And to all generations and to every generation God reaches out His hand and offers to take men out of a kingdom of fools into a kingdom of the wise. Salvation is the only thing that can change this.

Now listen to me, in 2 Timothy 3:15, the Apostle Paul was reminding Timothy of his heritage. This is what he said, “And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures” – watch this – “which are able to make thee wise unto salvation.” Now there’s the key. Wisdom is found in the knowledge of scriptural truth, which brings salvation. You see? It is the saving act that brings wisdom. The only thing that can cause an individual to cease being a fool and become wise is salvation – salvation. When you became a Christian you became wise. When you became a Christian you stopped being a fool and you became one of God’s wise children.

Now remember this, wisdom is not just head knowledge. Wisdom is not in the Greek sense. The Greeks thought of wisdom as sophistries, sophos, just spinning off theories that had no relation to life, that had no practical implication. Wise people were people who could spin off theories. They were intellectuals, philosophers. But that’s Greek. The Hebrew mind never conceived of wisdom in theory. It only conceived of wisdom in behavior. And when you become a Christian, it’s not just a change in theory – though it is that. It is a change in what you know, but more it is a change in how you live. Do you see? You did not know God. You denied God. You put yourself up as God. You mocked sin. You spewed out your own opinion and you corrupted society.

You become a Christian, immediately you do know God. You take yourself off the throne and worship only Him. You confess sin; you don’t mock it. When you speak you speak the oracles of God, as Peter says. And when you instruct others it is the divine truth that you speak. Big difference. You live a wise life. And all the Apostle Paul is saying in our text is this, look, if you used to be a fool, but you’ve been made wise in Christ, then for Christ’s sake walk as wise. You see? It’s the same message, people, we’ve been getting all through Ephesians. If this is who you are, then this is how you live. Do you see? He’s been saying it all along. When you became a Christian you came out of foolishness into wisdom. It’s another element of the worthy walk.

Look at Ephesians – again at verse 1 of chapter 4, and I’ll remind you of what we’ve been saying every week to get our context straight. In the first three chapters of Ephesians, Paul gives our position. He describes us. This is who you are. And then in verse 14 to 21 of chapter 3, it’s kind of a turn on. You put in the ignition and get going. In other words, this is who you are, now start your motor. And then starting in chapter 4 you begin to move, and when you move you walk, verse 1, worthy. This is the walk. Your ignition is in 14 to 21; you’re started, and now you’re moving in chapter 4. And he says, here’s how to walk. It’s a worthy walk. And then he gives the ingredients of the worthy walk. Verses 1 to 3 it’s a walk in all lowliness; it’s a humble walk. Verses 4 through 16, it is a unity walk. We are to build unity. Verse 13 nails that down. From chapter 4:17-32, it’s a different walk. We’re not to walk as the Gentiles. From chapter 5 verses 1 through 7, it is a love walk. Chapter 5:8-14, it is a light walk, not darkness but light. And now 15 to 17 of chapter 5, a wise walk.

And what he’s saying in all these is you’re different. The world cannot walk humbly. It’s a mad fight for everybody’s rights. They don’t know the meaning of humility. The world cannot walk in unity. It celebrates its differences; it exalts its disparities. It makes an entire structure based on difference, divergence, differing opinions. And the world can’t love, because it doesn’t have the life of God; and God is love, and apart from Him there’s no real love. And the world can’t know light because it is in itself a system of self-damning darkness. And beloved, I would add that the world can’t know wisdom because the wisdom of God is hidden from the mind of man.

Paul said it, “They’re ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” It’s incredible. I was sharing with a convention two weeks ago and I told them that if all of man’s knowledge equaled one inch, if all that we know of man’s knowledge from the beginning of recorded history to 1845, that entire sweep of history from the beginning of man’s recorded history to 1845 equaled one inch, what we’ve learned from 1845 to 1945 would be three inches and what we’ve learned from 1945 to 1975 would be the height of the Washington Monument. We know a lot, but we don’t know God’s wisdom. Not our society, because the wisdom of God is unattainable to a fool.

But we as Christians, you see, we can be humble. We can walk in unity. We can walk different. We can walk in love. We can walk in light, and we can walk in wisdom. And the whole point Paul is making is you are these things so live it out. You see? He’s calling for a peculiar people. He’s calling for us to be different, and we have been crushed and shoved into the whole milieu of the world, so we can hardly call ourselves distinct in this generation unless we get back to some of these basics.

I am literally appalled at what goes on in the church. I had a pastor tell me the other day they surveyed – this is an evangelical church not far from here – the pastor surveyed the people in their church and over 75 percent of all the young married people – rather the premarital people that came for counseling, people that want to get married, over 75 percent of them admitted in a survey that they were living together before they were married. You see we have fallen prey to the whole ugly system, and Paul’s letter comes ringing down the corridors of 1978 and it ought to be a rebuke to a church that has found itself married to the world. That’s what he’s trying to say, you’re different. You are different. You are no fools. You are wise. Now walk as wise.

Now a believer who walks in wisdom knows three things and that’s the three-point outline that we’re going to study today and next time.He knows three things: He knows his life’s principles; he knows his limited privileges; and he knows his Lord’s purposes. To put it another way, he knows what the rules are for his life. He knows what God has laid out. Secondly, he knows he has a limited time to fulfill it. And thirdly, he knows specifically what God wants him to do. It’s a very simple statement, but it’s one of the most profound in the entire book of Ephesians. He knows his life’s principles, his limited privileges, and his Lord’s purposes. These are the characteristics of a wise walking Christian.

Let’s look just at the first one in verse 15. “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise.” Not asophos but sophos, two opposites. The wise person knows the principles that God has given for living. All right? The wise person – that’s what he’s saying. You know these things, so walk by them. Now let me show you something. The first two words here are, “See then,” and that takes us backwards. That’s just like, “Therefore.” And you go back to verse 14 and you read this invitation: “Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” Now that’s an invitation to get saved. Remember I told you last time that at the end of his message Paul gave an invitation in that little section there and that’s it. And now he’s saying look if you are those who have come alive from the dead, if you are those who have come awake from sleep, if you are those who are now in the light, not the darkness, then walk wisely. In other words, it’s based on what salvation did for you. Because you are saved you are to walk in wisdom.

Now I want you to hang on to that. That’s a very important truth. He says, because you are saved, you are to walk in wisdom. And somebody immediately might say, “Well now wait a minute. Just being saved, you know, you’re so new and you don’t know very much how can you walk in wisdom?” How could you say, “Now that you are saved walk circumspectly, not as fools, knowing the will of God?” Say man, don’t you kind of grow into that? Aren’t the wise people, the white hairs? You know, the old saints, the people that have been saved a long time? I mean you can’t get real wise right off the bat. Oh, I think you’ve missed the point if you think that. He’s saying here, “Since you are awake, alive, and in the light you can walk wisely.” You say, John, do you mean that you get enough wisdom when you’re saved to be able to be responsible for your whole life? That’s right. I believe that. I believe that the moment you’re saved, there’s a deposit of wisdom in you that renders you absolutely responsible for your behavior.

Let me show you why I say that. Look at 1 Corinthians chapter 1 and verse 30, 1 Corinthians 1:30. You know there are some people who say, “Well what we need to do is get them saved and then later on they can recognize their sin and repent and get straightened out.” There are people who believe that. No, I don’t think so. I think what we’ll see here will show you why we can’t take that view. 1 Corinthians 1:30 says this, “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” Now watch this – when you receive Jesus Christ, He was made unto you wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption. All four of those things simultaneously became yours.

By the way isn’t it interesting that wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification precede – what? – redemption. It isn’t that you’re redeemed and later on you get wise and later on you get righteous and later on you get sanctified. You, at that moment of salvation, are wise, righteous, set apart, because you’re redeemed. You see the order is tremendous there. Beloved, I believe with all my heart that the moment you’re saved the wisdom of God takes up residence in you and you become accountable. Listen to this one, Colossians 2:3. Don’t look it up, just listen. “Christ in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Did you get that? Where are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge? In Christ, and you are in Christ. Consequently, Colossians 2:10 says, “You are complete in Him.” The moment you come to Christ, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption, comes. It’s a whole gift within salvation.

You cannot have a salvation without wisdom. You cannot have a salvation without righteousness. You cannot have a salvation without sanctification. And that’s my complaint today with this kind of easy believism, cheap grace, quickie salvation. Everybody get born again, and there’s no real consideration of the reality of it. We just say if we can just get them to believe in Jesus and do some little deal then they’re okay and later on we’ll talk about righteousness and sanctification and wisdom. No! They are synonymous. Christ has made unto us those things. And I really believe that at the point of salvation you receive Him in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Let me show you another verse that says the same thing, and these are only samples, but Titus 2:11 is another good one. Titus 2:11, says this: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared to all men.” Now we’re talking about salvation here in this text, being saved, and we’re talking about God’s grace as applied in salvation and how it touches all those people who are redeemed. The ‘all’ here would be somewhat qualified. Now this grace that brings salvation, verse 12 says, “Teaches us” – now isn’t this amazing. Just the very saving grace teaches us some things. What? “Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, godly in this present age.” Listen people, salvation alone teaches you that much. You can’t say, well I’m saved, but I just don’t know what it means. No, if you’re saved, the salvation itself teaches you to deny ungodliness, worldly lusts, live soberly, righteously, godly in this present age. That much you get when you’re saved.

Now what I’m saying is this, that if you’re redeemed, beloved, you possess wisdom. You don’t have to wait until you’ve been saved ten years, five years, forty years. You don’t have to – it’s yours. But it’s like that blessed dissatisfaction of the beatitude that we studied last Sunday night. It’s like that hungering and thirsting after righteousness. You’ll be filled, but within it there’s a blessed dissatisfaction because no matter how much of God’s wisdom you have, there’s always the hunger for – what –? for more. And so the Bible promises that that’s possible too. The Bible tells us we have all we need and yet there’s more if we desire it. We can reach out to more, further and further. Ephesians chapter 1, we remember that the apostle Paul said – when we first started out this letter – that when God came into our lives, we were redeemed through his blood. We received the forgiveness of sins, verse 7, “According to the riches of His grace, and He abounded toward us in all wisdom.” Right at the moment of salvation God abounded to us in all wisdom. No Christian is irresponsible for what he does. You’re responsible. It was there granted to you.

In fact, in 1 John 2:20, it says when you were saved, you received an anointing from God and you know all things. It says in verse 27, that we receive an anointing from God who teaches us all things, and we don’t need to have human teachers telling us human philosophy, because the very Holy Spirit of God teaches us to abide in Him all things. Listen, we have wisdom, people. And it is on that basis, you see, that we possess wisdom in salvation by Christ. We are no more fools; we are wise. And on that basis Paul says, “Walk as wise.” Live it out. That’s the point.

Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t get more wisdom. We should. We should. We should grow in grace. We should grow in the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We should be more and more conformed to the Lord Jesus Christ. We should allow the Spirit of God to transform us into His image. There should be an increasing wisdom. There should be an increasing godliness, but the principles are the same, the principles we know. The Spirit of God works in our consciences. Even though you may not know all the things in the Bible, God’s Spirit resident in you from the moment of salvation will convict and convince of righteousness and sin.

