–

—

—

Left’s Intimidation of Justices Is Illegal, but Will Biden Enforce the Law?

Cal Thomas  / @CalThomas / May 10, 2022

The left’s protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes to intimidate them into changing their votes on overturning Roe v. Wade are potentially illegal. Pictured: Abortion activists protest outside the house of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Chevy Chase, Maryland, Sept. 13, 2021, following the court’s decision to uphold a Texas abortion law. Protesters showed up again this past weekend over the leaked draft decision in a Mississippi case. (Photo: Nicholas Kamm, AFP/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Cal Thomas@CalThomas

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist, author, and broadcaster. He has authored several books, including “America’s Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers and the Future of the United States.” Readers can email him at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

Irony doesn’t begin to explain why pro-choice activists chose Mother’s Day weekend to picket the homes of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, who appear ready to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In an age when there appear to be fewer consequences for violating moral or statutory laws, demonstrators and protesters outside the Supreme Court building seem to have violated at least two federal laws. In the abortion-at-anytime Biden administration, which refuses to enforce immigration laws, it seems unlikely these laws will be enforced.

Here are excerpts from two federal laws, should the Justice Department need to be reminded of them. The first, 18 U.S. Code 1507 “Picketing or Parading,” states: 

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

That seems clear, doesn’t it? Does language mean anything, or as liberals think about the Constitution, does the law say what judges intend it to say, or wish it had said, or would have said if they had written it?

A related law, 18 U.S. Code 1503, is titled “Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally.” It says in part, “Whoever corruptly, or by threats, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or office in or of any court of the United States … ” can potentially be found guilty and face “imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.”

How would the Justice Department characterize demonstrations and picketing outside the homes of justices? What label under existing law would it apply to picketers and shouters outside the Supreme Court building? If protesters were not trying to intimidate and influence conservative justices, why were they there? 

Shouldn’t the public expect laws to be enforced? They are for most average people who can be convicted by a court, spend time in prison, and be forced to pay fines for violating those laws. Why is the debate about abortion and illegal immigration placed in a separate category in a government now dominated by Democrats?

The refusal to enforce laws equally has contributed to a decline in the public’s trust in our institutions.

A Gallup poll showed that between 2019 and 2020, when the pandemic took hold, faith in every institution surveyed—including public schools, the presidency, and Congress—dropped. Only the police showed an increase in confidence, and remarkably, that was when the left’s “defund the police” movement was at its height.

Today’s left is concerned only with outcomes that conform to its worldview. It was fine with striking down all state laws prohibiting abortion. It cheered when prayer and Bible reading were removed from public schools. Now that the shoe is on the right foot and not the left, the court has become a pariah.

They can’t have it both ways, though they are trying.

(C)2022 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

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

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

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

Carl Sagan pictured below:

_________

_

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

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

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

–

Francis Schaeffer

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

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

 “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”

by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

End of Sagan Excerpt

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

 

C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

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

Carl Sagan asked, “Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?”

____________

Pt 1 of 2 Listen to this Important Message by Francis Schaeffer

Published on Sep 30, 2013

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

_____________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s prayer for us in USA

November 29, 2012 – 7:30 am

 Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political views […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (1)

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

January 8, 2012 – 12:54 am

E P I S O D E 1 0   Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged francis crick, hitler and stalin, john kenneth galbraith, robert theobald, youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

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

January 1, 2012 – 12:51 am

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged free speech movement, paris riots, personal peace., sproul plaza, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

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

December 25, 2011 – 12:45 am

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged airplane design, http www youtube, marcel duchamp art, post impressionism, van gogh gauguin | Edit | Comments (0)

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

December 18, 2011 – 12:41 am

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged french existentialism, humanist philosophers, humanistic philosophy, natural freedom, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

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

December 11, 2011 – 12:37 am

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged biblical foundations., biblical influence, french prose, neo darwinism, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

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

December 4, 2011 – 12:33 am

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged christian foundations, freedom of press, freedom of religion, lex rex, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

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

November 27, 2011 – 12:26 am

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged authority of the bible, christian humanism, old testament prophets, school of athens., thomas cromwell | Edit | Comments (0)

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

November 20, 2011 – 10:03 am

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

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

November 13, 2011 – 12:13 am

  Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged byzantine art, conservative evangelicalism, gothic architecture., gregorian chants, naturalism in art | Edit | Comments (0)

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

November 6, 2011 – 12:01 am

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE   Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY

November 8, 2012 – 7:56 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY

November 7, 2012 – 7:06 am

The opening song at the beginning of this episode is very insightful. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE

November 6, 2012 – 8:01 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS

November 5, 2012 – 6:31 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

November 2, 2012 – 8:52 am

It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer.  I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and A Christian Manifesto in that process.

November 2, 2012 – 8:46 am

This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement.  It examines the place of […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Who was Francis Schaeffer? by Udo Middelmann

November 2, 2012 – 8:11 am

Great article on Schaeffer. Who was Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer? By Francis Schaeffer The unique contribution of Dr. Francis Schaeffer on a whole generation was the ability to communicate the truth of historic Biblical Christianity in a way that combined intellectual integrity with practical, loving care. This grew out of his extensive understanding of the Bible […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

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 […]

–

—-

8 Times Leftists Protested Outside Conservatives’ Homes

Katrina Trinko  / @KatrinaTrinko / May 09, 2022

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Josh Hawley, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson have all had protesters come to their homes in recent years. (Photos: Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images; Win McNamee/Getty Images; Janos Kummer/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Katrina Trinko@KatrinaTrinko

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast. Send an email to Katrina.

If at first you don’t succeed … then amp up your intimidation tactics and go protest at a person’s home.

That seems to be the motto in recent years of leftist activists, who have increasingly targeted the private homes of lawmakers, White House officials, and Supreme Court justices.

As my colleague Doug Blair reported, dozens of protesters went to the homes of Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh over the weekend. On Monday night, Blair and another colleague, Virginia Allen, reported on how protesters went to the home of Justice Samuel Alito, shouting “abort the court.” 

“You don’t get to take away our bodily autonomy and enjoy your Saturday night at home,” said one protester Saturday, presumably infuriated over the leaked draft opinion that showed the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

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

Unfortunately, this is rapidly becoming the new normal for leftist activism. Here are eight examples of protests at private homes in recent years:

1. Chad Wolf

While he was acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Wolf’s home was targeted by protesters multiple times.

“The ‘protest’ in front of my residence usually played out the same way. The protesters would organize roughly a quarter of a mile away and march through my neighborhood streets, holding up traffic, until they arrived in front of my house,” Wolf, who served in the Trump administration, wrote for The Daily Signal in 2021. “There they remained for an hour or more to shout through loudspeakers, again while holding up traffic.”

Wolf, who lives in a suburb of Washington, D.C., added that the protests led to him and his wife having “tough conversations with our two sons, who were both in middle school.”

He also noted that “this unwelcomed activity put me on edge, since such ‘protests’ can turn ugly quickly.”

2. Josh Hawley

On Jan. 4, 2021, Sen. Josh Hawley tweeted: “Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can’t travel. They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door.”

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=dailysignal&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1346308783325253633&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2022%2F05%2F09%2F8-times-leftists-protested-outside-conservatives-homes%2F&sessionId=1d7996d45f7199d3c23ef897f07c712e76d65171&siteScreenName=dailysignal&theme=light&widgetsVersion=c8fe9736dd6fb%3A1649830956492&width=500px

Hawley, a Republican who represents Missouri in the U.S. Senate, was being targeted for his views on the 2020 presidential election. According to Washingtonian magazine, at least one protester jeered, ““Hawley, Hawley, shame on you! Biden-Harris won through and through!”

During the protest, “a shadowy figure appeared in the sidelight of the front entrance and the door opened. It was not the senator but his wife, Erin, holding the couple’s seven-week-old baby in her arms,” Washingtonian reported, adding:

‘Could you cut it out, please?’ she asked, according to video footage of the protest. ‘We’ve got neighbors and a baby. Thank you,’ she said before retreating into the house.

3. Brett Kavanaugh

Saturday night wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court justice had protesters outside his home. Last September, ShutDownDC, a leftist group that also was involved in the Wolf and Hawley protests, gathered a group to go to Kavanaugh’s house in a Maryland suburb.

At the time, Kavanaugh, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, had recently voted against hearing a case from pro-abortion advocates who were trying to stop Texas’ heartbeat law, which bans abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected, from going into effect.

“Make no mistake, what’s happening to reproductive justice and abortion rights is far bigger than one person,” ShutDownDC wrote, perNewsweek. “But Kavanaugh is playing a key role, and so far he’s been protected from any backlash. No more.”

Outside the home organizers said was Kavanaugh’s, “two people took to the pavement and scrawled ‘resign Kavanaugh’ and ‘my body, my choice,’ as a lineup of speakers criticized the Supreme Court for a decision they said was grounded in political partisanship,” reportedWTOP-FM. 

4. Tucker Carlson

Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s home in Washington, D.C., was targeted in 2018.

“A brief video posted on social media by a group calling itself ‘Smash Racism DC’ shows people standing outside a darkened home and chanting, ‘Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night,’” reported The Associated Press.

The incident was apparently terrifying for Carlson’s wife. The Washington Post reported:

‘I called my wife,’ Carlson told The Washington Post in a phone interview. ‘She had been in the kitchen alone getting ready to go to dinner and she heard pounding on the front door and screaming. … Someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door.’

His wife, thinking it was a home invasion, locked herself in the pantry and called 911, Carlson said. 

The couple have four children, but none were home at the time.

5. Kirstjen Nielsen

In 2018, Kirstjen Nielsen, then secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, was targeted at her townhouse in a Virginia suburb.

“Several people stood along the sidewalk near her home with some holding signs. One demonstrator held a sign with Nielsen’s face on it featuring the words ‘child snatcher,’” reportedWJLA-TV, an ABC affiliate.

Nielsen was under fire from liberals at the time over the Trump administration’s policies on illegal immigration.

6. Stephen Miller

Stephen Miller, a top adviser to President Donald Trump at the White House, also had his home targeted in 2018.

USA Today reported that a group of protesters “stood in front of Miller’s apartment building chanting ‘immigrants are welcome here.’”

It wasn’t the only time Miller’s apartment building was the target of protesters. Six months after the initial protest, a group called WERK for Peace held a dance party in front of Miller’s building. 

“When the group got to Mr. Miller’s apartment building at CityCenterDC, Mr. [Firas] Nasr yelled from the street using a microphone and invited Mr. Miller to ‘come and dance with the migrants and refugees who are suffering at the expense of your policies,’” reported The Washington Times.

7. Lindsey Graham

Leftist activists went to the Washington, D.C, home of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020. Graham, who then chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, had announced he was willing to move forward with replacing Ginsburg with a Trump nominee.

“On Monday morning, protesters and activists gathered outside the Washington, D.C., home of South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to ‘wake him up’ with pots and pans, strobe lights and audio recordings,” reportedKXAN-TV, an NBC affiliate based in Austin, Texas.

