Jimmy Swaggart: A Legacy That Lives On

Growing up, there were two televangelists who were on television more than any other Christian minister - North Carolina's own Billy Graham and a Louisiana native named Jimmy Swaggart. For all of his faults and scandals - and there were a few - the man from Ferriday, La. was a stalwart of the Christian faith whose influence will far outweigh the scandals. As RedState's Jennifer O'Connell writes... As Christians, we believe in a God who forgives and restores the most egregious sin. All we have to do is ask him for it. The fact that Swaggart was able to successfully rebuild his ministry, keep and restore his marriage, and leave this life with honors from a world that once considered him a byword is a reflection that Jimmy Lee Swaggart took hold and fully embraced the Jesus he so boldly proclaimed to others. 

They couldn't've said it better. Rest in Peace, Pastor Swaggart.

Founders' Quotes, 29-30 June 2025

As we wrap up the month of June, here are a couple of quotes from some of America's Founding Fathers on the Declaration of Independence and on Democracy itself...

(1) This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, 1825

(2) Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few. - John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 1763

Both make excellent points above. Jefferson reminds us that the Declaration of Independence didn't invent new rights for the people, it merely stated that all have an inherent right of freedom and equality that no government can take away without due cause. And John Adams, Jefferson's contemporary, reminds us of democracy's inherent flaw - the ability to, with a simple majority, to give and take at will.

DoJ: Harvard Violated Civil Rights Laws

The Feds aren't playing anymore with the Crimson... In a letter sent to Harvard President Alan Garber on Monday and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, attorneys for the administration said the investigation found that Harvard knew Jewish and Israeli students felt threatened on its campus and acted with deliberate indifference.  ~~~ ~~~ “Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” the letter states. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.” (HotAir)

Now, as HotAir points out, Harvard has three options...

Option 1 is to go the Hillsdale College route and eschew any/all federal (and state) funding from now on. Option 2 is to fight the Feds' in federal court. Option 3 is to cave and accept whatever punishment the Feds. issue.

I'm betting its' Option 3; why? The reason Hillsdale is successful as a liberal arts college is their entire structure is built around not taking taxpayer funding of any sort; Harvard, by contrast, pretty much depends on federal funding for much of its' activities.

If they fight, that could have unintended consequences; why? Because this is a civil finding, the evidentiary standard is lower (51% or "preponderance of the evidence") and there was plenty of evidence showing Harvard was violating federal civil rights laws (the Fair Admissions case, anyone?) plus should they fight and lose, the punishments could be far worse than what could be expected otherwise.

Which leaves Option 3, to cave and accept whatever punishment the Feds' dole out to them. I suspect this is what will happen but who knows in this day and age...