#which both are expressly untrue!

[apollo-cackling]

so the whole kit connor thing. folks really have learned nothing from what happened with jameela jamil and becky albertalli (which I assume these folks should goddamn know of bc love simon and heartstopper's demographic is roughly the same) huh.

#my rambles #who goddamn cares what the identities of the people who make queer stuff is #if it's good it's good #and the claims that you can always tell imply that #1) queerness is a monolith instead of a rich range of experiences #and 2) that queer experiences are entirely unique and different from everything else #and no non queers can ever relate to it #which both are expressly untrue! #1) is just obvious so many trans folks have diff experiences of transness #as for 2) see: that post a bit ago about interracial couples sharing experiences w/ queer folks #as well as disabled folks #like #hey guys did you know discouraging empathy with marginalised groups is Bad，Actually #so what if a cishet author writes queer stories if they do research and talk to queer folks? #so what if a cishet actor actsa queer character? #(men acting in trans women roles is a diff issue I'm not going to get into that) #the issue here is the publishing/film industry/etc prioritising nonqueer writers and actors #(and side note saying only queer folks should play queer roles pigeonholes them into queer roles and likely doesn't help queer actors any)

[onlyonekenobi]

Hi there 🐝💕 Firstly, thank you so much for your amazing blog.

Secondly, I was a fan of SPN many years ago and fell out of it for a while, only having gotten sucked back in after 15×18 (surprise). Back when I was into it before, there was a lot of discussion about Jensen being potentially homophobic, and now I'm noticing that there's been some..... less than awesome stuff said by Misha, too, in terms of the queerbaiting on the show and having only acted Castiel as in love with Dean this past season.

Obviously the content of the show itself proves this wrong, but it still troubles me, and I couldn't find much about it online other than a few posts by people and one con transcript. Do you have any feedback on this, and would you mind sharing it?

(Thank you so much, and no worries if you don't wanna answer, just keep being awesome!)

Hi!

I’ll do my best here, and I’ll try to track down some sources. also, idk if you sent this question to anyone else as well, but if you did, i’m interested to see what they say. if not, i am flattered to be your Trusted Source.

so, first: jensen re homophobia

I could be wrong, but I don’t remember him ever making any kind of “homophobic” comments OUTSIDE OF things regarding destiel that were construed that way by some fans (if i’m wrong, please let me know). I do remember him shutting down destiel comments, etc, and the infamous “?? no” which has since been debunked by the OP as having been taken out of context. (i can’t find the debunking post on my blog but if anyone has it please link!) with the shutting down destiel comments, he was definitely brash at times! but, I do think it’s also important to note that he and misha were explicitly told not to talk about it. and we know that jensen is (or at least especially used to be) a pretty shy guy, and I think destiel questions/comments being shoved in his face in a public setting- when addressing it could get him in trouble with his job- made him nervous and upset.

however, he took a noticeable shift re: destiel in recent years. for one, we know that he gave his blessing for the canon textual confession (again, I can’t find an og post in my absolute mess of late stage supernatural tags, but if anyone has the receipts, please drop them). I could add more of my own personal spec about how jensen shifted his acting choices in light of this information, but I’ll just move on. we know that he was excited about the confession scene. here’s a second post about that.

and re: general homophobia, here’s a post of jackles with pride flags, as well as a 2019 post from his aunt, who is gay. also, this is largely a shitpost, but I saw it in my jackles tag while looking for the above, and it feels relevant, so i’m including it. a little levity before we move on.

now, misha.

I am aware of misha saying two upsetting things in regards to “the confession wasn’t bury your gays, why are you so angry” Again, if there’s more that i’m forgetting, please let me know. The first was in this panel talk (start at 35:50) from November 22. Here is a relevant post about that moment (I also watched the whole panel live and agree with this post.) The second is this video on twitter, and the following thread, from Nov. 25. However, after several fans replied to him explaining why we were so upset, he issued this apology on Nov. 26. I wanted to give you the original link there, but I’m also including a screenshot with a thoughtful and important addition here. And here is a tweet about Misha finding out about The Castiel Project.

i’ve never heard anything about misha only acting cas as in love for the last season exclusively, so I don’t have any posts to expressly debunk it, but I do firmly believe that to be untrue, just based on things misha has let slip over the years

and for both of them, it’s worth noting that whenever they were asked direct questions about the show, they could only do their best to talk around things like queerbaiting, etc, because they obviously couldn’t actively speak out against the show or the network (like this). for example, we know that misha got a couple phone calls from producers on occasions where he toed the line a little too closely, and he commented how you unfortunately have to listen to the people who have the power to kill off your character (immediately following previous clip)

in conclusion

neither of them are homophobic. to the best of my knowledge, neither of them have ever made an outright homophobic comment. and in cases regarding destiel (again, to the best of my knowledge) they have both either changed course or apologized since making any unsavory comments.

there are also WAY more posts on all this that I didn’t include here. if you search the jensen or misha tags on my blog, or probably the blog of just about anyone i follow, you could look into it more

all that said, it’s also important to note that i am Just Some Guy. i did my best to compile this information in a relevant and meaningful way, but i have oversaturated-sponge-adhd-brain that has been actively following this fandom for a decade, and i’m sure some things got lost in there. so to anyone reading this, if i forgot anything critical, please don’t yell at me, i am but a simple internet jester, just like you.

and while we’re here, I’ll say that- while I do think it’s important to keep a critical eye trained everywhere- if we were going to criticize any spn cast members for unsavory comments, these two are certainly not where i would start

tl;dr, ultimately myself and jensen and misha are all Just Some Guy, and none of us know them, but as far as I can figure, they are both genuinely kind and thoughtful people who care about and respect the lgbt community, including their respective characters’ involvement in it and the real world consequences that has

#hi i hope this makes sense i've spent four hours compiling it and i can't look at it anymore xx #anyway i hope this answers your question(s) but if it doesn't please feel free to dm me!! #asks #long post #rachelillustrates

[arcticdementor]

Discussions of genes and behavior results in a lot of what I’d call lawyering. That is, there’s a ton of nibbling around the edges of the argument to disqualify the debate rather than grappling with the heady philosophical issues straight on. I’ve complained about this in relation to the definition of “heritable” in the past - yes, there are some conceptual and linguistic complexities there, but many debates get derailed by quibbling over that term rather than getting to the meat of how we might act in a world where we knew human talents were influenced by our genes. And this seems pointed, to me, in the sense that I think the avoidance aspect of these debates is the whole point. People just do not want to engage with this stuff. With the publication of Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s recent New Yorker article, there’s been heroic amounts of lawyering going on.

…

I don’t want to pick on Quiggin here, as there’s a lot of people expressing this sentiment. But I find this attitude… a little crazy? If human beings are in any sense unequal in their innate cognitive and behavioral abilities, in the way we all accept they are in their athletic abilities, then this has massive policy and politics implications. I wrote a whole book about one obvious place where there are profound policy consequences, which is in education. And nowhere was blank slate thinking more destructive in education policy than with No Child Left Behind.

NCLB was, notoriously, a massive disaster. It was so obviously a disaster, in fact, that when the endless war between Barack Obama and the Republican Congress was at its height, the two sides still came together to get rid of the law. What made NCLB such a profound failure? Well, for one thing, the collision of Common Core and NCLB created onerous testing requirements that drove parents to rebel and passed down huge costs to states, resulting in the opt-out movement that has become woven into today’s social justice movement. More relevant here, NCLB essentially mandated perpetual improvement in student scores and in effect demanded 100% compliance with state standards. Schools that failed to meet these requirements faced harsh sanctions. This resulted in both states and the feds devising workarounds for what was the law of the land - states set standards that were so low it strained the very definition of a standard, and the Obama Department of Education issued exemptions by the bushel. It turns out that you can do a lot of talking tough about how you’re going to insist on excellence, but that doesn’t change the fact that excellence can never be mandated, particularly when dealing with the crooked timber of humanity. And while NCLB is gone, its replacement (the Every Student Succeeds Act) still enshrines unmeetable goals for our education system, just largely toothless ones. Meanwhile, states, schools, and teachers continue to shoulder the burden of the “no excuses” rhetoric that led to No Child Left Behind.

I really must underline this point. A little back-of-the-envelope math suggests that more than 100,000 public school teachers in this country operate under merit pay systems. Those teachers are seeing their wages fluctuate based on the outcomes of their students. Thousands of teachers in this country have been fired (or had their contracts not renewed) on the basis of poor academic performance in their classrooms, and hundreds of schools nationwide have been closed based on test scores and other quantitative educational metrics. But this whole edifice depends on the notion that student outcomes are more or less under the control of schools and teachers. If, on the other hand, we pay attention to decades of research, the experience of many teachers, and common sense, we would rather assume that different people have different levels of intrinsic underlying academic ability, and that this inequality prompts the remarkable stability of relative academic performance over time. And if we thought that way, we would have never passed NCLB in the first place. A truly ruinous law, passed with great fanfare by liberals and conservatives working together, would have been avoided had we taken genetic influence on cognition seriously. How could you say that this scenario doesn’t have policy relevance, Dr. Quiggin?

“No excuses” thinking was always based on blank slatism. The entire school reform movement was predicated on the assumption that talk of inherent ability was just excuse making, lazy teachers and corrupt unions trying to shirk their professional responsibilities. That movement, though wounded in the present moment, has had immense political and policy consequences. Meanwhile, speaking as someone who reads a lot of education research, the topic of student ability sort of flits around the field, not expressly forbidden but rigorously avoided. In study after study, including ones that expressly seek to understand parental influence, the question of any given student’s inherent tendency to struggle or excel is studiously avoided. Similarly, wonks of all types who work at nonprofits and in media conspicuously avoid discussing whether everyone has the same academic potential. When inherent ability is referenced at all in the literature it tends to be a vague handwave that does not factor into the final analysis. But if what we’re interested in is how people learn and why some succeed and some fail, this is totally nuts!

…

Again, I’m left with the same basic point: it is not remotely scientifically contentious to say that literally all elements of our physiological selves are influenced by our genome. If that’s true, how could it possibly be the case that there is no influence of our genes on our behavior or cognition, which arise from the physical bodies that we all acknowledged are built by DNA? That notion is so obviously untrue that almost no one is willing to come out and state it directly. But since denialists also don’t want to acknowledge that it’s unthinkable that our genomes could mean everything to our bodies but nothing to our behavior, they partake in the previously-mentioned lawyering as a means of avoidance. I have already read several reactions to Dr. Harden’s book that fixate on minute details, the typical methodological criticisms of kinship studies and GWAS, without once engaging with the question of whether it’s even remotely conceivable that bodies that are built with DNA can house minds that are completely uninfluenced by that DNA. But that’s the fundamental question, the essence of this whole debate. If given perfectly matched environments, will two people with different genomes have the exact same outcomes? And how could such a condition square with 150+ years of research suggesting that genes change everything?

Also, to return to Quiggin’s tweet, we are already changing the gene pool. Assortative mating, which has massively increased in recent decades, is among other things an effort in genetic engineering. Mate selection among humans is a very complicated thing, but there’s no doubt that we are in part selecting for reproductive fitness, broadly defined. If someone decides that they want to partner up with someone else because that person will help provide financial stability - a very common concern in marriage and a perfectly legitimate one - that person is, to some degree, selecting based on genes. Physical attraction is also, among other things, related to our perceptions of the desirability of the genes that potential partner might pass on to our children. But of course it is; we are the products of evolution, and evolution forces us to want to produce offspring who are more likely to produce lots of offspring. Those professional class liberals who are delaying marriage and kids until later and later in life are practicing excruciatingly exacting mate selection, looking for just the right person to make some babies with. That is genetic engineering; the fact that it’s the polite kind does not change the fact that, if such trends continue, on a long enough timescale we will have a rigidly stratified species based on genetic parentage. I do not need to share the extremely durable research showing that more highly-educated parents have more highly-educated children, which has serious consequences even if you suppose that influence is entirely environmental. If it’s even partially genetic, the consequences are civilization-altering. But how can we think through that condition if we must pretend genes and behavior are totally disconnected?

#freddie deboer #substack #genetics #public schooling #blank slate #no child left behind

[thecorteztwins]

Fanfic suggestion: Fabian kidnapping Pietro and bringing him to Krakoa

The decree to be fruitful and multiply had been made. Surely now the mutant women of Krakoa would come flocking to his door—not that they needed a law to make them do that! Fabian Cortez was the TRUE master of magnetism—animal magnetism, that is!Yet, perhaps due to being distracted and shaken up by the sudden great change in mutant culture, he did not get as many women eager to breed with him as he expected. In fact he did not get…any. Perhaps they had assumed they were not good enough genetic brides to be worthy of carrying his seed. Maybe Sinister had even expressly forbid them from doing so on that basis, or something like that. Or the ever-jealous Magneto! Or a powerful mutant woman who wanted him all to herself and had threatened the others to stay away from her man!Clearly it had to be SOMETHING. There was no other explanation for this! Or why else they would keep murdering him, besides his presence making their hormones kick into overdrive and short-circuit their delicate female brains!Whatever the reason, he was getting…restless. He was of course the purest of the morally pure, but he was also a man. A studly, virile, masculine man, with study, virile, masculine needs! Needs that were…not getting met.And as they continued to not get met, he started to think about…the oddest thing. Obviously it was messing with his mind. Because his mind was conjuring up Pietro. Quicksilver. The Magnusson. Wondering what he was up to. Wondering where he was. He should be here, shouldn’t he? He should be lifted to prominence if anything, why wouldn’t he use his relation to Magneto to do that? And he couldn’t be refusing it on moral grounds like he had before, Magneto was finally allied with Xavier now! So what was the problem? Where was he? Hell, where was Wanda? Neither of them seemed to be on the island, even when Fabian started actually LOOKING for them. Were the Maximoffs dead presently?  Or were they simply estranged from their father once more? Fabian would not blame them honestly, Magneto was terrible, but didn’t they realize HE was here?Not that he was desperate or anything, and totally not a stalker, but he creeped into the computer database that kept track of all the Krakoan population.Nothing.“What are you doing?”“BWAH!”He had been caught by Forge.“Ah, this isn’t what it looks—”“This isn’t for porn holograms, Cortez, get out.”Porn holograms? Wherever had Forge gotten such an obscene idea?Fabian asked around a bit, but he got no results. And he didn’t want to ask around TOO much, because it would probably get back to Magneto if he had. And he definitely didn’t like the idea of Magneto knowing about this. It was the same reason he wouldn’t ask Xavier or Exodus, they would tell Magneto in a second. He didn’t think the X-Men would help him at all, Shaw and Emma would only help him for a price, and he just plain didn’t want Apocalypse or Sinister having their attention drawn to him at all.Well, if you want something done right…do it yourself.And that was how he came to have a struggling, tied-up Pietro thrashing about like a very angry fish as they came through the portal to Krakoa.

How had he caught him? Well, Lord Cortez was a tactical genius, for one, as he’d tell you himself. But you didn’t have to be to notice that Pietro didn’t stop to examine his food before guzzling it down in a most uncouth manner that Fabian found simply disgusting. Disgusting—-and an opportunity. Of course, the sheer amount of sedative needed to slip into said food was staggering, since despite Quicksilver’s puny (in Fabian’s opinion) frame, his mutant metabolism processed chemicals as quickly as calories. He’d required enough to drug a horse, a whole TEAM of horses!And for some reason, Maximus of all people had seemed to have some moral hesitation about giving such a thing to Fabian! Which was very strange, hadn’t Maximus tangled with the speedster almost as much as Lord Cortez himself? Maybe that was it, maybe Maximus was just jealous Fabian had figured out how to actually win this time! That must be it. Because Maximus didn’t have morals.And if he did…well, what was immoral about giving knock-out drugs to Fabian Cortez when he asked? Fabian sure couldn’t think of why. It was obvious he wasn’t going to kill someone, otherwise he’d just ask for a lethal poison!Anyway.Even with the massive dose slid into Pietro’s salad, gyro, and ice cream, his unconsciousness had barely lasted long enough to get him tied up, so he was already struggling and screaming as they reached the portal,“I don’t know what you’re planning, Cortez, but you won’t get away with it! The moment I’m free of these bonds—and it shouldn’t be long before I vibrate them to atoms!–I’m going to kick you into the next continent!”“Another continent is exactly where we are going, Magnusson! I intend to take you to Krakoa, the new home for our kind, where all past animosities shall be forgo—what? What are you laughing at? What do you find amusing about this?”For Pietro was laughing. Hysterically. At first Fabian had thought that he was screaming in fear of what the Supreme Mutant had in store for him, but no, he was GUFFAWING. Maybe he’d lost his mind in terror?“Er…it’s alright Magnusson, I’m not going to hurt you, I just—”“You fool!” Pietro burst out, “You absolute fool! You don’t know? You haven’t heard?”“Uh…”“Magnusson! Our kind! Ha! You’re living in the same past you died in! It’s sad really—some stalker you are! You’re losing your touch!”“Wh–”“I’m not a mutant, you idiot!” Pietro snarled, his mirth turning mean in an instant, “And I’m not Magneto’s son! I’m not his blood! I don’t even have the X-gene! It was all a mistake! A mistake I had to pay for for years! And now you’re still trying to make me pay—because you still believe the same lies I did!”Fabian blinked down at his captive. And then he laughed too.“Oh Magnusson, I wish I could say “good try” but it would be untrue! I understand you are too panicked to make a convincing story, but you must surely be able to do better than this! But you don’t need to—as I was trying to tell you, you have nothing to fear from me! I understand how unbelievable this must me, given how many times I have bested you in the past—”Pietro snorted and rolled his eyes at this.“—but I am a great man, and as such I can afford to be greatly forgiving. I am offering you a truce, and to show my goodwill, I am going to mend things between you and your father, so that you will be allowed on Krakoa at last, as all our kind deserve!”Pietro looked at him. Then he sighed and hung his head.“Fine. Let’s go then.”He knew better than to try to convince this moron of anything. Words never worked on him. Better to just let him fail like always. It might even be funny.Smug in his apparently victory, Fabian smirked, hefted Pietro up over his shoulders and might have touched his ass in the process, and stepped into the portal.“Behold,” Fabian said as they stepped out into the greenery of Krakoa, “The mutant homela—”“Hold up there please,” a young blond man on the slender side who was half…something…approached, holding a hand out and up in a ‘halt’ gesture.“We need clearance for non-mutants. You have to schedule an app–”“Non-mutants?!” Fabian bellowed, and Pietro groaned, “Do you not know who this is?! This is—”“Pietro Maximoff aka Quicksilver of the Avengers.”“THE MAGNUSSON! The son of Magne–”“Ohhh, wow, you didn’t get the memo?” said the boy, Doug Ramsey aka Cypher, “Oh. Wow. This is…embarrassing.”“Tell me about it,” Quicksilver grunted.“Mr. Cortez–”“LORD CORTEZ!”“Er, Fabian Cortez, Mr. Maximoff here…is not a mutant, nor the son of—”“Ah, I see!”Both Doug and Pietro looked surprised. Had it gotten through that quickly?“Magneto has at last disowned him from disappoint, and symbolically stripped him of his “mutant” status on Krakoa! Well, I am here to right this! I shall bring peace to the family I once triumphed over and terrorized!”Pietro and Cypher just exchanged looks of resigned bafflement and despair with each other.It was going to be a long day.

#fic #writing #fabsilver #esteicy-blog

[opera-ghosts]

The History of Faust The Opera by Charles François Gounod

In the matter of the libretto of "Faust" Gounod was fortunate in finding a coadjutor in M. Jules Barbier, one of the most fertile of French dramatic authors.  Meeting Gounod one day, Barbier confided to him that he wished to make an opera libretto out of "Faust."  Gounod jumped at an idea which he had himself secretly cherished for years, and the collaboration was arranged there and then.  Barbier proceeded to discuss the plan with his friend and habitual co-worker, M. Carré, who, curiously enough, had just had a small piece called Faust et Marguerite acted at the Gymnase.  On this work Carré had probably expended all the courage he possessed.  At any rate he accepted with the greatest stolidity the notion which already fired Barbier and Gounod with such enthusiasm.  The plot, he said, was worn out; it was too vast; it was not theatrical enough; and so on.  Still, though he had no faith in the project, he would take his usual share of the collaboration.  As it turned out, Carré’s share was very limited -- just enough, in fact, to enable him to claim to have his name connected with the immortal work.   At the end of the year the opera was finished.

Marie Caroline Miolan-Carvalho as Marguerite in Gounod's opera, Faust (1860)

Now came the question of finding a manager who would produce it.  One after another was tried in vain.  Roqueplan, described as the most Parisian, the shrewdest of business men, would have nothing to do with the work.  The plot, he averred, was out of date.  Imagine a theme of such human interest being ever out of date!  Alphonse Reyer succeeded Roqueplan at the Imperial Academy of Music, and to him the manuscript was next submitted.  "Not stagey enough," he exclaimed; and again "Faust" went on its travels.  At last the manager of the Théâtre Lyrique decided to give the almost despairing artists a chance.  Gounod’s score pleased him, he was good enough to say.  But, alas! the long-deferred hope was still further deferred.  A "Faust" by Dennery intervened, and delayed Gounod’s opera for a whole year. When at length the work was put in rehearsal, it was only to encounter fresh vicissitudes.  For many months, as we read in Marie de Bovet’s "Life of Gounod," the two librettists, the composer, and the manager, M. Carvalho, met in the latter’s office, and strange scenes were exacted sometimes until far into the night.  Carvalho was capricious, and day after day altered his mind about this or that.   Carré, doubtful of success as he had been from the first, yielded weakly to every whim.  Gounod protested, pleaded, threatened, and then yielded too, mainly out of deference to his nervous system, which always got excited by these encounters.  Barbier alone held out -- fought inch by inch to maintain the integrity of his work.  But for him these "epic battles" in the manager’s office might have resulted in a "Faust" very different from that which was finally brought to the test of a public interpretation on the 19th of March 1859.  It is told, indeed, that poor Barbier was so prostrated by the wranglings at these nocturnal sittings and by the worries of the rehearsals that he was unable to be present when the great night arrived. And what, then, was the immediate fate of a work which had involved so much preliminary toil and anxiety? Did Fortune smile on "Faust" that spring night? Alas! its hour of triumph was not yet come. "Decidedly the devil does not bring luck to M. Gounod," was the significant observation of a cynical "first-nighter." To say that the opera was a failure would be an exaggeration, but it certainly was not appreciated as it afterwards came to be appreciated. Scudo, of the Revue des Deux Mondes, prince of music critics, said it had only a waltz and a chorus; Berlioz (but then he was jealous) declared that the composer had not the smallest conception of the subject he sought to treat! A certain Martin d’Angers, thundering in a musical journal, concluded his notice with the hope that Gounod would never repeat the experiment. It was unlikely; masterpieces are not often duplicated. As for the public attitude, that can best be expressed by saying it was not hostile but hesitating. "The most contradictory feelings," writes one, "were manifested with regard to the new work, and opposing tides of opinion stemmed the regular current in one direction or the other." There was no enthusiasm. The Parisians went to the Théâtre Lyrique, but receipts were uncertain and success was slow. Manager Carvalho, convinced of the final triumph of the opera, perseveringly pushed it on to a fifty-seventh performance, at which point he failed and the theatre was closed -- a result the import of which does not require to be emphasised. Meanwhile, the composer had been trying to find a publisher for his score. But the publishers, like the managers, were shy. Nay, they shunned "Faust" as if it were the devil in propriâ personâ. Heugel wanted to print it, declaring that the waltz alone would cover the expense; but Heugel had a partner, and he decided that the firm could not publish a failure. It seemed as if Gounod and his librettists must undertake the printing at their own cost. They had, in fact, almost decided upon that course when the score was shown to one M. Choudens, who had just started business. Choudens resolved to risk all his capital on it. He bought "Faust" for 10,000 francs, and laid the foundation of the fortunes of his house. Rarely, indeed, has so hazardous an experiment met with so rich a reward. "Faust" has proved a veritable gold mine for the publishers and impresarios alike. In thirty years from the date of Choudens’ bold venture, the modest sum he so timidly advanced brought him in nearly three millions of francs, representing an investment at a thousand per cent. The English publishing right, it may be added, is conserved; but, happily for the popularity of the opera, the performing rights in England were lost to the composer. In this connection, a word or two may be said about the first performance of "Faust" in England.  It was at Her Majesty’s Theatre on June 12, 1863, and such was the dubiety as to the success of the opera even then that Messrs. Chappell, who had secured the publishing rights in this country for the ridiculous sum of £30 (curiously enough, Gounod received from Messrs. Boosey £800 for his next opera, "Mireille," which was never a success), had to pay Mr. Mapleson £500 to induce him to stage it!  The story is succinctly told in both Mr. Kuhe’s and Signor Arditi’s "Reminiscences."  In our days, as Mr. Kuhe observes, whenever, through unforeseen circumstances, it is necessary to substitute for the opera to be performed on a certain evening some other work, the choice of a manager generally lies between "Faust" and "Carmen."  In either case he feels that the disappointment of the audience will vanish as soon as the ear is greeted by the strains of Gounod or Bizet.  But bold indeed would have been accounted the prophet foretelling in 1863 a success so enduring as that which has fallen to Gounod’s great work. London gave by no means a favourable reception to the opera, though there was a very strong cast, including Titiens, Trebelli, Giuglini, and Santley.  Signor Arditi, who was then conductor at Her Majesty’s, tells how his orchestra cared so little for the music that he had to encourage them to persevere by the assurance that they would be delighted with it on a more intimate acquaintance.  At the performance nothing seemed to take the fancy of the audience but the old men’s and the Soldiers’ Chorus and the tenor air "Salve Dimora."  Signor Schira, who had just had an opera of his own produced at Her Majesty’s, was present, and at one part stopped his ears with his hands, exclaiming aloud:  "That is execrable.  It reminds me of a couple of cats squabbling on the tiles."  At the second representation the audience were mush less frigid; at the third the turning point on the road to success was reached.  Still, the work had many enemies, and encountered a great deal of opposition and unmerited abuse.  We have Arditi’s word for it that although it was constantly repeated, it was not a financial success during the first year. In the following year, 1864, pay and popularity joined hands in a grip that has "held" ever since.  Mario, the great tenor, then figures in the title-rôle -- in appearance and as an actor an ideal Faust, though vocally Faust was never one of his peerless parts.  Probably the very best Faust yet seen, from the point of view of personal appearance as well as vocally and dramatically, is Jean de Reszke, though Nicolini was also superb in the part.  Towards the end of the 1864 season Madame Patti appeared as the heroine, when for the first time was heard a Margaret such as Gounod might have dreamed of -- perfection of voice, singing, and acting being in the great diva personified.  "What a feast it was," exclaims the veteran Kuhe, "to hear the Jewel Song given at length with matchless excellence, and to see associated with the singer such a Faust as Mario looked!"  A few years later London opera-goers were sent into raptures by the appearance as Margaret of Christine Nilsson -- in looks an ideal Gretchen such as any student of Goethe might picture, and in dramatic intensity equal to any artist who had previously been seen in the rôle. The Margaret of the 1863 London production was, as has been indicated, the famous Titiens, but it was impossible to reconcile her tall and massive figure with the girlishness of an ideal Gretchen, though it is said that her singing of the passionate music in the church scene and final trio has never been surpassed.  In the Paris production of 1859 the Gretchen was Mme. Carvalho, the manager’s wife.  Her voice was described as "a thin, shrill soprano, as slender as her person, cut in two by three or four hasty notes -- a regular bird pipe."  The Jewel Song is often said to have been written expressly for her, but this is untrue.  It was with reluctance that she agreed to sing it, dreading lest her personal success might not sufficiently compensate for the strain on her voice.  Ultimately she conquered the natural defects of her voice until Gounod wrote of "that marvellous style and power of execution which have set her in the highest place among contemporary singers."

[lilacmoon83]

Dreaming Out Loud

Also on Fanfiction.net and A03

Chapter 110: The Summons, Pt. 2

"It can't be…" Eli uttered, as he stared at the person that had interrupted.

"But she's dead…" Snow said.

"Apparently not," Hades replied, as Queen Ravenna strolled into the castle, her beautiful face marred with an evil smirk.

"Sorry I'm late…" she announced, as shock rippled through the entire chamber. Eli gave the baby back to Snow, as he stepped forward.

"You're not welcome here!" Eli stated firmly.

"Well, hello to you too, husband," Ravenna purred, as she strolled toward them.

"That's far enough," Persephone warned.

"At ease Persephone...I'm not here to hurt anyone. I'm here to celebrate this happy occasion," Ravenna countered.

"Seriously lady...you get near my parents and I'll fry you," Emma warned. The Queen smirked.

"Such a spitfire...just like your mother. Hello Snow," Ravenna said, as she directed her attention to her pseudo step-daughter.

"What do you want?" Eli snapped.

"You called the heads of state together so here I am," she responded.

"Your brother Dalben took the Throne when we locked up Arawn," Eli reminded and she smirked.

"Unfortunately, Dalben had a very bad accident and now it falls to me to rule my Kingdom," she informed them.

"An accident...I'm sure," David commented, as his eyes were barely slits as he looked at the woman who had tormented his wife in her alternate childhood. Ravenna smirked.

"I see that no matter what the circumstances...you still found your Prince Charming. Such a spell you weave over people, but I guess that's why they call you the fairest of them all," she said, clearly still jealous of her pseudo step-daughter.

"Look lady...you weren't a part of our lives before and we're going do our best to erase you from our lives now. If I were you...I'd move off to the side and shut the hell up," Emma snapped. Ravenna scoffed.

"So uncouth...you should really give some Princess lessons to your daughter, Snow. Remember our lessons?" Ravenna cooed and Snow shivered. She remembered. She remembered all too clearly. She remembered Ravenna berating her for getting dirty in the gardens and calling her a little freak for talking to birds and animals. She remembered her nails digging into her arm when she would drag her inside. She was positive that she would have done worse if not for her fear of Persephone and Hades. And her father always incited a fight with his wife when it came to her treatment.

"I remember...and I'm never letting you near either of my children," Snow growled. She put a hand to her chest and there was mock hurt on her face.

"Oh, you wound me so, Snow...those are my step-grandchildren, after all," she mused.

"They are nothing to you, because we are no longer married," Eli snapped.

"Lucky for you since my death invalidated our marriage, but unlucky for you, because I assure you that you'll regret casting me out. But congratulations Regina...it seems that between the two of us, Snow has decided I'm the more evil step-mother," Ravenna remarked.

"Well, we both earned the Evil moniker. I'm just choosing to not embrace it anymore. You can have it, but I don't recommend it, lest you wish to find yourself alone and in ruin," Regina advised. Ravenna smirked.

"I'll take my chances…" she hissed, as she looked back at Eli.

"Last chance Eli...I encourage you to make me your Queen again. Things weren't always so bad between us and they can be good now that you're not carrying a torch for Persephone anymore," she said.

"There will never be love between us, Ravenna...and I'm going to take a page from my daughter's book. I won't be marrying anyone that I do not love," he responded. She faked a frown.

"Pity...it will be your funeral," she hissed.

"Stop threatening my father!" Snow blurted out and her mother stepped before her.

"One more threat and you'll return to death," Persephone warned. Ravenna smirked and moved off to the side to stand with the other rulers.

"By all means, All Mighty Goddess...please revere us with your wisdom," she said sarcastically. Persephone steadied herself and took a calming breath.

"Thank you all for coming and enduring the theatrics of a few dissenters that will remain nameless," she began by saying with a steely look at Frollo, Ravenna, and Leopold.

"I am sure you are wondering why you are not only in a new land, but have two sets of memories that make up one life," she continued.

"This new land you are in is the one the original Dark Curse brought my daughter's Kingdom to, as well as several others. Despite being a new and foreign place, it is a good land with many opportunities and advantages," she stated.

"When the curse broke, our family made a life in Storybrooke. That is the town that you will notice as one of your new neighbors," she added.

"I know that with new neighbors brings new borders and that can be scary. But I assure you that each ruler will still be allowed to rule their own Kingdom. As Goddess Supreme of Olympus, I will naturally oversee all the Kingdoms, but I am not one to interfere, unless people are being harmed and my hand is forced," she continued, as she looked at the three troublemakers she had eyed earlier.

"If you are peaceful, then you will have no problem adapting to this new life, which I assure you can be very good in this land. My daughter and I are already discussing educational programs to enrich everyone's knowledge of their new home," she discussed.

"We do not want anyone to fear this new life and we want to introduce you to a land built on liberty and freedom," she added.

"We will have peace and there will be no tolerance for war or oppression. Those that take that path will meet a strong opposition that they will regret challenging," she said, as she saw Anna step forward.

"What about the two sets of memories? How did that happen?" she questioned curiously.

"Yes...and how did we even come to be here in the first place? Many of our Kingdoms were not a part of the original curse," Prince Phillip interjected.

"Yes...a powerful witch from Oz is responsible for casting a spell that enacted time travel, which is expressly forbidden and breaks a law of magic. She sought to change time and create a new life for herself. But it backfired on her and she paid for it with her life," Persephone answered.

"We all seem to remember both lives as a result and when my granddaughter saved us all by reversing her spell, it seems that a new curse united all the realms together and brought us back here," she continued.

"So all this is a side effect of some spell?" King Stefan questioned.

