Dr. Robert Sumner passed away in December 2016. The Biblical Evangelist newspaper is no longer being published and the ministry of Biblical Evangelism has ceased operation.

The remaining inventory of his books and gospel tracts was transferred to The Baptist Tabernacle of Los Angeles and may be ordered here.

Off the Cuff!
Dr. Robert L. Sumner

One of our favorite preachers was Richard S. Beal, long pastor at the First Baptist Church of Tucson, Arizona. God blessed him will long life (he lived past the century mark) and his messages are still very timely. This one deals with one of the trilogy parables in Luke 15 and highlights a responsibility of every child of God.

There is a strong Bible sermon on the simplicity of salvation, emphasizing the “whosoever will” aspect, by the man called the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, pastor in his day of the great Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England.

We are unashamedly pretribulation and premillennial in our eschatology. In our Bible Study Corner this issue we have a fine study by Bernard Northrup dealing with the rapture in Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians. You will find it helpful and challenging.

We think you will also be helped by the message from Bruce Oyen, a pastor in Montana, about how, after years as a committed Calvinist, he saw the error of that teaching and abandoned it. It is not his first time to write for us.

This month’s message from the editor is based on Christ’s blessed invitation of Matthew 11, inviting sinners to experience His rest in redemption. Since this is Labor Day month, we think it is timely.

Along with a message from the editor, Dottie Sumner has an excellent study for parents about raising teenagers. Since she did such an excellent job raising 8 children (her kids asked me to say that – no, I’m just joking), we think others could profit greatly by her tips, originally written for her private use.

Our Guest Editorial by Ralph Crotty needs a word of explanation. As you know, the editor is hesitant about printing suggestions of praise for his ministry, but our friend of over 55 years – and long-time member of the board of Biblical Evangelism – was burdened to write an appeal for our “$40,000 for 40 Years” campaign and sent it to us unsolicited. Even then we might not have printed it but he and his dear wife, Genny, also sent their personal check for $1,000. Since it was also the time of special medical expenses for them (Mrs. Crotty underwent open-heart surgery and their only insurance was Medicare) and obviously a sacrificial gesture on their part, it seemed clear God was in it and so we are printing it. I think God will use his gracious appeal to speak to hearts – and the writer proved his sincerity with his check.

Incidentally, Ralph designed the heading for our paper which was adopted years ago and still being used: the heart in the middle of our name, fire inside, and the quote from Jeremiah 20:9.

We are also launching a new column in this issue, one aimed at boys and girls, written by a young married couple, Brett and Naomi Williams, parents of one little girl. As longtime readers know, we had for years a very popular children’s column written by the editor’s youngest son, Ron, “The Adventures of Squirrelock Holmes.” We think this new column, “Camp Virtue,” will be well received also.


$40,000 CAMPAIGN!


With this campaign the old Negro spiritual seems to apply: “Sometimes I’m up, sometimes I’m down.” We have good news and bad news all the time.

Here’s a little of the good news. Our 16-year-old grandson, Alex Miller, finished his sophomore year at Timberlake Christian School here in Lynchburg last Spring. Having reached this adult age he could now qualify for a summer job at some local business. The first and only establishment where he inquired, Quiznos, a fast food enterprise a cut above most such emporiums, hired him on the spot.

On Father’s Day, after I preached at the Timberlake Baptist Church, we and other family members were enjoying dinner together when he gave me a Father’s Day card. I opened it and, in addition to the gracious sentiments on the card, was his note, “Happy Father’s Day to you, Grandpa Sumner. Enclosed is my first gift to The Biblical Evangelist. What better way to spend my first paycheck? Love, Alex.”

And there, clipped to the card, were 6 sharp photographs of Andrew Jackson, the former President whose likeness is on our $20 bills! That’s right; he gave his entire first check of his very first job to the ministry of Biblical Evangelism. I was thrilled beyond words. I thought the gift of Mrs. Sumner and yours truly might inspire you, reported in our last issue, but this beats that “seven ways for Sunday,” as the old expression goes.

