Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the blog archives for February, 2018.

Categories

Archive for February, 2018

U of M President Eric Kaler is blatantly biased against conservatives. He’s quoted as saying “We are … mindful of the fact that he is a controversial speaker and that at several places where he’s spoken, protests have objected, and we intend to ensure the event is safe for all who attend.” That’s dizzying spin and then some. Ben Shapiro isn’t controversial to anyone that’s mainstream. Period. That President Kaler thinks he’s controversial because a bunch of left wing anarchists say he’s controversial indicates that Kaler is either an intellectual lightweight or that he’s a far left sympathizer.

PS- I’m tired that academicians immediately cave the minute far left anarchists (like Antifa and Black Lives Matter) threaten to protest. The thought that Ben Shapiro is controversial is laughable.

The U of M didn’t move Elizabeth Warren’s speech when she spoke there. She’s significantly more controversial than Shapiro. That’s because conservatives cherish free speech while anarchists don’t. That’s verified in this:

He said that in a harshly critical review in The Washington Post of a new book, “Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy.” In that book, authors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic advocate what Dershowitz says amounts to a “free speech for me, but not for thee” credo favoring the left.

Further, that’s a wimp’s excuse. If the U of M won’t stand up to these anarchists/rioters, they’ll continue disrupting events. They’ll keep censoring conservatives with a publicized threat.

What’s required is for the U of M, starting with President Kaler, to grow a pair and stand up to these anarchists. Have lots of security for the event. If the anarchists get out of hand, arrest them and prosecute them to the maximum extent allowed. If some of them get convicted of felonies and it ruins their lives, so be it.

Further, these aren’t kids. They’re adults. If they won’t act like it, put them in prison and teach them that society won’t tolerate their spoiled brat behavior. But I digress.

I couldn’t put it better than this:

Wittingly or unwittingly, university administrators are often complicit in the suppression of conservative speech on campus, cloaking it in a concern for public safety.

The article continues, saying:

The University of Washington sought to charge the College Republicans group a $17,000 security fee, but was blocked from doing so by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, who held that such an exorbitant fee would effectively shut down the group’s free speech rights.

Free speech shouldn’t cost $17,000, especially when public safety wouldn’t have been an issue at all were it not for the intolerant, violent left. Pechman, a 1999 judicial appointee of President Bill Clinton, rightly vetoed what effectively would have been a heckler’s veto.

That’s fantastic. It’s time to veto the heckler’s veto. It’s time to tell these punks that they won’t get their way just because they’re threatening conservative events.

I’d love hearing President Kaler’s explanation of whether this is controversial:

The U of M (and other universities) need to grow a pair.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Being Escorted Out of a City Council Meeting Was Not on My Bucket List
By John W. Palmer, Ph.D.

At tonight’s St. Cloud City Council meeting, the sale of a portion of Heritage Park was up for consideration. As has become my practice during council meetings, I use an internet search engine to find facts related to the matter being discussed. Having previously searched for some basic information about Costco’s business practices, my curiosity was peaked regarding investment in Costco. With the council discussion focused on their fiduciary responsibility, some information relevant to that discussion came to my attention. I moved to the dais as Councilman Hontos was finishing his commentary supporting his position on the sale. Having reach the dais, I waited for a pause in the debate and when the pause happened I asked if any council member would recognize me to speak to the issue before the council.

Under council rules, any council member may recognize a person to speak to the issue at hand. When no response was given, I repeated my request. Council President Lewis then said we are not doing that now, we’re discussing the matter among the council. I unsuccessfully tried to have Council President Lewis follow the council rules and give all members of the council a chance to exercise their right to recognize a speaker. She repeated that that was not going to happen. Councilman Masters spoke up and advised me to wait until the council had finished its discussion to be recognized to speak.

While waiting for the council discussion to end I stayed at the dais. After a few minutes, I heard a voice behind me and to the right say: You need to leave where I was standing. I asked why and heard the voice repeat their statement. I then asked whether the speaker had heard what Councilman Masters had said and that I was waiting to be recognized. The voice which, I later learned, was that of the City Attorney said that I’m going to have the police officer escort me out.

When I returned to my seat and began to sit down, the officer said I had to leave the council chambers. Having believed that once I left the dais that the matter was resolved, I was shocked. Not wanting to create a scene and believing that a reasoned conversation with the officer could result in my return to the council chambers I left the council chambers.

In my conversation with the officer it became clear he was not going to allow me to return to the chambers, I asked him who had directed him to remove from the chambers. That is when I learned the voice was the City Attorney’s. When I had a chance to search the internet for the recent Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling regarding behavior by citizens at public meetings, I found the following:

How a Chair Brought Down Minnesota’s Law Against Disturbing Government Meetings
TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 By Matt McKinney

It’s no longer illegal in Minnesota to disturb a public meeting, the state Supreme Court has ruled, reversing the conviction of a Little Falls woman who was charged with disorderly conduct for protesting before the City Council.

The 54-year-old law was deemed overly broad and potentially criminalized free speech, the court ruled Wednesday.

“I feel like justice was finally served,” said Robin Hensel, whose refusal to move her chair at a 2013 Little Falls City Council meeting was at the heart of the court’s decision.
Hensel, a grandmother and peace activist who frequently protests at Camp Ripley, said she never thought she would actually get charged when she moved a folding chair to the open space between the public galley and the City Council’s dais.

“All I wanted to do was sit there quietly within eyeshot range of them and look them in the eye so that their conscience would be pricked,” she said Wednesday. A video of the incident shows that it was peaceful and that she eventually agreed to leave the chambers with an officer of the law.

In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with Hensel, saying: “The statute is broad and ambiguous, prohibiting any conduct or speech that ‘disturbs an assembly or meeting,’ whether expressive or not. An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech.

When I read the full article, it became crystal clear that what happened to me tonight was not within the legal power of the City Attorney, who is not an employee of the council, and was also outside of the powers granted to the City Council.

What happened tonight felt like I was living in authoritarian city and state. I hope no one ever has to endure what I endured this evening and that St. Cloud citizens will express their disappointment and outrage with the behavior of the City Council and City Administration.

A little while ago, I received a phone call from Dr. John Palmer. Dr. Palmer informed me that he’d just been kicked out of the St. Cloud City Council meeting after attempting to speak about Costco’s proposed purchase of land on the west end of St. Cloud.

Dr. Palmer is putting an article describing what happened. I will publish that article verbatim when I receive it. I won’t edit it. I want LFR readers to learn what happened that led up to this tyranny. Before he started writing his article, though, Dr. Palmer wrote this email to the St. Cloud City Council:

I guess I should have insisted on my 1st amendment rights even thou I was not disrupting the meeting. Maybe next time I should toss a chair?

I do believe I am owed a public and formal apology. I was waiting for the council members to finish their discussion as suggested by my 1st Ward councilman when I was ordered to leave and given no reason. Each council member present could have defended my rights but you ignored the unlawful actions of the city attorney. When you read the post regarding the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on public meetings you will understand my reference to chair tossing.

As a citizen of the City of St. Cloud, I am offended by your failure to act to protect a citizens rights. This was not the Administration’s meeting; it was your council meeting. What message did your inaction send to the Citizens of St. Cloud. You lost the opportunity to be better informed by not allowing me to address the council regarding the sale of the Heritage Park land. I followed your rules respectfully, listened to Dave Master’s wise counsel and then was removed from the council chambers. What are you afraid of that prevented you from allowing a citizen to exercise their constitutional rights. What choice did I have in the face of unreasonable use of police force? Based on what was happen nothing would have prevented an escalation of police action. What would you have done if the officer started to handcuff me and perp walk me out of the chamber? I certainly did not want the trouble of having to defend my rights in a court of law or spend a night in jail and that is why I did not stand my ground and assert my rights. Just because people in authority can abuse their power does not mean others should allow this to happen.

Here’s the article written about the court case to which Dr. Palmer is referring. Here’s the part pertinent to Monday night’s tyrannical actions:

It’s no longer illegal in Minnesota to disturb a public meeting, the state Supreme Court has ruled, reversing the conviction of a Little Falls woman who was charged with disorderly conduct for protesting before the City Council.

The 54-year-old law was deemed overly broad and potentially criminalized free speech, the court ruled Wednesday. “I feel like justice was finally served,” said Robin Hensel, whose refusal to move her chair at a 2013 Little Falls City Council meeting was at the heart of the court’s decision.

This ruling is directly on point to what happened with Dr. Palmer Monday night.

This isn’t the first time Council President Lewis has ignored the Council’s rules. She ignored the Council’s rules during the Nov. 6 meeting when she adjourned the meeting while an open motion still hadn’t been voted on. She adjourned the meeting after getting upset with City Councilman Jeff Johnson.

If Council President Lewis thinks that the gavel gives her unlimited authority, which she apparently thinks, she needs a refresher course in civil rights. Her actions were those of a tyrant, not of a public servant.

When I read this article, I got pissed. First, it’s bad enough to learn that an elderly lady “was sexually assaulted by a worker at Heritage House Assisted Living.” This isn’t an allegation. According to the article, “David DeLong was eventually criminally convicted of the assault.” That’s a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

It’s a finding of fact. Period.

Imagine how her son, Bob Krause, felt when he told the reporter “She couldn’t cry out. She couldn’t push him off. She couldn’t tell anybody. She just had to lie there and take it.” Krause would’ve been totally justified if he’d wanted to rip his mother’s assailant’s head off. That isn’t what happened, though. Imagine Bob Krause’s outrage “when state regulators investigated, they found Heritage House did nothing wrong, even though court records obtained by KARE 11 showed when another worker discovered DeLong in Krause’s room with his pants and underwear around his thighs, Heritage House waited more than an hour and a half to call police.”

Unfortunately, that isn’t the end of Bob Krause’s grief:

Bob says he wasn’t told about the attack until a prosecutor called him several months later. By then, Jean Krause had died. “I’ve asked myself over and over again, why wouldn’t they say anything and the only thing I can come down to is, you know, fear of being exposed,” Bob said.

Why is that delay so significant? In part, because it may have shielded Heritage House from a lawsuit. Unlike most states, in Minnesota the law says a civil suit dies with the victim. So, when Jean Krause passed away, so did Bob’s chance to hold Heritage House accountable in court.

“It’s one of two states in America where if you run out the clock and that person dies for an unrelated reason, the lawsuit dies with the person,” said Mark Kosieradzki, an attorney who specializes in nursing home abuse and neglect cases.

Unfortunately, it’s too late for Bob Krause to obtain justice for his mother’s attack. If the legislature doesn’t pass a bill to fix this stupidity, then it’s time to throw all of the bums out. It’s the legislature’s affirmative responsibility to fix situations like this.

Nobody deserves this lengthy string of tribulation. Heritage House let an elderly woman get assaulted. Then staff at Heritage House sat silent after the attack was detected. At minimum, the staffers who noticed the attack and did nothing should be tried as accomplices. They aren’t as guilty as the attacker but they should face prison time for their actions.

Last week, CNN hosted a virtue-signaling event intended to cause politicians to ban ‘assault weapons’ and usher in a new era of gun control. With over 7,000 people in the hall that night, it was the biggest virtue-signaling event in history. Instead, what happened is that CNN triggered once-complacent voters to get out and vote for Republicans.

CNN tried shaming the NRA, then it tried bullying Republican legislators into voting for do-nothing gun legislation that won’t stop a single would-be mass shooter from inflicting pain on students. That’s why it’s laughable to read this article’s headline, which is “Has the NRA Finally Met Its Match?” BTW, the answer is “No.” The NRA doesn’t spend a ton of money contributing to campaigns because its members are steadfastly loyal to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Banning ‘assault rifles’ requires banning all semi-automatic weapons. Anything short of that and you’re just making symbolic gestures. Katha Pollitt, though, is encouraged by what she’s seeing:

Senior Emma Gonzalez may have made history with her blistering speech at a rally three days after the massacre:

“Politicians who sit in their gilded House and Senate seats funded by the NRA telling us nothing could have been done to prevent this—we call BS. They say tougher gun laws do not decrease gun violence. We call BS. They say a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. We call BS. They say guns are just tools like knives and are as dangerous as cars. We call BS. They say no laws could have prevented the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. We call BS.”

Ms. Gonzalez is clearly a passionate activist. She might’ve started off wanting to stop gun violence but that isn’t what’s happening now. What’s happening now is that she’s reciting the gun grabbers’ chanting points.

I don’t doubt her sincerity. After experiencing what she experienced, it’s understandable for her to speak passionately about her experience. However, that doesn’t give her the right to not do her research on the issue with impunity. If she’s going to speak out, then people like me have the right to question her statements, especially if they’re sloppy or ill-informed.

Ask the people in Nice, France if a semi isn’t as lethal as a handgun. Hint to Ms. Gonzalez: It’s more lethal:

Last month, 84 people were killed in Nice, France, when a truck drove through a crowd celebrating Bastille Day.

There’s no question that some laws have to change. There’s no question that the laws that need changing aren’t the laws CNN and liberal politicians like Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-FL), are pushing.

Students make for compelling testifiers who preach the same outdated failed policies. The fate of their policy prescriptions is sealed. In the end, solutions defeats emotional testimony when the testimony isn’t based on rock-solid information and impeccable logic. It’s that simple.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Democrats have given Republicans a gift in that they’ve reminded complacent voters why elections matter.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

During her appearance on Meet the Press, Sen. Klobuchar said “What these hunters were telling me the last few days is they are willing to do some background checks. They asked me why the bump stock bill hadn’t passed. They understand as law-abiding gun owners, that we need to make changes.” Later, she said “I would like to see an assault weapon ban come up for a vote. And I would also like to see the work we need to do on domestic violence.”

Honestly, I’d love to see a vote on banning assault weapons in both the House and Senate. It’d be interesting to see how many Democrats would vote against that ban. Let’s finish this debate. Banning scary-looking weapons that aren’t any more deadly than a traditional-looking semi-automatic is pandering at its worst. That isn’t making people safer. It’s telling people that they’re safer without making them safer. Shame on these panderers for selling false hope.

In the past, Sen. Klobuchar supported feel-good, do-nothing gun control measures:

Q: What about assault weapons?
A: I did favor extending the ban on assault weapons. Unfortunately, we didn’t prevail.

Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
Congressional Summary:
The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine or similar device that has an overall capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition
Opponent’s Argument for voting No: Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.

A well-trained gunman doesn’t need a large-capacity clip to reload quickly. Further, most of the mass-shooting attackers did tons of training before carrying out their attacks. This is another feel-good provision that doesn’t fix a thing. Anything that doesn’t actually prevent lethal situations should be ignored. Period.

The key to this that the MSM and liberal politicians haven’t talked about is hardening soft targets. I won’t pretend that hardening such targets will eliminate mass shootings. Evil will still exist. I’ll guarantee, though, that we’ll see a major reduction in the number of fatalities if targets are hardened.

This morning, disgraced Sheriff Scott Israel told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he won’t resign. That’s fine as long as Florida Gov. Rick Scott fires him for dereliction of duty. Sheriff Israel is a demagogue, a politician and a partisan anti-NRA hack. At this point, I’d argue that his reputation is more in tatters than Adam Schiff’s. That takes a lot but he’s succeeded.

Sheriff Israel didn’t help himself when he said “I can only take responsibility for what I knew about. I exercise my due diligence. I’ve given amazing leadership to this agency.” Seventeen students from Parkland HS were unavailable to respond to Sheriff Israel’s quote. Seriously, what type of delusional nutjob would make that type of statement? Are you out of your flipping mind? Amazing leadership? Wow.

Further, “Israel said they were continuing to investigate their handling of the threat warnings and that the officer who handled that call ‘is on restrictive duty.’ Israel also said they will get to the bottom of the situation and release their results when they are certain they have all the facts.” Why should anyone think that Sheriff Israel can be trusted with investigating himself? I don’t trust him. I’m betting that few people trust him as an impartial investigator.

Watch the video of Jake Tapper grilling Sheriff Israel. Some of Sheriff Israel’s statements are stunningly arrogant. At one point, Israel said that his deputies “have done amazing things.” Seriously? How can this man say something like that with a straight face?

If he’s that clueless as to how big of a failure this was on behalf of himself and his deputies, then he isn’t competent enough to be sheriff. He needs to be fired for incompetence. It’s that simple.

It’s difficult to picture a sheriff more incompetent than Scott Israel. It’s worth adding that he’s a demagogue, too. First, it’s important to know that police from Coral Springs found 4 of Israel’s deputies outside the building while Nikolas Cruz was on his murderous rampage. CNN reported that when “police from neighboring Coral Springs arrived at the school, they found three other Broward deputies who were outside the building but did not go in.”

Question: Why should any of these jackasses still have a job or a pension?

The good news is that “State Rep. Bill Hager, R-Boca Raton, is urging Florida Gov. Rick Scott to remove Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel over his agency’s handling of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.” Here’s hoping Gov. Scott fires Sheriff Israel and his 4 deputies before the Twins preseason game today. (The telecast starts at noon on Fox Sports North.) These men aren’t just incompetent. It’s justified to call them cowards, too, unworthy of being police officers.

Ben Shapiro’s diatribe isn’t just justified. It’s required.

Then there’s Sheriff Israel’s demagoguing the issue of gun control:

This jackass is a disgrace to law enforcement. His official responsibility is “to protect and serve.” He did neither. His deputies followed his lead.

Here’s something that nobody’s talked about yet. What do you think is the Broward County Sheriff’s Department’s exposure in a wrongful death lawsuit? I’m not a lawyer but I’m thinking that they’re facing a huge lawsuit with a strong likelihood that they’ll lose that lawsuit. I’m thinking that these families had a reasonable expectation that those deputies should protect their children in such a situation.

Sheriff Israel deserves a legal beating. If there’s justice still left in this world, it’s coming quickly.

If you’re looking for a well-written, well-informed editorial on gun violence, I’d skip this Our View editorial. It isn’t well-informed. Period.

For instance, it’s exposed as ill-informed when it says “Finally, Congress must do more to regulate assault rifles. Should they be banned? As noted previously, Congress from 1994 to 2004 banned certain semi-automatic assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Did it help? Hard to say, but back then America was not averaging one mass shooting a day, either.”

The thought that a newspaper thinks that there’s a mass shooting each day is frightening. How stupid are these people? We aren’t even close to averaging that. FBI statistics verify that. It’s apparent that the Times editor hasn’t read this article. Had they read it, they would’ve learned that “In 2013, knives were used to kill 1,490 and rifles were used to kill 285. Handguns far outnumber both knives and rifles in American murders. There were 7,105 murders by handgun in America in 2016.”

Let’s further admit that the Parkland shooter never should’ve been allowed to purchase a gun. There’s already laws on the books prohibiting the sale of guns to those with mental health issues, which this shooter clearly displayed.

More than anything else, the government let us down. Specifically, law enforcement failed its responsibility. It’s that simple. That isn’t always the case but it was this time.

Something that’s getting ridiculed is hardening soft targets. Gun-free zones should be renamed to tell the truth. They’re a murderer’s dream come true. The people in a gun-free zone are sitting ducks. They’re people just waiting to be killed.

Remember the old cliché of not bringing a knife to a gunfight. People in gun-free zones aren’t bringing a knife to a gun-fight. They aren’t even bringing a pea-shooter to a gun fight. Why would people willingly be defenseless? It’s foolish thinking that everyone will be on their best behavior. I wouldn’t assume that everyone is trustworthy.

Arming teachers, janitors and administrators isn’t about adding more guns. It’s about leveling the playing field. If liberals want kids protected, they can’t hope that the bad guys will have mercy on them. They can’t hope that everything will be fine when the field is tilted totally in the bad guys’ favor. That isn’t just stupid. It’s delusional.

After reading Franklin Graham’s tribute to his dad, I pondered it for a moment. It didn’t take long before a thought popped into my head. Actually, it’s the Bible verse from the Gospel of John. John 15:13 says “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

It isn’t that the verse fits Franklin Graham’s article perfectly. It simply doesn’t. It’s that Franklin’s tribute to the man he called “Daddy” described Billy Graham’s life message. Specifically, Franklin spoke of a troubled time in his life. In Franklin’s words, “After graduating from college in 1974, I headed for Lausanne, Switzerland, to work at a conference the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was sponsoring for 2,500 evangelical leaders from around the world. My life was a mess; I was empty and lonely. During that conference, my mother and father wanted to take me to lunch to celebrate my 22nd birthday. After lunch at a little Italian restaurant on Lake Geneva, Daddy and I walked along a pathway beside the lake when he turned to me and said, ‘Franklin, your mother and I sense there’s a struggle going on in your life.’ Somewhat stunned, I wondered, ‘How does he know this?’ He continued, ‘You’re going to have to make a choice either to accept Christ or reject Him. You can’t continue to play the middle ground.’ With my mind racing, wondering what he was going to say next, I heard these words: “I want you to know we’re proud of you, Franklin. We love you no matter what you do in life and no matter where you go. But you’re going to have to make a choice.” He had pricked my conscience to the point I was actually angry. I couldn’t figure out how he knew about the struggle that had been going on inside me — but he did, and he was right. My father’s words haunted me for several weeks until I finally gave up running from God and made that choice to accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and turn my life over to Him. I’ve never looked back or regretted my decision.”

The man that preached redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ didn’t have condemnation towards his son. Christ repeatedly told His followers that His love was unconditional. Billy Graham’s love for his son was unconditional, too, and he told him that during the conversation that turned Franklin’s life around, albeit not immediately.

By 1974, Billy Graham was a household name. He had a reputation to uphold. People would’ve understood if he’d given Franklin the tongue-lashing of his life. Based on what I’ve often read about Billy Graham, that simply wasn’t who he was. Staying true to his character, Billy Graham reminded his son that his love for Franklin was unwavering and unconditional.

It wasn’t just that Franklin Graham wasn’t a typical Christian. It’s that Franklin was a hell-raiser:

Graham’s boyhood mischief grew into young adult rebellion. He rode motorcycles, learned how to pilot planes and lived life in the fast lane. “I just wanted to have fun,” Graham said, describing wild times of “drinking the beer, and going out to the parties, and running around with different girlfriends.” Even though he’s shed his rebellious image, Graham still loves the rush of riding his motorcycle.

He smoked, drank, got in fights and admitted trying marijuana. “He loves to live on that adrenaline rush,” Lotz said. “You know whether it’s an airplane or a fast motorcycle or doing something on the edge.” His family sent him to Stony Brook, an elite Christian boarding school on Long Island, New York. He dropped out and was later expelled from another school, LeTourneau College in Longview, Texas, for keeping a female classmate out all night past curfew.

That’s when his life changed:

Things would soon change. During a trip to Switzerland in 1974, Billy Graham talked to his 22-year-old son about the direction in his life. Franklin Graham remembers his father looking him straight in the eye and saying, “I want you to know that your mother and I sense there is a struggle for the soul of your life, and you’re going to have to make a choice.”

These words troubled Graham as he continued on his tour of Europe. Driving across the countryside with a bottle of scotch in his hand, he began to think about the conversation with his father. One night in a hotel room in Jerusalem, Franklin’s life changed. He describes his epiphany in a passage from his 1995 autobiography, “Rebel With a Cause: Finally Comfortable Being Graham.” “That night instead of going to the bar for a couple of beers, I found myself alone in my room reading through the gospel of John. “When I came to the third chapter, I read not just that Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again, but I also grasped that Franklin Graham had to be born again as well.”

Franklin Graham is now living a changed life because his father didn’t condemn him. He’s living that life because his father reminded him that his love was unconditional.

Franklin is living that changed life because Billy Graham stayed true to the Gospel message that he preached in public. In this setting, it wasn’t just his public persona. It’s who Billy Graham was in private life, too. I find that consistency inspiring.

Greater love hath no man.