How to Bring People to God and Religion

 

There are four primary reasons fewer and fewer people in America and the West take God, the Bible or religion seriously.

1. The belief that science disproves religion.
2. The belief that reason and feelings supplant God and the Bible as the only necessary vehicles to morality.
3. The “progressive” ideologies of at least 100 years that seek to replace religion.
4. The failure of religious people to convince the next generation to be religious.

As I have dealt with the first three reasons on many occasions, I will only note that it should be obvious to any rational person that the first three reasons are … irrational.

First, scientific discoveries increasingly argue for a God-Creator, not against one. The odds against life, let alone intellectual life, are so staggering that atheist scientists are now positing the nonsensical, let alone non-provable, idea of a “multiverse.”

Second, our post Judeo-Christian world has produced the most irrational era in modern Western history. A society nearly all of whose intellectual elite believes that men give birth; that sex is not binary; that children should decide whether they are a boy, a girl or “neither”; that fewer police means less crime; that to aspire to be colorblind is racist, which proves the thesis (attributed to G.K. Chesterton) that when men stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.

Which brings us to the third reason for the demise of religion — secular progressive ideologies have replaced religious ideologies. Marxism, socialism, feminism, environmentalism — these are secular religions, and they have caused the moral and intellectual chaos of the modern age.

Let us now address the failure of the religious world to preserve itself.

One reason is that most religious people — Jews, Catholics and Protestants — didn’t think they had to make the case for their religion. They assumed that their children would carry on their religious traditions. They thought, “We go to church/synagogue every week, so will our children. We believe in God and the Bible, so will our children.”

They were obviously wrong. But even if they understood the need to make the case for their religion, most religious Jews and Christians didn’t know how to do so.

That brings us to the issue of making the case for God, the Bible and religion.

My preferred three ways of doing so are:

1. Make reason-based arguments.
2. Concentrate on explaining the necessity of God rather than talking about belief in God.
3. Provide an emotionally moving religious environment.

I know these methods work because that is what I have done all of my adult life. I believe that I have brought more people to belief in God, to taking the Bible seriously, to Jews embracing Judaism, and to others embracing Christianity than perhaps any other living Jew or Christian. I do not say this to brag. I say this to give my credentials for the arguments I am offering here.

For generations, the non-religious and anti-religious — the people who have come to dominate our schools and universities, the news media, the entertainment media and the social media — have argued that if one is rational, one cannot take religion seriously.

And most religious individuals and institutions have implicitly agreed. By not providing rational arguments for God, the Bible and religion (all three are necessary), they conceded the secular world’s argument that reason argues for secularism. That is why I have titled my Bible commentary “The Rational Bible.” I offer reason-based — not faith-based — arguments and explanations for the moral greatness and the incomparable wisdom of the Bible, specifically the subject of my commentaries, the first five books of the Bible (the Torah), the foundation of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. It is not coincidental that the Founders of the greatest country ever created — America — engraved a verse from Leviticus on the Liberty Bell and cited Deuteronomy more than any other book, secular or religious.

In addition, I have rarely made the argument for God’s existence. I have almost exclusively argued for the necessity of God (the God of the Bible, not just God). The reason is that even when people come to believe there is a God, this belief often has no moral or religious significance. Most people who say they believe in God do not believe in the Bible or even in the God of the Bible. They believe that there is Something Out There, but this Something is rarely the morality-teaching, morally demanding and morally judging God of the Bible.

I have also shown people why, on purely rational grounds, without the God of the Bible, there is no objective good and evil, since without the biblical God, “good” and “evil” are purely subjective personal or societal opinions. And I have shown that without the God of the Bible, our lives and all human life have no ultimate significance, that our lives have no more ultimate meaning than some rock on some planet.

I ask most religious and conservative people I meet if they have children. And if they do, how many of them share their religious and/or social values. In general, about a third of their children do. The pain in parents whose children have rejected their religion and/or social values is profound. The one consolation I can offer them is that if they have grandchildren, they can try to influence them. But they can only do so if they talk to them about God and the Bible in a rationally compelling way. Combined with the special love grandchildren often have for their grandparents, this can work.

