thestream--2020-09-07--2020: A Toxic Season for The Soul

2020: A Toxic Season for The Soul

Social media has been distressing to my spirit this year .
Really , all media has been , including the few sources that might be considered trustworthy .
I ’ ll be the first to admit it ’ s easy to dive into debates at a soul level , arguing logic that seems so obvious while being legitimately confused at how anybody else just can not see it the same way .
Everything from masks to President Trump to racism has polarized our nation .
The damage left in the wake of the raging debates has been devastating .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in the exact same soul-level social battles .
When our soul leads the way in our debates and decisions , the results can be quite toxic .
We ’ ve seen fear and division overcome the people of the “ home of the brave.
” Arrogance has been masquerading as authority and recklessness as freedom .
The soul is the center of emotions and logic , and without the anointing of the Holy Spirit , arguments initiated from that level are not to be trusted .
Powerful emotions with the help of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are functioning from a place of wisdom when in truth they are reacting in fear .
Faith is eliminated from the equation .
Wisdom ( fear ) trumps faith when we don ’ t live , breathe , pray and walk in the Spirit .
Division is Not Always Negative The true church will always introduce division simply because of the topics we are promoting .
There is an agenda .
Jesus made it clear that ecumenical unity wasn ’ t his goal .
World peace wasn ’ t the focus .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preached .
When revival hits , people will be split like the Red Sea with many running to the altar and many running out the back door .
Many pastors today are attempting to avoid the very necessary schisms that clearly define the remnant and the pretenders .
Truth rightly presented demands decisions .
In the end the Final Judgment will bring the greatest division of all , separating the sheep and the goats for all humanity to see .
Many Christians have attempted to apply this principle of biblical division to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as their pet positions cause others to get riled up and split off .
They feel spiritual , but this is soul-level activity and it is grieving to the Lord .
Preach the Word of God and , often times , you can expect division .
Preach masks , politics , the Constitution and on the racial issues of the day ?
We as Spirit-filled , blood-bought children of the King should speak with great love and grace .
Is there ever a time to strike against wicked arguments with force and precision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our soul .
This type of engagement must be led fully by the Spirit .
What is God Saying ?
Church , it ’ s time to come up higher .
In this toxic season of politics , sickness , murder and distress , we need to resist the urge to function from our soul .
It ’ s time to minister from our spirits .
We ’ ve heard all of the arguments about masks , both pro and con .
We know all of the reasons people are going to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dogmatic about taking a knee or not .
The memes and GIFS and posts and rants about all of these volatile issues and others have become predictable — and nauseating .
Where are those who have emerged from their closets of intercession , those who have a clear word from the Lord ?
Where is the tangible anointing that pierces through arguments ?
In this critical , historic hour , where are the true prophets ?
Understand , this doesn ’ t mean we can ’ t discuss issues at a logical level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the soul ( emotions and logic ) should be minimized .
God gave us a soul and he will certainly cause us to speak intelligently and even passionately on secular matters , with wisdom , love and clarity .
Debates and discussions can be beneficial .
The critical call , however , for every Christian , is to do so with the mind of Christ .
The greater the activity of the Holy Spirit in our lives , the more impacting our words will be .
I would challenge you to disengage from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world and the church .
Pull back .
Stop functioning mostly from your soul .
Don ’ t get so excited about your logic .
Be teachable .
Die to your own opinions .
Speak truth under the anointing of the Holy Spirit and people will be absolutely confounded .
When the truth you speak causes both people and demons to react , you know you ’ ve moved from soul-level arguments to spirit-driven , authoritative declarations : 22 The people were amazed at his teaching , because he taught them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the teachers of the law .
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out , 24 “ What do you want with us , Jesus of Nazareth ?
Have you come to destroy us ?
I know who you are–the Holy One of God !
” 25 “ Be quiet !
” said Jesus sternly .
“ Come out of him !
” 26 The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek .
27 The people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other , “ What is this ?
A new teaching–and with authority !
He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him.
” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee .
Mark 1:22-28 ( NIV ) As I said above , it ’ s easy to get sucked into the soul-level debates of the day .
And , as I said , not all of these debates are unhealthy .
However , a whole bunch of them are .
They can distract those who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Spirit and cause us to fight in the flesh .
If your revelations on the matters of the day aren ’ t burning with anointing , take a break .
If you aren ’ t having dreams and visions about how to address the madness of this hour , take a break .
Seriously .
Resist the urge and stop posting to Facebook .
I ’ m not talking about the infamous month-long breaks from social media that people regularly announce .
Those folks are back and active usually in less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about going deeper in God than you ever have .
See the futility of your arguments .
Humble yourself .
Finally understand that nobody needs to hear what your soul has to say .
Find your prayer closet and discover what God is yearning to reveal to our nation .
The whole world will want to hear what you have to say then .
John is a sought out teacher , prophetic messenger and revivalist .
He has authored ten books , is a regular contributor to Charisma Magazine , and directed one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Prayer ( IHOP ) in Kansas City .
He has planted two churches and has initiated two city prayer movements and a school of ministry .

Riots.
Violence.
Pandemic.
Lockdowns.
National Election.
Social media has been distressing to my spirit this year. Really, all media has been, including the few sources that might be considered trustworthy. I’ll be the first to admit it’s easy to dive into debates at a soul level, arguing logic that seems so obvious while being legitimately confused at how anybody else just cannot see it the same way.
Everything from masks to President Trump to racism has polarized our nation. The damage left in the wake of the raging debates has been devastating. More concerning, the church has been caught up in the exact same soul-level social battles.
When our soul leads the way in our debates and decisions, the results can be quite toxic. We’ve seen fear and division overcome the people of the “home of the brave.” Arrogance has been masquerading as authority and recklessness as freedom.
The soul is the center of emotions and logic, and without the anointing of the Holy Spirit, arguments initiated from that level are not to be trusted. Powerful emotions with the help of seemingly obvious logic will convince people they are functioning from a place of wisdom when in truth they are reacting in fear. Faith is eliminated from the equation. Wisdom (fear) trumps faith when we don’t live, breathe, pray and walk in the Spirit.
25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. Galatians 5:25-26 (NIV)
Division is Not Always Negative
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law– 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ Matthew 10:34-36 (NIV)
The true church will always introduce division simply because of the topics we are promoting. There is an agenda. Jesus made it clear that ecumenical unity wasn’t his goal. World peace wasn’t the focus.
We can expect division when the Gospel is preached. When revival hits, people will be split like the Red Sea with many running to the altar and many running out the back door.
Church, it’s time to come up higher. In this toxic season of politics, sickness, murder and distress, we need to resist the urge to function from our soul. It’s time to minister from our spirits.
Many pastors today are attempting to avoid the very necessary schisms that clearly define the remnant and the pretenders. Truth rightly presented demands decisions. In the end the Final Judgment will bring the greatest division of all, separating the sheep and the goats for all humanity to see.
Many Christians have attempted to apply this principle of biblical division to their own humanistic stubborn opinions. They celebrate as their pet positions cause others to get riled up and split off. They feel spiritual, but this is soul-level activity and it is grieving to the Lord.
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another… Ephesians 4:30-32 (NIV)
Preach the Word of God and, often times, you can expect division.
Preach masks, politics, the Constitution and on the racial issues of the day? We as Spirit-filled, blood-bought children of the King should speak with great love and grace. Is there ever a time to strike against wicked arguments with force and precision? Absolutely. But, not from our soul. This type of engagement must be led fully by the Spirit.
What is God Saying?
Church, it’s time to come up higher. In this toxic season of politics, sickness, murder and distress, we need to resist the urge to function from our soul. It’s time to minister from our spirits.
We’ve heard all of the arguments about masks, both pro and con. We know all of the reasons people are going to vote for Trump or Biden. People are dogmatic about taking a knee or not. The memes and GIFS and posts and rants about all of these volatile issues and others have become predictable — and nauseating.
Where are those who have emerged from their closets of intercession, those who have a clear word from the Lord? Where is the tangible anointing that pierces through arguments? In this critical, historic hour, where are the true prophets?
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Understand, this doesn’t mean we can’t discuss issues at a logical level. I’m not even saying the soul (emotions and logic) should be minimized. God gave us a soul and he will certainly cause us to speak intelligently and even passionately on secular matters, with wisdom, love and clarity. Debates and discussions can be beneficial. The critical call, however, for every Christian, is to do so with the mind of Christ.
The greater the activity of the Holy Spirit in our lives, the more impacting our words will be. I would challenge you to disengage from the madness that has bewitched so much of the world and the church. Pull back. Stop functioning mostly from your soul. Don’t get so excited about your logic. Be teachable. Die to your own opinions. Speak truth under the anointing of the Holy Spirit and people will be absolutely confounded.
When the truth you speak causes both people and demons to react, you know you’ve moved from soul-level arguments to spirit-driven, authoritative declarations:
22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!” 25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” 26 The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. 27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching–and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him.” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee. Mark 1:22-28 (NIV)
Take a Break
As I said above, it’s easy to get sucked into the soul-level debates of the day. And, as I said, not all of these debates are unhealthy. However, a whole bunch of them are.
They can distract those who are supposed to be functioning in the realm of the Spirit and cause us to fight in the flesh. If your revelations on the matters of the day aren’t burning with anointing, take a break. If you aren’t having dreams and visions about how to address the madness of this hour, take a break.
Seriously. Resist the urge and stop posting to Facebook. I’m not talking about the infamous month-long breaks from social media that people regularly announce. Those folks are back and active usually in less than 24-hours.
I’m talking about going deeper in God than you ever have. See the futility of your arguments. Humble yourself. Finally understand that nobody needs to hear what your soul has to say. Find your prayer closet and discover what God is yearning to reveal to our nation.
The whole world will want to hear what you have to say then.
John is a sought out teacher, prophetic messenger and revivalist. He has authored ten books, is a regular contributor to Charisma Magazine, and directed one of the primary internships at the International House of Prayer (IHOP) in Kansas City. He has planted two churches and has initiated two city prayer movements and a school of ministry.


Happy Labor Day!

From The Stream family to you , may you have a safe and restful day off from your labors .
@ @ @ @ @ last of the summer burgers and hot dogs .
Then tomorrow , we get back @ @ @ @ @ nation under God .
Unless the Lord builds the house , those who built it @ @ @ @ @ Psalm 127:1 )

From The Stream family to you, may you have a safe and restful day off from your labors.
Let’s grab the last of the summer burgers and hot dogs. Then tomorrow, we get back to work helping build one nation under God.
Unless the Lord builds the house, those who built it labor in vain. (Psalm 127:1)


thestream--2020-09-07--Military Photo of the Day: Jump!

Military Photo of the Day: Jump!

U.S. Air Force special tactics operators conduct a static line jump out of a C-130H Hercules during a training exercise @ @ @ @ @ on August 21 , 2020 .

U.S. Air Force special tactics operators conduct a static line jump out of a C-130H Hercules during a training exercise at Eglin Range in Florida on August 21, 2020.
Happy Labor Day!
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-09-06--Trump Says He’ll Cut Federal Funding to Schools That Teach the NY Times Discredited ‘1619 Project’

President Donald Trump said in a tweet Sunday that the Department of Education would stop funding California public schools if they teach the New York Times ’ 1619 Project .
“ Department of Education is looking at this .
If so , they will not be funded !
” Trump said in a tweet as a response to a post that claimed “ california has implemented the 1619 project into the public schools .
soon you wont recognize america [ sic ] .
” Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton proposed legislation in July to forbid federal funds from being used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elementary schools and secondary schools , and for other purposes , ” according to the text of his bill .
“ The New York Times ’ s 1619 Project is a racially divisive , revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded .
Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage , ” Cotton said in a press release .
Nikole Hannah-Jones , the lead writer for the 1619 Project that aimed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founding around slavery , was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in commentary for the project in May .
The project has been incorporated in some public school curriculums in the U.S .
Critics say the project has “ misrepresentations and inaccuracies , ” according to the National Review .
The Department of Education did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s request for comment .

President Donald Trump said in a tweet Sunday that the Department of Education would stop funding California public schools if they teach the New York Times’ 1619 Project.
“Department of Education is looking at this. If so, they will not be funded!” Trump said in a tweet as a response to a post that claimed “california has implemented the 1619 project into the public schools. soon you wont recognize america[sic].”
Department of Education is looking at this. If so, they will not be funded! https://t.co/dHsw6Y6Y3M — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2020
Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton proposed legislation in July to forbid federal funds from being used towards “the 1619 Project curriculum in elementary schools and secondary schools, and for other purposes,” according to the text of his bill.
“The New York Times’s 1619 Project is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded. Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage,” Cotton said in a press release.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead writer for the 1619 Project that aimed to reframe the history of America’s founding around slavery, was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in commentary for the project in May. The project has been incorporated in some public school curriculums in the U.S. Critics say the project has “misrepresentations and inaccuracies,” according to the National Review.
The Department of Education did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
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--2020-09-06--More Fake Headlines That Mislead and Misinform

During the Democratic National Convention , some rightwing websites drew attention to the large viewership drop from 2016 .
This was not entirely surprising , though , since there is not tremendous enthusiasm for candidate Biden ( as opposed to great animosity towards Trump ) .
Plus , the virtual convention was not exactly a viewer spectacle .
How would things bode for the RNC ?
After the first night , the NY Post reported that , “ The opening night of the 2020 Republican National Convention blew last week ’ s Democratic snoozefest out of the water , drawing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s livestream.
” This was not such a big surprise , given the greater enthusiasm for Trump and the assumption that , with a reality TV star as its leader , the RNC might make for a more lively viewing experience .
Still , drawing in 6 times more viewers on C-SPAN was quite an accomplishment .
But what about the final ratings ?
How did they compare ?
When the RNC was over , I searched online for the relevant data , being greeted by headlines like this , which John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Biden hits Trump where it hurts : in the convention speech ratings ” • HuffPost : “ Despite All Those Fireworks , Trump Still Had Lower Convention Ratings Than Biden ” So , the DNC trumped Trump after all .
No doubt about it .
The RNC lost the ratings game .
The headlines say it all .
Well , not quite .
Even as I scanned the headlines , something didn ’ t seem right .
Perhaps these only reflect the Nielsen , TV ratings ?
Perhaps we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to a senior , Republican campaign official , when all the data was factored in , the RNC drew a total of 147.9 million viewers as compared to the DNC ’ s 122 million .
This prompted Nolte ( never one to pull his punches ) to write : “ Not a single one of those headlines is true or accurate .
They are all lies .
Bald-faced lies .
“ Over those four nights , more than 25 million more people tuned into the Trump ’ s convention than Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at those media headlines that claim the exact opposite.
” Or , as expressed by President Trump himself ( with typical Twitter bombast ) , “ The Fake News doesn ’ t want to report these numbers .
The @ latimes and others believed the Crooked Dems before the real numbers came out .
Too bad we don ’ t have honest reporting when it comes to ‘ Trump ’ .
Phony sources , they say anything and think they get away with it .
November 3rd.
” Now , you might want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s claim of a total viewership of 147.9 million , including online viewers .
But what can not be questioned is that the headlines cited did not even attempt to factor in streaming numbers , which were not yet available .
As Brian Stelter actually stated in his CNN article , “ Nielsen ’ s data sets count traditional TV viewership across America but largely leave out streaming and other digital forms of engagement , so the picture is incomplete.
” Unfortunately , those scanning the headlines would have no such idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news , quite intentionally at that ?
Or how about this AP headline , after a man was arrested for pulling a gun on pro-lifers standing outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic ?
“ Delaware police arrest man with gun at Planned Parenthood.
” When you read those words , what picture comes to mind ?
You would assume this was another example of a fanatical pro-lifer seeking to take the law into his own hands , threatening Planned Parenthood workers with a gun .
To the contrary , it was the pro-lifers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a gun .
When I searched for this headline online , it was repeated on news outlet after news outlet , including the Washington Post .
Misinformation can now go viral in a split second .
( And note that , more than two weeks later , the headline has not been changed at the Post . )
The subsequent AP headline read , “ Delaware Man Charged With Pulling Gun on Abortion Opponents.
” But the damage had already been done .
How about these headlines after a Trump supporter was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated , “ 1 person is dead after a shooting during protests in downtown Portland.
” This was typical of the reporting of the shooting in which : 1 ) passive language was used ( 1 person is dead ; 1 shot ) , as if the shooting just happened and someone just died ; 2 ) no mention was made of the victim being a Trump supporter .
Rather , someone was shot during clashes between Trump supporters and protesters .
Perhaps a Trump supporter pulled the trigger ?
You can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporter who shot a BLM protester , the headlines would have proclaimed something like , “ Trump Supporter Shoots and Kills Unarmed , Peaceful BLM Protester.
” But when a member of Antifa shoots and kills a Trump supporter , himself without a gun , that doesn ’ t play into the prevailing narrative .
Time to adjust the headlines !
This is No News to Israel This is reminiscent of the well-documented practice of major news outlets when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
Dueling headlines , sometimes published on the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kill Two Palestinians at Border ” ( meaning , Israeli soldiers shot two Palestinian terrorists ) .
This would be contrasted with : “ Three Killed in Conflicts Between Israelis and Palestinians ” ( in other words , Palestinian terrorists murdered three Israelis ) .
When Palestinian lives were lost , the Israelis were named as the active culprits .
When Israeli lives were lost , the headlines were ambiguous and normally phrased in the passive voice .
And this was done intentionally .
I don ’ t doubt that there is fake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the left , replete with misleading , right-leaning headlines .
I have simply noted this phenomenon on the left in recent days with increasing frequency , leading to that ever- relevant warning : caveat lector .
Let the reader beware .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads : Will We Pass the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