Others have been giving sacrificially, too.

Ask yourself, “What would God have me to do?” There is only one more issue left in our 40th anniversary year.

Along this line, I recently ran across a poem by one of my favorite secular ‘rhymers’ (some would not call him a poet, although I would), Edgar A. Guest (who wrote so long and so beautifully for the Detroit Free-Press):

“Out of this life I shall never take

Things of silver and gold I make.

All that I cherish and hoard away

After I leave, on earth must stay.

Though I have toiled for a painting rare

To hang on my wall, I must leave it there.

Though I call it mine and boast of its worth

I must give it up when I quit the earth.

All that I gather and all that I keep,

I must leave behind when I fall asleep.

And I often wonder what I shall own

In that other life, when I pass alone.

What shall they find and what shall they see

In the soul that answers the call for me?

Shall the Great Judge learn, when my task

       is through

That the spirit had gathered some riches, too?

Or shall at the last it be mine to find

That all I had worked for I’d left behind?

With that we just say, “What would God have me do?” And read that guest editorial by our dear friend Evangelist Ralph Crotty in this issue, too.




Dr. Jim Shaddix, pastor of the Riverside Baptist Church in Denver, offered his "top 10 commandments" for worship in music at the LifeWay Ridgecrest Conference Center in the Blue Ridge Mountains during a conference last June. A former professor at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, we offer the helpful 10 without his comments.

1. Thou shalt worship God, not worship worship.

2. Thou shalt worship as a lifestyle and not as a music style.

3. Thou shalt make the Divine Seeker comfortable first and foremost.

4. Thou shalt use music as a sacrifice of praise, not as synonym for worship.

5. Thou shalt be theologically equipped.

6. Thou shalt reflect a holistic theology in worship content.

7. Thou shalt worship in a rhythm of revelation and response.

8. Thou shalt employ lyrics that reflect communal identity.

9. Thou shalt use technology with theological and pastoral sensitivity.

10. Thou shalt foster worship that reflects the diversity and unity of Heaven.





We live in strange days. A good "doctor" in the Fort Worth area wrote wanting copies of our articles on Dr. Curtis Hutson. All of them went back so far I did not have them on the computer, so I spent the better part of 3 days taking the longest one and computerizing it, sending it to him with my compliments. He sent back a note saying it was of no value to him (apparently because he hadn't seen the original attack on me by Dr. Hutson). I sent him back what I considered a kindly note and dismissed the matter from my mind. To my amazement he responded by saying I didn't need to get angry and he apologized for offending me. I answered immediately saying I felt no anger and that he didn't owe me an apology since no offense had been taken.

For some reason, to infer he had misjudged me really teed him off (he boasted to me that he had 3 'earned' doctorates in psychology, which may have been the problem!) – he apparently is associated with Teleios Ministry, a counseling organization that was launched back in the 1980s primarily to train lay people in counseling; its web says it has "over 225 lay helpers officially caring for others" today. And he repeated his insistence I had shown anger. I kindly responded again to deny anger and quoted Matthew 7:1-2 to show that judging my heart was wrong (assuring him he could judge my words and my actions any time) and pointing out that 3 doctorates in psychology didn't negate that biblical demand not to judge.

While I assumed the correspondence was over, strangely he responded again, this time by addressing me as "Ms. Ipso Facto," using the feminine title, apparently, to put me down. On the subject line of his e-mail he had written: "You Are A Nut-Ball!!!!!" (Yes, the five exclamation marks were his.) He questioned my Bible training (saying I should ask for my money back), said I didn't know "nothing about God's Word," and offered to recommend "a number of excellent Fundamental Baptist Bible Colleges & Seminaries that might accept" me as a student. He assured me his diagnosis of my anger didn't make him guilty of judgmental hypocrisy and demanded proof, saying, "Provide me with examples and back them up with scripture out of God's Preserved Word, the King James Bible!"

