Thank Goodness Actor Chris Pratt Isn’t the Only A-Lister Who Goes Hunting

There’s a lot of brouhaha over actor Chris Pratt hunting. He’s not the only A-lister to harvest his meat.

As part of an unusual series gawking over famous actors bearing the first name Chris, actor Chris Pratt is very “problematic” and the most “divisive among the Chrises.”

In “How to love Chris Pratt without hating yourself,” TV Guide senior editor Kaitlin Thomas said Pratt the actor is better than the off-screen Pratt. How so? Here’s her reasoning:

When you take a deeper look at Pratt the man and not necessarily Pratt the actor, some of the shine wears off. Although he can be as funny offscreen as he is on — his recurring “What’s My Snack” videos on Instagram are almost always delightful — it’s impossible to ignore some problematic aspects of his life offscreen.

But wait—there’s more! She continues:

Adding fuel to this particular fire is the fact that Pratt, an avid hunter who has often spoken about his love of hunting, currently raises lambs on his farm*. The enthusiastic tone he took when speaking about “eating fresh farm-to-table lamb” in an* Instagram video earlier this year — “They are the happiest lambs on the planet, they are so sweet and then one day they wake up dead and they’re in my freezer” — sparked backlash from a number of fans, and not just those who are vegetarians or vegans. The next day, Pratt posted a photo of several pieces of fresh lamb meat and even compared said lamb’s death to something as easy or trivial as “unplugging a TV.”

Pratt is a hunter? And he raises his own lamb to eat? The horror, horror! Hollywood is shocked to learn that the actor, who comes from more humble beginnings, is like a good portion of the country. Millions of people go hunting in this country. Countless Americans, including A-listers, consume farm-raised, organic meat—but are far removed from the process.

And moreover, Pratt’s blue collar roots are ghastly, apparently:

The idea that Pratt doesn’t see himself — though he may come from a working-class family and spends most of his time on a farm, he’s also a successful, straight white man at the heart of two major film franchises — as being represented in television or film is ridiculous, as is the idea that working-class America isn’t well represented in Hollywood.

The “Jurassic World” star and former “Parks and Recreation” regular isn’t the only A-lister who harvests his own meat ethically. Plenty of other Tinseltown favorites go hunting.

Scott Eastwood, the son of Clint Eastwood who is making a name for himself in Hollywood on his own right, is an avid hunter too.

He’s pals with bowhunter Cameron Hanes and spoke to Men’s Journal about his love of the Great Outdoors—and his foray into hunting— in May 2017:

How did your love for the outdoors begin?

For a while I lived with my mother in Hawaii, so I have always loved being around the water. Then I moved to be with my father, and he was very much into fishing when I was younger. Some of my first memories of him are around fishing for trout in Northern California. My father was actually a state parks commissioner after he was mayor. I like to think I’m following his footsteps in that respect as well. That is why I am so into public lands issues, because they were a big part of my childhood.

More recently you got into bow hunting?

I picked it up a few years ago, but before now I went off and on. I’ve started to get into it more now and I recently got a new Hoyt. I am most excited to go on some bow hunting trips with Cameron Hanes. That guy is one of the most badass bow hunters of our time. I have been on a few hunts since then.

What do you like about it?

I think it is hunting on its highest level. People don’t realize you may go a whole season and not shoot a single thing. There is a lot of discipline involved. It’s very challenging because of how close you have to get. I think it’s the hardest sport we have.

Do you know who else goes hunting? Canadian punk rock singer Avril LavigneAerosmith’s Joe Perrymodel Rosie Huntington, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Plus former NBA star Shaq O’NeillKurt Russell, and reportedly Eva Longoria are known to hunt and process their own wild game. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” actress Eliza Dushku apparently loves elk hunting, too. Nick Offerman likes the wild game Chris Pratt harvested for him, as well.

Hollywood is likely full of more closeted hunters. Why do people, including the aforementioned A-listers, hunt? To enjoy the Great Outdoors, to get organic meat, to help fund conservation, and teach values.

