thestream--2020-10-12--Vote for Trump to Save Religious Liberty

Oh , it ’ s still part of the First Amendment .
But the First Amendment ’ s “ free exercise of religion ” clause is now more mirage than reality .
The Supreme Court ’ s misguided 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith turned it into an easy to assert but gossamer liberty protection .
The case involved two Native American drug counsellors who were fired after ingesting peyote as part of a religious ceremony , and subsequently denied state unemployment benefits .
The fired employees claimed that punishing their ingestion of peyote violated their right to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6-3 ruling , the Court said no .
That ’ s one reason why I urge religious believers to carefully examine the differences on the important issue of religious freedom between Trump/Pence and Biden/Harris .
When it comes to religious freedom , the two tickets are not created equal .
The Court Said No The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion .
In it , the court said that because the Oregon drug laws were of general applicability , Oregon ’ s law could be applied against the fired counselors without violating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant “ not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional.
” That created a huge problem for people of faith .
Laws of general applicability can infringe upon the religious beliefs of millions without intending to do so .
For example , assume that Congress required all butchers to sell pork products as a means of furthering the wellbeing of the pig farming industry .
Suppose it did not create any religious exemptions .
Every butcher had to sell pork or risk jail or fines or the loss of their license @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass muster even for Kosher and Halal butchers .
It would not violate their freedom of religious because it was not intended to force them to violate their Jewish and Islamic beliefs .
It was only intended to help pig farmers .
Realizing that Smith had emasculated the free exercise clause , in 1993 Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) .
Under the RFRA , a litigant must show that a law infringes their bona fide religious beliefs .
If they do , the state must show both that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the way it operates is the least restrictive to religious liberty possible .
The RFRA was the law under which Hobby Lobby won an exemption from the Affordable Care Act ’ s free contraception requirement .
Without it , the Supreme Court would almost surely have ruled against the company .
The regulation required all companies to provide free contraception coverage for employees .
It was therefore of general applicability .
The law does not apply to states .
Unless a state has enacted its own RFRA , the First Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force people to violate their religious beliefs .
As a consequence , in recent years profound threats to religious liberty have emerged at the state level .
For example , in 2007 Washington state required pharmacies to dispense all FDA-approved medications .
It had been created at the urging of Planned Parenthood .
Planned Parenthood clearly intended it to prevent pharmacies from refusing to dispense contraception and abortifacients .
And it was a regulation of general applicability .
One small pharmacy chain , Stormans , refused to carry Plan B — the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might act as an abortifacient .
The company ’ s Christian owners sued the state to be exempted from the regulation on grounds of religious freedom .
( Washington does not have a RFRA . )
A trial court ruled in their favor .
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling , on the basis that the regulation applies equally and “ neutrally ” to all pharmacies .
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case .
Now , in California , a Catholic hospital called Dignity Health refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision was explicitly based on Catholic moral teaching , courts have allowed the hospital to be sued for damages .
It is perhaps the most important religious liberty case in the country .
California also does not have an RFRA .
Its Unruh Law that bars discrimination based on sexual identity is a statute of general applicability .
The outlook for the hospital is not bright .
( The hospital has petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review , a matter that is still pending . )
One of the few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved Jack Phillips , the Colorado owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop .
He refused to create a cake for use at a same sex wedding reception as against his Christian faith .
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission punished him for engaging in illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation .
That decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling .
But Phillips only won because Commission ’ s deliberations contained an extensive and explicit record of blatantly anti-Christian statements .
Thus , in a very narrow ruling , the court found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the commissioners ’ actions were predicated on explicit anti-Christian animus .
Don ’ t expect religious infringers to make the mistake of being so candid again .
Times have changed since passage of the RFRA .
Liberals and Democrats were core members of the coalition that successfully lobbied for passage of the bill , and Democrat president Bill Clinton signed it into law .
Today , liberals generally perceive the claim to religious freedom to be merely ways to justify discrimination against LGBT people and women who want abortions .
Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even the limited religious freedom we enjoy after Employment Division v. Smith is too much freedom for them .
For example , the Do No Harm Act would shrink the law to a meaningless empty shell .
( Its most notable Senate sponsor is Kamala Harris . )
It states that the RFRA can not allow “ an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes the religious views , habits , or practices of one party upon another.
” That was the charge , it is worth noting , made by critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also prevent the state from exempting someone who causes “ meaningful harm.
” This includes what ’ s called “ dignitary harm.
” That means an action that hurts someone ’ s feelings .
In short : the Democrats ’ new RFRA would offer even less protection for religious freedom than the current interpretation of the free exercise clause .
Many Democrats also want to destroy the rights of medical conscience .
They want to force doctors to perform or refer their patients to other doctors who will perform the abortion .
Forcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abortionist , knowing his action will result in the death of the child , is their idea of protecting his conscience .
For example , the Medicare for All Act of 2019 states that medical practitioners participating in the proposed single-payer health system may not “ discriminate.
” It has 119 Democrat cosponsors .
Its definition of discrimination goes well beyond behaviors such as racism .
It extends to areas such as “ pregnancy related medical conditions.
” And that includes “ termination of pregnancy.
” The bill would almost surely prohibit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an abortion , because refusing to do so would be deemed discrimination .
Religious Liberty is on the Ballot Yes , I know that President Trump ’ s caustic personality , personal peccadillos , and often crude means of expression can be disheartening and off-putting .
I get that in spades !
But there is more at stake in this election than style .
On the substance , there is no question that Trump has shown great fealty to freedom of religion in his domestic and foreign policies and has been loyal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a core issue .
Ditto most Republicans running for Congress and the Senate .
The same can not be said for Vice President Joe Biden .
His running mate , as noted above , sponsored the Do No Harm Act , and his Democratic Party is increasingly hostile to allowing real religious liberty — religious liberty as our nation ’ s founding fathers envisioned it .
All they want to allow is a shriveled concept of a “ freedom to worship ” that ends at the church , synagogue , temple , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious Americans to be able to live by their faith .
For those anxious about the future of religious freedom in America , I think the choice on November 3 is clear .
Award-winning author Wesley J. Smith , is chairman of the Discovery Institute ’ s Center on Human Exceptionalism .
Among his books are Culture of Death and The War on Humans .
He writes regularly for National Review .