If that doesn’t work, we have lost America and the West.

\John Adams wrote that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He could have easily written “for a moral and reasoning” people. Or “for a moral and forward-thinking” people. But he didn’t. He knew the whole experiment rested on God. It still does.

The Truth About the Border Crisis

 

If you were to ask President Joe Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, or White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, they’d tell you America has no border crisis, the border is “closed” to illegal immigrants, and things are under “operational control.”

To Americans living along the U.S.-Mexico border, in cities where the Biden administration has flown in illegal immigrants under cover of night, and really anyone with eyes, however, it’s clear that one of Biden’s worst crises has had devastating consequences. And things are only going to get worse this week when Title 42 expires on Thursday night.

The Biden administration, of course, has relied on its allies in the mainstream media to parrot their denials of any issues at the border, but Townhall hasn’t bought the president’s lies and instead has reported the ugly and often terrifying truth of Biden’s border policies.

Reporting from both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border — in locations that President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have refused to go — Townhall has shown what’s really happening, not the sanitized and polished version of events the White House hopes Americans will accept.

Starting the week President Biden took the oath of office in January 2021, Townhall’s Julio Rosas has been reporting from the border as the administration began dismantling the border security plans and policies implemented under former President Donald Trump.

Less than one month into office, Townhall reported how local authorities in border states, such as Arizona’s Pinal County, were warning that Biden’s policies were creating an “emerging border crisis.” While Biden continued undermining border security, Townhall was embedded with officials experiencing an increase in human and drug smuggling activity as it spread farther into the United States. By February 8, 2021, it was clear: Joe Biden’s immigration and border crisis was just beginning.

Townhall reported on Biden’s border crisis COVID hypocrisy that saw illegal immigrants get exempted from pandemic protocols for testing and vaccines and other restrictions, setting off public health alarms along the border as the number of illegal immigrants surged and local health facilities grew overwhelmed while COVID and other diseases spread like wildfire through holding facilities.

1 2 3 4

Exclusive: I obtained videos from this month showing the overcrowding at a Border Patrol holding facility in the Yuma Sector as the area continues to see large groups illegally cross into the US.   Full story --> https://t.co/FU2aGXwPYh pic.twitter.com/hFx2A6UrEn — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) December 20, 2021

By mid-February, Townhall warned of Biden’s plan to begin releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants per day into San Diego, El Paso, and Brownsville. As Biden continued to implement incentives for illegal immigrants to cross the border, Townhall traveled south of the border to talk to those trying to enter the United States. They made it clear: Biden’s policies were their impetus for illegally crossing into the U.S.

Even as federal agencies such as Customs and Border Protection warned President Biden at the end of February 2021 that his policies would lead to more than 10,000 unaccompanied minors illegally entering the United States, the administration refused to remedy its dangerous policies.

By March 2021, Townhall reported one of many disastrous milestones: more than 100,000 illegal immigrants had been apprehended during Biden’s first full month in office. Still, administration officials told Americans that “the border is not open.” A shameless Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas even defiantly declared that the U.S.-Mexico border was “secure.”

Again on the ground along the border, Julio reported on Biden’s reopening of detention facilities to hold a surging number of illegal immigrant children and the administration’s decision to ban him from observing and reporting on the conditions inside. The Biden administration could see that the border crisis was spiraling out of control just months into its tenure, and it wanted to do everything possible to ensure only its approved (and false) narrative was available to the American people.

Townhall, however, did not stop covering the crisis or its devastating effects. Julio continued amplifying warnings of the “incredible strain” Biden’s abandonment of border security had created for federal agents who risk their lives to secure a border their president no longer cared about.

1 2 3 4

Exclusive: Assignment logs for Border Patrol's Yuma Station I obtained confirm few agents are actually patrolling the border. Most are processing or transporting.   "Border Patrol no longer does border enforcement. It does border enrollment."https://t.co/P5Axv7ESUk — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) December 15, 2021

Even as the administration fought to suppress stories, access, and the reality unfolding along the U.S.-Mexico border, Townhall kept telling the truth and giving our readers the unvarnished reality of an international border that had been turned over to violent cartels.

While the Biden administration continued its head-in-the-sand posture toward the border crisis, Townhall introduced its readers to “gotaways” in April 2021, illegal immigrants who are seen or detected but are not apprehended when they unlawfully enter the United States.

Even as the number of illegal immigrants continued to surge, month after month, due to Biden policies, his administration reduced the number of deportations carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to an all-time low. Meanwhile, Townhall warned that illegal immigrants released into the United States were failing to check in with ICE, and there was little effort by the Biden administration to track down a growing number of vanishing illegal immigrants.

Townhall continued reporting at the increasingly overwhelmed U.S.-Mexico border while Biden backed himself into a corner by claiming it was “closed” to illegal immigration. Each story Julio filed from the border was a direct refutation of Biden and his administration’s claims.

1 2	Past midnight in Roma, TX right by the Rio Grande, smugglers brought over people into the United States from Mexico. No law enforcement on the riverbank, they were staged further inland. pic.twitter.com/19rfQiVt3d — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) June 29, 2021

Deadly drugs surged across the unsecured border in record numbers, and even some Democrats in Congress criticized the president and vice president for refusing to even visit the border as the White House’s attempts to keep the border crisis and its consequences quiet fell apart, due in part to Julio’s tireless reporting. Even when Harris finally visited Texas, she didn’t see the border and the very real crisis in order to maintain her denials.

Harris and Biden continuously demonstrated little concern for the safety of Americans along the border, the federal agents who risk their lives trying to accomplish their increasingly impossible task or even the lives of illegal immigrants they claim to care about.

When the Biden administration tried to smear border agents with what was clearly a concocted left-wing narrative about illegal immigrants being whipped by mounted agents, Townhall was again on the ground in Del Rio to report the truth.

From the “whipgate” hoax to the number of dangerous sex offenders, previously deported felons, violent cartel members, and individuals on terror watch lists illegally entering the country and slipping away from authorities, Townhall has told the truth about Biden’s border crisis for more than two years. At the same time, corporate media and Democrats continued to turn a largely blind eye to the death and devastation along the U.S.-Mexico border.

This week, ahead of the expiration of Title 42, Julio is again at the border near El Paso, Texas, where conditions have rapidly deteriorated with the latest surge of illegal immigrants.

The Left Is Chipping Away at American Ethos

 the American ethos was further eroded.

A new Biden administration rule, which inappropriately tinkers with the housing market, was implemented to punish good creditors on behalf of the financially irresponsible. The rule, which comes from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, forces individuals with good credit to pay higher fees and subsidize those with poor credit. In other words, the people who paid their bills on time are literally paying for those who do not.

Almost a Year After Dobbs Leak, Justice Alito Shares His Thoughts

 This piece has been updated to include a statement from Curt Levey, a constitutional law attorney and the president of the Committee for Justice.

On May 2, 2022, someone leaked the draft opinion of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision which indicated the U.S. Supreme Court was going to overturn Roe v. Wade. While the official opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, wasn’t handed down until June 24, 2022, plenty of hysterical backlash against conservative justices took place before then. Now, almost a year later, Justice Alito has shared his thoughts with reporters from the Wall Street Journal, in a piece aptly titled “Justice Samuel Alito: ‘This Made Us Targets of Assassination.’”

This isn’t mere hyperbole. Someone wanted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It was also later revealed that Nicholas Roske, who pled not guilty to federal charges, wanted to potentially target two other conservative justices.

“Those of us who were thought to be in the majority, thought to have approved my draft opinion, were really targets of assassination,” Alito shared “It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us.”

Alito also denounced the idea that it was a conservative who leaked the draft. “That’s infuriating to me,” he said about that theory. “Look, this made us targets of assassination. Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible,” Alito stressed.

Professor Jonathan Turley named NPR’s Nina Totenberg as one of those who offered it was a conservative who leaked the draft. This is the same Totenberg who tried to stir up debunked controversy on masks between Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor.
1
2
    
...Alito says that the person was clearly intending to stop the release of the opinion. If true, that contradicts claims of some like NPR's Totenberg that the leaker likely was a conservative. https://t.co/NUn6680LYD
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 28, 2023

Alito thinks he knows who did leak it. While he agrees there wasn’t sufficient evidence to make a public accusation, as was the case back in January, Alito shared “I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody.”

He also believes someone leaked the draft as “a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft… from becoming the decision of the court,” adding “that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside–as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.”

There’s another reason as to why the theory the leaker is a conservative is so ridiculous.

“Of course, if the likely leaker were a conservative, their name would almost surely have been reported by the media by now. Alito tells us he is nonetheless certain the leak was intended to prevent the Dobbs draft from being issued,” Curt Levey a constitutional law attorney and the president of the Committee for Justice, pointed out to Townhall. “Common sense tells us he is right. After all, only someone on the Left would have had the requisite anger about the Dobbs decision to do something so damaging to the Court. Justice Alito is right to be infuriated at progressives who claim the leak came from a conservative–all the more so in light of his observation that the leaker knew they might be able to stop the Dobbs decision by motivating someone to kill one of the five justices in the majority.”

While Alito is in safer hands now, that doesn’t mean he didn’t suffer before:
1
2
3
4
5
    
[Alito] adds that “I don’t feel physically unsafe, because we now have a lot of protection.” He is “driven around in basically a tank, and I’m not really supposed to go anyplace by myself without the tank and my members of the police force.” Deputy U.S. marshals guard the justices’ homes 24/7. (The U.S. Marshals Service, a bureau of the Justice Department, is distinct from the marshal of the court, who reports to the justices and oversees the Supreme Court Police.)
 
A federal law called Section 1507 makes it a crime to picket or parade “in or near” a federal judge’s residence “with the intent of influencing” him “in the discharge of his duty.” During a hearing last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland told Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) that the marshals have “full authority to arrest” violators of Section 1507. But according to training slides obtained by Sen. Katie Britt (R., Ala.), deputies on the justices’ residential details are told to enforce the law only as “a last resort to prevent physical harm to the Justices and/or their families.”
 
Although the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech, the training slides indicate that the Justice Department believes it is unconstitutional to enforce Section 1507 absent “criminal threats and intimidation.” Regular protests outside the justices’ homes continue.

Levey called the lengths Alito has to go through a “shame.” He also warned it was “a result, in part, of the signal sent by Attorney General Garland’s refusal to enforce the federal statute that makes it a crime to protest near a federal judge’s home with the intent of influencing his or her decisions.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland certainly deserves criticism, as highlighted above. Beyond that, then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said they “encourage” protests, so long as they were peaceful, and was more so concerned about the end of Roe. Her successor, Karine Jean-Pierre, similarly wouldn’t denounce protestors seeking to interrupt Justice Kavanaugh at dinner.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who as minority leader threatened Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in 2020 not to vote a certain way in an abortion case, laughed off the protests since he himself has experienced them.

Alito had to leave his home for a time due to the protests. The opening of this Wall Street Journal piece also calls to mind how he had to give remarks remotely for an event:
1
2
3
    
Justice Samuel Alito was supposed to speak to law students at George Mason University in Arlington, Va., but when they showed up, he wasn’t there. “That Alito was speaking via closed circuit from a room at the Supreme Court seven miles away, rather than in person, was a sign these are not normal times,” the Washington Post reported. The Post didn’t explain what made the “times” abnormal.
 
It wasn’t a lingering fear of Covid-19. In a mid-April interview in his chambers, Justice Alito fills us in on the May 12, 2022, event: “Our police conferred with the George Mason Police and the Arlington Police and they said, ‘It’s not a good idea. He shouldn’t come here. . . . The security problems will be severe.’ So I ended up giving the speech by Zoom,” he says. “Still, there were so many protesters and they were so loud that you could hear them.”

Even still, the Court faces doubt and scrutiny as an institution, but also when it comes to individual members.

Democrats bought into debunked claims about Alito and the Hobby Lobby case from 2014. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have been the subject of criticized reports about their financial disclosures.

Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) of the Senate Judiciary Committee invited Chief Justice John Roberts to appear before the committee, who denied the unusual request. While Durbin knew better than to subpoena Roberts, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who sits on the committee has raised subpoenas as an option and even suggested the House Judiciary Committee has a “responsibility” to impeach Justice Thomas.

Alito spoke in-depth to the ways in which Democrats have attacked the Court:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
    
But as the court has grown more conservative in recent years, the left has stepped up the attacks on the court’s “legitimacy,” including character assassination of individual justices, with little objection from mainstream Democrats and plenty of help from the media.
 
Justice Alito says “this type of concerted attack on the court and on individual justices” is “new during my lifetime. . . . We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in a lot of instances. And nobody, practically nobody, is defending us. The idea has always been that judges are not supposed to respond to criticisms, but if the courts are being unfairly attacked, the organized bar will come to their defense.” Instead, “if anything, they’ve participated to some degree in these attacks.”
 
Judges are in a double bind: If they don’t respond, the attacks stand. If they do, they diminish the mystique on which judicial authority depends. Justice Alito demurs when we ask about “ethics” accusations against Justice Clarence Thomas from partisan media: “I’ll stay away from that.” But he does address a less-recent drama: “After Justice Kavanaugh was accused of being a rapist during his Senate confirmation hearings, he made an impassioned speech, made an impassioned scene, and he was criticized because it was supposedly not judicious, not the proper behavior for a judge to speak in those terms. I don’t know—if somebody calls you a rapist?”
 
Those who throw the mud then disparage the justices for being dirty. “We’re being bombarded with this,” Justice Alito says, “and then those who are attacking us say, ‘Look how unpopular they are. Look how low their approval rating has sunk.’ Well, yeah, what do you expect when you’re—day in and day out, ‘They’re illegitimate. They’re engaging in all sorts of unethical conduct. They’re doing this, they’re doing that’?”
 
It “undermines confidence in the government,” Justice Alito says. “It’s one thing to say the court is wrong; it’s another thing to say it’s an illegitimate institution. You could say the same thing about Congress and the president. . . . When you say that they’re illegitimate, any of the three branches of government, you’re really striking at something that’s essential to self-government.”

He also spoke to the long-term consequences of such attacks as well:
    
The court’s attackers clearly seek to poison the well, but to what end? They sometimes proclaim unrealistic goals such as pressuring a disfavored justice to retire or removing him from office through impeachment. Sometimes they speak of packing or “expanding” the court—enacting legislation to create new seats that would immediately be filled by a Democratic president and Senate.
 
That might become possible if the Democrats have a good election in 2024, although Franklin D. Roosevelt failed in 1937 with enormous majorities, and Joe Biden, with narrow ones in 2021, punted the idea to a committee. It also would open the door to retaliatory packing by a future Republican president and Congress. Justice Alito finds the whole notion appalling: “To change the size of the court just because you want to change the result in cases—that would destroy it. You want to talk about our legitimacy? That would destroy the perception that we’re anything other than a political body.”

Levey also stressed that the damage caused was “no accident” and that “damaging the Court’s legitimacy was one of the purposes of the leak, just like it is the aim of the withering attacks on the conservative justices, especially when–as Alito notes–the mainstream media and even the organized bar cheers those attacks on.”

“Justice Alito” and “Samuel Alito” are trending on Twitter as people react to such revelations, which our friends at Twitchy also picked up on.

Sixty Years Ago, Hollywood Knew What a Woman Was

 Have you ever seen the TV show “The Beverly Hillbillies”? It was popular in the 1960s, so you young whippersnappers would have to have caught it on Nickelodeon or some such network. But us old geezers grew up with it, and most of us thought it was a hoot. Maybe I was naïve at the time, but I never figured Hollywood was slamming southern hillbillies, I thought they were trying to make people laugh and earn a buck. I may have been right back then, but who knows?

Anyway, the show. Old Jed Clampett was a “poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed. Then one day, he was shootin’ at some food, and up from the ground come a’bubblin’ crude. Oil, that is. Black gold. Texas tea.”

“Well, the first thing you know, old Jed’s a millionaire. The kinfolks said, ‘Jed, move away from there!’ Said Californy is the place you oughta’ be, so they loaded up the truck and they moved to Beverly. Hills, that is. Swimming pools. Movie stars.”

Those are the words from the title song to the show. You old timers remember that, don’t you…brings back memories, I’m sure.

The show was hilarious, the exploits of some backwoods hillbillies among the hoity-toity of Beverly Hills. But Hollywood never expected the world would change, and that some other old hillbilly (me!) would catch their unwoke, politically incorrect foibles.

But I did.

Jed had a daughter, Elly May, who was lovely to behold indeed (maybe late teens). Elly May grew up in those southern hills a tomboy of tomboys. But now, she was almost “growed” up. And, after watchin’ Elly whup her cousin Jethro again, Jed decided it was time to have a heart-to-heart talk with his blossoming young daughter:

Jed: Elly May, you’re gettin’ too big to wrastle with boys.

Elly May: I ain’t as big as Jethro.

Jed: I don’t mean big that way, I mean growed up. You’re a young lady now. You gotta start mindin’ your manners and fixin’ yourself up real nice and wearin’ dresses.

Elly May: Pa, folks would call me a sissy.

Jed: Ain’t sissy for girls to act like girls. You see, Elly, I raised you like a boy, and I was wrong to do it. I reckon every man would like to have a son and you was my only young’un. And when your ma passed away, I just decided to turn you into a boy. By the time Granny come to help out, you was too wild to tame. By thunder, you could outrun, outclimb, outfight, and outshoot every boy in them hills.

Elly May (smiling): I still can, Pa.

Jed: Yeah, but it ain’t fittin’. It ain’t right for folks to go against nature. Now, look at ol’ Duke [the family dog] there. Reckon we could turn him into a cat?

Elly May: Course not.

Jed: That’s right. ‘Cause nature made him into a dog. Just the same way nature made you into a girl. Lately, she’s gettin’ more and more positive about it….

Oooops…

A VERY unwoke talk with his blossoming daughter. (From the 2nd episode, “Getting Settled,” “The Beverly Hillbillies,” 1963).

A question: Who has changed, Hollywood or women?

Sixty years ago, even Hollywood thought it knew the difference between a man and a woman (not to mention a dog and a cat). But how dare Jed Clampett tell his daughter she can’t be a boy?

Of course, nowadays Jed would say something like this: “Elly, you are obviously not a woman because you can outrun, outshoot, etc. every boy in them southern hills. You aren’t a ‘tomboy,’ you are a boy. So, we need to change your name to Billy Bob, and get you down to the hospital right quick so they can whack those parts of you that, um, nature falsely gave you to make you look like a woman…”

NOW we get the idea. But it only works for humans.

“Duke, do you want to be a cat? If you want to be a cat, you can be a cat.” What if a German Shepherd male wants to become a female Chihuahua? Or a cat? Why can’t he do that? Transpets are real, you know.

Now, that’s ridiculous, our biologist says, dogs and cats are two different species, and men and woman—um, xe and xer—are humans. Oh, right. Human animals can become other kinds of human animals, but dog animals can’t become other kinds of dog animals. Or animal animals. Dumb hillbillies.

Umm, how many kinds of humans are there now? Have they finished counting yet? Can I be whichever one I want to be?

Nature is obviously dumber than our modern, woke biologist. Lately, nature had become “more and more positive” about Elly bein’ a woman. Ah, what does nature know compared to the modern woke “scientist.” And Supreme Court justice. Nature has only been around forever.

Our Supreme Court justice isn’t a biologist, so she doesn’t know what a woman is. I wonder if she thinks she might be a man. Folks, I’m not a vet, but I know what a dog is. I’m not a botanist, but I know what a tree is. I’m not a bull, but I know what a cow is.

I’m not a psychiatrist, either, but I know what an idiot is, too.

Well, Jed moved to the right place, that’s for sure. California is now a “sanctuary state” for such, um, organisms. Elly May… Billy Bob…should feel right at home.

Dumb Hollywood. Thinking that a woman is a woman. And that by nature.

Has America gone in a more intelligent, scientific, moral direction the last 60 years?