8. Mitch McConnell

Graham wasn’t the only senator targeted by the left after Ginsburg’s death.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, then Senate majority leader, also had over 100 protesters show up at his home in Louisville, Kentucky, that fall. 

“Protesters lined the streets … in front of the senator’s home in the Belknap neighborhood shortly after noon, chanting, ‘Hey hey, ho ho, Mitch McConnell has got to go’ and ‘vote him out’ as several passing drivers honked and waved support,” reported The Louisville Courier-Journal.

McConnell’s home in the nation’s capital was also targeted. 

CBS affiliate WUSA-TV reported that “a group of youth climate activists headed to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s D.C. home in Northeast Thursday morning with a live GoGo band to hold a noise demonstration.” The station reported that “crowds spent their time chanting, giving speeches and making noise outside of McConnell’s home.”

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

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

September 2021 • Volume 50, Number 9 • Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion

---

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterionand publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator World, American Greatness, and The Epoch Times. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”

Notwithstanding all the hysterical rhetoric surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, two critical things stand out. The first is that what happened was much more hoax than insurrection. In fact, in my judgment, it wasn’t an insurrection at all.

An “insurrection,” as the dictionary will tell you, is a violent uprising against a government or other established authority. Unlike the violent riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020—riots that caused some $2 billion in property damage and claimed more than 20 lives—the January 6 protest at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. lasted a few hours, caused minimal damage, and the only person directly killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer. It was, as Tucker Carlson said shortly after the event, a political protest that “got out of hand.”

At the rally preceding the events in question, Donald Trump had suggested that people march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”—these were his exact words—in order to make their voices heard. He did not incite a riot; he stirred up a crowd. Was that, given the circumstances, imprudent? Probably. Was it an effort to overthrow the government? Hardly.

I know this is not the narrative that we have all been instructed to parrot. Indeed, to listen to the establishment media and our political masters, the January 6 protest was a dire threat to the very fabric of our nation: the worst assault on “our democracy” since 9/11, since Pearl Harbor, and even—according to Joe Biden last April—since the Civil War! 

Note that phrase “our democracy”: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and various talking heads have repeated it ad nauseam. But you do not need an advanced degree in hermeneutics to understand that what they mean by “our democracy” is their oligarchy. Similarly, when Pelosi talks about “the people’s house,” she doesn’t mean a house that welcomes riff-raff like you and me.

I just alluded to Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed supporter of Donald Trump who was shot and killed on January 6. Her fate brings me to the second critical thing to understand about the January 6 insurrection hoax. Namely, that it was not a stand-alone event. 

On the contrary, what happened that afternoon, and what happened afterwards, is only intelligible when seen as a chapter in the long-running effort to discredit and, ultimately, to dispose of Donald Trump—as well as what Hillary Clinton might call the “deplorable” populist sentiment that brought Trump to power. 

In other words, to understand the January 6 insurrection hoax, you also have to understand that other long-running hoax, the Russia collusion hoax. The story of that hoax begins back in 2015, when the resources of the federal government were first mobilized to spy on the Trump campaign, to frame various people close to Trump, and eventually to launch a full-throated criminal investigation of the Trump administration. 

From before Trump took office, the Russia collusion hoax was used as a pretext to create a parallel administration shadowing the elected administration. Remember the Steele dossier, the fantastical document confected by the “well-regarded” former British spy Christopher Steele? We know now that it was the only relevant predicate for ordering FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page and other American citizens. 

But in truth, the Steele dossier was just opposition dirt covertly paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. From beginning to end, it was a tissue of lies and fabrications. Everyone involved knew all along it was garbage—rumors and fantasies fed to a gullible Steele by shady Russian sources. But it was nonetheless used to deploy, illegally, the awesome coercive power of the state against a presidential candidate of whom the ruling bureaucracy and its favored candidate disapproved. 

The public learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for the manufactured evidence only because of a court order. James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI, publicly denied knowing who paid for it, but emails from a year earlier prove that he knew all along. And what was the penalty for lying in Comey’s case? He got a huge book deal and toured the country denouncing Trump to the gleeful satisfaction of his anti-Trump audiences. 

What was true of Comey was also true of the entire intelligence apparat, from former CIA Director John Brennan to Congressman Adam Schiff and other Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee to senior members of the FBI. All these people said publicly that they had seen clear evidence of collusion with Russia. But they admitted under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t.

General Michael Flynn, Trump’s original National Security Advisor, had his career ruined and was bankrupted as part of this political vendetta. Meanwhile James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and all the rest of the crew at the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies suffered nothing. When it came to light that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to help get a FISA warrant—in other words, that he doctored evidence to spy on a political opponent, which is a felony—he got probation.

The recent news that Special Counsel John Durham is indicting Michael Sussman, a lawyer who covertly worked for the Clinton campaign and lied to the FBI, is welcome news. But it seems like small beer given the rampant higher-level corruption that saturated the Russia collusion hoax.

At least 74 million citizens voted for Donald Trump in 2020, which is at least 11 million more than voted for him in 2016. Many of those voters are profoundly disillusioned and increasingly angry about this entire story—the years-long Robert Mueller “investigation,” the two impeachments of President Trump, the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the 2020 election, and the many questions that have emerged not only from the January 6 protest at the Capitol, but even more from the government’s response to that protest.

Which brings me back to Ashli Babbitt, the long-serving Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a nervous Capitol Police officer. Babbitt was a useful prop when the media was in overdrive describing the January 6 events as an “armed insurrection” in which wild Trump supporters, supposedly at Trump’s instigation, attacked the Capitol with the intention of overturning the 2020 election.

According to that narrative, five people, including Babbitt, died in the skirmish. Moreover, it was said, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by a raging Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher. That gem of a story about the fire extinguisher, reported in our former paper of record, The New York Times, was instantly picked up by other media outlets and spread like a Chinese virus. 

Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution accords American citizens the right to a speedy trial. But most of the political prisoners of January 6—many of whom have been kept in solitary confinement—are still waiting to be brought to trial. And although the media was full of predictions that they would be found guilty of criminal sedition, none has. 

Indeed, the prosecution’s cases seem to be falling apart. Most of the hundreds who have been arrested are being charged with trespassing. Another charge being leveled against them is “disrupting an official proceeding.” This is a felony charge designed not for ceremonial procedures like the January 6 certification of the vote, but rather for disrupting Congressional inquiries—for example, by shredding documents relevant to a Congressional investigation. It originated during the George W. Bush administration to deal with the Enron case.

The indisputable fact about January 6 is that although five people died at or near the Capitol on that day or soon thereafter, none of these deaths was brought about by the protesters. The shot fired by Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd that hit Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her was the only shot fired at the Capitol that day. No guns were recovered from the Capitol on January 6. Zero.

The liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald further diminished the “armed insurrection” narrative in an important column last February titled “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.” The title says it all. Kevin Greeson, Greenwald notes, was killed not by the protesters but died of a heart attack outside the Capitol. Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke that day. Rosanne Boyland, another Trump supporter, was reported by The New York Times to have been inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.” But later video shows that, far from that, the police pushed protesters on top of Boyland and would not allow other protesters to pull her out.

Four of the five who died, then, were pro-Trump protesters. And the fifth? Well, that was Officer Sicknick—also a Trump supporter, as it turned out—who, contrary to the false report gone viral of The New York Times, went home, told his family he felt fine, but died a day later from, as The Washington Post eventually and grudgingly reported, “natural causes.” No fire extinguishers were involved in his demise.

***

The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

Why, for example, did the government mobilize 26,000 federal troops from all across the country to surround “the people’s house” following January 6? Why were those troops subjected to FBI vetting, with some of them sent packing? 

Why is there some 14,000 hours of video footage of the event on January 6 that the government refuses to release? What are they afraid of letting the public see? More scenes of security guards actually opening doors and politely ushering in protesters? More pictures of FBI informants covertly salted among the crowd?

My own view is that turning Washington into an armed camp was mostly theater. There was no threat that the Washington police could not have handled. But it was also a show of force and an act of intimidation. The message was: “We’re in charge now, rubes, and don’t you forget it.”

In truth, there is little threat of domestic terror in this country. But there is plenty of domestic conservatism. And that conservatism is the real focus of the establishment’s ire.

It is important to note that while the government provides the muscle for this war on dissent, the elite culture at large is a willing accomplice. Consider, for example, the open letter, signed by more than 500 “publishing professionals” (authors, editors, designers, and so on), calling on the industry to reject books written by anyone who had anything to do with the Trump administration. 

These paragons pledged to do whatever they could to stop “enriching the monsters among us.” But here’s their problem: over 74 million people voted for Trump. That’s a lot of monsters. 

Many people have been quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous response when asked what sort of government they had come up with at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.” Right now, it looks like we can’t. It looks as if the American constitutional republic has given way, as least temporarily, to an American oligarchy. 

As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, may well count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election in U.S. history. I know we are not supposed to say that. I know that the heads of Twitter and Facebook and other woke guardians of the status quo call this view “The Big Lie” and do all they can to suppress it. But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was tainted.

The forces responsible for the taint had tried before. Hitherto, their efforts had met with only limited success. But a perfect storm of forces conspired to make 2020 the first oligarchic installation of a president. It would not have happened, I think, absent the panic over the Chinese virus. But that panic, folded in a lover’s embrace by the Democratic establishment, was not only a splendid pretext to clamp down on civil liberties; it also provided an inarguable excuse to alter the rules for elections in several key states.

“Inarguable” is not quite the right word. There could have been plenty of arguments, and many lawsuits, against the way the executive branches in these states usurped the constitutionally guaranteed prerogative of state legislatures to set the election rules when they intervened to allow massive mail-in voting. But the Trump administration, though foreseeing and complaining about the executive interventions, did too little too late to make a difference. 

Among the many sobering realities that the 2020 election brought home is that in our current and particular form of oligarchy, the people do have a voice, but it is a voice that is everywhere pressured, cajoled, shaped, and bullied. The people also have a choice, but only among a roster of candidates approved by the elite consensus. 

The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected president without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the bipartisan oligarchy that governs us. That was his unforgivable offense. Trump was the greatest threat in history to the credentialed class and the globalist administrative state upon which they feed. Representatives of that oligarchy tried for four years to destroy Trump. Remember that the first mention of impeachment came 19 minutes after his inauguration, an event that was met not only by a widespread Democratic boycott and hysterical claims by Nancy Pelosi and others that the election had been hijacked, but also by riots in Washington, D.C. that saw at least six policemen injured, numerous cars torched, and other property destroyed. 

You will search in vain for media or other ruling class denunciations of that violence, or for bulletins from corporate America advising their customers of their solidarity with the newly-installed Trump administration. As the commentator Howie Carr noted, some riots are more equal than others. Some get you the approval of people like Nancy Pelosi and at least the grudging acceptance of oligarchs of the other party. Others get the FBI sweeping the country for “domestic terrorists” and the lords of Big Tech canceling people who defend the protesters’ cause.