It’s refreshing to see this. Eat that, TV Guide.

Born To Die

Almost everyone is familiar with the Christmas story. The tale of how Mary and Joseph were turned away from the inn and gave birth to the Son of God in a stable is traditional holiday fare. Even those who consider the story to be a myth have at least heard it and recognize the characters.

That familiarity can be a problem. Many of us have heard the tale so often that it loses its impact. We have heard the story for so many Christmases now that it becomes part of the background, like Christmas carol muzak in a department store or mall, and we fail to appreciate the impact of Christmas.

The real impact of Christmas lies beyond the manger scene. Christmas is really about what the newborn infant would do some 30 years later as an adult.

Christmas reminds me of the scene in Talladega Nights in which Will Ferrell leads his family in a mealtime grace, addressing the prayer to “little baby Jesus.” Baby Jesus in the manger is a nonthreatening image that is easy to celebrate because a newborn infant is not controversial and makes no demands of us.

The problem with limiting our view of Christmas to the manger scene is that the babe in the manger came to shake things up and make difficult demands of us. The newborn baby was an infant on a mission. The baby Jesus was born to die.

If we fast forward about 30 years to see the ministry of the adult Jesus, we would get two central themes to his message. One, that we should love our fellow man, is another common Christmas theme. As Bill and Ted put it, Jesus taught that we should “be excellent to each other.”

But Jesus’ second theme is even more important. Beyond loving others, Jesus taught that we should love the God who created us and seek after him.

In fact, the most important message from Jesus’ preaching can be distilled down to two verses. In John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” In this verse, Jesus made the controversial and earthshattering claim that he is God. A few chapters later in John 14:6, he made another extraordinary claim. “I am the way and the truth and the life,” Jesus said. “No one comes to the Father except through me.” In two short statements, Jesus overturned the conventional wisdom that priests and sacrifices were needed to approach God.

Jesus’ statements were either the ravings of a madman or the herald of a new way of looking at life and God. After a few short years of itinerant preaching, he would be executed by the Romans with the complicity of Jewish leaders. Far from being a tragedy, however, Jesus’ death sealed his victory. It was why he had come in the first place. As Jesus had previously explained to his disciples, he “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

You see, like Jesus, we are also born to die. I once saw a t-shirt that said, “Life is sexually transmitted and always fatal.” We are dying from the day we are born.

Unlike Jesus, who as the Son of God holds the ultimate power over death, we are its mercy. As sinners, we are doomed to eternal separation from God as punishment for our misdeeds. It is in this realization that Jesus’ mission is made clear. He did not come to bring world peace or military triumph. Contrary to what prosperity gospel preachers say, he did not come to give his followers worldly wealth or to heal the sick. Even though he is capable of doing all these things, Jesus came to give us a chance at eternal life and the ability to triumph over death.

Christmas is about hope. The hope that would ultimately be fulfilled by the adult Jesus on the cross. The baby in the manger would grow up to sacrifice his life for ours, but the gift of sacrifice must be accepted.

While the baby in the manger makes no demands of us, the resurrected Jesus who died on the cross demands that we put aside all other paths to God, believe in him, and make him Lord of our lives. In return, we receive salvation and eternal life, the ultimate Christmas gifts.

Why I Believe In The God Of The Bible

Earlier this year, I had cancer. Thankfully, it was only a stage one melanoma that was easily removed, but to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, the possibility of death concentrates the mind wonderfully. Some of the things that my mind concentrated on were God, the afterlife and whether my own religious beliefs reflected the true path to heaven.

I’ve been a Christian for most of my life and at times it has occurred to me that, for most of us, our religious beliefs are somewhat hereditary. We are Christians or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists because we were raised in families and communities that followed those traditions. For something as important as the final destination of our immortal souls, we should probably look beyond what our family and neighbors believe and seek out the objective truth.