You say, John, what if I want more wisdom? And I hope you do. I hope you do. I hope you never – even though you’re filled with God’s wisdom from the moment of salvation, there’s a sense in which you want more. You want to reach out for more. It’s available to you. Why listen, the fear of the Lord is only the beginning of – what? – of wisdom. It’s only the beginning. There’s so much more. You say, how do I get more? James 1:5, “If any man lack wisdom, let him” – what’s the next word? – “ask.” Let him ask. God will give it and He withholds none. You can have it. It’s available. Ask. And the Apostle Paul said that, he’d warned every man and teach every man that he may present every man perfect in all wisdom. Another good way to get it, not just ask, sit under somebody who’s got it. Right? Study the Bible yourself. Study to show yourself approved under God. Gain wisdom from study. There’s more, but you have enough to be responsible. And so Paul says, “Don’t claim ignorance.” He who is wisdom is in you, therefore walk circumspectly.

Can I talk about that for a minute? Walk means daily conduct, daily pattern, daily life. This was always the Jewish concept – behavior, not theory. Look at the word circumspectly. Powerful word. Let me tell you what it means. It means accurately – now get this or you’ll miss the next ten minutes – accurately, carefully, and exactly. That’s what it means. To circumspect is to look carefully from side-to-side, to be very alert to what is going on. You need to walk very alert. You’re literally walking through a minefield in the world, and you can’t just go traipsing through it like you were lollygagging in a meadow full of daisies. You are walking a walk in a system in the world that demands that you walk circumspectly, carefully, exactly, and accurately, and that’s precisely what our Lord Jesus meant in Matthew 7:13 when He said narrow is the gate and narrow is the way. It is compressed; it is narrow; and you must watch where you go.

I’ll never forget when I was a kid up at Forest Home, I was walking across the river – the creek – on a log and you really needed to walk carefully and watch where you were going to miss little pieces of branches that were sticking out of this old log. Somebody called to me and I had on my bathing suit and I didn’t watch where I was walking and I hit my toe on a piece of a branch sticking out and I fell into a bush of nettles. That is nothing compared to what it is for a Christian to walk without searching exactly and carefully where he steps. The wise Christian is a careful individual. He follows with great care, meticulously charting his course – watch – according to life principles designed by God. He does not fall off into the nettles of the system. He does not stub his toe on the obstacle that Satan puts in his path. The NIV translates this, “Be very careful how you live.” You have the wisdom. You are alive. You are arisen. You are in the light. You have God’s wisdom resident; now live that way. Similarly Paul says to the Philippians, “Let your conduct be as becometh the gospel of Christ.” Your walk should match your position. You should be able to add to your position – as Peter says, “You should add virtue and to virtue wisdom.” Walk in wisdom.

Beloved, we are far too wise and far too accountable to walk like fools. But when a Christian sins, when a Christian falls into the garbage of the world that Paul has talked about in the past two or three sections of Ephesians, he plays the fool. You see? The fool, needlessly. There’s no excuse for that. And Titus talks about it in chapter 3 verse 3, and I want you to listen to this. This is tremendous. “For we ourselves also were once foolish.” And that’s true. Once we were and our foolishness manifested itself, he says, in “disobedience, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures.” Now that’s the way a fool lives. He disobeys God. He is deceived about the truth. He serves his lusts. He’s guided by his own desires and his pleasures. He lives for pleasure. He lives in evil, it says, and in envy and he is hateful, and he hates one another. That’s the way we used to be as fools, “But after the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared” – there was a change – “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” And that was the change. “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. And He shed on us abundantly, this through Jesus Christ. He justified us freely by His grace.” And then he says this – since we’ve had this dramatic change – we once were foolish and then this happened – listen to this – “This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that you affirm constantly” – every day – “that they who have believed in God might be” – watch – “careful to maintain good works.” You see the point? The transformation demands that we with care live our lives.

In fact in the very next verse he says you better avoid the foolish – you better avoid the foolish. There’s no excuse for a Christian to lower himself to the level of the fool. Listen you are Solomon on the throne. You are the wisest of the wise. Why would you play the court jester? Even hypocritical Saul, when Saul was faced with being caught in his own sin, cowered with his own guilt, and he cried out to David, “I have played the fool,” 1 Samuel 26:21. And David himself, in 2 Samuel 24, got to thinking he was pretty great, got to thinking the world ought to know how great he was, so he decided he’d number all the people and count up everybody and really make a big impression. So he numbered everybody and he got his heart all puffed up. And then God poured a conviction on his heart like hot oil and it just burned, and 2 Samuel 24 says that, “His heart smote him after he’d numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly in what I have done. And now I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Thy servant, for I have done very foolishly.’” He played the fool.

Moses looked out to a people, a belligerent people, the people Israel, who so many times had failed God, and he says in Deuteronomy 32 in his song, “O foolish people and unwise.” You know something? Christians play the fool. You know how you can play the fool? First way: Two apostles on the road to Emmaus. Jesus appears beside them, and they’re moaning and groaning because their Lord is dead. And He says to them, “Oh fools. Why slow of heart to believe all that was written.” First way to be a fool is not believe. Just don’t believe this book. Just don’t take God at His word. You’re a fool. You’re playing a fool. And even Christians say, “Well I now the Bible says that, but I don’t know if it will work.” You can play the fool by not believing, so I say you can play the fool by disbelief.

Secondly, you can play the fool by disobedience. Galatians chapter 3, Paul says to the Galatians, verse 1, “O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth?” Who messed you up? You started out so well, and then you got into this works stuff. See? So you can play the fool by disbelief and by disobedience. And you can play the fool by desire for the wrong things. In 1 Timothy chapter 6 it says that if you desire money, you will fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts. You desire the wrong things, you play the fool. And further you can play the fool, James says, chapter 3 versus 13 to 17, by doing the wrong things. So it’s a matter of disbelief, disobedience, desire, and doing the wrong things. He says, “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge? Let him show out of a good life his works with meekness and wisdom.” A fool disbelieves, disobeys, desires the wrong thing, does the wrong thing.

And you know it’s a sad thing you see so many Christians that way. This is incredible. There are Christians who do not really take God at His word. They don’t believe this book. They say that they do. They probably sign on the dotted line, but it has no implication in their life. They don’t take God at His word. There are Christians who disobey, and all Christians sometimes disobey. There are Christians who desire the things of the world. There are Christians whose life works do not manifest wisdom, and Paul is saying this makes no sense. Why should Christians live as blind, ignorant, foolish people when we have wisdom? Jesus said it – our Lord said it in John 7:17, “If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” If you really want to do God’s will, you’ll never be in doubt. People say, “Well I’m such a new Christian.” If you really want to know God’s will, you’ll never be in doubt.

I love how Paul put it at the end of the book of Romans, chapter 16 and verse 19, he said, “I would have you wise unto that which is good and foolish concerning evil.” If you got to be a fool at all be a fool about evil, will you? Don’t study that. Don’t get to the place where you’re an expert on that. And so Paul is calling us to walk in wisdom.

Let me draw us together by saying this. It amazes me how devoted we are in our human society, in our world, to the stuff that we think is important. I look at Communists, you know, who live in rigid conformity to certain things. And boy if they really believe that ideology, man they’ll sell their souls and they’ll get just get so narrow and they’ll walk circum-, and they won’t fowl up and they won’t goof up. Boy, they’ll tow the mark. And I look at people in cults and sects and -isms and -shisms and all that other garbage that’s going on, and boy I’ll tell you I see the Moonies and the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses, and man they’ve got rigidity that’s incredible. And they walk so circumspectly according to the principles dictated to them and they conform and if they tell them that they can’t get married or they can’t be with their wife, they separate them – some of these cults do – and they make them live in abstinence from physical relationships. And they give them weird diets, and they go on fasts, and they do all this stuff. And man they conform to that stuff.

And then I see the religionists – I’ll never forget when I was a little kid seeing a guy lying on a bed of nails thinking that he was attaining something in a religious way because he was on a bed of nails. And you’ve seen the people run through the coals, and you say to yourself, “Man this is tremendous self-discipline.” And in our society today we’ve got people who are incredible about dieting and running and fasting. It’s amazing the self-discipline. I look back at my life, a life full of athletics where I disciplined by body in ways that were just amazing. I look at it now and I can’t believe I was that dumb. I withheld from myself all kinds of – it’s incredible. We’ve got so much discipline for stuff. I know people that can’t bother to read the Bible every day, but man they’ll run three miles. I know people who can’t discipline themselves to feed on the Word of God, but boy they can make themselves a diet that’ll take two hours to prepare every meal. Of course, we’re all bound at the shrine of the body.

There’s a lovely young lady in our church – I was running one time out at the university, now and then I run. Not all the time. But anyway Matt was playing football out there one day and practicing with this team he’s on, and so I was running around the track and I ran into her and she began to talk to me. She told me she ran 15 miles a day, and she said she was a nationally ranked distance runner and we had a nice conversation. I was fascinated by this, and so she was telling me how Christ has just come into her life and changed her life here at Grace Church. And Dr. Sam Brittan has such an impact on her life at the university there, and she was really thrilled about Jesus Christ. Just all new to her, really exciting. And she was devoted to running and discipline, boy, and she was going to run in the nationals and all this.

After I preached this morning at the first service, the same girl came up to me and she could hardly walk, and she has lost all the ability. She has some disease that they can’t even trace and she can barely walk. And she said, “Do you have a minute I can talk to you?” I said, “Sure.” She said, “Do you remember who I am.” And I kind of looked and I knew I remembered, but I couldn’t remember the name. She told me and I as kind of surprised because she looked different. She said, “You know,” she said, “This morning God spoke to me.” She said, “I had all that discipline for running, and when the running came to an end, I didn’t know what to do with the discipline.” She said, “After the message this morning, I know what to do with the discipline, and that is to discipline my life to live according to His principles.” She got the message. That’s the priority of life. The wise Christian, see, knows what pleases God, watches for Satan’s traps, resists the devil, defeats temptation, is selective about behavior, and so he doesn’t walk as a fool – asophos – but as wise. That’s living by God’s principles. And you know something? You’d better get at it, my friend, because the next verse says you have limited privileges. That’s for next time. Let’s pray.

Father, we know that the pressure is on us to live according to Your standards now because we must redeem the time, for the days are evil. Father, help us to walk that narrow path circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, applying that wisdom, which is granted to us in Christ. Father, I pray for any who might be here who do not know Christ, so today they might step out of the foolishness of the world and sin into the wisdom of God by taking the gift of salvation. I pray, too, for Christians who have been playing the fool like Saul and David, Israel, and those on the Emmaus Road and like the Galatians and the rich. I pray, Lord, that all of us would be aware that You want us to walk as wise for Your glory, for one, and for our blessing, for two. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

Related posts:

Seeing Jesus in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job

July 16, 2013 – 1:28 am

Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 10) Summing up Proverbs study

May 30, 2013 – 1:06 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 9) “Love your neighbor”

May 28, 2013 – 1:23 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 8) “Manage your money”

May 23, 2013 – 1:35 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 7) “Pursue your work”

May 21, 2013 – 1:05 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 6) “Enjoy your wife and watch your words”

May 16, 2013 – 1:23 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Tagged Gene Bartow, John Wooden | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 5) “Control your body”

May 14, 2013 – 1:44 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 4) “Bad company corrupts…”

May 9, 2013 – 1:10 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 3) “Guard your mind and obey your parents!!”

May 7, 2013 – 1:43 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. It is tough to guard your […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

John MacArthur on Proverbs (Part 2) What does it mean to fear the Lord?