Then, to add amazement to amazement, he said, "I would greatly appreciate if you would never contact me for any reason. Not only would I refuse to read and answer it but I have chosen to block any/all e-mails from your e-mail address and the entire juno domain." (So much for his demand that I answer giving proof, backed up by "God's Preserved Word, the King James Bible!") Weird, huh? And he is a ‘psychologist’ with 3 ‘earned’ doctorates?

He closed by saying: "Just in case you are not fully understanding what I am saying, try this on for size: Take your screwed up theology and go hence, Ms. Ipso Facto!" Yes, talk about weird!

I responded to him with this brief and final note:

Two observations:

1. Job 12:22.

2. Is this how you do counseling? Calling people you deal with "nut-balls" and men "Ms"? Ipso facto: where did you get your doctorates in counseling?

And this is the thanks I get for all my time and effort to help you!

Yes, my friend, "doctorates in counseling DO NOT negate Matthew 7:1-2!" You have no right to judge my heart/motives. Actions? Yes. Words? Yes. Heart? Never! Someone who does is a hypocrite! And I am still not angry! I send your notes on to others so they could laugh with me!

Just curious: which KJV is God's preserved Word? There are 5 or 6 of them, you know.

I will not give his name here "to protect the ignorant," but if anyone in the Fort Worth/Dallas complex is anticipating counseling, check with me and I'll give you his name so you'll know whom not to engage!




In our May-June issue we reported conversations about lesbian Marsha Stevens relating to Mark Lowry and Bill/Gloria Gaither and their Homecoming concert at Phoenix. Mr. Gaither has now published a statement about it and we are glad to report it, although there are still several discrepancies about what happened. Note the following:

1. Gaither said, "she was in attendance and asked if she could come backstage and say hello." In Marsha's version, she says she contacted the Gaither's in advance for "backstage passes" and, to her surprise, received them.

2. Bill says when he and Mark "greeted Marsha and her partner someone snapped a photograph of the four of us, a picture Marsha has exploited on her Web site ever since." We have seen the picture and it wasn’t “snapped,” it was happily “posed” with beaming faces!

3. He went on, "False reports of what transpired at the concert have also surfaced on various Web sites so we pulled the videotape of the concert and reviewed it," then he goes on to give his version of "exactly what happened." However, what was said from the platform of the conference – and his version seems to agree with hers and ours about that; i.e., all versions of the “public” harmonize – was not the thrust of our objection. It was what Lowery and the Gaithers said offstage that was the whole issue of our protest. In that matter, Lowery is seen clearly to endorse Sodomy (called lesbianism there) and to say, "I wish the Fundamentalist would find Jesus," the inference being that one who opposes Sodomy doesn't know Jesus.

4. Stevens says when Bill and Gloria approached her they echoed Lowry's endorsement, both saying they appreciated her ministry today.

5. He quotes his own words from the platform that night, admitting he said basically how we quoted him (although he apparently wasn’t referring to us), "The only Christ I know is the Christ in that song, with His arms out very wide, saying, ‘come to the water.’ That’s the only Christ I know – come as you are.” While we don't jump up and down objecting to putting it that way, we can understand how it could be interpreted, "come as you are with all your sin, there is no need for repentance." As we pointed out, that would be antinomianism. We doubt that the Gaithers meant it that way, although they embrace many on their Homecoming platforms who would (and have, and do).

6. Bill went on, "We then continued the concert without any further mention of Marsha or this song. Any other report of this concert is simply and sadly false." But, as we have noted, the serious "other reports" related to what transpired backstage, not on the concert stage. And they are being flaunted on Sodomite websites.

7. If those are "false reports," the Gaithers should have their attorneys contact Miss (Mrs.?) Stevens and her husband? (wife?) and demand they be removed from her/their web.

8. We have said all this because we wanted to report Gaither's conclusion. He said, "I regret that this brief exchange has apparently been used to suggest some sort of endorsement of Marsha and her current life and work. Clearly I do not endorse or support either, though I believe God can, and does still use this song to minister to people. I pray for Marsha and encourage others to do the same."

We are glad to publish this repudiation of any Sodomite lifestyle and his clear declaration that he does "not endorse or support" either Marsha’s "life" or "work." That part is commendable.