I’m a rational and logical person. Generally, when making decisions and forming opinions, I look for objective facts. Religion is no different. If we base our religious beliefs solely on subjective feelings and emotions, then we can’t be sure that we have the truth. Adherents of all religions feel that they have the truth, but they can’t all be right.

Investigating God and religion is actually a two-stage process. The first question is whether God and the spirit world exists at all. When that question is answered in the affirmative, the second question is which of the myriad religions comes closest to accurately reflecting the true message that God has given us. In my case, I’ve had several incidents in my life that proved the existence of the spirit world beyond my doubt so the question was whether Christianity truly represented God’s plan.

Determining whether writings and beliefs about something as intangible as spirits are true can be difficult, but the Bible actually contains some good and objective advice on how this can be accomplished. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, “If the word [of a prophet] does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken.” It turns out that determining truth is actually pretty easy. Just look to seek if prophecies match reality.

Objective research should include listening to both sides of an argument as well as considering alternatives. Objectively, religious claims cannot be used to prove themselves. External, impartial evidence should be used to corroborate religious claims. Not every statement made by religious texts is verifiable, but many are. Differences in language and points of view between the ancient writers and modern readers should be considered as we do so.

For example, there are several statements in the Quran that are at odds with modern science. The Quran claims that the earth is flat and that semen “comes out from between the backbone and the ribs.” The Quran also claims that there are seven planets. Muslim apologists have explanations for these passages, but these claims seem to be irrefutably wrong. Such mistakes seem inconsistent with a book that Muslims believe “exists today in the precise form and content in which it was originally revealed.” Likewise, the historical claims made in the Book Of Mormon fail to match archaeological fact.

With respect to prophetic claims, a list of fulfilled prophecies from the Quran seems very vague and open to interpretation. Another fulfilled prophecy, a great fire “in the land of the Hijaz which will illuminate the necks of the camels in Busra,” occurred some 640 years after Mohammed’s death, but is not actually recorded in the Quran.

In contrast, many of the historical claims of the Bible can be verified by archaeology. “The Bible as History” by Werner Keller is a classic text that describes much of the scientific evidence for the historical books of the Old Testament. King David, long thought by many to be a myth, is referenced in an inscription commemorating the victories of an Aramean king that was discovered in 1993. “Patterns of Evidence,” a 2015 documentary, provides plausible evidence for the Exodus by postulating that scholars were looking at the wrong dates in history.

When it comes to science, there are many claims that the Bible is in error. A representative list can be found here on Rational Wiki. Unlike Islam’s scientific claims, most of the problems have simple solutions. Some purported Biblical errors are due to a literal reading of passages that weren’t intended to be taken literally. For example, in Matthew 13:31-21, Jesus is not making the claim that there are no seeds physically smaller than a mustard seed, but that is the message that some critics get from the verse. Another example is Leviticus 11:20-23 in which the Biblical description of insects differs from the modern scientific definition. This problem is easily resolved by considering the differences in language between the Bible’s writers, later translators and modern readers. Deuteronomy 20:16-18 is held up as an error because DNA studies show that ancient Canaanites survived the Israelite invasion. The Deuteronomy verse shows that the Israelites were commanded to kill the Canaanites, but other verses, such as Judges 3:5-8 show that they failed to do so.

A claim that the Bible violates mathematic law is also dependent on assumptions by the reader. Critics claim that the large bowl described in 1 Kings 7:23-26 could not have existed because the measurements don’t fit the mathematic equation for circumference. If the Bible is right, they claim, pi would have to equal 3.0 instead of 3.14. Leaving aside rounding error and the lack of a standard measurement, the critics fail to note that the description of the brim of the bowl was “a handbreadth thick.” The equation could be thrown off by the difference between the inner and outer dimensions of the brim.

With respect to prophecy, the Bible makes numerous specific prophecies that can be tested against historical records for accuracy. Rational Wiki also provides a list of Biblical prophecies that the authors claim were in error. As even the compilers of the list acknowledge, some of these prophecies were contingent on the behavior of the recipients of the message. The classic example is Jonah’s prophecy that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. The prophecy fulfilled its intended purpose when the people of Nineveh repented and so the prophecy was never fulfilled. Similarly, some prophecies are end-time prophecies that have not been fulfilled yet.