May 2, 2013 – 1:13 am

Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. What does it mean to fear […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

The Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes

July 8, 2013 – 12:01 am

Ecclesiastes 6-8 | Solomon Turns Over a New Leaf Published on Oct 2, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 30, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Why is Solomon so depressed in Ecclesiastes? by Brent Cunningham

July 3, 2013 – 7:00 am

Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Robert Leroe on Ecclesiastes (Mentions Thomas Aquinas, Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, King Solomon, King Rehoboam, Eugene Peterson, Chuck Swindoll, and John Newton.)

June 19, 2013 – 1:30 am

Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes

June 11, 2013 – 1:55 am

Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Ecclesiastes: Solomon with Life in the Fast Lane

June 3, 2013 – 1:19 am

Ecclesiastes 6-8 | Solomon Turns Over a New Leaf Published on Oct 2, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 30, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Ecclesiastes a scathing and self-deprecating attack on hedonism and secular humanism by Solomon

May 31, 2013 – 1:17 am

Ecclesiastes 4-6 | Solomon’s Dissatisfaction Published on Sep 24, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 23, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider ___________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Solomon was right in his cynicism–unless……unless there is a God who created us and cares about us

May 22, 2013 – 1:34 am

Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

The Humanist takes on Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes

May 20, 2013 – 1:13 pm

Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Tom Brady , Coldplay, Kansas, Solomon and the search for satisfaction (part 3)

December 23, 2011 – 11:12 am

Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. _______________________ Tom Brady ESPN Interview Tom Brady has famous wife earned over 76 million dollars last year. However, has Brady found lasting satifaction in his life? It does not […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Adrian Rogers on gambling

July 18, 2013 – 12:44 am

Adrian Rogers: How to Be a Child of a Happy Mother Published on Nov 13, 2012 Series: Fortifying Your Family (To read along turn on the annotations.) Adrian Rogers looks at the 5th commandment and the relationship of motherhood in the commandment to honor your father and mother, because the faith that doesn’t begin at home, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Book of Ecclesiastes

July 17, 2013 – 1:40 am

Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular humanist man […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Adrian Rogers: Are fathers necessary?

July 16, 2013 – 12:43 am

Adrian Rogers – How to Cultivate a Marriage Another great article from Adrian Rogers. Are fathers necessary? “Artificial insemination is the ideal method of producing a pregnancy, and a lesbian partner should have the same parenting rights accorded historically to biological fathers.” Quoted from the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, summer of 1995. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Tom Brady, Coldplay, Kansas, Solomon and the search for satisfaction (part 2)

December 22, 2011 – 11:56 am

Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. To Download this video copy the URL to http://www.vixy.net ________________ Obviously from the video clip above, Tom Brady has realized that even though he has won many Super Bowls […]

—

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

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

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

Thanks for the insights.

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

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

db

—

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

Warren then insults atheists by insisting that those of us who do not hold his beliefs lead empty lives: “Without God, life has no purpose, and without purpose, life has no meaning. Without meaning, life has no significance or hope.”13 What planet is Reverend Warren living on? It seems he hasn’t met many atheists. He doesn’t know that hundreds of millions of good people do not “begin with God,” do not believe in a god, yet live full meaningful lives.

Rick Warren at Saddleback Church Buenos Aires in 2016

I have worked with many people in the past that I disagree with on many issues, but we find common ground. Dr. Paul D. Simmons and Dr. John George both were totally against what David Barton stood for, but they teamed up with me to help me get Barton’s UNCONFIRMED QUOTE LIST out to people who needed to be corrected by it!!!

(Dr. Paul D. Simmons pictured below)

I am a conservative Republican and I have confronted over 30 religious right authors over their misuse of disputed quotes. (The article below has been recommended by unlikely advocates such as the atheist Farrell Till of the Skepitcal Review.)

Robert Alley

(Update: You will notice in the section labeled “Fake Quotes” that I linked a comment by the late Dr. Robert Alley to an article by Rob Boston of Americans United published in 1996. I posted earlier how I was the source for the two articles that Rob Boston wrote on David Barton but unfortunately he implied that Barton made up these quotes. Fortunately I was given the opportunity to set therecord straight in The Freedom Writer. 

Later I got several board members of Americans United to contact Boston on my behalf and voice their opinion of how unfair Boston had been to Barton in his article  “Consumer Alert”. On March 7, 1997, I spoke with Barry Lynn the executive director of Americans United. Lynn was very gracious on the phone and  promised to consider an article from me in response to the slanted  “Consumer Alert” article Boston had written earlier. Americans United board member Dr. Paul Simmons of Louisville helped me write the aritcle, but ultimately it was never published until July 12, 2012.)

George Washington (Lansdowne portrait) by Gilbert Stuart, oil on canvas, 1796

National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. Acquired as a gift to the nation through the generosity of the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation.

Misquotes, Fake Quotes, and Disputed Quotes of the Founders

Many inauthentic quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers have been in circulation for much of the 20th century. These are still being used frequently, especially by those in the religious right.

Fortunately we have many of the letters, diaries, and notes written by the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote many letters daily. John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary every day for 18 years straight. During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison wrote notes in shorthand which he converted into longhand every night. Newspapers of the day are also a good source. Actually, George Washington’s farewell Presidential Address in 1796 was only a newspaper article. In sum, our prolific Founders left us with many sources of material.

Misquotes

If one quotes the actual words of a Founding Father but does not give the context, then he is guilty of misquoting.

John Adams (1735-1826) “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.”

John George and Paul Boller, Jr. in their book They Never Said It set the record straight:

Adams did indeed make the statement, but only to repudiate it. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson about religion on April 19, 1817, he mentioned reading some polemical books that reminded him of the way his boyhood minister, Lemuel Bryant, and his Latin schoolmaster, Joseph Cleverly, used to argue ad nausea about religion, and he told Jefferson: “Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!’ But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company–I mean hell.”

 Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) “I therefore beg leave to move–that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that article.”

This is exactly what Franklin said at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. However, many in the religious right ignore that fact that his motion was tabled and never voted on. For instance, Tal Brooke comments, “It was Benjamin Franklin who called the Constitutional Convention to prayer with a powerful statement of their debt to God. As mere men, they could not presume to undertake so great a task without petitioning Him for guidance. America abounds with Christian evidences from its earliest days.”

Actually this version of the Franklin prayer motion originated with a letter written in September of 1825 from William Steele to his son, Jonathan. The letter told about William’s recollection of a conversation with General Jonathan Dayton, a member of the Constitutional Convention. This incorrect account later appeared in the National Intelligencer, and other sources as well. According to Steele, Dayton recalled that “the motion for appointing a chaplain was instantly seconded and carried.” However, James Madison in a letter to Thomas S. Grimke (January 6, 1834) stated that Franklin’s “proposition was received and treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded, with consternations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee… That the communication [Steele’s account of Dayton testimony] was erroneous is certain; whether from misapprehension or misrecollection, uncertain.”

We should learn a lesson from James Madison. It is one thing to correct a person who is mistaken about historical details, but it is quite another to accuse someone of intentionally fabricating a story. Note that Madison stopped short of doing the latter.

Fake Quotes

A fake quote is an inauthentic quote attributed to a Founding Father. The late Robert S. Alley, former professor at the University of Richmond has rightly stated that “proving that a quotation does not exist is a daunting task…” However, evidence exists that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the following quote is not authentic.

James Madison (1751-1836) “Religion …[is] the basis and foundation of government.”

This fake quote is taken from Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance. The subject in this sentence is not “Religion,” but actually the “Declaration of those rights ‘which pertain to the good people of Virginia.’” Nevertheless, this inauthentic quote has been circulated for many years.

Disputed Quotes

A disputed quote may actually be authentic, but no primary source has been found. Some scholars would put the following two quotes in the previous category of “Fake Quotes” while other scholars may hold out hope that a primary source will be found.

James Madison (1751-1836) “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves…according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Possibly this quote was originally given by Bishop James Madison (a cousin) or from James Madison’s father, James Madison, Sr., but this is pure speculation. There is always a distant chance that a quote could turn up from a primary source that was found in someone’s attic. In fact, a primary document from James Madison surfaced as late as 1946, but don’t hold your breath till that happens again. The fact remains that there is not a shred of evidence that links James Madison to this quote. Moreover, Paul F. Boller, Jr. in a personal letter to me stated, “The Madison quote about the Ten Commandments sounds un-Madisonian. I’ve read a lot of Madison, and I know he didn’t express himself that way…Sometimes the questionable quote can’t be found in any of the writings that have survived of the person who is supposed to have made the statement. The Madison quote doesn’t appear in any of Madison’s writings.”

Christian apologist Gary DeMar wrote concerning his research concerning the quote:

I credited this quotation to Madison in the first edition of the first volume of God and Government. Nearly every book written by a Christian author to support the Christian America thesis claims Madison as the quotation’s author. I have searched in vain for the quotation’s original source. American Visioneven contacted a Madison scholar for help. He was not familiar with the quotation. Further study led me to the January 1958 calendar published by Spiritual Mobilization. What was Spiritual Mobilization’s source for the quotation? None was listed. Additional detective work led me to another James Madison, a cousin of President Madison. Madison served as president of William and Mary College and was the first Protestant Episcopal bishop of Virginia. Is he the source of the quotation? Very possibly. Christians should stop attributing of the quotation to President James Madison until we find out. 

 It is my opinion that this disputed quote attributed to Madison has been the one used more than any other by the religious right. This is probably due to the fact that the Supreme Court banned the display of the Ten Commandments in the public school rooms in the case Stone v. Graham in 1980.

George Washington (1732-1799) “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

Several years ago, I was guilty of using this disputed quote, and the late Professor John George of the University of Central Oklahoma, Political Science Department, told me that there is not a shred of evidence to link Washington to this quote. Professor George was a leading expert on this subject, and he co-authored They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributionswith Paul F. Boller, Jr. of Texas Christian University.

I had copied this disputed quote off of a bumper sticker that my friend from church had on his truck. However, I was surprised at my friend’s reaction when I told him he should remove his sticker. He said,  “Is Professor George a Christian? If not then he probably has an axe to grind.” I later discovered that Professor George had corrected many atheists too. Nevertheless, I tried to find someone in the religious right who also had some knowledge on the subject.

So I called up the company that specialized at putting out bumper stickers with quotes from the  Founding Fathers dealing with God. The owner of the company actually spent a whole year researching the Washington quote and he said he concluded that Washington did not say it. He commented, “Washington did not talk that way. He did not use the word ‘Bible’ any that I can remember, and I believe, I have read everything available that Washington wrote.”

This fellow was a Christian lawyer, and he said he could no longer sell the Washington bumper sticker even though it made up 90% of his sales. Again I went back to my friend, but he replied, “That fellow is not a historian. David Barton has studied the history of the founding fathers for over 20 years. I have a lot of respect for Barton.”

Then I contacted Barton’s organization, Wallbuilders Inc of Aledo, Texas. They mailed me the “Unconfirmed or Questionable Quote” list and it featured the Washington quote. Furthermore, it recommended not using this quote until it is authenticated.

When confronted with this opinion from Barton my friend responded, “I am not going to take my bumper sticker off until I have an explanation of how the quote could have possibly been mistakenly attributed to Washington in the first place.”

Then I received a few weeks later an updated “Unconfirmed Quote” list from Wallbuilders, and under the Washington disputed quote is this explanation:

There is a very real possibility that the quotation has its origin in an 1835 biography by James K. Paulding. In a description of Washington’s character, with supporting quotations, Paulding declares Washington to have said, “It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.” The similarities are obvious; a paraphrase of these quotes could have easily generated the words in question. However, we have not been able to trace Paulding’s cite to a more scholarly reference. He offers no footnotes.