Oh, it’s still part of the First Amendment. But the First Amendment’s “free exercise of religion” clause is now more mirage than reality. The Supreme Court’s misguided 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith turned it into an easy to assert but gossamer liberty protection.
The case involved two Native American drug counsellors who were fired after ingesting peyote as part of a religious ceremony, and subsequently denied state unemployment benefits. The fired employees claimed that punishing their ingestion of peyote violated their right to the free exercise of religion. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court said no.
That’s one reason why I urge religious believers to carefully examine the differences on the important issue of religious freedom between Trump/Pence and Biden/Harris. When it comes to religious freedom, the two tickets are not created equal.
The Court Said No
The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion. In it, the court said that because the Oregon drug laws were of general applicability, Oregon’s law could be applied against the fired counselors without violating the free exercise clause. General applicability meant “not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional.”
That created a huge problem for people of faith. Laws of general applicability can infringe upon the religious beliefs of millions without intending to do so.
For example, assume that Congress required all butchers to sell pork products as a means of furthering the wellbeing of the pig farming industry. Suppose it did not create any religious exemptions. Every butcher had to sell pork or risk jail or fines or the loss of their license.
Under Smith, the law would pass muster even for Kosher and Halal butchers. It would not violate their freedom of religious because it was not intended to force them to violate their Jewish and Islamic beliefs. It was only intended to help pig farmers.
The Creation of RFRA
Realizing that Smith had emasculated the free exercise clause, in 1993 Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Under the RFRA, a litigant must show that a law infringes their bona fide religious beliefs. If they do, the state must show both that the law serves a compelling state interest and that the way it operates is the least restrictive to religious liberty possible.
The RFRA was the law under which Hobby Lobby won an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s free contraception requirement. Without it, the Supreme Court would almost surely have ruled against the company. The regulation required all companies to provide free contraception coverage for employees. It was therefore of general applicability.
States Don’t Have to Follow RFRA
The law does not apply to states. Unless a state has enacted its own RFRA, the First Amendment offers scant protection against nonfederal laws that force people to violate their religious beliefs. As a consequence, in recent years profound threats to religious liberty have emerged at the state level.
For example, in 2007 Washington state required pharmacies to dispense all FDA-approved medications. It had been created at the urging of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood clearly intended it to prevent pharmacies from refusing to dispense contraception and abortifacients. And it was a regulation of general applicability.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
One small pharmacy chain, Stormans, refused to carry Plan B — the “morning-after pill” — because studies indicate it might act as an abortifacient. The company’s Christian owners sued the state to be exempted from the regulation on grounds of religious freedom. (Washington does not have a RFRA.)
A trial court ruled in their favor. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, on the basis that the regulation applies equally and “neutrally” to all pharmacies. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
In California and Colorado
Now, in California, a Catholic hospital called Dignity Health refused to permit a transgender hysterectomy. Even though the decision was explicitly based on Catholic moral teaching, courts have allowed the hospital to be sued for damages. It is perhaps the most important religious liberty case in the country.
California also does not have an RFRA. Its Unruh Law that bars discrimination based on sexual identity is a statute of general applicability. The outlook for the hospital is not bright. (The hospital has petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, a matter that is still pending.)
One of the few successful free exercise litigations in recent years involved Jack Phillips, the Colorado owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. He refused to create a cake for use at a same sex wedding reception as against his Christian faith. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission punished him for engaging in illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.
That decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling. But Phillips only won because Commission’s deliberations contained an extensive and explicit record of blatantly anti-Christian statements. Thus, in a very narrow ruling, the court found that Phillips’ free exercise rights were violated because the commissioners’ actions were predicated on explicit anti-Christian animus.
Don’t expect religious infringers to make the mistake of being so candid again.
Many Democrats Oppose RFRA
Times have changed since passage of the RFRA. Liberals and Democrats were core members of the coalition that successfully lobbied for passage of the bill, and Democrat president Bill Clinton signed it into law. Today, liberals generally perceive the claim to religious freedom to be merely ways to justify discrimination against LGBT people and women who want abortions.
Democrats have now hatched plans to gut the RFRA. Even the limited religious freedom we enjoy after Employment Division v. Smith is too much freedom for them.
For example, the Do No Harm Act would shrink the law to a meaningless empty shell. (Its most notable Senate sponsor is Kamala Harris.) It states that the RFRA cannot allow “an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes the religious views, habits, or practices of one party upon another.” That was the charge, it is worth noting, made by critics of Hobby Lobby.
The proposal would also prevent the state from exempting someone who causes “meaningful harm.” This includes what’s called “dignitary harm.” That means an action that hurts someone’s feelings.
In short: the Democrats’ new RFRA would offer even less protection for religious freedom than the current interpretation of the free exercise clause.
And Medical Conscience
Many Democrats also want to destroy the rights of medical conscience. They want to force doctors to perform or refer their patients to other doctors who will perform the abortion. Forcing a doctor to send a patient to an abortionist, knowing his action will result in the death of the child, is their idea of protecting his conscience.
For example, the Medicare for All Act of 2019 states that medical practitioners participating in the proposed single-payer health system may not “discriminate.” It has 119 Democrat cosponsors.
Its definition of discrimination goes well beyond behaviors such as racism. It extends to areas such as “pregnancy related medical conditions.” And that includes “termination of pregnancy.” The bill would almost surely prohibit obstetrician/gynecologists from refusing to perform or refer for an abortion, because refusing to do so would be deemed discrimination.
Religious Liberty is on the Ballot
Yes, I know that President Trump’s caustic personality, personal peccadillos, and often crude means of expression can be disheartening and off-putting. I get that in spades!
But there is more at stake in this election than style. On the substance, there is no question that Trump has shown great fealty to freedom of religion in his domestic and foreign policies and has been loyal to voters for whom free exercise is a core issue. Ditto most Republicans running for Congress and the Senate.
The same cannot be said for Vice President Joe Biden. His running mate, as noted above, sponsored the Do No Harm Act, and his Democratic Party is increasingly hostile to allowing real religious liberty — religious liberty as our nation’s founding fathers envisioned it. All they want to allow is a shriveled concept of a “freedom to worship” that ends at the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque doors. They do not want religious Americans to be able to live by their faith.
For those anxious about the future of religious freedom in America, I think the choice on November 3 is clear.
Award-winning author Wesley J. Smith, is chairman of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. Among his books are Culture of Death and The War on Humans. He writes regularly for National Review.


thestream--2020-10-12--American Bar Association Gives Amy Coney Barrett Highest Possible Rating

The American Bar Association rated Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “ well qualified ” ahead of the nominee ’ s hearings on Capitol Hill .
“ The Standing committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity , professional competence , and judicial temperament , ” ABA Standing Committee Chair Randall D. Noel wrote in a Sunday letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California , the chairman and ranking member , respectively , of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
“ A substantial majority of the Standing Committee determined that Judge Barrett is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority is of the opinion that she is “ Qualified ” to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States , ” the letter continued .
“ The majority rating represents the Standing Committee ’ s official rating.
” “ Well qualified ” is the highest possible rating that the ABA will attach to a nominee .
President Donald Trump ’ s first and second nominees to the Supreme Court , Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch , also received “ well qualified ” scores .
The letter came the day before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill .
Media and Democratic attacks on the Supreme Court nominee have sparked a backlash with both conservatives and Republican lawmakers .
Judicial Crisis Network has launched several ads in Barrett ’ s defense : “ Stop The Bigotry , ” an ad that calls for an end of attacks on Barrett ’ s faith , and “ JFK , ” wherein former President John F. Kennedy warns against anti-Catholic attacks .
A Morning Consult and Politico poll released Wednesday found that voters are increasingly backing the confirmation of Barrett : almost half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polled between Oct. 2–4 said that the Senate should confirm Barrett .
This was an increase of nine percentage points since Trump first announced he was nominating Barrett on Sept. 26 , according to the poll .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

The American Bar Association rated Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “well qualified” ahead of the nominee’s hearings on Capitol Hill.
“The Standing committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” ABA Standing Committee Chair Randall D. Noel wrote in a Sunday letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“A substantial majority of the Standing Committee determined that Judge Barrett is ‘Well Qualified,’ and a minority is of the opinion that she is “Qualified” to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States,” the letter continued. “The majority rating represents the Standing Committee’s official rating.”
“Well qualified” is the highest possible rating that the ABA will attach to a nominee. President Donald Trump’s first and second nominees to the Supreme Court, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, also received “well qualified” scores.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The letter came the day before Barrett’s confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
Media and Democratic attacks on the Supreme Court nominee have sparked a backlash with both conservatives and Republican lawmakers.
Judicial Crisis Network has launched several ads in Barrett’s defense: “Stop The Bigotry,” an ad that calls for an end of attacks on Barrett’s faith, and “JFK,” wherein former President John F. Kennedy warns against anti-Catholic attacks.
A Morning Consult and Politico poll released Wednesday found that voters are increasingly backing the confirmation of Barrett: almost half, or 46%, of voters polled between Oct. 2–4 said that the Senate should confirm Barrett. This was an increase of nine percentage points since Trump first announced he was nominating Barrett on Sept. 26, according to the poll.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-10-12--Are These the Nails That Held Jesus to the Cross?

Two 2,000-year-old nails at a Tel Aviv University lab and linked to the tomb of Caiaphas may be the nails that held Jesus to the cross .
Or at least new research offers that tantalizing possibility .
The nails were first discovered in a 1990 excavation of the Caiaphas family tomb , reported Haaretz .
Caiaphas was the high priest associated with Jesus ’ crucifixion , the only crucifixion to which he was linked .
A July 2020 study asserts that there is more evidence to support the idea that the nails came from Caiaphas ’ tomb and that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of Jesus .
The nails were “ misplaced ” and were not photographed in 1990 .
But nearly 20 years ago , the Israel Antiquities Authority ( IAA ) sent two boxes to Prof. Israel Hershkovitz of the Sackler School of Medicine and Anthropology laboratory at Tel Aviv University , according to the study .
One of the boxes , which was unmarked , contained two nails .
A few years ago , Hershkovitz showed the two nails to journalist and Naked Archaeologist host Simcha Jacobovici .
Jacobovici studied the Caiaphas family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were indeed the lost nails from the tomb .
He also believed that the nails were used in a crucifixion and considering the location where they were found , could have been the nails used in Jesus ’ crucifixion .
Caiaphas , mentioned in detail in the Bible ( specifically Matthew 26:57-66 ) as the high priest who handed Jesus over to the Romans , was not linked to any other crucifixion .
“ The possibility that the nails were used in a crucifixion on the one hand and can be connected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , to say the least , interesting and potentially monumental , ” the study states .
Testing on the nails revealed microscopic pieces of wood and bone attached to the artifacts .
Testing also revealed fungal spores , which were identical to those found in Caiaphas ’ tomb but discrete from those in other , nearby tombs .
In addition , the nails were bent on the ends , suggesting that they were used in a crucifixion to hold the person to a cross .
The authors of the study wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we conclude , with considerable confidence , that the unprovenanced nails are the lost nails excavated from the Caiaphas family tomb in 1990 and furthermore that these nails were used in a crucifixion.
” Whether the nails were used in Jesus ’ crucifixion , we may never know .
But it ’ s possible .
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

Two 2,000-year-old nails at a Tel Aviv University lab and linked to the tomb of Caiaphas may be the nails that held Jesus to the cross. Or at least new research offers that tantalizing possibility.
The nails were first discovered in a 1990 excavation of the Caiaphas family tomb, reported Haaretz. Caiaphas was the high priest associated with Jesus’ crucifixion, the only crucifixion to which he was linked. A July 2020 study asserts that there is more evidence to support the idea that the nails came from Caiaphas’ tomb and that they were used in a crucifixion. Perhaps that of Jesus.
The nails were “misplaced” and were not photographed in 1990. But nearly 20 years ago, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) sent two boxes to Prof. Israel Hershkovitz of the Sackler School of Medicine and Anthropology laboratory at Tel Aviv University, according to the study. One of the boxes, which was unmarked, contained two nails.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
A few years ago, Hershkovitz showed the two nails to journalist and Naked Archaeologist host Simcha Jacobovici. Jacobovici studied the Caiaphas family tomb and hypothesized that the two nails were indeed the lost nails from the tomb. He also believed that the nails were used in a crucifixion and considering the location where they were found, could have been the nails used in Jesus’ crucifixion. Caiaphas, mentioned in detail in the Bible (specifically Matthew 26:57-66) as the high priest who handed Jesus over to the Romans, was not linked to any other crucifixion.
Potentially Monumental Discovery
“The possibility that the nails were used in a crucifixion on the one hand and can be connected to Caiaphas the high priest on the other is, to say the least, interesting and potentially monumental,” the study states. Testing on the nails revealed microscopic pieces of wood and bone attached to the artifacts. Testing also revealed fungal spores, which were identical to those found in Caiaphas’ tomb but discrete from those in other, nearby tombs.
In addition, the nails were bent on the ends, suggesting that they were used in a crucifixion to hold the person to a cross. The authors of the study wrote that based on the evidence they found, “we conclude, with considerable confidence, that the unprovenanced nails are the lost nails excavated from the Caiaphas family tomb in 1990 and furthermore that these nails were used in a crucifixion.”
Whether the nails were used in Jesus’ crucifixion, we may never know. But it’s possible.
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-13--Is the Six-Foot Rule Based on Solid Science?

Joe Biden keeps claiming that he , in contrast to the president , will follow “ the science ” and “ listen to the scientists.
” But little of the hygiene theater we ’ ve had to perform for the past eight months enjoys clear scientific support .
Take the six-foot rule , which we ’ ve all had drummed into our muscle memory .
Avoiding other people is now treated as a mercy rather than misanthropy .
We ’ ve been told it ’ s just the right distance to keep us from spreading the coronavirus to our neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science ?
Not really .
If anything , recent evidence undermines it .
Experts agree that we can pass the flu virus to others either by contact ( as when snotty hands touch a handrail , which is touched by other hands ) , by droplets ( spray from a cough ) or by aerosol ( microscopic mist from coughs , sneezes , or speech ) .
We know that aerosol particles can stay suspended in air for hours and small droplets for minutes .
Yet for years , public health officials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , describes how larger droplets are “ assumed to be the main mode of transmission for influenza.
” That ’ s a key assumption , since the six-foot separation rule hinges on it .
Six feet has merit for avoiding big droplets .
But it provides a false security if smaller droplets and aerosols play a large role in passing a virus , as many studies have indicated .
That applies to the coronavirus as much as to the flu .
A study published in April showed that the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hangs in the air for over an hour in aerosol form .
Researchers have now detected virus particles , by the millions , in the exhaled breath of COVID-19 patients .
These airborne particles have been shown to be infectious , though sunlight reduces that .
And virus from hospitalized patients has been detected in the air fifteen feet away .
These results add up to make airborne transmission a major mode of infection—maybe the main one .
The CDC has a long history of downplaying the role of aerosol transmission for respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with mounting evidence , has just relented .
It now acknowledges that “ airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur under special circumstances.
” This is careful rephrasing of language that stirred commotion after it appeared on their website on September 18 .
Nevertheless , it marks a major shift .
In the past , “ special circumstances ” meant risky procedures , like intubation .
But in the current guidelines it , includes the sharing of “ enclosed spaces.
” Think hallways , rooms , and vehicles—circumstances that are anything but “ special.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , does little to guard against transmission by tiny aerosol particles .
Even for protection against large droplets , the recommended distance varies .
WHO said one meter , or about three feet , a number the CDC agreed with because of SARS research .
Taiwan went with 1.5 meters , as one of us can attest from living there during the pandemic .
A U.S. Army Colonel and chief of Preventive Medicine Services , Public Health Command Europe , said , “ I recommend you stay 12 feet apart.
” Some scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule ( about 6.5 feet ) adopted there was based on “ very fragile evidence.
” So , if we really look at the evidence from science , the six-foot rule is cold comfort .
If you walk through a grocery aisle where an infected man was gabbing a minute or two earlier , you ’ ll probably inhale small droplets or aerosol particles he left behind .
Outdoors , where even a gentle breeze quickly sweeps aerosols away , your odds are much better .
That fits with a recent report that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens indoors .
It ’ s common sense that the farther apart people are , the less likely they are to pass an infection to each other .
But the six-foot rule , like so many of our efforts to stop the coronavirus , turns out to be more hygiene theater than solid science .
Doug Axe , William Briggs , and Jay W. Richards are the authors of The Price of Panic : How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe .

Joe Biden keeps claiming that he, in contrast to the president, will follow “the science” and “listen to the scientists.” But little of the hygiene theater we’ve had to perform for the past eight months enjoys clear scientific support.
Take the six-foot rule, which we’ve all had drummed into our muscle memory. Avoiding other people is now treated as a mercy rather than misanthropy. We’ve been told it’s just the right distance to keep us from spreading the coronavirus to our neighbors. But is this rule based on science? Not really. If anything, recent evidence undermines it.
How Viruses Spread
Experts agree that we can pass the flu virus to others either by contact (as when snotty hands touch a handrail, which is touched by other hands), by droplets (spray from a cough) or by aerosol (microscopic mist from coughs, sneezes, or speech). We know that aerosol particles can stay suspended in air for hours and small droplets for minutes.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Yet for years, public health officials have downplayed airborne transmission. A WHO document, for instance, describes how larger droplets are “assumed to be the main mode of transmission for influenza.” That’s a key assumption, since the six-foot separation rule hinges on it.
What About Aerosols?
Six feet has merit for avoiding big droplets. But it provides a false security if smaller droplets and aerosols play a large role in passing a virus, as many studies have indicated.
That applies to the coronavirus as much as to the flu. A study published in April showed that the new coronavirus, like the earlier SARS-CoV-1, hangs in the air for over an hour in aerosol form. Researchers have now detected virus particles, by the millions, in the exhaled breath of COVID-19 patients. These airborne particles have been shown to be infectious, though sunlight reduces that. And virus from hospitalized patients has been detected in the air fifteen feet away. These results add up to make airborne transmission a major mode of infection—maybe the main one.
The CDC has a long history of downplaying the role of aerosol transmission for respiratory viruses. But the agency, faced with mounting evidence, has just relented. It now acknowledges that “airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur under special circumstances.” This is careful rephrasing of language that stirred commotion after it appeared on their website on September 18.
If we really look at the evidence from science, the six-foot rule is cold comfort.
Nevertheless, it marks a major shift. In the past, “special circumstances” meant risky procedures, like intubation. But in the current guidelines it includes the sharing of “enclosed spaces.” Think hallways, rooms, and vehicles—circumstances that are anything but “special.”
Six feet of separation, then, does little to guard against transmission by tiny aerosol particles.
No Magic Distance
Even for protection against large droplets, the recommended distance varies. WHO said one meter, or about three feet, a number the CDC agreed with because of SARS research. Taiwan went with 1.5 meters, as one of us can attest from living there during the pandemic. A U.S. Army Colonel and chief of Preventive Medicine Services, Public Health Command Europe, said, “I recommend you stay 12 feet apart.” Some scientists in the UK complained that the two-meter rule (about 6.5 feet) adopted there was based on “very fragile evidence.”
So, if we really look at the evidence from science, the six-foot rule is cold comfort. If you walk through a grocery aisle where an infected man was gabbing a minute or two earlier, you’ll probably inhale small droplets or aerosol particles he left behind. Outdoors, where even a gentle breeze quickly sweeps aerosols away, your odds are much better. That fits with a recent report that coronavirus transmission to multiple people almost always happens indoors.
It’s common sense that the farther apart people are, the less likely they are to pass an infection to each other. But the six-foot rule, like so many of our efforts to stop the coronavirus, turns out to be more hygiene theater than solid science.
Doug Axe, William Briggs, and Jay W. Richards are the authors of The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe.


thestream--2020-10-13--John Rich of ‘Big and Rich’ Releases New Song Earth to God, Performs at DC Prayer March

“ You know , man can not fix mankind ’ s problems , whether you ’ re in right , left or middle , none of us know the right answers to and I ’ ve said this before and it ’ s a fact that even though it ’ s out of our control , it ’ s not out of God ’ s control .
He has got control of it , ” country music star John Rich of Big and Rich fame told Fox & Friends a couple weeks back .
“ We ’ ve got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Him , ” he added .
Rich put his thoughts to music in a newly released song called “ Earth to God.
” He performed it at the Prayer March in Washington , D.C. , September 26 .
The music video for Earth to God highlights Franklin Graham ’ s Samaritan ’ s Purse nonprofit organization and volunteers helping out in the aftermath of disasters and helping people in crises .
“ Samaritan ’ s Purse is an organization that I love what they do all around the planet , ” said Rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his message and we linked up together and they invited me to come sing [ at the Washington , D.C .
Prayer March ] .
” Rich added that he was “ humbled and honored to sing the song there.
” “ We need your light , we need your love , to heal the world you made , and save us now , in our darkest hour , with your amazing grace , ” he sings in his official music video .
Rich is also the host of Pursuit !
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also recorded a video talking about how he wrote the song Earth to God .
Watch : Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

“You know, man cannot fix mankind’s problems, whether you’re in right, left or middle, none of us know the right answers to and I’ve said this before and it’s a fact that even though it’s out of our control, it’s not out of God’s control. He has got control of it,” country music star John Rich of Big and Rich fame told Fox & Friends a couple weeks back.
“We’ve got to reach out to Him and talk to Him,” he added.
Rich put his thoughts to music in a newly released song called “Earth to God.” He performed it at the Prayer March in Washington, D.C., September 26.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The music video for Earth to God highlights Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse nonprofit organization and volunteers helping out in the aftermath of disasters and helping people in crises. “Samaritan’s Purse is an organization that I love what they do all around the planet,” said Rich. “I love Rev. Graham and his message and we linked up together and they invited me to come sing [at the Washington, D.C. Prayer March].” Rich added that he was “humbled and honored to sing the song there.”
“We need your light, we need your love, to heal the world you made, and save us now, in our darkest hour, with your amazing grace,” he sings in his official music video.
Rich is also the host of Pursuit! With John Rich on Fox Nation.
Watch Earth to God:
Rich also recorded a video talking about how he wrote the song Earth to God. Watch:
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-13--Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden … and Other Fairy Tales

Yesterday I read about a new partisan political group called Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden .
I stared at the screen in disbelief .
Wouldn ’ t that be the same as forming an organization during the Civil War called Abolitionists for Robert E. Lee ?
Let ’ s see exactly what it means to be a Pro-life Evangelical for Joe Biden .
If you are “ pro-life ” it means you are against murdering innocent , defenseless , unseen babies .
If you are “ for Joe Biden ” it means you support someone who believes it is acceptable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fetus .
In other words , Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden means : Evangelicals who believe it is wrong to murder innocent , defenseless babies in the womb , who support a candidate who believes it is okay to murder innocent , defenseless babies in the womb .
Am I the only one who sees the chilling hypocrisy ?
God Is Not Like That Now let ’ s look at this from God ’ s perspective .
If God is okay with this political position , then we are effectively saying that on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong to murder innocent , defenseless babies in the womb .
But on the other hand , He also believes it is okay to vote for someone who will work hard to keep the murder of innocent babies legal .
Seriously ?
What would that say about God ’ s character ?
His love ?
His justice ?
Could you trust such a capricious , unloving , unjust God ?
God is not like that .
He takes no pleasure in people thinking it ’ s justified to rip the arms and legs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sake of some perceived greater good .
Abolitionists called on America to repent of her evil ways 160 year ago .
In the same way , I call on my brothers and sisters who give cover to such evil to repent .
Legalized enslavement ( and murder ) of blacks created in the image of God was evil then , and legalized murder of innocent babies is just as evil today .
What does it say about the moral compass of those Christians who claim to be pro-life , but then campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 47 years clawing his way to power over the dead , torn carcasses of millions of defenseless children ?
Today ’ s Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden would have been yesterday ’ s Abolitionists for Robert E. Lee .
They can rationalize it all they want , but at the end of the day they are accomplices to murder , which God abhors .
Really , though what is actually going on here ?
Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden are trying to hijack the term “ pro-life ” to include other issues that are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defenseless children created in the image of God .
It ’ s all for the sake of putting their favorite political hack in the White House .
That may be shrewd politics , but I am sure the God who said , “ Thou shalt not murder , ” is not fooled .
Brad Bright is a speaker and the author of God is the Issue .

Yesterday I read about a new partisan political group called Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden. I stared at the screen in disbelief. Wouldn’t that be the same as forming an organization during the Civil War called Abolitionists for Robert E. Lee?
Chilling Hypocrisy
Let’s see exactly what it means to be a Pro-life Evangelical for Joe Biden.
If you are “pro-life” it means you are against murdering innocent, defenseless, unseen babies.
If you are “for Joe Biden” it means you support someone who believes it is acceptable to rip the arms and legs off the fetus.
In other words, Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden means: Evangelicals who believe it is wrong to murder innocent, defenseless babies in the womb, who support a candidate who believes it is okay to murder innocent, defenseless babies in the womb. Am I the only one who sees the chilling hypocrisy?
God Is Not Like That
Now let’s look at this from God’s perspective. If God is okay with this political position, then we are effectively saying that on the one hand, God believes it is wrong to murder innocent, defenseless babies in the womb. But on the other hand, He also believes it is okay to vote for someone who will work hard to keep the murder of innocent babies legal. Seriously? What would that say about God’s character? His love? His justice? Could you trust such a capricious, unloving, unjust God?
God is not like that. He takes no pleasure in people thinking it’s justified to rip the arms and legs off an innocent fetus, even for the sake of some perceived greater good.
The Moral Compass
Abolitionists called on America to repent of her evil ways 160 year ago. In the same way, I call on my brothers and sisters who give cover to such evil to repent. Legalized enslavement (and murder) of blacks created in the image of God was evil then, and legalized murder of innocent babies is just as evil today.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
What does it say about the moral compass of those Christians who claim to be pro-life, but then campaign for a politician who’s spent 47 years clawing his way to power over the dead, torn carcasses of millions of defenseless children?
Today’s Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden would have been yesterday’s Abolitionists for Robert E. Lee. They can rationalize it all they want, but at the end of the day they are accomplices to murder, which God abhors.
Really, though what is actually going on here? Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden are trying to hijack the term “pro-life” to include other issues that are more important to them than the lives of defenseless children created in the image of God. It’s all for the sake of putting their favorite political hack in the White House. That may be shrewd politics, but I am sure the God who said, “Thou shalt not murder,” is not fooled.
GOD is the issue!
Brad Bright is a speaker and the author of God is the Issue.
Originally published at BradBright.org.