A more difficult case is the prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city of Tyre in Ezekiel 26. Critics say that the destruction of Tyre never happened and that the city continues to exist today on an island in contradiction to the prophecy. Archaeological evidence, however, suggests that the city of Tyre was primarily a mainland city in ancient days. Nebuchadnezzar apparently destroyed the mainland portion of the city while some survivors escaped to the island, which was later destroyed by Alexander the Great. One view is that fulfillment of the prophecy was begun by Nebuchadnezzar and completed by Alexander. Interestingly, verse 12 sounds like a very specific description of how Alexander used the rubble of the destroyed city to build a causeway to the island and finish Tyre’s destruction.

A few chapters later, in Ezekiel 29:17-20, the prophet talks about the destruction of Tyre as if it has already happened. In the same passage, he says that Nebuchadnezzar will defeat Egypt. This happened in 605 BC at the Battle of Carchemish.  Critics argue that Babylon never completely conquered Egypt, but the prophecy merely says that Nebuchadnezzar would plunder his enemy. Two other passages, Ezekiel 30 and Isaiah 19 are also cited as prophecies that were erroneous. The opinion of many theologians is that these are end-time prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.

To me, one of the most compelling proofs of the Bible is what Rabbi Jonathan Cahn calls “the anti-witness” in his devotional book, “The Book of Mysteries.” Cahn points out that if the biblical claim that the Jews are God’s chosen people is not true, there would be no reason for the age-old persecution of Jews. Instead, we find that Jews not only have been the subject of attempts at racial extermination throughout history but that they have survived as a genetically and culturally distinct group more than 2,000 years after Judah ceased to exist as an independent kingdom.

A friend recently pointed out to me the historical evidence that God used hostile nations to judge the Jews, but then judged those nations in turn because they attacked his chosen nation. The pattern repeats many times. Egypt, a longtime enemy of ancient Israel, was conquered several times by Assyria, Persia and finally Rome in 31 BC. After the death of Solomon, ancient Israel split into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah. The kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria around 740 BC. Assyria became the conquered less than 150 years later in 612 BC at the hands of Medo-Persians and Babylonians. Judah was conquered by Babylon in 586 BC. Only 50 years later in 539 BC, Babylon fell to the Persians led by Cyrus the Great. In AD 70, Rome recaptured Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish temple at the culmination of the First Jewish Revolt. Nine years later, Mt. Vesuvius erupted during a festival celebrating Vulcan, the god of fire. This eruption, which destroyed Pompeii and several other cities, still ranks as one of the worst volcanic disasters in history. In 1945, Germany’s extermination of Jews was interrupted by the country’s total defeat at the hands of the Allies. Since World War II, the modern state of Israel is undefeated even against numerically superior Arab forces. Clearly, making war on the Jews can be harmful to your health.

When it comes to determining the truth and validity of the Bible, there is an added complexity. The Bible is not one book but is actually an anthology that is broken into two parts: The Old and New Testaments. While many of the details of the Old Testament can be verified through archaeology, the New Testament largely consists of theological books and the story of Yeshua, a Jewish carpenter better known to the world as Jesus. These themes do not lend themselves to archaeological fact-checking.

Accordingly, some claim today that Jesus never existed and is only a fictional character. This point is easily disproved through ancient writings that reference Jesus as a real person. Validating Jesus’s claims of divinity are more difficult to prove, however.

Even though the New Testament books weren’t written down until long after the death (and alleged resurrection of Jesus), there is evidence that Paul’s letters contain early church creeds that confirm that the message of the books written later was true to the story of Jesus. The evidence is that the content of the New Testament has been unchanged since the first century.