The man who served the SBC as parliamentarian for the past 21 annual meetings, Barry McCarty, reminisced about those battle days when the convention was being turned back around from liberal control to its original inerrancy position. We were covering the convention during those days and recall the absolute wisdom with which McCarty handled those trying to disrupt proceedings with technical charges.

About his first convocation, in Atlanta, McCarty said, “The thing I remember most about [it] was that they threw everything at us, including the kitchen sink,” adding, “It was pretty obvious to me that people who were opposed to the president had found that in the point of order they had a way to harass the chair.” A total of some 60-70 "points of order" were raised in that short meeting.

He described his first five conventions the most contentious, in fact "very, very intense.” After that, ending with the one in 1990 at New Orleans (which our report in TBE titled "'Circus' in New Orleans"), the contention "began to wane." A Texan, just up the road from where I used to pastor, Morris Chapman, was elected that year – when 38,416 registered messengers were present, 3rd largest in history – defeating moderate candidate Daniel Vestal in a landslide of more than 5,700 votes (57.68% to 42.32%), such a strong signal that the battle tapered off after than.

In fact, the parliamentary battle that year was so strong, McCarty recommended (and President Jerry Vines enacted) a little known rule in Robert's Rules of Order that when points of order become frivolous it is not necessary to respond. Who knows how many "points" would have been raised if those microphones hadn’t been silenced?

One thing about McCarty's interview that impressed me was the fact that each president he worked with told him, “Help me do the right thing. I want to be fair." He rightly judged that to be an indication of their character, concluding, "The presidents have been genuine Christian men of deep, unshakable biblical convictions – men of faith, honesty and integrity." In case you’ve forgotten, those men were Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman, Ed Young, Jim Henry, Tom Eliff, Paige Paterson, James Merritt, Jack Graham, and Bobby Welch.

This fourth generation preacher with Alexander Campbell roots called the SBC "the greatest vehicle for cooperative efforts in evangelism in all of Christian history.” And he acknowledged "some great men of God who endured many sacrifices to bring the Southern Baptist Convention to where it is today.”




The president of Southern Seminary, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, noted that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has sunk to a new low in recommending gender-inclusive language to their churches. Here is what it suggests for the Trinity in place of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost," taken from a paper, "The Trinity: God's Love Overflowing."

These new triads include: "Rainbow, Ark and Dove," "Speaker, Word and Breath," "Overflowing Font, Living Water and Flowing River," "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb," "Sun, Light and Burning Ray," "Giver, Gift and Giving," "Lover, Beloved and Love," "Rock, Cornerstone and Temple," "Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides and Storm that Melts Mountains," and "The One Who Was, The One Who Is and The One Who Is to Come." Note that while "Father" is bad taste for modern Presbyterians, "Mother" is okay!

Before the debacle was finished, some old-timey (!) delegate moved an amendment that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remain standard for use during baptisms," and it carried.

These meddlers with historic biblical language explained their actions by saying the modern church is "liberated to interpret, amplify, and expand upon the ways of naming the triune God familiar to most church members." Mohler quoted leading feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether to the effect, "Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible." If feminism is to win in today’s churches, new language for God must be introduced.

They also voted, 298-221 to let local congregations and regional presbyteries do what they think is best as to its clergy and lay leaders confining sex to marriage – even though its constitution decrees otherwise. Incredible? Well, yes, but not surprising when biblical inerrancy is tossed in the trash. All the denominational seminary presidents were behind the scheme.

The Presbyterian establishment, including all seminary presidents and many officials, promoted the local autonomy plan, which was devised by a special task force. The idea is to grant modest change to liberals but mollify conservatives by keeping the sexual law on the books.

Many of our readers, like Mrs. Sumner, came to know Christ in a Bible-preaching Presbyterian church and find today's actions very sad.




It is sort of funny, reading secular journalists waxing eloquent on the ‘changing trend’ within America’s largest Protestant denomination. Apparently wanting a return to the good copy produced by the inerrancy battle of the ’80s and ’90s, they are now pontificating about the “kinder, gentler” president elected at the last convention.