During the Democratic National Convention, some rightwing websites drew attention to the large viewership drop from 2016. This was not entirely surprising, though, since there is not tremendous enthusiasm for candidate Biden (as opposed to great animosity towards Trump). Plus, the virtual convention was not exactly a viewer spectacle. How would things bode for the RNC?
After the first night, the NY Post reported that, “The opening night of the 2020 Republican National Convention blew last week’s Democratic snoozefest out of the water, drawing in six times more viewers on C-SPAN’s livestream.”
This was not such a big surprise, given the greater enthusiasm for Trump and the assumption that, with a reality TV star as its leader, the RNC might make for a more lively viewing experience. Still, drawing in 6 times more viewers on C-SPAN was quite an accomplishment.
But what about the final ratings? How did they compare?
When the RNC was over, I searched online for the relevant data, being greeted by headlines like this, which John Nolte listed on Breitbart:
CNN: “Biden hits Trump where it hurts: in the convention speech ratings”
NPR: “Democrats Beat Republicans In Convention Television Ratings”
Salon: “Trump’s Republican National Convention was a ratings flop”
HuffPost: “Despite All Those Fireworks, Trump Still Had Lower Convention Ratings Than Biden”
Forbes: “In Battle Of Convention Speech Ratings, Biden Beats Trump”
So, the DNC trumped Trump after all. No doubt about it. The RNC lost the ratings game. The headlines say it all. Well, not quite.
The Headlines Lied
Even as I scanned the headlines, something didn’t seem right. Perhaps these only reflect the Nielsen, TV ratings? Perhaps we’re missing the online, streaming numbers?
According to a senior, Republican campaign official, when all the data was factored in, the RNC drew a total of 147.9 million viewers as compared to the DNC’s 122 million. This prompted Nolte (never one to pull his punches) to write: “Not a single one of those headlines is true or accurate. They are all lies. Bald-faced lies.
“Over those four nights, more than 25 million more people tuned into the Trump’s convention than Biden’s, and will you just look at those media headlines that claim the exact opposite.”
Or, as expressed by President Trump himself (with typical Twitter bombast), “The Fake News doesn’t want to report these numbers. The @latimes and others believed the Crooked Dems before the real numbers came out. Too bad we don’t have honest reporting when it comes to ‘Trump’. Phony sources, they say anything and think they get away with it. November 3rd.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Now, you might want to question the accuracy of the RNC’s claim of a total viewership of 147.9 million, including online viewers. But what cannot be questioned is that the headlines cited did not even attempt to factor in streaming numbers, which were not yet available.
As Brian Stelter actually stated in his CNN article, “Nielsen’s data sets count traditional TV viewership across America but largely leave out streaming and other digital forms of engagement, so the picture is incomplete.”
Unfortunately, those scanning the headlines would have no such idea. Is this not fake and misleading news, quite intentionally at that?
The Pro-Abortion Gunman
Or how about this AP headline, after a man was arrested for pulling a gun on pro-lifers standing outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic? “Delaware police arrest man with gun at Planned Parenthood.”
When you read those words, what picture comes to mind? You would assume this was another example of a fanatical pro-lifer seeking to take the law into his own hands, threatening Planned Parenthood workers with a gun. To the contrary, it was the pro-lifers who were being threatened by a pro-abortionist with a gun.
When I searched for this headline online, it was repeated on news outlet after news outlet, including the Washington Post. Misinformation can now go viral in a split second. (And note that, more than two weeks later, the headline has not been changed at the Post.)
The subsequent AP headline read, “Delaware Man Charged With Pulling Gun on Abortion Opponents.” But the damage had already been done.
The Portland Fudge
How about these headlines after a Trump supporter was murdered in Portland last week? CNN stated, “1 person is dead after a shooting during protests in downtown Portland.”
A local news station, KTVZ reported, “1 shot, killed as Trump supporters, protesters clash in Portland.”
This was typical of the reporting of the shooting in which: 1) passive language was used (1 person is dead; 1 shot), as if the shooting just happened and someone just died; 2) no mention was made of the victim being a Trump supporter. Rather, someone was shot during clashes between Trump supporters and protesters. Perhaps a Trump supporter pulled the trigger?
You can be sure that if it was a Trump supporter who shot a BLM protester, the headlines would have proclaimed something like, “Trump Supporter Shoots and Kills Unarmed, Peaceful BLM Protester.”
But when a member of Antifa shoots and kills a Trump supporter, himself without a gun, that doesn’t play into the prevailing narrative. Time to adjust the headlines!
This is No News to Israel
This is reminiscent of the well-documented practice of major news outlets when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dueling headlines, sometimes published on the same day, would read: “Israelis Kill Two Palestinians at Border” (meaning, Israeli soldiers shot two Palestinian terrorists). This would be contrasted with: “Three Killed in Conflicts Between Israelis and Palestinians” (in other words, Palestinian terrorists murdered three Israelis).
When Palestinian lives were lost, the Israelis were named as the active culprits. When Israeli lives were lost, the headlines were ambiguous and normally phrased in the passive voice. And this was done intentionally.
Let the Reader Beware
I don’t doubt that there is fake news on the right as well as on the left, replete with misleading, right-leaning headlines. I have simply noted this phenomenon on the left in recent days with increasing frequency, leading to that ever-relevant warning: caveat lector. Let the reader beware.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-09-06--The Religious Left’s ‘Racism’ Racket: All About the Benjamins