Skeptics also dispute the gospel claims about the death and resurrection of Jesus, the foundation of the Christian faith. The details of gospel story have been thoroughly investigated and found plausible by such one-time skeptics as Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace. I encourage any seeker to read their answers to skeptical charges that the gospel accounts are unreliable.

No matter how much evidence there is, in the final analysis there is no definitive proof for spiritual matters. Ultimately, everyone has to make a decision as to what they believe and how to react to that belief. Belief itself is not enough. James 2:19 points out that even the demons believe in God. Forgiveness and salvation only come when we add submission to God’s authority to our belief (Romans 10:9).

Even though I cannot offer conclusive proof that the Bible is true and that Jesus is the only way to heaven, I have made the choice to believe and accept that truth. This faith is not a blind faith. It’s based on a preponderance of the evidence.

Eventbrite Tells Hunting Group Listing Gun Raffles on Event Violates Rules

SCI San Diego received an email announcing their event was unpublished for violating Community Guidelines.

A Safari Club International chapter based in San Diego, California, was recently contacted by Eventbrite over possibly violating their Community Guidelines for advertising gun raffles at their upcoming banquet. The company said listing raffles for guns is not permitted as of April 3, 2018. Their updated Community Guidelines on guns, and by extension gun raffles, reads:

Eventbrite may not be used to facilitate harmful or criminal activity of any kind. You may not create or promote events on the Eventbrite Services that constitute or promote any of the following, as determined by Eventbrite:

Sale, distribution or unlawful use of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury,

The Eventbrite page for the chapter’s upcoming 39th Annual San Diego SCI Auction/Fundraiser was unpublished for not abiding by Community Guidelines. The email warned them that any future listing of gun raffles could get their account banned if they were to advertise it again in the future. The full email explaining their decision can be found below:

Eventbrite updated their Community Guidelines on April 3rd, 2018, to suggest guns for raffle or sale fit into their “Don’ts” category:

Don’ts

You may not use Eventbrite to post content or engage in any conduct that is (in our sole evaluation) offensive, harmful, or inappropriate for general audiences, or that we believe constitutes or is likely to encourage or promote any harmful, violent, or illegal activity or outcome. Below, you will find more information about the types of activities, events, and content that are not permitted on or through the Eventbrite Services.

1. Don’t Promote Illegal or Inappropriate Activities

Eventbrite may not be used to facilitate harmful or criminal activity of any kind. You may not create or promote events on the Eventbrite Services that constitute or promote any of the following, as determined by Eventbrite:

• Explicit sexual activity (including escort services), or pornography,

• Illegal gambling activity (whether illegal under any U.S. federal or state law, or non-U.S. law),

• Sale or ingestion of illegal drugs, other illegal substances, or nutraceuticals,

• Cannabis, cannabis samples or cannabis-infused products provided for free, for purchase by the Organizer, or as part of the ticket price, attendee sharing of cannabis, or dispensary tours,

• Activities that principally promote any other commercial product or service, such as an “infomercial,” unless such promotion is expressly indicated to users in a legally sufficient way, such as through a prominent “Advertisement” disclosure,

• Unauthorized multi-level marketing businesses,

• Credit repair services,

• Activities that demean, harass, intimidate, threaten or express hatred toward any societal group, whether based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, or veteran status,

Sale, distribution or unlawful use of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury,or

• Terrorist activity or organized criminal activity.

This isn’t the first episode by corporations forbidding gun raffles or gun sales. Credit card companies have been mulling the prohibition of gun sales in recent years. In March, the California state legislature was mulling a bill banning gun raffles benefitting nonprofit organizations, but the bill failed to pass. Back in August, Shopify banned the sale of guns and gun accessories on their portal.

If this prohibition becomes a trend, curious minds wonder if alternatives will be started to accommodate law-abiding gun owners and hunters.

Ben Shapiro’s Addition to March for Life Speakers Line-Up is Good for Pro-Lifers

Ben Shapiro has every right to headline March for Life in 2019.

Charles Camosy, a Fordham University professor and professed “pro-life” Democrat, argued in Washington Post that conservative radio host, author, and commentator Ben Shapiro headlining the 2019 March for Life is a “huge mistake.”

He wrote:

Many in the pro-life movement, of which I am passionately a part, will consider the Harvard Law-educated intellectual a huge get. Not me. Despite Shapiro’s star power and stature, I consider his appearance a serious mistake for the March, one that will move us even further from being understood as the broad-based human rights movement we need to embody in order to go from fringe to mainstream.

How is Shapiro unfit to headline March for Life? He’s one of the most listened-to conservative podcasters in the U.S. His website Daily Wire attracts 140 million page views a month.

The author opposes Shapiro’s selection on the fact that President Trump appeared at the March via satellite, whom he called “the absolute nemesis of more left-leaning pro-lifers like myself.”

Camosy adds:

Shapiro, of course, puts the March on the map in a different — and, in some respects, more important — way than Trump’s video did last year. Trump is a buffoon, but Shapiro is helping form the imagination of many millions of young conservatives. He also has deep relationships and regular exchanges with pro-choice members of the intellectual dark Web, and is one of the few pro-life public figures who is taken seriously outside the pro-life movement itself.

Though I disagree with Shapiro about 60 to 70 percent of the time, I listen to his entertaining show regularly and consider him a very important voice for vulnerable populations. His commitment to argument and evidence — and rejection of power politics — represents the only chance those who have lack power in our culture have to get their interests taken seriously.

Still, I do not welcome his appearance at the March.

Jeannie Mancini, president of March for Life, countered the author and said all diverse pro-life views, including Shapiro’s, are welcomed at next year’s march.

Jeanne F. Mancini

@jeannemfl

.@CCamosy YES, the pro-life movement is made up of all of us – w different approaches & backgrounds- be it race, political ideology, religion, etc. If you look at past speakers you can see we strive to have this diversity reflected in speakers at the March. https://twitter.com/CCamosy/status/1070834541248634881 

See Jeanne F. Mancini’s other Tweets

Shapiro is genuinely pro-life

If you’ve followed Ben long enough — I’m proud to say I was an early adopter before he peaked during the 2016 election — you’d know that he’s a pro-life stalwart. He’s an Orthodox Jew, after all. It’s in his nature to be pro-life. Just Google “Ben Shapiro” and “abortion” and you’ll discover hundreds of videos and articles by him or about him discussing and making an impassioned case for the right-to-life.

Ben Shapiro

@benshapiro

Virtually every major Jewish halakhist of the modern era has barred abortion except when the life of the mother is threatened. Don’t try quoting the Talmud at me. You just don’t know enough. https://twitter.com/quinncy/status/1016719380233646081 

Quinn Cummings

@quinncy

Replying to @quinncy

In your bio, you quote @BenShapiro saying “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” True! The fact is that a soul cannot be measured, or studied. A soul is not a fact. A soul is a belief. It’s a nice belief and it’s one I choose to participate in, but it’s still a belief.

656 people are talking about this

His stances shouldn’t be up for debate.

Shapiro speaking won’t hurt the March

Camosy argues Ben’s presence will hurt, not help, the March for Life.

He wrote, “It is an especially bad mistake to have his show recorded live on the most public stage of the pro-life movement — a stage that will be made even more public due to his presence.”

If you are in event planning in politics, chances are you’ve been tasked with tapping high profile speakers. (I certainly have while doing public relations work for clients.) Shapiro is a high-profile speaker with serious clout and a large viewership. His live broadcast at the march will be streamed online and likely watched by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people in real time. How is that a bad thing?

Shapiro may have a large following among conservatives, but many middle-of-the-road types who aren’t socially conservative listen to his show and read Daily Wire.

He has a massive audience, with the latter averaging 140 million monthly views. That’s a huge benefit to the March for Life. When Shapiro does something, people pay attention—even those who disagree with him politically.

I hope Camosy doesn’t work in public relations, because he would be terrible at it. High profile speakers don’t tend to be pro-life. His addition to the line-up is welcomed. I hope more public figures like Shapiro plan to partake in March for Life festivities in the future too.

Shapiro brings unique religious perspective to the March

While there is nothing wrong with the March for Life largely appealing to evangelicals and Catholics, who make up a large segment of the U.S. population, Shapiro’s addition to the speakers lineup signals the march’s desire to show that the pro-life movement is truly Judeo-Christian.

In fact, Haaretz thinks Shapiro is too pro-life for someone who is Jewish that his pro-life stances resemble evangelical ones.

In contrast, Shapiro’s position on abortion tracks much more closely with the extremist positions of several Christian denominations, especially Catholics and white evangelicals, that insist life begins at conception. Indeed, in several public interactions recorded on YouTube, Shapiro actually calls for doctors who perform abortions to be prosecuted for murder, and states that one cannot morally draw any line after conception.

Shapiro is one of the most prominent and influential Orthodox Jews in the American political media landscape (perhaps trailing only Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner), but seems to be genuinely unaware of the centuries-long, nuanced, and substantive Jewish conversation on the topic.

Instead, he delivered the standardRepublican platform, itself the product of the party’s evangelical base.

If the author is worried about lack of Democrat representation at the March with respect to speakers, perhaps his group and other avowed pro-life Democrats should signal their interest to speak. Heck, it would be great for a prominent pro-life Democrat to take center-stage at March for Life. Perhaps some past speakers have in years’ prior? Your move, pro-life Democrats.

I think Ben Shapiro, coupled with his massive audience and pro-life bonafides to back him, is superbly qualified to headline the 2019 March for Life. You can expect coverage of the March from me here at The Resurgent come January 18, 2019.

The author of this piece served as host of March for Life TV in January 2017.

March for Life Just Announced Their 2019 Theme and It’s Really Good

This year’s theme is a good one, confirming that pro-life is pro-science.

 

The 2019 March for Life event will take place on January 18, 2019, in Washington, D.C., per usual. Next year’s theme, in fact, was just announced: “Unique from Day One: Pro-life is Pro-Science.”

 

Science supports the most basic and important tenets of the pro-life movement.

 

Medical and technological advancements affirm the humanity of the unborn child. Consider that a person’s DNA is present at the moment of conception/fertilization and no fingerprint on earth – past, present, or future, is the same.

 

A baby’s heart beats at just three weeks post conception and ultrasound technology provides a beautiful window into the womb. As science and technology develop, we see more and more clearly that every life is unique from day one in the womb.

 

Here’s a corresponding video, featuring spoken word artist Justus Dominic:

Over 60 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade was ruled in 1973. That’s a travesty. This administration has signaled their interest to defund Planned Parenthood (yet hasn’t made strides much in Congress yet) and do a more apt job of promoting a culture of life.

 

To learn how to attend the March, go here.

‘The Fisherman’s Tomb’ is a Timely Read on Vatican History

Here’s my review of a book by one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth co-founders

I recently completed The Fisherman’s Tomb: The True Story of the Vatican’s Secret Search by John O’Neill. You may remember Mr. O’Neill for his efforts in the 2004 election for his role as spokesman for Swift Vets and POWs for Truth(SBVT).

Mr. O’Neill is a Vietnam War veteran and an avowed Catholic, the latter of which largely influenced his decision to write this book.

The Fisherman’s Tomb is a tale of the nearly 75-year saga for confirming Apostle Peter’s tomb beneath the Vatican. For those unfamiliar with the apostle, per the Bible, he was a fisherman from Galilee and is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church, with respect to this book. Peter’s death is perhaps a noteworthy story, having been executed by Emperor Nero and later buried in Vatican Hill. However, a lot of mystery surrounded his final resting place. Largely shrouded by mystery and bureaucracy employed by Catholic Church, it was thanks to Catholic stalwarts —benefactors, archeologists, priests, and others—this mystery was finally solved.