Someday—maybe someday soon—this witches’ sabbath, this festival of scapegoating, and what George Orwell called the “hideous ecstasy” of hate will be at an end. Perhaps someday people will be aghast, and some will be ashamed, of what they did to the President of the United States and people who supported him: the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, for instance, proposing to put Senator Ted Cruz on a “no fly” list, and Simon & Schuster canceling Senator Josh Hawley’s book contract. 

Donald Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein (the designated principal enemy of the totalitarian state Oceania in Orwell’s 1984) of the movement. But minor public enemies are legion. Anyone harboring “Trumpist” inclinations is suspect, hence the widespread calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s supporters, who are routinely said to be “marching toward sedition.”

Michael Barone, one of our most perceptive political commentators, got it right when he wrote of the rapid movement “from impeaching incitement to canceling conservatism.” That is the path our oligarchs are inviting us to travel now, criminalizing political dissent and transforming policy differences into a species of heresy. You don’t debate heretics, after all. You seek to destroy them.

Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president were nothing less than stunning. Trump was, and is, a rude force of nature. He accomplished an immense amount. But he lacked one thing. Some say it was self-discipline or finesse. I agree with a friend of mine who suggested that Trump’s critical flaw was a deficit in guile. That sounds odd, no doubt, since Trump is supposed to be the tough guy who mastered “the art of the deal.” But I think my friend is probably right. Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdomwas to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. In a new preface to the book’s 1956 edition, Hayek noted that one of its “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

 “This means,” Hayek wrote, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

 This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.”

Note the power of that little word “if.” It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer. 

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

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

Bingo.

Dershowitz Warns Against ‘New McCarthyism’ of Left

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, in 2020 when he was a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team. (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)By Newsmax Wires 
Sunday, 14 Feb 2021 1:56 PM

Join in the Discussion!

---

Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Sunday blasted the “new McCarthyism” of the Democrats’ “hard left.”

In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Dershowitz, a constitutional law expert, said some liberals have become radical censors of free speech.

“Common Cause, which purports to be a liberal, not a radical organization, has now demanded that Facebook keep Donald Trump off its platform,” he said. “We are getting liberals… [calling for] Fox News [to be] taken off the networks. I hated communism but I defended the rights of lawyers to defend accused communists.”

“If any lawyer is the subject of this kind of McCarthyism, I will represent you pro bono, in front of universities and bar associations,” he added. “I will dedicate myself that the new McCarthyism of the hard left doesn’t become American culture.”

Dershowitz called the Senate trial acquittal of former President Donald Trump a “great day” for the Constitution and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., — but “not such a good day” for Trump himself.

“McConnell “taught us a civic’s lesson: You don’t have to support President Trump or Donald Trump, you don’t have to agree with the speech, but support the First Amendment and the Constitution’s limitations on the power of the Senate to put a former president on trial,” he said.

“McConnell accepted the constitutional argument I’ve been making from the very beginning — that Congress has no power to put on trial Citizen Trump.”

On the flip side, Dershowitz said, Saturday was “not such a good day for Donald Trump because McConnell and others criticized him.”

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

Tucker Carlson Tonight 2/10/21 | Tucker Carlson Tonight February 10, 2021

—

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Dems Making Trump’s Case

By Eric Mack 
Wednesday, 10 Feb 2021 5:35 PM

In laying out a long-running objection to election fraud by former President Donald Trump, House impeachment managers are effectively making the case for the defense because the speech under the microscope is protected, even if they disagree with it, according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.

“Very good theater, terrible constitutional law,” Dershowitz told “The Chris Salcedo Show” of the House Democrats’ opening statements Wednesday.

“The videos make good theater; they’re very riveting,” the noted legal scholar said. “”But they prove President Trump’s constitutional defense.”

House Democrats are emphasizing that Trump had long argued the election was stolen, but then they show how the president challenged it “by all lawful means and all political means,” Dershowitz told host Chris Salcedo.

“The Constitution protects a person that says the Earth is flat as much as a person who says it’s round,” Dershowitz said. “The Constitution protects a Holocaust denier as much as it does a historian who can prove that 6 million Jews were killed.

“And the Constitution, the First Amendment, protects a president who’s wrong about the election as much as a president who’s right.”

Instead of tying the lone article of impeachment — incitement of insurrection — solely on Trump’s Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally speech, which was delivered at a rally just before the Capitol siege, House Democrat impeachment managers are making a case that he’d long objected to a stolen election as a predicate to inciting the storming of the U.S. Capitol Building.

“Matters of opinion cannot be disputed or taken outside of constitutional protections,” Dershowitz said. “So I think the House managers were actually helping the Trump defense by trying to prove that what he said was false.”

Dershowitz did suggest that Democrats’ gaffe might be part of a plan to “lay a trap” for Trump defense lawyers — getting them to argue the validity of a stolen-election claim, which could derail the president’s case.

“That would be a serious mistake, because it would lose a number of senators who are now on their side,” Dershowitz concluded.

Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom Ch. 277, Frontier 615 or Find More Cable Systems – Click Here.

Related Stories:

• Alan Dershowitz: Impeachment Divisive, ‘Tactical Mistake’
• Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Trump Defense Not ‘Frivolous’

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

I have read several books by Alan Dershowitz and he is a liberal but he does look at the constitution honestly and here he has made some very insightful observations that I am sure will upset Democrats but nonetheless will not slow them down from impeaching the President a second time because of their hate of all things Trump!

Dershowitz: Senate Rules Would Prevent Impeachment Trial Of Trump

An image from video of Alan Dershowitz, an attorney for President Donald Trump, walking from the podium after speaking on behalf of the president during the impeachment trial in the Senate on Jan. 27, 2020. (Senate Television via AP)By Newsmax Wires 
Sunday, 10 Jan 2021 2:42 PM

Join in the Discussion!

---

Harvard law professor and constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Sunday warned an impeachment of President Donald Trump won’t go to trial — but could “lie around like a loaded weapon” for both parties in the future.

In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Dershowitz said a Senate trial of citizen Trump would be unconstitutional.

“It will not go to trial,” he said. “All Democrats can do is impeach the president in House of Representatives, for that you only need a majority vote. 

“The case cannot come to trial in the Senate” because of rules that do no allow it until, “according to the Majority Leader [Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.), until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20” — an hour after Trump leaves office.

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

“Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it’d be a private citizen in Donald Trump or …. Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said. “The jurisdiction is limited to a sitting president and so there won’t be a trial.”

But Dershowitz said he worried more about  is“the impact of impeachment on the First Amendment.”

“For 100 years the Supreme Court and other courts have struggled to develop a juris prudence which distinguishes between advocacy and incitement.”

“To impeach a president for having exercised his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution, it would lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by either party against the other party and that’s not what impeachment nor the 25th amendment were intended to be,” Dershowitz said.

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

Mark Levin Podcast * Mark’s radio show | 08 January 2021

—

Levin: Media ‘exploiting’ Capitol riot to ‘silence conservatives’ as Democrats work to ‘choke the system’

‘The media have played a huge, huge role in what’s going on in this country,’ says ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ host

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

The mainstream media is “exploiting” Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to “silence” conservatives and Republicans, Mark Levin says on this week’s episode of “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

The host emphasizes that “we should be furious about what happened on Capitol Hill,” but adds that “the media have played a huge, huge role in what’s going on in this country.”

“We need to reject all this violence, but what about the media?” asks Levin before displaying front pages of various newspapers from around the country. 

“The New York Times: ‘Trump Incites Mob’. This is projection,” Levin contends. “This is projection. He never did that. Or The Washington Post: ‘Trump mob storms Capitol’. There were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people there … That’s an awfully broad brush. Or the [New York] Daily News: ‘President Incites Insurrection’ … or USA Today: ‘Pro-Trump Mobs Storm US [sic] Capitol’. How about ‘Thugs Storm U.S. Capitol’? How about ‘Lawbreakers Storm U.S. Capitol’?”

Levin then calls out politicians like Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who he says are also “exploiting the situation.”

“They’re talking about impeaching the president of the United States or [invoking] the 25th Amendment nine days before he leaves office,” the host says. “Do they even know what’s involved in the 25th Amendment?

WATCH ‘LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN’ SUNDAYS AT 8 PM ET ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL

“So they double down, they triple down, they quadruple down. They’re not going to change at all. On one side of their mouth, they talk about unity. Out of the other side of their mouth, they spit on people,” he goes on. “Seventy-four million [Trump-voting] people and more, they’re not going away. Their concerns still exist.”

Meanwhile, Levin says, House Democrats are working toward their goal to “choke the system even further” by passing a rules package for the 117th Congressthat makes it “virtually impossible for Republicans to even propose legislation or amend legislation, even though [they] only has a 10- or 11-person majority in the House.”

“Nancy Pelosi … eliminated 100 years of tradition …”, the host argues, “and the media are trying to intimidate conservatives and constitutionalists by projecting onto them the violence that occurred by reprobates and others who need to be tracked down and punished.

“So it seems that the lessons have not been learned,” Levin concludes. “They certainly haven’t been learned by the left, they certainly haven’t been learned by the media, and they certainly haven’t been learned by the Never Trumpers.”

—-

December 13, 2020

Office of Barack and Michelle Obama
P.O. Box 91000
Washington, DC 20066

Dear President Obama,

I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters. 

I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it. 

Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:

The story of how this postwar consensus broke down—starting with LBJ’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his prediction that it would lead to the South’s wholesale abandonment of the Democratic Party—has been told many times before. The realignment Johnson foresaw ended up taking longer than he had expected. But steadily, year by year—through Vietnam, RIOTS…and Nixon’s southern strategy; through busing, Roe v. Wade, urban crime, and white flight; through affirmative action, the Moral Majority, union busting, and Robert Bork; through assault weapons bans and the rise of Newt Gingrich…and the Clinton impeachment—America’s voters and their representatives became more and more polarized.

During 2020 I have noticed lots of riots and looting across the USA and I wanted to ask you why it is always the liberals doing that? AND WHY DIDN’T ANYONE CONDEMN THESE ACTIONS AT THE 2020 CONVENTION AND DIDN’T YOU SPEAK AT THE CONVENTION TOO?

Philadelphia Riots Another Case of Street Violence Used to Advance Radical Political Agendas

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/28/philadelphia-riots-are-another-case-of-street-violence-used-to-advance-radical-political-agendas/embed/#?secret=TeMODTeKco

Philadelphia Riots Are Another Case of Street Violence Used to Advance Radical Political Agendas

James Carafano / @JJCarafano / October 28, 2020 / 4 Comments

In Kenosha, Portland, Seattle, and Chicago, city officials have tolerated criminal activity performed by mobs for politically motivated reasons. Philadelphia appears to be the next hotspot for mob violence to go unchecked. Pictured: A barricade is set on fire during a night of looting and violence in Philadelphia on Oct. 27. (Photo: Gabriella Audi/AFP/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

James Carafano@JJCarafano

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research.

Like the replay of a bad movie, a law enforcement incident in Philadelphia triggered an excuse for violence and looting. It remains to be seen whether the City of Brotherly Love will become the next “Kenosha,” where city officials moved quickly to restore order and seek state and federal support—though sadly after 48 hours of opportunistic looting, violence, and destruction devastated the city.

Or perhaps Philadelphia will be the next Portland, Seattle, or Chicago, where systemic attacks seem to be a daily occurrence.

Police in Philadelphia are fully capable of restoring peace. The open question is whether the mayor and Larry Krasner, the former defense attorney-turned elected rogue prosecutor, will do their job and hold people accountable for their crimes.

When local, state, and federal governments work together, act quickly, and demonstrate no tolerance for organized violence to advance radical agendas, communities are kept safe and equal protection under the law is afforded for all citizens.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

On the other hand, when local officials, the media, and politicians ignore, excuse, normalize, and enable violence, everyday Americans pay the price.

There is a plague sweeping this country that many don’t want to talk about: The deliberate use of street violence to advance radical political agendas, often under a smoke screen of campaigning for civil liberties. The evidence of organized criminal activity at the root of the outbreaks in American cities is mounting.

The list of people enabling this violence sadly includes some public officials, who are principally responsible for ensuring public safety. For example, a growing threat to peaceful communities is “rogue prosecutors,” former criminal defense attorneys recruited and funded by liberal billionaire backers, who—once elected—abuse their office by refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes.

These rogue prosecutors are usurping the power of the legislature in the process, and ignoring victim’s rights—all to advance their politics.

Baltimore is a perfect  example. Since being sworn into office, under the watch of Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby.

Rogue prosecutors fuel street violence by refusing to prosecute rioters and looters. When confronted with the rising crimes rates, Mosby called the statistics “rhetoric.”

The only way to break the cycle of violence is for local and state officials to work with each other, and if necessary, the federal government. They need to stop enabling the destruction of property and lives on their streets, and start investigating and prosecuting the individuals (and organizations) behind the riots.

It’s time to start shaming and calling out the media, politicians, and advocates who excuse and normalize the violence.

There is a proven action plan for making our streets safe. It is past time for officials to start following this blueprint.

There is no time—zero time to waste. There are already fears of more violence in our streets, regardless of the outcome of the national elections.

In my hometown of Washington, D.C., downtown buildings are already boarding up in anticipation of violence on our streets after the election. If Trump wins, violence. If Biden wins, violence. This makes no sense, and it’s time for it to stop.

It is time for every official and public figure, every political party, in every part of the country to publically reject violence on American streets as a legitimate form of protected speech. Violence is not protected speech, period.

The notion of deliberately destroying the lives and property of our neighbors to advance a radical political agenda is abhorrent. American leaders—of all stripes—should stand up now as one and reject these violent acts. It has gone on for too long, well before the death of George Floyd.

Leaders in Philadelphia and across America must take a principled stand to demand the end to this violence, and they need to do it before the election. In one voice, they should demand: “Leave our streets alone.”

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 293) (Founding Fathers’ view on Christianity, Elbridge Gerry of MA)

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit |Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 5, John Hancock)

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 4, Elbridge Gerry)

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 3, Samuel Adams)

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 2, John Quincy Adams)

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 1, John Adams)

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the founding fathers and their belief in inalienable rights

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (1)

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticut, john witherspoon, jonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 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 Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the possibility that minorities may be mistreated under 51% rule

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

—-

—

—

Love Is The Answer – England Dan & John Ford Coley – Lyrics

England Dan & John Ford Coley…Love is the Answer

Kate Rusby – Who Will Sing Me Lullabies

Not Dark Yet (+lyrics) Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan – Not Dark Yet (Official Video)

Aaron Espe – Back to the Beginning

10cc – The Things We Do For Love (W/Lyrics)

10cc – The Things We Do For Love

Death Cab For Cutie – I Will Follow You Into The Dark +Lyrics

Death Cab for Cutie – I Will Follow You into the Dark (Official Music Vi…

BBC Radio 2 My Life In A Mixtape – Ricky Gervais – Opening

After Life Season 3 Soundtrack | Back to the Beginning – AARON ESPE |

—

—-

—-

—-

—

World Exclusive: After Life Season 3: The First few Minutes

After Life | Season 3 Official Trailer | Netflix

—

episodes will be released on January 14th.

Just Three Things. Written for #Afterlife by Ricky Gervais and Andy Burrows

May 8, 2022

Ricky Gervais

London, W1F 0LE
UK

Dear Ricky,

After Life season 3 soundtrack: Every song featured in Ricky Gervais sitcom

The series finale is particularly jam-packed with recognisable tunes.

By David Craig

Published: Friday, 14th January 2022 at 12:07 pm 

The third season of After Life launches on Netflixtoday, bringing the latest comedy project from Ricky Gervais to an emotional conclusion.

The so-called ‘sadcom’ has tackled some heavy themes during its rollercoaster run, which has seen widow Tony Johnson (Gervais) give into self-destructive tendencies as he struggles to come to terms with his wife’s tragic death.

Adding some extra heft to the most dramatic scenes are the music choices, which are usually directly relatable to the difficult situation that Tony finds himself in.

After Life season 3 features a wide range of musical acts, including legendary songwriters Bob Dylan and Cat Stevens, as well as rock bands Radiohead and Death Cab for Cutie.

For any viewers who hear something they like in the last six episodes, we’ve compiled a full list of the licensed songs in After Life season 3, of which the finale has the largest jukebox.

Read on for the full tracklist, while we also have details on the After Life cast and locations for you to peruse at your leisure.

Episode 1

The Things We Do for Love by 10cc

Back to the Beginning by Aaron Espe

Episode 2

Not Dark Yet by Bob Dylan

Who Will Sing Me Lullabies by Kate Rusby

Episode 3

Let Down by Radiohead

Episode 4

The Wind by Cat Stevens

Episode 5

Hammer and Felt by Beneath the Mountain

Episode 6

I Will Follow You Into the Dark – Death Cab for Cutie

Love Is the Answer (Single Version) by England Dan & John Ford Coley

Introspective Inquiries by Margaret Dahlberg

Mandolin Wind by Rod Stewart

Both Sides Now by Joni Mitchell

—

Todd Rundgren performed this song when he toured as part of Ringo Starr’s “All Starr Band” in 2015. Ringo insists on three hits from his guests, and along with “I Saw The Light” and “Bang the Drum All Day,” he wanted Todd to do “Hello It’s Me.” Rundgren didn’t think that one was a good fit in the set, as it’s a very introspective song and Ringo’s shows are very communal. Todd convinced him to go with “Love Is The Answer,” which he thought was the perfect song for Ringo – “Mr. Peace And Love” as Rundgren calls him. The plan worked: the song went over very well at these shows and fit the vibe perfectly.

Name your price
A ticket to paradise
I can’t stay here any more
And I’ve looked high and low
I’ve been from shore to shore to shore
If there’s a short cut I’d have found it
But there is no easy way around it.

Light of the world, shine on me
Love is the answer
Shine on us all, set us free
Love is the answer

Who knows why
Someday we all must die
We’re all homeless boys and girls
And we are never heard
It’s such a lonely, lonely, lonely world
People turn their heads
And walk on by
Tell me is it worth just another try

Light of the world, shine on me
Love is the answer
Shine on us all, set us free
Love is the answer

Tell me, are we alive
Or just a dying planet?
What are the chances?
Ask the man in your heart for the answers

And when you feel afraid
Love one another
When you’ve lost your way
Love one another
And when you’re all alone
Love one another
And when you’re far from home
Love one another
And when you’re down and out
Love one another
And when your hopes run out
Love one another
And when you need a friend
Love one another
And when you’re near the end
Love, we got to love,
We got to love one another

Light of the world, shine on me
Love is the answer
Shine on us all, set us free
Love is the answer

Light of the world, shine on me
Love is the answer
Shine on us all, set us free
Love is the answer

Source: Musixmatch

Songwriters: Todd Rundgren / John Wilcox / Roger Powell

Love Is the Answer lyrics © Warner-tamerlane Publishing Corp., Humanoid Music, Earmark Music Inc.

General CommentMany people missed the Christian element in Todd’s lyrics. “Light of the world” is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one who told us to “love one another,” not as a command to serve others only, but as a way of rising above our circumstances and finding a life that matters above what we would otherwise choose for ourselves. 

Christ brings us freedom from our binding sin, and it is only when we are free from it that we can truly love others with no concern for ourselves; unconditional love.

The references to the dying planet and being homeless are pointed at the way Christians refer to being sojourners of this world while awaiting their return to the Kingdom of Heaven where they have eternal citizenship.  

The “man in your heart” is the Holy Spirit who lives in the hearts of all believers.

Todd Rundgren did a lot of writing of lyrics for Utopia and they had several songs that refer to Christ’s love (Rock Love, Love is the Answer) and even mention Satan in one song, quoting Christ, “get thee behind me, Satan.”

Peter Gabriel and U2 are two other artists that used Christ’s message as the basis of their lyrical messages of love, peace, and spiritual freedom. They get the fact that Christ did not come to create religion, as people have done so poorly, but He came to invite us into a relationship with Him that feeds us love, grace, forgiveness, healing, joy, peace, and a truly great life. Don’t follow other people’s ideas, ask the One who came back from the grave – ask Him directly to show Himself to you and see what happens. Todd, Peter, and Bono know what He says.

TruthSleuthon October 15, 2005Link

LOVE IS THE ANSWER Rolling Stone Magazine Greg Prato

The message of the Beatles’ “All You Need Is Love” proved to be a universal and long-lasting one, which Utopia revisited 10 years later on this ballad. “From a lyrical standpoint, it’s part of a whole class of songs that I write, which are about filial love,” Todd Rundgren explained. “I’m not a Christian, but it’s called Christian love, the love that people are supposed to naturally feel because we are all of the same species. That may be mythical, but it’s still a subject.” Though “Love Is the Answer” wasn’t a hit, a cover version two years later by England Dan & John Ford Coley peaked at Number Ten on the Billboard singles chart.

John Ford Coley was quoted as saying: “Of all the songs we released as singles, that was my favorite. The song first of all had a classical base, and the middle had a gospel section which I loved.”^[4]

__

Tony thought she was a Christian because the message was basically  a Christian one and he even said he was not a “Good Samaritan.” Tony does not look for spiritual answers in AFTER LIFE, but he deals with issues that are life and death issues. 

• Sheila Walsh recorded it in 1988 for her album Say So, and performed it on her very first The 700 Club appearance as co-hostess.
• Bill Cantos and Justo Almario covered it in 1995 for the album Who Are You.
• Cindy Morgan covered it in 2000 for her greatest hits album, Best So Far.
• Bob Carlisle and Bryan Duncan recorded a gospel blues version in 2001.

Sheila Walsh Love Is The Answer

YOU’RE THE ONE JESUS LOVES! by Sheila Walsh

When I was a child and someone asked me what my name was I would say, “Sheila Davina Walsh.” My mum would tell me time after time that all I really needed to say was “my name is Sheila” but that made no sense to my five-year old brain. There are lots of Sheila’s living in the west coast of Scotland I figured and I’m the Sheila Davina Walsh one.It’s not a unique line of reasoning. Even Jesus’ friend’s, Mary and Martha attached an add-on to their brother Lazarus’s name. Lazarus was deathly ill and so the sisters sent word to JesusLord, the one You love is sick. — John 11:3 (NIV)They didn’t just say, “Lazarus is sick,” because that could have been Lazarus who runs the village store or Lazarus, the shepherd. No, they wanted Jesus to understand this is our Lazarus… the one You love.As I got older I discovered that not all the ways we identify ourselves are positive. Sometimes labels are attached to us and when we look in the mirror, those are all we see.I remember a moment like that when I was just ten years old. I was at summer camp and loving every moment of it until one comment from a girl changed everything. It was Friday morning and on Sunday the dads were driving up to go canoeing with their daughters. Over breakfast that day, a girl I’d met for the first time at camp asked me a simple question,“Is your dad coming on Sunday, Sheila?”Before I had a chance to answer, another girl at the table from my home church said,“Her dad’s not coming. He was mental. He killed himself.”Silence. No one spoke for a few moments then the bell rang for our morning activities. Everyone left but I couldn’t move. I just sat there frozen in my chair. What she said was cruel but true and no one looked at me the same way after that. On Sunday, everyone headed off to the lake with their dads and I sat on my bunk covered in shame, labelled.I wonder what labels you wear?Divorced?Single dad, single mom?Overweight?Out of a job?Failure?The list is endless. I remember talking to a very successful business man after an event I spoke at in Los Angeles. He told me that although he was a multi-millionaire, respected in his sphere, the voice he heard loudest in his head when he put his head on the pillow at the end of the day was his mother’s.“I should never have had you. Having you ruined my health.”Labels are like boxes. They keep us contained. They tell us what’s possible and what is not.For years I have worn the label of mental illness. I was hospitalized and diagnosed with clinical depression in 1992. I used to wear that label with shame but an encounter with a broken-hearted, shame-filled pastor’s wife changed that forever. This pastor knew that I was speaking in his town as many of the women from his congregation were attending. His wife was not.“She suffers with depression,” he wrote. “No one in our church knows because she thinks it will impact my ministry. Would you be willing to meet with her?”I told him I would be glad to. We met in a private room in my hotel. At first, she wouldn’t even look at me. I told her that she didn’t have to say a word but I would like to share some of my journey with her. At the end of an hour, we were on our knees together, tears pouring down our faces in the healing presence of Jesus Christ.When she left that day, and ran into her husband’s arms something inside my five feet four-inch frame rose up. I remember thinking, no more! No more allowing earthly labels to tell me who I am. That day I committed myself to fight for you as well. I don’t know what you have been through, you might be right in the middle of a mess at the moment but I want to remind you who you really are.You are the one Jesus loves.Yes, you! The apostle John got it first. Three times in his gospel, that’s how he identified himself.The disciple Jesus loved was sitting next to Jesus at the table. — John 13:23 NLTEarly on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. She said, “They have taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put Him!” — John 20:1-2 NLTPeter turned around and saw behind them the disciple Jesus loved. — John 21:20 NLTI don’t believe that John thought Jesus loved him more than the others, he just really got it, deep down, marrow-of-the-bone kind of understanding — This is who I really am. I am the one Jesus loves.So, that’s my prayer for you today. Let the labels go.Kick your way out of the box and be free.So, today and tomorrow and every day after that whenever you catch your reflection in the mirror, in a puddle or in a store window remember who you really are,I am the one Jesus loves!

—

On July 4, 2012 I got to hear Todd Rundgren play his hit LOVE IS THE ANSWER!!!!

Ringo Starr & His All Starr BandSetlistat The Wharf Amphitheater, Orange Beach, AL, USA

Tour: 12th All Starr Band

Setlist

SHARE   

1. Matchbox(Carl Perkins cover)Play Video
2. It Don’t Come Easy(Ringo Starr song)Play Video
3. Wings(Ringo Starr song)Play Video
4. I Saw the Light(Todd Rundgren song) (with Todd Rundgren)Play Video
5. Evil Ways(Willie Bobo cover) (with Gregg Rolie)Play Video
6. Rosanna(Toto cover) (with Steve Lukather)Play Video
7. Kyrie(Mr. Mister cover) (with Richard Page)Play Video
8. Don’t Pass Me By(The Beatles cover)Play Video
9. Bang the Drum All Day(Todd Rundgren song) (with Todd Rundgren)Play Video
10. Boys(The Shirelles cover)Play Video
11. Yellow Submarine(The Beatles cover)Play Video
12. Black Magic Woman / Gypsy Queen(with Gregg Rolie)Play Video
13. Anthem(Ringo Starr song)Play Video
14. I’m the Greatest(Ringo Starr song)Play Video
15. You Are Mine(Richard Page song) (with Richard Page)Play Video
16. Africa(Toto cover) (with Steve Lukather)Play Video
17. I Wanna Be Your Man(The Beatles cover)Play Video
18. Everybody’s Everything(Santana cover) (with Gregg Rolie)Play Video
19. Love Is the Answer(Utopia cover) (with Todd Rundgren)Play Video
20. Broken Wings(Mr. Mister cover) (with Richard Page)Play Video
21. Hold the Line(Toto cover) (with Steve Lukather)Play Video
22. Photograph(Ringo Starr song)Play Video
23. Act Naturally(Johnny Russell cover)Play Video
24. With a Little Help From My Friends(The Beatles cover) (with ‘Give Peace a Chance’ by…

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

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

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

Related posts:

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part I “Old Testament Bible Prophecy” includes the film TRUTH AND HISTORY and article ” Jane Roe became pro-life”

April 12, 2013 – 5:45 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 Biblical Archaeology, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit|Comments (0)

John MacArthur on fulfilled prophecy from the Bible Part 2

August 8, 2013 – 1:28 am

I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too.  I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry King’s Show. One of two most popular posts I […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit|Comments (0)

John MacArthur on fulfilled prophecy from the Bible Part 1

August 6, 2013 – 1:24 am

I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too.  I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry King’s Show. One of two most popular posts I […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events |Tagged Bible Prophecy, john macarthur | Edit|Comments (0)

John MacArthur: Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? (Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of Tyre, video clips)

April 5, 2012 – 10:39 am

Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit|Comments (1)

John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 2)

August 1, 2013 – 12:10 am

John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 2) I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too.  I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit|Comments (0)

John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 1)

July 30, 2013 – 1:32 am

John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 1) I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too.  I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit|Comments (0)

Adrian Rogers: “Why I believe the Bible is true”

July 9, 2013 – 8:38 am

Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Great article by Adrian Rogers. What evidence is there that the Bible is in fact God’s Word? I want to give you five reasons to affirm the Bible is the Word of God. First, I believe the Bible is the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Biblical Archaeology | Edit|Comments (0)

The Old Testament is Filled with Fulfilled Prophecy by Jim Wallace

June 24, 2013 – 9:47 am

Is there any evidence the Bible is true? Articles By PleaseConvinceMe Apologetics Radio The Old Testament is Filled with Fulfilled Prophecy Jim Wallace A Simple Litmus Test There are many ways to verify the reliability of scripture from both internal evidences of transmission and agreement, to external confirmation through archeology and science. But perhaps the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology, Current Events | Edit|Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part M “Old Testament prophecy fulfilled?”Part 3(includes film DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE)

April 19, 2013 – 1:52 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit|Comments (0)

Evidence for the Bible

March 27, 2013 – 9:43 pm

Here is some very convincing evidence that points to the view that the Bible is historically accurate. Archaeological and External Evidence for the Bible Archeology consistently confirms the Bible! Archaeology and the Old Testament Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | E

On Saturday April 18, 2020 at 6pm in London and noon in Arkansas, I had a chance to ask Ricky Gervais a question on his Twitter Live broadcast which was  “Is Tony a Nihilist?” At the 20:51 mark Ricky answers my question. Below is the video:

—

—

Ricky Gervais 25/07/2021 Facebook Live at 28:29 mark Ricky answers my question about Sam Harris

—

Proverbs 7 New Living Translation

Proverbs 7New Living Translation

Another Warning about Immoral Women

7 Follow my advice, my son;
    always treasure my commands.
² Obey my commands and live!
    Guard my instructions as you guard your own eyes.^[a]
3 Tie them on your fingers as a reminder.
    Write them deep within your heart.

⁴ Love wisdom like a sister;
    make insight a beloved member of your family.
⁵ Let them protect you from an affair with an immoral woman,
    from listening to the flattery of a promiscuous woman.

⁶ While I was at the window of my house,
    looking through the curtain,
⁷ I saw some naive young men,
    and one in particular who lacked common sense.
⁸ He was crossing the street near the house of an immoral woman,
    strolling down the path by her house.
⁹ It was at twilight, in the evening,
    as deep darkness fell.
¹⁰ The woman approached him,
    seductively dressed and sly of heart.
¹¹ She was the brash, rebellious type,
    never content to stay at home.
¹² She is often in the streets and markets,
    soliciting at every corner.
¹³ She threw her arms around him and kissed him,
    and with a brazen look she said,
¹⁴ “I’ve just made my peace offerings
    and fulfilled my vows.
¹⁵ You’re the one I was looking for!
    I came out to find you, and here you are!
¹⁶ My bed is spread with beautiful blankets,
    with colored sheets of Egyptian linen.
¹⁷ I’ve perfumed my bed
    with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.
¹⁸ Come, let’s drink our fill of love until morning.
    Let’s enjoy each other’s caresses,
¹⁹ for my husband is not home.
    He’s away on a long trip.
²⁰ He has taken a wallet full of money with him
    and won’t return until later this month.^[b]”

²¹ So she seduced him with her pretty speech
    and enticed him with her flattery.
²² He followed her at once,
    like an ox going to the slaughter.
He was like a stag caught in a trap,^[c]
23     awaiting the arrow that would pierce its heart.
He was like a bird flying into a snare,
    little knowing it would cost him his life.

²⁴ So listen to me, my sons,
    and pay attention to my words.
²⁵ Don’t let your hearts stray away toward her.
    Don’t wander down her wayward path.
²⁶ For she has been the ruin of many;
    many men have been her victims.
²⁷ Her house is the road to the grave.^[d]
    Her bedroom is the den of death.

–

Last week I had the awkward privilege of teaching sex ed to four teenage boys.  Put that down in the “Things I Didn’t Think I Would Do as a Preacher” column.  It actually went very well when all was said and done.  The young men behaved very maturely, and we were able to talk through some relevant scriptures in the process.  The main text we discussed was Proverbs 5, the same text I would like to share with you now.  In this chapter, an aged King Solomon shares wisdom gained through experience with his son (likely Rehoboam).  Solomon’s advice is actually a warning against what he calls the immoral woman.

Preliminary Observations

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are interesting to read after having read the histories of Solomon in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles.  The earlier histories end the story of the world’s most decorated king on a bitter note, especially 1 Kings 11.  That’s where the Bible tells us how Solomon, “loved many foreign women,” (v. 1) had 700 wives, 300 concubines, and as a result he was influenced to worship false gods.  All I can hear when reading those words is the *Wah, Wah, Wahhhhhhh…* sound effect from movies when something disappointing happens.  Having been with 1,000+ women, I would venture to say that Solomon, out of everyone in the whole world, was most qualified to speak on what he calls in Proverbs– the immoral woman.  

Furthermore, it would appear that Solomon learned a thing or two from sleeping with all those women.  We learn as much from his advice in Proverbs 5:18, “Rejoice with the wife of your youth.”  I might break down v. 18 and its companion verses in a later article, but know for now that if Ole King Solly (I’ll call him Solly from now on) learned anything from his mistakes, it was this: God’s plan for marriage was one man and one woman in a closed and committed relationship.  But as I have already mentioned, it took him a lot of mistakes to learn this ultimate truth.

The Immoral Woman

Now, let’s crack the code and figure out who this immoral woman is that Solly speaks about so frequently in the book of Proverbs.  Proverbs has a lot to say about this lady of the night (see 2:16-19; 5:3-20; 6:24-35; 7:5-27; 22:14; 23:27-28; 29:3; 30:20).  Sometimes she is called by other names in the NKJV such as the harlot (23:27) and the adulterous woman (30:20).  But in Proverbs 5 Solly introduces her like this, “My son, pay attention to my wisdom; lend your ear to my understanding, that you may preserve discretion, and your lips may keep knowledge. For the lips of an immoral womandrip honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil,” (v. 1-3).  He draws attention to her lips for two reasons: lips are a literal object of seduction and it is with the lips that the immoral woman speaks words that weaken the young man so he is defenseless.  Just read Proverbs 7:13-20 to see what this woman says and does with her lips to earn the name she is given.  This woman has no moral compass.  She has endulged in promiscuity for so long that she doesn’t even have a conscience about this kind of stuff anymore.  And while all of this accurately describes the immoral woman, allow me to help you visualize what she looks like.  It might surprise you.

Certainly women that work in gentlemen’s clubs and the like are immoral women.  There’s no doubt about that.  No one has trouble identifying those women.  Growing up, I always thought of those kind of women whenever I read or heard someone else read about the harlot of Proverbs.  Today we call these women prostitutes, hookers, escorts, and other names I won’t mention.  But to be sure, these types of women only make up sample of what Solly is talking about.  Today millions of young ladies every year graduate from the school of How to Be an Immoral Woman.  Classes start in 1st grade and extend through high school.  The main curriculum is TV, peer pressure, low self esteem, and watching everyone else in society.  They usually start clinicals sometime in high school.  These women don’t just work in clubs.  No.  They take your order at McDonalds.  They are administrative assistants at the RE/MAX real estate office in town.  They workout right next to you at the local Planet Fitness.  Some of them sit next to you at church.  They are young, old and in between.   Hardly any of these women would take money for sexual services; they would even frown and snarl at the very notion.  But here’s what they will do for free.  They will tell you dirty jokes and stories to see how you respond.  They will purposefully wear clothes that accentuate their curves and everything else.  They will fill social media with pictures of themselves, pictures that 50 years ago you could only see in a gas station magazine.  They will send you pictures of their body.  They will test you to see how far you are willing to go in the front seat of your car.  And they have no qualms about going to bed or doing other stuff with you before saying, “I do.”  This last one has become so socially acceptable among “Christians” today that I recently saw a Christian podcast episode entitled, “Is it a sin to live with your boyfriend or girlfriend?”  I thought to myself, “Why is that even a question that deserves one whole hour of discussion?”  My point is, the immoral woman of Proverbs is your average woman today.  Things could very well have been the same culturally speaking in Solly’s day but especially today.  His words could just as well say, “The lips of the average woman drip honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil.”  And with this introduction the king goes on to give a solution to his young son about how to interact with this woman.

How the Young Man Should Respond

Solly says to his son, “Remove your way far from her (the immoral woman), and do not go near the door of her house,” (v. 8).  You will notice what he DIDN’T say.  He didn’t say, “Go ahead and date her.  Maybe in the process you can rub off on her and she will change.”  Nah dawg.  The king who had been with 1,000 women looked his son in the eye and said, “Don’t give that chick a single inch, because fore you know it, she will have you walking with her into the depths of hell,” (v. 5, my translation).   I’ve seen it way too much, I’ve even lived it, where a young man thinks he is strong enough to entertain the immoral woman without getting his hands dirty only to find out he was wrong.  You’re lying to yourself if you think you are stronger and wiser than Solomon.  As I admonished my graduating class in 2011, “Don’t be stupid, cuz that’s stupid.”  

The Wrap

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 […]

—

Ronald Reagan with Milton Friedman

It is my very great pleasure to present to you our speaker today, professor Milton Friedman .What I want to talk about is really an issue which is very much related to the whole problem of human freedom.It has to do with the question of whether capitalism is humane and what you mean by.I am sure many of you have heard the funny of the old story about the two poles who met one another, and one pole said to the other.Tell me: do you know the difference between capitalism and socialism, and the other pole said?No, I don’t know the difference, and the first pole said: well, you know under capitalism, man exploits man.00:56The other fellow shook his head.Well under socialism.He said it’s vice-versa.Well, now that, as a matter of fact in the present intellectual atmosphere of the world is a relatively favorable evaluation of capitalism, the interesting thing to me about this is that the all of the arguments, the issues in this debate, which has been going on for so Long about the form of government have changed the argument used to be about strictly the form of economic organization.Should we have government control of production and distribution, or should we have a market control and the argument used to be made in terms of the supposedly greater efficiency of centralized government and have centralized control?01:50Nobody makes that argument anymore.There is hardly a person in the world who will claim the nationalized industries or socialism as a method of economic organization, is an efficient way to organize things.The examples of Great Britain, the examples of Russia, the examples of some of the other states around the world that have adopted these measures, plus the domestic grown examples of the post office in its fellows, have put an end to that kind of talk.But the interesting thing is that, nonetheless, there is widespread opposition for cat to capitalism as a system of organization, and there is widespread sewer support for some vague system, labeled socialism.The most dramatic example of the change in the character, the argument and the paradox that I’m really bringing out is Germany here was Germany, which experienced all the horrors of the Nazi totalitarian state in the 1930s.Here is Germany, which, after the war under the Erhard policy of socio, marked fear, shaft social market economy had an economic miracle, with an enormous rise in total income, enormous rise in the well-being of the German people of the ordinary people, and yet in German.Despite the demonstration of the horrors on the one side of a totalitarian state and on the other of the benefits of a relatively free market here in Germany, you will find a very large fraction of all.Intellectuals remain, and not only remain, have become even more strongly anti-capitalist have become proponents of collectivism of one form or another.Only a small number have gone into the more extreme versions that you’ve been reading about in the paper of the of the terrorists, but a very large fraction of the intellectuals.Those who write for the newspapers, those who are on television and so on, are fundamentally anti-capitalist in their mentality, and the question is why what is it that has produced this shift?04:11Now, one of the most enough is shift.What is it that produces this consistent attitude of anti capitalism on the one hand, and pro something called collectivism on the other among intellectuals?One of the most interesting analyses of these problems, I know, is by a Russian dissident mathematician named Schaffer ravitch, his essay, which has never been published needless to say in Russia, but it appears in English translation in a book called under the rubble, which has been edited By Alexander Solzhenitsyn and I strongly recommend that particular paper to you in it he discusses the appeal of socialism over the ages.He goes back a thousand or two thousand years, and he comes out with the conclusion that, just as Freud pointed to the death wish in individuals as a fundamental psychological propensity, the appeal of capitalism, he argued, I’m sorry, the appeal of socialism.The opposition to capitalism is really a fundamental sign of a death wish for society on the part of intellectuals.It’S a very strange and at first sight, highly improbable kind of an interpretation.Yet I urge you all to read that essay, because you will find that it is very disturbing by having a great deal more sense to it than you would suppose.05:45Such a position could possibly have I’m not going to take that line.Maybe he’s right, but I think, there’s a very much simpler analysis, a simpler reason for this, and that simpler reason is a combination of a supposed emphasis on moral values and ignorance and misunderstanding about the relationship between moral values and economic systems.I may say the emphasis on moral values is almost always on the part of people who do not have economic problems, it’s not on the part of the masses, but the problem with this approach, the problem of trying to interpret and analyze a system either pro or Con in terms of such concepts as a morality of the system or the humanity of the system, whether capitalism is humane or socialism is humane or moral or immoral.The problem with that is in moral values are individual, they are not collective.Moral values have to do with what each of us separately believes in holds true.What our own individual values are: capitalism, socialism, central planning our means, not ends they in and of themselves.They need a more alluring world, humane or humility in human.07:12We have to ask what are their results?We have to look at what are the consequences of adopting one or another system of organization, and from that point of view, the crucial thing is to look beneath the surface.Don’T look at what the proponents of one system or another say, are their intentions, but look at what the actual results are.Socialism, which means government ownership and operation of means of production, has appealed to high-minded fine people to people of idealistic views because of the supposed objectives of socialism, especially because of the supposed objectives and equality of equality and social justice.Now those are fine objectives and it’s a tribute to the people of good will that those objectives should appeal to them.But you have to ask the question: does a system, no matter what its proponents say, produce those results and once you look at the results, it’s crystal clear that they do not wear our social injustice is greatest social injustice, Azhar, clearly greatest, where you have central control.The degree of social injustice and torture in a place like in incarceration in a place like Russia is of a different order of magnitude than it is in those Western countries where most of us have grown up and in which we have been accustomed to.08:49Regarding freedom.As our natural heritage, social injustice in a country like Yugoslavia, which is a much more benign communist state than Russia, and yet you asked Jesus who languishes in prison for having written a book, you asked the people at the University of Belgrade who have been sent to Prison or many others who have been ejected from the country, social injustice in China, where you have had thousands of people murdered because of their opposition to the government.Again, you look at the question of inequality of equality.Where do you have the greatest degree of inequality in the socialist states of the world?I remember about 15 years ago my wife and I were in Russia for a couple of weeks.We were in Moscow and we were, we were going with.Our interest died and happened to see, I happen to see some of the fancy Russian limousines up there, the Zips they were sort of a take-off on the 1938 American Packers, and I asked our interest guide out of amusement.How much did those sell for all?10:04She said those aren’t for sale.Those are only for the members of the Politburo you have in a country like Soviet Union.Enormous inequality in the immediate literal sense that there is a small select group that has all of the services and amenities of life and very large masses that are in a very, very low standard of living.Indeed, in a more direct way, if you take the wage rate of foremen versus the wage rate of ordinary workers in the Soviet Union, the ratio is much greater than it is in the United States.I am reminded again of another if I seem somehow to be referring to Poland, but on this same trip that we took to Russia, we stopped in Poland in Warsaw for a while, and we met there, a marvelous man, a man by the name of Edward Lipinski, Who was in this country a year ago at the age of eighty, three or four, I believe was arrested when he got back to Poland, because he had been one of those who had signed an author to Declaration against the suppression of freedom of thought and speech.In Poland, but at the time we met Edward Lipinski, he would seem to be fairly afraid.He is a militant man who had been a socialist all his life, and this was really very hard for he was now in his 70s.I may say when we saw him, he was retired, very hard thing for a man to go back on all of his lifelong beliefs, and so he said as follows to us.He said you know.He said I used to believe in socialism.I still do, but socialism is an ideal.We can’t have it in the real world.He said until we’re rich enough to be able to afford it, and he said socialism will be practical when every man in Poland has a house and two servants, and I said to him, including the servants, and he said yes now.12:02Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system of organization that relies on private property and voluntary exchange.It has repelled people, it’s driven them away from supporting it because they have thought it emphasized self-interest in a narrow way, because they were repelled by the idea of people pursuing their own interests rather than some broader interest.Yet if you look at the results, it’s clear that the results go, the other way around there isn’t it’s in the capitalist societies of the world, where only where capitalism has prevailed over long periods.If you had both freedom and prosperity, the greatest measures of freedom, if you look at the Western countries where freedom prevails, it doesn’t prevail perfectly.We all have our defects, but by an eye on buying on the large few would deny that in the United States in Great Britain and France in Germany, in the Western Europe, we have a greater degree of freedom on an individual and personal level than you do.In most other places around the world in Australia, Japan to a considerable extent today, though, not two hundred years ago, if you look, you will find that freedom has prevailed where you’ve had capitalism and that simultaneously so has a well-being and the prosperity of the ordinary man.There’S been more social justice and less inequality now the question is that you have to ask and you have to ask the proponents of these two system.13:36Has socialism failed because it’s good qualities were perverted by evil men who got in charge?Was it simply because Stalin took over from Lanen that communism went the way it did?Has capitalism succeeded despite the immoral values that pervade it?13:56I think the answer to both questions is in the negative.The results have arisen because each system has been true to its own values, or rather a system doesn’t have values.I don’t mean that has been true to the values it encourages, supports and develops in the people who live under that system.What we’re concerned with in discussing moral values here are those that have to do with the relations between people.It’S important to distinguish between two sets of moral considerations, the morality that is relevant to each of us in our private life.How we, each individually conduct ourselves, behave and then what’s relevant to systems of government and organization, are the relations between people and in judging relations among between people.I do not believe that the fundamental value is to do good to others, whether they want you to or not.The fundamental value is not to do good to others, as you see their good, it’s not to force them to do good.As I see it, the fundamental value in relations to Hmong people is to respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow men to treat your fellow man not as an object to be manipulated for your purpose, but the treat him as a person with his own values.In his own rights, a person to be persuaded not coerced, not forced, not bulldozed, not brainwashed.That seems to me to be a fundamental value from in social relations in all systems, whether you call them socialism, capitalism or anything else.15:51People act from self-interest.The citizens of Russia act from self-interest in the same way as the citizens in the United States.Do.16:00The difference between the two countries is in what determines self-interest?The man in the United States who is serving as a foreman in a factory.16:12His self-interest leads him to worry about not getting fired.The man in Russia who is acting as Foreman in a factory.His self-interest leads him to worry about not being fired, both are pursuing their own self-interest, but the sanctions, the effects, what makes it in their self-interest is different in the one case and in the other, but self-interest should not be interpreted as narrow selfishness.I quote a man who speaks much more eloquently than I can.This is Thoreau, and I quote him from here’s what, though the Thoreau said about unselfishness as a moral virtue, he said there is no odor, so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted it.If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind.Nay, it is greatly overrated and it as to our it is our selfishness which over rates it if anything, L a man so that he does not perform his functions if he have a pain in his bowels.Even for that, as a seat of sympathy, he forthwith sets about reforming the world being a microcosm himself.He discovers and it is a true discovery, and he is the man to make it that the world has been eating green apples to his eyes.In fact, the globe itself is a great green apple, which there is danger awful to think of that the children of men will nibble before it is ripe and straight away.His drastic philanthropy seeks out the Eskimo and the Patagonian and embraces the populous, Indian and Chinese villages.That’S the row on unselfishness as a moral value, more important and more fundamentally, whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.You realize this is highly relevant to what I’m saying, because the essential notion of a capitalist society which I’ll come back to is voluntary cooperation.18:47Voluntary exchange.The essential notion of a socialist society is fundamentally force if the government is the master if society is to be run from the central center.What do you do?What are you doing?You automatically have to order people what to do?19:07What is your ultimate sanction?Go back a ways: take it on a milder level.Whenever you try to do good with somebody else’s money, you are committed to using force.How can you do good with somebody else’s money unless you first take it away from them?The only way you can take it away from them is by the threat of force.You have a policeman, a tax collector who comes and takes it from them.This is carrying much farther if you really have a socialist society, if you have an organization from the centre, if you have supposed government bureaucrats running things that can only ultimately rest on force, but whenever you resort to force even to try to do good, you must Not questions people’s motives, maybe they’re evil sometime, but look at the results of what they do give them the benefit of the doubt assume their motives are good.You know, there’s an old saying about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.You have to look at the LT and whenever you use force the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.The reason is not only that famous aphorism of Lord Acton, you all know it you’ve all heard absolute power corrupts absolutely I’m sorry.20:28Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely that’s a whole aphorism.That’S one reason why trying to do good with methods that involve force lead to bad results because of people who set out with good intentions are themselves corrupted, and I may add, if they’re not corrupted, they’re replaced by people with bad intentions, who are more efficient at Getting control of the use of force, but also the fundamental reason, is more profound.The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their instincts of their and of the purity of their intentions.That Thoreau says that philanthropy is a much overrated virtue.Sincerity is also a much overrated virtue.Heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what’s good for you and bye-bye heaven is going to make you do it, whether you like it or not.That’S when you get the greatest harm done.I have no reason to doubt that Lenin was a man whose intentions were good, maybe they weren’t, but he was completely persuaded that he was right and he was willing to use any methods at all for the ultimate good.21:53Again, it’s interesting to contrast.The experience of Hitler versus Mussolini Mussolini was much less of a danger to human right because he was a hypocrite because he didn’t really believe what he was saying.He was just in there for the game.He started out as a socialist.He turned to a fascist, he was willing to be bribed by whoever would bribe him the most.As a result, there were at least some protections against his arbitrary rule, but Hitler was a sincere fanatic.He believed in what he was doing and he did far greater harm or, if I may take you on to a minor key in which you may not join me.I realize Ralph Nader is a modern example of the same thing.I have no doubt that Ralph is sincere.I have no doubt that he means what he says, but that’s.Why he’s so dangerous a man who is threatening our freedom in the past in the past few decades?In the past few decades there has been a great decline in the moral climate.There are a few people who doubt the decline in the moral climate.We see evidences of it here, the lack of civility and discussions among people the resort to chance.Instead of arguments, these are all evidences on one level of a decline in moral climate, but we see it also in the rising crime statistics, in the lack of respect for property in the kind of rioting that broke out in New York after the blackout.In the problems of maintaining discipline in elementary schools, why why have we had such a decline in moral climate?I submit to you that a major factor has because it been because of a change in the philosophies which had been prominent in society, from a belief in individual responsibility, to a supposed belief in social responsibility, from a tendency to get away from the individual from his Responsibility for his own life in his own behavior, if he doesn’t behave properly, that’s his responsibility needs to be charged connected to a belief that, after all, it’s society that is responsible.24:19If you adopt the view that everything belongs to society, then it belongs to nobody.Why should I have any respect for property if it belongs to everybody, if you adopt the view that no man is responsible for his own behavior, because somehow or other society is responsible well, then why should he seek to make his behavior good?Now?Of course, don’t misunderstand me on a scientific level, it’s true that what we are is affected a great deal by the society in which we live and grow up.Of course, all of us are different than we would have been if we had grown up in a different society, so it’s not denying in the slightest the effect on all of us of the social institutions within which we operate both on our values and our opportunity.On our opportunities, but I am only saying that a set of social institutions which stresses individual responsibility, which stresses a responsibility for the of the individual, given the kind of person he is.The kind of society in which he operates to be responsible for himself is a kind of a society which is likely to have a much higher and more responsible moral climate than the kind of a society in which you stress the lack of responsibilities.25:42The individual.For what happens to him, let me note the schizophrenia in the talk about social responsibility.There’S always a tendency to excuse the people who are harmed by what happens or the people who are regarded as a victims, there’s always a tendency to excuse them from any responsibility.They didn’t riot in Harlem because they had no control over their emotions because they were bad people or because they were irresponsible people.No, they rioted because of what society did to him.That’S the argument, but nobody ever turns it around and argues the other way.If the people who rioted our innocent of guilt, because society who did it to it, then aren’t the people who are singled out as the oppressors, also free of guilt?26:36Do you hear these scenes saying people say?Oh no, we mustn’t blame those bad people who trampled the poor under their feet because they’re not doing it out of their own individual will society is making them forcing them to do it.If you’re going to use the doctrine of social responsibility, you ought to be even-handed both ways.It excuses both the victim and the person who is responsible, because that would be inconsistent in the person who is alleged to be responsible for the victimization.27:10And similarly, you must be even-handed on the signs.We must all of us be individually responsible for what we do to our fellow man, whether that be harm or good, there’s, an additional reason why you’ve had a decline in the moral climate.You’Ll.Pardon me for returning to my my discipline of economics, but there’s a fundamental economic law which has never been contradicted to the best of my knowledge, and that is, if you paste more for something there will tend to be more of that something available.If the amount you’re willing to pay for anything goes up somehow or other somebody will supply more of that thing, we have made immoral behavior far more profitable.We have, in the course of the changes in our society, been establishing greater and greater incentives on people to behave in ways that most of us regard as immoral on each of us separately.We’Ve all been doing it.One of the examples that has always appealed to me along these lines is the example of Great Britain, not now, but in the 19th century and 18th century.You know.In the 18th century, Britain was regarded as a nation of smugglers of law of avoiders of people who broke the law in the 19th and early 20th century.Britain got the reputation for being the most a law beating country in the world, an incorruptible civil service.Everybody knew about the fact that you couldn’t bribe a civil servant in Britain away.You could want to say Italy or New York.29:00How did that come about?How did a nation of smugglers with no respect for the law, get converted into a nation of people?Obedience of the law, very simply by Allah by the less a fair policy adopted in the 19th century, which eliminated laws to break.If you had complete free trade, if you had complete free trade, as you did after the abolition of the Corn Laws, there was no more smuggling.29:30It was a meaningless term.You were free to bring anything into the country you wanted.29:33You couldn’t be a smuggler who’s impossible.If you didn’t need a license to establish a business, you didn’t need a license to open up a factory.What was there to bribe a civil servant for the civil servants became incorruptible because there was nothing to bribe them for now.Of course, these patterns there’s a cultural lag, as you have all learned in your anthropology courses and these patterns, once they develop, lasts for a while.But what has been happening in Britain in the last 30 and 40 years as Britain has been moving away from?Essentially, let’s say fair and toward a much more controlled and centralized economy.30:09This reputation for law obedience is disappearing.You’Ve had repeated scandals about ministers of the government about members of parliament about civil servants who have been brought about the rise in gang warfare and the rest.Why?Because you’re establishing an incentive you’ve got more laws to break now, it’s much more fundamental, when the only laws are those laws which everybody regards is right and valence.They have great moral force when you make laws that people separately do not regard as right invalid.30:45They lose their moral force.Is there anybody in here who has a moral compunction to speeding?I’M not saying you may not have a Prudential objection to speeding, you may be afraid you’ll get caught, but does it seem to you Lee immoral to speed?Maybe if so you’re a small minority, I have never yet found anybody who regarded it immoral as immoral to violate the foreign exchange.Regulations of a foreign country here are people who would never dream for a moment of stealing a nickel from their neighbor who have no hesitancy on manipulating their income tax returns so as to reduce their taxes by thousands.Why?Because the one set of laws have a moral value that people recognize independent of the law of the government having passed these laws, the other cent do not appeal to people’s moral instincts, so I believe well, let me give you some more examples from the United States.Prohibition of liquor, which was attempted, as you know, had disastrous effects on the climate of law, obedience and more relevant, something which had been legal to buy and drink.Some alcoholic beverages became illegal and you converted, law-abiding citizens into bootleggers.I heard over the 60 minutes on the program last Sunday night, a great story on butt legging.This has to do with the fact that the New York state tax on cigarettes is very much higher than the tax on cigarettes in the state of South Carolina.So you have people going down to South Carolina and buying the South Carolina low, taxed cigarettes and smuggling it into New York State and forging New York state tax stamps on it and then selling it to publicly a large fraction of all cigarettes sold in New York.32:38State are but light now there you’ve provided an incentive for people to break the law, so they break the law.It’S like prohibition in a different form.The obvious answer is for New York State to lower its taxes, and you will eliminate, but legging overnight and them and be able to take whatever may be.The number of policemen who are devoted to enforcing that kind of thing.You will be able to take them and turn them to useful work.I go back, however, to the essence of capitalism and its relevance to the question of humanity.As I say, the essence of a capitalist system in its pure form is that it is a system of cooperation without compulsion, a voluntary exchange of free enterprise.Now, I hasten to add, no actual system conforms to that notion in the actual world.You’Re always dealing with with more or less in the actual world.You always have impediments and interferences to voluntary exchange, but the essential character of a capitalist system is that it relies on voluntary exchange on you’re agreeing with me that you will buy something from me.If I will pay you a certain amount for it, the essential notion is that both parties to the exchange must benefit.This was a great vision of Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations that individuals, each separately pursuing their own could promote the social interest because you could get exchanged between people on the basis of mutual benefit.Now I want to emphasize to you here for this purpose that this notion extends far beyond economic matters, narrowly conceived.That’S really the main point I want to get across here, and I want to give you some very different kinds of examples.34:35Consider the development of language, the English language.There was never any central government that dictated the English language that set up some rules for it.There was no Planning Board that determined what word should be nouns in what words vowels, and I mean what words adjectives.Language grew through the free market through voluntary cooperation.I used a word.You used a word if was mutually advantageous to us to keep on using that word.35:05We keep on using language grows.It develops, it expands it contracts through the free market.Consider the body of common law, not legislative law, which is a very different thing, but the body of common law people voluntarily chose to go to a court and allow the court to adjudicate their dispute in the process.35:27There arose and developed the body of common law.Again, no central plan, no central coordination.You are here in an academic institution.How did scientific knowledge and understanding arise?How do we get the development of science?Is there somehow or other a government agency that decides what are the most important problems to be studied?35:48That prevents cooperation.Unfortunately, there are developing such agencies, but in the history of science that isn’t the way science developed science developed out of free-market exchange, it developed on occasion with a patronage of an authority but voluntary cooperation among the scientists.I read voluntarily the work that is done by economists and other lands.They read my work, they take the parts of it.They like they discard the parts they don’t in the process.You build a more and more complicated system through voluntary, free, voluntary exchange based on the principle of mutual benefit.36:26Similarly, to a free market and ideas.Again, that is a free market of exactly the same kind as the economic market and no Durman, and the two are very closely interrelated.Is it a violation of the free market in goods or the free market in ideas?If a country as Great Britain did immediately after the war has exchanged control under which no citizen of Britain may buy a foreign book, unless he got authorization from the Bank of England to acquire the foreign currency, is that any restriction on human and economic freedom, or Is it a restriction on ideas on the free market and ideas?I want to give you a final example which goes back to the fundamental question: we’ve been raising and that’s voluntary charitable activity.I want you to ask you a question: go back to the 19th century in the United States it was a period when you had about the closest approximation to a capitalist society.You can imagine in which the federal government, who is spending roughly an amount equal to roughly 3 percent of the national income almost entirely on the Army and Navy state and local governments, were spending about 6 or 7 percent of the national income, mostly on schooling.Very little of what has come to be regarded as welfare, yet the 19th century was a period of the greatest burst of voluntary charitable activity that we have seen in this country or any other country at any other time.When was Cornell established how it was established by the voluntary benefaction of the man who gave you your name sometime?What was it 1860 something that period of the 19th century saw the emergence of a host of private colleges, universities throughout the country?My own University of Chicago was established in 1890 and voluntary by voluntary eleemosynary activity.It was also the period which saw the growth and development of the nonprofit charitable Hospital.It saw the establishment of foreign missions of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of the Boy Scouts.You name it.38:43There is hardly a voluntary activity carnegie libraries, the free public libraries.Why was it that voluntary activity flourished because, again, the free market, voluntary cooperation among people cooperating to pursue their common interests, is a far more effective and efficient way of producing charitable results than any other known to man?I ask you: what is a common element in all of these cases?I’Ve mentioned language, common law, scientific knowledge, ideas, charitable activity, the development of an elaborate and complex structure without any central planning and without coercion, no central planning and language, common law and scientific knowledge, and I did in voluntary activity.And yet you develop complex mechanisms, complex structures with order with structures which, after the event, you can analyze in logical terms, without coercion.39:49You have progress through harmony rather than the attempt to impose progress.Through course, capitalism is often reproached as being materialistic.It’S often repro she’s erecting money as the chief motives, but yet again look at the facts.I may say you know: money is not a very noble motive, but it’s cleaner than most, but look at the facts who has produced the great achievements of mankind.40:22Can you name me a great play that has been written by a government committee?Can you name me an invention that was produced by a government Bureau, the great works that are the great achievements of mankind of all been the achievements of individuals of a Shakespeare or a George Bernard Shaw.George Bernard Shaw is a beautiful example because of course, as you know, he wrote the book the famous book, the Intelligent Woman’s Guide to socialism.He regarded himself as a socialist, but his career and his performance is a striking demonstration of the virtues of a capitalist system.He opposed again in science, it’s Einstein Copernicus Galileo, who are the great contributors of scientific ideas, not through government central organization, but mostly in spite of it in Galileo’s cases.You know, despite persecution, by the centralized authorities of his time again in the areas of charity.Florence Nightingale was not a government civil servant, she was a private individual, human being who was seeking to achieve the objective she held dear.41:43She was pursuing her self-interest.The plain fact is that in any society, whatever may be its form of organization, the people who are not interested in material values are a small minority.There are no societies in the world today that are more materialistic than the collectivist societies.It’S the Russian societies.It’S the Chinese societies, it’s the Yugoslavs ayahs that put all their stress on materialism on achieving economic goals and five-year plans that the non-materialistic achievements of mankind.Why?Because they are in a possession of position to suppress minorities.What we want for a society that is at once, humane and gives opportunity for great human achievements, is in a society in which that small minority, a minority of people who do not have materialistic objectives who are interested in some of these other achievements, have the greatest Degree of freedom and the only society that anybody has ever invented than anybody has ever discovered that comes close to doing.42:55That is a capitalist society.When you hear people objecting to the market or to capitalist, and you examine their objections, you will find that most of those objections are objections to freedom itself.What most people are objecting to is that the market gives people what the people want.43:15Instead of what the person talking thinks the people oughta want.This is true whether you are talking of the objections of a Galbraith to the market, whether you are talking of the objections of a Nader to the market, whether you were talking of the objections of a Marx or an angles or a Lenin to the market.The problem is that in a market society in a society in which people are free to do their own thing in which people make voluntary deals, it’s hard to do good.You’Ve got to persuade people and there’s nothing in this world harder.But the important thing is that in that kind of society it’s also hard to do harm.It’S true that if you had a concentrated power in the hands of an angel, he might be able to do a lot of good as he viewed it.But one man’s good is another man’s then, and the great virtue of a market capitalist society is that it be by preventing a concentration of power.It prevents people from doing the kind of harm which really concentrated power can do so that I conclude that capitalism per se is not humane or inhumane.Socialism per se is not humane or anyway, but capitalism tends to give the give free rein, much free rein to the more humane values of human beings.It tends to develop a climate which is more favorable to the development, on the one hand, of a higher moral atmosphere of responsibility and, on the other, to greater achievements in every realm of human understanding.Thank

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 2-5

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 7 of 7)

October 21, 2011 – 12:15 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did? VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 6 of 7)

October 14, 2011 – 12:14 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 5 of 7)

October 7, 2011 – 12:13 am

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 5 of 7 MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter) VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not? MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 4 of 7)

September 30, 2011 – 12:12 am

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 4 of 7 The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

September 23, 2011 – 12:11 am

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

September 16, 2011 – 12:10 am

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

September 9, 2011 – 12:09 am

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 7 of 7)

March 16, 2012 – 12:25 am

  Michael Harrington:  If you don’t have the expertise, the knowledge technology today, you’re out of the debate. And I think that we have to democratize information and government as well as the economy and society. FRIEDMAN: I am sorry to say Michael Harrington’s solution is not a solution to it. He wants minority rule, I […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 6 of 7)

March 9, 2012 – 12:29 am

PETERSON: Well, let me ask you how you would cope with this problem, Dr. Friedman. The people decided that they wanted cool air, and there was tremendous need, and so we built a huge industry, the air conditioning industry, hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous earnings opportunities and nearly all of us now have air […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 5 of 7)

March 2, 2012 – 12:26 am

Part 5 Milton Friedman: I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 4 of 7)

February 24, 2012 – 12:21 am

The fundamental principal of the free society is voluntary cooperation. The economic market, buying and selling, is one example. But it’s only one example. Voluntary cooperation is far broader than that. To take an example that at first sight seems about as far away as you can get __ the language we speak; the words […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3 of 7)

February 17, 2012 – 12:12 am

  _________________________   Pt3  Nowadays there’s a considerable amount of traffic at this border. People cross a little more freely than they use to. Many people from Hong Kong trade in China and the market has helped bring the two countries closer together, but the barriers between them are still very real. On this side […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2 of 7)

February 10, 2012 – 12:09 am

  Aside from its harbor, the only other important resource of Hong Kong is people __ over 4_ million of them. Like America a century ago, Hong Kong in the past few decades has been a haven for people who sought the freedom to make the most of their own abilities. Many of them are […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1of 7)

February 3, 2012 – 12:07 am

“FREE TO CHOOSE” 1: The Power of the Market (Milton Friedman) Free to Choose ^ | 1980 | Milton Friedman Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 4:20:46 PM by Choose Ye This Day FREE TO CHOOSE: The Power of the Market Friedman: Once all of this was a swamp, covered with forest. The Canarce Indians […]

—