A recent dustup on the Evangelical Left tells us many things .
One of them is this : How far America ’ s Catholic bishops will go to get more taxpayer funding .
In July , Sojourners magazine , a stalwart in the realm of radical journalism , published an online article that ignited a furor .
The fires are still burning .
Like many leftist outlets , Sojourners is obsessed with racism .
“ America Has Been Addicted to Whiteness for 400 Years , ” reads one recent headline .
“ Who Will Call Out the President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , introducing another favorite theme , “ Donald Trump : Evangelist of White Nationalism ” reads another .
None of this comes as a surprise .
Rev .
Wesley Granberg-Michaelson , Chairman of the Board at Sojourners , is a leader in Joe Biden ’ s “ Faith 2020 ” team .
There the message is all racism , all the time .
As we will see , with all that hype , one would think that the incendiary article would have fit right in with the party line .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it screamed so loudly that somebody might actually read it .
Well , it looks like somebody did .
And that ’ s the problem .
The article ’ s title intentionally offends : “ The Catholic Church Has a Visible White Power Faction , ” it reads .
Author Eric Martin specifically targets the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops , the official umbrella group for America ’ s Catholic prelates .
Apparently , they ’ re “ soft on white nationalism.
” How so ?
Well , alongside its religious activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endless stream of left-wing political materials .
Martin focuses on their 2018 document condemning racism .
What ’ s the problem ?
In that official 32-page “ Pastoral Letter , ” America ’ s Catholic bishops intentionally chose not to condemn “ nooses ” and “ swastikas , ” he complains .
For Martin , this deliberate omission proves that America ’ s Catholic bishops aren ’ t anti-racist enough .
They should have been tougher on “ white nationalists.
” “ The threat is not that white nationalists will take over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The threat is that the Catholic Church harbors a culture sufficiently friendly to white nationalism that people can comfortably embrace both the faith and the most extreme forms of racial hatred.
” Translated : “ Hey , everybody , the bishops are providing cover for you-know-who !
” And who might these “ sufficiently friendly ” folks be ?
Well , Catholics like Nixon and Reagan advisor Pat Buchanan , or Kellyanne Conway , who until recently was President Trump ’ s senior policy advisor .
People like these undesirables represent “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and bishops are letting them get away with it .
Well , leftist screamers are ubiquitous these days , so one might yawn and move along to the Sunday crossword .
But Martin apparently crossed a line , and therein lies a tale of woe , and wampum .
Circle the Wagons and Pass the Collection Plate Sojourners was founded by Jim Wallis almost half-a-century ago .
As its longtime editor , Wallis has become a significant leader on the Left .
So after the Republicans dominated the congressional elections of 2010 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protection.
” It ’ s a coalition of grifting nonprofits who between them receive billions of dollars a year in federal taxpayer funding .
“ In late 2010 , the newly elected Congress was focusing on deficit reduction , ” reads the group ’ s website .
“ It became clear that it might disproportionately cut programs vital to hungry and poor people.
” That meant that dozens of NGO ’ s — massive non-profit bureaucracies that administer poverty programs — were going to take a financial hit .
Wallis was worried .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Barack Obama , he had little sway with the Tea Party , which had just swept the 2010 elections .
So he went to his allies among the religious Left to form a coalition , a common tactic to secure federal tax dollars .
U.S. Bishops Were Key to Keeping the Cash Coming One of the most influential groups Wallis recruited was “ the conference , ” America ’ s Catholic bishops .
For Wallis , the bishops were key .
Their blessing was indispensable for his project ’ s success .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The better question is , how could they refuse ?
To put it bluntly , they were broke .
Scandals , lawsuits , and corruption had all taken their toll .
So the bishops signed on , and Wallis ’ s “ Circle ” quickly became the “ Circled Wagons , ” a group of money-hungry do-gooders providing mutual protection and support in the always-vicious rampage at the federal trough .
Selling the Unborn for 30 Pieces of Silver While they got the money , the bishops had to pay a political price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s White House , they supported Obamacare .
They opposed the health plan ’ s abortion coverage , but Obama funded it anyway .
On Obama ’ s support of taxpayer funding of international abortions , the bishops proved their loyalty to the “ Circle ” by affirming its demand for full funding year after year In addition to abortion , the foreign aid bill routinely contained some half a billion dollars for international contraceptive programs .
These are both considered to be grave evils by the Church .
Bishop Howard Hubbard was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circle .
So I asked him how he could support such immoral programs .
He assured me that Catholics could disagree with his decision after “ prayerful consideration , ” but he did not apologize .
Another bishops ’ NGO , Catholic Charities USA , went a step further to guarantee its taxpayer funding .
In 2010 , CCUSA hired the Sheridan Group , Washington ’ s premier “ gay ” lobbying firm .
In spite of the Church ’ s formal opposition to same-sex “ marriage , ” their NGO ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the new administration .
Well , it paid off .
In 2010 , CCUSA received $ 2.9 billion of its $ 4.7 budget from the federal taxpayer .
( By the way , bishops did not share the news of the Sheridan contract with the faithful .
The Washington Blade , the city ’ s homosexual newspaper , broke the story when it bragged about it in a July 14 , 2011 front-page story . )
Thanks to Wallis ’ s leadership , his plan worked for ten years .
The Circle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We all support full funding for each other ’ s programs.
” Everybody went along and everybody cashed their government checks .
And then along came Eric Martin ’ s article .
Insulted in public by their supposed partner , Catholic bishops were not pleased .
After years of “ doing their part ” for the Circle , one of their closest allies in the group had just blasted them in public as a bunch of enablers of bigotry and racism .
Wallis was inundated .
“ What followed , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some have understandably assumed , just ‘ pushback ’ from the Catholic bishops ( or ‘ wealthy donors ’ ) but a painful and angry outcry from Catholic friends and allies … .They were hurt .
They felt betrayed .
They felt that this article would jeopardize relationships of trust that have been built over a long time , and that this would harm our outreach to bishops and other church leaders who are now more ready than ever to take a stand .
And I found myself agreeing with them.
” [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about “ hurt feelings ” ?
Unlikely .
Wallis continued : “ The article did generate significant outrage among many key Catholic but also other trusted partners , which seriously jeopardized our advocacy work , particularly through the Circle of Protection — our broadly ecumenical coalition over ten years that has been remarkably effective in preventing deeper budget cuts… ” [ emphasis added ] .
“ Remarkably effective , ” indeed .
In ten years the Circle had greased the money machine to the point that they were virtually grandfathered in .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move closer to avowedly left-wing positions shared by others in the “ Circle.
” This was a real crisis .
Alienating the bishops threatened to cause not only a family feud , but an outright divorce .
And a costly one at that .
So “ On July 28 , following backlash from Catholic leaders , Wallis removed the article from the site , saying it ‘ made unwarranted insinuations and allegations against many Catholics.
’ ” Wallis couldn ’ t say it out loud , but he knew that “ our dearest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies ” — the bishops and their NGO bureaucracies — had already been in the tank for years .
Hey , people , the bishops were already doing everything right , why rock the boat ?
Sure , they voted last November to make abortion their “ preeminent issue , ” but that ’ s already gone down the Memory Hole !
Now it ’ s all racism all the time , “ Catholic ” Joe Biden has their silent seal of approval .
Sojourners ’ chairman is leading Basement Joe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s the problem ?
The Bishops Already Sound Like Biden Staffers Problem ?
In fact , there wasn ’ t any .
The bishops ’ website was completely revamped this year to emphasize racism , not abortion , as America ’ s deadly sin .
And on that issue , since 1979 , the bishops have consistently taught that “ most ” whites are racists , nobody else can be , and whites are racists whether they know it or not .
It ’ s “ systemic , ” you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bishops already agreed with Eric Martin .
Why did he have to rub their face in it ?
The damage was done .
Martin ’ s little rain dance was a tantrum too far for the bishops .
For them , Wallis was the “ Circle , ” and they blamed him .
Could the coalition stay unbroken if the bishops walked off in a huff ?
The grifting NGO ’ s , desperate for dollars after the pandemic , knew that would sink the “ Circle.
” That ’ s why they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But sometimes ideology prevails , even when there ’ s money on the table .
Hard-liners liked Martin ’ s article .
Why remove it , they demanded .
If Catholic bishops are indeed “ harboring a culture of hate , ” as Martin alleges , shouldn ’ t the truth be told ?
A lot of staffers at Sojourners supported Martin .
So when Wallis pulled the article , all hell broke loose in the home office .
Two assistant editors quit .
Wallis , who has edited Sojourners for decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Martin article was put back online , with a minor correction ( the bishops had indeed condemned “ nooses ” and “ swastikas , ” but they had apparently forgotten to condemn “ Confederate flags ” ) .
The message : Sojourners had called Catholic bishops a bunch of bigot-enablers , and Sojourners was going to stick to its story .
They were , after all , ideologues .
Like Lenin , they weren ’ t just revolutionary , they were really revolutionary !
Suddenly , Wallis was a Menshevik , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt Catholic protectors of white supremacism .
So he had to be cancelled and publicly shamed , losing his position as editor of the journal that he had founded and made a real force on the Left .
What do we learn from this ?
First , that the mammoth bureaucracies of America ’ s Catholic bishops are out of control , defying Church teaching to get federal taxpayer funding for their secular programs .
Most Catholic faithful don ’ t know that , when they drop their envelope in the Sunday collection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 15 .
Now they know .
Second , America ’ s religious and Catholic Left features the same internal struggles typical of leftist movements worldwide .
They take ideology seriously .
Defining the “ party line ” is a constant battle , and toeing the line a constant demand .
Countless factions vie for power endlessly .
That battle rages today , not only on the Evangelical Left , but within the U.S. bishops ’ bureaucracies and NGOs as well .
The bishops themselves are in no position to take control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circle.
” Desperate for cash , beset by lawsuits , and riven by factions themselves , they will take Eric Martin ’ s slap in the face and live with it .
Nothing will change .
They need the money .
Christopher Manion earned a Ph.D. in government from Notre Dame .
For many years he was the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere , chaired by the late Sen. Jesse Helms , R-N.C .

A recent dustup on the Evangelical Left tells us many things. One of them is this: How far America’s Catholic bishops will go to get more taxpayer funding.
In July, Sojourners magazine, a stalwart in the realm of radical journalism, published an online article that ignited a furor. The fires are still burning.
Like many leftist outlets, Sojourners is obsessed with racism. “America Has Been Addicted to Whiteness for 400 Years,” reads one recent headline. “Who Will Call Out the President’s Racism?” reads another. And, introducing another favorite theme, “Donald Trump: Evangelist of White Nationalism” reads another.
None of this comes as a surprise. Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, Chairman of the Board at Sojourners, is a leader in Joe Biden’s “Faith 2020” team. There the message is all racism, all the time.
As we will see, with all that hype, one would think that the incendiary article would have fit right in with the party line. After all, it was sloppy and ill-sourced, but it screamed so loudly that somebody might actually read it.
Well, it looks like somebody did. And that’s the problem.
U.S. Bishops Soft on White Nationalism?
The article’s title intentionally offends: “The Catholic Church Has a Visible White Power Faction,” it reads. Author Eric Martin specifically targets the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the official umbrella group for America’s Catholic prelates. Apparently, they’re “soft on white nationalism.”
How so? Well, alongside its religious activities, the bishops’ conference publishes an endless stream of left-wing political materials. Martin focuses on their 2018 document condemning racism. What’s the problem? In that official 32-page “Pastoral Letter,” America’s Catholic bishops intentionally chose not to condemn “nooses” and “swastikas,” he complains.
For Martin, this deliberate omission proves that America’s Catholic bishops aren’t anti-racist enough. They should have been tougher on “white nationalists.”
“The threat is not that white nationalists will take over the Catholic Church,” Martin writes. “The threat is that the Catholic Church harbors a culture sufficiently friendly to white nationalism that people can comfortably embrace both the faith and the most extreme forms of racial hatred.”
Smearing Trump Supporters
Translated: “Hey, everybody, the bishops are providing cover for you-know-who!”
Since 1979, the US bishops have consistently taught that ‘most’ whites are racists, nobody else can be, and whites are racists whether they know it or not. It’s ‘systemic,’ you see.
And who might these “sufficiently friendly” folks be? Well, Catholics like Nixon and Reagan advisor Pat Buchanan, or Kellyanne Conway, who until recently was President Trump’s senior policy advisor.
People like these undesirables represent “well-dressed Catholic nationalism,” Martin writes, and bishops are letting them get away with it.
Well, leftist screamers are ubiquitous these days, so one might yawn and move along to the Sunday crossword. But Martin apparently crossed a line, and therein lies a tale of woe, and wampum.
Circle the Wagons and Pass the Collection Plate
Sojourners was founded by Jim Wallis almost half-a-century ago. As its longtime editor, Wallis has become a significant leader on the Left. So after the Republicans dominated the congressional elections of 2010, Wallis organized the “Circle of Protection.” It’s a coalition of grifting nonprofits who between them receive billions of dollars a year in federal taxpayer funding.
“In late 2010, the newly elected Congress was focusing on deficit reduction,” reads the group’s website. “It became clear that it might disproportionately cut programs vital to hungry and poor people.” That meant that dozens of NGO’s — massive non-profit bureaucracies that administer poverty programs — were going to take a financial hit.
Wallis was worried. Even though he was a spiritual advisor to Barack Obama, he had little sway with the Tea Party, which had just swept the 2010 elections. So he went to his allies among the religious Left to form a coalition, a common tactic to secure federal tax dollars.
U.S. Bishops Were Key to Keeping the Cash Coming
One of the most influential groups Wallis recruited was “the conference,” America’s Catholic bishops.
For Wallis, the bishops were key. Their blessing was indispensable for his project’s success. But why would they give it?
The better question is, how could they refuse? To put it bluntly, they were broke. Scandals, lawsuits, and corruption had all taken their toll. So the bishops signed on, and Wallis’s “Circle” quickly became the “Circled Wagons,” a group of money-hungry do-gooders providing mutual protection and support in the always-vicious rampage at the federal trough.
Selling the Unborn for 30 Pieces of Silver
While they got the money, the bishops had to pay a political price. To insure support from Obama’s White House, they supported Obamacare. They opposed the health plan’s abortion coverage, but Obama funded it anyway. On Obama’s support of taxpayer funding of international abortions, the bishops proved their loyalty to the “Circle” by affirming its demand for full funding year after year
In addition to abortion, the foreign aid bill routinely contained some half a billion dollars for international contraceptive programs. These are both considered to be grave evils by the Church.
Bishop Howard Hubbard was the bishops’ point man for the Circle. So I asked him how he could support such immoral programs. He assured me that Catholics could disagree with his decision after “prayerful consideration,” but he did not apologize.
Hiring Gay Activists to Shake Down Uncle Sam
Another bishops’ NGO, Catholic Charities USA, went a step further to guarantee its taxpayer funding. In 2010, CCUSA hired the Sheridan Group, Washington’s premier “gay” lobbying firm. In spite of the Church’s formal opposition to same-sex “marriage,” their NGO’s simply needed influential advocates who were friendly to the new administration.
Well, it paid off. In 2010, CCUSA received $2.9 billion of its $4.7 budget from the federal taxpayer. (By the way, bishops did not share the news of the Sheridan contract with the faithful. The Washington Blade, the city’s homosexual newspaper, broke the story when it bragged about it in a July 14, 2011 front-page story.)
Thanks to Wallis’s leadership, his plan worked for ten years. The Circle’s unspoken rule was simple: “We all support full funding for each other’s programs.” Everybody went along and everybody cashed their government checks.
And then along came Eric Martin’s article.
Burning a Bridge Too Far
Insulted in public by their supposed partner, Catholic bishops were not pleased. After years of “doing their part” for the Circle, one of their closest allies in the group had just blasted them in public as a bunch of enablers of bigotry and racism.
Wallis was inundated. “What followed,” he wrote, “was not, as some have understandably assumed, just ‘pushback’ from the Catholic bishops (or ‘wealthy donors’) but a painful and angry outcry from Catholic friends and allies … .They were hurt. They felt betrayed. They felt that this article would jeopardize relationships of trust that have been built over a long time, and that this would harm our outreach to bishops and other church leaders who are now more ready than ever to take a stand. And I found myself agreeing with them.” [emphasis added]
So this was all about “hurt feelings”? Unlikely. Wallis continued:
“The article did generate significant outrage among many key Catholic but also other trusted partners, which seriously jeopardized our advocacy work, particularly through the Circle of Protection — our broadly ecumenical coalition over ten years that has been remarkably effective in preventing deeper budget cuts…” [emphasis added].
Choking on Taxpayer Cash
“Remarkably effective,” indeed. In ten years the Circle had greased the money machine to the point that they were virtually grandfathered in. Moreover, Wallis had coaxed many bishops to move closer to avowedly left-wing positions shared by others in the “Circle.”
This was a real crisis. Alienating the bishops threatened to cause not only a family feud, but an outright divorce. And a costly one at that.
So “On July 28, following backlash from Catholic leaders, Wallis removed the article from the site, saying it ‘made unwarranted insinuations and allegations against many Catholics.’”
Wallis couldn’t say it out loud, but he knew that “our dearest, closest, and long-term progressive Catholic allies” — the bishops and their NGO bureaucracies — had already been in the tank for years. Hey, people, the bishops were already doing everything right, why rock the boat? Sure, they voted last November to make abortion their “preeminent issue,” but that’s already gone down the Memory Hole! Now it’s all racism all the time, “Catholic” Joe Biden has their silent seal of approval. Sojourners’ chairman is leading Basement Joe’s “Faith 2020” team. So what’s the problem?
The Bishops Already Sound Like Biden Staffers
Problem? In fact, there wasn’t any. The bishops’ website was completely revamped this year to emphasize racism, not abortion, as America’s deadly sin. And on that issue, since 1979, the bishops have consistently taught that “most” whites are racists, nobody else can be, and whites are racists whether they know it or not. It’s “systemic,” you see.
So on the issues, the bishops already agreed with Eric Martin. Why did he have to rub their face in it?
The damage was done. Martin’s little rain dance was a tantrum too far for the bishops. For them, Wallis was the “Circle,” and they blamed him. Could the coalition stay unbroken if the bishops walked off in a huff? The grifting NGO’s, desperate for dollars after the pandemic, knew that would sink the “Circle.” That’s why they prevailed on Wallis to pull it.
When Ideology Trumps Even Money
But sometimes ideology prevails, even when there’s money on the table. Hard-liners liked Martin’s article. Why remove it, they demanded. If Catholic bishops are indeed “harboring a culture of hate,” as Martin alleges, shouldn’t the truth be told?
A lot of staffers at Sojourners supported Martin. So when Wallis pulled the article, all hell broke loose in the home office. Two assistant editors quit. Wallis, who has edited Sojourners for decades, was removed. In the end, the Martin article was put back online, with a minor correction (the bishops had indeed condemned “nooses” and “swastikas,” but they had apparently forgotten to condemn “Confederate flags”).
The mammoth bureaucracies of America’s Catholic bishops are out of control, defying Church teaching to get federal taxpayer funding for their secular programs.
The message: Sojourners had called Catholic bishops a bunch of bigot-enablers, and Sojourners was going to stick to its story. They were, after all, ideologues. Like Lenin, they weren’t just revolutionary, they were really revolutionary! Suddenly, Wallis was a Menshevik, a sellout, afraid to call out those corrupt Catholic protectors of white supremacism. So he had to be cancelled and publicly shamed, losing his position as editor of the journal that he had founded and made a real force on the Left.
The Abortion Party at Prayer
What do we learn from this? First, that the mammoth bureaucracies of America’s Catholic bishops are out of control, defying Church teaching to get federal taxpayer funding for their secular programs. Most Catholic faithful don’t know that, when they drop their envelope in the Sunday collection, they’ve already given last April 15.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Now they know.
Second, America’s religious and Catholic Left features the same internal struggles typical of leftist movements worldwide. They take ideology seriously. Defining the “party line” is a constant battle, and toeing the line a constant demand. Countless factions vie for power endlessly.
Federal Cash Junkies
That battle rages today, not only on the Evangelical Left, but within the U.S. bishops’ bureaucracies and NGOs as well. The bishops themselves are in no position to take control of their hired hands and quit the “Circle.” Desperate for cash, beset by lawsuits, and riven by factions themselves, they will take Eric Martin’s slap in the face and live with it.
Nothing will change. They need the money.
Christopher Manion earned a Ph.D. in government from Notre Dame. For many years he was the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, chaired by the late Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.


thestream--2020-09-06--31 Times the Media Justified or Explained Away Rioting & Looting in the Wake of George Floyd’s Death

Dozens of news outlets published content that either justified or explained away rioting and looting in the initial weeks of unrest following the police custody death of George Floyd in late May , a Daily Caller News Foundation review found .
While President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have both condemned rioting and looting , major news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC have appeared to downplay the unrest that has gripped American cities in the months following Floyd ’ s death , in one instance describing a scene as “ mostly peaceful ” as fires raged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence broke out in American cities in late May and June , dozens of news outlets provided a platform for commentators , professors , and activists who not only acknowledged that rioting and looting were taking place , but sought to either justify the violence as a valid protesting technique or as a form of righteous rebellion against an unjust system .
Here are 31 articles , opinion pieces , interviews , and news segments published in the media in the first three weeks following Floyd ’ s death that pushed narratives that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and looting as it started to break out in American cities .
Narrative 1 : Rioting Is Patriotic , and It Works .
A common narrative pushed in the media as violence broke out across the United States in late May was that rioting is a quintessentially American activity with a storied history of bringing about positive change .
Rolling Stone was among the first outlets to push the message on May 29 when it republished a story originally published in 2014 during the Ferguson riots titled “ 9 Historical Triumphs to Make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical pedigree of property destruction as a tactic of resistance is long and frequently effective , ” argued the article , which was co-authored by Jose Martin , a known alias of a Washington , D.C. , Antifa leader who currently faces multiple felony charges in connection to a mob attack against two Marines in 2018 .
Like many of the articles that pushed this narrative , the Rolling Stone story cited the 1773 Boston Tea Party as proof of the positive change rioting can bring about .
“ Workers had produced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and it was not the colonists ’ to destroy , but they said ‘ f— property rights ’ and did it anyway , ” the Rolling Stone article states .
“ Today ’ s conservatives don ’ t seem bothered by this inconvenient history , though , because think of the dress-up opportunities !
” Rolling Stone editors added a note to the story when it was republished that stated : “ Protests erupted in Minneapolis , and have since spread across the country .
Once again , some are criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse—than the destruction of lives.
” On May 31 , as footage rolled of looters pillaging a store in Los Angeles , CNN host Don Lemon reminded viewers that the United States was started because of the Boston Tea Party rioters .
“ So do not get it twisted and think this is something that has never happened before and this so terrible and these savages and all of that , ” Lemon said .
“ This is how this country was started.
” Other news articles , opinion pieces , and interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s death that suggested rioting was either effective , patriotic , or both include : • “ The Double Standard of the American Riot , ” published June 1 in The Atlantic .
• “ Rioting is a nuanced and deeply misunderstood form of protest , ” published June 7 in The DP .
• “ Does rioting work ?
Here are five times it did , ” published June 6 in Big Think .
• “ Riots Are As American As Apple Pie , ” published June 10 in Other Words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Studies .
• “ A justification for the unrest ?
Look no further than the Bible and the Founding Fathers , ” published June 4 in The Conversation .
Narrative 2 : Rioting and Looting Are Valid Protesting Tactics Against Police Brutality .
Many articles that addressed rioting in the aftermath of Floyd ’ s referenced Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s famous 1967 speech in which the civil rights icon said , “ A riot is the language of the unheard.
” King in that same speech also called rioting “ socially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ continue to condemn riots , and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way.
” Arwa Mahdawi , a columnist with The Guardian , used King ’ s quote to argue in a piece titled “ If violence isn ’ t the way to end racism in America , then what is ?
” that suggested violence was the only remaining option on the table to end police brutality in America .
“ [ King ’ s ] speech was 53 years ago and America still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
“ The uncomfortable truth is that sometimes , violence is the only answer left .
We like to pretend otherwise , which is why civil rights movements are often conveniently sanitized.
” Chicago Tribune columnist and editorial board member Steve Chapman also questioned whether black people can affect change without resorting to violence in a piece titled “ If riots are not the answer , what is ?
” “ Impossible to justify , yes , ” Chapman said of the riots in late May .
“ Impossible to understand ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a quiet riot against black people for generations.
” “ I find the destruction tragic , unnecessary and counterproductive , ” Chapman wrote .
“ But if I were a black person living in Minneapolis , I might feel enough anger and despair to take part.
” “ Rioting may not bring about the changes that would establish genuine equality for black Americans .
But neither has anything else , ” he concluded .
Other articles that suggested that rioting and looting were valid protesting techniques include : • “ Burn It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Essence .
• “ As Officials Condemn Violence During Protests , This Professor Says Some Is Warranted , ” published May 31 by NPR .
• “ In Defense of Destroying Property , ” published June 10 in The Nation .
• “ American history shows civil unrest is the only way black people are heard , ” published June 1 in TRTWorld .
• “ We riot because you choose not to hear : A digital equity lesson for Nashville , ” published June 4 in the Tennessean .
A third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks following Floyd ’ s death came in the form of articles that suggested it ’ s incorrect to describe violent scenes of rioting and looting as such .
Other articles and commentary suggested that destroying property isn ’ t actually an act of violence .
Teen Vogue columnist Jenn M. Jackson said the terms “ rioters ” and “ looters ” were negative terms used to ‘ delegitimize ” movements in a June 11 piece titled “ Don ’ t Let Them Bad-Mouth Rebellion or Riots : How We Name Movements Matters.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson wrote .
“ The negative associations of these terms have an impact on how we think about these demonstrations , just as the terms like ‘ uprising ’ and ‘ rebellion ’ offer ways to think about these protests as good trouble.
” “ When marginalized people respond to injustice , it is the duty of those in power to sit down , be quiet , and listen to what they have to say without dictating the terms of whose language is acceptable , ” Jackson concluded .
“ Whether that expression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anger , rage , or violence , it ’ s all justified .
It ’ s time to focus on the message instead of the medium.
” Time published an article on June 8 titled “ ‘ A War of Words.
’ Why Describing the George Floyd Protests as ‘ Riots ’ Is So Loaded ” that said the word riot “ connotes meaningless violence… But it also has a racial dimension in the U.S. , as a term that ’ s long been used ( by white people ) to drum up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos in cities.
” The article quoted multiple college professors who proposed other terms such as “ uprising ” and “ rebellion ” to describe the early George Floyd protests .
Harvard associate professor Elizabeth Hinton told Time that she prefers the term “ uprising ” because it “ really captures the fact that the violence that emerges during these incidents isn ’ t meaningless , that it is a political expression , and it is communicating a certain set of demands.
” University of California , Berkeley School of Law professor john @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not capitalize his name because it ’ s a slave name , said he prefers the term “ demonstration ” to the term “ riot.
” “ Riot suggests pandemonium , ” powell said .
“ What ’ s happening across the country and across the world is a call for justice , a call for police accountability , for the recognition that black lives matter too … Rioting detracts from all of that.
” Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones said on June 2 on CBS News that while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property destruction , “ destroying property , which can be replaced , is not violence.
” “ To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral , ” Hannah-Jones said .
Other articles that suggested it was wrong to describe scenes of rioting as such , or that property damage isn ’ t violence , include : • “ ‘ Riots , ’ ‘ violence , ’ ‘ looting ’ : Words matter when talking about race and unrest , experts say , ” published May 31 in USA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cherry-Picking of the Word ‘ Riot , ’ ” published June 1 in Mother Jones .
• “ Why Damaging Property Isn ’ t The Same As ‘ Violence , ’ ” published June 1 in Current Affairs .
• “ Understand Protests As ‘ Acts Of Rebellion ’ Instead Of Riots , Marc Lamont Hill Says , ” published June 2 by NPR .
• “ The George Floyd protests are a rebellion against an unjust system , ” published June 4 in The Guardian .
• “ No , We Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd ’ s , ” published May 28 in Jacobin .
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 this original content , email licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Dozens of news outlets published content that either justified or explained away rioting and looting in the initial weeks of unrest following the police custody death of George Floyd in late May, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
While President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have both condemned rioting and looting, major news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC have appeared to downplay the unrest that has gripped American cities in the months following Floyd’s death, in one instance describing a scene as “mostly peaceful” as fires raged in the background.
But as the violence broke out in American cities in late May and June, dozens of news outlets provided a platform for commentators, professors, and activists who not only acknowledged that rioting and looting were taking place, but sought to either justify the violence as a valid protesting technique or as a form of righteous rebellion against an unjust system.
Here are 31 articles, opinion pieces, interviews, and news segments published in the media in the first three weeks following Floyd’s death that pushed narratives that either justified or explained away the rioting and looting as it started to break out in American cities.
Narrative 1: Rioting Is Patriotic, and It Works.
A common narrative pushed in the media as violence broke out across the United States in late May was that rioting is a quintessentially American activity with a storied history of bringing about positive change.
Rolling Stone was among the first outlets to push the message on May 29 when it republished a story originally published in 2014 during the Ferguson riots titled “9 Historical Triumphs to Make You Rethink Property Destruction.”
The “historical pedigree of property destruction as a tactic of resistance is long and frequently effective,” argued the article, which was co-authored by Jose Martin, a known alias of a Washington, D.C., Antifa leader who currently faces multiple felony charges in connection to a mob attack against two Marines in 2018.
Like many of the articles that pushed this narrative, the Rolling Stone story cited the 1773 Boston Tea Party as proof of the positive change rioting can bring about.
“Workers had produced that tea, capitalists had risked investment on it, and it was not the colonists’ to destroy, but they said ‘f— property rights’ and did it anyway,” the Rolling Stone article states. “Today’s conservatives don’t seem bothered by this inconvenient history, though, because think of the dress-up opportunities!”
Rolling Stone editors added a note to the story when it was republished that stated: “Protests erupted in Minneapolis, and have since spread across the country. Once again, some are criticizing the destruction of property as somehow equal—or worse—than the destruction of lives.”
On May 31, as footage rolled of looters pillaging a store in Los Angeles, CNN host Don Lemon reminded viewers that the United States was started because of the Boston Tea Party rioters.
“So do not get it twisted and think this is something that has never happened before and this so terrible and these savages and all of that,” Lemon said. “This is how this country was started.”
“Our country was started because, the Boston tea party. Rioting. So do not get it twisted and think this is something that has never happened before and this is so terrible and these savages and all of that. This is how this country was started” –@DonLemon on @CNN 11:53 PM ET. pic.twitter.com/dGu5TmArsp — Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) May 31, 2020
Other news articles, opinion pieces, and interviews published in the weeks following Floyd’s death that suggested rioting was either effective, patriotic, or both include:
Narrative 2: Rioting and Looting Are Valid Protesting Tactics Against Police Brutality.
Many articles that addressed rioting in the aftermath of Floyd’s referenced Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous 1967 speech in which the civil rights icon said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.”
King in that same speech also called rioting “socially destructive and self-defeating” and pledged to “continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way.”
Arwa Mahdawi, a columnist with The Guardian, used King’s quote to argue in a piece titled “If violence isn’t the way to end racism in America, then what is?” that suggested violence was the only remaining option on the table to end police brutality in America.
“[King’s] speech was 53 years ago and America still isn’t listening,” Mahdawi wrote. “The uncomfortable truth is that sometimes, violence is the only answer left. We like to pretend otherwise, which is why civil rights movements are often conveniently sanitized.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Chicago Tribune columnist and editorial board member Steve Chapman also questioned whether black people can affect change without resorting to violence in a piece titled “If riots are not the answer, what is?”
“Impossible to justify, yes,” Chapman said of the riots in late May. “Impossible to understand? Not at all. Police have participated in a quiet riot against black people for generations.”
“I find the destruction tragic, unnecessary and counterproductive,” Chapman wrote. “But if I were a black person living in Minneapolis, I might feel enough anger and despair to take part.”
“Rioting may not bring about the changes that would establish genuine equality for black Americans. But neither has anything else,” he concluded.
Other articles that suggested that rioting and looting were valid protesting techniques include:
Narrative 3: These Aren’t Violent Riots. It’s an Uprising.
A third narrative that arose in the days and weeks following Floyd’s death came in the form of articles that suggested it’s incorrect to describe violent scenes of rioting and looting as such. Other articles and commentary suggested that destroying property isn’t actually an act of violence.
Teen Vogue columnist Jenn M. Jackson said the terms “rioters” and “looters” were negative terms used to ‘delegitimize” movements in a June 11 piece titled “Don’t Let Them Bad-Mouth Rebellion or Riots: How We Name Movements Matters.”
“These words matter,” Jackson wrote. “The negative associations of these terms have an impact on how we think about these demonstrations, just as the terms like ‘uprising’ and ‘rebellion’ offer ways to think about these protests as good trouble.”
“When marginalized people respond to injustice, it is the duty of those in power to sit down, be quiet, and listen to what they have to say without dictating the terms of whose language is acceptable,” Jackson concluded. “Whether that expression comes in the form of peacefulness, anger, rage, or violence, it’s all justified. It’s time to focus on the message instead of the medium.”
Time published an article on June 8 titled “‘A War of Words.’ Why Describing the George Floyd Protests as ‘Riots’ Is So Loaded” that said the word riot “connotes meaningless violence… But it also has a racial dimension in the U.S., as a term that’s long been used (by white people) to drum up the image of black people wreaking senseless chaos in cities.”
The article quoted multiple college professors who proposed other terms such as “uprising” and “rebellion” to describe the early George Floyd protests.
Harvard associate professor Elizabeth Hinton told Time that she prefers the term “uprising” because it “really captures the fact that the violence that emerges during these incidents isn’t meaningless, that it is a political expression, and it is communicating a certain set of demands.”
University of California, Berkeley School of Law professor john a. powell, who according to Time does not capitalize his name because it’s a slave name, said he prefers the term “demonstration” to the term “riot.”
“Riot suggests pandemonium,” powell said. “What’s happening across the country and across the world is a call for justice, a call for police accountability, for the recognition that black lives matter too … Rioting detracts from all of that.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones said on June 2 on CBS News that while it was “disturbing” to see property destruction, “destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”
“To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral,” Hannah-Jones said.
"Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral" –@nhannahjones on CBSN pic.twitter.com/GGteXRFwAr — CBS News (@CBSNews) June 2, 2020
Other articles that suggested it was wrong to describe scenes of rioting as such, or that property damage isn’t violence, include:
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 this original content, email [email protected].


thestream--2020-09-07--Joe Biden’s Not ‘Truly Pro-Life.’ He’s Not Pro-Life at All

Some of Joe Biden ’ s supporters claim that he ’ s “ truly pro-life.
” He ’ s even “ the real pro-life choice.
” He ’ s at least more pro-life than his opponent , they say .
Pro-lifers who really care about saving unborn lives should vote for him .
They can ’ t vote for Trump .
They must vote for the Democrat .
Sure , the better ones will admit , Biden supports the widest extension of “ reproductive rights , ” going farther than any Democratic candidate has ever gone .
And of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounts of money so the company can abort more children .
He wants to make Roe the law of the land .
He doesn ’ t want to give religious groups any freedom to act on their beliefs in this matter .
Biden brags about being the one who saved abortion rights by blocking Robert Bork from being named to the Supreme Court .
He seems to have no problem with the party ’ s driving out its pro-life wing and even deselecting the pro-lifers it has in office .
The Catholic candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ personally opposed but ” line .
He ’ s all in .
For more on what Biden has committed himself to , see the Democratic party platform .
See Alexandra DeSanctis ’ s Washington Post article giving all the ways the Democrats have become the hard pro-abortion party .
I say “ pro-abortion ” and not “ pro-choice , ” because the party now says not a word — literally , not a word — to suggest that abortion is anything less than a good thing .
Its platform includes abortion as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit access to abortion in any way it calls “ discrimination.
” Remember when the party said abortion should be “ safe , legal , and rare ” ?
They don ’ t say that anymore .
All true , Biden ’ s supporters admit .
But he cares about people and wants the government to help them .
Therefore he ’ s truly pro-life .
Biden ’ s not pro-life because he doesn ’ t intend to be .
He doesn ’ t want what pro-lifers want .
The term doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he does .
I ’ m not making a political judgment here .
I ’ m only pointing to the objective matter of what words mean .
Ted Cruz isn ’ t a socialist .
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortex isn ’ t a libertarian .
Joe Biden isn ’ t pro-life .
You ’ re only pro-life if you believe in the protection of the most vulnerable members of the human race , the innocent children in the womb .
You must believe that they should not be killed and that the law should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live means supporting every human being ’ s right to live .
It means not deciding some human beings don ’ t deserve it .
What can the name possibly mean if it doesn ’ t mean that ?
If it means “ Every man and woman has the right to live , except them ” ?
The term simply says “ pro-life , ” not “ pro-life for some.
” It definitely doesn ’ t mean , “ Some people must die so other people can flourish.
” You believe that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Other You ’ re either pro-life or you ’ re not .
You can ’ t be mostly pro-life or generally pro-life .
You can ’ t leave out protection for one category of people and call yourself pro-life .
Being pro-life isn ’ t the kind of thing you weigh in a balance .
You ’ re not pro-life if the pro-life things you believe outweigh the pro-life things you don ’ t believe .
You ’ re not pro-life if you ’ re mostly pro-life .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectrum .
You ’ re not pro-life if the your beliefs fall on the pro-life side of the mid-point .
You can ’ t be 48 points from being purely pro-life and 52 points from purely pro-choice and call yourself pro-life .
It isn ’ t something determined by your politics .
You ’ re not pro-life just because you favor government support for those in need .
And on the other side , you ’ re not pro-life if you say you believe abortion is wrong but individual liberty more important .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your religion .
Biden ’ s Catholic , some people say , as if that proved anything .
Only God knows what he believes in his heart , but he doesn ’ t think coherently as a Catholic .
He makes as big a hash of articulating Catholic teaching as Andrew Cuomo does .
A Catholic can ’ t approve abortion .
And you ’ re not pro-life just because you say you are and even sign statements defending the unborn .
That ’ s easy to do .
Lots of Republican candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My own former congressman , Tim Murphy , posed as a pro-life leader when he was urging his mistress to abort their child , and sneering at his aides who wrote his pro-life statements .
Defending life begins with the unborn and moves out from there .
Defending the unborn sets the foundation for the rest .
It sets the trajectory .
It limits what you can build and where you can go .
Pro-lifers disagree about how much the term includes and to how many human needs it extends .
The pro-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole lifers or consistent lifers .
The first base their work on the right to life by itself , the second ( which I favor ) on a belief in human dignity .
But both begin with an absolute commitment to the protection of the unborn .
( In practice , the two tend to blend together , but that ’ s a subject for another day . )
Joe Biden doesn ’ t .
His party doesn ’ t .
Very much the opposite .
I ’ m not making a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s policies will save more unborn lives than Trump ’ s , by giving more support to pregnant women in need .
You may think he ’ s not “ truly pro-life , ” but that he ’ s “ effectively pro-life ” or “ relatively pro-life ” in relation to the president .
If you think this , you might even vote for him .
Maybe you think federal policy doesn ’ t matter that much , not enough to sway your vote .
That leaves you free to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for Biden , do so with your eyes open , knowing what else he wants to do .
Don ’ t pretend he ’ s pro-life in any sense .
If he ’ s elected , fight his pro-choice policies in every way you can .
If you helped him get into office , try your best to limit the damage he does .
Fight for the unborn .
If you won ’ t do that , don ’ t vote for him .
Why does Biden ’ s not being pro-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our public life .
And because it tells us what he will do .
First , our public arguments go better when we use the same terms to mean the same thing .
We can only get somewhere when we disagree when we use the same words .
We won ’ t even be good enemies if we don ’ t even agree on the terms .
Arguments go bad when one side pretends to be something it ’ s not .
Calling Biden pro-life just confuses things .
Second , we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do if he ’ s elected .
Even if you believe his policies will save unborn lives , they ’ ll do that indirectly .
The policies he pushes will directly take unborn lives .
They will lead to unborn children dying .
Here , at least , he will do what he says he will do .
And what he says he will do is a complete assault on every unborn child ’ s right to live , and a fight against the right of Christians and others to live by their @ @

Some of Joe Biden’s supporters claim that he’s “truly pro-life.” He’s even “the real pro-life choice.” He’s at least more pro-life than his opponent, they say. Pro-lifers who really care about saving unborn lives should vote for him. They can’t vote for Trump. They must vote for the Democrat.
Sure, the better ones will admit, Biden supports the widest extension of “reproductive rights,” going farther than any Democratic candidate has ever gone. And of course he wants to give Planned Parenthood huge amounts of money so the company can abort more children. He wants to make Roe the law of the land. He doesn’t want to give religious groups any freedom to act on their beliefs in this matter.
Biden brags about being the one who saved abortion rights by blocking Robert Bork from being named to the Supreme Court. He seems to have no problem with the party’s driving out its pro-life wing and even deselecting the pro-lifers it has in office. The Catholic candidate doesn’t even try the old “personally opposed but” line. He’s all in.
For more on what Biden has committed himself to, see the Democratic party platform. See Alexandra DeSanctis’s Washington Post article giving all the ways the Democrats have become the hard pro-abortion party. I say “pro-abortion” and not “pro-choice,” because the party now says not a word — literally, not a word — to suggest that abortion is anything less than a good thing.
Its platform includes abortion as part of “reproductive health.” To limit access to abortion in any way it calls “discrimination.” Remember when the party said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”? They don’t say that anymore.
All true, Biden’s supporters admit. But he cares about people and wants the government to help them. Therefore he’s truly pro-life.
Joe Biden’s not pro-life.
Not Pro-Life
Biden’s not pro-life because he doesn’t intend to be. He doesn’t want what pro-lifers want. The term doesn’t include people who think and speak as he does. I’m not making a political judgment here. I’m only pointing to the objective matter of what words mean. Ted Cruz isn’t a socialist. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortex isn’t a libertarian. Joe Biden isn’t pro-life.
You’re only pro-life if you believe in the protection of the most vulnerable members of the human race, the innocent children in the womb. You must believe that they should not be killed and that the law should protect them. Supporting the right to live means supporting every human being’s right to live. It means not deciding some human beings don’t deserve it.
What can the name possibly mean if it doesn’t mean that? If it means “Every man and woman has the right to live, except them”? The term simply says “pro-life,” not “pro-life for some.” It definitely doesn’t mean, “Some people must die so other people can flourish.” You believe that, just call yourself pro-choice.
One or the Other
You’re either pro-life or you’re not. You can’t be mostly pro-life or generally pro-life. You can’t leave out protection for one category of people and call yourself pro-life.
Being pro-life isn’t the kind of thing you weigh in a balance. You’re not pro-life if the pro-life things you believe outweigh the pro-life things you don’t believe. You’re not pro-life if you’re mostly pro-life.
It’s not the kind of thing you measure on spectrum. You’re not pro-life if the your beliefs fall on the pro-life side of the mid-point. You can’t be 48 points from being purely pro-life and 52 points from purely pro-choice and call yourself pro-life.
It isn’t something determined by your politics. You’re not pro-life just because you favor government support for those in need. And on the other side, you’re not pro-life if you say you believe abortion is wrong but individual liberty more important.
It’s not something determined by your religion. Biden’s Catholic, some people say, as if that proved anything. Only God knows what he believes in his heart, but he doesn’t think coherently as a Catholic. He makes as big a hash of articulating Catholic teaching as Andrew Cuomo does. A Catholic can’t approve abortion.
And you’re not pro-life just because you say you are and even sign statements defending the unborn. That’s easy to do. Lots of Republican candidates do it without apparently meaning it. My own former congressman, Tim Murphy, posed as a pro-life leader when he was urging his mistress to abort their child, and sneering at his aides who wrote his pro-life statements.
Pro, Whole, and Anti-Life
Defending life begins with the unborn and moves out from there. Defending the unborn sets the foundation for the rest. It sets the trajectory. It limits what you can build and where you can go.
Pro-lifers disagree about how much the term includes and to how many human needs it extends. The pro-life movement includes the pure right-to-lifers and the whole lifers or consistent lifers. The first base their work on the right to life by itself, the second (which I favor) on a belief in human dignity. But both begin with an absolute commitment to the protection of the unborn. (In practice, the two tend to blend together, but that’s a subject for another day.)
Joe Biden doesn’t. His party doesn’t. Very much the opposite.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I’m not making a political judgment here. You may think that Biden’s policies will save more unborn lives than Trump’s, by giving more support to pregnant women in need. You may think he’s not “truly pro-life,” but that he’s “effectively pro-life” or “relatively pro-life” in relation to the president. If you think this, you might even vote for him. Maybe you think federal policy doesn’t matter that much, not enough to sway your vote. That leaves you free to vote for him.
But if you do vote for Biden, do so with your eyes open, knowing what else he wants to do. Don’t pretend he’s pro-life in any sense. If he’s elected, fight his pro-choice policies in every way you can. If you helped him get into office, try your best to limit the damage he does. Fight for the unborn. If you won’t do that, don’t vote for him.
Why This Matters
Why does Biden’s not being pro-life matter? Because we need clarity in our public life. And because it tells us what he will do.
First, our public arguments go better when we use the same terms to mean the same thing. We can only get somewhere when we disagree when we use the same words. We won’t even be good enemies if we don’t even agree on the terms. Arguments go bad when one side pretends to be something it’s not. Calling Biden pro-life just confuses things.
Second, we need to be absolutely sure what Joe Biden will do if he’s elected. Even if you believe his policies will save unborn lives, they’ll do that indirectly. The policies he pushes will directly take unborn lives. They will lead to unborn children dying. Here, at least, he will do what he says he will do. And what he says he will do is a complete assault on every unborn child’s right to live, and a fight against the right of Christians and others to live by their beliefs.
David Mills is a senior editor of The Stream. After teaching writing in a seminary, he has been editor of Touchstone and the executive editor of First Things. He edits the site Hour of Our Death and writes a weekly column for The Catholic Herald.