Before me at the moment is a California paper referring to Dr. Frank Page’s “upset victory.” We wouldn’t call it an upset at all. For one thing, he was home grown and everyone is aware, I assume, that someone born and raised in the same state as the convention (in this case, the same city) has a decided advantage – and Page had the additional benefit of being a pastor in neighboring South Carolina (First Baptist, Taylors; less than 200 miles away). A possible third reason was his book on the Calvinism issue – we estimate that the majority of SBC preachers hold his position, not the alternative strongly Calvinist one. Maybe some even voted for him as “the little guy” (from a small town with less than 14,000 population). And, undoubtedly, the fact that it was a 3-man race with both of Page’s opponents standing for the same thing, helped split their vote – and either man in a 2-man race would probably have defeated Page. Who, by the way, is a good man; we don’t mean to imply otherwise.

The California column I read indicated Page wasn’t “the angry, right-wing, politicized preacher who has been a stock figure in American life for more than two decades,” proving it by quoting his press conference after the election when he said, “I believe in the Word of God; I’m just not mad about it.” We understood that as a joke, self depreciating his easygoing nature.

But to back up his thesis, the Golden Bear journalist went to the man most of them run to when they want a strong statement against the Bible believers in the SBC, good old Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest Divinity School. Bill was one of the first casualties in the SBC housecleaning when Bible believers gained control and he has been smarting ever since. This time, he explained that Page’s election was proof “the leadership of the denomination that pushed it hard to the right on theological and social issues is aging or passing from the scene and is unable to rally the troops as they once did.”

The columnist then threw in a quote that indicated it came from Leonard, but Bill knows too much about the case to make this kind of an error, so it must have been an insertion by the writer (columnists love to insert their thoughts and make them sound like they are coming from an authority). He said Leonard “argues that many Baptists are sensitive to ‘static or declining’ membership numbers and the rising popularity of nondenominational churches such as [Rick] Warren’s” at Saddleback in Orange County. That blunder comes from whoever said it not knowing that Warren’s Saddleback in not a “nondenominational church.” It is a member, of all things, of the Southern Baptist Convention! Leonard would know that.

Oh, well. The columnist needed copy and he probably had a deadline to meet. Too, some of us did find it humorous and entertaining! And isn’t that why some read the papers?




Since we have mentioned the Biblicists in the SBC, it is only right we mention the opposition. The strong Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention held their annual "Founders Conference" (a misnomer, in our judgment) last July in Oklahoma. Speakers included a Baptist (who based his message on what Martin Luther said), a Presbyterian, a Baptist who highlighted the "general call" and the "effectual call" in his sermon (something the Bible says nothing about), two Baptist professors, one of historical theology who pointed out that "saving faith is not mere mental assent" (certainly true) and the other teaching missions and cultural anthropology – both teaching at Southern Seminary where the president is strongly Calvinistic.

Those who disagree with them are said to be preaching a "new perspective" and one speaker (Sam Waldron, the Baptist above whom we noted "based his message on what Martin Luther said") called it closer to Roman Catholicism than the Bible! This speaker had previously – for nearly a quarter of a century – been pastor of the “Reformed Baptist Church" in Grand Rapids, the Calvinist capital of American. Reformed Baptist, of course, is a contradiction of terms. He now teaches theology at something called the Midwest Center for Theological Studies. The "new perspective" has been "popularized ... through such books as What Saint Paul Really Said," written by Bishop N. T. Wright, whom the speaker called "a self-styled evangelical," in reality a Church of England scholar (Episcopalian to you).

One of the speakers, Fred Malone, warned the audience, "This is no small issue. To change the words of the Gospel and the [content] of the Gospel is to change the Gospel." He pointed as proof to I Corinthians 15, but what does that say? "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (Vss.1-4).

Note that there is nothing in that definition of the gospel about irresistible grace, limited atonement or unconditional election. According to Malone, "The Gospel includes the character and attributes of God, the sinfulness of man as exposed by the law of God, the certainty of God’s judgment and both the person and work of Christ." He added, "Gospel proclamation must set forth the incarnation of Christ, His humiliation and death on Calvary and His resurrection," saying also, "The true Gospel also trumpets the good news that sinners are justified by faith and made righteous through Christ’s righteousness, which is 'imputed' – or given – to them ... includ[ing] a clear call to repentance and faith in Christ."

As one who has reached literally hundreds – we are tempted to say thousands but we didn't keep records – of folks through personal work, we are glad we didn't need to explain all that to each one, being able to sum up the gospel just as Paul did to the Corinthians. 

Malone went on to blast what he called "carnal Christian teaching" that sounded like he was teaching a salvation by works.




Strangely, at the recent GARBC meeting, messengers voted to officially “separate” from Cedarville University as an association (311 yea, 283 nay). In our humble opinion, it won’t hurt Cedarville – which has been the GARBC’s main liberal arts academic institution for more than a half-century – but it will be detrimental to the GARBC. The issue was over secondary separation. That it wasn’t a smashing victory for the Council of 18 (which recommended the action) is obvious by the vote (barely squeaking through by a margin of 28 ballots, well under the number of those who vote for whatever the leadership recommends, whether they understand it or not). In short, if you took out the “sheep vote,” the issue would have lost, probably decisively.

One report I read about the action included this: "I would like to add that Dr. Greening did remind the messengers that, years ago, there was a proposed merger between the GARBC and the Conservative Baptist Association (CBA). The merger failed to materialize due to a disagreement on secondary separation. The CBA, while adhering to primary separation, was at odds with the GARBC’s practice of secondary separation as presented by the association founders, including Dr. Ketcham. This was a major revelation to us young fundamentalists, demonstrating the trajectory of the GARBC."

Dr. Greening, of course, is the current National Representative of the GARBC. The reason it was such a "major revelation" to the “young fundamentalists” is because it isn't true. One advantage of age is that often an editor (like yours truly) goes back to the time of the action, or thereabouts! Such is true in this instance.

The matter Dr. Greening referenced failed because some in the CBA wanted the right for its churches – those who so desired – to have dual membership with another group. The GARBC leadership said no, that single membership was the right and proper way to go. That broke up the party! By a possible "stretch" of the imagination it might be called that, but there were anti-secondaries on the Council at the time and so it surely was not the deciding issue.

Sorry, Mr. National Rep, but you are in error! Not only so, but the hero (rightfully so) of the GARBC, Dr. Robert Thomas “Bob” Ketcham himself did not endorse secondary separation, as was so aptly documented a few years back by his son-in-law, Dr. Donald Moffat. Too, in the early days of the separation battle, the bad guys we were separating from were named (such as Harry Emerson Fosdick, Shailer Mathews, Walter Rauschenbusch, Nels F. S. Ferré, Willim Rainey Harper, and others of that nature), but as far I have heard, no one has named any liberal associated with Cedarville. Surely no one suggests L. Paige Patterson, Hayes Wicker or Jack Kwok (Southern Baptists on Cedarville’s board) are liberals, do they!

Your editor owes a lot to the GARBC fellowship. He was saved, educated in the only school it had at the time, pastored its churches in his early ministry, and served on its council for several years. It would seem to me that the group that reached your editor for Christ back in 1940 is wandering down a road less traveled by its forebears. And, we add, it is doing so at its peril.




George W. Bush does have a pen with ink after all. For the first time since swearing in back in January of 2001, he vetoed a bill. And, not surprising based on his passionate devotion for "right to life," it was the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would have destroyed human embryos. He explained he acted because the bill crossed a "moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.” And he added, “If this bill would have become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. And I’m not going to allow it.”

Quoting Baptist Press:

"Bush announced his actions in the White House’s East Room to an audience that included 18 families with 'snowflake' children they adopted as embryos in storage at fertility clinics, four families who donated embryos to other families and four people who have been treated with non-embryonic stem cells, which do not harm donors.

“Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete,” the President said of the children who surrounded him. “These boys and girls are not spare parts. They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals.”

Amen, Mr. President. Amen!

In a strange move that indicated some Congressmen and women are more concerned with destroying embryos than doing medical research, the House fell a dozen votes shy of passing a bill supporting such research without creating or harming tiny human beings. The House action came after the Senate had approved the same bill by a margin of 100-0. Evidently some in the lower body want to rule or ruin, led in this instance by Republican Michael Castle of Delaware.

Florida's Congressman Dave Weldon responded – accurately, we might add – this way: “Supporters of H.R. 810 have consistently said that they support all avenues of stem cell research ... until today.” His written statement went on: “Tonight the mask came off, and we now know this: They want to exclude all science except that which requires the killing of embryos. That is as [ghastly] a position as I’ve seen in all my years on the Hill.

“They have the gall to say with a straight face that the methods outlined in the alternatives bill are ‘fake research,’ a ‘distraction’ and that they hold ‘no real promise.’ Unfortunately, the very researchers they so often tout in favor of H.R. 810 are publishing papers in high profile journals confirming the promise of these alternative methods of creating embryo-like stem cells without destroying an embryo.”

Is this vile world a friend of life? Obviously not!




America passed the 18th amendment in 1919, thanks in a large part to the dynamic ministry of Evangelist Billy Sunday and his booze busting preaching, “Get On the Water Wagon!” It was repealed in 1933 (FDR ran on a platform to repeal it and won the White House). No sincere effort to enforce it was ever made and the “brewer’s red wagon” pulled up to the White House daily to unloaded its product by the case. Even conservative President Herbert Hoover described prohibition as “a noble experiment” that didn’t work.

Is that true? What are the fact, M’am? See if you think it was a failure. During that 14 years America enjoyed prohibition:

Crime went down by 54%.

Those fighting addiction (the Alcohol Anonymous groups of that day) were in big trouble. A whopping 97% of the Keely Cure Clinics (the most famous of all the cures) closed their doors and 100% of the Neil Cure Clinics shut down.

Insanity decreased by 66%.

Cirrhosis of the liver rates hit an all-time low in this country.

Regarding the latter, the Reader’s Digest printed an item, edited from Time, “How Lethal is Liquor?” It asked:

Why do alcoholics frequently develop fatal liver diseases? Many doctors, noting the tendency of alcoholics to drink more than they eat, believe poor nutrition plays a key role. But, after a four-year study, two researchers from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the Bronx Veterans Hospital in New York report that drink along does the damage; even in the well-nourished alcohol can be lethal to the liver.

Selecting baboons, whose livers are similar to man’s, Drs. Emanuel Rubin and Charles S. Lieber put 26 animals on high-protein, high-vitamin diets, but for 13 of them substituted grain alcohol for much of the carbohydrate. Alcohol provided fully half their calories. The apes responded to the booze – equivalent to a fifth a day for a man – as humans would, becoming intoxicated and, ultimately, dependent on drink. When off the bottle, two actually experienced what seemed to be DTs.

Even though well fed, all of the primates that were kept on the drinker’s diet for up to four years developed some form of liver damage. Seven had fatty livers; four, alcoholic hepatitis; two, cirrhosis, the progressive hardening and contraction of the liver that is a leading cause of death in humans. Because only pure alcohol was used, the toxic effects obviously were the result of the alcohol itself and not, as many people think, of the impurities or additives in beer, wine and liquor. Concudes Rubin: “You can’t prevent alcoholic damage by eating well; what really counts is the total amount of alcohol hyou drink.”

Keep that in mind, all you social drinker and social drinker advocates!




The New York Times recently ran an editorial quoting liberals putting down education in schools it called “Fundamentalist.” Favorably quoted was David W. Key, a liberal who heads Baptist Studies at the liberal Candler School of Theology at the rabidly liberal Emory University in Atlanta. He called Fundamentalism (in what he explained as the Southern Baptist form) "incompatible with higher education," and clarified his point, "In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you’re searching for truths.’’

Regarding the latter, that