O’Neill’s book follows a dedicated, close-knit group of individuals who made the discovery of Peter’s tomb possible. His book focuses on the contributions and efforts of two noteworthy individuals, Texas oilman George Strake and trailblazing archeologist Margerita Guarducci, who made this discovery possible, despite naysayers, constant roadblocks, and opposition from Vatican priest and archeologist Father Antonio Ferrua.

Without giving away too many details, the efforts of several parties to unearth Peter’s tomb is quite an accomplishment. It has been said and documented in the book that Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict have praised these efforts by Strake and Guarducci, while Pope John Paul II was too focused on fighting communism (though he shouldn’t be blamed for this delay). It was interesting to see the Vatican even lending credence to this quest.

The book is a quick but enjoyable read. Even if you aren’t Catholic but have an interest in archeology and history, you’ll find Mr. O’Neill’s book to be a worthwhile read.

“He’s President, Not a Pastor” Is a Great Cop Out

I was going to avoid the subject, but after reading this excellent piece from Jonah Goldberg, I think I do want to say one thing.

Morality of the person matters.

Dennis Prager is a brilliant man and he has been consistent, going back to Bill Clinton, that the morality of a leader does not matter. Adultery does not matter. The policies do. On that, I think he has been consistently wrong.

The morality of the person matters. None of us are perfect, but the question is whether we revel in our sins and keep them going or do we repent and try to do better. I think that struggle not only shapes the policies of a person long term, but shapes the character of the nation the person leads. And I think the character of the nation long term is far more important than short term gains.

No one I know argues that an immoral person cannot deliver good policies. Bill Clinton delivered welfare reform and a balanced budget. And he did so with Newt Gingrich, both of them serial adulterers. To those, like Prager, who cite Kennedy’s failings, Roosevelt’s, and others — their sexual escapes were not paraded through the streets at the time like Trump’s. They didn’t publicly brag about it either. But when revealed, it certainly gave the left the ammunition to prop up Bill Clinton, because they did it too.

Long term, the defense of Clinton by the left made it far easier for both sides to embrace even more deeply flawed leaders. His character transmitted down. The President was getting orally serviced in his office by someone not his wife. It must be okay for others too. Or look now at the polling suggesting some men think Trump deserves a high five and applause for fulfilling their own fantasy of sex with a porn star. Let’s watch the breakup of families over the next generation. Hey, the President did it. Let’s watch kids engage in bullying tactics like the President. That’s already happening.

Sure, we are getting some short term good policies. We are getting good judges. We are getting tax reform. We are also getting an evangelical movement that no longer thinks morality matters in our leaders. After all, he is not a pastor, just a President.

Look at King David. Well, let’s look at King David. Every Trump humper who brings up King David fails completely at noting things did not work out well for David after Uriah’s death. Absalom plunged the kingdom into civil war. David had to flee Jerusalem. David ultimately turned back to God, repented, and led, but let’s not ignore the fall out on Israel of his personal moral failings. And then there was the ultimate division of the kingdom after Solomon, which was one of many ripples trickling down from David’s failures.

Likewise, the Northern Kingdom was vastly more prosperous and successful than the Southern Kingdom. In fact, Jeroboham developed a pagan religion he claimed was the true religion from Sinai and people looked at the success of the Northern Kingdom a proof positive that this was correct. The nation descended into a pagan sex cult and prospered, completely ignoring calls from prophets like Amos to repent.

The morality of the leader matters. It may not matter transactionally to you in the short term. But it greatly matters long term. We are already seeing people in this country turn even more antagonistically hostile to Christians because of evangelical support for our present immoral leader. You can see that as a partisan divide. But I see it as having long term consequences for evangelicals selling out their one true religion for a Northern Kingdom sex cult in the White House.

There is no guarantee that a moral man will make a good political leader. But there is, I think, a guarantee that the long term consequence of an immoral leader who gives you short term policies you like will be far more devastating long term than the moral man who fails to deliver short term policies you like.