"It would appear so. Our realms are now a part of this realm," she answered.

"And what exactly is this realm?" the Sultan of Agrabah inquired. Persephone took a breath.

"It is known as the Land Without Magic. However, that is obviously untrue to our lands. We remain hidden from those outside our borders and it must remain that way," she said, preparing for the barrage of questions that would come at that.

"Is it because they fear magic?" Elsa asked.

"Partially. But mostly, the people of this land do not believe in magic. They also believe that most of us are nothing more than fictional stories. To discover that we are real would cause many problems. People often fear what they do not understand," Persephone replied.

"So we are trapped here," Stefan surmised.

"No...we are not trapped. We are still assessing what the status of the barriers around the realms is, but no one is trapped. People will be educated on this land and if anyone wants to venture out into the Land Without Magic, that can be presented for discussion," she answered.

"And what happens if they do find out about us? We already have some outsiders in town and we know this land has great technology. What if other outsiders find a way through our barrier?" Midas questioned.

"We will make sure that doesn't happen and as for Circe's followers, we will take measures to make sure they cannot threaten our way of life," she answered. It was a nondescript response, but it was the best she could do on that front at the moment.

"So...there's no going back?" Dorothy asked.

"All the Kingdoms are here now. You'd be going back to a barren place if you were to take a bean and a curse is the only way to return the Kingdoms to our old land. Believe me, the price of another curse is much higher than making what can be a very good life here," Persephone responded and that seemed to put most at ease. For all intents and purposes, while their location may have changed and there were many new things, many things about their lives would remain the same.

"My wife has graciously answered your questions and I can assure you that she has the best interest of all at heart. And while this may be a summons, it is still a celebration as well. There should be music and mingling. And please, take an opportunity to sample some of the food of our new land. I assure you that it will not disappoint," Hades offered, as the meeting dispersed and the musicians they had hired began to play.

"Thank you...I think that was all the questions I could take tonight," she said. He smiled.

"You did beautifully, but there was never any doubt that you would. We may still have a lot to figure out, but most will see that you are right about this new venture in our lives," he assured.

"I'm still worried about them. They're going to be trouble," she lamented, as she looked at Frollo, Leopold, and Ravenna. The three seemed awfully chummy all the sudden and that didn't mean anything good.

"They'll be foolish to do anything now that you rule the heavens, but if they do, we will face them and do what is necessary," he replied.

~*~

David and Kristoff shared a brotherly hug.

"It's so good to see you...both of you," David said, as he hugged Anna as well.

"You too, just a Shepherd," Anna teased. He shook his head.

"You're not going to let that go, are you?" he asked.

"Never," she replied.

"Nice hair cut, by the way," Kristoff mentioned. David smirked.

"You too," he teased, as he slipped his arm around Snow's waist.

"This is my wife Snow, our daughter Emma, and our son, whom we still have to name," David introduced them.

"It's so nice to meet you," Anna gushed, as she surprised Snow with a hug.

"It's wonderful to meet you too, but how do you know each other?" Snow asked curiously.

"Kristoff and I met years ago in the marketplace, both trying to sell goods there, in both realities, actually," David told her.

"But Anna and I met when she was passing through Misthaven. In the original time line, she actually taught me how to sword fight," he added.

"Wow…" Snow said with great interest.

"Yeah...and he kept saying he'd never be anything more than a shepherd, but I knew there was something about him," Anna replied. Snow smiled at her husband.

"You were definitely right," she agreed.

"I'm confused though. How do you have a daughter the same age?" Anna questioned. They chuckled.

"That's a long story, but it goes back to the first curse. We managed to get Emma into a magical wardrobe to escape the curse. We were all frozen in time, while she wasn't," Snow explained.

"So when that woman called you the Savior…" Elsa interjected curiously.

"Yeah...I broke the curse," Emma said.

"And you have magic?" Elsa asked.

"Sure do. True love's magic, actually. I'm still new to it, but I think I'm getting the hang of it," Emma replied, as she demonstrated by poofing a stuffed sheep into existence for her baby brother.

"Aww...it's a little sheep. Look sweetheart," Snow cooed to their infant. Elsa looked amazed by the whole thing.

"And your parents...don't fear your magic?" Elsa asked.

"Fear my magic?" Emma questioned in confusion.

"Of course not...we would never fear Emma. Her magic has saved and protected us," Snow answered.

"Yeah...and she kind of has it because of us. We share true love and that's why she has magic in the first place," David added.

"Are you okay?" Anna asked her sister. Elsa smiled.

"I'm fine...you're very lucky to have such wonderful parents, Emma," the Queen said kindly.

"I am," Emma agreed, as she smiled at them.

"Excuse me," Elsa said politely, as she went to get some air. Anna frowned.

"Is she okay?" Snow asked in concern.

"Yeah...it's just kind of a sad subject for us. You see...our parents feared Elsa's magic, because she couldn't always control it and it can be very destructive if it's unchecked," Anna explained.

"But that's not her fault," David said.

"I agree...but for years, they had her hide it, even from me. Then about three years after they died...it came out and our people feared her. But it wasn't her fault, because she couldn't control it," Anna explained.

"That's awful," Snow said.

"It was...but she learned to control it and we got past it...until…" Anna said, trailing off.

"Until?" David asked.

"Until Elsa found our mother's diary and in her last entry, she wrote that they were going to Misthaven in search of a powerful object they learned of that could take her powers away," Anna replied.

"Take her powers away?" David asked in disbelief.

"I know, it's terrible. Don't get me wrong...they loved us both very much. Their fear just ruled their decisions at times," Anna replied, not really having a good defense for her parents.

"I better go talk to Elsa," she said.

"Wait...maybe I can talk to her. I have magic...I know what it's like," Emma assured. David smiled at his daughter and patted her on the back, as she went to find the uncertain Queen.

"So...what's with the trio of terror over there?" Kristoff asked curiously.

"Oh...that a whole other story," David replied, as they began to explain that situation.

~*~

"Mind if I join you out there?" Emma asked, as she found Elsa in the gardens. Elsa smiled.

"Sure," she replied.

"Look...don't be mad at her, but Anna kind of told us what your parents were doing in Misthaven," Emma said. Elsa smiled.

"Discretion is not Anna's forte," she mused.

"Listen...I know how you feel," Emma assured.

"Sorry Emma, but it doesn't sound like your parents fear you at all and they seem to embrace your magic," Elsa replied.

"They do, but we've had our issues. See...I grew up alone in foster care, except that my grandmother, Persephone, got Morpheus to gift me and my parents with a magical dreamscape that allowed us to be together when we were asleep," Emma explained.

"Really?" Elsa asked. The other blonde nodded.

"Yes...otherwise, I probably would have grown up thinking that they just tossed me out on the side of the road and didn't want me," Emma replied.

"Wow…" Elsa said.

"Yeah...but it was still really rough when I was awake. Most of the foster homes were horrible and there was abuse. I know what it's like to be different. It made me really angry in my teen years and I took it out on my parents," Emma explained.

"Well, they don't seem to hold it against you," the Queen mentioned. Emma smiled.

"No...no matter how many horrible things I said to them or how much I yelled at them, they took it all and never got angry at me for it," Emma said.

"That's wonderful for you, Emma. I loved my parents too, but they were afraid of me," she said sadly.

"Maybe...but we're not afraid and you're not alone anymore," Emma reminded. Elsa smiled slightly.

"Seriously...your sister and brother-in-law know my dad, which means my mom is going to adopt them and you," Emma added, making Elsa chuckle.

"That actually sounds nice," she agreed.

"Come on...let's raid the food table. My step-grandfather did make sure there's a chocolate fountain and I never turn down the opportunity to gorge on junk food," Emma said.

"I adore chocolate," Elsa mentioned. Emma smiled.

"Then we're going to get along really well," she replied, as they went back inside.

~*~

David smiled down at their son, as Snow cradled him and they watched their friends dance. Emma was dancing with Neal, having surprised him that she knew how to ballroom dance, but then he had been reminded that David had gotten the pleasure of teaching her in the dreamscape. They were especially enjoying watching Regina dance with Henry though. She was slowly relaxing and accepting that revenge isn't what would make her happy.

"Why don't you two go dance. We can watch the baby," Persephone suggested, as she prepared to eagerly hold her grandson.

"Oh no...it's my turn," Hades interjected and Snow smiled, as she put him in her step-father's arms. Persephone frowned.

"Excuse me...but I think it's mine," she argued.

"No...you held him last and I haven't held him since this morning," he argued back. David shook his head and took his wife's hand, as led her onto the dance floor.

"At least we'll never be short on babysitters," he mentioned fondly.

"Not with six grandparents," she agreed, as he swept her into the rhythm of the current selection. Snow let the worries temporarily melt away, as he held her close and she rested her head against his shoulder.

~*~

"Yes...and since all the realms are united now, Papa Hades can get you a baby griffin to play with fairly easily," he cooed.

"We are not getting him a griffin," Persephone protested.

"He needs a pet. I had Cerberus…" Hades countered.

"Well, he has Wilby and if we get him anything else, it will be a Unicorn like we did for Snow," she responded. He smirked.

"Or...since you're the Goddess of the heavens now, we could get him a Pegasus," he tempted. She smirked.

"Okay, that's better. A Pegasus it will be," she cooed to him too.

"Seriously? A Pegasus?" Emma asked, as she returned with Elsa and Neal.

"You can have one too, sweetheart. We didn't get to spoil you growing up and we definitely have some gifts to make up for," Persephone replied. Emma smirked.

"That's more like it," she replied.

"I can't believe your grandparents are Persephone and Hades!" Elsa said in amazement. Emma snorted.

"Yeah, it's pretty weird sometimes," she replied, as she noticed the wistful look on the Queen's face.

"I know your parents probably loved you in their way, but they were wrong to make you feel like there was something wrong with you," she said. Elsa nodded.

"I know and I still have resentful feelings toward them at times, but I've mostly forgiven them. They were very misguided, but thought they were doing what was best," she replied.

"Good...because I happen to think your ice magic is wicked cool and I think you're going to find out that my parents will too," Emma said.

"They seem wonderful and it's so incredible that your father knows my sister and Kristoff," Elsa mentioned.

"Yep, which means they're family and so are you. And trust me, once my parents decide to adopt you into their circle, you're family forever," Emma assured. Elsa smiled.

"That sounds nice," she agreed. Unfortunately, that's where the peace and calm ended, as Leroy came running in.

"Terrible news!" he called.

~*~

Detective Landon Griffin had been wandering this strange little town all day and was even more bewildered than before. Especially with what was beyond the town. He was positive that he was in some kind of twilight zone now. Beyond the town, there was forests full of creatures and castles, with carriages that looked to be straight out of fairy tales. If that wasn't strange enough, the town, though seemingly modern, was strange as well. Especially when he happened upon a group of people, who seemed to be discussing how the Princess of the Underworld had just given birth to a demon baby. It was bizarre to say the least. He got his phone out and dialed a friend he still had at the bureau.

"Yeah Zach...it's Landon. Can you do me a favor and ping my phone?" he asked, as he went into the Inn. He decided that he might as well get a room while he was waiting and trying to figure all of this out.

"Yeah...give me a few," his friend said, as the former detective looked around in the lobby on the Inn, which looked like the decor hadn't been updated since the 1980's.

"Damn...what the hell is this place?" he muttered and became frustrated when it seemed like no one was monitoring the front desk. So he wandered around and meandered into the diner side of the establishment. There were a few people eating and it seemed to be open. It also looked like the decor hadn't been updated since the 1980's, but he was hungry and slid into a booth, while he waited.

"Hey Landon...you still there?" his friend Zach asked.

"Yeah…" he answered, as he perused a menu of typical diner items at absurdly cheap 1980's prices. He wasn't even sure how anyone could make a profit with these kinds of prices, let alone keep the doors open at all. It was probably why the decor was so outdated. He just hoped the food was decent.

"Uh...I'm not getting anything on your phone. Where are you?" Zach asked.

"I'm in Maine, near the coast in a really small, weird town," Landon responded.

"Not according to the readings on my end. I'm getting nothing on any towers in Maine," Zach responded. Landon glanced out the window and saw a cell tower in the near distance.

"That's impossible...I'm looking at a cell tower right now," he said in frustration.

"Sorry buddy...but I've got nothing. What's going on?" Zach asked.

"I'm not sure yet...but something really weird. I'll keep you posted," he replied, as he started hearing screams from outside. It managed to attract the attention of the other patrons in the diner and slowly everyone stepped out to see what the commotion was. And he scarcely could believe his eyes at what he was seeing. He watched in abject horror, as a teenaged looking boy in tattered green tinted clothes flew through the air and watched the people scatter in fear. But it wasn't just from him, as a shadowy figure swept through the streets. People ran and screamed and he found himself screaming, as he watched the shadowy creature literally rip something shadowy from a man. The man screamed in agony as he did it and then fell dead to the ground.

"What the hell is this…" he uttered, as he hid under a table on the patio and watched the spectacle with curious horror...

#Snowing #SnowxCharming #Charming family #Swanfire #Rumbelle #AU #HadesxPersephone #Greek Mythology meets fairy tales #romance #adventure #family #regina mill #henry mills #dreaming out loud

[damienhasmoved]

an objective look at the @turing-tested callout

I am going to preface this by saying that I want to be wrong about this. I am a CSA victim myself, and I want nothing more for there to be less predators/people displaying predatory behaviour in this world. If you can provide to me conclusive evidence that what I am saying is wrong, then I will retract this post happily. I understand that Hal is a fellow CSA victim, and if all allegations are false or can be explained properly, this whole situation must be horrific to go through. 

If I can be conclusively proven wrong, I will delete this post and apologise. I am not here to stir drama. I am here to right misinformation and focus on the actual, objective things that Hal needs to apologise for. 

I am aware that I am not a discourse blog, so if any mutuals need to blacklist #discourse, I will be using that tag to respond to any replies I receive on this post. 

What I am focusing on here are not allegations or circumstantial evidence. I don’t want to downplay it, but I understand that these accusations are serious and should not be made with no evidence. That being said, this is a rebuttal towards some of the defences of Hal I’ve seen, and focusing on the actual objective truth of the matter- Hal has been reblogging pornographic material of child characters to his NSFW blog. 

This post will be primarily looking at the character of Equius Zahhak. AR is an entirely different matter- being a clone of Dirk Strider when he was 13 years old, but arguably being able to mature into his own person over the years. That would still make him 16 years old at the time of his introduction, but if AR managed to be pulled into the new Universe, he would be around 20 years old. The current form of AR, ARquius, is seen in Caliborn’s masterpiece but not Earth C in the New Universe. It is unknown how much he aged, and therefore disingenuous to claim that he is over 20 years old. This is not a canonical fact.

The character of Equius Zahhak, on the other hand, was introduced when he was thirteen years old. He then proceeded to die at the same age, leaving his ghost- you guessed it, thirteen years old. Hal claims that trolls continue to age after they die- this is expressly untrue. If this were true, that would mean the countless dancestors- all aged at around 19 years old, would be up to billions of years old. They have been residing in the dream bubbles since the creation of the Troll’s Universe, having being sent there when they died at Meenah’s hand. They are not billions of years old. It can be assumed that they do not age.

And even if Equius did age- he’d only be 16 years old during the events of the Post-Scratch narrative. He does not appear in Act 7. He does not appear in the New Universe. He has become ARquius- and like ARquius, his age is UNCONFIRMED. This is mostly due to extreme plot holes in Homestuck, but again- claiming that he is over 20 years old is completely false. Especially since there’s more evidence to suggest the dead trolls do not age then evidence that they do. 

This is also to note that ARquius, the character that Hal frequently sexualises, is made of Equius’s body- not his ghost. Even if his ghost did age, it’s unlikely that his dead body- preserved through Gamzee’s time jumps- aged much at all. You could even come to the conclusion that because the bodies are not decomposed, the body used to create ARquius is that of thirteen year-old Equius. 

There’s the other question about how, even if ghosts aged, do sprites? We simply don’t know, because as far as I can tell, it hasn’t been confirmed in-canon. Hal states that Hussie confirmed it, but I did a lot of Googling prior to this and couldn’t find anything to back up that claim. Hussie also claimed that Vriska was his wife and that she was wider than she was tall. Simply put, Hussie lies a lot for the joke factor, and I feel you can only really trust in-universe evidence with this if you’re going to sexualise 13 year olds. 

Hal has also reblogged pornography of the moment that ARquius came to be. Even if, EVEN IF both AR and Equius aged like he claims, THEY WOULD BOTH BE SIXTEEN AT THIS MOMENT. This is indisputable fact of Hal reblogging pornography of minors. This is NOT OKAY. 

Anti-Antis who try to argue on here will be blocked. I have no time for people who think that it’s okay to post fictional child pornography. 

I’m sorry for all the Homestuck rambling. I hate the story but it used to be one of my special interests so I’ve retained a lot of knowledge about it over the years, which is why the idea that Equius was 20+ years old was so baffling to me. 

Again, if you have concrete evidence that Equius and AR aged to above 20 years like Hal claims, or even above 18- please post it. I would rather be wrong than right here. Please remain civil, I really just want to be able to keep people safe on here rather than to start drama or arguments.

#turing-tested #hal discourse #turing-tested discourse #discourse #callout #turing-tested callout #hal callout #homestuck tw #csa tw #i really want to be wrong about this #but i cant sit by and let people spread misinfo #this is not abt the recent abuser allegations

[butasformeblog]

Does Manchin & Sinema Think The Voters Are Stupid?

BAFMnotes: It's Quite Obvious That Both Manchin & Sinema Have Their Own Self-Interests At Play In Their Decision To Stop, Through Chicanery & Deceit, Needed Legislation To Protect Our Democratic System And Benefit Their Constituency. Following Trump's PlayBook They Seek To Hide Behind A Defense Of Corrupted Lies And Their Own Creation Of The Facts...

"On Wednesday, just months out from the midterm elections, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., blocked their own party's effort to pass a sweeping voting rights overhaul by refusing to exempt the measure from a Republican filibuster. The conservative Democratic explained his reasoning during a floor speech that day, addressing the upper chamber just as President Joe Biden prepared to address the nation ahead of his one-year anniversary in office. As Biden continued to push his stalled agenda, Manchin erected a big poster with one sentence to encapsulate his defense of the filibuster: "The United States Senate has NEVER been able to end debate with a SIMPLE MAJORITY."

Manchin's logic rests on the claim that no party has ever ended debate with a simple majority, largely because a filibuster requires 60 votes for a cloture (i.e., the official procedure used to end the filibuster). By creating a voting rights carveout in the filibuster that would allow Democrats to pass the bill with a simple majority, Democrats would be breaking legislative tradition, Manchin argues. His central assumption, however, is untrue.

...Back in 2011, when Manchin was just a freshman senator, Senate Democrats failed to circumvent a Republican filibuster of then-President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs plan. At the time, Manchin expressed frustration over the GOP's maneuver, suggesting that a bipartisan compromise may have been reached if not for the filibuster...Back in 2011, when Manchin was just a freshman senator, Senate Democrats failed to circumvent a Republican filibuster of then-President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs plan. At the time, Manchin expressed frustration over the GOP's maneuver, suggesting that a bipartisan compromise may have been reached if not for the filibuster......Back in 2011, when Manchin was just a freshman senator, Senate Democrats failed to circumvent a Republican filibuster of then-President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs plan. At the time, Manchin expressed frustration over the GOP's maneuver, suggesting that a bipartisan compromise may have been reached if not for the filibuster...Back in 2011, when Manchin was just a freshman senator, Senate Democrats failed to circumvent a Republican filibuster of then-President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs plan. At the time, Manchin expressed frustration over the GOP's maneuver, suggesting that a bipartisan compromise may have been reached if not for the filibuster...

"We have become paralyzed by the filibuster and an unwillingness to work together at all, just because it's an election cycle," Manchin told the Charleston Daily Mail. "We couldn't even get the horse in the start gate, let alone to run the race. That's the problem here. It's political and it's being played absolutely unmercifully at the highest level."

Later that year, Manchin issued a press release expressly calling the Senate to "fix the filibuster."

...Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was clear on this point, saying that "it's not just this [filibuster] vote" that's frustrating.

"These are people who I think have undermined the President of the United States," he told reporters after Wednesday's failed vote. "They have forced us to go through five months of discussions which have gotten absolutely nowhere."

#Manchin #Sinema #Filibuster Vote #Trump #Republicans #Sanders #Chicanery & Deceit #Democrats #Senate

[forensiceyes]

Industrial Hemp Products, Including CBD, are Finally Legit in California

Many people ignore or just don’t want to believe the fact that, until recently, California was a bit of a villain when it comes to the manufacture, distribution, and sale of industrial hemp derived products, namely hemp CBD in food, beverages, dietary supplements, animal products, and cosmetics. However, AB-45 is going to change all of that once Governor Newsom inevitably signs it into law, as it’s now passed the Senate and Assembly.

A brief history about California’s love/hate relationship with hemp CBD is warranted. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a FAQ on its website in July 2018 taking the position that CBD ingestibles were unlawful, in line with the current position of the Food and Drug Administration (check out our analysis on those FAQs here)–California essentially considered products for human and animal consumption to be improperly “adulterated” if they contained hemp CBD. Over the next few years, CDPH issued 13 notices of violation, 7 voluntary condemnation and destruction regulatory letters, and 9 embargoes–all without ever creating any real regulation). Local departments of public health were also active in enforcement. In 2019, California tried but failed to pass AB-228, which would have legalized CBD. Last year, California tried but failed to pass AB-2827 and AB-2028, which were both targeted to legalize CBD. Finally, in late 2020, AB-45 made its debut.

Like its predecessor bills, the goal of AB-45 is to “legalize” many different CBD products. AB-45 takes a lot of concepts from AB-228, but adds some things that–while intended to compromise apparently controversial aspects of prior legislative attempts–are sure to upset some people in the industry (like banning all smokable hemp products, including vapes). Here are some of the main highlights of AB-45:

AB-45 specifically mandates that the DCC regulate to allow for hemp-CBD to come into the state-licensed cannabis supply chain, which includes allowing state-licensed retailers to sell stand-alone hemp-CBD products (which currently they’re not allowed to do, but everyone and their mother seems to be violating this policy hangover from the BCC/CDPH);

The Department of Food and Agriculture and the CDPH will be the main agencies overseeing the regulation of hemp cultivation and production, distribution, and sale hemp industrial products  (rather than the DCC). The CDPH will be in charge of establishing the licensing and registration regimes for industrial hemp manufacturers, distributors, labs, and retailers;

Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of hemp products cannot, in any of their advertising, marketing, or even product labeling, include “. . . any health-related statement that is untrue in any particular manner as to the health effects of consuming products containing industrial hemp or cannabinoids, extracts, or derivatives from industrial hemp in violation of this part.” “Health-related statement” means “a statement related to health, and includes a statement of a curative or therapeutic nature that, expressly or impliedly, suggests a relationship between the consumption of industrial hemp or industrial hemp products and health benefits or effects on health”.

Industrial hemp cannot be used in dietary supplements or food products unless the manufacturer demonstrates both of the following: (1) All parts of the hemp plant used in dietary supplements or food products come from a state or country that has an established and approved industrial hemp program that inspects or regulates hemp under a food safety program or equivalent criteria to ensure safety for human or animal consumption; and (2) The industrial hemp cultivator or grower is in good standing and in compliance with the governing laws of the state or country of origin.

“Hemp manufacturer” means either of the following: (1) A processor extracting cannabinoids from hemp biomass. (2) A processor purchasing industrial hemp raw extract for the purpose of manufacturing a final form product (and final form product means a product to be sold at retail).

Hemp testing labs cannot have a direct or indirect “interest” in the entity for which testing is being done; cannot have a direct or indirect interest in a facility that cultivates, processes, distributes, dispenses, or sells raw hemp products in this state or in another jurisdiction; and does not have a commercial cannabis license other than as a licensed testing laboratory for cannabis.

Industrial hemp products can only be sold if the following conditions are met: (1) they have a certificate of analysis from an independent testing laboratory that confirms both of the following:

(a) The industrial hemp raw extract, in its final form, does not exceed THC concentration of an amount determined allowable by the CDPH in regulation, or the mass of the industrial hemp extract used in the final form product does not exceed a THC concentration of 0.3 percent.

(b) The industrial hemp product was tested for any hemp derivatives identified on the product label or in associated advertising; and (2) the industrial hemp product was produced from industrial hemp grown in compliance with the 2018 Farm Bill and corresponding California state law regarding hemp cultivation.

Industrial hemp cannot be infused or put into any of the following products: medical devices, prescription drugs, any product containing nicotine or tobacco, and alcoholic beverages (CDPH is free to expand this list, by the way, and they’re free to impose customer age limitations on purchases of certain industrial hemp products if they think there’s a threat to public health and safety).

Manufacture or sale of inhalable products is prohibited unless it’s for the sole purpose of sale in other states. Interestingly, this prohibition becomes “. . . inoperative and is repealed on the effective date of a measure passed by the Legislature that establishes a tax on inhalable products and states the intent of the Legislature to fulfill the requirements of this section.”

AB-45 contamples and allows for hemp industrial products for pets and also for the import of out of state raw hemp extract.

There will now be detailed testing requirements for both in-state and out of state raw hemp extract to be used for the production of industrial hemp products before final form products hit retail shelves, so be on the look out for those regulations from CDPH. There will be advertising and marketing requirements, too, some of which are similar to state-licensed commercial cannabis laws and regs already.

The passage of AB-45 is significant in that California will no longer be a CBD dinosaur. Hopefully the FDA takes note and initiates its own rulemaking process to finally address the manufacture, distribution, and sale of hemp CBD products within a federal framework that piggy backs off of the 2018 Farm Bill. The next step for California though is for the CDPH to initiate some rulemaking (probably on an emergency basis) to bring the state’s hemp-CBD program to life. Stay tuned!

The post Industrial Hemp Products, Including CBD, are Finally Legit in California appeared first on Harris Bricken.

Industrial Hemp Products, Including CBD, are Finally Legit in California posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

[christianstevefinnell]

GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL BY STEVE FINNELL

According to the Supreme Court gay marriage is legal in the United States of America. The problem is being legal does not make it any less sinful. Being a homosexual is legal. Being an adulterer is legal. Having children out of wedlock is legal. Rejecting Jesus as the Son of God is legal. Being a liar is legal. Perverting the gospel by denying that water baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sins is legal.

Because men keep the laws of man is no guarantee they are free from sin.

SCRIPTURES ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SIN

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Matthew 19:4-6 (NASB)

Homosexuality was a sin under the old covenant and is a sin under the new covenant. Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (NASB)  1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.s (NASB)

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

9:26 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2017

HAS BELIEVED AND BEEN BAPTIZED! BY STEVE FINNELL

Jesus made the terms for salvation very simply. Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (NASB)

Repentance and confession are connected to belief and water baptism. Terms of salvation: Belief-Repentance-Confession-Water Baptism.

BELIEF

Acts 2:36-37 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." 37 Now when they heard this they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall do?"(NASB)

REPENTANCE AND BAPTISM

Acts 2:38 And Peter replied, "Each one of you must turn from sin, return to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; then you also shall receive this gift, the Holy Spirit. (The Living Bible-Paraphrased)

The 3000 converts on the Day of Pentecost believed, repented, and were immersed in water. That was the first day of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

BELIEF

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, (NASB)

BELIEF, CONFESSION AND BAPTISM

Acts 8:34-38.....37[And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. (NASB)

BELIEF

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish , but have eternal life. (NASB)

REPENTANCE

Acts 17:30-31 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men  that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." (NASB)

BAPTISM

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (NASB)

CONFESSION

Matthew 10:32-33 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. (NASB)

BELIEF: Mark 16:16, Acts 8:34-38, John 3:16, John 6:40, John 14:6, John 8:24, Acts 16:30-31, Acts 10:43

REPENTANCE: Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Luke 24:47, Acts 17:30-31.

CONFESSION: Matthew 10:32, Luke 12:8, Romans 10:9-10, Acts 8:34-38

IMMERSION IN WATER: Mark 16:16, Acts 8:12, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-7, Galatians 3:27, Titus 3:5, John 3:5, Ephesians 5:25-27, Acts 2:38, 40,41,47.

It takes a master of deception, a skilled professional, and a willing student, for anyone to believe that Faith, Repentance, Confession, and Immersion in water are not essential in order to be saved.  

              Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

12:23 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

Why Are There So Many Churches?

by David Vaughn Elliott

Why are there so many different churches? When did all the religious confusion begin? Some would say it began with Martin Luther. However, the truth of the matter is that religious confusion started in the Garden of Eden. God said, "Don't." Satan said, "Do." If you are a student of the Bible, you know that religious confusion continued unabated from the offerings of Cain and Abel to the harlot and bride of Revelation.

It is nothing unusual, therefore, to hear this prediction via Paul: "Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Two false doctrines are named. Both prohibit what God has not prohibited. The abstinence might seem to be spiritual by denying pleasures of the flesh. However, they are actually demonic prohibitions.

Discussing the issue of teachings which do not come from God, Jesus once said: "These people draw nigh unto me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:8-9). At the end of the Bible we read this warning: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18). One way of adding to God's Word is to prohibit what God has not prohibited. And, as Jesus said, if we teach such human (demonic) doctrines, our worship of God is in vain, empty, futile.

We can find specific fulfillment of 1 Timothy 4 in the second century among the Gnostic sects. Irenaeus (A.D. 130 to 202) said this about some Gnostics: "Many offshoots of numerous heresies have already been formed from those heretics we have described. This arises from the fact that numbers of them—indeed, we may say all—desire themselves to be teachers... they insist upon teaching something new... To give an example: Springing from Saturninus and Marcion, those who are called Encratites (self-controlled) preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly blaming Him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race. Some of those reckoned among them have also introduced abstinence from animal food, thus proving themselves ungrateful to God, who formed all things" ("Against Heresies," Book I, Chap. 28).

Let's make some important distinctions. In Romans 14:2-3, Paul teaches: "For one believes that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eats herbs. Let not him that eats despise him that eats not; and let not him which eats not judge him that eats: for God has received him." This upholds a Christian who has a personal conviction against eating meat -- as long as he does not judge his brother. But, according to the Timothy text, if a person makes a doctrine of it and teaches that nobody is permitted to eat meat, that person is guilty of teaching a demonic doctrine.

The same distinction is true with regard to marriage. Paul was not married, and under certain situations he says it may be best not to marry (1 Cor. 7:26-28). However, he makes it clear that "should you marry, you have not sinned." So anyone can decide to stay single and even advise people that under certain situations it may be better to stay single. However, to prohibit marriage is demonic.

Why are there so many churches today? Because men and women teach their own doctrines (demons' doctrines) rather than God's doctrine. They prohibit what God has not prohibited and they command what God has not commanded. It all started in Eden, as Satan fought against God; and it will not end until Jesus returns and casts Satan into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). In this world, there has always been religious confusion and always will be. It is up to each one of us to behave as the Bereans did when we hear anybody's teaching. They were "examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11). Let's do the same. That's how I see it. How about you?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:14 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SUNDAY, JANUARY 29, 2017

IT MUST BE FALSE BY STEVE FINNELL

If the majority disbelieves it, then it must be false. There are over 7 billion people in the world and only 2.2 billion believe that Jesus is the Son of God, does it mean it is false to say Jesus is the Son of God? No, it does not. Why would anyone place their belief on majority opinion?

Of the 2.2 billion who claim Jesus as Lord and Savior the majority do not believe in the New Testament terms for pardon, does that make God's terms for pardon untrue? No, it does not.

Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (NASB)

The majority of believers in Christ do not believe what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, does that make it false doctrine?

Example: Many say you do not have to be baptized in water to be saved.

Example: Many say you can be saved and have your sins forgiven before you believe; because as an unbelieving infant you were baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and added to the body of Christ.

All non-believers and most believers in Christ deny God's terms for pardon.

1. Faith, John 3:16

2. Repentance, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Luke 24:47

3. Confession, Romans 10:9, Acts 8:36-37

4. Immersion in water, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Colossians 2:11-13, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3-7, 1 Peter 3:20-21, John 3:5, Ephesians 5:25-27, Titus 3:5

DOES DENYING GOD'S TERMS FOR PARDON MAKE THEM FALSE DOCTRINE?  

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:46 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

THE ABSURDITY OF ORIGINAL SIN BY STEVE FINNELL

Original Sin: a depravity, or tendency to evil, held to be innate in humankind and transmitted from Adam to all humans in consequence of his sin. [Ref:Dictionary .com]

The doctrine of original sin is that all men inherited the guilt of Adam's sin and are sinners at birth.

It gives absurdity a bad name to suggest that all men are born with a sinful spiritual DNA, of which they inherited from Adam and are therefore guilty of sin at birth.

If men are born sinners, then they are born as fornicators, sodomites, drunkards, thieves, homosexuals, extortioners, murders, sorcerers, pedophiles and idolaters. Would God create men guilty of these sins, due to no fault of their own, and then condemn them to hell? It is not only irrational, but contrary to Scripture.

Men are guilty of sin because they sin. They are not guilty of sin because of Adam's sin.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the word, and death spread to all men, because all sinned---(NKJV)

Spiritual death spread to all men, BECAUSE ALL SINNED.

Physical death spread to all men because Adam sinned.

No one is guilty of sin until they commit sin.

The unborn and small children are not capable of committing sin.

The doctrine of original sin is absurd, nonsensical, irrational, illogical, and most importantly contrary to the doctrine of God.        

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:30 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 2017

ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY?  BY STEVE FINNELL

Are the Christians today the same as the first century Christians? Do contemporary Christians believe the New Testament, as it was

originally written or do they believe it is a living, breathing document? All Scripture contain in the Bible was completed by AD 100 .

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. (NKJV) (NOTE: Jude was written in AD 65 )

The common salvation was handed down to all the Christians. There was not a new faith handed down nor was the faith amended to fit the will of individual  churches.

Acts 2:42 They continually devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching...(NKJV)

They did not devote themselves the teaching of the scribes, the Pharisees nor the Judaizers.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NKJV)

The apostles doctrine was all Scripture. That was all that was needed for teaching. The original Christians not need the doctrine of the Roman Catholic catechism, the writings of John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, nor John Wesley in order to know and practice God's truth, that was presented by the apostles.

Acts 20:27 For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. (NKJV)

The apostle Paul knew the whole purpose of God, he did not have to consult with Billy Graham, the Pope, Rick Warren, Max Lucado, nor John Piper.[NOTE:  None of those even understand the correct terms of pardon.]

-----------------------------------------------------

Revelation after the first 100 years of, original Christianity, is not found in the Bible; because everything Christians need for faith and practice in found in the 66 books of the Bible.

Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. (NKJV)

DOCTRINES ADDED TO GOD'S WORD

1. Water baptism is not essential for salvation.

2. Water baptism is for a testimony of faith, not in order to the forgiveness of sins.

3. Men are saved by grace alone. God causes men whom He has selected for salvation to have faith so they will be saved.

4. Sprinkling and pouring are just other modes of baptism.

5. Men are saved by faith alone. Immersion in water is a work, therefore is not required in order to be saved.

6. All men are sinners at conception because Adam and Eve sinned.  Non-believing infants can have the sin of Adam as well as all future sins wash away by being baptized. In other words sin can be forgiven without faith in Jesus Christ.

7. Jesus is one of many ways to enter heaven.

8. Men can live a unrepentant sinful lifestyle and still enter the kingdom of God.

9. God approves of many denominations, even though they teach different terms of pardon.

10. Denominations have the right to man-made doctrines even if they are contrary to Scripture, because God will not judge sincere people.

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

7:16 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

Speaking In Tongues

GEORGE L. FAULL

Dear Brother Faull,It is my understanding that you do not practice "Speaking in tongues." Why?Let me give you the reasons why I do not wish to "speak in tongues."

1. I could not defend it as having practical value.

It does not prove that I am saved, nor that I'm spiritual, nor that I have the truth, for men of every creed claim this gift.

2. I could not defend it as an aid to devotions.

It does not do anything the Holy Spirit does not do for every believer. He searches out our unspeakable requests and make intercession for us.

Romans 8:26-27,

"26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God."

3. I could not defend it as a sign for unbelievers.

If I do it publicly, men of all conflicting doctrines do the same. If I do it in my prayer closet, how will the unbeliever know of it?

4. I could not defend its "continual existence" from the Word of God.

The Scriptures neither imply nor promise the continuance of the gift, but, in fact, states that they will cease while faith, and hope yet abide.

I Corinthians 13:8-13,

"8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I under-stood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity."

5. I could not defend its "continual existence" from Church History.

History records that the gifts did cease. History records when and how the gift was supposedly revived. History records the deceitfulness of the modern day movement to increase the supposed gift among churches.

6. I could not defend its "continual existence" by commonsense.

Since prophecy and divine knowledge have ceased, [I neither know, nor know of anyone with these gifts] commonsense assumes that the lesser gift has ceased.

7. I could not defend its "continual existence" by the clichés of modern tongue speakers.

Clichés such as:

"God is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

"God does not change."

"He could do it, therefore, He does do it."

"He once did it, and therefore, He is doing it."

Doesn't our God ever do anything singular or unique? Is He still making women out of man's ribs? Have you seen any world wide floods lately? Are there still virgins having babies?

8. I could not defend it as "unifying the Body of Christ."

It is setting believer against believer. The only unity it promotes is unity of men of a thousand different conflicting doctrines agreeing to disagree. It may well be

Romans 8:26-27,

"26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God."

9. I could not defend it in light of those who have "spoken in tongues," who now admit that it was not of God.

We are told that we cannot deny a man's experience. Can a man deny his own interpretation of his experience? He once thought that it was of God. He now concludes that it was not. Hundreds, who have spoken in tongues, now deny that the experience was of God. How can I defend that my experience was of God when others with the same experience admit that theirs was not of God?

10. I could not defend it "as a promise from God."

He did not promise it to me, therefore I cannot accept it by faith. I can accept salvation, forgiveness, and redemption by faith. These were promised to all believers. I believe the promises. I "enjoy" them because I believe the promises. I cannot accept tongues by faith because they were not promised to every believer.

I Corinthians 12:30,

"Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"Therefore, my "feelings" about tongues may be imaginary rather than real.

11. I would not want to be a possessor of a gift that I had to hide.

Imagine having a gift for which you could not thank God publicly. If it is known that you possess tongues, YOU:

Cause division among your brethren.

Are suspected of false doctrine by those whom you know are Christian.

Lose opportunities for service with your real talents and abilities. I wouldn't want a billion dollars if it did those things to my witness.

12. I would not want to be a possessor of a gift which I could not know was genuine.

Who would want a diamond or a ruby if it could not be proven to be such? it would have no real value. It would cause only bickering, arguments, and debates. Since there is no way to tell the apostate's "tongue speaking" from mine, why should I want it?

13. There are more desirable gifts mentioned which would edify the Church.

If it is an aid to devotions, I would get the benefit. [Incidentally, Paul didn't say it was.] But if I could prophesy or heal, I would be able to help others. I would enjoy being the steward of such abilities as these, but I would find "tongue speaking" in private or public a difficult stewardship with no real value.

Conclusion:

Tongue speaking is therefore undesirable because it is unneeded, unhelpful, undefendable, and uncertain.Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:02 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 2017

ARE WE ALL GOD'S CHILDREN? BY STEVE FINNELL

Are Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and all other men, God's children? No, they are not. They are all created by God, but they are not all God's children. God loves them all, but they are not all God's children.

Who are God's children? Christians are God's children.

Galatians 3:26-27 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (KJV)

Men become children of God by faith in Christ Jesus and being baptized into Him.

John 11-12 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name;(KJV)

The Jews who rejected Jesus as the Christ were not God's children. Those who believe in Jesus have the opportunity to become God's children.

GOD LOVES ALL MEN, HOWEVER, SALVATION IS CONDITIONAL.

Terms to become the children of God.

A. Faith: John 3:16

B. Repentance: Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19

C. Confession: Romans 10:9

C. Immersion in water: Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21.

All men have the opportunity to become God's children. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you all one in Christ Jesus.(KJV)

ALL MEN ARE NOT GOD'S CHILDREN, HOWEVER, THEY ALL CAN BE.  

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

3:04 AM

1 comment:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2017

THE DOCTRINE OF FREE-WILL   BY STEVE FINNELL

The teaching that men do not have free-will evolved from the false doctrine that men are saved by grace alone. There is not one place in the Bible that has grace and alone in the same sentence. If in fact men are saved by grace alone and have no free-will, there are many things that would be true.

If men have no free-will, then God would have to force men to have faith so they could be saved.

If men have no free-will, then God would have to force men to repent.

If men have no free-will, then God would have to force men to confess Jesus as the Christ.

If men have no free-will, then God would have to force men to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

If men have no free-will, then God would be responsible for all of the sins of mankind.

If men have no free-will, why did the men on the Day of Pentecost ask "Brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)

If men have no free-will, then why did the jailer ask Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30)

If men have no free-will, then why did Saul ask, "What shall I do Lord?" (Acts 22:10)

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appear has appeared to all men.

God's grace is available to all men. Grace is not forced nor is it denied to any man. MEN HAVE FREE-WILL!

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:34 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2017

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS   BY STEVE FINNELL

The thought process of some Christians is puzzling to say the least. Why do some believers in Christ question that God has the power to guide men to translate   Bibles that are inerrant, trustworthy, accurate, faultless, reliable, infallible.

Some of the same Christians who believe the following miracles of the Bible, doubt that God can produce an inerrant translation of the Bible.

They believe that Aaron's staff became a serpent. (Exodus 7:10-12) However they do not believe that translations of the Bible are trustworthy.

They believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead. (John 21:14) However they do not agree that Bible translations are inerrant.

They believe that the dead man Elisha stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13:20-21) However they doubt that Bible translations are infallible.

They believe Jesus brought Lazarus  back from the dead. (John 11:37-44) However they do not affirm that Bible translations are reliable.

They believe that God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:26) However they are not convinced that God has given us a translation of the Bible that is accurate.

Even those who state that the King James translation is the only accurate translation, believe that Mark 16:16 does mean what is says: They say "Has been baptized shall be saved" actually means, "Has already been saved before they were baptized." The assert that Acts 2:38 actually means "Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have already been forgiven." They really do not trust the KJV either.

Ninety-nine percent of the Bible translations are accurate, trustworthy, inerrant translations of God's word.

A few of my favorites are New American Standard Bible, King James Version, New King James Version, English Standard Version, and New International Version. There are also many other reliable translations.        

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:20 AM

1 comment:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2017

GOD'S WORD VERSUS BAPTIST DOCTRINE BY STEVE FINNELL

If Baptist doctrine contradicts the word of God, which one is correct?

Baptist Doctrine: Perseverance of the saints, AKA as once saved always saved.

God's Word: Galatians 5:1-4.... You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified  by law; you have fallen from grace. (NKJV)

God's Word: Hebrews 6:4-6 4 For it is impossible......6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance.....(NKJV)

God's Word: Hebrews 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; (NKJV)

God's Word: 1 Timothy 4:1...some will depart from the faith...(NKJV)

Christians can become lost.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baptist Doctrine: Water baptism is not essential for the forgiveness of sins and is not essential in order to be saved.

God's Word: Acts 2:38 ....and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.....(NKJV)

God's Word: Mark 16:16 ....and is baptized will be saved...(NKJV)

God's Word: 1 Peter 3:21 There is an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism...(NKJV)

God's Word: Acts 22:16...Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins...(NKJV)

God's Word: Colossians 2:12 -13 buried with Him in baptism...13...having forgiven you all trespasses,(NKJV)

God's Word: Ephesians 5:25-27 ....Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it 26 that He might sanctify and wash it with the washing of water by the word,(NKJV)

God's Word: Romans 6:4-7 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death.......7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.(NKJV)

God's Word: John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.(NKJV)

Being immersed in water is an essential part of the gospel plan of salvation.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (NKJV)

The apostles did not preach Baptist doctrine, they preached the word of God.

Denominations were not formed so they could preach the apostles' doctrine. Denominations were formed so they could change the apostles' doctrine. If all denominations preached only God's word, there would be just one church, the church of Jesus Christ.    

 Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

9:40 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ABOUT SABBATH KEEPING BY STEVE FINNELL

Why do believers in Christ who claim to be sabbath keepers fail to keep the laws of the sabbath? Christians were never instructed to remember the sabbath and keep it holy.

The command to remember the sabbath and keep it holy was given to Israel and Israel alone. It was not restated under the New Covenant.

Deuteronomy 5:1-15 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.......12 'Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you......

New Testament instructions concerning Old Covenant sabbath keeping.

Romans 14:5-6 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully  convinced in h

is own mind. 6 He who observes the day , observes it for the Lord.....

Colossians 2:14-16....Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a  festival  or a new moon or a Sabbath day---

Christians are free to worship any day they wish, be it Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday etc. Christians are free to work any day they wish. There is no New testament command to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

SO-CALLED MODERN DAY SABBATH KEEPERS DO NOT KEEP THE SABBATH NOR DO THEY PUNISH THEIR MEMBERS WHO BREAK IT.

Exodus 31:15 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord, whoever does work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

Numbers 15:32-36 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day........35 Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." .......

THERE ARE ONLY FALSE SABBATH KEEPERS TODAY.

REMEMBER THE SABBATH AND KEEP IT HOLY IS NOT A CHRISTIAN LAW.

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:05 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2017

INSIGHT INTO BIBLE TRUTH #253

DID JESUS CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?

by David Vaughn Elliott

No, He did not. Nor did He condone it. It is a topic He never discussed. What are we to conclude from this silence?

This is not the only issue that Jesus did not discuss. For example, we never hear Him condemning idolatry. Jesus was born into the world as a Jew, an Israelite. He "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). Before Jesus, Israel had a long history of idolatry. It is commonly believed that the captivity cured the Jews of this sin. That offers a reason why Jesus did not need to condemn the Jews on the issue. This could also be a clue regarding Jesus' silence about homosexuality. But let's go further.

To say that Jesus never condemned this or that, keep in mind that such statements are based on the record we have in the four Gospels. Is there any record of Jesus discussing sorcery or witchcraft? What of drinking blood? What about drunkenness?  

And then there is the issue of breaking the Sabbath. During Israel's long history, Sabbath breaking was a frequent issue, even after their return from captivity. Jesus lived under the OT law, so Sabbath keeping was still in force. Luke 4:16 tells us that Jesus "came to Nazareth... and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath." Although Jesus kept the Sabbath, He was frequently accused of breaking it. On the other hand, there is no record of Jesus accusing others of breaking the Sabbath. In short, there are various sins that Jesus "never condemned."

The Gospels Are Neither Complete Nor Final

We have four Gospels, four biographical accounts of Jesus' life on earth. Some would say that the four should not even be called biographies because they cover so little of Jesus' life. True enough. The fourth Gospel ends with these picturesque words: "There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." This does not mean that we do not have enough written. John himself said a little earlier, "Many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:30-31). We don't have it all, but we have enough to believe in Him so we can have life.

Only some of what Jesus "did" is recorded. What about what He taught? Well, teaching is doing, so we don't have all He taught either. Here is a specific example. "They went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and taught. And they were amazed at His teaching" (Mark 1:21-22).  Nothing is said about what He taught on that occasion.

In short, everything that Jesus did, taught, and said is not recorded. Therefore it is impossible for us to say that Jesus never condemned so-and-so. As in all of life, negative statements are often impossible to prove. We can only say that there is no record of Jesus saying so-and-so.

But there is more to this.  

In court, we are told to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In Jesus' ministry as recorded in the four Gospels, Jesus did "tell the truth." He did tell "nothing but the truth." However, He did not – repeat "not" – tell "the whole truth." Wow, what an assertion to make! But it is true. Jesus himself said so. On the night of his betrayal, Jesus said to the eleven (Judas had already left):

"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:12-13).

There it is in black and white (maybe red in your Bible). While Jesus was on earth, He did not say everything that needed to be said. Rather, through the Holy Spirit, Jesus' apostles would be guided into "all the truth." Anyone who wants all the truth must look further than Jesus’ words during his earthly ministry – must read more than the four Gospels.

The four Gospels make up roughly half of our New Testament. According to Jesus' own word, we dare not ignore the second half. Much of the second half was written by the Apostle Paul. Why is it that some people pit what Jesus did not say against what Paul did say? Could it be that those people are really pitting their own preconceived ideas against what the inspired Apostle Paul taught? There are various proofs that Paul was made an apostle by Jesus after Jesus' ascension. Did you ever notice what the Apostle Peter had to say about Paul's writings? "Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:15-16). If we distort what Paul wrote, we are heading for destruction.

There is no Scriptural basis to justify anything on the basis of what Jesus did not say. Negatives such as "Jesus never condemned..." can never be proven. Furthermore, even if He didn't, the four Gospels are only a portion of God's divine revelation. They are an extremely important portion, but only a portion. We cannot treat the NT as a smorgasbord from which to select the portions we prefer. We must take it all. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Scripture quotations taken from the

NASB

._________________________________________

You can now Google my entire site on this page:

http://insight2bp.homestead. com/Subject.html

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

1:00 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

WHICH CHURCH?  BY STEVE FINNELL

Which church was established to teach the apostles doctrine. Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine..(NKJV)

Which church was established to teach the apostles' doctrine?

Was the Community Church established to preach the apostles' doctrine or the Community Church doctrine?

Was the Roman Catholic Church formed in order to teach the apostles' doctrine or to teach the Catholic catechism?

Was the Methodist Church founded in order to teach the apostles' doctrine or to proclaim Methodism?

Was the Baptist Church established to evangelize using the apostles doctrine or to preach Baptist doctrine?

If churches really wanted to preach the apostles' doctrine would they not use the identity of the church found in Scripture. Examples: Romans 16:16...The churches of Christ greet you. (NKJV), Acts 20:28 ...the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.(NKJV), 1 Corinthians 1:2...the church of God...sanctified in Christ Jesus.(NKJV).

Denominations take names other than those found in Scripture so as to identify the differences from their doctrine and that of the apostles' doctrine.

Jesus is the head of one church, His church. God did not establish multiple churches.

If all churches taught from the Bible and the Bible alone, then, denominational names would not  necessary.  

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

7:26 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SUNDAY, JANUARY 22, 2017

SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. REALLY?  BY STEVE FINNELL

Scripture is subject to interpretation. Is honesty and lack of pride a requirement in order to interpret Scripture accurately ?

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

My interpretation of Mark 16:16 is, he who believes and is immersed in water will be saved.

-------------------------------------------

The following are some denominational interpretations of Mark 16:16.

1. He who believes is saved and shall be baptized as a testimony of their faith.

2. He who is baptized as an unbelieving infant will be forgiven of the guilt of Adam's sin as well as all sins they commit in the future, and they will be added to the body of Christ. [ Note: The only person guilty of Adam's sin, is Adam.]

3. He who is dead and is baptized by proxy will be forgiven.

4. Dead infants will be baptized and will have faith imputed to them by God so they will be saved. [Note: No infant dead or alive is guilty of sin.]

5. He who believes is saved by faith only and should be baptized because Jesus commanded baptism.

6. He who believes, believes because God forced him to believe, therefore he is saved by grace alone. Baptism is a work, therefore it is not essential for salvation.

7. He who believes is saved, however, he needs to be baptized in order to join a denominational church of his choice.

8. Belief and water baptism are not essential in order to be saved, because God will save all men.

9. Mark 16:16 does not apply because the church catechism of my denomination overrules all Scripture. Man-made creeds are more reliable than Scripture.

10. Mark 16:16 is invalid because the majority of those who claim Jesus as Savior do not believe it to be true.

11. He who believes and is baptized will be saved is a false statement, because there are many other ways to get heaven rather than Jesus.

Scripture is subject to interpretation, however, Scripture more likely to be misinterpreted.

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:52 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN   BY STEVE FINNELL

Jesus died for all men, however, all men will not be saved. God loves everyone, but salvation is conditional.

JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN

1 Timothy 2:5-6.....the man Jesus Christ, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Jesus paid the price of salvation for all men, not just for a selected few.

Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made a little lower than the angels, namely Jesus , because of the suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

Jesus tasted death for everyone. Jesus did not die for a preselected few.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Jesus did not send the disciples to preach to only those that had been hand picked by God for salvation. The disciples were to preach to all the world. Jesus died for every person in the world  then and now.

THERE WILL BE ONLY A FEW WHO WILL BE SAVED.

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Heaven will not be crowded.

SALVATION IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL, BUT IT IS CONDITIONAL.

Romans 1;16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Salvation is available to all who believe. Salvation is conditional.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

All men who have heard the gospel have been called. The chosen are the ones who believe. It is a personal choice. Men have free will.

CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD.

Romans 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

How do men call on the name of the Lord? They call on His name by FAITH-REPENTANCE-CONFESSION-and WATER BAPTISM.

FAITH: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

REPENTANCE: Acts 3:19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 17 30-31 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring that all people everywhere should repent, 31......

All people who want to be saved need to repent of their unbelief and make the commitment to turn from their sinful lifestyle and turn toward God.

CONFESSION: Matthew 10:32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10.......Acts 37[And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may, And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]

WATER BAPTISM: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 3:20-21 ....safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you---not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience---through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN, HOWEVER, ALL MEN WILL NOT BE SAVED BECAUSE SALVATION IS CONDITIONAL!

SALVATION IS A CHOICE. MEN HAVE THE FREE-WILL TO MAKE THAT CHOICE.

MEN CAN BE SAVED IN TWO HOURS MORE OR LESS. MEN JUST HAVE TO MEET GOD'S TERMS FOR PARDON.

(All Scripture from : NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)

[keishiyaaa]

THE REVILLA POLITICAL DYNASTY

SUMMARY

The Revilla Political Dynasty started with Ramon Revilla Sr. (born José Acuña Bautista Sr.), who had previously made his way to fame as an actor in the country. One of the most notable bills implemented by Revilla was the “Revilla Bill” which states that: “The illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their affiliation has been expressly recognized by the father through an admission in a public document or a private handwritten instrument made by the father”. Out of his estimated eighty children however, only seven of them seemed to desire following his footsteps in one or even both of the political and entertainment industries: Marlon becoming an actor and director, Rowena a councillor in the city of Bacoor, Bong an actor, TV presenter, and senator, Princess an actress and producer, Strike the deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, Andeng a film producer, actress, and mayor of Antipolo city, and Ram an actor. With only a monthly salary of P35,000 to P40,000, and investments of P 416,000 to P 2.12 M in his first 9 years of governance, Revilla Sr. managed to provide a monthly allowance of P26,000 (equating to an estimate of P25M a year) to each of his children, which has always been an area of suspicion for the public. There have also been many other issues involving this family, such as the infamous murder of late actor Ramgen “Ram” Revilla, who was allegedly killed by an intruder - his sisters (who were conversing as the crime took place) were also identified as suspects. Another notable controversy caused by the Revilla family was when Ramon Revilla Jr, commonly known as “Bong” Revilla, danced to budots for his new campaign video a few months after being acquitted of plunder charges and accused of pocketing P 224 M of his pork barrel fund during his time in office.

CONCLUSIONS

Apolonio, Ghierin:

I don’t really pay much attention to politics. The Revilla family gave us some positives and some negatives. They gave us the “Revilla bill” where the illegitimate can use their father’s last name. They are also accused of pocketing money from the government. Although for some people they appreciate the Revilla family, while for some they do not like the Revilla family. While we were doing the research about Revilla family, I was feeling mixed emotions. I think they implemented that law because Ramon Revilla Sr had an estimated 80 childrens. Most of them when to the politics maybe in order to continue for their last name to be known.  For the Revilla bill, I think for some it is a good thing while for others it is a bad thing. I think for those people who are against they think that it is okay to have a child outside marriage.

In my own opinion the “Revilla bill” is useful for the illegitimate children for their documentation purposes. But if the Father has an outside marriage children, I think it isn’t good for the family that is legal. It’s like they are promoting for fathers to have an illegitimate child.

Gamboa, Keisha:

As the number of political dynasties and power-hungry officials continue to rise in the country, the importance of using our rights and duties as responsible citizens of the Philippines to further improve our decision-making skills and thoroughly contemplate our choices also increases, especially towards something as important as appointing candidates into influential positions. Incompetence is incompetence. Yes, everyone can make mistakes, but this common flaw shouldn’t be used as a free pass for those failures - we should hold people accountable. When politicians commit practices of graft and corruption, no matter how untrue or unintentional they claim these crimes to be, there will always be those at the receiving end of these harmful actions - the people.

The most disadvantaged of these citizens are those that (sadly) make up a big part of our population: the lower class, the poor, the less privileged, those who cannot afford necessities such as sufficient income, profitable jobs, ample food, proper shelter, and high quality medical attention because the money they had to give to the country (the government) went to projects that only benefited the wealthier class instead - or even perhaps directly to the banks of people whose luxurious lifestyles show just how much they didn’t actually need the said funds. How do you think the victims would feel seeing other, more privileged and powerful people, continue to defend and turn a blind eye to both their undeserving struggles and the blatant wrongdoings of their abusers?

Sizing up potential leaders based off of the background and history of those around them rather than their ethics and leadership skills as individuals is just ridiculous. Furthermore, do people even consider the contributions of these related people to the constitution along with their positions? How did the “Revilla Bill” positively impact our society? Doesn’t this just enable - promote, even - having extramarital affairs and abandoning one’s paternal responsibilities? Also, why are we letting political dynasties who have blatantly abused their power continue to run for even higher positions? Lastly, when are we going to realize that the amount of pesos these people have in their banks wouldn’t and shouldn’t be as high as they are if no corruption was really present?

The practice of giving influential positions to people solely because of their filial relations is far too rampant in the Philippines. Obviously, not everyone is competent enough to serve as a public official of the country, and - even more disappointingly - not everyone is educated enough to notice this either. As responsible citizens and those who are privileged to receive higher education, resources, and influence, we should stop blindly following these groups/clans/families because of what they said they would do and instead evaluate and look at what they have actually done for the Philippines prior to making these promises. These politicians were appointed by us citizens: we also hold some degree of responsibility for whether or not they repair or impair our country.

Kim, Yumin “Eillie”:

I did not study for political histories, senators, or issues of the Philippines before, and it was my first time to hear about the Revilla family too. I think I should know what is happening or has happened in this country from now on, at least until I stay here. The issues I have searched were quite shocking to me because of the cultural differences. Nowadays, most of the people raise only 2 to 3 babies or sometimes 4 in Korea, but Ramon Revilla had around 81 childrens that I cannot understand with my notions, and we are forbidden to have guns like in America or Philippines. It was a good opportunity for me to learn more about the Philippines, and I want the place or country I am staying at to be stable, developed, intelligent and safe.

Tugonon, Marc:

I used to despise the Revilla family, and I still do. I don’t think there will ever be a time or a reason my perspective will change about them. Though Ramon Revilla Sr. was a remarkable senator who served two terms, he may had notable legislative achievements, had an exemplary performance during his regime, does not mean their family should be praised already or to be put on a pedestal, because the name “Revilla” does not only apply to and represent Ramon Revilla Sr. only. It applies to all his children and grandchildren whose minds are strikingly corrupted. Take Bong Revilla as an example. He ruined his name, his whole family’s reputation by being a plunderer involved in the pork barrel scam. He was also the senator who danced budots for his campaign to get the votes of the poor so he can steal from them. The moral lesson here is to widen and really open your minds to different prejudice because it’s for the better of the whole country. If you let yourself explore, research, and thoroughly understand the people you idolize, you’re not just the one benefiting here, but the society as a whole. You can use all the knowledge you acquired and help spread awareness to those who are in favor of the evil and you could possibly change their stand and actually do the right thing; To revere those who are benevolent and have the capabilities to make change in the country.

Despite all the accusations, incompetence, and allegations against their name, their family remains nonchalant, and constantly deliberately taking advantage of what’s happening around them because they think they can somehow manipulate the natives, which is actually working, especially the poor, and it is actually very concerning. This just abundantly proves that nepotism does not do any good in politics. Those who are gifted with such a platform are just going to stand there and be pretentious with no any kind of knowledge on bettering or running the country. It is very disappointing how our country tolerates this kind of behavior. If we keep acting like we’re all blind, there will be no future for our country. Inflation, debts, poverty, abuse and many more will continue to rise. From now on, we must not support these kinds of families in the country, whether it’s in politics or showbiz or families in general who are a disgrace in the country that are constantly participating in such unlawful actions. This is for the better of us all and we shall keep fighting for justice. Velasco, James:

For me I don’t pay much attention to politics nor care about it but i'm surprised to hear Ramon Revilla, a politician, has 80 or more children and still hasn't gone bankrupt. Though Ramon Revilla may have been a great senator and a great actor, it all went down when Bong Revilla came. Accused of pocketing PHP 224 million in his Pork Barrel fund, Bong Revilla was hated and criticized by the people for plundering and corruption. Though I'm not surprised since there are many corruptions happening in the Philippines and there's nothing we can do about it. Let this be a lesson to not vote for someone just because they belong in a political or rich family and be wise to vote for the ones that will lead us to a better place to live here in the Philippines.

sources:

Guzman, N. D. (2018, October 16). The unsolved murder of Ramgen, Ramon Revilla's son. Esquiremag.ph. https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/lifestyle/the-unsolved-murder-of-ramgen-ramon-revilla-s-son-a1729-20181016-lfrm2

Guzman, N. D. (2018, October 16). The unsolved murder of Ramgen, Ramon Revilla's son. Esquiremag.ph. https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/lifestyle/the-unsolved-murder-of-ramgen-ramon-revilla-s-son-a1729-20181016-lfrm2

List of political families in the Philippines. (2009, May 30). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 10, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_families_in_the_Philippines

Political families in the Philippines: Where are they now? (2012, March 15). The Asia Foundation. https://asiafoundation.org/2012/03/14/political-families-in-the-philippines-where-are-they-now/

Ramon Revilla SR. (2007, January 12). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 10, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Revilla_Sr

Ramos, C. M. (2020, September 4). Bong Revilla: My quarantine is done. INQUIRER.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1331145/fwd-bong-revilla-my-quarantine-is-done

Sen. Revilla's family asks for prayers, remains mum over his condition – The Manila Times. (2020, August 19). The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/08/19/news/latest-stories/sen-revillas-family-asks-for-prayers-remains-mum-over-his-condition/757576/

The wealth of the old man Revilla. (2013, November 5). Rappler. https://r3.rappler.com/newsbreak/42959-wealth-old-man-revilla

[james-velasco]

Group 5 Revilla Political Dynasty

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background of the family

Family Tree

Wealth

Political History

Political Positions

Issues They Are Associated With

The Muder of Ram Revilla

Bongbong Revilla’s Campaign Ad

SUMMARY

The Revilla Political Dynasty started with Ramon Revilla Sr. (born José Acuña Bautista Sr.), who had previously made his way to fame as an actor in the country. One of the most notable bills implemented by Revilla was the “Revilla Bill” which states that: “The illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their affiliation has been expressly recognized by the father through an admission in a public document or a private handwritten instrument made by the father”. Out of his estimated eighty children however, only seven of them seemed to desire following his footsteps in one or even both of the political and entertainment industries: Marlon becoming an actor and director, Rowena a councillor in the city of Bacoor, Bong an actor, TV presenter, and senator, Princess an actress and producer, Strike the deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, Andeng a film producer, actress, and mayor of Antipolo city, and Ram an actor. With only a monthly salary of P35,000 to P40,000, and investments of P 416,000 to P 2.12 M in his first 9 years of governance, Revilla Sr. managed to provide a monthly allowance of P26,000 (equating to an estimate of P25M a year) to each of his children, which has always been an area of suspicion for the public. There have also been many other issues involving this family, such as the infamous murder of late actor Ramgen “Ram” Revilla, who was allegedly killed by an intruder - his sisters (who were conversing as the crime took place) were also identified as suspects. Another notable controversy caused by the Revilla family was when Ramon Revilla Jr, commonly known as “Bong” Revilla, danced to budots for his new campaign video a few months after being acquitted of plunder charges and accused of pocketing P 224 M of his pork barrel fund during his time in office.

CONCLUSIONS

Apolonio, Ghierin:

I don’t really pay much attention to politics. The Revilla family gave us some positives and some negatives. They gave us the “Revilla bill” where the illegitimate can use their father’s last name. They are also accused of pocketing money from the government. Although for some people they appreciate the Revilla family, while for some they do not like the Revilla family. While we were doing the research about Revilla family, I was feeling mixed emotions. I think they implemented that law because Ramon Revilla Sr had an estimated 80 childrens. Most of them when to the politics maybe in order to continue for their last name to be known.  For the Revilla bill, I think for some it is a good thing while for others it is a bad thing. I think for those people who are against they think that it is okay to have a child outside marriage. 

In my own opinion the “Revilla bill” is useful for the illegitimate children for their documentation purposes. But if the Father has an outside marriage children, I think it isn’t good for the family that is legal. It’s like they are promoting for fathers to have an illegitimate child. 

Gamboa, Keisha:

As the number of political dynasties and power-hungry officials continue to rise in the country, the importance of using our rights and duties as responsible citizens of the Philippines to further improve our decision-making skills and thoroughly contemplate our choices also increases, especially towards something as important as appointing candidates into influential positions. Incompetence is incompetence. Yes, everyone can make mistakes, but this common flaw shouldn’t be used as a free pass for those failures - we should hold people accountable. When politicians commit practices of graft and corruption, no matter how untrue or unintentional they claim these crimes to be, there will always be those at the receiving end of these harmful actions - the people.

The most disadvantaged of these citizens are those that (sadly) make up a big part of our population: the lower class, the poor, the less privileged, those who cannot afford necessities such as sufficient income, profitable jobs, ample food, proper shelter, and high quality medical attention because the money they had to give to the country (the government) went to projects that only benefited the wealthier class instead - or even perhaps directly to the banks of people whose luxurious lifestyles show just how much they didn’t actually need the said funds. How do you think the victims would feel seeing other, more privileged and powerful people, continue to defend and turn a blind eye to both their undeserving struggles and the blatant wrongdoings of their abusers?

Sizing up potential leaders based off of the background and history of those around them rather than their ethics and leadership skills as individuals is just ridiculous. Furthermore, do people even consider the contributions of these related people to the constitution along with their positions? How did the “Revilla Bill” positively impact our society? Doesn’t this just enable - promote, even - having extramarital affairs and abandoning one’s paternal responsibilities? Also, why are we letting political dynasties who have blatantly abused their power continue to run for even higher positions? Lastly, when are we going to realize that the amount of pesos these people have in their banks wouldn’t and shouldn’t be as high as they are if no corruption was really present?

The practice of giving influential positions to people solely because of their filial relations is far too rampant in the Philippines. Obviously, not everyone is competent enough to serve as a public official of the country, and - even more disappointingly - not everyone is educated enough to notice this either. As responsible citizens and those who are privileged to receive higher education, resources, and influence, we should stop blindly following these groups/clans/families because of what they said they would do and instead evaluate and look at what they have actually done for the Philippines prior to making these promises. These politicians were appointed by us citizens: we also hold some degree of responsibility for whether or not they repair or impair our country.

Kim, Yumin “Eillie”:

I did not study for political histories, senators, or issues of the Philippines before, and it was my first time to hear about the Revilla family too. I think I should know what is happening or has happened in this country from now on, at least until I stay here. The issues I have searched were quite shocking to me because of the cultural differences. Nowadays, most of the people raise only 2 to 3 babies or sometimes 4 in Korea, but Ramon Revilla had around 81 childrens that I cannot understand with my notions, and we are forbidden to have guns like in America or Philippines. It was a good opportunity for me to learn more about the Philippines, and I want the place or country I am staying at to be stable, developed, intelligent and safe.

Tugonon, Marc:

I used to despise the Revilla family, and I still do. I don’t think there will ever be a time or a reason my perspective will change about them. Though Ramon Revilla Sr. was a remarkable senator who served two terms, he may had notable legislative achievements, had an exemplary performance during his regime, does not mean their family should be praised already or to be put on a pedestal, because the name “Revilla” does not only apply to and represent Ramon Revilla Sr. only. It applies to all his children and grandchildren whose minds are strikingly corrupted. Take Bong Revilla as an example. He ruined his name, his whole family’s reputation by being a plunderer involved in the pork barrel scam. He was also the senator who danced budots for his campaign to get the votes of the poor so he can steal from them. The moral lesson here is to widen and really open your minds to different prejudice because it’s for the better of the whole country. If you let yourself explore, research, and thoroughly understand the people you idolize, you’re not just the one benefiting here, but the society as a whole. You can use all the knowledge you acquired and help spread awareness to those who are in favor of the evil and you could possibly change their stand and actually do the right thing; To revere those who are benevolent and have the capabilities to make change in the country. 

Despite all the accusations, incompetence, and allegations against their name, their family remains nonchalant, and constantly deliberately taking advantage of what’s happening around them because they think they can somehow manipulate the natives, which is actually working, especially the poor, and it is actually very concerning. This just abundantly proves that nepotism does not do any good in politics. Those who are gifted with such a platform are just going to stand there and be pretentious with no any kind of knowledge on bettering or running the country. It is very disappointing how our country tolerates this kind of behavior. If we keep acting like we’re all blind, there will be no future for our country. Inflation, debts, poverty, abuse and many more will continue to rise. From now on, we must not support these kinds of families in the country, whether it’s in politics or showbiz or families in general who are a disgrace in the country that are constantly participating in such unlawful actions. This is for the better of us all and we shall keep fighting for justice.

Velasco, James:

For me I don’t pay much attention to politics nor care about it but i'm surprised to hear Ramon Revilla, a politician, has 80 or more children and still hasn't gone bankrupt. Though Ramon Revilla may have been a great senator and a great actor, it all went down when Bong Revilla came. Accused of pocketing PHP 224 million in his Pork Barrel fund, Bong Revilla was hated and criticized by the people for plundering and corruption. Though I'm not surprised since there are many corruptions happening in the Philippines and there's nothing we can do about it. Let this be a lesson to not vote for someone just because they belong in a political or rich family and be wise to vote for the ones that will lead us to a better place to live here in the Philippines.

[marctugonon]

GROUP FIVE THE REVILLA POLITICAL DYNASTY

Researchers: KIM, EILLIE

                     VELASCO, JAMES

Slides Editor: GAMBOA, KEISHA

Speakers: APOLONIO, GHIERIN

                 TUGONON, MARC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background of the family

Family Tree

Wealth

Political History

Political Positions

Issues They Are Associated With

The Muder of Ram Revilla 

Bongbong Revilla’s Campaign Ad

SUMMARY

The Revilla Political Dynasty started with Ramon Revilla Sr. (born José Acuña Bautista Sr.), who had previously made his way to fame as an actor in the country. One of the most notable bills implemented by Revilla was the “Revilla Bill” which states that: “The illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their affiliation has been expressly recognized by the father through an admission in a public document or a private handwritten instrument made by the father”. Out of his estimated eighty children however, only seven of them seemed to desire following his footsteps in one or even both of the political and entertainment industries: Marlon becoming an actor and director, Rowena a councillor in the city of Bacoor, Bong an actor, TV presenter, and senator, Princess an actress and producer, Strike the deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, Andeng a film producer, actress, and mayor of Antipolo city, and Ram an actor. With only a monthly salary of P35,000 to P40,000, and investments of P 416,000 to P 2.12 M in his first 9 years of governance, Revilla Sr. managed to provide a monthly allowance of P26,000 (equating to an estimate of P25M a year) to each of his children, which has always been an area of suspicion for the public. There have also been many other issues involving this family, such as the infamous murder of late actor Ramgen “Ram” Revilla, who was allegedly killed by an intruder - his sisters (who were conversing as the crime took place) were also identified as suspects. Another notable controversy caused by the Revilla family was when Ramon Revilla Jr, commonly known as “Bong” Revilla, danced to budots for his new campaign video a few months after being acquitted of plunder charges and accused of pocketing P 224 M of his pork barrel fund during his time in office.

CONCLUSIONS

Apolonio, Ghierin:

I don’t really pay much attention to politics. The Revilla family gave us some positives and some negatives. They gave us the “Revilla bill” where the illegitimate can use their father’s last name. They are also accused of pocketing money from the government. Although for some people they appreciate the Revilla family, while for some they do not like the Revilla family. While we were doing the research about Revilla family, I was feeling mixed emotions. I think they implemented that law because Ramon Revilla Sr had an estimated 80 childrens. Most of them when to the politics maybe in order to continue for their last name to be known.  For the Revilla bill, I think for some it is a good thing while for others it is a bad thing. I think for those people who are against they think that it is okay to have a child outside marriage. 

In my own opinion the “Revilla bill” is useful for the illegitimate children for their documentation purposes. But if the Father has an outside marriage children, I think it isn’t good for the family that is legal. It’s like they are promoting for fathers to have an illegitimate child. 

Gamboa, Keisha:

As the number of political dynasties and power-hungry officials continue to rise in the country, the importance of using our rights and duties as responsible citizens of the Philippines to further improve our decision-making skills and thoroughly contemplate our choices also increases, especially towards something as important as appointing candidates into influential positions. Incompetence is incompetence. Yes, everyone can make mistakes, but this common flaw shouldn’t be used as a free pass for those failures - we should hold people accountable. When politicians commit practices of graft and corruption, no matter how untrue or unintentional they claim these crimes to be, there will always be those at the receiving end of these harmful actions - the people.

The most disadvantaged of these citizens are those that (sadly) make up a big part of our population: the lower class, the poor, the less privileged, those who cannot afford necessities such as sufficient income, profitable jobs, ample food, proper shelter, and high quality medical attention because the money they had to give to the country (the government) went to projects that only benefited the wealthier class instead - or even perhaps directly to the banks of people whose luxurious lifestyles show just how much they didn’t actually need the said funds. How do you think the victims would feel seeing other, more privileged and powerful people, continue to defend and turn a blind eye to both their undeserving struggles and the blatant wrongdoings of their abusers?

Sizing up potential leaders based off of the background and history of those around them rather than their ethics and leadership skills as individuals is just ridiculous. Furthermore, do people even consider the contributions of these related people to the constitution along with their positions? How did the “Revilla Bill” positively impact our society? Doesn’t this just enable - promote, even - having extramarital affairs and abandoning one’s paternal responsibilities? Also, why are we letting political dynasties who have blatantly abused their power continue to run for even higher positions? Lastly, when are we going to realize that the amount of pesos these people have in their banks wouldn’t and shouldn’t be as high as they are if no corruption was really present?

The practice of giving influential positions to people solely because of their filial relations is far too rampant in the Philippines. Obviously, not everyone is competent enough to serve as a public official of the country, and - even more disappointingly - not everyone is educated enough to notice this either. As responsible citizens and those who are privileged to receive higher education, resources, and influence, we should stop blindly following these groups/clans/families because of what they said they would do and instead evaluate and look at what they have actually done for the Philippines prior to making these promises. These politicians were appointed by us citizens: we also hold some degree of responsibility for whether or not they repair or impair our country.

Kim, Yumin “Eillie”:

I did not study for political histories, senators, or issues of the Philippines before, and it was my first time to hear about the Revilla family too. I think I should know what is happening or has happened in this country from now on, at least until I stay here. The issues I have searched were quite shocking to me because of the cultural differences. Nowadays, most of the people raise only 2 to 3 babies or sometimes 4 in Korea, but Ramon Revilla had around 81 childrens that I cannot understand with my notions, and we are forbidden to have guns like in America or Philippines. It was a good opportunity for me to learn more about the Philippines, and I want the place or country I am staying at to be stable, developed, intelligent and safe.

Tugonon, Marc:

I used to despise the Revilla family, and I still do. I don’t think there will ever be a time or a reason my perspective will change about them. Though Ramon Revilla Sr. was a remarkable senator who served two terms, he may had notable legislative achievements, had an exemplary performance during his regime, does not mean their family should be praised already or to be put on a pedestal, because the name “Revilla” does not only apply to and represent Ramon Revilla Sr. only. It applies to all his children and grandchildren whose minds are strikingly corrupted. Take Bong Revilla as an example. He ruined his name, his whole family’s reputation by being a plunderer involved in the pork barrel scam. He was also the senator who danced budots for his campaign to get the votes of the poor so he can steal from them. The moral lesson here is to widen and really open your minds to different prejudice because it’s for the better of the whole country. If you let yourself explore, research, and thoroughly understand the people you idolize, you’re not just the one benefiting here, but the society as a whole. You can use all the knowledge you acquired and help spread awareness to those who are in favor of the evil and you could possibly change their stand and actually do the right thing; To revere those who are benevolent and have the capabilities to make change in the country. 

Despite all the accusations, incompetence, and allegations against their name, their family remains nonchalant, and constantly deliberately taking advantage of what’s happening around them because they think they can somehow manipulate the natives, which is actually working, especially the poor, and it is actually very concerning. This just abundantly proves that nepotism does not do any good in politics. Those who are gifted with such a platform are just going to stand there and be pretentious with no any kind of knowledge on bettering or running the country. It is very disappointing how our country tolerates this kind of behavior. If we keep acting like we’re all blind, there will be no future for our country. Inflation, debts, poverty, abuse and many more will continue to rise. From now on, we must not support these kinds of families in the country, whether it’s in politics or showbiz or families in general who are a disgrace in the country that are constantly participating in such unlawful actions. This is for the better of us all and we shall keep fighting for justice.

Velasco, James:

For me I don’t pay much attention to politics nor care about it but i'm surprised to hear Ramon Revilla, a politician, has 80 or more children and still hasn't gone bankrupt. Though Ramon Revilla may have been a great senator and a great actor, it all went down when Bong Revilla came. Accused of pocketing PHP 224 million in his Pork Barrel fund, Bong Revilla was hated and criticized by the people for plundering and corruption. Though I'm not surprised since there are many corruptions happening in the Philippines and there's nothing we can do about it. Let this be a lesson to not vote for someone just because they belong in a political or rich family and be wise to vote for the ones that will lead us to a better place to live here in the Philippines.

REFERENCES

 Guzman, N. D. (2018, October 16). The unsolved murder of Ramgen, Ramon Revilla's son. Esquiremag.ph. https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/lifestyle/the-unsolved-murder-of-ramgen-ramon-revilla-s-son-a1729-20181016-lfrm2

 Guzman, N. D. (2018, October 16). The unsolved murder of Ramgen, Ramon Revilla's son. Esquiremag.ph. https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/lifestyle/the-unsolved-murder-of-ramgen-ramon-revilla-s-son-a1729-20181016-lfrm2

 List of political families in the Philippines. (2009, May 30). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 10, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_families_in_the_Philippines

 Political families in the Philippines: Where are they now? (2012, March 15). The Asia Foundation. https://asiafoundation.org/2012/03/14/political-families-in-the-philippines-where-are-they-now/

 Ramon Revilla SR. (2007, January 12). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 10, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Revilla_Sr

 Ramos, C. M. (2020, September 4). Bong Revilla: My quarantine is done. INQUIRER.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1331145/fwd-bong-revilla-my-quarantine-is-done

 Sen. Revilla's family asks for prayers, remains mum over his condition – The Manila Times. (2020, August 19). The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/08/19/news/latest-stories/sen-revillas-family-asks-for-prayers-remains-mum-over-his-condition/757576/

[sonofhistory]

What did the founding fathers think of Muslims?

In 1739, Benjamin Franklin became involved with one of the earliest documented places intended for interfaith use in America. It was built on the idea of being inclusive of all religions, including Muslims. In his writings, Franklin made clear:

“Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

The “preaching-house” was to be a meeting place open to people of all faiths, including those of the “Muslim world,”. He went so far as to “preach” Islam in America. In his Autobiography he wrote concerning the non-denominational place of public preaching above “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner propos’d, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient sums were soon receiv’d to procure the ground and erect the building, which was one hundred feet long and seventy broad, about the size of Westminster Hall; and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected. Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service. “

Benjamin Franklin not want to ban Muslims from coming to the United States, on the contrary, he wanted to invited them. However, In a March 23, 1790, letter to the editor of the Federal Gazette, Franklin wrote:

“Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

Records at Mount Vernon show that some of George Washington’s slaves were, Muslims or at least descendants of Muslims [x]. These slaves were able to retain their Muslim-sounding. One Muslim slave, Sambo Anderson, Sambo fathered six children with two different women, both of whom lived at the River Farm area of Mount Vernon. In an article entitled “Mount Vernon Reminiscence” that was published in the Alexandria Gazette on January 18th, 1876, “an old citizen of Fairfax County” contends that Washington and Sambo had a close friendship. It continued by stating that Sambo was a “great favorite of the master [Washington]; by whom he was given a piece of land to build a house on.” It contended that Washington allowed Sambo to keep a small boat to “cross over the creek in, and for other purposes,” a rare privilege for any slave. Sambo was also claimed to be excellent hunter and was given permission by Washington to own a gun and ammunition, which were also rare privileges for a slaveowner to bestow up a slave. According to notes recovered from Washington’s ledger, he used to visit Sambo to buy duck meat and honey.

Washington tolerated the presence of Muslims in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Bampett Muhammad fought for the “Virginia Line” between 1775 and 1783, and there was Yusuf Ben Ali. Ben Ali served as an aide to General Thomas Sumter in South Carolina. Sultain Sidi Muhammad ben Abdallah of Morocco, who showed interest in helping the Americans in their fight against the British Empire. Abdallah assisted Washington by listing the newly independent United States of America as a country whose trading ships would be welcomed in the ports of Morocco, a move which offered the potential for supplies to be shipped to Washington’s army. These early diplomatic relations between the United States  and Morocco showed in the ratification of the Treaty of Marrakech in 1786, which remains the longest standing foreign relations treaty in American history.

In a personal letter from 1783, he made it crystal that America would be “open to receive… the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to participation of all our rights and privileges … They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect.” another letter written to Edward Newnham in 1792 he wrote that battles over religious differences were “the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.” He was explicit to avoid religious disputes, feeling problems might “endanger the peace of society.”

Correspondence from Tench Tighman in 1784, Tilghman inquired as to what type of workmen George Washington would like at Mount Vernon. Washington wanted good work men and confirmed, “they may be of Asia, Africa or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or atheists.”

At Mount Vernon, Despite Washington’s views, there were challenges to anyone practicing the Islam faith. Pork was a traditional and often breakfast for slaves [x]. The standard work week stretched from Monday through Saturday, making traditional Friday Islamic prayers nearly impossible to continue at the plantation since Friday was a work day.

John Adams referred to Islam when discussing religious freedom, typically referring to Muslims as Mahometans. It is untrue that Adams passed into act the Treaty of Tripoli to keeps Muslims out of America. The treaty was because of the American ships who were being acted by such pirates who happened to be Muslim–but just because they were Muslim. Article eleven of the treaty explicitly states:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

In translation, America was not against their religious beliefs nor were they ever and that even if those attacking American vessels were Muslim there would be no ill feelings towards others of the religion. The language indicates the United States of America was merely neutral on religion in a treaty that was all about protecting U.S. ships. 

President John Adams wanted to secure commercial shipping rights, and the countries he wanted to negotiate with happened to be Muslim, and happened to justify piracy by declaring war on Christian nations. Adams addressed that declaration by claiming that the United States was not Christian, and was not at war with Muslims. 

Adams named the Prophet Muhammad one of the world’s great truth seekers alongside Socrates and Confucius. He said that Prophet Muhammad was a “Sober inquirer of the truth.” He helped to write the Massachusetts constitution, which indicated “the most ample liberty of conscience for Deists and Mohometans.” 

During the Election of 1800 another of the claims thrown at Thomas Jefferson was that he was secretly Muslim. Jefferson owned a Quran which he bought as a twenty-two year old law student and he had previously stated that a Muslim, with rights ensured to them by the Constitution, could indeed become the President of the United States. Jefferson did not leave any notes on his immediate reaction to the Qur’an, he did criticize Islam as “stifling free enquiry” in his early political debates in Virginia, but this is a charge he also heaved against Catholicism. He thought both religions combined religion and the state at a time he wished to separate them.

A few months after authoring the Declaration of Independence, he returned to his home in Virginia to draft legislation about religion for his state. Writing in his private notes a paraphrase John Locke’s 1689 “Letter on Toleration”:

“[he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.”

This claim, Jefferson incorporated into the legislation:

“(O)ur civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

Jefferson believed strongly in the separation of state and church as well as that religious liberty and political equality would not be exclusively Christian meaning. The original legislative intent had been “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” as he stated in his autobiography. 

In 1805, at the White House, President Jefferson welcomed the first Muslim ambassador. Because it was Ramadan, the president moved the state dinner from 3:30 p.m. to be “precisely at sunset,” a recognition of the religious beliefs.

I can find nothing on John Jay and Muslims. 

The government, James Madison reasoned, has no more right to tolerate someone’s religious beliefs than it does to interfere with them. Madison also believed specifically in the inclusion of religious voices in a democratic system: “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other the multiplicity of sects.”

He worked on the same legislature as Jefferson, see above for more details. 

I can find nothing on Alexander Hamilton slavery, nor does he have any letters pertaining to the subject. 

When Muslim Barbary Pirates committed terrorist attacks, under President James Monroe, he refused appeasement and instead deployed the U.S. Navy, as he stated, March 5th, 1821:

“Our relations with the Barbary Powers are preserved…by the same meansthat were employed when I came into this office. As early as 1801 it wasfound necessary to send a squadron into the Mediterranean for theprotection of our commerce.”

In his State of the Union speech on December 3, 1822, President James Monroeexpressed regret that the “gloomy despotism” of the Muslim Ottomans had spread over much ofthe world. For Monroe and his audience, this Islamic despotism was a threat to Westerncivilization and American democracy. As with Adams, the pirates still placing attacks were mean’t to be seen as terrorists and not just for their religious beliefs. His were closely in line with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (above). 

(If anyone wants to add anything, go ahead I am away from my bookshelf currently so there may be things missing.)

#Flood pressles box #sincerely anonymous

[simonconsultancypage]

Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability

In its 2011 decision in the Janus Group case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one who does not “make” a false statement cannot be held liable under section (b) of Rule 10b-5. In an enforcement action brought against him by the SEC, the defendant, Francis Lorenzo, argued that under the Janus case, he could not be held liable under the securities laws for forwarding a misleading email his boss had written because he did not “make” the false statement. The case ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 27, 2019, the Court found that even if Lorenzo could not be held liable under section (b) of the Rule because he did not “make” the statement, he could still be held liable under the scheme liability provisions in sections (a) and (c) of the Rule for disseminating the  document. The Court’s March 27, 2019 opinion in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission can be found here.

  Background

In 2009, Francis Lorenzo worked as the director of investment banking at Charles Vista, LLC, a broker-dealer. Charles Vista served as the placement agent for a private debenture offering for one of the firm’s clients, Waste2Energy Holdings (“W2E”), a publicly-traded energy company. On October 1, 2009, W2E issued a revised SEC filing indicating that its asset value was dramatically lower than the company had previously reported as result of a revaluation of the company’s intangible assets.  The record shows that Lorenzo received a copy of W2E’s revised SEC filing.

  On October 14, 2009, two weeks after W2E had issued its revised filing, Lorenzo sent separate emails to two prospective investors for the debenture offering. Both emails expressly stated that they were being sent at the request of others at Charles Vista. Both emails recited favorable financial attributes of W2E. Neither email mentioned W2E’s revised SEC filing or the company’s revaluation of its intangible assets. In both messages, Lorenzo stated that the recipients could call him with any questions. He signed both messages with his name and title as “Vice President – Investment Banking.”

  In February 2013, the SEC commenced enforcement proceedings against Lorenzo and others in connection with the W2E offering. The other defendants settled with the SEC; the action against Lorenzo proceeded to trial before an administrative law judge. After trial, the ALJ issued findings of fact stating that Lorenzo’s boss had drafted the content of the emails and had asked Lorenzo to send the emails. The ALJ also concluded that Lorenzo had not read the emails or even considered the emails’ content before sending them. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Lorenzo should be liable under the securities laws for having acted with anintent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. The Commission upheld the ALJ’s decision.

  Lorenzo appealed the Commission’s ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 29, 2017, the D.C. Circuit (with then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissenting) issued its opinion ruling (1) that Lorenzo could not be held liable for a fraudulent misrepresentation under Rule 10b-5(b) because he did not “make” the statements at issue, but (2) nonetheless upholding, in a 2-1 vote, the Commission’s finding of liability under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) against Lorenzo because the statements in Lorenzo’s emails were false or misleading and he possessed the requisite intent.

  Lorenzo filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition described the question presented as “whether a misstatement claim that does not meet the elements set forth in Janus can be repackaged and pursued as a fraudulent scheme claim.” In support of his petition, he cited a split among the circuits on the question of whether “a misstatement standing alone can be the basis of a fraudulent scheme claim.” The Court granted the writ on June 18, 2018.

  The Relevant Regulatory Provision

Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful:

(a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) to make any untrue statement of material fact …, or

(c) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit…

  The March 27 Opinion

In a March 27, 2019 majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer (with Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissenting, and with Justice Kavanaugh not participating in the case), the Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit and held that disseminating false or misleading statements with the intent to defraud can give rise to liability under sections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, and related statutory provisions, even if the dissementator did not “make” the statements and therefore cannot be held liable under section (b) of the Rule.

  In reaching this conclusion, the Court said that even if Lorenzo did not “make” the statements, by sending the emails to customers containing information he knew to be false, he employed a “device,” a “scheme,” and an “artifice to defraud” within the meaning of section (a) of the Rule, and he engaged in an act or practice that “operated as a fraud or deceit” within the meaning of section (a). The Court said “under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how Lorenzo’s actions could escape the reaches of these provisions.”

  The Court also rejected Lorenzo’s argument that the only way for liability to attach to false statements was through the false statement provisions in section (b) of the Rule. Lorenzo had argued that any other interpretation would render section (b)’s false statement provisions “superfluous.” The court rejected the argument that each subsection governs a separate type of conduct, saying that there is considerable “overlap” between the Rule’s subsections and related statutory provisions. The Court added that its “conviction” was “considerably strengthened by the fact that the plainly fraudulent behavior confronted here might otherwise fall outside the Rule’s scope.” The use of false representations to induce securities purchases, the Court said, “would seem a paradigmatic example of securities fraud.”

  The court noted that the Rule’s provisions “capture a wide range of conduct.” Applying them in “borderline cases” may “present difficult problems of scope.” For example, the court said, “one can readily imagine other actors tangentially involved in dissemination – say, a mailroom clerk – for whom liability would typically be inappropriate.” However, the court said, “we see nothing borderline about this case,” where the relevant conduct “consists of disseminating false or misleading information to prospective investors with the intent to defraud.”

  Finally, the majority rejected the dissent’s contention that the majority’s interpretation would render Janus a “dead letter.” Janus, the Court said, would remain relevant (and would preclude liability) where an individual “neither makes nor disseminates” false information.

  Discussion

This decision is favorable for the government and even potentially for private securities litigation plaintiffs. The opinion recognizes a broad reading of Rule 10b-5, with the Rule’s various provisions overlapping with each other in support of the Rule’s overall fraud prevention goal. In its March 27, 2019 client alert about the ruling, the Skadden law firm said “We anticipate that private plaintiffs will attempt to seize upon this decision to expand potential liability under Section 10(b).”

  However, it could also be argued that the Court’s decision is just a reflection of the case it was presented. As Ronald Mann noted in his March 27, 2019 analysis of the decision on the SCOTUSblog, Lorenzo’s conduct “evidently struck a majority of the justices as reprehensibly fraudulent conduct of the kind that should be at the center of securities enforcement efforts.” Most of the Justices, Mann said, “appeared to see this as a case of core enforcement rather than a stretch,”  and a “straightforward” decision from the Court imposing liability on Lorenzo “seemed inevitable.”

  The relationship the court drew between “making” and “dissemination” a false statement is interesting, particularly in the current age when so much information is shared electronically, often as an attachment or a link. The court’s conclusion that someone can be liable for disseminating a false statement even without having “made” it could potentially have some interesting implications in the current electronic age when so much information is “forwarded” in electronic communications.

  At the same time, the court’s suggestion that there could be “borderline” cases where the dissemination is too tangential for liability to attach could present some interesting areas for future dispute. There undoubtedly will be future cases in which enforcement targets argue that their involvement was too “borderline” or “tangential” for them to be held liable. In that regard, it is important to note that the Court viewed Lorenzo’s knowledge of the email’s falsity as a “given.” A different case, in which an email or a document is forwarded without knowledge of falsity, likely would not support liability even given the dissemination. It clearly mattered to the court that Lorenzo sent the email knowing it was false.

The post Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability appeared first on The D&O Diary.

Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability published first on http://simonconsultancypage.tumblr.com/

[lawfultruth]

Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability

In its 2011 decision in the Janus Group case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one who does not “make” a false statement cannot be held liable under section (b) of Rule 10b-5. In an enforcement action brought against him by the SEC, the defendant, Francis Lorenzo, argued that under the Janus case, he could not be held liable under the securities laws for forwarding a misleading email his boss had written because he did not “make” the false statement. The case ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 27, 2019, the Court found that even if Lorenzo could not be held liable under section (b) of the Rule because he did not “make” the statement, he could still be held liable under the scheme liability provisions in sections (a) and (c) of the Rule for disseminating the  document. The Court’s March 27, 2019 opinion in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission can be found here.

  Background

In 2009, Francis Lorenzo worked as the director of investment banking at Charles Vista, LLC, a broker-dealer. Charles Vista served as the placement agent for a private debenture offering for one of the firm’s clients, Waste2Energy Holdings (“W2E”), a publicly-traded energy company. On October 1, 2009, W2E issued a revised SEC filing indicating that its asset value was dramatically lower than the company had previously reported as result of a revaluation of the company’s intangible assets.  The record shows that Lorenzo received a copy of W2E’s revised SEC filing.

  On October 14, 2009, two weeks after W2E had issued its revised filing, Lorenzo sent separate emails to two prospective investors for the debenture offering. Both emails expressly stated that they were being sent at the request of others at Charles Vista. Both emails recited favorable financial attributes of W2E. Neither email mentioned W2E’s revised SEC filing or the company’s revaluation of its intangible assets. In both messages, Lorenzo stated that the recipients could call him with any questions. He signed both messages with his name and title as “Vice President – Investment Banking.”

  In February 2013, the SEC commenced enforcement proceedings against Lorenzo and others in connection with the W2E offering. The other defendants settled with the SEC; the action against Lorenzo proceeded to trial before an administrative law judge. After trial, the ALJ issued findings of fact stating that Lorenzo’s boss had drafted the content of the emails and had asked Lorenzo to send the emails. The ALJ also concluded that Lorenzo had not read the emails or even considered the emails’ content before sending them. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Lorenzo should be liable under the securities laws for having acted with anintent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. The Commission upheld the ALJ’s decision.

  Lorenzo appealed the Commission’s ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 29, 2017, the D.C. Circuit (with then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissenting) issued its opinion ruling (1) that Lorenzo could not be held liable for a fraudulent misrepresentation under Rule 10b-5(b) because he did not “make” the statements at issue, but (2) nonetheless upholding, in a 2-1 vote, the Commission’s finding of liability under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) against Lorenzo because the statements in Lorenzo’s emails were false or misleading and he possessed the requisite intent.

  Lorenzo filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition described the question presented as “whether a misstatement claim that does not meet the elements set forth in Janus can be repackaged and pursued as a fraudulent scheme claim.” In support of his petition, he cited a split among the circuits on the question of whether “a misstatement standing alone can be the basis of a fraudulent scheme claim.” The Court granted the writ on June 18, 2018.

  The Relevant Regulatory Provision

Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful:

(a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) to make any untrue statement of material fact …, or

(c) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit…

  The March 27 Opinion

In a March 27, 2019 majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer (with Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissenting, and with Justice Kavanaugh not participating in the case), the Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit and held that disseminating false or misleading statements with the intent to defraud can give rise to liability under sections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, and related statutory provisions, even if the dissementator did not “make” the statements and therefore cannot be held liable under section (b) of the Rule.

  In reaching this conclusion, the Court said that even if Lorenzo did not “make” the statements, by sending the emails to customers containing information he knew to be false, he employed a “device,” a “scheme,” and an “artifice to defraud” within the meaning of section (a) of the Rule, and he engaged in an act or practice that “operated as a fraud or deceit” within the meaning of section (a). The Court said “under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how Lorenzo’s actions could escape the reaches of these provisions.”

  The Court also rejected Lorenzo’s argument that the only way for liability to attach to false statements was through the false statement provisions in section (b) of the Rule. Lorenzo had argued that any other interpretation would render section (b)’s false statement provisions “superfluous.” The court rejected the argument that each subsection governs a separate type of conduct, saying that there is considerable “overlap” between the Rule’s subsections and related statutory provisions. The Court added that its “conviction” was “considerably strengthened by the fact that the plainly fraudulent behavior confronted here might otherwise fall outside the Rule’s scope.” The use of false representations to induce securities purchases, the Court said, “would seem a paradigmatic example of securities fraud.”

  The court noted that the Rule’s provisions “capture a wide range of conduct.” Applying them in “borderline cases” may “present difficult problems of scope.” For example, the court said, “one can readily imagine other actors tangentially involved in dissemination – say, a mailroom clerk – for whom liability would typically be inappropriate.” However, the court said, “we see nothing borderline about this case,” where the relevant conduct “consists of disseminating false or misleading information to prospective investors with the intent to defraud.”

  Finally, the majority rejected the dissent’s contention that the majority’s interpretation would render Janus a “dead letter.” Janus, the Court said, would remain relevant (and would preclude liability) where an individual “neither makes nor disseminates” false information.

  Discussion

This decision is favorable for the government and even potentially for private securities litigation plaintiffs. The opinion recognizes a broad reading of Rule 10b-5, with the Rule’s various provisions overlapping with each other in support of the Rule’s overall fraud prevention goal. In its March 27, 2019 client alert about the ruling, the Skadden law firm said “We anticipate that private plaintiffs will attempt to seize upon this decision to expand potential liability under Section 10(b).”

  However, it could also be argued that the Court’s decision is just a reflection of the case it was presented. As Ronald Mann noted in his March 27, 2019 analysis of the decision on the SCOTUSblog, Lorenzo’s conduct “evidently struck a majority of the justices as reprehensibly fraudulent conduct of the kind that should be at the center of securities enforcement efforts.” Most of the Justices, Mann said, “appeared to see this as a case of core enforcement rather than a stretch,”  and a “straightforward” decision from the Court imposing liability on Lorenzo “seemed inevitable.”

  The relationship the court drew between “making” and “dissemination” a false statement is interesting, particularly in the current age when so much information is shared electronically, often as an attachment or a link. The court’s conclusion that someone can be liable for disseminating a false statement even without having “made” it could potentially have some interesting implications in the current electronic age when so much information is “forwarded” in electronic communications.

  At the same time, the court’s suggestion that there could be “borderline” cases where the dissemination is too tangential for liability to attach could present some interesting areas for future dispute. There undoubtedly will be future cases in which enforcement targets argue that their involvement was too “borderline” or “tangential” for them to be held liable. In that regard, it is important to note that the Court viewed Lorenzo’s knowledge of the email’s falsity as a “given.” A different case, in which an email or a document is forwarded without knowledge of falsity, likely would not support liability even given the dissemination. It clearly mattered to the court that Lorenzo sent the email knowing it was false.

The post Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability appeared first on The D&O Diary.

Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability syndicated from https://ronenkurzfeldweb.wordpress.com/