I thought my friend would finally back down when I showed him this evidence, but I was about to learn something about human nature. I explained to him that this quote originated around 1835 when someone read Paulding’s book A Life of Washington. This is because it contained another unconfirmed quote of Washington which also had the words “impossible” and “govern.” Obviously a paraphrase took place at that time. My friend replied, “Are you 100% sure it is a bad quote? If not then I am going to continue to use it!”

Needless to say I have learned a lot about people’s tendency to ignore evidence when it goes against their presuppositions. Furthermore, I have quit trying to convince my friend that a disputed quote should be shelved until it is authenticated. He truly believes if Washington were here today he would say it now even if he didn’t say it the first time.

—

Francis Schaeffer

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

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

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

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

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong. B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.”

Another great point that Schaeffer makes in this series is that Communism  has NEVER EXISTED WITHOUT BRINGING REPRESSION.  A few months ago a young person said to me, “I think that Marx was misunderstood and that true communism has not been  really tried yet.” I responded that there are a hand full of Communist countries today and they all have several similar conditions: NO FREEDOM OF PRESS, NO POLITICAL FREEDOM, NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND NO ECONOMIC FREEDOM. I noted that Schaeffer has rightly said that Communism  is basically based on materialism and a result it must fail. It does not have a Reformation base.

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

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FjJxcrjMlwU&feature=share

Featured artist is ROY LICHTENSTEIN (1923-1977)

Along with Andy Warhol, the most famous figure of the American Pop-Art. His works are often related to the style of the comics, though Lichtenstein rejected that idea.

Related posts:

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

April 8, 2013 – 7:07 am

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

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

Carl Sagan v. Nancy Pearcey

March 18, 2013 – 9:11 am

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

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

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

May 24, 2012 – 1:47 am

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

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

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

May 23, 2012 – 1:43 am

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

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

Carl Sagan versus RC Sproul

January 9, 2012 – 2:44 pm

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

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

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

November 8, 2011 – 12:01 am

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

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

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

November 4, 2011 – 12:57 am

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

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

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

May 19, 2011 – 10:30 am

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

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

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

April 25, 2014 – 8:26 am

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

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

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

April 25, 2014 – 1:59 am

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

By Everette Hatcher III|Posted in Current

—

June 14, 2022

The Honorable Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Lindsey Graham,

After reading all your views on being a conservative, I was surprised to read your name in this article below that said you made a way for Democrats to put in more gun control that doesn’t work! Chicago has lots of gun control  but compare them to the results in Houston! Which has more deaths by gun violence?

Thank you for your time and thank for opposing abortion. I really appreciate your pro-life stance!

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Tucker Carlson: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings but will end due process

Tucker Carlson exposes the truth behind gun control provisions

By Tucker Carlson | Fox News

Joe Biden’s publicist just announced with a straight face that he plans to run again in 2024. We’ll address that at some length tomorrow. But first, another crisis in the news. So, after the killings in Buffalo and Uvalde a few weeks ago, you begin to hear people on television talk about something called red flag laws. The government, they informed us, could actually end mass shootings tomorrow simply by taking the guns away from mass shooters before they commit mass shootings. It’s not complicated.

In fact, it’s such an obvious solution that you had to wonder why we weren’t already doing that. Who doesn’t want to prevent mass shootings? Well, only the gun lobby. Everybody else cares about children. So, a lot of Americans, not surprisingly, now say they want red flag laws, and why wouldn’t they? Like supporting Black Lives Matter or fighting climate change or getting the COVID shot or standing with the brave people of Ukraine. Red flag laws seem like one of those ideas that no decent person could possibly oppose.

You want crazy people to have guns? Of course, you don’t. Who would? So naturally, you’re for red flag laws and in fact, we may soon get red flag walks across the country. So, what would that mean if we do?

Well, two things you should know. First: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings, but red flag laws will end due process. Due process is a simple concept, but it’s the key to everything that is good about America.

In our system of justice, citizens cannot be punished without first being charged with a crime. Politicians cannot just decide to hurt you, throw you in handcuffs, lock you in jail, seize your property simply because they don’t like how you think or how you vote. No. Before they punish you, they have to go through a formal process in which they describe which specific law you broke and exactly how you broke it. They have to prove it.

For serious crimes with big penalties, the government has to convince a group of your fellow citizens first. It’s called a grand jury and this government must convince them that you deserve to be punished or they cannot proceed. None of this is new. This is the way we’ve done things in America for more than 200 years, and it’s exactly why we have and have always had the fairest justice system in the world. People move to this country from all over the globe to benefit from it. But red flag laws will end this.

Under red flag laws, the government doesn’t have to prove you did anything wrong in order to strip you of your most basic rights. All that’s required to punish you is a complaint, possibly even an anonymous complaint in which somebody says you seem dangerous. Now, that complaint doesn’t come from a grand jury. It can come from anyone, including someone who hates you or someone who simply doesn’t like your politics. It doesn’t matter because no jury will ever see it. On the basis of that unproven complaint, you lose your freedom and your ability to defend yourself and your family.

Now, how could that possibly happen in this country? Well, the Supreme Court has said unequivocally that it can’t happen here. A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Caniglia vs Strom. Police in Rhode Island had seized the personal firearms of a 68-year-old man whose wife had called in a complaint against him after they had an argument. That man had committed no crime. He’d never been convicted of a crime, and he was judged by doctors to be sane. And yet the authorities took away his guns anyway.

He sued under the Fourth Amendment and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The result was not even close. The Supreme Court sided with the gun owner in that case in a rare nine-zero decision. That means that every justice, liberal and conservative, agreed that authorities cannot just seize your property or throw you in jail because they don’t like the way you look or because someone is mad at you. So, red flag laws are unconstitutional, period. We don’t need to guess about that. And yet the Biden administration is pushing them anyway. Why? Because they don’t care.

How is Joe Biden able to ignore a Supreme Court decision from last year? Simple. He declares an emergency and does what he wants. He’s done it before. The White House did the same thing with the eviction moratorium and vaccine mandates last year. “It’s an emergency. We don’t have time for due process!”

So, you can see why Democrats love emergencies. Nothing gives them more power more quickly. They’ve declared the atrocities in Uvalde and Buffalo an emergency, unlike the daily mass shootings in Baltimore and Chicago, cities they run and whose killings they therefore assiduously ignore. And on the base of that emergency, they can move forward with gun confiscation.

The White House now wants Congress to pass a law paying the states to enact red flag laws. And here’s the amazing part: At least ten Republican senators are backing this effort from the Biden White House and that means this is virtually guaranteed to pass. What’s the reasoning? Well, here’s one of those senators, John Cornyn of Texas.

REP. MASSIE SAYS ‘GOOD GUYS’ WITH GUNS STOPPING ‘BAD GUYS’ IS ‘INCONVENIENT TRUTH’ FOR DEMS

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) speaks on a proposed Democratic tax plan, at the U.S. Capitol on August 04, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

REPORTER: You have colleagues on the other, in the other chamber who are already coming out against this before you even put out a proposal.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: I’m not surprised. Some people will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole because they’re concerned about the politics of it, but I think this is a time where hopefully we can transcend that personal political interest and do what we think will save lives. To me, that’s the ultimate goal. We can do something sensible that does not undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. 

So there are two things to notice about that soundbite, which is so revealing. The first is the use of the term “sensible.” Now that is a Democratic talking point approved by the DNC. “It’s sensible gun safety regulation.” So here you have John Cornyn taking Nancy Pelosi’s language and he’s doing it on purpose and then you hear him describe anyone who disagrees with him. Why would you disagree with John Cornyn? Well, according to John Cornyn, anyone who disagrees with them is “concerned about the politics” of red flag laws, not the wisdom of red flag laws, not whether or not red flag laws are constitutional, but the grubby politics.

In other words, says John Cornyn, anyone who disagrees with me is low and unethical.

Now, if you’re not used to hearing liberal demagoguery like that from Republicans, you should know that John Cornyn is not the only one engaging in it. He is joined in this effort by Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of course of Utah, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, needless to say, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (always on board for any bad idea) and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Particularly interesting to see Lindsey Graham on board, the person who encouraged Capitol Hill police to shoot more Trump voters, who has no problem with violence, whose life is organized around worshiping it, telling you that you can’t have a gun. Now, all the senators whose names we just read, many of whom are retiring so they’re beyond the reach of voters, have the backing of the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

So, what exactly are they backing when they back red flag laws?

Well, we can take Florida’s experience as an example. In Florida, the police can seize guns from people who pose a “significant danger” based on “any relevant evidence.” Huh? That’s it, any relevant evidence. The law raises some obvious questions, and the most obvious is if you can seize people’s guns without proving that they committed a crime, why can’t you imprison them without proving they committed a crime? If you can take their guns, why can’t you take their homes? Why can’t you empty their bank accounts? Oh, sound paranoid? Alex Jones stuff? That just happened in Canada.

What stops it from happening here? We already know the authorities are abusing the red flag laws already on the books. Kendra Parris is a lawyer based in Florida who specializes in them. In a recent interview, she said clients are able to hire lawyers, have “vastly higher” odds of getting their firearms back from the government.

Of course, laws like this always penalize the weakest. She said courts are taking it “better safe than sorry approach” to avoid political blowback and the police are taking advantage of that. So, court records show that cops in Florida often show up to the homes of citizens who present them with “stipulations.” If you agree in writing to surrender your firearms, you have a chance of getting them back after a year. Now, as it happens, that’s a pretty tempting offer to offer when you have armed people in your living room. But it is and it remains and again, we don’t need to guess about it because the Supreme Court just ruled on this, it’s unconstitutional.

It is for several reasons. It’s a clear violation of the search and seizure prohibition on the Fourth Amendment, but it’s also applied unfairly. And even the people who wrote our current red flag laws admit that. In New York, for example, Assembly member Jo Anne Simon co-sponsored the state’s red flag law. “Basically, it’s all over the place,” Simon admitted. “You have places where we have one filed, in other places where it’s 38 filed.”

FILMMAKER MICHAEL MOORE CONTINUES CALLS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO BE REPEALED: ‘YOU DON’T NEED A GUN’

So, how will these laws be applied? Well, of course, they will be applied along political lines, just like everything else currently is in this highly politicized country. So, if you don’t like someone, if you don’t like what someone believes, that person will be a target for unconstitutional search and seizure. Armed authorities showing up in somebody’s home and taking their personal property at gunpoint. And if you doubt that, that will happen, look at this.

This is the guy, the very same member of Congress who had sex with a Chinese spy demanding that cops disarm Ben Shapiro because Ben Shapiro says things the Chinese government disagrees with. This is from Eric Swalwell: “Please tell me this lunatic does not own a gun. Reason number 1,578 that America needs red flag laws.” Eric Swalwell wrote that.

Now what would qualify as a trigger for gun seizure in the view of Eric Swalwell under the red flag was that he supports and now Republicans in the Senate support? Well, here’s the video that Ben Shapiro made that Swalwell thinks qualifies him for red flag law. Watch.

BEN SHAPIRO: If you come tell me that you’re going to indoctrinate my kids in a particular policy and that I can’t pull my kid out of the school and send my kid to a school I want to send them to, that I can’t go to the church or synagogue that I want to go to, and if you make that national policy, not just California policy where I can move, but national policy, people are not going to stand for that. I now have two choices. One is to leave the country utterly. Two is to pick up a gun. Those are the only choices that you have left me and now people are on ” Oh this is, how could you say something like that? How could you be so extreme?” It’s not extreme to defend the fundamental rights the Constitution was created in order to protect. These rights pre-exist government.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) delivers remarks during the House Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 7120, the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020,” on Capitol Hill on June 17, 2020 in Washington, DC.  (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

“These rights pre-exist government.” Well, actually our founding documents make that point which he is merely repeating, but on the basis of effectively quoting the founding documents of the country we live in, Eric Swalwell says the police should show up at Ben Shapiro’s house and take his firearms away. Does anybody, even Eric Swalwell, who is deranged, sincerely believe that Ben Shapiro is a violent threat to anyone? No, of course not. Ben Shapiro is an ideological threat and an ideological threat is the only kind of threat people like Eric Swalwell actually care about and you know that when you look at the laws that they’re pushing and that Republicans are backing.

If these laws were actually designed to fight gun crime, they would, among other things, force prosecutors to enforce existing gun laws against people who are committing all the murders and it’s not Ben Shapiro. In Los Angeles and many other cities, that’s not happening and that’s why those criminals openly support the Soros-backed prosecutor, George Gascon. Watch.

WILLIE WILKERSON, GANG MEMBER CHARGED WITH MURDER: I told you last time he wanna hurry up and try to get something did before they re-elect somebody else besides Gascon and bring back that little, uh, b——- life without parole and uh the death penalty. If he could get the manslaughter, then s—.Manslaughter only carries six, nine, 12. 

NRA ENCOURAGES ‘REAL SOLUTIONS’ TO ‘STOP VIOLENCE’ AFTER SENATORS REACH BIPARTISAN GUN FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

Yeah. So that’s just one tape. We can play you video, as we often do, of what’s happening in our city. What you’re looking at is anarchy, tyranny. People who are favored by the regime can do whatever they want. You vote the right way, commit whatever crimes you want, in jail for 10 minutes, you’re out, go do it again, no problem. Baltimore can happen, mass killings on an ongoing basis for decades and no one will say a word. But if you’re disfavored by the regime, no punishment is too strong, no infraction too small.

None of the gun legislation that John Cornyn and all these other pompous buffoons who were siding with Nancy Pelosi support, none of that legislation would do anything about the core problem, which is DAs like George Gascon, who are failing to enforce existing gun laws, gun laws that, by the way, George Gascon himself, to name one example, is breaking.

A whistleblower in Gascon’s office says he was fired for complaining about Gascon’s habit of illegally carrying firearms aboard airplanes. So, why haven’t the cops red-flagged George Gascon and disarmed him? Is anyone going to red-flag Hunter Biden, who lied on a federal drug form, was a drug addict carrying a illegally obtained weapon? No, of course not, because red flag laws aren’t designed to punish the politically loyal. And that’s why you get scenes like this in New Orleans, which the police do nothing about.

So hey, John Cornyn, will your legislation do anything about that? Because anybody who’s okay with that or what’s happening in downtown Chicago or downtown Baltimore or Gary, Indiana or Detroit, just pick a city, every day of the week – fix those things and get back to me about the AR in my closet.

By the way in New Orleans, the Soros-backed DA there, Jason Williams isn’t worried about what you just saw. Last year, his office dismissed more than 60% of violent felony cases that came to his office, most of them involving firearms. So, they just dismissed him. These are the people worried about gun crime. For perspective, the previous administration dismissed only 16% of those cases.

Another Soros-backed DA in Philadelphia has a similar record. In the first half of last year, Larry Krasner’s office withdrew or dismissed 65% of all gun charges. Does that seem high? Well, it is because in 2015, that figure was just 17%. New ideology, new outcome, and of course, the outcome is more dead people. But this law does nothing about that. It ignores it completely in favor of redefining you as a violent threat and giving the authorities controlled by the Biden administration the right to march into your house with guns drawn and disarm you.So, what are they ignoring? Well, let’s see. Last year in Philadelphia, we set a record set for homicides. Already this year, more than 200 people have been shot to death in the city of Philadelphia, which is not a huge city, and it’s getting smaller. On Friday, for example, a 14-year-old boy was killed in a drive-by. On Saturday, a man was shot five times in West Philadelphia. Did you see that on the news? Probably not.

MSNBC ANCHOR DEMANDS TO KNOW GOP ‘PLAN TO COMBAT INFLATION’ WHILE DEMOCRATS CONTROL WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS

On Sunday night, a man taking care of his mother in North Philadelphia was shot in the back of the head. So, if you’re actually worried about gun crimes, gun atrocities (and for the record we are because unlike Lindsay Graham. We actually hate violence) you would do something about this and punish the people who are committing gun crimes.

But no. They want to prevent you from defending your family, from buying or holding guns. Why is that? Well, we don’t need to guess because they’re telling us. Watch what the attorney general of the United States, and just to restate, this guy actually is the attorney general. He’s more than a craven political hack. He runs the DOJ. Watch him describe, Mr. Merrick Garland, the biggest threat facing this country today.

MERRICK GARLAND, US ATTORNEY GENERAL: In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the White race.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks to announce a team to conduct a critical incident review of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, during a media availability at the Department of Justice , Wednesday, June 8, 2022, in Washington.  (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

That’s just a total lie, actually, and we have numbers to prove it, but, you know, it’s a lie. There’s no justification rationally for what Merrick Garland just said. It’s ridiculous. It’s an obvious untruth and anyone living in a major city knows that.

So, why do they keep telling you that?

Well, because nothing the Biden administration is doing and nothing that is happening in Congress right now will actually address gun violence. That’s not the point, John Cornyn. The point is to allow the Democratic Party to become even more powerful, and if it feels like it, to send its armed agents to raid the homes of Ben Shapiro and other disobedient people the Democratic Party doesn’t like.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Related posts:

 

Gun control arguments just don’t make any sense, but President Obama still supports gun control

April 23, 2013 – 1:55 pm

Gun control arguments just don’t make any sense, but President Obama still supports gun control. Laughing at Obama’s Belly Flop on Gun Control April 23, 2013 by Dan Mitchell I’ve shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel. I also posted testimonials from gun experts and an honest liberal. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (2)

My favorite 10 videos on gun rights and gun control

April 19, 2013 – 12:48 pm

Gun Control explained Merry Christmas  from the 2nd Amendment Buy a Shotgun Joe Biden Lying AR-15 Make your own Gun Free Zone PRK Arms on CBS 47 news,  Fresno Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine Somebody Picked the Wrong Girl 5 Facts About Guns, Schools, […]

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

The United Nations is full of gun control nuts (includes gun poster)

April 15, 2013 – 1:06 pm

  The United Nations is full of gun control nuts.   The United Nations and Gun Control: Two Negatives Don’t Make a Positive April 15, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Citing the analysis of America’s former Ambassador to the United Nations, I wrote last year about a treaty being concocted at the United Nations that would threaten […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (0)

Comparison of crime data and concealed carry gun laws between Houston and Chicago (includes funny gun control posters)

March 20, 2013 – 8:54 am

Sometimes you just have to look at the facts!!! An Inside Look at Left-Wing Social Science Gun Research March 20, 2013 by Dan Mitchell In a presumably futile effort to change their minds by learning how they think, I periodically try to figure out the left-wing mind. Why, for instance, do some people believe in Keynesian […]

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

Michael Moore’s idea that pictures from Sandy Hook will help gun control argument (includes editorial picture)

March 19, 2013 – 12:04 am

I do love Michael Moore’s movie “Canadian Bacon” and I have blogged about it before. However, I am not a big Michael Moore fan. Take a look at this excellent article by Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute on Moore’s latest stupid claim. March 15, 2013 3:50PM Some Pictures for Michael Moore By Trevor Burrus […]

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 256) (on gun control)

March 4, 2013 – 2:34 am

(This letter was mailed before October 1, 2012) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (0)

Letter from David Kopel of Cato Institute to Senator Cruz on constitutional issues in federal gun control proposals (Great yardsign on gun control)

February 25, 2013 – 6:18 pm

  Great yardsign on gun control from Dan Mitchell’s blog. Here’s a quiz. What do you do after seeing this sign? Letter to Senator Cruz on constitutional issues in federal gun control proposals David Kopel • February 11, 2013 2:25 pm On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Gun Control | Edit|Comments (0)

Gun control posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog Part 5

February 25, 2013 – 1:55 pm

The rear of the Bath School after the May 18, 1927 bombing. Wikimedia Commons ___________ I have put up lots of cartoons and posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control. Did […]

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

Gun control posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog Part 4

February 25, 2013 – 1:00 pm

I have put up lots of cartons and posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control. There is no doubt that Hitler took away guns from those he wanted to persecute and […]

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

Ilya Shapiro’s Feb 8, 2013 testimony before Senate subcommittee on proposals to reduce gun violence (gun control cartoon)

February 18, 2013 – 6:53 am

—

—

June 14, 2022

The Honorable Richard Burr of North Carolina
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Richard Burr,

After reading all your views on being a conservative, I was surprised to read your name in this article below that said you made a way for Democrats to put in more gun control that doesn’t work! Chicago has lots of gun control  but compare them to the results in Houston! Which has more deaths by gun violence?

Thank you for your time and thank for opposing abortion. I really appreciate your pro-life stance!

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Tucker Carlson: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings but will end due process

Tucker Carlson exposes the truth behind gun control provisions

By Tucker Carlson | Fox News

Joe Biden’s publicist just announced with a straight face that he plans to run again in 2024. We’ll address that at some length tomorrow. But first, another crisis in the news. So, after the killings in Buffalo and Uvalde a few weeks ago, you begin to hear people on television talk about something called red flag laws. The government, they informed us, could actually end mass shootings tomorrow simply by taking the guns away from mass shooters before they commit mass shootings. It’s not complicated.

In fact, it’s such an obvious solution that you had to wonder why we weren’t already doing that. Who doesn’t want to prevent mass shootings? Well, only the gun lobby. Everybody else cares about children. So, a lot of Americans, not surprisingly, now say they want red flag laws, and why wouldn’t they? Like supporting Black Lives Matter or fighting climate change or getting the COVID shot or standing with the brave people of Ukraine. Red flag laws seem like one of those ideas that no decent person could possibly oppose.

You want crazy people to have guns? Of course, you don’t. Who would? So naturally, you’re for red flag laws and in fact, we may soon get red flag walks across the country. So, what would that mean if we do?

Well, two things you should know. First: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings, but red flag laws will end due process. Due process is a simple concept, but it’s the key to everything that is good about America.

In our system of justice, citizens cannot be punished without first being charged with a crime. Politicians cannot just decide to hurt you, throw you in handcuffs, lock you in jail, seize your property simply because they don’t like how you think or how you vote. No. Before they punish you, they have to go through a formal process in which they describe which specific law you broke and exactly how you broke it. They have to prove it.

For serious crimes with big penalties, the government has to convince a group of your fellow citizens first. It’s called a grand jury and this government must convince them that you deserve to be punished or they cannot proceed. None of this is new. This is the way we’ve done things in America for more than 200 years, and it’s exactly why we have and have always had the fairest justice system in the world. People move to this country from all over the globe to benefit from it. But red flag laws will end this.

Under red flag laws, the government doesn’t have to prove you did anything wrong in order to strip you of your most basic rights. All that’s required to punish you is a complaint, possibly even an anonymous complaint in which somebody says you seem dangerous. Now, that complaint doesn’t come from a grand jury. It can come from anyone, including someone who hates you or someone who simply doesn’t like your politics. It doesn’t matter because no jury will ever see it. On the basis of that unproven complaint, you lose your freedom and your ability to defend yourself and your family.

Now, how could that possibly happen in this country? Well, the Supreme Court has said unequivocally that it can’t happen here. A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Caniglia vs Strom. Police in Rhode Island had seized the personal firearms of a 68-year-old man whose wife had called in a complaint against him after they had an argument. That man had committed no crime. He’d never been convicted of a crime, and he was judged by doctors to be sane. And yet the authorities took away his guns anyway.

He sued under the Fourth Amendment and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The result was not even close. The Supreme Court sided with the gun owner in that case in a rare nine-zero decision. That means that every justice, liberal and conservative, agreed that authorities cannot just seize your property or throw you in jail because they don’t like the way you look or because someone is mad at you. So, red flag laws are unconstitutional, period. We don’t need to guess about that. And yet the Biden administration is pushing them anyway. Why? Because they don’t care.

How is Joe Biden able to ignore a Supreme Court decision from last year? Simple. He declares an emergency and does what he wants. He’s done it before. The White House did the same thing with the eviction moratorium and vaccine mandates last year. “It’s an emergency. We don’t have time for due process!”

So, you can see why Democrats love emergencies. Nothing gives them more power more quickly. They’ve declared the atrocities in Uvalde and Buffalo an emergency, unlike the daily mass shootings in Baltimore and Chicago, cities they run and whose killings they therefore assiduously ignore. And on the base of that emergency, they can move forward with gun confiscation.

The White House now wants Congress to pass a law paying the states to enact red flag laws. And here’s the amazing part: At least ten Republican senators are backing this effort from the Biden White House and that means this is virtually guaranteed to pass. What’s the reasoning? Well, here’s one of those senators, John Cornyn of Texas.

REP. MASSIE SAYS ‘GOOD GUYS’ WITH GUNS STOPPING ‘BAD GUYS’ IS ‘INCONVENIENT TRUTH’ FOR DEMS

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) speaks on a proposed Democratic tax plan, at the U.S. Capitol on August 04, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

REPORTER: You have colleagues on the other, in the other chamber who are already coming out against this before you even put out a proposal.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: I’m not surprised. Some people will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole because they’re concerned about the politics of it, but I think this is a time where hopefully we can transcend that personal political interest and do what we think will save lives. To me, that’s the ultimate goal. We can do something sensible that does not undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. 

So there are two things to notice about that soundbite, which is so revealing. The first is the use of the term “sensible.” Now that is a Democratic talking point approved by the DNC. “It’s sensible gun safety regulation.” So here you have John Cornyn taking Nancy Pelosi’s language and he’s doing it on purpose and then you hear him describe anyone who disagrees with him. Why would you disagree with John Cornyn? Well, according to John Cornyn, anyone who disagrees with them is “concerned about the politics” of red flag laws, not the wisdom of red flag laws, not whether or not red flag laws are constitutional, but the grubby politics.

In other words, says John Cornyn, anyone who disagrees with me is low and unethical.

Now, if you’re not used to hearing liberal demagoguery like that from Republicans, you should know that John Cornyn is not the only one engaging in it. He is joined in this effort by Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of course of Utah, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, needless to say, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (always on board for any bad idea) and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Particularly interesting to see Lindsey Graham on board, the person who encouraged Capitol Hill police to shoot more Trump voters, who has no problem with violence, whose life is organized around worshiping it, telling you that you can’t have a gun. Now, all the senators whose names we just read, many of whom are retiring so they’re beyond the reach of voters, have the backing of the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

So, what exactly are they backing when they back red flag laws?

Well, we can take Florida’s experience as an example. In Florida, the police can seize guns from people who pose a “significant danger” based on “any relevant evidence.” Huh? That’s it, any relevant evidence. The law raises some obvious questions, and the most obvious is if you can seize people’s guns without proving that they committed a crime, why can’t you imprison them without proving they committed a crime? If you can take their guns, why can’t you take their homes? Why can’t you empty their bank accounts? Oh, sound paranoid? Alex Jones stuff? That just happened in Canada.

What stops it from happening here? We already know the authorities are abusing the red flag laws already on the books. Kendra Parris is a lawyer based in Florida who specializes in them. In a recent interview, she said clients are able to hire lawyers, have “vastly higher” odds of getting their firearms back from the government.

Of course, laws like this always penalize the weakest. She said courts are taking it “better safe than sorry approach” to avoid political blowback and the police are taking advantage of that. So, court records show that cops in Florida often show up to the homes of citizens who present them with “stipulations.” If you agree in writing to surrender your firearms, you have a chance of getting them back after a year. Now, as it happens, that’s a pretty tempting offer to offer when you have armed people in your living room. But it is and it remains and again, we don’t need to guess about it because the Supreme Court just ruled on this, it’s unconstitutional.

It is for several reasons. It’s a clear violation of the search and seizure prohibition on the Fourth Amendment, but it’s also applied unfairly. And even the people who wrote our current red flag laws admit that. In New York, for example, Assembly member Jo Anne Simon co-sponsored the state’s red flag law. “Basically, it’s all over the place,” Simon admitted. “You have places where we have one filed, in other places where it’s 38 filed.”

FILMMAKER MICHAEL MOORE CONTINUES CALLS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO BE REPEALED: ‘YOU DON’T NEED A GUN’

So, how will these laws be applied? Well, of course, they will be applied along political lines, just like everything else currently is in this highly politicized country. So, if you don’t like someone, if you don’t like what someone believes, that person will be a target for unconstitutional search and seizure. Armed authorities showing up in somebody’s home and taking their personal property at gunpoint. And if you doubt that, that will happen, look at this.

This is the guy, the very same member of Congress who had sex with a Chinese spy demanding that cops disarm Ben Shapiro because Ben Shapiro says things the Chinese government disagrees with. This is from Eric Swalwell: “Please tell me this lunatic does not own a gun. Reason number 1,578 that America needs red flag laws.” Eric Swalwell wrote that.

Now what would qualify as a trigger for gun seizure in the view of Eric Swalwell under the red flag was that he supports and now Republicans in the Senate support? Well, here’s the video that Ben Shapiro made that Swalwell thinks qualifies him for red flag law. Watch.

BEN SHAPIRO: If you come tell me that you’re going to indoctrinate my kids in a particular policy and that I can’t pull my kid out of the school and send my kid to a school I want to send them to, that I can’t go to the church or synagogue that I want to go to, and if you make that national policy, not just California policy where I can move, but national policy, people are not going to stand for that. I now have two choices. One is to leave the country utterly. Two is to pick up a gun. Those are the only choices that you have left me and now people are on ” Oh this is, how could you say something like that? How could you be so extreme?” It’s not extreme to defend the fundamental rights the Constitution was created in order to protect. These rights pre-exist government.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) delivers remarks during the House Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 7120, the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020,” on Capitol Hill on June 17, 2020 in Washington, DC.  (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

“These rights pre-exist government.” Well, actually our founding documents make that point which he is merely repeating, but on the basis of effectively quoting the founding documents of the country we live in, Eric Swalwell says the police should show up at Ben Shapiro’s house and take his firearms away. Does anybody, even Eric Swalwell, who is deranged, sincerely believe that Ben Shapiro is a violent threat to anyone? No, of course not. Ben Shapiro is an ideological threat and an ideological threat is the only kind of threat people like Eric Swalwell actually care about and you know that when you look at the laws that they’re pushing and that Republicans are backing.

If these laws were actually designed to fight gun crime, they would, among other things, force prosecutors to enforce existing gun laws against people who are committing all the murders and it’s not Ben Shapiro. In Los Angeles and many other cities, that’s not happening and that’s why those criminals openly support the Soros-backed prosecutor, George Gascon. Watch.

WILLIE WILKERSON, GANG MEMBER CHARGED WITH MURDER: I told you last time he wanna hurry up and try to get something did before they re-elect somebody else besides Gascon and bring back that little, uh, b——- life without parole and uh the death penalty. If he could get the manslaughter, then s—.Manslaughter only carries six, nine, 12. 

NRA ENCOURAGES ‘REAL SOLUTIONS’ TO ‘STOP VIOLENCE’ AFTER SENATORS REACH BIPARTISAN GUN FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

Yeah. So that’s just one tape. We can play you video, as we often do, of what’s happening in our city. What you’re looking at is anarchy, tyranny. People who are favored by the regime can do whatever they want. You vote the right way, commit whatever crimes you want, in jail for 10 minutes, you’re out, go do it again, no problem. Baltimore can happen, mass killings on an ongoing basis for decades and no one will say a word. But if you’re disfavored by the regime, no punishment is too strong, no infraction too small.

None of the gun legislation that John Cornyn and all these other pompous buffoons who were siding with Nancy Pelosi support, none of that legislation would do anything about the core problem, which is DAs like George Gascon, who are failing to enforce existing gun laws, gun laws that, by the way, George Gascon himself, to name one example, is breaking.

A whistleblower in Gascon’s office says he was fired for complaining about Gascon’s habit of illegally carrying firearms aboard airplanes. So, why haven’t the cops red-flagged George Gascon and disarmed him? Is anyone going to red-flag Hunter Biden, who lied on a federal drug form, was a drug addict carrying a illegally obtained weapon? No, of course not, because red flag laws aren’t designed to punish the politically loyal. And that’s why you get scenes like this in New Orleans, which the police do nothing about.

So hey, John Cornyn, will your legislation do anything about that? Because anybody who’s okay with that or what’s happening in downtown Chicago or downtown Baltimore or Gary, Indiana or Detroit, just pick a city, every day of the week – fix those things and get back to me about the AR in my closet.

By the way in New Orleans, the Soros-backed DA there, Jason Williams isn’t worried about what you just saw. Last year, his office dismissed more than 60% of violent felony cases that came to his office, most of them involving firearms. So, they just dismissed him. These are the people worried about gun crime. For perspective, the previous administration dismissed only 16% of those cases.

Another Soros-backed DA in Philadelphia has a similar record. In the first half of last year, Larry Krasner’s office withdrew or dismissed 65% of all gun charges. Does that seem high? Well, it is because in 2015, that figure was just 17%. New ideology, new outcome, and of course, the outcome is more dead people. But this law does nothing about that. It ignores it completely in favor of redefining you as a violent threat and giving the authorities controlled by the Biden administration the right to march into your house with guns drawn and disarm you.So, what are they ignoring? Well, let’s see. Last year in Philadelphia, we set a record set for homicides. Already this year, more than 200 people have been shot to death in the city of Philadelphia, which is not a huge city, and it’s getting smaller. On Friday, for example, a 14-year-old boy was killed in a drive-by. On Saturday, a man was shot five times in West Philadelphia. Did you see that on the news? Probably not.

MSNBC ANCHOR DEMANDS TO KNOW GOP ‘PLAN TO COMBAT INFLATION’ WHILE DEMOCRATS CONTROL WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS

On Sunday night, a man taking care of his mother in North Philadelphia was shot in the back of the head. So, if you’re actually worried about gun crimes, gun atrocities (and for the record we are because unlike Lindsay Graham. We actually hate violence) you would do something about this and punish the people who are committing gun crimes.

But no. They want to prevent you from defending your family, from buying or holding guns. Why is that? Well, we don’t need to guess because they’re telling us. Watch what the attorney general of the United States, and just to restate, this guy actually is the attorney general. He’s more than a craven political hack. He runs the DOJ. Watch him describe, Mr. Merrick Garland, the biggest threat facing this country today.

MERRICK GARLAND, US ATTORNEY GENERAL: In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the White race.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks to announce a team to conduct a critical incident review of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, during a media availability at the Department of Justice , Wednesday, June 8, 2022, in Washington.  (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

That’s just a total lie, actually, and we have numbers to prove it, but, you know, it’s a lie. There’s no justification rationally for what Merrick Garland just said. It’s ridiculous. It’s an obvious untruth and anyone living in a major city knows that.

So, why do they keep telling you that?

Well, because nothing the Biden administration is doing and nothing that is happening in Congress right now will actually address gun violence. That’s not the point, John Cornyn. The point is to allow the Democratic Party to become even more powerful, and if it feels like it, to send its armed agents to raid the homes of Ben Shapiro and other disobedient people the Democratic Party doesn’t like.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Related posts:

 

Gun control arguments just don’t make any sense, but President Obama still supports gun control

April 23, 2013 – 1:55 pm

Gun control arguments just don’t make any sense, but President Obama still supports gun control. Laughing at Obama’s Belly Flop on Gun Control April 23, 2013 by Dan Mitchell I’ve shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel. I also posted testimonials from gun experts and an honest liberal. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (2)

My favorite 10 videos on gun rights and gun control

April 19, 2013 – 12:48 pm

Gun Control explained Merry Christmas  from the 2nd Amendment Buy a Shotgun Joe Biden Lying AR-15 Make your own Gun Free Zone PRK Arms on CBS 47 news,  Fresno Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine Somebody Picked the Wrong Girl 5 Facts About Guns, Schools, […]

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

The United Nations is full of gun control nuts (includes gun poster)

April 15, 2013 – 1:06 pm

  The United Nations is full of gun control nuts.   The United Nations and Gun Control: Two Negatives Don’t Make a Positive April 15, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Citing the analysis of America’s former Ambassador to the United Nations, I wrote last year about a treaty being concocted at the United Nations that would threaten […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (0)

Comparison of crime data and concealed carry gun laws between Houston and Chicago (includes funny gun control posters)

March 20, 2013 – 8:54 am

Sometimes you just have to look at the facts!!! An Inside Look at Left-Wing Social Science Gun Research March 20, 2013 by Dan Mitchell In a presumably futile effort to change their minds by learning how they think, I periodically try to figure out the left-wing mind. Why, for instance, do some people believe in Keynesian […]

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

Michael Moore’s idea that pictures from Sandy Hook will help gun control argument (includes editorial picture)

March 19, 2013 – 12:04 am

I do love Michael Moore’s movie “Canadian Bacon” and I have blogged about it before. However, I am not a big Michael Moore fan. Take a look at this excellent article by Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute on Moore’s latest stupid claim. March 15, 2013 3:50PM Some Pictures for Michael Moore By Trevor Burrus […]

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 256) (on gun control)

March 4, 2013 – 2:34 am

(This letter was mailed before October 1, 2012) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (0)

Letter from David Kopel of Cato Institute to Senator Cruz on constitutional issues in federal gun control proposals (Great yardsign on gun control)

February 25, 2013 – 6:18 pm

  Great yardsign on gun control from Dan Mitchell’s blog. Here’s a quiz. What do you do after seeing this sign? Letter to Senator Cruz on constitutional issues in federal gun control proposals David Kopel • February 11, 2013 2:25 pm On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Gun Control | Edit|Comments (0)

Gun control posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog Part 5

February 25, 2013 – 1:55 pm

The rear of the Bath School after the May 18, 1927 bombing. Wikimedia Commons ___________ I have put up lots of cartoons and posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control. Did […]

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

Gun control posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog Part 4

February 25, 2013 – 1:00 pm

I have put up lots of cartons and posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control. There is no doubt that Hitler took away guns from those he wanted to persecute and […]

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

Ilya Shapiro’s Feb 8, 2013 testimony before Senate subcommittee on proposals to reduce gun violence (gun control cartoon)

February 18, 2013 – 6:53 am

—

—

June 14, 2022

The Honorable Rob Portman of Ohio
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Rob Portman of Ohio,

It is sad to say this is the second time I have written to you and the first was also because you abandoned your conservative past ( OPEN LETTER TO REPUBLICAN SENATOR WHO PLEDGED NOT TO HELP DEMOCRATS RAISE THE DEBT CEILING BUT DID IT ON DECEMBER 10, 2021 WHEN 14 REPUBLICANS WHO SAID THEY DON’T APPROVE OF THE GOVERNMENT BORROWING 40% OF WHAT THEY SPEND VOTED A WAY FOR DEMOCRATS TO DO JUST THAT!!!! Part 11 Senator Rob Portman of Ohio )

After reading all your views on being a conservative, I was surprised to read your name in this article below that said you made a way for Democrats to put in more gun control that doesn’t work! Chicago has lots of gun control  but compare them to the results in Houston! Which has more deaths by gun violence?

Thank you for your time and thank for opposing abortion. I really appreciate your pro-life stance!

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Tucker Carlson: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings but will end due process

Tucker Carlson exposes the truth behind gun control provisions

By Tucker Carlson | Fox News

Joe Biden’s publicist just announced with a straight face that he plans to run again in 2024. We’ll address that at some length tomorrow. But first, another crisis in the news. So, after the killings in Buffalo and Uvalde a few weeks ago, you begin to hear people on television talk about something called red flag laws. The government, they informed us, could actually end mass shootings tomorrow simply by taking the guns away from mass shooters before they commit mass shootings. It’s not complicated.

In fact, it’s such an obvious solution that you had to wonder why we weren’t already doing that. Who doesn’t want to prevent mass shootings? Well, only the gun lobby. Everybody else cares about children. So, a lot of Americans, not surprisingly, now say they want red flag laws, and why wouldn’t they? Like supporting Black Lives Matter or fighting climate change or getting the COVID shot or standing with the brave people of Ukraine. Red flag laws seem like one of those ideas that no decent person could possibly oppose.

You want crazy people to have guns? Of course, you don’t. Who would? So naturally, you’re for red flag laws and in fact, we may soon get red flag walks across the country. So, what would that mean if we do?

Well, two things you should know. First: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings, but red flag laws will end due process. Due process is a simple concept, but it’s the key to everything that is good about America.

In our system of justice, citizens cannot be punished without first being charged with a crime. Politicians cannot just decide to hurt you, throw you in handcuffs, lock you in jail, seize your property simply because they don’t like how you think or how you vote. No. Before they punish you, they have to go through a formal process in which they describe which specific law you broke and exactly how you broke it. They have to prove it.

For serious crimes with big penalties, the government has to convince a group of your fellow citizens first. It’s called a grand jury and this government must convince them that you deserve to be punished or they cannot proceed. None of this is new. This is the way we’ve done things in America for more than 200 years, and it’s exactly why we have and have always had the fairest justice system in the world. People move to this country from all over the globe to benefit from it. But red flag laws will end this.

Under red flag laws, the government doesn’t have to prove you did anything wrong in order to strip you of your most basic rights. All that’s required to punish you is a complaint, possibly even an anonymous complaint in which somebody says you seem dangerous. Now, that complaint doesn’t come from a grand jury. It can come from anyone, including someone who hates you or someone who simply doesn’t like your politics. It doesn’t matter because no jury will ever see it. On the basis of that unproven complaint, you lose your freedom and your ability to defend yourself and your family.

Now, how could that possibly happen in this country? Well, the Supreme Court has said unequivocally that it can’t happen here. A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Caniglia vs Strom. Police in Rhode Island had seized the personal firearms of a 68-year-old man whose wife had called in a complaint against him after they had an argument. That man had committed no crime. He’d never been convicted of a crime, and he was judged by doctors to be sane. And yet the authorities took away his guns anyway.

He sued under the Fourth Amendment and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The result was not even close. The Supreme Court sided with the gun owner in that case in a rare nine-zero decision. That means that every justice, liberal and conservative, agreed that authorities cannot just seize your property or throw you in jail because they don’t like the way you look or because someone is mad at you. So, red flag laws are unconstitutional, period. We don’t need to guess about that. And yet the Biden administration is pushing them anyway. Why? Because they don’t care.

How is Joe Biden able to ignore a Supreme Court decision from last year? Simple. He declares an emergency and does what he wants. He’s done it before. The White House did the same thing with the eviction moratorium and vaccine mandates last year. “It’s an emergency. We don’t have time for due process!”

So, you can see why Democrats love emergencies. Nothing gives them more power more quickly. They’ve declared the atrocities in Uvalde and Buffalo an emergency, unlike the daily mass shootings in Baltimore and Chicago, cities they run and whose killings they therefore assiduously ignore. And on the base of that emergency, they can move forward with gun confiscation.

The White House now wants Congress to pass a law paying the states to enact red flag laws. And here’s the amazing part: At least ten Republican senators are backing this effort from the Biden White House and that means this is virtually guaranteed to pass. What’s the reasoning? Well, here’s one of those senators, John Cornyn of Texas.

REP. MASSIE SAYS ‘GOOD GUYS’ WITH GUNS STOPPING ‘BAD GUYS’ IS ‘INCONVENIENT TRUTH’ FOR DEMS

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) speaks on a proposed Democratic tax plan, at the U.S. Capitol on August 04, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

REPORTER: You have colleagues on the other, in the other chamber who are already coming out against this before you even put out a proposal.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: I’m not surprised. Some people will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole because they’re concerned about the politics of it, but I think this is a time where hopefully we can transcend that personal political interest and do what we think will save lives. To me, that’s the ultimate goal. We can do something sensible that does not undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. 

So there are two things to notice about that soundbite, which is so revealing. The first is the use of the term “sensible.” Now that is a Democratic talking point approved by the DNC. “It’s sensible gun safety regulation.” So here you have John Cornyn taking Nancy Pelosi’s language and he’s doing it on purpose and then you hear him describe anyone who disagrees with him. Why would you disagree with John Cornyn? Well, according to John Cornyn, anyone who disagrees with them is “concerned about the politics” of red flag laws, not the wisdom of red flag laws, not whether or not red flag laws are constitutional, but the grubby politics.

In other words, says John Cornyn, anyone who disagrees with me is low and unethical.

Now, if you’re not used to hearing liberal demagoguery like that from Republicans, you should know that John Cornyn is not the only one engaging in it. He is joined in this effort by Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of course of Utah, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, needless to say, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (always on board for any bad idea) and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Particularly interesting to see Lindsey Graham on board, the person who encouraged Capitol Hill police to shoot more Trump voters, who has no problem with violence, whose life is organized around worshiping it, telling you that you can’t have a gun. Now, all the senators whose names we just read, many of whom are retiring so they’re beyond the reach of voters, have the backing of the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

So, what exactly are they backing when they back red flag laws?

Well, we can take Florida’s experience as an example. In Florida, the police can seize guns from people who pose a “significant danger” based on “any relevant evidence.” Huh? That’s it, any relevant evidence. The law raises some obvious questions, and the most obvious is if you can seize people’s guns without proving that they committed a crime, why can’t you imprison them without proving they committed a crime? If you can take their guns, why can’t you take their homes? Why can’t you empty their bank accounts? Oh, sound paranoid? Alex Jones stuff? That just happened in Canada.

What stops it from happening here? We already know the authorities are abusing the red flag laws already on the books. Kendra Parris is a lawyer based in Florida who specializes in them. In a recent interview, she said clients are able to hire lawyers, have “vastly higher” odds of getting their firearms back from the government.

Of course, laws like this always penalize the weakest. She said courts are taking it “better safe than sorry approach” to avoid political blowback and the police are taking advantage of that. So, court records show that cops in Florida often show up to the homes of citizens who present them with “stipulations.” If you agree in writing to surrender your firearms, you have a chance of getting them back after a year. Now, as it happens, that’s a pretty tempting offer to offer when you have armed people in your living room. But it is and it remains and again, we don’t need to guess about it because the Supreme Court just ruled on this, it’s unconstitutional.

It is for several reasons. It’s a clear violation of the search and seizure prohibition on the Fourth Amendment, but it’s also applied unfairly. And even the people who wrote our current red flag laws admit that. In New York, for example, Assembly member Jo Anne Simon co-sponsored the state’s red flag law. “Basically, it’s all over the place,” Simon admitted. “You have places where we have one filed, in other places where it’s 38 filed.”

FILMMAKER MICHAEL MOORE CONTINUES CALLS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO BE REPEALED: ‘YOU DON’T NEED A GUN’

So, how will these laws be applied? Well, of course, they will be applied along political lines, just like everything else currently is in this highly politicized country. So, if you don’t like someone, if you don’t like what someone believes, that person will be a target for unconstitutional search and seizure. Armed authorities showing up in somebody’s home and taking their personal property at gunpoint. And if you doubt that, that will happen, look at this.

This is the guy, the very same member of Congress who had sex with a Chinese spy demanding that cops disarm Ben Shapiro because Ben Shapiro says things the Chinese government disagrees with. This is from Eric Swalwell: “Please tell me this lunatic does not own a gun. Reason number 1,578 that America needs red flag laws.” Eric Swalwell wrote that.

Now what would qualify as a trigger for gun seizure in the view of Eric Swalwell under the red flag was that he supports and now Republicans in the Senate support? Well, here’s the video that Ben Shapiro made that Swalwell thinks qualifies him for red flag law. Watch.

BEN SHAPIRO: If you come tell me that you’re going to indoctrinate my kids in a particular policy and that I can’t pull my kid out of the school and send my kid to a school I want to send them to, that I can’t go to the church or synagogue that I want to go to, and if you make that national policy, not just California policy where I can move, but national policy, people are not going to stand for that. I now have two choices. One is to leave the country utterly. Two is to pick up a gun. Those are the only choices that you have left me and now people are on ” Oh this is, how could you say something like that? How could you be so extreme?” It’s not extreme to defend the fundamental rights the Constitution was created in order to protect. These rights pre-exist government.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) delivers remarks during the House Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 7120, the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020,” on Capitol Hill on June 17, 2020 in Washington, DC.  (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

“These rights pre-exist government.” Well, actually our founding documents make that point which he is merely repeating, but on the basis of effectively quoting the founding documents of the country we live in, Eric Swalwell says the police should show up at Ben Shapiro’s house and take his firearms away. Does anybody, even Eric Swalwell, who is deranged, sincerely believe that Ben Shapiro is a violent threat to anyone? No, of course not. Ben Shapiro is an ideological threat and an ideological threat is the only kind of threat people like Eric Swalwell actually care about and you know that when you look at the laws that they’re pushing and that Republicans are backing.

If these laws were actually designed to fight gun crime, they would, among other things, force prosecutors to enforce existing gun laws against people who are committing all the murders and it’s not Ben Shapiro. In Los Angeles and many other cities, that’s not happening and that’s why those criminals openly support the Soros-backed prosecutor, George Gascon. Watch.

WILLIE WILKERSON, GANG MEMBER CHARGED WITH MURDER: I told you last time he wanna hurry up and try to get something did before they re-elect somebody else besides Gascon and bring back that little, uh, b——- life without parole and uh the death penalty. If he could get the manslaughter, then s—.Manslaughter only carries six, nine, 12. 

NRA ENCOURAGES ‘REAL SOLUTIONS’ TO ‘STOP VIOLENCE’ AFTER SENATORS REACH BIPARTISAN GUN FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

Yeah. So that’s just one tape. We can play you video, as we often do, of what’s happening in our city. What you’re looking at is anarchy, tyranny. People who are favored by the regime can do whatever they want. You vote the right way, commit whatever crimes you want, in jail for 10 minutes, you’re out, go do it again, no problem. Baltimore can happen, mass killings on an ongoing basis for decades and no one will say a word. But if you’re disfavored by the regime, no punishment is too strong, no infraction too small.

None of the gun legislation that John Cornyn and all these other pompous buffoons who were siding with Nancy Pelosi support, none of that legislation would do anything about the core problem, which is DAs like George Gascon, who are failing to enforce existing gun laws, gun laws that, by the way, George Gascon himself, to name one example, is breaking.

A whistleblower in Gascon’s office says he was fired for complaining about Gascon’s habit of illegally carrying firearms aboard airplanes. So, why haven’t the cops red-flagged George Gascon and disarmed him? Is anyone going to red-flag Hunter Biden, who lied on a federal drug form, was a drug addict carrying a illegally obtained weapon? No, of course not, because red flag laws aren’t designed to punish the politically loyal. And that’s why you get scenes like this in New Orleans, which the police do nothing about.

So hey, John Cornyn, will your legislation do anything about that? Because anybody who’s okay with that or what’s happening in downtown Chicago or downtown Baltimore or Gary, Indiana or Detroit, just pick a city, every day of the week – fix those things and get back to me about the AR in my closet.

By the way in New Orleans, the Soros-backed DA there, Jason Williams isn’t worried about what you just saw. Last year, his office dismissed more than 60% of violent felony cases that came to his office, most of them involving firearms. So, they just dismissed him. These are the people worried about gun crime. For perspective, the previous administration dismissed only 16% of those cases.

Another Soros-backed DA in Philadelphia has a similar record. In the first half of last year, Larry Krasner’s office withdrew or dismissed 65% of all gun charges. Does that seem high? Well, it is because in 2015, that figure was just 17%. New ideology, new outcome, and of course, the outcome is more dead people. But this law does nothing about that. It ignores it completely in favor of redefining you as a violent threat and giving the authorities controlled by the Biden administration the right to march into your house with guns drawn and disarm you.So, what are they ignoring? Well, let’s see. Last year in Philadelphia, we set a record set for homicides. Already this year, more than 200 people have been shot to death in the city of Philadelphia, which is not a huge city, and it’s getting smaller. On Friday, for example, a 14-year-old boy was killed in a drive-by. On Saturday, a man was shot five times in West Philadelphia. Did you see that on the news? Probably not.

MSNBC ANCHOR DEMANDS TO KNOW GOP ‘PLAN TO COMBAT INFLATION’ WHILE DEMOCRATS CONTROL WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS

On Sunday night, a man taking care of his mother in North Philadelphia was shot in the back of the head. So, if you’re actually worried about gun crimes, gun atrocities (and for the record we are because unlike Lindsay Graham. We actually hate violence) you would do something about this and punish the people who are committing gun crimes.

But no. They want to prevent you from defending your family, from buying or holding guns. Why is that? Well, we don’t need to guess because they’re telling us. Watch what the attorney general of the United States, and just to restate, this guy actually is the attorney general. He’s more than a craven political hack. He runs the DOJ. Watch him describe, Mr. Merrick Garland, the biggest threat facing this country today.

MERRICK GARLAND, US ATTORNEY GENERAL: In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the White race.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks to announce a team to conduct a critical incident review of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, during a media availability at the Department of Justice , Wednesday, June 8, 2022, in Washington.  (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

That’s just a total lie, actually, and we have numbers to prove it, but, you know, it’s a lie. There’s no justification rationally for what Merrick Garland just said. It’s ridiculous. It’s an obvious untruth and anyone living in a major city knows that.

So, why do they keep telling you that?

Well, because nothing the Biden administration is doing and nothing that is happening in Congress right now will actually address gun violence. That’s not the point, John Cornyn. The point is to allow the Democratic Party to become even more powerful, and if it feels like it, to send its armed agents to raid the homes of Ben Shapiro and other disobedient people the Democratic Party doesn’t like.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Related posts:

 

Gun control arguments just don’t make any sense, but President Obama still supports gun control

April 23, 2013 – 1:55 pm

Gun control arguments just don’t make any sense, but President Obama still supports gun control. Laughing at Obama’s Belly Flop on Gun Control April 23, 2013 by Dan Mitchell I’ve shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel. I also posted testimonials from gun experts and an honest liberal. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (2)

My favorite 10 videos on gun rights and gun control

April 19, 2013 – 12:48 pm

Gun Control explained Merry Christmas  from the 2nd Amendment Buy a Shotgun Joe Biden Lying AR-15 Make your own Gun Free Zone PRK Arms on CBS 47 news,  Fresno Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine Somebody Picked the Wrong Girl 5 Facts About Guns, Schools, […]

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

The United Nations is full of gun control nuts (includes gun poster)

April 15, 2013 – 1:06 pm

  The United Nations is full of gun control nuts.   The United Nations and Gun Control: Two Negatives Don’t Make a Positive April 15, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Citing the analysis of America’s former Ambassador to the United Nations, I wrote last year about a treaty being concocted at the United Nations that would threaten […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (0)

Comparison of crime data and concealed carry gun laws between Houston and Chicago (includes funny gun control posters)

March 20, 2013 – 8:54 am

Sometimes you just have to look at the facts!!! An Inside Look at Left-Wing Social Science Gun Research March 20, 2013 by Dan Mitchell In a presumably futile effort to change their minds by learning how they think, I periodically try to figure out the left-wing mind. Why, for instance, do some people believe in Keynesian […]

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

Michael Moore’s idea that pictures from Sandy Hook will help gun control argument (includes editorial picture)

March 19, 2013 – 12:04 am

I do love Michael Moore’s movie “Canadian Bacon” and I have blogged about it before. However, I am not a big Michael Moore fan. Take a look at this excellent article by Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute on Moore’s latest stupid claim. March 15, 2013 3:50PM Some Pictures for Michael Moore By Trevor Burrus […]

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 256) (on gun control)

March 4, 2013 – 2:34 am

(This letter was mailed before October 1, 2012) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Gun Control, President Obama | Edit|Comments (0)

Letter from David Kopel of Cato Institute to Senator Cruz on constitutional issues in federal gun control proposals (Great yardsign on gun control)

February 25, 2013 – 6:18 pm

  Great yardsign on gun control from Dan Mitchell’s blog. Here’s a quiz. What do you do after seeing this sign? Letter to Senator Cruz on constitutional issues in federal gun control proposals David Kopel • February 11, 2013 2:25 pm On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Gun Control | Edit|Comments (0)

Gun control posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog Part 5

February 25, 2013 – 1:55 pm

The rear of the Bath School after the May 18, 1927 bombing. Wikimedia Commons ___________ I have put up lots of cartoons and posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control. Did […]

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

Gun control posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog Part 4

February 25, 2013 – 1:00 pm

I have put up lots of cartons and posters from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism,  Greece,  welfare state or on gun control. There is no doubt that Hitler took away guns from those he wanted to persecute and […]

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

Ilya Shapiro’s Feb 8, 2013 testimony before Senate subcommittee on proposals to reduce gun violence (gun control cartoon)

February 18, 2013 – 6:53 am

—