thestream--2020-08-16--Big Dumb Ideas and the Smart People Who Love Them

One of the most popular claims made by atheist materialists denies free will and even the mind ’ s real existence .
As I ’ ll show here , this case proves crassly incoherent and fundamentally dopey .
But such facts haven ’ t stopped other Big Dumb Ideas from loping around the world , roping in second-tier “ intellectuals ” keen to poke their horns up out of the herd .
Or rebel against their bible-citing parents .
Or ( mostly ) find easy pretexts for scoffing at and bullying their neighbors .
These Big Dumb Ideas ( BDIs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do grave damage to millions of innocent , ordinary people .
Many of the victims are actually smarter than the elitists who pushed the “ Open ” button on the gates of Dumbassic Park .
Think of wise old Russian priests furrowing their heads at the creaky , bad arguments of the Bolsheviks hauling them off to the Gulag .
Or Jewish veterans verklempt at the crackpot race cult that took over the civilized homeland they fought for in 1914 .
Between that fateful year and 1990 , some 140 million civilians got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war casualties .
Disarmed by those governments first , these innocent bystanders mostly died at the hands of big beefy thugs inspired by Big Dumb Ideas .
I ’ m tempted at this point to invent some pseudo-scientific matrix , a BDI Index .
It would measure on a X-axis how Big an Idea is .
That is , its real-world implications in the daily life of millions of people .
The Y-axis would calibrate how Dumb the Idea really proves to be .
For instance , how many false premises did it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many lessons of history or human nature does it ignore ?
Then how many cold , hard facts does it demand you blindfold yourself from seeing ?
At how many basic questions does it stop its ears when you ask them , lest its whole house of race-cards or Party membership cards come tumbling down ?
The Big Dumb Idea we shall interrogate today hasn ’ t conquered our politics yet .
But it ’ s making dangerous inroads .
This idea comes to us with the very best references , carried in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incense , and blessed by the white-coated high priests of Science .
Check out the video below , a glimpse of the ritual which its votaries employ to dispense it to the faithful .
( Kneeling not required . )
The speaker is physicist and author Brian Greene .
He begins his comments by announcing his Big Dumb Idea : mechanistic brain determinism .
He asserts that we have no free will .
Our sense of having or being “ selves ” is merely a “ feeling.
” What really exists ?
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iron laws of physics .
This biochemical process produces as a side-effect the “ sense ” that we act freely and think objectively .
But in fact , we experience an illusion , a mirage in the cosmic desert .
What ’ s really going on is just a long row of dominoes falling , and our entire experience is just the “ clicking ” sound that they make .
All Statements Are False .
Except This One .
So we have no objective knowledge of the universe — how could we ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not can ’ t find and convey “ the truth , ” any more than the outcome of some video game I play changes the outcome of the Crusades .
( More ’ s the pity . )
We don ’ t have minds that are truth-gathering machines .
We have brains that are display panels for underlying processes which are totally random and meaningless .
Whatever we think we ’ ve come up on as a “ true statement ” that really describes “ the universe ” ?
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us think at the moment .
They might equally , should some electrons move a bit differently , direct us to believe that the universe rests on the back of a massive turtle .
Or that we ’ re each trapped in the Matrix , serving as human Duracells .
Or anything really .
How Could You Possibly Know ?
The question to ask , as C.S .
Lewis and many others have asked , of any determinist is obvious .
“ How could you possibly know ?
” If the world is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how could anyone draw a true conclusion about it at all ?
Your mind , you claim , is every bit as much a vapid shadow play emitted by sparking electrons as mine , or anyone else ’ s .
My thoughts and yours are just the side-effects of quantum wheels grinding together , shooting sparks .
Your assertion , that all human thoughts are indeed side-effects , is just one of those sparks , no more or less “ true ” than my eerie sense that the green Victorian house up on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let me illustrate it with an ancient example .
A problem which Greek philosophers wrestled with was called the Cretan Paradox .
Here it is put simply : “ Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement : ‘ All Cretans are liars.
’ ” Of course , if the statement is true , then he is a liar , which means that the statement is false .
But if it ’ s false , and the speaker ’ s not lying , then it is true .
This classic example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mental determinism .
What determinists like the physicist in the video really want to say is in fact this : “ Every statement about the world is a content-free side-effect of meaningless cosmic processes , except this one.
” To that , my inner C.S .
Lewis has the ready comeback , “ Why should we believe you ?
Every scientific experiment you offer , every mathematical proof you adduce , is equally rendered meaningless by what you say about our minds.
” As Stephen Meyer lays out in his fascinating book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself agonized over how it was possible to make the grand objective claims of science , with a brain that evolved not to learn objective truths , but merely to maximize survival .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
It ’ s not just brain determinism , but any determinism that suffers from the “ This statement is false ” problem .
Marx claimed that all political ideas were merely self-serving mechanisms for promoting the wealth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that would have to include his own ideas , which certainly did promise to transfer great power and wealth to his class … angry , impoverished intellectuals .
Hitler claimed that he was merely implementing Darwin , interpreting the struggle for survival among the races .
But then he couldn ’ t explain in neutral , Darwinian fashion why the “ superior ” Aryans were constantly getting snookered by the “ inferior ” Jews .
Nor did he offer arguments as to why the supposedly so powerful survival mechanisms of the Semites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jew ( on his view , not mine ) makes you fitter to survive than being a thick-headed , battle-ready Teuton , why side with the lunkhead , anyway ?
Darwin offers no answer .
In fact , any “ science ” that saws off the tree it hangs from offers us very little at all — except some pseudo-profundities which college sophomores can whisper after their third hit of the bong .
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream , and author or co-author of ten books , including The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism .
He is co-author with Jason Jones of “ God , Guns , & the Government .
”

One of the most popular claims made by atheist materialists denies free will and even the mind’s real existence. As I’ll show here, this case proves crassly incoherent and fundamentally dopey. But such facts haven’t stopped other Big Dumb Ideas from loping around the world, roping in second-tier “intellectuals” keen to poke their horns up out of the herd. Or rebel against their bible-citing parents. Or (mostly) find easy pretexts for scoffing at and bullying their neighbors.
These Big Dumb Ideas (BDIs) escape from their Ivy-draped enclosures and do grave damage to millions of innocent, ordinary people. Many of the victims are actually smarter than the elitists who pushed the “Open” button on the gates of Dumbassic Park. Think of wise old Russian priests furrowing their heads at the creaky, bad arguments of the Bolsheviks hauling them off to the Gulag. Or Jewish veterans verklempt at the crackpot race cult that took over the civilized homeland they fought for in 1914.
Big Dumb Ideas Wreaking Havoc on Millions
Between that fateful year and 1990, some 140 million civilians got murdered by their governments — not including war casualties. Disarmed by those governments first, these innocent bystanders mostly died at the hands of big beefy thugs inspired by Big Dumb Ideas.
I’m tempted to invent some pseudo-scientific matrix, a BDI Index. It would measure on a X-axis how Big an Idea is. That is, its real-world implications in the daily life of millions of people. The Y-axis would calibrate how Dumb the Idea really proves to be. For instance, how many false premises did it smuggle past the scrutiny guards?
I’m tempted at this point to invent some pseudo-scientific matrix, a BDI Index. It would measure on a X-axis how Big an Idea is. That is, its real-world implications in the daily life of millions of people. The Y-axis would calibrate how Dumb the Idea really proves to be. For instance, how many false premises did it smuggle past the scrutiny guards? How many lessons of history or human nature does it ignore? Then how many cold, hard facts does it demand you blindfold yourself from seeing? At how many basic questions does it stop its ears when you ask them, lest its whole house of race-cards or Party membership cards come tumbling down?
The White-Coated Priests of “Science”
The Big Dumb Idea we shall interrogate today hasn’t conquered our politics yet. But it’s making dangerous inroads. This idea comes to us with the very best references, carried in on a gold plate, wafted by incense, and blessed by the white-coated high priests of Science. Check out the video below, a glimpse of the ritual which its votaries employ to dispense it to the faithful. (Kneeling not required.)
The speaker is physicist and author Brian Greene. He begins his comments by announcing his Big Dumb Idea: mechanistic brain determinism.
He asserts that we have no free will. Our sense of having or being “selves” is merely a “feeling.” What really exists? Our brains, processing signals according to the iron laws of physics. This biochemical process produces as a side-effect the “sense” that we act freely and think objectively. But in fact, we experience an illusion, a mirage in the cosmic desert. What’s really going on is just a long row of dominoes falling, and our entire experience is just the “clicking” sound that they make.
All Statements Are False. Except This One.
So we have no objective knowledge of the universe — how could we? A mechanistic process such as neurons shooting or not can’t find and convey “the truth,” any more than the outcome of some video game I play changes the outcome of the Crusades. (More’s the pity.)
We don’t have minds that are truth-gathering machines. We have brains that are display panels for underlying processes which are totally random and meaningless. Whatever we think we’ve come up on as a “true statement” that really describes “the universe”? That’s just what our neurons happen to make us think at the moment. They might equally, should some electrons move a bit differently, direct us to believe that the universe rests on the back of a massive turtle. Or that we’re each trapped in the Matrix, serving as human Duracells. Or anything really.
How Could You Possibly Know?
The question to ask, as C.S. Lewis and many others have asked, of any determinist is obvious. “How could you possibly know?”
If the world is as you say it is, then how could anyone draw a true conclusion about it at all? Your mind, you claim, is every bit as much a vapid shadow play emitted by sparking electrons as mine, or anyone else’s. My thoughts and yours are just the side-effects of quantum wheels grinding together, shooting sparks. Your assertion, that all human thoughts are indeed side-effects, is just one of those sparks, no more or less “true” than my eerie sense that the green Victorian house up on the hill must be full of ghosts.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Let me illustrate it with an ancient example. A problem which Greek philosophers wrestled with was called the Cretan Paradox. Here it is put simply: “Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: ‘All Cretans are liars.’” Of course, if the statement is true, then he is a liar, which means that the statement is false. But if it’s false, and the speaker’s not lying, then it is true. This classic example of logical self-contradiction applies to any claim of mental determinism. What determinists like the physicist in the video really want to say is in fact this:
“Every statement about the world is a content-free side-effect of meaningless cosmic processes, except this one.”
Marx, Darwin and Hitler
To that, my inner C.S. Lewis has the ready comeback, “Why should we believe you? Every scientific experiment you offer, every mathematical proof you adduce, is equally rendered meaningless by what you say about our minds.” As Stephen Meyer lays out in his fascinating book Darwin’s Doubt, Charles Darwin himself agonized over how it was possible to make the grand objective claims of science, with a brain that evolved not to learn objective truths, but merely to maximize survival.
It’s not just brain determinism, but any determinism that suffers from the “This statement is false” problem. Marx claimed that all political ideas were merely self-serving mechanisms for promoting the wealth and power of some social class. Logically, that would have to include his own ideas, which certainly did promise to transfer great power and wealth to his class … angry, impoverished intellectuals.
Hitler claimed that he was merely implementing Darwin, interpreting the struggle for survival among the races. But then he couldn’t explain in neutral, Darwinian fashion why the “superior” Aryans were constantly getting snookered by the “inferior” Jews. Nor did he offer arguments as to why the supposedly so powerful survival mechanisms of the Semites deserved condemnation. If being a crafty Jew (on his view, not mine) makes you fitter to survive than being a thick-headed, battle-ready Teuton, why side with the lunkhead, anyway? Darwin offers no answer.
In fact, any “science” that saws off the tree it hangs from offers us very little at all — except some pseudo-profundities which college sophomores can whisper after their third hit of the bong.
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream, and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He is co-author with Jason Jones of “God, Guns, & the Government.”


thestream--2020-08-16--‘Kamikaze Academics’ and a Cardinal, Revolutionary Principle of Jesus

The teachings of Jesus are filled with paradoxes , but none is more paradoxical than this : “ Whoever would save his life will lose it , but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it ” ( Matthew 16:25 ) .
As expressed in another passage , “ Truly , truly , I say to you , unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies , it remains alone ; but if it dies , it bears much fruit .
Whoever loves his life loses it , and whoever hates his life in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( John 12:24-25 ) .
This is a cardinal , revolutionary principle , and by understanding it and implementing it , we can overcome the cancel culture .
But what , exactly , does this principle mean in our practical , day to day lives ?
An Australian professor , Dr. Peter Ridd , fired by his university for telling the politically incorrect truth , has coined a term that says it all .
He calls it “ Kamikaze Academics.
” As explained by James Delingpole , “ Kamikaze Academics will comprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired for expressing opinions which go against the standard leftist narrative — and in doing so , expose how little free speech and diversity of thought there now is in academe.
” This is the practical application of the teachings of Jesus , fleshed out here in the academic world .
You speak the truth and live the truth , regardless of cost or consequences .
In the process , you save your integrity even if you lose your job .
As a result , you become free ( in the words of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) .
In contrast , if you try to save your job and preserve your reputation , refusing to question false narratives and choosing to compromise your convictions for the sake of your career , you actually “ lose your life.
” You become a slave to the system , a slave to peer pressure , a slave to the dollar , a slave to the approval of people , a slave to expediency rather than principle .
Dr. Ridd himself suggested that , “ It ’ s only older academics like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a duty to do this so that younger academics can have a proper academic career where they can say tough things or even stupid things and still be forgiven .
You need to be able to make mistakes.
” The Oppressive System Must Be Challenged But the call must be much broader .
Both older and younger academics must speak the truth .
The oppressive system must be challenged .
To be silent is to enable .
More broadly still , beyond the world of academia , we must all determine to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses to the truth , regardless of cost or consequence .
That doesn ’ t mean that we abandon practical wisdom .
There is a time to speak and a time to refrain from speaking .
And that doesn ’ t mean that we cultivate pride and arrogance , as if we couldn ’ t care less about what others think .
To the contrary , we are called to humility , to be peacemakers rather than troublemakers .
But we must have the mentality of spiritual revolutionaries , understanding that we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here for a purpose that transcends the goals of ordinary life .
We are here to be witnesses , to make an eternal difference , to live lives that count , both in this age and the age to come .
As a result , we are willing to sacrifice something temporal to gain something eternal .
In the words of missionary martyr Jim Elliot , “ He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Strikingly , while in college , Elliot journaled this prayer : “ Father , take my life , yes , my blood if Thou wilt , and consume it with Thine enveloping fire .
I would not save it , for it is not mine to save .
Have it Lord , have it all .
Pour out my life as an oblation for the world .
Blood is only of value as it flows before Thine altar.
” And this : “ God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idle sticks of my life and may I burn for Thee .
Consume my life , my God , for it is Thine .
I seek not a long life , but a full one , like you , Lord Jesus.
” Elliot , martyred by the Auca Indians at the age of 28 in 1956 saw his prayers answered dramatically .
And while he did not live a long life , he certainly lived a full life , one that continues to speak and make an impact long after his passing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ To Save Your Life is to Lose It ” Of course , the vast majority of us will not face the test of literal martyrdom .
But there are many “ deaths ” we will be called to die in our daily obedience to God .
That ’ s why I devoted an entire chapter to the theme , “ To save your life is to lose it ” in my forthcoming book Revolution : An Urgent Call to a Holy Uprising .
It is a fundamental , revolutionary principle set forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we must live out in the home , in the workplace , on the campus , and online .
And yet , in contrast to the original practitioners of “ kamikaze , ” the Japanese pilots who gave their lives to kill others , we give our lives to liberate and help others .
We are here to save people ’ s lives , not destroy them .
The moment we take hold of this reality , that by losing our lives we find our lives , the cancel culture , along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loses it power .
The moment we take hold of this , we are free .
Dr. Ridd is living this out in the world of academics , where he is in a pitched court battle with the university that dismissed him .
Let us each of live this out in our own worlds , regardless of cost or consequence .
By losing our lives , we will find them .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We Pass the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

The teachings of Jesus are filled with paradoxes, but none is more paradoxical than this: “Whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25). As expressed in another passage, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:24-25). This is a cardinal, revolutionary principle, and by understanding it and implementing it, we can overcome the cancel culture.
Dr. Peter Ridd and “Kamikaze Academics’
But what, exactly, does this principle mean in our practical, day to day lives? An Australian professor, Dr. Peter Ridd, fired by his university for telling the politically incorrect truth, has coined a term that says it all. He calls it “Kamikaze Academics.”
As explained by James Delingpole, “Kamikaze Academics will comprise professors like himself willing to get themselves fired for expressing opinions which go against the standard leftist narrative — and in doing so, expose how little free speech and diversity of thought there now is in academe.”
This is the practical application of the teachings of Jesus, fleshed out here in the academic world. You speak the truth and live the truth, regardless of cost or consequences. In the process, you save your integrity even if you lose your job. As a result, you become free (in the words of Jesus, “you find your life”).
In contrast, if you try to save your job and preserve your reputation, refusing to question false narratives and choosing to compromise your convictions for the sake of your career, you actually “lose your life.” You become a slave to the system, a slave to peer pressure, a slave to the dollar, a slave to the approval of people, a slave to expediency rather than principle.
Dr. Ridd himself suggested that, “It’s only older academics like me who can do this. We have a duty to do this so that younger academics can have a proper academic career where they can say tough things or even stupid things and still be forgiven. You need to be able to make mistakes.”
The Oppressive System Must Be Challenged
But the call must be much broader. Both older and younger academics must speak the truth. The oppressive system must be challenged. To be silent is to enable.
More broadly still, beyond the world of academia, we must all determine to stand up and speak out and be witnesses to the truth, regardless of cost or consequence.
That doesn’t mean that we abandon practical wisdom. There is a time to speak and a time to refrain from speaking.
And that doesn’t mean that we cultivate pride and arrogance, as if we couldn’t care less about what others think. To the contrary, we are called to humility, to be peacemakers rather than troublemakers.
But we must have the mentality of spiritual revolutionaries, understanding that we are here for something greater than earthly pleasures, here for a purpose that transcends the goals of ordinary life. We are here to be witnesses, to make an eternal difference, to live lives that count, both in this age and the age to come.
As a result, we are willing to sacrifice something temporal to gain something eternal. In the words of missionary martyr Jim Elliot, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Strikingly, while in college, Elliot journaled this prayer: “Father, take my life, yes, my blood if Thou wilt, and consume it with Thine enveloping fire. I would not save it, for it is not mine to save. Have it Lord, have it all. Pour out my life as an oblation for the world. Blood is only of value as it flows before Thine altar.”
And this: “God, I pray Thee, light these idle sticks of my life and may I burn for Thee. Consume my life, my God, for it is Thine. I seek not a long life, but a full one, like you, Lord Jesus.”
Elliot, martyred by the Auca Indians at the age of 28 in 1956 saw his prayers answered dramatically. And while he did not live a long life, he certainly lived a full life, one that continues to speak and make an impact long after his passing, one like that of Jesus Himself.
“To Save Your Life is to Lose It”
Of course, the vast majority of us will not face the test of literal martyrdom. But there are many “deaths” we will be called to die in our daily obedience to God. That’s why I devoted an entire chapter to the theme, “To save your life is to lose it” in my forthcoming book Revolution: An Urgent Call to a Holy Uprising.
It is a fundamental, revolutionary principle set forth by Jesus, and it is something we must live out in the home, in the workplace, on the campus, and online. And yet, in contrast to the original practitioners of “kamikaze,” the Japanese pilots who gave their lives to kill others, we give our lives to liberate and help others. We are here to save people’s lives, not destroy them.
The moment we take hold of this reality, that by losing our lives we find our lives, the cancel culture, along with the larger culture of peer pressure, loses it power. The moment we take hold of this, we are free.
Dr. Ridd is living this out in the world of academics, where he is in a pitched court battle with the university that dismissed him.
Let us each of live this out in our own worlds, regardless of cost or consequence. By losing our lives, we will find them.
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--2020-08-16--Black America Isn’t Fooled by the Kamala Harris Nomination

I can remember when you ’ d be branded a bigot for basing your vote purely on a candidate ’ s race or ethnicity .
Now , apparently , it ’ s the only thing we ’ re supposed to consider .
For me , this paradox reached new heights with the announcement of Joe Biden ’ s running mate , Kamala Harris .
By the logic of identity politics , this should have secured my vote .
After all , like Harris , I am a Black woman with a multicultural background .
( I was born in Panama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caribbean , India , and Portugal . )
As such , I was pleased to see another Black woman reach such political heights .
As an American , I appreciate her success story .
And as a conservative Christian , I would not vote for her .
It ’ s deeply frustrating .
Harris ’ nomination demonstrates how entrenched identity politics has become in our culture .
It is an open secret that Biden picked Harris as his running mate because he wanted ( or , more accurately , was pressured ) to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Harris checked the boxes .
So Harris got the nod .
After her dismal performance in the primary campaign , we have now been treated to a media rewrite of Harris ’ record .
She has only been a senator since 2017 , and her short time in Congress did not impress .
Her most notable moment in the past few years ?
Her grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearing .
That was an embarrassing display that demonstrated little other than her political ambition .
And her embrace of the radical left .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our latest book , A Dream Derailed , those leftist policies have been disastrous to the African American community , leading to failing schools and decaying inner cities .
The left is also hostile to the biblical principles that are at the heart of the Black church , while progressives often seek to silence or marginalize Christians .
Harris ’ s time as a prosecutor is being used to support the idea that the Democratic ticket is tough on crime , a strange and unconvincing move in light of the party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” movement .
But even here , Harris ’ s record does not inspire confidence .
She gained notoriety for throwing marijuana users in jail and for threatening the parents of truants with criminal penalties .
Far from helping the African American community , Harris was one of the prosecutors who pursued disastrous policies in policing and incarceration .
Prison reform , such as Trump ’ s First Step Act , had to be enacted in order to mitigate the harm done to the Black community by prosecutors like Kamala Harris .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really going on .
Picking Kamala Harris as Biden ’ s running mate was just affirmative action at the highest level .
There is nothing in her record to recommend her other than her gender and ethnicity .
To nominate her shows an infuriating level of political cynicism on the part of the Democratic Party .
That ’ s because it assumes that this is all it takes to win over an increasing alienated Black electorate .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s approval rating among Black voters has been steadily rising , as his efforts at prison reform and reducing Black unemployment have proven that he cares .
Democrats , on the other hand , have responded with their usual strategy : Engage in identity politics and assume you have the Black vote all sewn up .
What have Democrats done to help the Black community lately ?
All we have seen from them are gestures and pandering … and Kamala Harris ’ s Veep nomination is the perfect example of this approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Black vote for granted for decades .
In a year when the country ’ s racial divide has become a big issue , the Democrats have responded with optics and pandering .
It is the biggest example of , “ I can ’ t be racist because some of my best friends are Black , ” in history .
And an attempt from the Biden campaign to “ prove ” that his multiple gaffes on race are meaningless because he has a Black running mate .
We Can Do Better It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman used as a political pawn in this way .
But that won ’ t change the way I see this election .
I still hold true to the dream of Dr. King .
I want a future where we hold hands as brothers and sisters in a country where the color of our skin has no meaning , but the content of our characters does .
This year , I will be voting based on character , values , and policy .
I won ’ t be asking , “ What race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ What has this candidate done to help the Black community , and does he or she align with my values ?
” If the only thing the Democratic candidate has to offer is racial pandering , he or she won ’ t be getting my vote .
Dr. Deborah De Sousa Owens is the Executive Director of the Coalition of African American Pastors and the Founder of Mission Education .
Deborah and her husband , Rev .
William Owens , travel extensively speaking about their core values : choices in education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection of marriage , and the free expression of faith .
It ’ s a message she also shares as the co-host of CAAP ’ s online show Wisdom for Today .

I can remember when you’d be branded a bigot for basing your vote purely on a candidate’s race or ethnicity. Now, apparently, it’s the only thing we’re supposed to consider. For me, this paradox reached new heights with the announcement of Joe Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris. By the logic of identity politics, this should have secured my vote.
After all, like Harris, I am a Black woman with a multicultural background. (I was born in Panama and my family has roots in the Caribbean, India, and Portugal.) As such, I was pleased to see another Black woman reach such political heights. As an American, I appreciate her success story.
Identity Politics, Not the Gospel
And as a conservative Christian, I would not vote for her. It’s deeply frustrating. Harris’ nomination demonstrates how entrenched identity politics has become in our culture. It is an open secret that Biden picked Harris as his running mate because he wanted (or, more accurately, was pressured) to put a Black woman on the ticket. Harris checked the boxes. So Harris got the nod.
Picking Kamala Harris as Biden’s running mate was just affirmative action at the highest level.
After her dismal performance in the primary campaign, we have now been treated to a media rewrite of Harris’ record. She has only been a senator since 2017, and her short time in Congress did not impress. Her most notable moment in the past few years? Her grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearing. That was an embarrassing display that demonstrated little other than her political ambition. And her embrace of the radical left.
A Disaster for Black Americans
As Bill Owens and I explain in our latest book, A Dream Derailed, those leftist policies have been disastrous to the African American community, leading to failing schools and decaying inner cities. The left is also hostile to the biblical principles that are at the heart of the Black church, while progressives often seek to silence or marginalize Christians.
Harris’s time as a prosecutor is being used to support the idea that the Democratic ticket is tough on crime, a strange and unconvincing move in light of the party’s embrace of the “defund the police” movement.
But even here, Harris’s record does not inspire confidence. She gained notoriety for throwing marijuana users in jail and for threatening the parents of truants with criminal penalties. Far from helping the African American community, Harris was one of the prosecutors who pursued disastrous policies in policing and incarceration. Prison reform, such as Trump’s First Step Act, had to be enacted in order to mitigate the harm done to the Black community by prosecutors like Kamala Harris.
Crowning a Quota Queen?
Let’s be honest about what is really going on. Picking Kamala Harris as Biden’s running mate was just affirmative action at the highest level. There is nothing in her record to recommend her other than her gender and ethnicity. To nominate her shows an infuriating level of political cynicism on the part of the Democratic Party. That’s because it assumes that this is all it takes to win over an increasing alienated Black electorate.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Trump’s approval rating among Black voters has been steadily rising, as his efforts at prison reform and reducing Black unemployment have proven that he cares. Democrats, on the other hand, have responded with their usual strategy: Engage in identity politics and assume you have the Black vote all sewn up.
Optics and Pandering
What have Democrats done to help the Black community lately? All we have seen from them are gestures and pandering … and Kamala Harris’s Veep nomination is the perfect example of this approach. The Democratic Party has been taking the Black vote for granted for decades.
In a year when the country’s racial divide has become a big issue, the Democrats have responded with optics and pandering. It is the biggest example of, “I can’t be racist because some of my best friends are Black,” in history. And an attempt from the Biden campaign to “prove” that his multiple gaffes on race are meaningless because he has a Black running mate.
We Can Do Better
It is painful to see an intelligent, accomplished woman used as a political pawn in this way. But that won’t change the way I see this election. I still hold true to the dream of Dr. King. I want a future where we hold hands as brothers and sisters in a country where the color of our skin has no meaning, but the content of our characters does.
This year, I will be voting based on character, values, and policy. I won’t be asking, “What race is this candidate?” but rather, “What has this candidate done to help the Black community, and does he or she align with my values?” If the only thing the Democratic candidate has to offer is racial pandering, he or she won’t be getting my vote.
Dr. Deborah De Sousa Owens is the Executive Director of the Coalition of African American Pastors and the Founder of Mission Education. Deborah and her husband, Rev. William Owens, travel extensively speaking about their core values: choices in education, the sanctity of life, the protection of marriage, and the free expression of faith. It’s a message she also shares as the co-host of CAAP’s online show Wisdom for Today.


thestream--2020-08-16--Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President? One Scholar Says No, But She Is

As a law professor , I would tell my students , “ Don ’ t substitute adjectives and adverbs for arguments.
” In other words , do not simply say that X is preposterous or that Y is clearly correct .
Show me why this or that is the case .
My law students generally got the point .
Unfortunately , most commenting on the Newsweek opinion piece by Professor John Eastman have not .
Eastman was addressing Kamala Harris ’ s eligibility to be president .
The current president is being bashed for failing to quickly denounce Eastman ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of time to understand why that is so , though .
Unfortunately , instead of providing relevant legal quotations and logic , the media hounds have chosen to simply howl out terms like “ racist ” and “ birther.
” Trump makes enough questionable responses surrounding conspiracy theories on his own .
No one forced him to send a glowing tweet after QAnon conspiracy devotee Marjorie Taylor Greene won a GOP primary last week .
No one forced him to incorrectly question President Obama ’ s citizenship years ago .
But here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a press conference .
He eventually responded by saying , “ I don ’ t know about it .
I just heard about it .
I ’ ll take a look.
” Jumping from that to the CNN headline “ Trump ’ s Baseless Birther Lie ” seems a stretch .
Numerous other media outlets were also fully apoplectic .
Some Newsweek employees declared Eastman ’ s piece “ racist ” and “ dangerous.
” Newsweek eventually prefaced the piece with a lengthy apology .
The Biden campaign put out a statement calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In short , there were lots of fiery adjectives and adverbs , but not many evidence-based arguments to bolster the loud conclusions .
The Evidence She Does Qualify is Valid Yet , the conclusion that Kamala Harris is constitutionally qualified to be president has a lot to support it .
Conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh , has a thoughtful and concise reply .
( Eastman criticized his friend Volokh in his original piece . )
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service ( CRS ) also produced a lengthy 2011 treatment on presidential qualifications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I strongly conclude that Harris is qualified .
Following my own advice , let me tell you why .
The Constitution requires that the President be a “ natural born citizen.
” Eastman does not question that Harris was born in Oakland in 1964 .
While Harris was certainly born in the U.S.A , Eastman argues that alone is not enough to make her a “ citizen.
” The Fourteenth Amendment defines that important term by saying “ all persons born .
.
.
in the United States , and subject to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastman emphasizes the “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ” clause .
Harris ’ s parents were here on student visas .
Eastman argues that those under such short-term authorizations are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States .
He claims that only “ a partial jurisdiction .
.
.
applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States.
” As historical evidence , he cites a World War II guest worker program that did not provide citizenship to the workers ’ offspring .
Thus , the theory goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. to two temporary aliens , she may not be a citizen at all .
She would not be eligible to be vice-president .
And unless she was naturalized , then she would not even be eligible to be a senator .
Eastman is essentially claiming that Harris is an illegal alien .
She is not .
So , why is Eastman wrong ?
First , as Volokh points out , the term “ natural born citizen ” was synonymous with “ natural born subject ” from the English common law .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source very familiar to the American founders .
He addressed the basic question this way : “ The children of aliens , born here in England , are , generally speaking , natural-born subjects , and entitled to all the privileges of such.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
That tradition continued on this side of the Atlantic .
Importantly , it was applied to temporary visitors .
The CRS opinion summarizes an influential 1844 New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It “ concluded that all persons born in the United States , even of alien parents who were only here temporarily , had ‘ natural born ’ citizenship status.
’ ” Later , in 1862 , U.S. Attorney General Edward Bates wrote in a formal opinion , “ I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents … are native-born citizens of the United States.
” Slaves born in our country were treated with a hypocritical and cruel double standard .
But someone like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents , would have likely been seen as a “ natural born citizen ” even before the Civil War .
Sadly , after the Civil War , racism still reared its head against blacks and others .
The Chinese Exclusion Acts barred legal Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens .
But what of their children born here ?
The Supreme Court took up that question in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 .
Mr. Wong was a 21 year old man born and raised in America .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned from a visit to China .
The Court made an exhaustive examination of natural born citizenship from its English common law roots onward .
In the end , the Supreme Court held that Wong was indeed a citizen .
Along the way , the Court favorably noted a case stating that one born in England was treated as a subject “ whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning.
” The only exceptions were those children born to diplomats or to hostile occupying soldiers .
In fact , the Court pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was “ beyond doubt ” that this was the law in America for white children prior to the Fourteenth Amendment .
Then , through the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 , “ the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth .
.
.
was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
” That principle was expanded to people “ of every race and color.
” True , there was an exception in the statute for certain members of Indian tribes .
The complexity of Native American citizenship is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Suffice it to say that the “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had previously been used to deny citizenship to an Indian man .
Eastman notes this case as supportive of his theory about Harris .
Thus , in 1898 , there was indeed a possibility that the role of Eastman ’ s highlighted clause might be expanded further .
That expansion might have been consistent with what Eastman now proposes .
However , the Court clearly rejected that option .
The Court stated instead that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clause was simply to exclude “ children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives.
” ( Harris is clearly neither . )
Again , this had long been the case under common law .
The point of the clause , it concluded , was “ not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.
” Eastman may disagree with the decision .
But all of the cases that he relies on for support were directly discussed in the Wong Kim Ark opinion .
The chances of the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1898 are slim to none .
Also , the historical anomaly that Eastman notes appears to be just that — and perhaps an unconstitutional one .
The Bracero Program for temporary Mexican workers ran from 1942 to 1964 .
Eastman suggests that children born in the United States under the program were properly denied citizenship .
But the Smithsonian affiliated Bracero History Archive asserts that “ [ m ] any US-born children of Mexican braceros were wrongly repatriated.
” There has been no Supreme Court case to decide the question .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big claim — that all children of legal international college students should be denied citizenship .
Remember When John McCain ’ s Citizenship Was Questioned ?
The Media Doesn ’ t .
Newsweek may have made a mistake in publishing a piece with so little to back it up .
But this is certainly not the first time questions surrounding the presidential qualifications clause in the Constitution have been raised .
The Michigan Law Review was among those outlets that questioned John McCain ’ s qualifications because he was born in the Panama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try and keep him off the ballot .
None succeeded .
Yet , I do not remember quite the same indignation from the press .
The issue was largely ignored .
This issue could have been ignored too .
It wasn ’ t .
Instead , a non-committal answer to a far-from-required question was breathlessly turned into “ a new low , ” as CNN ’ s Jim Acosta would put it .
The President said he would “ take a look.
” He has plenty of smart attorneys who can quickly do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It should soon be clear to the White House that there is not much “ there ” there .
Then a clear statement should be delivered to put this issue to bed .
If , on the other hand , President Trump tweets about it improperly , then Christians should be the first to call him out .
John Murdock is a former law professor and a practicing attorney in Boise .

As a law professor, I would tell my students, “Don’t substitute adjectives and adverbs for arguments.” In other words, do not simply say that X is preposterous or that Y is clearly correct. Show me why this or that is the case. My law students generally got the point.
Unfortunately, most commenting on the Newsweek opinion piece by Professor John Eastman have not. Eastman was addressing Kamala Harris’s eligibility to be president. The current president is being bashed for failing to quickly denounce Eastman’s theory.
Eastman’s argument is weak.
He Doesn’t Know
It does take a bit of time to understand why that is so, though. Unfortunately, instead of providing relevant legal quotations and logic, the media hounds have chosen to simply howl out terms like “racist” and “birther.”
Trump makes enough questionable responses surrounding conspiracy theories on his own. No one forced him to send a glowing tweet after QAnon conspiracy devotee Marjorie Taylor Greene won a GOP primary last week. No one forced him to incorrectly question President Obama’s citizenship years ago.
But here, Trump was asked a question at a press conference. He eventually responded by saying, “I don’t know about it. I just heard about it. I’ll take a look.” Jumping from that to the CNN headline “Trump’s Baseless Birther Lie” seems a stretch.
Numerous other media outlets were also fully apoplectic. Some Newsweek employees declared Eastman’s piece “racist” and “dangerous.” Newsweek eventually prefaced the piece with a lengthy apology. The Biden campaign put out a statement calling the president’s response “abhorrent.” In short, there were lots of fiery adjectives and adverbs, but not many evidence-based arguments to bolster the loud conclusions.
The Evidence She Does Qualify is Valid
Yet, the conclusion that Kamala Harris is constitutionally qualified to be president has a lot to support it. Conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh, has a thoughtful and concise reply. (Eastman criticized his friend Volokh in his original piece.) The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) also produced a lengthy 2011 treatment on presidential qualifications. I have read those and more. I strongly conclude that Harris is qualified. Following my own advice, let me tell you why.
The Constitution requires that the President be a “natural born citizen.” Eastman does not question that Harris was born in Oakland in 1964. While Harris was certainly born in the U.S.A, Eastman argues that alone is not enough to make her a “citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment defines that important term by saying “all persons born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Eastman emphasizes the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause.
Harris’s parents were here on student visas. Eastman argues that those under such short-term authorizations are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. He claims that only “a partial jurisdiction . . . applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States.” As historical evidence, he cites a World War II guest worker program that did not provide citizenship to the workers’ offspring.
Thus, the theory goes, if Harris was born in the U.S. to two temporary aliens, she may not be a citizen at all. She would not be eligible to be vice-president. And unless she was naturalized, then she would not even be eligible to be a senator. Eastman is essentially claiming that Harris is an illegal alien. She is not.
What’s “Natural Born Citizen”?
So, why is Eastman wrong? First, as Volokh points out, the term “natural born citizen” was synonymous with “natural born subject” from the English common law. The influential legal commentator William Blackstone was a source very familiar to the American founders. He addressed the basic question this way: “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
That tradition continued on this side of the Atlantic. Importantly, it was applied to temporary visitors. The CRS opinion summarizes an influential 1844 New York court decision named Lynch v. Clarke. It “concluded that all persons born in the United States, even of alien parents who were only here temporarily, had ‘natural born’ citizenship status.’” Later, in 1862, U.S. Attorney General Edward Bates wrote in a formal opinion, “I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents … are native-born citizens of the United States.”
Slaves born in our country were treated with a hypocritical and cruel double standard. But someone like Kamala Harris, born of free alien parents, would have likely been seen as a “natural born citizen” even before the Civil War.
After the Civil War
Sadly, after the Civil War, racism still reared its head against blacks and others. The Chinese Exclusion Acts barred legal Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens. But what of their children born here?
The Supreme Court took up that question in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Mr. Wong was a 21 year old man born and raised in America. Yet, he was refused re-entry when he returned from a visit to China. The Court made an exhaustive examination of natural born citizenship from its English common law roots onward. In the end, the Supreme Court held that Wong was indeed a citizen.
Along the way, the Court favorably noted a case stating that one born in England was treated as a subject “whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning.” The only exceptions were those children born to diplomats or to hostile occupying soldiers. In fact, the Court pointed to multiple cases making these points. It was “beyond doubt” that this was the law in America for white children prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then, through the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth . . . was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.” That principle was expanded to people “of every race and color.”
Ruling Out the Exceptions
True, there was an exception in the statute for certain members of Indian tribes. The complexity of Native American citizenship is largely a story for another day. Suffice it to say that the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had previously been used to deny citizenship to an Indian man. Eastman notes this case as supportive of his theory about Harris.
Thus, in 1898, there was indeed a possibility that the role of Eastman’s highlighted clause might be expanded further. That expansion might have been consistent with what Eastman now proposes. However, the Court clearly rejected that option.
The Court stated instead that the “real object” of the clause was simply to exclude “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives.” (Harris is clearly neither.) Again, this had long been the case under common law. The point of the clause, it concluded, was “not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.”
Eastman may disagree with the decision. But all of the cases that he relies on for support were directly discussed in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. The chances of the Supreme Court today taking back what it said in 1898 are slim to none.
Also, the historical anomaly that Eastman notes appears to be just that — and perhaps an unconstitutional one. The Bracero Program for temporary Mexican workers ran from 1942 to 1964. Eastman suggests that children born in the United States under the program were properly denied citizenship. But the Smithsonian affiliated Bracero History Archive asserts that “[m]any US-born children of Mexican braceros were wrongly repatriated.”
There has been no Supreme Court case to decide the question. This is thin thread on which to hang a big claim — that all children of legal international college students should be denied citizenship.
Remember When John McCain’s Citizenship Was Questioned? The Media Doesn’t.
Newsweek may have made a mistake in publishing a piece with so little to back it up. But this is certainly not the first time questions surrounding the presidential qualifications clause in the Constitution have been raised. The Michigan Law Review was among those outlets that questioned John McCain’s qualifications because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Lawsuits were filed to try and keep him off the ballot. None succeeded.
Yet, I do not remember quite the same indignation from the press. The issue was largely ignored. This issue could have been ignored too.
It wasn’t. Instead, a non-committal answer to a far-from-required question was breathlessly turned into “a new low,” as CNN’s Jim Acosta would put it.
The President said he would “take a look.” He has plenty of smart attorneys who can quickly do all the research that I have done. It should soon be clear to the White House that there is not much “there” there. Then a clear statement should be delivered to put this issue to bed. If, on the other hand, President Trump tweets about it improperly, then Christians should be the first to call him out.
John Murdock is a former law professor and a practicing attorney in Boise.


thestream--2020-08-16--Huge Guilty Plea in RussiaGate Ignored by CNN and MSNBC Prime Time

• CNN and MSNBC devoted little coverage Friday and Saturday to the first development in U.S. Attorney John Durham ’ s investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe .
• Kevin Clinesmith , a former FBI lawyer , is expected to plead guilty to falsifying an email regarding former Trump aide Carter Page ’ s past association with the CIA .
• CNN and MSNBC employ at least three former FBI and CIA officials as analysts , though none appeared on air to discuss the Clinesmith case .
• MSNBC host Chuck Todd questioned whether the Durham probe was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and MSNBC largely ignored the news Friday that a former FBI lawyer will plead guilty to altering an email related to Carter Page , the former Trump campaign aide .
Neither network mentioned the case against the former FBI lawyer , Kevin Clinesmith , in their primetime broadcasts , according to a review conducted by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
The networks had brief segments during the daytime broadcasts that reported the news that Clinesmith would plead guilty to making false statements by altering an email that downplayed Page ’ s past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been an operational contact for the CIA through at least 2013 and provided information about his interactions with a Russian intelligence officer .
Clinesmith , 38 , added a line to a CIA liaison ’ s email in June 2017 that said that Page was “ not a ‘ source ’ ” for the spy agency , according to the charging documents .
The case is the first major development in an investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe .
CNN and MSNBC would be well-positioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between them employ at least three analysts who worked on either Crossfire Hurricane or the special counsel ’ s probe .
MSNBC also has former CIA Director John Brennan as an analyst .
MSNBC recently hired Lisa Page , a former FBI lawyer , and Andrew Weissmann , a top prosecutor on the special counsel ’ s probe , as analysts .
Page was general counsel to Andrew McCabe when he served as FBI deputy director .
She was directly involved in decisions made in Crossfire Hurricane .
Neither appeared on MSNBC on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN , though he also did not appear on TV to discuss the Clinesmith development .
CNN last year also hired former FBI general counsel Jim Baker .
He also did not appear on air , though it is unclear if he is still with the network .
CNN and MSNBC Had Gone Wall to Wall with Anti-Trump Russian Coverage The lack of coverage of the Clinesmith case is in stark contrast to CNN and MSNBC ’ s handling of developments during the special counsel ’ s investigation .
Both networks were known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and turn in the Russia probe .
Neither of the networks ’ primetime hosts addressed the Clinesmith news .
MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow , one of the leading proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory , did not mention the story .
A review of Grabien , the television monitoring service , shows that the Clinesmith news was reported on CNN during Brooke Baldwin ’ s and John King ’ s shows .
Evan Perez , a CNN justice reporter , appeared for a total of less than five minutes to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
MSNBC spent more time discussing Clinesmith , though the coverage was more dismissive of the development .
NBC reporter Pete Williams outlined the case in a segment on Andrew Mitchell ’ s show .
Brian Williams spent 30 seconds on the case during his show airing just before midnight .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Chuck Todd , an MSNBC host who also anchors Meet the Press , ” was dismissive of the case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ less important than an investigation of WikiLeaks .
“ What ’ s unclear is whether this is a serious investigation into what else like the issue of WikiLeaks and how many American citizens ’ privacy and rights were violated by these Russian hackers who did this , ” he said .
He also asked whether the Durham probe was aimed at “ creating confusion about investigating the investigators here.
” “ We will wait for this investigation and see if there is any concern about how many American citizens were targeted by WikiLeaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost with this Justice Department , ” Todd continued .
Contrary to Todd ’ s claim , the special counsel ’ s office brought charges against a Russian intelligence unit that provided stolen emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign .
The U.S. government has also charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a case unrelated to the Russian email hacks .
MSNBC host Ari Melber discussed the case during a segment questioning the motives of Attorney General William Barr .
Melber ’ s guest , former federal prosecutor John Flannery , called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neither MSNBC nor CNN immediately responded to requests for comment .

CNN and MSNBC devoted little coverage Friday and Saturday to the first development in U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, is expected to plead guilty to falsifying an email regarding former Trump aide Carter Page’s past association with the CIA.
CNN and MSNBC employ at least three former FBI and CIA officials as analysts, though none appeared on air to discuss the Clinesmith case.
MSNBC host Chuck Todd questioned whether the Durham probe was aimed at “creating confusion.”
CNN and MSNBC largely ignored the news Friday that a former FBI lawyer will plead guilty to altering an email related to Carter Page, the former Trump campaign aide.
Neither network mentioned the case against the former FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, in their primetime broadcasts, according to a review conducted by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The networks had brief segments during the daytime broadcasts that reported the news that Clinesmith would plead guilty to making false statements by altering an email that downplayed Page’s past work for the CIA.
Page had been an operational contact for the CIA through at least 2013 and provided information about his interactions with a Russian intelligence officer. Clinesmith, 38, added a line to a CIA liaison’s email in June 2017 that said that Page was “not a ‘source’” for the spy agency, according to the charging documents.
The case is the first major development in an investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
CNN and MSNBC would be well-positioned to discuss the case since the networks between them employ at least three analysts who worked on either Crossfire Hurricane or the special counsel’s probe. MSNBC also has former CIA Director John Brennan as an analyst.
MSNBC recently hired Lisa Page, a former FBI lawyer, and Andrew Weissmann, a top prosecutor on the special counsel’s probe, as analysts.
Page was general counsel to Andrew McCabe when he served as FBI deputy director. She was directly involved in decisions made in Crossfire Hurricane.
Neither appeared on MSNBC on Friday.
McCabe is an analyst at CNN, though he also did not appear on TV to discuss the Clinesmith development.
CNN last year also hired former FBI general counsel Jim Baker. He also did not appear on air, though it is unclear if he is still with the network.
CNN and MSNBC Had Gone Wall to Wall with Anti-Trump Russian Coverage
The lack of coverage of the Clinesmith case is in stark contrast to CNN and MSNBC’s handling of developments during the special counsel’s investigation. Both networks were known for their wall-to-wall coverage of every twist and turn in the Russia probe.
Neither of the networks’ primetime hosts addressed the Clinesmith news. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, one of the leading proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory, did not mention the story.
A review of Grabien, the television monitoring service, shows that the Clinesmith news was reported on CNN during Brooke Baldwin’s and John King’s shows. Evan Perez, a CNN justice reporter, appeared for a total of less than five minutes to report the developments in Clinesmith’s case.
MSNBC spent more time discussing Clinesmith, though the coverage was more dismissive of the development.
NBC reporter Pete Williams outlined the case in a segment on Andrew Mitchell’s show. Brian Williams spent 30 seconds on the case during his show airing just before midnight.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Chuck Todd, an MSNBC host who also anchors Meet the Press,” was dismissive of the case. He suggested that the Durham probe is less important than an investigation of WikiLeaks.
“What’s unclear is whether this is a serious investigation into what else like the issue of WikiLeaks and how many American citizens’ privacy and rights were violated by these Russian hackers who did this,” he said.
He also asked whether the Durham probe was aimed at “creating confusion about investigating the investigators here.”
“We will wait for this investigation and see if there is any concern about how many American citizens were targeted by WikiLeaks, something that seems to have gotten lost with this Justice Department,” Todd continued.
Contrary to Todd’s claim, the special counsel’s office brought charges against a Russian intelligence unit that provided stolen emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. The U.S. government has also charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a case unrelated to the Russian email hacks.
MSNBC host Ari Melber discussed the case during a segment questioning the motives of Attorney General William Barr. Melber’s guest, former federal prosecutor John Flannery, called the Clinesmith plea “pretty weak tea.”
Neither MSNBC nor CNN immediately responded to requests 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--2020-08-16--LA County Health Dept. Threatens to Shut Down Outdoor Church Service (Update: They Didn’t)

Update : Neither the L.A County health department ’ s mask mandate , nor 100 degree heat , nor smoke from the raging Lakes Fire could keep people away from Saturday ’ s Stadium Revival .
Pastor Shane Idleman reports just under 1000 people attended .
And praise God , 24 people came forward to be baptized !
This included at least six children , including one 11-year-old girl who had a dream about Jesus the night before and rushed to get baptized .
Recently , a few news outlets asked , “ What ’ s going on in California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write these articles ( you can view the first one here ) .
With the beach gatherings , along with Pastors Jack Hibbs ’ , Rob McCoy ’ s , and John MacArthur ’ s bold stances , we decided to launch a Saturday night service in Lancaster , California , at JetHawk Stadium on July 25th .
It ’ s being tagged # TheStadiumRevival .
To get you up to speed : Although the event was primarily for our local body as a way to come together , word quickly spread , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up every Saturday .
This move of God simply shows how hungry people are to be encouraged and uplifted — and even convicted .
But when God is moving , so are opposing forces .
The Los Angeles County Health Department received complaints about our service .
On Thursday the department told us we can not sing , even if we are six feet apart , but that they would consider allowing singing if we double our social distance and wear masks the entire service .
We ’ re not sure what will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shut us down midway through like they suggested ? )
, but you can watch the live feed here Saturday at 7 p.m. PDT to see what happens .
Some Guiding Thoughts on How to Respond We respect our governing authorities and comply when possible ( the Bible is clear here ) , but when mandates begin to hinder efforts to worship God and we see tons of inconsistencies ( e.g.
, protests are not shut down or challenged ) , then we must take a stand .
Others far more gifted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have written extensively on this topic , but I ’ d like to share some thoughts .
First , I love America — I love how God has blessed us .
I read the writings of the Founding Fathers and the Puritans often .
My heart beats for restoration and renewal .
Second , my heart is to honor and obey our elected officials when they are trying to honor God .
Third , it ’ s important that Christians respond in wisdom rather than react in pride .
Please Support The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
I don ’ t think it was a First Amendment issue , at least not initially , because the stay-at-home order appeared to be short-term and very specific .
I also believe that reacting can damage our witness if decisions are not bathed in prayer and carefully considered .
It can demonstrate a spirit of rebellion and send a wrong message across the landscape of America .
Civil rights must be viewed in the context of social responsibility , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt others ?
” But also , “ Will keeping our church closed hurt others mentally or spiritually … from depression to suicide ?
” An interesting dynamic , as well as a transition , is taking place — some of our leaders are not truly seeking God , so decisions are made in fear and guided by anxiety .
And it ’ s crystal clear now that COVID-19 is being used as a political weapon .
All kinds of evil are being exposed from pedophilia rings to satanic agendas .
Anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the side of deception .
Granted , COVID-19 is a real virus .
But when does compliance turn into complacency , and when are mandates overkill ?
We must seek God wholeheartedly and unconditionally if we truly desire wisdom .
We have been very compliant .
As this drags on , though , we will need to make decisions based on the biased targeting of churches .
Maintaining six feet to pray for the sick may be impossible .
Jesus laid hands on the sick and the leprous .
I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we want to do , for there is a fine line between presumption and faith .
At some point , though , the church must be the church .
God-given rights must be maintained .
My conviction on this day , August 14 , 2020 , is that we continue to support local ordinances when they are realistic and fair across the board .
During this time , we must humble ourselves as we fast and pray for direction .
So my question to you is , are you doing this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone should speak out until they have first sought the heart of God , and no Christian should incite unbiblical rebellion .
Are you “ reacting ” in anger or “ responding ” in wisdom ?
As I said in a recent article , in addition to bringing back the economy , we must constantly turn to God and His Word .
Psalm 119:67 reminds us of an essential truth : “ Before I was afflicted I went astray , but now I keep Your word.
” Affliction via difficulties , challenges and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In one fell swoop , COVID-19 has dethroned many of our idols .
We are finally realizing what is really important .
In this sense , I am incredibly encouraged , since this is fertile ground for revival .
Revival thrives in brokenness , repentance , humility , and passionate prayer .
I am concerned that America is fearful but not repentant , anxious but not surrendered to God , worried but not worshipful , confused but not diligently seeking Him .
What will it take to draw us back to God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s time , we must change course and cry out to Him in repentance with prayer and fasting .
God heard His people then , and He will hear us now — once again pouring out His Spirit on a dry and thirsty land , for whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved ( Joel 2:25-32 ) .
This is our goal at the Stadium Revival services in Southern California .
Would you please keep us in prayer ?
# TheStadiumRevival Shane Idleman is the founder and lead pastor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the creator of the WCF Radio Network .
His program , Regaining Lost Ground , points us back to God and reminds us that although times change , truth does not .
His books , blogs , and sermons can all be found at ShaneIdleman.com .

Update: Neither the L.A County health department’s mask mandate, nor 100 degree heat, nor smoke from the raging Lakes Fire could keep people away from Saturday’s Stadium Revival. Pastor Shane Idleman reports just under 1000 people attended. And praise God, 24 people came forward to be baptized! This included at least six children, including one 11-year-old girl who had a dream about Jesus the night before and rushed to get baptized. Idleman decided to ask those attending to comply with the requirements the health department imposed and to continue singing.
Recently, a few news outlets asked, “What’s going on in California?” That question prompted me to write these articles (you can view the first one here). With the beach gatherings, along with Pastors Jack Hibbs’, Rob McCoy’s, and John MacArthur’s bold stances, we decided to launch a Saturday night service in Lancaster, California, at JetHawk Stadium on July 25th. It’s being tagged #TheStadiumRevival.
To get you up to speed: Although the event was primarily for our local body as a way to come together, word quickly spread, and approximately 1,000 people have been showing up every Saturday. This move of God simply shows how hungry people are to be encouraged and uplifted — and even convicted. But when God is moving, so are opposing forces.
COVID-19 is a real virus, but when does compliance turn into complacence, and when are mandates overkill? We must seek God wholeheartedly and unconditionally if we truly desire wisdom.
The Los Angeles County Health Department received complaints about our service. On Thursday the department told us we cannot sing, even if we are six feet apart, but that they would consider allowing singing if we double our social distance and wear masks the entire service. We’re not sure what will happen on Saturday (will they attempt to shut us down midway through like they suggested?), but you can watch the live feed here Saturday at 7 p.m. PDT to see what happens.
Some Guiding Thoughts on How to Respond
We respect our governing authorities and comply when possible (the Bible is clear here), but when mandates begin to hinder efforts to worship God and we see tons of inconsistencies (e.g., protests are not shut down or challenged), then we must take a stand.
Others far more gifted than me, such as John MacArthur, have written extensively on this topic, but I’d like to share some thoughts. First, I love America — I love how God has blessed us. I read the writings of the Founding Fathers and the Puritans often. My heart beats for restoration and renewal. Second, my heart is to honor and obey our elected officials when they are trying to honor God. Third, it’s important that Christians respond in wisdom rather than react in pride.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I don’t think it was a First Amendment issue, at least not initially, because the stay-at-home order appeared to be short-term and very specific. I also believe that reacting can damage our witness if decisions are not bathed in prayer and carefully considered. It can demonstrate a spirit of rebellion and send a wrong message across the landscape of America. Civil rights must be viewed in the context of social responsibility, such as “Will exercising my ‘right’ hurt others?” But also, “Will keeping our church closed hurt others mentally or spiritually … from depression to suicide?”
Compliance or Complacency?
An interesting dynamic, as well as a transition, is taking place — some of our leaders are not truly seeking God, so decisions are made in fear and guided by anxiety. And it’s crystal clear now that COVID-19 is being used as a political weapon. All kinds of evil are being exposed from pedophilia rings to satanic agendas. Anyone who denies this is either naive or on the side of deception. Granted, COVID-19 is a real virus. But when does compliance turn into complacency, and when are mandates overkill? We must seek God wholeheartedly and unconditionally if we truly desire wisdom.
We have been very compliant. As this drags on, though, we will need to make decisions based on the biased targeting of churches. Maintaining six feet to pray for the sick may be impossible. Jesus laid hands on the sick and the leprous. I’m not implying that we become rebels and do what we want to do, for there is a fine line between presumption and faith. At some point, though, the church must be the church. God-given rights must be maintained.
Seeking God for Direction and Revival
My conviction on this day, August 14, 2020, is that we continue to support local ordinances when they are realistic and fair across the board. During this time, we must humble ourselves as we fast and pray for direction. So my question to you is, are you doing this, too? I don’t think anyone should speak out until they have first sought the heart of God, and no Christian should incite unbiblical rebellion. Are you “reacting” in anger or “responding” in wisdom?
I am concerned that America is fearful but not repentant, anxious but not surrendered to God, worried but not worshipful, confused but not diligently seeking Him.
As I said in a recent article, in addition to bringing back the economy, we must constantly turn to God and His Word. Psalm 119:67 reminds us of an essential truth: “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Your word.” Affliction via difficulties, challenges and obstacles can lead us back to God.
In one fell swoop, COVID-19 has dethroned many of our idols. We are finally realizing what is really important. In this sense, I am incredibly encouraged, since this is fertile ground for revival. Revival thrives in brokenness, repentance, humility, and passionate prayer. I am concerned that America is fearful but not repentant, anxious but not surrendered to God, worried but not worshipful, confused but not diligently seeking Him.
What will it take to draw us back to God? Like the Israelites in Joel’s time, we must change course and cry out to Him in repentance with prayer and fasting. God heard His people then, and He will hear us now — once again pouring out His Spirit on a dry and thirsty land, for whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Joel 2:25-32). This is our goal at the Stadium Revival services in Southern California. Would you please keep us in prayer? #TheStadiumRevival
Shane Idleman is the founder and lead pastor of Westside Christian Fellowship in Southern California and the creator of the WCF Radio Network. His program, Regaining Lost Ground, points us back to God and reminds us that although times change, truth does not. His books, blogs, and sermons can all be found at ShaneIdleman.com.


thestream--2020-08-17--How the Media Drives Radical ‘Wokeness’

How the Media Drives Radical ‘Wokeness’

“ Fake news ” isn ’ t the only media problem in 2020 .
An important analysis in media trends of the past decade shows how activist journalism is promoting radical racial “ wokeness.
” There was a time when the woke ideology was firmly ensconced in the ivory tower and limited to radical corners of our university system .
But now it ’ s everywhere , and America seemingly can ’ t stop talking about race , racism , and anti-racism all the time .
More than that , the George Floyd protests have turned into the 1619 riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being called into question as a part of some grand racial reckoning .
But where is all of this coming from ?
An in-depth analysis at Tablet magazine from Zach Goldberg , a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgia State University , shows that at the very least , America ’ s most elite media institutions have been the conduit for these ideas to become ubiquitous .
Once obscure academic jargon like “ white privilege ” and “ microaggression , ” Goldberg notes in his Aug. 4 piece , has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ racism ” has been redefined .
As I wrote in my analysis of Ibram X. Kendi , Robin DiAngelo , and the “ anti-racist ” movement , racism is “ not just an individual act of discrimination or prejudice toward a person or a people based on their race.
” Instead , racism is a “ collective condition leading to inequities in society.
” Being racially colorblind or demanding equal treatment under the law now are considered racist if societal inequities persist .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Moral Issues of Our Day .
In his Tablet piece , Goldberg lays out just how rapidly and widely “ wokeness ” has been disseminated among Americans .
The chief culprit being media , more specifically elite media institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post .
That process accelerated over the summer , Goldberg writes , as countless articles in these elite publications , typically portrayed as straight news , “ illustrate a prevailing new political morality on questions of race and justice that has taken power at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as ‘ wokeness ’ that combines the sensibilities of highly educated and hyperliberal white professionals with elements of Black nationalism and academic critical race theory.
” “ Wokeness ” is a term most Americans were mostly unfamiliar with even a few years ago , but now its prevailing ideas are everywhere .
Wokeness , which combines elements of Marxist ideology and critical race theory , increasingly has become the dominant ethos of America ’ s higher education institutions , newsrooms , and boardrooms .
The Surge in Race and Racism Talk Predated Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of race and racism revived after the election of President Donald Trump in 2016 , Goldberg ’ s analysis shows that this surge actually began years earlier , coinciding more closely with the beginning of President Barack Obama ’ s second term in office in 2013 .
“ In 2011 , the terms racist/racists/racism accounted for 0.0027 % and 0.0029 % of all words in The New York Times and The Washington Post , respectively , ” Goldberg writes , adding : What we see over the past decade is a continual dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its variations .
Moreover , the graph shows that this increase occurred a half decade before the arrival of Donald Trump .
By 2019 , they would constitute 0.02 % and just under 0.03 % of all words published in the Times and Post — an increase of over 700 % and just under 1,000 % , respectively , from 2011 .
One can see how this has led to a transformation of public opinion , especially on the American left .
“ In 2011 , just 35 % of white liberals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ a big problem , ’ according to national polling , ” Goldberg writes .
“ By 2015 , this figure had ballooned to 61 % and further still to 77 % in 2017.
” This development coincided with a large increase in white liberals saying that they knew someone whom they considered racist .
This perception didn ’ t change among nonwhite Democrats , though , and if anything , the trend was downward .
Increased Racism ?
Likely Not , Just an Increase in Progressive Drumbeating Goldberg writes that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent a genuine explosion of racism in America , and that white liberals are particularly perceptive to it .
However , he argues , it ’ s more likely that “ ascendant progressive notions about race , reflected in a steady drumbeat of reporting and editorializing on the subject from leading national media outlets , encouraged white liberals to label a larger number of behaviors and people as racist.
” Goldberg ’ s analysis demonstrates how elite institutions are generating broad cultural shifts in American society and how the radicalism of college campuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
America ’ s most powerful newsrooms not only are biased , they are engaging in widespread activism and leading the charge in America ’ s cultural revolution—whether or not this trend reflects the opinion of the majority of Americans .
Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast .
Send an email to Jarrett .
He is also the author of the new book , The War on History : The Conspiracy to Rewrite America ’ s Past .

“Fake news” isn’t the only media problem in 2020. An important analysis in media trends of the past decade shows how activist journalism is promoting radical racial “wokeness.”
There was a time when the woke ideology was firmly ensconced in the ivory tower and limited to radical corners of our university system. But now it’s everywhere, and America seemingly can’t stop talking about race, racism, and anti-racism all the time.
More than that, the George Floyd protests have turned into the 1619 riots, where the very idea of America is being called into question as a part of some grand racial reckoning.
But where is all of this coming from?
How ‘Wokeness’ Spreads
An in-depth analysis at Tablet magazine from Zach Goldberg, a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgia State University, shows that at the very least, America’s most elite media institutions have been the conduit for these ideas to become ubiquitous.
Once obscure academic jargon like “white privilege” and “microaggression,” Goldberg notes in his Aug. 4 piece, has been picked up by liberal journalists while the word “racism” has been redefined.
As I wrote in my analysis of Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, and the “anti-racist” movement, racism is “not just an individual act of discrimination or prejudice toward a person or a people based on their race.”
Instead, racism is a “collective condition leading to inequities in society.”
Being racially colorblind or demanding equal treatment under the law now are considered racist if societal inequities persist.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
In his Tablet piece, Goldberg lays out just how rapidly and widely “wokeness” has been disseminated among Americans. The chief culprit being media, more specifically elite media institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
That process accelerated over the summer, Goldberg writes, as countless articles in these elite publications, typically portrayed as straight news, “illustrate a prevailing new political morality on questions of race and justice that has taken power at the Times and Post—a worldview sometimes abbreviated as ‘wokeness’ that combines the sensibilities of highly educated and hyperliberal white professionals with elements of Black nationalism and academic critical race theory.”
“Wokeness” is a term most Americans were mostly unfamiliar with even a few years ago, but now its prevailing ideas are everywhere. Wokeness, which combines elements of Marxist ideology and critical race theory, increasingly has become the dominant ethos of America’s higher education institutions, newsrooms, and boardrooms.
The Surge in Race and Racism Talk Predated Trump
To those who may think that coverage of race and racism revived after the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, Goldberg’s analysis shows that this surge actually began years earlier, coinciding more closely with the beginning of President Barack Obama’s second term in office in 2013.
“In 2011, the terms racist/racists/racism accounted for 0.0027% and 0.0029% of all words in The New York Times and The Washington Post, respectively,” Goldberg writes, adding:
What we see over the past decade is a continual dramatic increase in usages of ‘racism’ and its variations. Moreover, the graph shows that this increase occurred a half decade before the arrival of Donald Trump. By 2019, they would constitute 0.02% and just under 0.03% of all words published in the Times and Post — an increase of over 700% and just under 1,000%, respectively, from 2011.
One can see how this has led to a transformation of public opinion, especially on the American left.
“In 2011, just 35% of white liberals thought racism in the United States was ‘a big problem,’ according to national polling,” Goldberg writes. “By 2015, this figure had ballooned to 61% and further still to 77% in 2017.”
This development coincided with a large increase in white liberals saying that they knew someone whom they considered racist.
This perception didn’t change among nonwhite Democrats, though, and if anything, the trend was downward.
Increased Racism? Likely Not, Just an Increase in Progressive Drumbeating
Goldberg writes that it’s possible that these changes in opinion represent a genuine explosion of racism in America, and that white liberals are particularly perceptive to it.
However, he argues, it’s more likely that “ascendant progressive notions about race, reflected in a steady drumbeat of reporting and editorializing on the subject from leading national media outlets, encouraged white liberals to label a larger number of behaviors and people as racist.”
Goldberg’s analysis demonstrates how elite institutions are generating broad cultural shifts in American society and how the radicalism of college campuses no longer is contained to college campuses.
America’s most powerful newsrooms not only are biased, they are engaging in widespread activism and leading the charge in America’s cultural revolution—whether or not this trend reflects the opinion of the majority of Americans.
Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the new book, The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal