thestream--2020-10-25--Conservative Attorney Asks: How Now Shall We Pray?

For me , prayer is a bit of a mystery .
Somehow it allows us to participate with God in shaping current events .
What an incredible honor and responsibility .
Many around the nation have been praying in recent days .
We ’ ve prayed for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her family .
We have appealed to heaven that the COVID-19 pandemic would end swiftly .
And we pray for honest elections , specifically that “ Vote by Mail ” plans won ’ t translate into “ Cheat by Vote by Mail.
” At Judicial Action Group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of prayer warriors .
As we have been praying in recent days over current events , we have sensed God giving us an interesting way to pray using precedent .
Last week in Judge Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing , we heard a lot of discussion about “ precedent.
” In the context of earthly courts , “ precedent ” refers to a prior court decision that is similar to a current court matter .
Interestingly , “ precedent ” is also relevant in the Kingdom of God .
As we seek God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our nation it is essential that we understand His laws and His nature .
But it ’ s also vital that we look to “ precedent , ” or the application of His laws and His nature to circumstances throughout history .
One such precedent is found in the biblical book of I Samuel in Chapter 14 .
It is the story of The Battle of Mikmash between the children of Israel and their enemies : the Philistines .
The Israelites , led by King Saul , were in one camp and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s son , Jonathan , and his armor bearer left their camp to go recon the enemy and ended up fighting them .
Thereafter , the Israelites watched God send panic and confusion into the enemy camp .
It resulted in the enemies fighting against each other , melting away and fleeing the battlefield .
You can read the whole story in I Samuel Chapter 14 .
As you read the Mikmash account , I pray that the Lord will highlight “ precedents ” to you .
Here are just a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team sees : • When Jonathan made a plan to engage the enemy , he did so with the declaration that “ nothing restrains the Lord from saving by many or by few ” ( I Samuel 14:6. )
.
• When it came time to confront the enemy , Jonathan was unafraid and credited God for delivering him before he even engaged .
“ Jonathan said to his armor bearer , ‘ Come up after me , for the Lord has delivered them into the hand of Israel ’ ” ( I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a form of fighting , but so is stepping into the public square and voting , working for imperfect candidates , and explaining what the Bible says about governmental issues .
“ And Jonathan climbed up on his hands and knees with his armor bearer after him ; and they fell before Jonathan .
And as he came after him , his armor bearer killed them .
That first slaughter which Jonathan and his armor bearer made was about twenty men within about half an acre of land ” ( I Samuel 14:13-14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panic into the enemy camp .
Once Jonathan engaged the enemy in faith , God responded and did supernaturally what only God can do : he sent a panic into the enemy camp .
“ Then panic struck the whole [ enemy ] army — those in the camp and field , and those in the outposts and raiding parties — and the ground shook .
It was a panic sent by God ” ( I Samuel 14:15 ) .
• None God caused the enemy army to melt away .
“ Saul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw the army melting away in all directions ” ( I Samuel 14:16 ) .
• None God caused the enemy to fight amongst themselves in total confusion .
Jonathan began the fight in faith , but then God stepped in and supernaturally caused the enemy to defeat themselves .
“ Then Saul and all his men assembled and went to the battle .
They found the Philistines in total confusion , striking each other with their swords ” ( I Samuel 14:20 ) .
• None God put the enemy on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel finally went to battle , they saw the enemy already on the run .
“ When all the Israelites who had hidden in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines were on the run , they joined the battle in hot pursuit .
So on that day the Lord saved Israel , and the battle moved on beyond Beth Aven.
” • None God flipped opponents over to the side of God .
This is one of the most interesting precedents from I Samuel 14 .
There were Israelites in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God caused the Philistines to fight amongst each other , he also brought these Israelites out of the enemy camp and into the camp of God .
“ Those Hebrews who had previously been with the Philistines and had gone up with them to their camp went over to the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan ” ( I Samuel 14:21 ) .
Application of Precedent to Our Present Battles Although I Samuel 14 describes an actual military battle , we know from the Bible that our present battle is not against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ For our struggle is not against flesh and blood , but against the rulers , against the authorities , against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
” As we battle in prayer , we take confidence in asking God to move in ways that are consistent with his laws and also with the precedents we see in His Word .
As we pray for Judge Barrett , I encourage you to join this “ precedent ” prayer : Lord , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies will not attack her .
But , if they do , then we pray that you would visit “ panic ” and “ confusion ” into the enemy camp .
We pray they would end up “ attacking each other ” and that they would “ melt away ” and “ flee ” the battlefield .
Let Judge Barrett move into victory and take this Supreme Court seat for your glory !
Dear prayer warrior , I encourage you to look for other precedents in God ’ s Word and to apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other current events .
Phillip Jauregui serves as president of Judicial Action Group , a 501 ( c ) 4 nonprofit organization working towards judicial renewal .

For me, prayer is a bit of a mystery. Somehow it allows us to participate with God in shaping current events. What an incredible honor and responsibility.
Many around the nation have been praying in recent days. We’ve prayed for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her family. We have appealed to heaven that the COVID-19 pandemic would end swiftly. And we pray for honest elections, specifically that “Vote by Mail” plans won’t translate into “Cheat by Vote by Mail.”
At Judicial Action Group, our greatest asset is our wonderful team of prayer warriors. As we have been praying in recent days over current events, we have sensed God giving us an interesting way to pray using precedent.
Understanding Spiritual Precedents
Last week in Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearing, we heard a lot of discussion about “precedent.” In the context of earthly courts, “precedent” refers to a prior court decision that is similar to a current court matter.
Interestingly, “precedent” is also relevant in the Kingdom of God. As we seek God and ask Him to perform His will for our nation it is essential that we understand His laws and His nature. But it’s also vital that we look to “precedent,” or the application of His laws and His nature to circumstances throughout history.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
One such precedent is found in the biblical book of I Samuel in Chapter 14. It is the story of The Battle of Mikmash between the children of Israel and their enemies: the Philistines.
The Israelites, led by King Saul, were in one camp and the Philistines were in another. Saul’s son, Jonathan, and his armor bearer left their camp to go recon the enemy and ended up fighting them.
Thereafter, the Israelites watched God send panic and confusion into the enemy camp. It resulted in the enemies fighting against each other, melting away and fleeing the battlefield.
You can read the whole story in I Samuel Chapter 14.
The Mikmash Precedents
As you read the Mikmash account, I pray that the Lord will highlight “precedents” to you. Here are just a few of the precedents that our JAG prayer team sees:
Place Your Confidence in God. When Jonathan made a plan to engage the enemy, he did so with the declaration that “nothing restrains the Lord from saving by many or by few” (I Samuel 14:6.).
When Jonathan made a plan to engage the enemy, he did so with the declaration that “nothing restrains the Lord from saving by many or by few” (I Samuel 14:6.). Be bold and forsake fear. When it came time to confront the enemy, Jonathan was unafraid and credited God for delivering him before he even engaged. “Jonathan said to his armor bearer, ‘Come up after me, for the Lord has delivered them into the hand of Israel’” (I Samuel 14:12).
When it came time to confront the enemy, Jonathan was unafraid and credited God for delivering him before he even engaged. “Jonathan said to his armor bearer, ‘Come up after me, for the Lord has delivered them into the hand of Israel’” (I Samuel 14:12). Praying is a form of fighting, but so is stepping into the public square and voting, working for imperfect candidates, and explaining what the Bible says about governmental issues. “And Jonathan climbed up on his hands and knees with his armor bearer after him; and they fell before Jonathan. And as he came after him, his armor bearer killed them. That first slaughter which Jonathan and his armor bearer made was about twenty men within about half an acre of land” (I Samuel 14:13-14).
Praying is a form of fighting, but so is stepping into the public square and voting, working for imperfect candidates, and explaining what the Bible says about governmental issues. “And Jonathan climbed up on his hands and knees with his armor bearer after him; and they fell before Jonathan. And as he came after him, his armor bearer killed them. That first slaughter which Jonathan and his armor bearer made was about twenty men within about half an acre of land” (I Samuel 14:13-14). God sent a panic into the enemy camp. Once Jonathan engaged the enemy in faith, God responded and did supernaturally what only God can do: he sent a panic into the enemy camp. “Then panic struck the whole [enemy] army — those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties — and the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God” (I Samuel 14:15).
Precedents of A Seemingly Easy Victory
God caused the enemy army to melt away . “Saul’s lookouts at Gibeah in Benjamin saw the army melting away in all directions” (I Samuel 14:16).
. “Saul’s lookouts at Gibeah in Benjamin saw the army melting away in all directions” (I Samuel 14:16). God caused the enemy to fight amongst themselves in total confusion . Jonathan began the fight in faith, but then God stepped in and supernaturally caused the enemy to defeat themselves. “Then Saul and all his men assembled and went to the battle. They found the Philistines in total confusion, striking each other with their swords” (I Samuel 14:20).
. Jonathan began the fight in faith, but then God stepped in and supernaturally caused the enemy to defeat themselves. “Then Saul and all his men assembled and went to the battle. They found the Philistines in total confusion, striking each other with their swords” (I Samuel 14:20). God put the enemy on the run . When the whole army of Israel finally went to battle, they saw the enemy already on the run. “When all the Israelites who had hidden in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines were on the run, they joined the battle in hot pursuit. So on that day the Lord saved Israel, and the battle moved on beyond Beth Aven.”
. When the whole army of Israel finally went to battle, they saw the enemy already on the run. “When all the Israelites who had hidden in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines were on the run, they joined the battle in hot pursuit. So on that day the Lord saved Israel, and the battle moved on beyond Beth Aven.” God flipped opponents over to the side of God . This is one of the most interesting precedents from I Samuel 14. There were Israelites in the camp of the Philistines; when God caused the Philistines to fight amongst each other, he also brought these Israelites out of the enemy camp and into the camp of God. “Those Hebrews who had previously been with the Philistines and had gone up with them to their camp went over to the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan” (I Samuel 14:21).
Application of Precedent to Our Present Battles
Although I Samuel 14 describes an actual military battle, we know from the Bible that our present battle is not against people.
The Book of Ephesians says: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
As we battle in prayer, we take confidence in asking God to move in ways that are consistent with his laws and also with the precedents we see in His Word.
As we pray for Judge Barrett, I encourage you to join this “precedent” prayer:
Lord, we pray that Judge Barrett’s enemies will not attack her. But, if they do, then we pray that you would visit “panic” and “confusion” into the enemy camp. We pray they would end up “attacking each other” and that they would “melt away” and “flee” the battlefield. Let Judge Barrett move into victory and take this Supreme Court seat for your glory!
Dear prayer warrior, I encourage you to look for other precedents in God’s Word and to apply them as you pray for the elections and other current events.
Happy Praying!
Phillip Jauregui serves as president of Judicial Action Group, a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization working towards judicial renewal.


thestream--2020-10-25--The LGBT Agenda Matters. Forget About Civil Unions. That’s So 2005

I don ’ t know what Pope Francis meant when he talked about civil unions .
I do know something about lobbying the issue of same-sex marriage and civil unions .
And about what issues matter now .
In 2005 , Connecticut passed a gay civil union law that included language specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman .
The Family Institute of Connecticut , which I direct , and the Catholic Church lobbied against the law .
We argued that it would lead to same-sex marriage .
Which is exactly what happened .
Whatever the pope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s not the issue Christians need to face in 2020 .
There were lots of twists and turns in 2005 .
You ’ ve heard how sausages and laws are two things you never want to see being made ?
It was like that .
One of those twists was an amendment offered by then-Rep. Selim Noujaim .
He ’ s one of the best men we ever had in our state legislature .
An immigrant from Lebanon who founded a thriving family business .
A Maronite Catholic who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Noujaim is rock solid .
He suggested offering civil unions for any two people .
Our side embraced the idea .
“ Why does it have to be based on a sexual relationship ?
” asked the lobbyist for the Catholic Conference .
Why can ’ t her aged mother , who lives with her , be on her health insurance too ?
( Focus on the Family embraced a similar suggestion in Colorado .
Their spokesman explained , “ It corrects unfairness.
” ) The gay lobbyists rejected Noujaim ’ s proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to visit dying loved ones in the hospital and other benefits was never what gay activists really wanted .
The issue was never fairness and justice .
It was always about getting society to affirm their unions .
Again , no one knows the mind of Pope Francis .
But given that Francis has repeatedly defended marriage in his official teaching , and allowing for his Trump-like ability to garble his words when speaking off the cuff , I think it quite possible that he meant civil unions in the sense that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions for any two people .
In that regard , the statement by the Archbishop of San Francisco , is worth quoting .
Salvatore J. Cordileone reported on meeting with Francis last January .
Francis “ clearly differentiated between a civil arrangement which accords mutual benefits to two people , and marriage .
The former , he said , can in no way be equated to marriage , which remains unique.
” Cordileone has recently come into the news for opposing his city ’ s mistreatment of churches in their lock-down rules .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( one which is not equated to marriage ) should be as inclusive as possible , and not be restricted to two people of the same sex in a presumed sexual relationship .
There is no reason , for example , why a brother and a sister , both of whom are unmarried and support each other , should not have access to these kinds of benefits.
” He was right .
The kind of legal partnership would preserve the truth about marriage and not confer legal recognition on same-sex unions .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-or-con is 2005 , man .
Civil unions have been in the rearview mirror for 15 years now .
An interesting idea , maybe , but completely irrelevant now .
Certainly irrelevant in America , Canada , and other “ advanced ” nations .
2020 is about whether anyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda — the whole LGBT agenda — is going to be run out of town on a rail .
It ’ s about whether you will lose your livelihood , whether you will get fired , whether you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will lose your reputation and good standing in the community , whether you will become a nonperson who can ’ t feed his family in our glorious LGBT soft totalitarian paradise .
And not just because you don ’ t affirm same-sex marriage .
Because you see that males shouldn ’ t undress in women ’ s lockers room — in girl ’ s locker rooms .
Because you know that letting men who identify as women compete against women in sports cheats the women .
In other words , because like almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that men are different from women and that the difference matters .
Already America ’ s liberals claim that just by saying that we discriminate against LGBT people .
And that we shouldn ’ t be allowed to .
Our rights of conscience and religious freedom don ’ t matter to them .
They demand the baker and the florist should pay exorbitant fines or go to prison for not helping them celebrate their relationships .
Adoption agencies should be forced to violate their beliefs or close .
Private schools must teach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close .
Churches should have their tax-exempt status revoked if they don ’ t offer the pinch of incense to the emperor ’ s LGBT gods .
That ’ s the question we face in 2020 .
Will our own country treat us as “ enemies of humanity ” for not being for same sex marriage and the rest of the LGBT movement ’ s demands ?
If things continue as they are , the answer will be yes .
Peter Wolfgang is president of Family Institute of Connecticut Action .
He lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife and their seven children .
The views expressed on The Stream are solely his own .

I don’t know what Pope Francis meant when he talked about civil unions. I do know something about lobbying the issue of same-sex marriage and civil unions. And about what issues matter now.
In 2005, Connecticut passed a gay civil union law that included language specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Family Institute of Connecticut, which I direct, and the Catholic Church lobbied against the law. We argued that it would lead to same-sex marriage. Which is exactly what happened.
Whatever the pope said, civil unions is so 2005. That’s not the issue Christians need to face in 2020.
Twists and Turns
There were lots of twists and turns in 2005. You’ve heard how sausages and laws are two things you never want to see being made? It was like that.
One of those twists was an amendment offered by then-Rep. Selim Noujaim. He’s one of the best men we ever had in our state legislature. An immigrant from Lebanon who founded a thriving family business. A Maronite Catholic who is pro-life and pro-family to the hilt. Noujaim is rock solid.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
He suggested offering civil unions for any two people. Our side embraced the idea. “Why does it have to be based on a sexual relationship?” asked the lobbyist for the Catholic Conference. Why can’t her aged mother, who lives with her, be on her health insurance too? (Focus on the Family embraced a similar suggestion in Colorado. Their spokesman explained, “It corrects unfairness.”)
The gay lobbyists rejected Noujaim’s proposal, of course. Because wanting the right to visit dying loved ones in the hospital and other benefits was never what gay activists really wanted. The issue was never fairness and justice. It was always about getting society to affirm their unions.
What Francis Meant
Again, no one knows the mind of Pope Francis. But given that Francis has repeatedly defended marriage in his official teaching, and allowing for his Trump-like ability to garble his words when speaking off the cuff, I think it quite possible that he meant civil unions in the sense that Noujaim did. That is, civil unions for any two people.
In that regard, the statement by the Archbishop of San Francisco, is worth quoting. Salvatore J. Cordileone reported on meeting with Francis last January. Francis “clearly differentiated between a civil arrangement which accords mutual benefits to two people, and marriage. The former, he said, can in no way be equated to marriage, which remains unique.”
Cordileone has recently come into the news for opposing his city’s mistreatment of churches in their lock-down rules. “A civil union of this type (one which is not equated to marriage) should be as inclusive as possible, and not be restricted to two people of the same sex in a presumed sexual relationship. There is no reason, for example, why a brother and a sister, both of whom are unmarried and support each other, should not have access to these kinds of benefits.”
He was right. The kind of legal partnership would preserve the truth about marriage and not confer legal recognition on same-sex unions.
So 2005
He was right — then. Civil unions pro-or-con is 2005, man. Civil unions have been in the rearview mirror for 15 years now. An interesting idea, maybe, but completely irrelevant now. Certainly irrelevant in America, Canada, and other “advanced” nations.
2020 is about whether anyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda — the whole LGBT agenda — is going to be run out of town on a rail. It’s about whether you will lose your livelihood, whether you will get fired, whether you will get “cancelled,” whether you will lose your reputation and good standing in the community, whether you will become a nonperson who can’t feed his family in our glorious LGBT soft totalitarian paradise.
And not just because you don’t affirm same-sex marriage. Because you see that males shouldn’t undress in women’s lockers room — in girls’ locker rooms. Because you know that letting men who identify as women compete against women in sports cheats the women. In other words, because like almost everyone else in human history, you know that men are different from women and that the difference matters.
The Question We Face
Already America’s liberals claim that just by saying that we discriminate against LGBT people. And that we shouldn’t be allowed to. Our rights of conscience and religious freedom don’t matter to them.
They demand the baker and the florist should pay exorbitant fines or go to prison for not helping them celebrate their relationships. Adoption agencies should be forced to violate their beliefs or close. Private schools must teach the complete goodness of LGBT behavior or close. Churches should have their tax-exempt status revoked if they don’t offer the pinch of incense to the emperor’s LGBT gods.
That’s the question we face in 2020. Will our own country treat us as “enemies of humanity” for not being for same sex marriage and the rest of the LGBT movement’s demands? If things continue as they are, the answer will be yes.
Peter Wolfgang is president of Family Institute of Connecticut Action. He lives in Waterbury, Connecticut, with his wife and their seven children. The views expressed on The Stream are solely his own.


thestream--2020-10-25--‘All the Praise and Glory to God’: President Trump Grants First-Time Non-Violent Offender Clemency

After 16 years of incarceration , Charles Duke Tanner is free , praising God and thanking President Trump .
Trump granted clemency Wednesday to the first-time non-violent drug offender , releasing him from a 30-year sentence .
A sentence mandated by Joe Biden ’ s 1994 crime bill .
Tanner , who never had any prior arrests , was arrested September 2 , 2004 for a non-violent drug charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine .
He was sentenced to two life terms in prison , but that was later reduced to 30 years , according to change.org .
“ First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the praise and glory to God , ” Tanner said in a video he recorded Wednesday after his release .
“ Thank you , thank you for hearing me.
” Then he added , “ President Trump I just want to thank you for giving me a second chance for believing in me and reading my petition .
I ’ m just so thankful.
” Tanner , who was a boxer , once fought at one of Trump ’ s casinos .
“ Twenty years ago , I fought at the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me clemency.
” Tanner didn ’ t know if it was real until he was reunited with his son , Charles III , now 18 years old .
“ I left when he was two years old , President Trump , and you reunited me back to my family.
” Tanner ’ s mother and father passed away during his incarceration .
“ But I ’ ve got him , ” he said of his son .
“ This is what I live for .
Thank you President Trump … all praise and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted , “ Yesterday @ realDonaldTrump granted Duke Tanner clemency after 16 years in prison .
He was sentenced to LIFE in prison for a FIRST time , NON VIOLENT crime because of Joe Biden ’ s crime bill .
God bless you & good luck with your SECOND CHANCE .
Let ’ s make his POWERFUL message go viral !
” Ironically , Joe Biden was heavily involved in getting the 1994 crime bill passed , which led to Tanner receiving the sentence he did .
Criminal justice experts said Biden “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incarceration that has devastated America ’ s black communities , ” according to a June 25 , 2019 New York Times article .
Biden pushed for harsh penalties and minimum sentences , at one point saying during a 1994 Senate floor speech , “ Every time Richard Nixon , when he was running in 1972 , would say , ‘ Law and order , ’ the Democratic match or response was , ‘ Law and order with justice ’ — whatever that meant .
And I would say , ‘ Lock the S.O.B.s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign said in a statement to NYT that Biden had “ ‘ fought to defeat systemic racism and unacceptable racial disparities for his entire career , ’ and he ‘ believes that too many people of color are in jail in this country . '
” Biden has tried to downplay his role in the anti-crime legislation , telling NYT that he “ ‘ got stuck with ’ shepherding the bills because he was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
” However , the NYT pointed out that an examination of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s current characterization of his role is in many ways at odds with his own actions and rhetoric.
” Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

After 16 years of incarceration, Charles Duke Tanner is free, praising God and thanking President Trump. Trump granted clemency Wednesday to the first-time non-violent drug offender, releasing him from a 30-year sentence. A sentence mandated by Joe Biden’s 1994 crime bill.
Tanner, who never had any prior arrests, was arrested September 2, 2004 for a non-violent drug charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to two life terms in prison, but that was later reduced to 30 years, according to change.org.
‘All Praise and Glory to God’
“First and foremost, I want to give all the praise and glory to God,” Tanner said in a video he recorded Wednesday after his release. “Thank you, thank you for hearing me.” Then he added, “President Trump I just want to thank you for giving me a second chance for believing in me and reading my petition. I’m just so thankful.”
Tanner, who was a boxer, once fought at one of Trump’s casinos. “Twenty years ago, I fought at the Trump casino and now you signed to give me clemency.”
Tanner didn’t know if it was real until he was reunited with his son, Charles III, now 18 years old. “I left when he was two years old, President Trump, and you reunited me back to my family.” Tanner’s mother and father passed away during his incarceration. “But I’ve got him,” he said of his son. “This is what I live for. Thank you President Trump … all praise and glory go to God.”
Alex Bruesewitz tweeted, “Yesterday @realDonaldTrump granted Duke Tanner clemency after 16 years in prison. He was sentenced to LIFE in prison for a FIRST time, NON VIOLENT crime because of Joe Biden’s crime bill. God bless you & good luck with your SECOND CHANCE. Let’s make his POWERFUL message go viral!”
Yesterday @realDonaldTrump granted Duke Tanner clemency after 16 years in prison He was sentenced to LIFE in prison for a FIRST time, NON VIOLENT crime because of Joe Biden’s crime bill God bless you & good luck with your SECOND CHANCE Let’s make his POWERFUL message go viral! pic.twitter.com/PrS6JbJz5w — Alex Bruesewitz (@alexbruesewitz) October 22, 2020
Joe Biden’s Involvement
Ironically, Joe Biden was heavily involved in getting the 1994 crime bill passed, which led to Tanner receiving the sentence he did. Criminal justice experts said Biden “helped lay the groundwork for the mass incarceration that has devastated America’s black communities,” according to a June 25, 2019 New York Times article. Biden pushed for harsh penalties and minimum sentences, at one point saying during a 1994 Senate floor speech, “Every time Richard Nixon, when he was running in 1972, would say, ‘Law and order,’ the Democratic match or response was, ‘Law and order with justice’ — whatever that meant. And I would say, ‘Lock the S.O.B.s up.'”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Biden’s campaign said in a statement to NYT that Biden had “‘fought to defeat systemic racism and unacceptable racial disparities for his entire career,’ and he ‘believes that too many people of color are in jail in this country.'” Biden has tried to downplay his role in the anti-crime legislation, telling NYT that he “‘got stuck with’ shepherding the bills because he was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” However, the NYT pointed out that an examination of his record “indicates that Mr. Biden’s current characterization of his role is in many ways at odds with his own actions and rhetoric.”
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-25--#Election2020: Joe Biden Thinks All American Voters are ‘Chumps’

Joe Biden thinks you are a “ chump.
” Not just Trump supporters .
Every American voter .
First , we go to Biden ’ s rally Saturday in Bucks County , Pa. Well , it was supposed to be a Biden rally , but more Trump supporters than Biden supporters showed up .
And they were noisy .
Joe was not pleased .
Like the crotchety old guy down the street who calls the police if your football pass lands in his yard , Biden lost it .
“ Chumps , ” he called the voters on the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did it twice .
And the hashtag # ChumpforTrump was born .
Indeed , our first instinct is to laugh and embrace the label .
Deplorables 2.0 .
Less funny is what we learned from Thursday ’ s debate .
And from the evidence that Joe has been lying about his involvement in his son ’ s business dealings .
We know now that Joe Biden was “ the big guy ” insisting on his cut , “ the chairman ” who consults and signs off on all Hunter ’ s seamy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof is out there now .
But he doesn ’ t worry .
Because he thinks a majority of American voters are chumps .
Let ’ s look at some examples from just the past 72 hours : • Biden on fracking .
Biden flat-out denied during the debate he ’ d ever promised to ban that booming business , despite the string of video evidence of him promising that to Democrats with his very own mouth .
• In the debate , Biden vowed to phase out the whole fossil fuel industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would cut were subsidies for oil companies .
Again , roll the tape .
• Biden says it is “ crass ” for Trump to bring up Hunter ’ s business dealings … even though Biden was directly involved in unmasking and surveillance of Don Jr , and helping to re-ignite the Russia Hoax that got Trump falsely impeached .
• More than a million Americans who ’ d lost their insurance thanks to Obamacare watched stunned , as Biden told them that they hadn ’ t .
The string of astounding falsehoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are you gon na believe — me , or your own damned eyes ?
” That ’ s a line from a Marx Brothers movie .
A line Groucho uses on … a chump .
These Chumps Will Accept Its Just Russia Fiction Biden thinks you voters are chumps when it comes to the Biden Family Scandals .
He thinks you ’ ll just stumble ahead and zombie-like pull his lever DESPITE : • His own business partner coming forward to say that Joe was intimately involved in the Biden Family business .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid millions to use his “ influence ” to gain White House access for Chinese clients .
• Proof there is a direct line between Burisma hiring Hunter to help end its legal issues and Joe Biden blackmailing the Ukraine president .
And getting the pesky prosecutor investigating Burisma fired .
• All the emails Hunter ’ s imprisoned partner Beven Cooney handed over , further laying out Biden Inc ’ s activities .
• The proof in the U.S. Senate that Chinese operators gave the Bidens $ 5 million , sent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who then transferred the money to his law firm .
• The solid conclusions of the DNI , FBI and DOJ that there is zero hint the Russians had anything to do with Hunter ’ s laptop .
• The echoing crickets we hear when anyone on the Biden team faces the question : Is even a single text , email or photo from the Hunter laptop fake ?
Joe Biden stood on that stage Thursday night , and declared that he and his son were pure as the driven snow and everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russians .
The Russians .
He thinks you chumps are dumb enough to believe it .
He thinks your Trump Derangement Syndrome has so infected your brain that you ’ ll simply nod along , slack-jawed .
That you simply do not care that he lied through his teeth , and has made a fortune parlaying his positions into vast wealth for his family .
That it ’ s okay with you that he has been so thoroughly compromised by the Chinese that he is a risk to national security .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
His campaign thinks you ’ re a chump , too .
In a statement , they say : Notice this different than Joe ’ s denial .
He said that he ’ d never even talked business with his son or brothers .
But notice also the wordplay .
Nobody ’ s talking about him owning legal “ stock.
” ( That ’ s for above-board businesses . )
They ’ re saying he had a “ stake.
” He got a cut .
When campaigns get cute with words it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t as clever as they are .
They think you ’ re a chump .
The Media Helps Biden Keep the Truth From Us Chumps There ’ s a good reason for Biden ’ s arrogance .
He knows his pals in the media will protect him at all costs .
NPR , as we reported last week , calls the Biden Inc stories broken by the The New York Post ’ s “ distractions.
” Won ’ t report on it at all .
Aren ’ t even bothered that the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
Liberal journalist Piers Morgan called out the media for its failure to address the allegations from Biden family business partner Tony Bobolinski and the evidence on Hunter ’ s laptop .
He said they are ignoring the story because the revelations might cost Democrats the election .
His reward ?
Having a long-scheduled appearance on CNN ’ s Reliable Sources today suddenly cancelled .
That is Brian Setzer ’ s show , supposedly about the news media .
Piers Morgan , a former CNN host , must be a chump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenwald caught a perfect example in a Washington Post editorial : “ We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren ’ t. ” That from the newspaper whose greatest claim to fame is uncovering the Watergate scandal .
Here ’ s the Good News : Americans are Not Chumps Here ’ s the bad news for Joe Biden .
Americans are not chumps .
When they smell a rat , you can ’ t tell ‘ em it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop of snake oil , but in the end , they do not buy it .
When they see a Lizard Creature of the Swamp , you can ’ t tell ‘ em it ’ s the Lady of the Lake .
On Saturday , Joe Biden called Americans “ chumps.
” In nine days , Americans — red , purple and even blue — will show him to the dumps .
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author , with @ JZmirak , of The Politically Incorrect Guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at @ StreamingAl .
And if you aren ’ t already , please follow The Stream at @ Streamdotorg .

Joe Biden thinks you are a “chump.” Not just Trump supporters. Every American voter.
First, we go to Biden’s rally Saturday in Bucks County, Pa. Well, it was supposed to be a Biden rally, but more Trump supporters than Biden supporters showed up. And they were noisy.
Joe was not pleased. Like the crotchety old guy down the street who calls the police if your football pass lands in his yard, Biden lost it. “Chumps,” he called the voters on the other guy’s team.
WATCH: Joe Biden insults Pennsylvanians who don't support him, calls them "chumps" pic.twitter.com/QvHgk7nppH — Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) October 24, 2020
Actually, he did it twice.
And the hashtag #ChumpforTrump was born. Indeed, our first instinct is to laugh and embrace the label. Deplorables 2.0.
Less funny is what we learned from Thursday’s debate. And from the evidence that Joe has been lying about his involvement in his son’s business dealings. We know now that Joe Biden was “the big guy” insisting on his cut, “the chairman” who consults and signs off on all Hunter’s seamy foreign influence deals. Joe knows the proof is out there now. But he doesn’t worry. Because he thinks a majority of American voters are chumps.
Let’s look at some examples from just the past 72 hours:
Biden on fracking. Biden flat-out denied during the debate he’d ever promised to ban that booming business, despite the string of video evidence of him promising that to Democrats with his very own mouth.
In the debate, Biden vowed to phase out the whole fossil fuel industry … then claimed later that all he would cut were subsidies for oil companies. Again, roll the tape.
Biden says it is “crass” for Trump to bring up Hunter’s business dealings … even though Biden was directly involved in unmasking and surveillance of Don Jr, and helping to re-ignite the Russia Hoax that got Trump falsely impeached.
More than a million Americans who’d lost their insurance thanks to Obamacare watched stunned, as Biden told them that they hadn’t.
The string of astounding falsehoods goes on and on. “Who are you gonna believe — me, or your own damned eyes?” That’s a line from a Marx Brothers movie. A line Groucho uses on … a chump.
These Chumps Will Accept Its Just Russia Fiction
Biden thinks you voters are chumps when it comes to the Biden Family Scandals. He thinks you’ll just stumble ahead and zombie-like pull his lever DESPITE:
His own business partner coming forward to say that Joe was intimately involved in the Biden Family business.
Emails and texts proving Hunter was paid millions to use his “influence” to gain White House access for Chinese clients.
Proof there is a direct line between Burisma hiring Hunter to help end its legal issues and Joe Biden blackmailing the Ukraine president. And getting the pesky prosecutor investigating Burisma fired.
All the emails Hunter’s imprisoned partner Beven Cooney handed over, further laying out Biden Inc’s activities.
The proof in the U.S. Senate that Chinese operators gave the Bidens $5 million, sent to a shell company created by Hunter, who then transferred the money to his law firm.
The solid conclusions of the DNI, FBI and DOJ that there is zero hint the Russians had anything to do with Hunter’s laptop.
The echoing crickets we hear when anyone on the Biden team faces the question: Is even a single text, email or photo from the Hunter laptop fake?
Joe Biden stood on that stage Thursday night, and declared that he and his son were pure as the driven snow and everything being talked about had been concocted by the Russians. The Russians.
He thinks you chumps are dumb enough to believe it. He thinks your Trump Derangement Syndrome has so infected your brain that you’ll simply nod along, slack-jawed. That you simply do not care that he lied through his teeth, and has made a fortune parlaying his positions into vast wealth for his family. That it’s okay with you that he has been so thoroughly compromised by the Chinese that he is a risk to national security.
His Campaign Thinks You’re a Chump, Too!
His campaign thinks you’re a chump, too. In a statement, they say:
Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any overseas business whatsoever. He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member or any other person ever held stock for him.
Notice this different than Joe’s denial. He said that he’d never even talked business with his son or brothers. But notice also the wordplay. Nobody’s talking about him owning legal “stock.” (That’s for above-board businesses.) They’re saying he had a “stake.” He got a cut.
When campaigns get cute with words it’s because they think you aren’t as clever as they are. They think you’re a chump.
The Media Helps Biden Keep the Truth From Us Chumps
There’s a good reason for Biden’s arrogance. He knows his pals in the media will protect him at all costs. NPR, as we reported last week, calls the Biden Inc stories broken by the The New York Post’s “distractions.” Won’t report on it at all. Aren’t even bothered that the nation’s oldest paper has been blocked on Twitter.
Liberal journalist Piers Morgan called out the media for its failure to address the allegations from Biden family business partner Tony Bobolinski and the evidence on Hunter’s laptop. He said they are ignoring the story because the revelations might cost Democrats the election.
His reward? Having a long-scheduled appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources today suddenly cancelled. That is Brian Setzer’s show, supposedly about the news media. Piers Morgan, a former CNN host, must be a chump too, right, Brian?
Greg Greenwald caught a perfect example in a Washington Post editorial: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”
One of the clearest and most important sentences you'll read, showing how US media really works, from WashPost op-ed by @RidT: ** "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren't." **https://t.co/T7LUOvorlI — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 25, 2020
That from the newspaper whose greatest claim to fame is uncovering the Watergate scandal.
Here’s the Good News: Americans are Not Chumps
Here’s the bad news for Joe Biden. Americans are not chumps. When they smell a rat, you can’t tell ‘em it’s rotisserie chicken. They may sample a drop of snake oil, but in the end, they do not buy it. When they see a Lizard Creature of the Swamp, you can’t tell ‘em it’s the Lady of the Lake.
On Saturday, Joe Biden called Americans “chumps.” In nine days, Americans — red, purple and even blue — will show him to the dumps.
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-25--Is Trump Gaining More Voters Than He’s Losing?

Although my polling is anything but scientific , representing a very specific sampling of the general voting public , the results have been the same for months now : Trump is gaining more voters than he is losing .
Does this reflect a national trend ?
Could My Twitter Polls Be Pointing to a Real Trend ?
My last poll was conducted on Twitter on October 16 , with this wording : “ As the elections are upon us , I ’ ll ask my standard question once more .
Did you vote for Trump in 2016 , and do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ?
( Note carefully the four choices . )
” The choices were : Yes in 2016 , yes in 2020 .
Yes in 2016 , no in 2020 .
No in 2016 , no in 2020 .
No in 2016 , yes in 2020 .
A total of 69.4 % were in the “ Yes in 2016 ” category , while 30.7 % were in the “ No in 2016 ” category .
( Obviously , the counts are rounded off by Twitter , resulting in 100.1 % totals . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ responding said they voted for Trump in 2016 , in contrast with 30 % who did not vote for him in 2016 .
Of the first category , the Trump voters in 2016 , at the rate of roughly 23 to 1 , they said they would vote for him again in 2020 .
( Specifically , 67.2 % to 2.2 % . )
A tiny minority is defecting from Trump .
Of the second category , representing those who did not vote for him in 2016 , nearly two out of three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would support him this time around .
( Specifically , 18.8 % to 11.9 % . )
So , a substantial majority is moving towards him .
The implications of this , if representative in the least , are massive .
Two New Voters for Trump Say They ’ re “ Reluctant ” Back in June , Middle East expert Daniel Pipes , a strident opponent of Trump in 2016 , penned an op-ed in Newsweek titled , “ A Reluctant but Unhesitating Vote for Donald Trump.
” When it comes to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues of international significance , Trump has done well , gaining the support of Pipes .
Also in June , the New Yorker explained how Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler had decided to vote for Trump in 2020 while not doing so in 2016 .
In his view , “ President Trump is a huge embarrassment .
And it ’ s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing.
” Yet , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump in 2020 , but my shift is from reluctantly not voting for him in 2016 to what you might call reluctantly voting for him in 2020 , and hoping for his reëlection , because the alternative is increasingly unthinkable .
But I will not become an apologist for the misbehavior of the President and for what I see as glaring deficiencies in his private and public character.
” Another Two New Trump Voters Say Trump Proved Them Wrong on Policy On October 9 , the Federalist posted an article by Daniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I Didn ’ t Vote For Trump In 2016 , But I ’ d Crawl Over Broken Glass To Vote For Him Now.
” He begins his article saying , “ Even though I had voted for every Republican presidential candidate since 1980 , I didn ’ t vote for Donald Trump in 2016 .
“ Many Republican nominees had been huge disappointments to me , and I wasn ’ t going to vote for yet another GOP candidate I thought would betray my trust .
I couldn ’ t imagine Trump as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , respect individual freedom and liberty , and protect the unborn — but was I ever wrong .
Although I didn ’ t vote for Trump in 2016 , I would crawl over broken glass to vote for him in 2020.
” On October 19 , Ben Shapiro announced that , although he did not vote for Trump in 2016 , he was voting for him in 2020 .
First , he says that he was wrong about Donald Trump on policy .
Trump has , in fact , governed conservatively .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been done by Trump ’ s character flaws has already been done and voting for him now won ’ t change that .
Third , and most importantly , “ the Democrats have lost their [ expletive ] minds.
” Enough said .
A Fascinating Op-Ed Says to Vote for Trump Even If You Hate Him Over in Israel , and coming from an Israel-centric perspective , Abraham Katsman posted a fascinating op-ed piece on October 11 in the Jerusalem Post : “ Hate Trump ?
Understood .
Vote for him anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote : “ I know .
Many of you loathe US President Donald Trump .
He triggers your contempt , disdain , scorn and various Trumpian synonyms still to be coined .
You find him vulgar , narcissistic , dishonest , ignorant , bigoted , divisive , uncouth , misogynistic , racist , nativist , Islamophobic and antisemitic , not to mention a fraud , con man and tax cheat .
You ‘ sat shiva , ’ mourning his unimaginable election – your revulsion has only snowballed since .
You disbelieve his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ‘ the.
’ Evidence or not , you remain convinced that he colluded with Russia to unfairly defeat Hillary Clinton .
His lack of moral compass and coddling dictators and white supremacists sickens you .
And , embarrassed as you are that he is president , you are even more appalled by his voters .
( Did I leave anything out ? )
” I would say he “ gets it ” when it comes to some of the biggest objections to Trump , be they real or exaggerated or imagined .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , take a deep breath .
Hold your nose .
And vote for Trump anyway .
For real.
” And this : “ Recoil if you must from Trump ’ s tweeting and speaking style , gag from his personality and wallow in disgust at his pervasive Trump-ness .
I get it .
Still , consider the alternative ; then force yourself to vote to keep this solid administration in place.
” We Shall See This seems to be what is turning the hearts of many voters .
First , Trump kept his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betray us , as we feared would happen .
Second , despite his grotesquely obvious flaws , which are damaging in many ways , the alternative is even more frightful .
Personally , I know people who voted for Trump in 2016 but will not vote for him in 2020 , either voting third party or not voting for the president at all .
But , from what I can tell , for the reasons stated here , they appear to be in the minority .
In a few days , we shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) 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 .

Although my polling is anything but scientific, representing a very specific sampling of the general voting public, the results have been the same for months now: Trump is gaining more voters than he is losing. Does this reflect a national trend?
Could My Twitter Polls Be Pointing to a Real Trend?
My last poll was conducted on Twitter on October 16, with this wording: “As the elections are upon us, I’ll ask my standard question once more. Did you vote for Trump in 2016, and do you plan to vote for him in 2020? (Note carefully the four choices.)”
The choices were: Yes in 2016, yes in 2020. Yes in 2016, no in 2020. No in 2016, no in 2020. No in 2016, yes in 2020.
A total of 69.4% were in the “Yes in 2016” category, while 30.7% were in the “No in 2016” category. (Obviously, the counts are rounded off by Twitter, resulting in 100.1% totals.)
So, almost 70% of those responding said they voted for Trump in 2016, in contrast with 30% who did not vote for him in 2016.
Of the first category, the Trump voters in 2016, at the rate of roughly 23 to 1, they said they would vote for him again in 2020. (Specifically, 67.2% to 2.2%.) A tiny minority is defecting from Trump.
Of the second category, representing those who did not vote for him in 2016, nearly two out of three said they were changing their vote and would support him this time around. (Specifically, 18.8% to 11.9%.) So, a substantial majority is moving towards him.
The implications of this, if representative in the least, are massive.
Two New Voters for Trump Say They’re “Reluctant”
Back in June, Middle East expert Daniel Pipes, a strident opponent of Trump in 2016, penned an op-ed in Newsweek titled, “A Reluctant but Unhesitating Vote for Donald Trump.” When it comes to the issues of most importance to Pipes, issues of international significance, Trump has done well, gaining the support of Pipes.
Also in June, the New Yorker explained how Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler had decided to vote for Trump in 2020 while not doing so in 2016.
Albert Mohler: “President Trump is a huge embarrassment.” Yet, “I intend to vote for Donald Trump in 2020.”
In his view, “President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing.”
Yet, he said, “I intend to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, but my shift is from reluctantly not voting for him in 2016 to what you might call reluctantly voting for him in 2020, and hoping for his reëlection, because the alternative is increasingly unthinkable. But I will not become an apologist for the misbehavior of the President and for what I see as glaring deficiencies in his private and public character.”
Another Two New Trump Voters Say Trump Proved Them Wrong on Policy
On October 9, the Federalist posted an article by Daniel Sound with this provocative title: “I Didn’t Vote For Trump In 2016, But I’d Crawl Over Broken Glass To Vote For Him Now.”
He begins his article saying, “Even though I had voted for every Republican presidential candidate since 1980, I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016.
“Many Republican nominees had been huge disappointments to me, and I wasn’t going to vote for yet another GOP candidate I thought would betray my trust. I couldn’t imagine Trump as a genuine conservative who would champion limited government, respect individual freedom and liberty, and protect the unborn — but was I ever wrong. Although I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, I would crawl over broken glass to vote for him in 2020.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
On October 19, Ben Shapiro announced that, although he did not vote for Trump in 2016, he was voting for him in 2020.
First, he says that he was wrong about Donald Trump on policy. Trump has, in fact, governed conservatively.
Second, he says that whatever damage has been done by Trump’s character flaws has already been done and voting for him now won’t change that.
Third, and most importantly, “the Democrats have lost their [expletive] minds.” Enough said.
A Fascinating Op-Ed Says to Vote for Trump Even If You Hate Him
Over in Israel, and coming from an Israel-centric perspective, Abraham Katsman posted a fascinating op-ed piece on October 11 in the Jerusalem Post: “Hate Trump? Understood. Vote for him anyway – opinion.”
Pulling no punches, he wrote: “I know. Many of you loathe US President Donald Trump. He triggers your contempt, disdain, scorn and various Trumpian synonyms still to be coined. You find him vulgar, narcissistic, dishonest, ignorant, bigoted, divisive, uncouth, misogynistic, racist, nativist, Islamophobic and antisemitic, not to mention a fraud, con man and tax cheat. You ‘sat shiva,’ mourning his unimaginable election – your revulsion has only snowballed since. You disbelieve his every word, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ Evidence or not, you remain convinced that he colluded with Russia to unfairly defeat Hillary Clinton. His lack of moral compass and coddling dictators and white supremacists sickens you. And, embarrassed as you are that he is president, you are even more appalled by his voters. (Did I leave anything out?)”
I would say he “gets it” when it comes to some of the biggest objections to Trump, be they real or exaggerated or imagined.
But, he adds, “Now, take a deep breath. Hold your nose. And vote for Trump anyway. For real.”
And this: “Recoil if you must from Trump’s tweeting and speaking style, gag from his personality and wallow in disgust at his pervasive Trump-ness. I get it. Still, consider the alternative; then force yourself to vote to keep this solid administration in place.”
We Shall See
This seems to be what is turning the hearts of many voters. First, Trump kept his promises to his constituencies and did not betray us, as we feared would happen. Second, despite his grotesquely obvious flaws, which are damaging in many ways, the alternative is even more frightful.
Personally, I know people who voted for Trump in 2016 but will not vote for him in 2020, either voting third party or not voting for the president at all. But, from what I can tell, for the reasons stated here, they appear to be in the minority.
In a few days, we shall see.
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--2020-10-26--Why Are We Divided? A Response to John Piper’s Article, ‘Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin’

Let me begin by saying that I have the utmost respect for John Piper .
He has helped me grow spiritually over the years .
I recommend his podcast on a regular basis .
This is not an article rebuking his critique of politics ( we need that now and then ) .
It ’ s an article designed to bring clarity .
Iron sharpening iron .
In my opinion , failure to recognize diverse gifts may explain why many people are divided on the issue of religion and politics .
For instance , John MacArthur , James Dobson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so on have different ministries , but all fall under the umbrella of Christian service .
God creates , within each of us , varying desires , talents , and levels of interests .
If God has called a man to preach and teach His Word , that will be his passion .
If God has called a Christian to pursue politics , that will be his or her passion , and so on .
Problems arise when we become judgmental and fail to respect differences .
Activists should not expect everyone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who believe Christians should stay out of politics must understand that God clearly calls some Christians to the political arena .
God established the concept of government , why would He not desire godly leadership ?
Here is a quick clip on why we can talk about political hot buttons .
The fact that the Drudge Report ran the headline “ Prominent pastor warns evangelicals of Trump ’ s ‘ nation-corrupting ’ sins… ” demonstrates how the left is trying to divide us and send the wrong message to America .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote : “ With a cheerful smile , I will explain to my unbelieving neighbor why my allegiance to Jesus set me at odds with death — death by abortion and death by arrogance.
” But I ’ m confused at how an arrogant tweet or bravado from our President , for example , can be compared to partial-birth abortion where an unborn baby ’ s body is delivered feet first , often near full term , until only the head remains inside the womb .
The physician then punctures the back of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharp instrument and removes the child ’ s brains before delivering the dead baby .
John , what I ’ m missing ?
There is no Plan B.
Aren ’ t we called to defend the weak and the fatherless , even if that defense comes through an imperfect person ?
When Piper writes : “ It is naive to think that a man can be effectively pro-life and manifest consistently the character traits that lead to death — temporal and eternal.
” I believe that we may be missing an important point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s judgment , one man ’ s character is not going to balance the scale with 60-million slaughtered children weighed on the opposite end along with our failure to stop this horrific practice .
Piper continues : “ Christians communicate a falsehood to unbelievers ( who are also baffled ! )
when we act as if policies and laws that protect life and freedom are more precious than being a certain kind of person.
” But we all recognize that Trump is not perfect … we can simply look in the mirror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he improving , learning and growing ?
Is he looking out for the American people according to Romans 13 ?
He is not a pastor .
He is the President .
Trump has an incredible team around him offering spiritual advice and praying for him .
Can you imagine having people like Jack Graham , Jim Garlow , James Robison , Jack Hibbs , Jentzen Franklin and countless others speaking into your life or the life of our president ?
What about all the Christians being appointed to public offices ?
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find it ironic that many of the never-Trumpers fail to take this into consideration .
We should be shouting with joy rather than having sour looks on our faces .
Why are many silent about the godly counsel that surrounds President Trump ?
Again , what am I missing ?
We Don ’ t Have To Apologize The Drudge Report no doubt cherished these words from Piper as well : “ I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges , bad laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation , and boasting , and strife-stirring.
” My concern here is that the comparison is off .
Judges , laws , and policies affect the entire nation and thereby set the stage for future generations .
Whereas , Trump ’ s character is an individual issue .
Yes , his character will obviously affect the nation to some degree , but from my reading of the Old Testament , God doesn ’ t judge a nation based on the character of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the spiritual health of her people .
Policy often speaks louder than character ( although ideally , they should match ) .
To those who say , “ Old Testament passages don ’ t apply to us today , ” are you sure ?
We don ’ t have to apologize for our President .
Simply tell unbelievers , “ I wish that Jesus was our President .
But until the day when every knee will bow and every tongue confesses that He is Lord , we have to work with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plan B ” ( cf .
Philippians 2:10-11 ) .
For more , read my article “ Does Supporting President Trump Hurt the Gospel ?
” here .
What Direction Are We Heading ?
“ What direction is the nation heading ?
” is the question we should be asking .
Are we heading toward silencing the true gospel , imprisoning Christians , mocking God , and legalizing sexual perversion ?
Or are we being given a temporary stay of judgment ?
It ’ s almost as if many want persecution instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Constitution .
Yes , we must prepare for persecution , but not usher it in via silence .
Should we not contend for freedom and godly legislation ?
Should we remain silent and let the waves of political correctness run our vessels into the rocks of destruction ?
Granted , Christians are not to be militant , but spiritually vigilant .
If God allows persecution , we must wear it as a badge of honor .
As I wrote before , this may be God ’ s last warning to America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spiritual weapons of prayer and worship , to stand strong , and to expose the unfruitful works of darkness .
I will do that until God calls me home .
How about you ?
Let it not be said of us today , “ And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord.
” The burden of responsibility rests squarely upon our shoulders .
It ’ s our choice — stand , or fall !
Special Note : With this being the most important election in our lifetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Above God available as a free download here .
It is a great resource to share with family and friends who are on the fence and for those questioning America ’ s past .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .

Let me begin by saying that I have the utmost respect for John Piper. He has helped me grow spiritually over the years. I recommend his podcast on a regular basis. This is not an article rebuking his critique of politics (we need that now and then). It’s an article designed to bring clarity. Iron sharpening iron.
In my opinion, failure to recognize diverse gifts may explain why many people are divided on the issue of religion and politics. For instance, John MacArthur, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, John Piper, and so on have different ministries, but all fall under the umbrella of Christian service. God creates, within each of us, varying desires, talents, and levels of interests. If God has called a man to preach and teach His Word, that will be his passion. If God has called a Christian to pursue politics, that will be his or her passion, and so on.
Problems arise when we become judgmental and fail to respect differences. Activists should not expect everyone to share their passion for politics, and those who believe Christians should stay out of politics must understand that God clearly calls some Christians to the political arena. God established the concept of government, why would He not desire godly leadership? Here is a quick clip on why we can talk about political hot buttons.
What Am I Missing?
The fact that the Drudge Report ran the headline “Prominent pastor warns evangelicals of Trump’s ‘nation-corrupting’ sins…” demonstrates how the left is trying to divide us and send the wrong message to America.
I appreciate John’s heart when he wrote: “With a cheerful smile, I will explain to my unbelieving neighbor why my allegiance to Jesus set me at odds with death — death by abortion and death by arrogance.” But I’m confused at how an arrogant tweet or bravado from our President, for example, can be compared to partial-birth abortion where an unborn baby’s body is delivered feet first, often near full term, until only the head remains inside the womb. The physician then punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument and removes the child’s brains before delivering the dead baby.
John, what I’m missing? There is no Plan B. Aren’t we called to defend the weak and the fatherless, even if that defense comes through an imperfect person?
When Piper writes: “It is naive to think that a man can be effectively pro-life and manifest consistently the character traits that lead to death — temporal and eternal.” I believe that we may be missing an important point here: When it comes to God’s judgment, one man’s character is not going to balance the scale with 60-million slaughtered children weighed on the opposite end along with our failure to stop this horrific practice.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Piper continues: “Christians communicate a falsehood to unbelievers (who are also baffled!) when we act as if policies and laws that protect life and freedom are more precious than being a certain kind of person.” But we all recognize that Trump is not perfect … we can simply look in the mirror to validate this truth, but is he improving, learning and growing? Is he looking out for the American people according to Romans 13? He is not a pastor. He is the President.
Trump has an incredible team around him offering spiritual advice and praying for him. Can you imagine having people like Jack Graham, Jim Garlow, James Robison, Jack Hibbs, Jentzen Franklin and countless others speaking into your life or the life of our president? What about all the Christians being appointed to public offices? We should be extremely thankful for that.
I find it ironic that many of the never-Trumpers fail to take this into consideration. We should be shouting with joy rather than having sour looks on our faces. Why are many silent about the godly counsel that surrounds President Trump? Again, what am I missing?
We Don’t Have To Apologize
The Drudge Report no doubt cherished these words from Piper as well: “I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws, and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring.”
My concern here is that the comparison is off. Judges, laws, and policies affect the entire nation and thereby set the stage for future generations. Whereas, Trump’s character is an individual issue. Yes, his character will obviously affect the nation to some degree, but from my reading of the Old Testament, God doesn’t judge a nation based on the character of one man, but He may judge it based on the spiritual health of her people. Policy often speaks louder than character (although ideally, they should match). To those who say, “Old Testament passages don’t apply to us today,” are you sure?
We don’t have to apologize for our President. Simply tell unbelievers, “I wish that Jesus was our President. But until the day when every knee will bow and every tongue confesses that He is Lord, we have to work with what we have … there is no Plan B” (cf. Philippians 2:10-11). For more, read my article “Does Supporting President Trump Hurt the Gospel?” here.
What Direction Are We Heading?
“What direction is the nation heading?” is the question we should be asking. Are we heading toward silencing the true gospel, imprisoning Christians, mocking God, and legalizing sexual perversion? Or are we being given a temporary stay of judgment?
It’s almost as if many want persecution instead of the freedom to worship granted to us by the Constitution. Yes, we must prepare for persecution, but not usher it in via silence. Should we not contend for freedom and godly legislation? Should we remain silent and let the waves of political correctness run our vessels into the rocks of destruction?
Granted, Christians are not to be militant, but spiritually vigilant. If God allows persecution, we must wear it as a badge of honor. As I wrote before, this may be God’s last warning to America. We are called to fight with the spiritual weapons of prayer and worship, to stand strong, and to expose the unfruitful works of darkness. I will do that until God calls me home. How about you?
Let it not be said of us today, “And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord.” The burden of responsibility rests squarely upon our shoulders. It’s our choice — stand, or fall!
Special Note: With this being the most important election in our lifetime, I made my book One Nation Above God available as a free download here. It is a great resource to share with family and friends who are on the fence and for those questioning America’s past.
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. Follow him on Parler, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.


thestream--2020-10-26--The Real Debate is Between Fauci and Other Scientists, Not Fauci and Trump

President Trump has finally taken the gloves off when it comes to his inherited advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci .
In a call with his campaign team , the president reportedly described Fauci as a “ disaster.
” In the debate on Thursday night , he was conciliatory toward Fauci .
But Trump is right to be mad .
Fauci gave the president bad advice on lockdowns , and yet the public health official has paid no price for it .
On the contrary , the press has lionized Fauci .
That ’ s made it hard for the president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by taking on Fauci directly , Trump allows the media to frame the dispute as Trump versus “ the science , ” with Fauci as the stand-in for the science .
The real debate , though , is between Fauci and the growing body of scientific evidence that contradicts his advice .
What ’ s more , there are thousands of scientific experts who are ready to talk about that evidence .
The lopsided influence of a few scientists like Fauci is the result of what we call the tyranny of experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a gold medal for scientific acumen .
It confers no advantage when it comes either to smarts or to public policy .
Officialdom merely allows narrow specialists to exercise power in areas outside their ken and competence .
Imagine , for instance , if an immunologist who had worked for decades in the federal government told the president that if he doesn ’ t shut down the country , 2.2 million people would die .
And imagine if that advice were based not on evidence but on a computer model that other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.
” Finally , imagine if that advice were protected from critique by other reputable scientists .
You don ’ t have to imagine this .
It happened in March .
Dr. Anthony Fauci and someone else — not yet identified — gave just that dubious advice to President Trump .
At the time , the president had no access to experts who would have challenged Fauci ’ s claims .
He was also under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci and the lockdowns .
As a result , the president had little choice but to act on that advice .
This is the tyranny of experts .
After a few months , the president realized that scientists weren ’ t speaking with one voice .
Many scientists had disputed the lockdowns from the very beginning .
Finally , Trump appointed Dr. Scott Atlas as his COVID-19 advisor .
Atlas , unlike Fauci and others , is an expert on weighing the costs and benefits of a public health policy .
Atlas has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and gusto .
It ’ s no wonder that so much of the media , and social media giants , are doing their best to marginalize and censor him .
But Atlas isn ’ t a lone voice crying in the wilderness .
He speaks for hundreds of experts who argue that lockdowns inflict great pain for little if any gain .
( We argue that in detail in our new book The Price of Panic . )
President Trump was wise to bring Atlas in , but it ’ s just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in part , a referendum on the lockdowns .
Joe Biden claims that he , unlike the president , listens to “ the science.
” The president needs to do everything in his power to make clear that the debate is not between him and science , but between scientists themselves .
On one side are those who claim lockdowns work and who call for more of them .
On the other side is an army of scientists and other experts who argue that the lockdowns are a disaster .
Even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agrees with this .
Trump should cite scientists such as Harvard ’ s Martin Kulldorff , Oxford ’ s Sunetra Gupta , and Stanford Medical School ’ s Jay Bhattacharya every chance he gets .
Indeed , he should deliver a prepared speech making the scientific case against more lockdowns .
Joining him on the platform should be the forty or so top co-signers of the Great Barrington Declaration , which calls for an end to the lockdowns and a sensible strategy of “ focused protection.
” One of those scientists : Stanford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who won the 2013 Nobel Prize for chemistry .
Trump should elevate the platform of Levitt and these other scientists , and let them argue with Fauci et al .
This would re-frame the debate to the president ’ s advantage and allow the public on November 3rd to weigh in on the wisdom of lockdowns themselves .
Jay W. Richards , Douglas Axe , and William Briggs are the authors of The Price of Panic : How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe

President Trump has finally taken the gloves off when it comes to his inherited advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci. In a call with his campaign team, the president reportedly described Fauci as a “disaster.” In the debate on Thursday night, he was conciliatory toward Fauci. But Trump is right to be mad. Fauci gave the president bad advice on lockdowns, and yet the public health official has paid no price for it. On the contrary, the press has lionized Fauci. That’s made it hard for the president to pivot away from the lockdowns.
Unfortunately, by taking on Fauci directly, Trump allows the media to frame the dispute as Trump versus “the science,” with Fauci as the stand-in for the science. The real debate, though, is between Fauci and the growing body of scientific evidence that contradicts his advice. What’s more, there are thousands of scientific experts who are ready to talk about that evidence.
Tyranny of Experts
The lopsided influence of a few scientists like Fauci is the result of what we call the tyranny of experts. Being a public health official is not a gold medal for scientific acumen. It confers no advantage when it comes either to smarts or to public policy. Officialdom merely allows narrow specialists to exercise power in areas outside their ken and competence.
Imagine, for instance, if an immunologist who had worked for decades in the federal government told the president that if he doesn’t shut down the country, 2.2 million people would die. And imagine if that advice were based not on evidence but on a computer model that other expert modelers later described as “a buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.” Finally, imagine if that advice were protected from critique by other reputable scientists.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
You don’t have to imagine this. It happened in March. Dr. Anthony Fauci and someone else — not yet identified — gave just that dubious advice to President Trump. At the time, the president had no access to experts who would have challenged Fauci’s claims. He was also under siege by a hostile press that championed Fauci and the lockdowns. As a result, the president had little choice but to act on that advice.
This is the tyranny of experts.
Scientists Don’t All Think Alike
After a few months, the president realized that scientists weren’t speaking with one voice. Many scientists had disputed the lockdowns from the very beginning. Finally, Trump appointed Dr. Scott Atlas as his COVID-19 advisor. Atlas, unlike Fauci and others, is an expert on weighing the costs and benefits of a public health policy.
Atlas has taken to his new role with bravery and gusto. It’s no wonder that so much of the media, and social media giants, are doing their best to marginalize and censor him.
The president needs to do everything in his power to make clear that the debate is not between him and science, but between scientists themselves.
But Atlas isn’t a lone voice crying in the wilderness. He speaks for hundreds of experts who argue that lockdowns inflict great pain for little if any gain. (We argue that in detail in our new book The Price of Panic.)
President Trump was wise to bring Atlas in, but it’s just a first step. The election will be, in part, a referendum on the lockdowns. Joe Biden claims that he, unlike the president, listens to “the science.” The president needs to do everything in his power to make clear that the debate is not between him and science, but between scientists themselves.
A Referendum on Lockdowns
On one side are those who claim lockdowns work and who call for more of them. On the other side is an army of scientists and other experts who argue that the lockdowns are a disaster. Even the World Health Organization now more or less agrees with this.
Trump should cite scientists such as Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta, and Stanford Medical School’s Jay Bhattacharya every chance he gets. Indeed, he should deliver a prepared speech making the scientific case against more lockdowns. Joining him on the platform should be the forty or so top co-signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for an end to the lockdowns and a sensible strategy of “focused protection.”
One of those scientists: Stanford biophysicist and structural biologist Michael Levitt, who won the 2013 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Trump should elevate the platform of Levitt and these other scientists, and let them argue with Fauci et al. This would re-frame the debate to the president’s advantage and allow the public on November 3rd to weigh in on the wisdom of lockdowns themselves.
Jay W. Richards, Douglas Axe, and William Briggs are the authors of The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe


thestream--2020-10-26--Politics 2020: I Don’t Want to Talk About It

My wife wants to talk about politics .
After perusing The Wall Street Journal and other news sources , she places them before me to read and to comment .
Much to her chagrin , I usually don ’ t have the heart for it .
That ’ s not to say that I don ’ t read and think about politics , the election , and the future of our tattered republic .
I do .
But I can only do so in short doses .
And while I aspire to be a happy warrior , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insightful review of Michael Anton ’ s book The Stakes : America at the Point of No Return .
In it , he writes that for Anton and an assortment of other social critics , progressivism is a concrete project to replace the 1787 Constitution , as well as the principle of equality , with a new form of government : the administrative state .
The administrative state denies the centrality of the principle of equality , and denies that the right to rule proceeds from the consent of the governed .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimates its power by appeals to expertise .
A technocracy of the educated supersedes the democracy of the living and the dead .
This strikes me as spot on .
Those who , “ get bitter , they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren ’ t like them , ” ( Barack Obama ) , who are a “ basket of deplorables , ” ( Hillary Clinton ) , who are the “ dregs of society ” ( Joe Biden ) , need someone to look after them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So it ’ s a good thing we have experts to control them , force them to think and act according to the Spirit of the Age , and to remake America in the process .
On the Left — in education , government and the media — as Pinkoski writes : While the American Founders looked to the political theory of John Locke , the Left today owes its ideas to Jean Jacques Rousseau .
In his book Quest for Community , Robert Nesbit wrote : Once the state has spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What about intermediate institutions — family , church , associations , clubs ?
They ’ re nothing but obstacles that contradict the State .
They need to be marginalized and silenced .
The State has spoken on abortion and same-sex marriage .
How dare families , adoption agencies , doctors , bakers , florists , organizations , or ( worst of all ) churches contradict “ settled law ” ?
It ’ s legal , goes the argument , and that makes it moral .
And so even after their 2016 victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sisters of the Poor were hounded by the state of Pennsylvania over their refusal to include abortion inducing drugs and contraception in their insurance plan .
While the Court decided in their favor again in July 2020 , there ’ s no guarantee about the future .
I find it all rather distressing and depressing .
But not nearly as distressing and depressing as some Christians — informed , not-so-informed , and even policy experts .
Those who , offended by Donald Trump ’ s less-than-sterling character and tacky political aesthetics , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s keys over to Mr. Biden ’ s handlers — whose pent up anger and frustration may well unleash vengeance on us “ deplorables ” that no one wants to contemplate .
Scholar and commentator Steven Hayward quoted a recent Tweet from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich : And no doubt the “ Truth and Reconciliation Commission ” hearings will be televised so that the show trials can be seen by one and all .
In Hayward ’ s same blog post , “ Weimar America ?
” he also quotes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas Klingenstein entitled “ A Man vs. A Movement.
” Klingenstein comments that the way to frame this 2020 presidential election is “ as a contest between a man , Trump , who believes America is good and a man , Biden , who is controlled by a movement that believes America is bad .
I do not think it is any more complicated than that.
” Nor do I .
So make your choice .
And may God have mercy on us all .
Now , can we talk about something else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributor to The Stream , is a freelance writer , speaker and commentator on spirituality , religion and public life .
He is the author of The Liberty Threat : The Attack on Religious Freedom in America Today and Pears , Grapes , and Dates : A Good Life After Mid-Life .
Jim serves as Director of Distance Learning at Wyoming Catholic College and is host of the college ’ s weekly podcast , “ The After Dinner Scholar .
”

My wife wants to talk about politics. After perusing The Wall Street Journal and other news sources, she places them before me to read and to comment. Much to her chagrin, I usually don’t have the heart for it.
That’s not to say that I don’t read and think about politics, the election, and the future of our tattered republic. I do. But I can only do so in short doses. And while I aspire to be a happy warrior, it’s getting harder.
Contempt for America
Nathan Pinkoski wrote an insightful review of Michael Anton’s book The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return. In it, he writes that for Anton and an assortment of other social critics,
progressivism is a concrete project to replace the 1787 Constitution, as well as the principle of equality, with a new form of government: the administrative state. The administrative state denies the centrality of the principle of equality, and denies that the right to rule proceeds from the consent of the governed. In the administrative state, the governing class legitimates its power by appeals to expertise. A technocracy of the educated supersedes the democracy of the living and the dead.
This strikes me as spot on.
Those who, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” (Barack Obama), who are a “basket of deplorables,” (Hillary Clinton), who are the “dregs of society” (Joe Biden), need someone to look after them. Such people are incapable of self-government. So it’s a good thing we have experts to control them, force them to think and act according to the Spirit of the Age, and to remake America in the process.
On the Left — in education, government and the media — as Pinkoski writes:
A ruling class emerged that is defined, as Anton writes, by “contempt and hatred for America and its history.” A self-hating American ruling class has instrumentalized and weaponized the progressive administrative state and its claims to expertise in order to destroy what is left of American constitutionalism and crush the people who wish to be governed by it.
The State Has Spoken
While the American Founders looked to the political theory of John Locke, the Left today owes its ideas to Jean Jacques Rousseau.
In his book Quest for Community, Robert Nesbit wrote:
Rousseau sees the State as the most exalted of all forms of moral community. For Rousseau there is no morality, no freedom, no community outside the structure of the State. Apart from his life in the State, man’s actions are wanting in even the minimal conditions of morality and freedom.
Once the state has spoken, the individual simply falls into line. What about intermediate institutions — family, church, associations, clubs? They’re nothing but obstacles that contradict the State. They need to be marginalized and silenced.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The State has spoken on abortion and same-sex marriage. How dare families, adoption agencies, doctors, bakers, florists, organizations, or (worst of all) churches contradict “settled law”? It’s legal, goes the argument, and that makes it moral.
And so even after their 2016 victory in the Supreme Court, the Little Sisters of the Poor were hounded by the state of Pennsylvania over their refusal to include abortion inducing drugs and contraception in their insurance plan. While the Court decided in their favor again in July 2020, there’s no guarantee about the future.
It’s a Simple Choice, Really
I find it all rather distressing and depressing. But not nearly as distressing and depressing as some Christians — informed, not-so-informed, and even policy experts. Those who, offended by Donald Trump’s less-than-sterling character and tacky political aesthetics, are so willing to hand the administrative state’s keys over to Mr. Biden’s handlers — whose pent up anger and frustration may well unleash vengeance on us “deplorables” that no one wants to contemplate.
Scholar and commentator Steven Hayward quoted a recent Tweet from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:
When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It would erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.
And no doubt the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” hearings will be televised so that the show trials can be seen by one and all.
In Hayward’s same blog post, “Weimar America?” he also quotes a recent speech by Claremont Institute Board Chairman Thomas Klingenstein entitled “A Man vs. A Movement.” Klingenstein comments that the way to frame this 2020 presidential election is “as a contest between a man, Trump, who believes America is good and a man, Biden, who is controlled by a movement that believes America is bad. I do not think it is any more complicated than that.”
Nor do I. So make your choice. And may God have mercy on us all.
Now, can we talk about something else?
Dr. James Tonkowich, a senior contributor to The Stream, is a freelance writer, speaker and commentator on spirituality, religion and public life. He is the author of The Liberty Threat: The Attack on Religious Freedom in America Today and Pears, Grapes, and Dates: A Good Life After Mid-Life. Jim serves as Director of Distance Learning at Wyoming Catholic College and is host of the college’s weekly podcast, “The After Dinner Scholar.”


thestream--2020-10-26--Military Photo of the Day: Falcon Over the Middle East

A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon flies over the Middle East on October 14 , 2020 .
Have a @ @ @ @ @ everyone , and may God bless our deployed troops and their families .

A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon flies over the Middle East on October 14, 2020.
Have a healthy and safe week, everyone, and may God bless our deployed troops and their families.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.