thestream--2020-10-13--Military Photo of the Day: ‘Max Fly’ Over Westover

A U.S. Air Force C-130H Hercules drops cargo pallets during exercise “ Max Fly ” over Westover Air Reserve Base @ @ @ @ @ on October 4 , 2020 .
Thank you to Staff Sgt .
Steven Tucker for @ @ @ @ @

A U.S. Air Force C-130H Hercules drops cargo pallets during exercise “Max Fly” over Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee, Massachusetts, on October 4, 2020.
Thank you to Staff Sgt. Steven Tucker for capturing this remarkable image.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-10-14--Democrats’ Vision for an Equal America: Equal Contempt Toward All

Joe Biden told a Detroit auto worker he was “ full of s*** , ” and said , “ I ’ m not working for you.
” A remark like that shows open contempt .
He also says you and I “ don ’ t deserve to know ” his position on court-packing until he ’ s elected .
We ’ ll have to elect him to find out .
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we ’ d have to pass the Obamacare bill to find out what was in it ?
That was contemptuous , too , and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hard stuff , too hard for you .
But don ’ t you worry your little heads .
We ’ ll take good care of you.
” We don ’ t deserve to know whether Biden can lead , either at least not until he ’ s elected .
That ’ s part of the message packed inside his lame explanation — “ I ’ m not in public office ” — for not phoning Democratic mayors in Seattle and Portland about the rioting in their cities .
Translated it means , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show you I can lead .
Until then , I need not bother with it , and you don ’ t need to know whether I ’ ve got it in me.
” That ’ s just as contemptuous .
It isn ’ t just Biden treating voters this way .
It ’ s the whole Democratic party .
Remember Hillary Clinton ’ s “ deplorables ” and Obama ’ s “ clinging to their guns or religion ” ?
Sen. Chris Coons , Democrat from Delaware , calls Amy Coney Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ disqualifying.
” They ’ re the same views you probably hold .
In fact , they ’ re pretty nearly the same that everyone held throughout the nation ’ s first 200 years .
Today , though , those views makes you an extremist , disqualified from public service .
We could say the same again : He ’ s voiced his contempt for you .
Note this , though , and note it well : They ’ re not just singling out their opponents as worthy of contempt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who don ’ t “ deserve ” to know .
Democrats are fielding a sock-puppet presidential candidate , which speaks contempt toward every voter .
None of us is expected to notice his obvious gaffes .
We don ’ t need to know who ’ s handling him ; that is , who we ’ d really be putting in charge if we elected him .
Conservative voters may be too extreme and deplorable to bother with , but Democratic voters are too dependable to worry about and too stupid to care whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is not innocent of looking down on people .
It ’ s wrong when he does it , too .
It ’ s a character problem , and I ’ d be both relieved and grateful if he would quit it , just as he has obviously quit talking up exploits with other women .
If you want to see true contempt in action , though , look to the Democrats .
Insults are bad , but there ’ s an even lower and more dehumanizing form of hatred , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t exist or don ’ t matter .
Biden said it himself : we don ’ t deserve to know .
He and his comrades are too busy doing the important work of taking care of us all ; work that only wise and sophisticated elites such as they ought to do ; work they could hardly do if we thought we had something to say about it .
That ’ s why Joe Biden didn ’ t care to listen to a Detroit auto worker ’ s questions .
The worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he doesn ’ t need to think .
He only needs a benevolent Democratic government that good care of him , along with the rest of the country ’ s hapless , backward peasantry .
Thinking is for the elite , the ones who are “ moving forward , ” on the “ right side of history.
” That motion is backward , toward the days of tyranny preceding America ’ s independence , before the founding of the greatest , freest country in history .
Every person is created equal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserving of nanny-state caretaking , but equally undeserving of knowing what they intend to do with the power we hand them .
I still cringe at Donald Trump ’ s dismissiveness toward some people .
It ’ s nothing , though , compared to Democrats ’ near-universal contempt toward us all .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , including the recently released Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

Joe Biden told a Detroit auto worker he was “full of s***,” and said, “I’m not working for you.” A remark like that shows open contempt.
He also says you and I “don’t deserve to know” his position on court-packing until he’s elected. We’ll have to elect him to find out. Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we’d have to pass the Obamacare bill to find out what was in it? That was contemptuous, too, and this is much the same. “This is hard stuff, too hard for you. But don’t you worry your little heads. We’ll take good care of you.”
We don’t deserve to know whether Biden can lead, either at least not until he’s elected. That’s part of the message packed inside his lame explanation — “I’m not in public office” — for not phoning Democratic mayors in Seattle and Portland about the rioting in their cities. Translated it means, “Elect me. I’ll show you I can lead. Until then, I need not bother with it, and you don’t need to know whether I’ve got it in me.” That’s just as contemptuous.
It isn’t just Biden treating voters this way. It’s the whole Democratic party. Remember Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” and Obama’s “clinging to their guns or religion”? Sen. Chris Coons, Democrat from Delaware, calls Amy Coney Barrett’s moral and religious views “extreme” and “disqualifying.” They’re the same views you probably hold. In fact, they’re pretty nearly the same that everyone held throughout the nation’s first 200 years. Today, though, those views makes you an extremist, disqualified from public service. We could say the same again: He’s voiced his contempt for you.
Contempt Spread Wide, Toward Democrats, Too
Note this, though, and note it well: They’re not just singling out their opponents as worthy of contempt. It isn’t just Republican voters who don’t “deserve” to know. Democrats are fielding a sock-puppet presidential candidate, which speaks contempt toward every voter. None of us is expected to notice his obvious gaffes. We don’t need to know who’s handling him; that is, who we’d really be putting in charge if we elected him. Conservative voters may be too extreme and deplorable to bother with, but Democratic voters are too dependable to worry about and too stupid to care whether their candidate is qualified.
It isn’t just Republican voters who don’t “deserve” to know. Democrats are fielding a sock-puppet presidential candidate, which speaks contempt toward every voter.
Granted, Trump is not innocent of looking down on people. It’s wrong when he does it, too. It’s a character problem, and I’d be both relieved and grateful if he would quit it, just as he has obviously quit talking up exploits with other women. If you want to see true contempt in action, though, look to the Democrats. Insults are bad, but there’s an even lower and more dehumanizing form of hatred, which is to ignore persons as if they don’t exist or don’t matter.
Backward Toward Tyranny
Biden said it himself: we don’t deserve to know. He and his comrades are too busy doing the important work of taking care of us all; work that only wise and sophisticated elites such as they ought to do; work they could hardly do if we thought we had something to say about it.
That’s why Joe Biden didn’t care to listen to a Detroit auto worker’s questions. The worker doesn’t need to know, and he doesn’t need to think. He only needs a benevolent Democratic government that good care of him, along with the rest of the country’s hapless, backward peasantry. Thinking is for the elite, the ones who are “moving forward,” on the “right side of history.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
That motion is backward, toward the days of tyranny preceding America’s independence, before the founding of the greatest, freest country in history. Every person is created equal, on this new Democratic vision: equally deserving of nanny-state caretaking, but equally undeserving of knowing what they intend to do with the power we hand them.
I still cringe at Donald Trump’s dismissiveness toward some people. It’s nothing, though, compared to Democrats’ near-universal contempt toward us all.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-10-13--The Server at the Great American Restaurant

The restaurant has been around a long time .
An historic eatery , in fact .
The food is outstanding , with flavors from around the world .
Seems there ’ d been lines to get in for as long as anybody can remember .
Business is better than it ’ s ever been before .
Almost as long as anyone could remember , the restaurant had a particular waiter .
A genial server , no doubt .
A storyteller , for sure .
But that was then .
Today , the server forgets what he ’ s supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s at .
He forgets the basics of the business .
The restaurant motto .
He needs help reading the menu .
He snaps at customers who ask questions .
Make a request , he ’ s likely to say , “ I don ’ t work for you.
” Ask what the day ’ s specials are , he ’ s liable to tell say “ you don ’ t deserve to know.
” If he does tell you the specials , and you are not enthusiastic , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurant then .
He slips money from the till to family members and they feast on the high hog whenever he ’ s on duty .
His hands are dirty .
His own past supervisors admit his recommendations usually turn out wrong .
His former boss openly mocked him in front of other wait staff .
This same boss urged him to quit .
He also has a disturbing history of being overly touchy-feely with the female diners , including children .
And yet , today he is being considered for the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though when he was assistant manager for a short while he nearly burned the place to the ground , and the restaurant nearly fell apart at the seams .
Right now , we ’ re even being told he ’ s the leading contender for the job .
Would you give him the top job ?
Would you even want him as your waiter ?
How long would the restaurant last with him in charge ?
This is your restaurant , this Great American Restaurant .
You own it .
In three weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide if Joe the Server takes over or returns to the cellar .
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author , with @ JZmirak , of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration .
You can follow him at @ StreamingAl .
And if you aren ’ t already , please follow The Stream at @ Streamdotorg .

The restaurant has been around a long time. An historic eatery, in fact. The food is outstanding, with flavors from around the world. Seems there’d been lines to get in for as long as anybody can remember. Business is better than it’s ever been before.
Almost as long as anyone could remember, the restaurant had a particular waiter. A genial server, no doubt. A storyteller, for sure.
But that was then.
Today, the server forgets what he’s supposed to be doing. He confuses what table he’s at. He forgets the basics of the business. The restaurant motto. He needs help reading the menu. He snaps at customers who ask questions.
Make a request, he’s likely to say, “I don’t work for you.” Ask what the day’s specials are, he’s liable to tell say “you don’t deserve to know.” If he does tell you the specials, and you are not enthusiastic, he’ll tell you to go to another restaurant then.
He slips money from the till to family members and they feast on the high hog whenever he’s on duty. His hands are dirty.
His own past supervisors admit his recommendations usually turn out wrong. His former boss openly mocked him in front of other wait staff. This same boss urged him to quit.
He also has a disturbing history of being overly touchy-feely with the female diners, including children.
And yet, today he is being considered for the top management position at the restaurant. Even though when he was assistant manager for a short while he nearly burned the place to the ground, and the restaurant nearly fell apart at the seams.
Right now, we’re even being told he’s the leading contender for the job.
Would you give him the top job? Would you even want him as your waiter? How long would the restaurant last with him in charge?
This is your restaurant, this Great American Restaurant. You own it. In three weeks, you decide its fate. You decide if Joe the Server takes over or returns to the cellar.
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-13--‘We Know That God Hears Our Prayers’: President Trump Joins Evangelical Leaders for Live Prayer Even

‘We Know That God Hears Our Prayers’: President Trump Joins Evangelical Leaders for Live Prayer Event

On Sunday , October 11 , the President joined a live prayer event for America hosted by Lara Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ Stream publisher James Robison , Paula White-Cain , Darryl Strawberry , Sam Rodriguez , and @ @ @ @ @ be blessed .

On Sunday, October 11, the President joined a live prayer event for America hosted by Lara Trump. The event featured prayers from Stream publisher James Robison, Paula White-Cain, Darryl Strawberry, Sam Rodriguez, and Joni Lamb. Watch and be blessed.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-10-13--CNN ‘Fact Check’ Butchers the Facts on Late-Term Abortions

In a so-called “ fact check ” of the vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris , CNN reporter Caroline Kelly presents a barrage of disinformation that hides the realities of late-term abortion and the agenda of the Biden-Harris campaign .
During the debate , Pence stated that “ Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth , late-term abortion.
” CNN , which begins each of its fact checks with the phrase “ Facts First , ” uses a flurry of falsehoods to undercut Pence ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check with an attempt to delegitimize the phrase “ late-term ” abortion by declaring it “ is not a medical term.
” This claim is flatly disproven by medical journals that have published articles with titles like : • “ Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms ” — Journal of Pregnancy These medical journals and others , along with Planned Parenthood , abortion clinics , and media outlets have used the phrase “ late-term ” on numerous occasions to describe abortions that are performed from as few as 14 weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks or later .
More importantly , a vice-presidential debate is not a medical forum , CNN is not a medical periodical , and journalism guidelines bluntly instruct reporters to avoid medical jargon : • The book English for Journalists emphasizes : “ A common source of jargon is scientific , medical , government and legal handouts , ” and “ if you write for a newspaper or general magazine you should try to translate jargon into ordinary English whenever you can.
” • The New Oxford Guide to Writing states : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language , the precise diction demanded by any specialized trade or profession , is necessary when experts communicate with one another .
It becomes jargon when it is applied outside the limits of technical discourse.
” • The book Writing for Journalists drives home the point : “ Never use a foreign phrase , a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
” In violation of that journalism standard , journalists selectively use medical jargon in ways that obscure the facts that : • the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismemberment , a procedure that is illegal under the federal humane law for slaughtering livestock because it requires that animals be killed in a manner that renders them immediately unconscious .
• a late-term abortion at 22 weeks of pregnancy kills a human several weeks after he or she is capable of conscious “ motor planning ” ( PLoS ONE ) , “ now sleeps and wakes and hears sounds , ” ( American Medical Association Complete Medical Encyclopedia ) , and looks like this : A common example of how media outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of abortion is by inconsistently and incorrectly using the word “ fetus , ” a medical term derived from a Latin word meaning “ offspring ” or “ newly delivered.
” Reporters frequently use this term to describe the object of an abortion , but they use the word “ mother ” to refer to a pregnant woman instead of the clinically accurate term , “ gravida.
” And when the topic is not abortion , journalists often shun the word “ fetus ” and use “ baby ” or “ child ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ombudsman of the Boston Globe once apologized to its readers because the paper used the term “ fetus ” to describe an unborn child who was killed when his mother was shot in the stomach .
The apology was sparked by a flurry of criticism from readers who objected that the Globe “ truly dehumanized ” the “ child ” and that “ every other news channel , TV , and newspaper called it a baby.
” Beyond their double standards , reporters often misuse the term “ fetus , ” revealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Per Dorland ’ s Illustrated Medical Dictionary , a fetus is “ the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period , after major structures have been outlined , in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
” Simply put , the word “ fetus ” applies from nine weeks after fertilization until birth .
Yet , numerous major news organizations have misapplied this term to both before and after this period .
According to CNN , “ Doctors say abortions performed later in pregnancy are exceptionally rare.
” In truth , late-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the media portrays as frequent occurrences like firearm homicides , young adult COVID-19 fatalities , and murders committed by police officers .
A 2013 paper in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health estimates that “ more than 15,000 ” abortions are performed each year in the U.S. “ at 21 weeks or later.
” The authors note that this amounts to about 1 % of all abortions , “ but given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually , ” “ later abortions ” add up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hence , these “ exceptionally rare ” late-term abortions are more numerous than the : • 6,000 COVID-19-related deaths of people under the age of 45 .
• 50 people per year who are executed under the death penalty .
• 7 police officers per year who are arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting , and the 1-2 officers who are ultimately convicted of such crimes .
Most Late-Term Abortions Are Not for Medical Reasons CNN claims that “ abortions performed later in pregnancy ” are “ often ” because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be treated or in cases of maternal health endangerment.
” This is a common talking point of abortion proponents , but the disclosures of abortion providers reveal just the opposite : • Martin Haskell , who is credited with inventing the partial-birth abortion procedure stated , “ I ’ ll be quite frank : most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range .
… In my particular case , probably 20 % are for genetic reasons .
And the other 80 % are purely elective.
” • Renee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Abortion Providers , said of late-term abortions , “ The spin out of Washington was that it was only done for medical necessity , even though we knew it wasn ’ t so.
” • Doctors at two New Jersey abortion clinics independently revealed that each of their clinics was performing roughly 3,000 late-term abortions per year and nearly all of them were elective and not for medical reasons .
• Ron Fitzsimmons , executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers , stated that late-term abortion are “ primarily done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The statements above are corroborated by a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute — a research organization whose “ Guiding Principles ” include support for legalized abortion .
As summarized by the New York Times , the study found that “ only 2 percent of abortions done after 16 weeks of pregnancy are done because of fetal abnormalities , ” and such abortions are “ most often performed to end healthy pregnancies because the woman arrived relatively late to her decision to abort.
” Biden and Harris Support Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statement about Biden and Harris is “ partially misleading and partially false ” because “ a Biden campaign official told CNN that Biden supports Roe v. Wade — the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide , as amended by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
” However , the plain words of those court decisions prove that Pence ’ s statement is entirely accurate .
This is because these rulings prohibit states from banning abortions at any stage of pregnancy if any abortionist claims it is for “ the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defines threats to a mother ’ s health so broadly that they can include practically anything .
Some eye-opening examples of what Roe deems to be hazardous to “ health ” are the work of “ child care , ” the “ stigma of unwed motherhood , ” and “ the distress ” of parenting “ an unwanted child.
” In Casey , the Supreme Court ruled that “ Roe ’ s essential holding be retained and reaffirmed , ” including “ a confirmation of the State ’ s power to restrict abortions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman ’ s life or health.
” Furthermore , Roe places all decisions about what constitutes “ health ” into the hands of abortionists .
It does this by mandating that Roe “ be read together ” with Doe v. Bolton , a companion case that the Supreme Court issued on the same day .
In Doe , the Court ruled that all abortion providers have full authority to decide if an abortion is necessary to protect a woman ’ s “ health ” based solely on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have passed laws that defy Roe and Casey , and Biden and Harris say that they will overturn all of them through a federal law that codifies Roe .
They also support “ repealing the Hyde Amendment , ” which has restricted taxpayer funding of abortion for more than 40 years except in cases of rape , incest , and if the life of the mother is endangered .
CNN also alleges without evidence that “ no candidate in either political party supports abortion ‘ up to the moment of birth ’ , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blocked a bill in 2019 that would have required healthcare providers to “ preserve the life and health ” of children who are aborted and born alive .
Harris was among the 42 Democrats who filibustered this bill in the Senate .
During the vice presidential debate , Mike Pence accurately and straightforwardly described the positions of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden on late-term abortions , noting that they support such abortions up to birth and want them funded by taxpayers .
Yet , CNN deceitfully claimed his statement is misleading in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s False Claims at Vice Presidential Debate.
” Furthermore , CNN laced its “ fact check ” with other canards that hide the harsh realities of late-term abortion and the fact that they are performed more than 10,000 times per year on healthy , conscious humans with healthy mothers .
James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts , a think tank dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues .

In a so-called “fact check” of the vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, CNN reporter Caroline Kelly presents a barrage of disinformation that hides the realities of late-term abortion and the agenda of the Biden-Harris campaign.
During the debate, Pence stated that “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late-term abortion.” CNN, which begins each of its fact checks with the phrase “Facts First,” uses a flurry of falsehoods to undercut Pence’s factual statement.
The ‘Medical Term’ Farce
CNN begins its fact check with an attempt to delegitimize the phrase “late-term” abortion by declaring it “is not a medical term.” This claim is flatly disproven by medical journals that have published articles with titles like:
These medical journals and others, along with Planned Parenthood, abortion clinics, and media outlets have used the phrase “late-term” on numerous occasions to describe abortions that are performed from as few as 14 weeks into pregnancy to as many as 35 weeks or later.
In violation of that journalism standard, journalists selectively use medical jargon in ways that obscure the facts.
More importantly, a vice-presidential debate is not a medical forum, CNN is not a medical periodical, and journalism guidelines bluntly instruct reporters to avoid medical jargon:
The book English for Journalists emphasizes: “A common source of jargon is scientific, medical, government and legal handouts,” and “if you write for a newspaper or general magazine you should try to translate jargon into ordinary English whenever you can.”
The New Oxford Guide to Writing states: “Jargon is technical language misused. Technical language, the precise diction demanded by any specialized trade or profession, is necessary when experts communicate with one another. It becomes jargon when it is applied outside the limits of technical discourse.”
The book Writing for Journalists drives home the point: “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.”
In violation of that journalism standard, journalists selectively use medical jargon in ways that obscure the facts that:
A common example of how media outlets use clinical jargon to sanitize the facts of abortion is by inconsistently and incorrectly using the word “fetus,” a medical term derived from a Latin word meaning “offspring” or “newly delivered.” Reporters frequently use this term to describe the object of an abortion, but they use the word “mother” to refer to a pregnant woman instead of the clinically accurate term, “gravida.”
And when the topic is not abortion, journalists often shun the word “fetus” and use “baby” or “child” in its place. In fact, the ombudsman of the Boston Globe once apologized to its readers because the paper used the term “fetus” to describe an unborn child who was killed when his mother was shot in the stomach. The apology was sparked by a flurry of criticism from readers who objected that the Globe “truly dehumanized” the “child” and that “every other news channel, TV, and newspaper called it a baby.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Beyond their double standards, reporters often misuse the term “fetus,” revealing that they are out of their depth. Per Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, a fetus is “the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.” Simply put, the word “fetus” applies from nine weeks after fertilization until birth. Yet, numerous major news organizations have misapplied this term to both before and after this period.
Late-Term Abortions Are Not Rare
According to CNN, “Doctors say abortions performed later in pregnancy are exceptionally rare.” In truth, late-term abortions are far more common than deaths that the media portrays as frequent occurrences like firearm homicides, young adult COVID-19 fatalities, and murders committed by police officers.
A 2013 paper in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health estimates that “more than 15,000” abortions are performed each year in the U.S. “at 21 weeks or later.” The authors note that this amounts to about 1% of all abortions, “but given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually,” “later abortions” add up to “a substantial number of abortions.”
Hence, these “exceptionally rare” late-term abortions are more numerous than the:
12,000 murders per year committed with guns.
6,000 COVID-19-related deaths of people under the age of 45.
50 people per year who are executed under the death penalty.
7 police officers per year who are arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting, and the 1-2 officers who are ultimately convicted of such crimes.
Most Late-Term Abortions Are Not for Medical Reasons
CNN claims that “abortions performed later in pregnancy” are “often” because “of a fetal condition that can’t be treated or in cases of maternal health endangerment.” This is a common talking point of abortion proponents, but the disclosures of abortion providers reveal just the opposite:
Martin Haskell, who is credited with inventing the partial-birth abortion procedure stated, “I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. … In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.”
Renee Chelian, president of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said of late-term abortions, “The spin out of Washington was that it was only done for medical necessity, even though we knew it wasn’t so.”
Doctors at two New Jersey abortion clinics independently revealed that each of their clinics was performing roughly 3,000 late-term abortions per year and nearly all of them were elective and not for medical reasons.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, stated that late-term abortion are “primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses.”
The statements above are corroborated by a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute — a research organization whose “Guiding Principles” include support for legalized abortion. As summarized by the New York Times, the study found that “only 2 percent of abortions done after 16 weeks of pregnancy are done because of fetal abnormalities,” and such abortions are “most often performed to end healthy pregnancies because the woman arrived relatively late to her decision to abort.”
Biden and Harris Support Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Up Till Birth
According to CNN, Pence’s statement about Biden and Harris is “partially misleading and partially false” because “a Biden campaign official told CNN that Biden supports Roe v. Wade — the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, as amended by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.”
However, the plain words of those court decisions prove that Pence’s statement is entirely accurate. This is because these rulings prohibit states from banning abortions at any stage of pregnancy if any abortionist claims it is for “the health of the mother.”
Importantly, Roe defines threats to a mother’s health so broadly that they can include practically anything. Some eye-opening examples of what Roe deems to be hazardous to “health” are the work of “child care,” the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” and “the distress” of parenting “an unwanted child.”
Many states have passed laws that defy Roe and Casey, and Biden and Harris say that they will overturn all of them through a federal law that codifies Roe.
In Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that “Roe’s essential holding be retained and reaffirmed,” including “a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman’s life or health.”
Furthermore, Roe places all decisions about what constitutes “health” into the hands of abortionists. It does this by mandating that Roe “be read together” with Doe v. Bolton, a companion case that the Supreme Court issued on the same day. In Doe, the Court ruled that all abortion providers have full authority to decide if an abortion is necessary to protect a woman’s “health” based solely on their “best clinical judgment.”
Many states have passed laws that defy Roe and Casey, and Biden and Harris say that they will overturn all of them through a federal law that codifies Roe. They also support “repealing the Hyde Amendment,” which has restricted taxpayer funding of abortion for more than 40 years except in cases of rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is endangered.
CNN also alleges without evidence that “no candidate in either political party supports abortion ‘up to the moment of birth’,” but the fact is that Democrats blocked a bill in 2019 that would have required healthcare providers to “preserve the life and health” of children who are aborted and born alive. Harris was among the 42 Democrats who filibustered this bill in the Senate.
Summary
During the vice presidential debate, Mike Pence accurately and straightforwardly described the positions of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden on late-term abortions, noting that they support such abortions up to birth and want them funded by taxpayers.
Yet, CNN deceitfully claimed his statement is misleading in an article that it titled “Pence Echoes Trump’s False Claims at Vice Presidential Debate.” Furthermore, CNN laced its “fact check” with other canards that hide the harsh realities of late-term abortion and the fact that they are performed more than 10,000 times per year on healthy, conscious humans with healthy mothers.
James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a think tank dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues.


thestream--2020-10-13--What Will Happen If the Democrats Pack the Supreme Court

Exponential growth .
It ’ s why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful .
It ’ s also why the Democrats ’ flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and , with it , America as we know it .
The following is a reasonable scenario : Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court , which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage ( or 5-4 , given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote ) .
Then , in January , having retained the Democrat-majority House , a President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide to undo the advantage .
Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members .
Biden appoints six new liberal justices , handing the left a 9-6 majority — a 60 % advantage .
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60 % conservative advantage ?
As a bit of algebra shows , to reverse the Democrats ’ 9-6 advantage , they ’ d have to expand the Court by 7.5 members .
Of course , they can ’ t nominate half a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round up to eight .
Regardless , the Republicans , to gain a 60 % advantage , must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did — by eight , as opposed to six .
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60 % advantage , meaning that , with each switch in power , they ’ d have to expand the Court ’ s size by 50 % .
The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would cause exponential growth .
If , for example , one side insisted on a 65 % advantage and the other followed suit , they ’ d have to expand the Court by 86 % at each switch in power .
How often would such switches in power occur ?
One occurred in 1992 , when Democrats won the House , Senate and presidency .
Others occurred in 2000 , 2008 and 2016 .
And if the polls are right , another will occur in 2020 .
Such power switches occur about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently .
Let ’ s err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years .
Let ’ s similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60 % advantage .
Under these minimal parameters , the Court would expand by 50 % every 10 years .
In 100 years , the Court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 ( 1.5 raised to the power of 10 ) , and instead of nine justices , the Supreme Court would consist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be tempted to think , voters and the two parties would see these problems , and accordingly , such growth wouldn ’ t continue .
But why not ?
Imagine the following scenario : In the year 2120 , the Court comprises 522 justices ( 313 conservatives and 209 liberals ) .
That November , the Democrats retake the House , Senate and presidency .
Following precedent , they decide to regain their advantage and expand the Court to 783 justices ( 470 liberals and 313 conservatives ) .
Some voters might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , Democrats could reasonably counter that ( 1 ) “ It ’ s what the Republicans did last time .
It ’ s our turn now ” ; ( 2 ) “ Is 783 really that much larger than 522 ?
” ; ( 3 ) “ Only by expanding the Court can we do things such as guarantee a woman ’ s right to choose and ensure racial and social justice .
Do we really want to sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size ?
” Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter would be able to remember when the Court was smaller than 40 justices , much less just nine .
Would they really care if it were expanded a little more ?
Of course , the scenario would continue to repeat .
The End of the Balance of Power In other words , if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do ( including Gov .
Jay Inslee , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Pete Buttigieg ) , as The Atlantic urges them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris told The New York Times she is “ absolutely open to , ” and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates , we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch .
We will essentially have two legislatures ( at least when Democratic appointees — justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution — hold the majority of seats ) .
It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it , the end of the balance of power among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore , the end of America as we know it .
Would the Democrats do it ?
Given the left ’ s record of destroying whatever it touches — most obviously , the universities , high schools and journalism , and most recently , sports and the sciences — if you are a betting person , you should bet on it .
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election .
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist .
His latest book , published by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rational Bible , a commentary on the book of Genesis .
His film , “ No Safe Spaces , ” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15 , 2020 .
He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com .
Tim Groseclose is a professor of economics at George Mason University , where he holds the Adam Smith Chair at the Mercatus Center .

Exponential growth. It’s why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful.
It’s also why the Democrats’ flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and, with it, America as we know it.
A Reasonable Scenario
The following is a reasonable scenario:
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage (or 5-4, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote).
Then, in January, having retained the Democrat-majority House, a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage. Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members. Biden appoints six new liberal justices, handing the left a 9-6 majority — a 60% advantage.
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60% conservative advantage? As a bit of algebra shows, to reverse the Democrats’ 9-6 advantage, they’d have to expand the Court by 7.5 members. Of course, they can’t nominate half a justice, so they’d probably round up to eight. Regardless, the Republicans, to gain a 60% advantage, must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did — by eight, as opposed to six.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60% advantage, meaning that, with each switch in power, they’d have to expand the Court’s size by 50%. The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but by a constant percentage. This is what would cause exponential growth. If, for example, one side insisted on a 65% advantage and the other followed suit, they’d have to expand the Court by 86% at each switch in power.
How often would such switches in power occur? One occurred in 1992, when Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency. Others occurred in 2000, 2008 and 2016. And if the polls are right, another will occur in 2020. Such power switches occur about every eight years, perhaps slightly more frequently.
Let’s err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years. Let’s similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60% advantage.
Under these minimal parameters, the Court would expand by 50% every 10 years. In 100 years, the Court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 (1.5 raised to the power of 10), and instead of nine justices, the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices.
Another Scenario
Surely, one would be tempted to think, voters and the two parties would see these problems, and accordingly, such growth wouldn’t continue. But why not? Imagine the following scenario: In the year 2120, the Court comprises 522 justices (313 conservatives and 209 liberals). That November, the Democrats retake the House, Senate and presidency. Following precedent, they decide to regain their advantage and expand the Court to 783 justices (470 liberals and 313 conservatives).
Some voters might say, “Enough is enough.” However, Democrats could reasonably counter that (1) “It’s what the Republicans did last time. It’s our turn now”; (2) “Is 783 really that much larger than 522?”; (3) “Only by expanding the Court can we do things such as guarantee a woman’s right to choose and ensure racial and social justice. Do we really want to sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size?”
Further, in such a scenario, no voter would be able to remember when the Court was smaller than 40 justices, much less just nine. Would they really care if it were expanded a little more?
Of course, the scenario would continue to repeat.
The End of the Balance of Power
In other words, if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do (including Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Pete Buttigieg), as The Atlantic urges them to do, as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is “absolutely open to,” and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates, we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch. We will essentially have two legislatures (at least when Democratic appointees — justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution — hold the majority of seats).
It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it, the end of the balance of power among the three branches of government and, therefore, the end of America as we know it.
Would the Democrats do it? Given the left’s record of destroying whatever it touches — most obviously, the universities, high schools and journalism, and most recently, sports and the sciences — if you are a betting person, you should bet on it.
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is The Rational Bible, a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
Tim Groseclose is a professor of economics at George Mason University, where he holds the Adam Smith Chair at the Mercatus Center.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM