thestream--2020-11-26--The Mayflower Compact: As an Idea, America Began in 1620, Not 1776

Editor ’ s note : This article was first published on November 9 at FEE.org .
We thought it meaningful to share again today .
Happy Thanksgiving !
For the 102 English people aboard the Mayflower , this very week four centuries ago was one they would never forget .
After more than 65 days on a perilous , storm-tossed journey at sea , they sighted land ( Cape Cod ) on November 9 , 1620 .
They dropped anchor on November 11 .
In between , they produced a document to establish what historian Rebecca Fraser describes as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western history between individuals with one another , and not with a monarch.
” We recognize that 200-word statement today as the Mayflower Compact .
Its quadricentennial should be noted and appreciated by freedom-lovers everywhere .
Government Between the Puritans and the Strangers : No King Fraser ’ s observation is an important one .
Previous statements and declarations in which freedom was a factor were agreements between an aggrieved people and the king or queen who ruled them .
Magna Carta , for example , created a new relationship between English nobles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayflower Compact , however , had nothing directly to do with the State .
It was a private contract between the men among the Pilgrims and the men among the other half of the passengers , called “ strangers ” by the Pilgrims because they were placed on the ship by the sponsors in Britain to provide necessary skills to help the new colony succeed .
During the voyage , tensions between the Pilgrims and the strangers grew .
When storms blew the ship off course and it became obvious they would land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly mutinied .
They argued that the wrong destination voided their agreement to assist the colony .
Government By the Consent of the Governed Compelled by circumstances ( survival hung in the balance ) to settle the issue one way or another , the passengers did the adult and civil thing .
They put in writing a promise to each other to form a government of consent .
Its laws would bind them all without religious or political discrimination .
True to the longstanding customs of the day , women could not sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists to suggest that if they could , they would have rejected it .
This short video from PBS provides some context : Philosophers debate the legitimacy of the idea of a “ social contract.
” It is routinely taught in school these days that we are all bound by one , and that it demands our subservience to government .
Personally , I can not recall ever receiving my copy , let alone signing it .
But if such a thing truly exists , the Mayflower Compact surely comes closest to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was compelled to sign , and the few who chose not to were either too ill to do so or were sailors intending to return to England .
What made the document truly extraordinary was that it applied to a group of people who were three thousand miles from their mother country .
The physical reality of all that space — and all the terror , freedom and insularity it fostered — informed everything that occurred in the days and years ahead .
In the end , the Mayflower Compact represented a remarkable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ T ] hey put pen to paper and created a document that ranks with the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution as a seminal American text .
The passengers then elected a Governor and went ashore on November 11 .
A month later , after some exploration , they opted to sail west to set up their permanent home , which they named Plymouth .
Fortuitously , if not miraculously , friendly Indians whose names we should honor — Massasoit and Squanto in particular — helped the colony get through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an important lesson in economics early on when they rejected the starvation policy of communal socialism and embraced private property .
Self-Government , Rule of Law and Enlightened Liberty for All Personally , I love this story because it is so quintessentially American , so sublimely pro-liberty .
Why ?
Let me summarize : The Pilgrims fled religious persecution at the hands of a government .
They made a deal with investors to privately finance a new settlement across the ocean .
Half of the passengers on their ship did not share their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ the strangers ” put their differences aside and signed a social contract to establish a secular self-government .
Then they made a peace with the local tribes that lasted half a century .
They succeeded and prospered when freedom of enterprise and personal initiative formed the central bedrock of their new society .
In 1776 , the American Declaration of Independence asserted that “ all men are created equal ” and that to secure their unalienable rights , “ Governments are instituted among men , deriving their just powers from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who remembered the Mayflower Compact , this was a glorious echo from a century and a half before .
It is no exaggeration to say that the great American experiment — the achievement of self-government , rule of law and enlightened liberty for all — began not in 1776 but in 1620 .
We are still on that same voyage and though occasional storms block and even set us back , we remain committed to the ideal .
That , I believe , is what it really means to be an American .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reed is FEE ’ s President Emeritus , Humphreys Family Senior Fellow , and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty .
Reed served as president of FEE from 2008-2019 after serving previously as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s .
Prior to becoming FEE ’ s president , he served for 21 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland , Michigan , and taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in @ @

Editor’s note: This article was first published on November 9 at FEE.org. We thought it meaningful to share again today. Happy Thanksgiving!
For the 102 English people aboard the Mayflower, this very week four centuries ago was one they would never forget.
After more than 65 days on a perilous, storm-tossed journey at sea, they sighted land (Cape Cod) on November 9, 1620. They dropped anchor on November 11. In between, they produced a document to establish what historian Rebecca Fraser describes as “the first experiment in consensual government in Western history between individuals with one another, and not with a monarch.”
It is no exaggeration to say that the great American experiment — the achievement of self-government, rule of law and enlightened liberty for all — began not in 1776 but in 1620.
We recognize that 200-word statement today as the Mayflower Compact. Its quadricentennial should be noted and appreciated by freedom-lovers everywhere.
Government Between the Puritans and the Strangers: No King
Fraser’s observation is an important one. Previous statements and declarations in which freedom was a factor were agreements between an aggrieved people and the king or queen who ruled them. Magna Carta, for example, created a new relationship between English nobles and King John in 1215.
The Mayflower Compact, however, had nothing directly to do with the State. It was a private contract between the men among the Pilgrims and the men among the other half of the passengers, called “strangers” by the Pilgrims because they were placed on the ship by the sponsors in Britain to provide necessary skills to help the new colony succeed.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
During the voyage, tensions between the Pilgrims and the strangers grew. When storms blew the ship off course and it became obvious they would land well north of Virginia, the strangers nearly mutinied. They argued that the wrong destination voided their agreement to assist the colony.
Government By the Consent of the Governed
Compelled by circumstances (survival hung in the balance) to settle the issue one way or another, the passengers did the adult and civil thing. They put in writing a promise to each other to form a government of consent. Its laws would bind them all without religious or political discrimination. True to the longstanding customs of the day, women could not sign such a legal document but no evidence exists to suggest that if they could, they would have rejected it.
This short video from PBS provides some context:
Philosophers debate the legitimacy of the idea of a “social contract.” It is routinely taught in school these days that we are all bound by one, and that it demands our subservience to government. Personally, I cannot recall ever receiving my copy, let alone signing it. But if such a thing truly exists, the Mayflower Compact surely comes closest to its ideal. No one on the ship was compelled to sign, and the few who chose not to were either too ill to do so or were sailors intending to return to England.
Nathaniel Philbrick’s bestseller, Mayflower: Voyage, Community, War, expounds on the Compact’s significance:
What made the document truly extraordinary was that it applied to a group of people who were three thousand miles from their mother country. The physical reality of all that space — and all the terror, freedom and insularity it fostered — informed everything that occurred in the days and years ahead. In the end, the Mayflower Compact represented a remarkable act of coolheaded and pragmatic resolve … [T]hey put pen to paper and created a document that ranks with the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution as a seminal American text.
The passengers then elected a Governor and went ashore on November 11. A month later, after some exploration, they opted to sail west to set up their permanent home, which they named Plymouth. Fortuitously, if not miraculously, friendly Indians whose names we should honor — Massasoit and Squanto in particular — helped the colony get through rough times. And the colonists learned an important lesson in economics early on when they rejected the starvation policy of communal socialism and embraced private property.
Self-Government, Rule of Law and Enlightened Liberty for All
Personally, I love this story because it is so quintessentially American, so sublimely pro-liberty. Why? Let me summarize:
The Pilgrims fled religious persecution at the hands of a government. They made a deal with investors to privately finance a new settlement across the ocean. Half of the passengers on their ship did not share their religious views but together, the Pilgrims and “the strangers” put their differences aside and signed a social contract to establish a secular self-government. Then they made a peace with the local tribes that lasted half a century. They succeeded and prospered when freedom of enterprise and personal initiative formed the central bedrock of their new society.
In 1776, the American Declaration of Independence asserted that “all men are created equal” and that to secure their unalienable rights, “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
To Americans who remembered the Mayflower Compact, this was a glorious echo from a century and a half before.
It is no exaggeration to say that the great American experiment — the achievement of self-government, rule of law and enlightened liberty for all — began not in 1776 but in 1620. We are still on that same voyage and though occasional storms block and even set us back, we remain committed to the ideal.
That, I believe, is what it really means to be an American.
Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty. Reed served as president of FEE from 2008-2019 after serving previously as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Prior to becoming FEE’s president, he served for 21 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, and taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan.
Originally published at FEE.org. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-11-26--SCOTUS Calls New York’s COVID Restrictions ‘Discriminatory,’ Sides With Religious Organizations

The Supreme Court late Wednesday night sided with religious organizations challenging Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s coronavirus restrictions and called the New York Democrat ’ s measures “ discriminatory ” in its injunction for emergency relief .
The conservative justices , including Justice Amy Coney Barrett , favored the religion organizations in the 5-4 ruling , while Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices .
It was the first time Barrett was a deciding factor as the court ’ s newest justice after replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
The majority said that Cuomo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court , much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic , and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.
” Earlier this year , the court sided 5-4 in favor of the liberal justices on COVID-19 religious restrictions in California and Nevada , according to CNN .
Cuomo ’ s restrictions limit the number of people who can attend religious services to 10 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest , regardless of a church or synagogue ’ s capacity .
In areas with slightly less risk , attendance is limited to 25 people .
“ New York ’ s restrictions on houses of worship not only are severe , but also are discriminatory , ” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion Wednesday .
“ In light of the devastating pandemic , I do not doubt the State ’ s authority to impose tailored restrictions — even very strict restrictions —o n attendance at religious services and secular gatherings alike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York restrictions on houses of worship are not tailored to the circumstances given the First Amendment interests at stake.
” Jewish organizations , represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty , asked the Supreme Court to consider whether Cuomo ’ s executive order violates the Free Exercise Clause when it “ disfavors worship ” and “ when the official who issued it made clear through unambiguous statements that the order was targeted at a religious minority ’ s practices and traditions.
” “ The Governor made overwhelmingly clear that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular religious minority that he falsely blames for the spread of COVID-19 — Orthodox Jews , ” the request said , referring to Cuomo ’ s early October statement to the Orthodox community .
Cuomo had said : “ If you ’ re not willing to live with these rules , then I ’ m going to close the synagogues.
” “ The Governor did not attack religious belief generally , but singled out a particular religion for blame and retribution for an uptick in a society-wide pandemic , ” the injunction request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ultra-Orthodox community ’ and referred to them as a ‘ problem , ’ due to his own perceptions of the community.
” Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in his opinion that in Cuomo ’ s judgment , “ laundry and liquor , travel and tools , are all ‘ essential ’ while traditional religious exercises are not.
” “ That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids , ” Gorsuch wrote .
Cuomo ’ s office did not immediately respond to request for comment from the Daily Caller News @ @

The Supreme Court late Wednesday night sided with religious organizations challenging Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s coronavirus restrictions and called the New York Democrat’s measures “discriminatory” in its injunction for emergency relief.
The conservative justices, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, favored the religion organizations in the 5-4 ruling, while Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices. It was the first time Barrett was a deciding factor as the court’s newest justice after replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The majority said that Cuomo’s coronavirus restrictions on religious communities are “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.”
Earlier this year, the court sided 5-4 in favor of the liberal justices on COVID-19 religious restrictions in California and Nevada, according to CNN.
Cuomo’s restrictions limit the number of people who can attend religious services to 10 in areas where the threat of coronavirus is highest, regardless of a church or synagogue’s capacity. In areas with slightly less risk, attendance is limited to 25 people.
“New York’s restrictions on houses of worship not only are severe, but also are discriminatory,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion Wednesday.
“In light of the devastating pandemic, I do not doubt the State’s authority to impose tailored restrictions — even very strict restrictions —o n attendance at religious services and secular gatherings alike,” Kavanaugh continued. “But the New York restrictions on houses of worship are not tailored to the circumstances given the First Amendment interests at stake.”
#BREAKING: The Supreme Court just handed down a HUGE victory for religious freedom—stopping Gov. Cuomo from imposing discriminatory #COVID19 limits on Orthodox Jewish synagogues and Catholic churches in New York City: https://t.co/hA1Ql3T9rX — Eric Rassbach (@ericrassbach) November 26, 2020
Jewish organizations, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asked the Supreme Court to consider whether Cuomo’s executive order violates the Free Exercise Clause when it “disfavors worship” and “when the official who issued it made clear through unambiguous statements that the order was targeted at a religious minority’s practices and traditions.”
“The Governor made overwhelmingly clear that his Cluster Initiative was designed to target a particular religious minority that he falsely blames for the spread of COVID-19 — Orthodox Jews,” the request said, referring to Cuomo’s early October statement to the Orthodox community.
Cuomo had said: “If you’re not willing to live with these rules, then I’m going to close the synagogues.”
“The Governor did not attack religious belief generally, but singled out a particular religion for blame and retribution for an uptick in a society-wide pandemic,” the injunction request said. “He threatened ‘members of the ultra-Orthodox community’ and referred to them as a ‘problem,’ due to his own perceptions of the community.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in his opinion that in Cuomo’s judgment, “laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all ‘essential’ while traditional religious exercises are not.”
“That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids,” Gorsuch wrote.
Cuomo’s office did not immediately respond to request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
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--2020-11-27--Oprah’s Extraordinary Life Shows America Is No ‘Caste System’

Isabel Wilkerson already has a Pulitzer Prize .
But this week she received something perhaps even better : a special perch in Oprah Winfrey ’ s book club .
“ This might be the most important book I ’ ve ever chosen for my book club , ” Oprah said of Wilkerson ’ s new book , Caste : The Origins of Our Discontents .
Her glowing regard is widely shared .
Reviewers can ’ t write the reviews fast enough — The New York Times reviewed it twice in less than a week ; so did NPR — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smashing ( “ an instant American classic !
” ) .
But , what ’ s this about caste ?
A caste system , according to the dictionary definition , is one that divides society into hereditary classes .
The classic caste system is that of traditional Hindu society , which was stratified into castes ranging from upper-crust Brahmins ( scholars and priests ) down to an underclass known as “ untouchables.
” Caste membership was determined by birth , and movement up and down the caste hierarchy was nearly impossible .
Wilkerson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oprah agrees ) that America , the so-called “ land of opportunity , ” is actually a caste system , citing racial oppression throughout the country ’ s history .
Wilkerson , a former Times reporter , vividly describes the horrors of American slavery , a system that “ was , for a quarter millennium , conversion of human beings into currency , into machines who existed solely for the profit of their owners… .
” Wilkerson makes an important point .
Slavery is indeed a caste system .
American slaves were born @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life was almost entirely determined by their membership in that caste .
Readers also learn of atrocities committed under Jim Crow , including savage surgeries performed on black women in Alabama , administered without anesthesia , and grotesque brain surgeries on black children , chronicled in Harriet Washington ’ s chilling work Medical Apartheid , which traces the mistreatment of black Americans from the colonial era through the infamous Tuskegee Experiment .
Jim Crow , which was practiced throughout the South and in some border states from 1877 through 1965 , was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American blacks were not afforded equal treatment under the law but were persecuted based on their race/birth .
But , does the existence of caste structures within parts of America throughout its history mean that America on the whole has been a caste system and that the “ American dream ” of social mobility is nothing but a myth ?
If so , it would be difficult to explain Oprah ’ s own life story .
Orpah ( CQ ) Gail Winfrey was born in Kosciusko , Mississippi in 1954 , the daughter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the standards of the poor South , Oprah ’ s earliest years were meager .
Her biographers describe her living with her grandmother and wearing clothing made of potato sacks , which earned her the nickname “ Sack Girl.
” She reportedly had cockroaches for pets and a doll made out of corn cob .
Life did not improve when Oprah moved to Milwaukee after a stint in Tennessee .
She was raped at age nine by a cousin and later by an uncle , which resulted in a failed pregnancy at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oprah rebelled , but her life improved when she returned to Tennessee in the late 1960s to live with the man she recognizes as her father , Vernon Winfrey — a coal miner turned Nashville barber — and his wife , Zelma .
Oprah ’ s grades improved , her classmates voted her Most Popular Girl , and she won an oration contest that carried her to Tennessee State University in 1971 on a scholarship .
College brought new experiences and opportunities .
She quickly found work in radio and TV , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she landed on a TV show ( “ People Are Talking ” ) .
Other networks noticed her work , and she was eventually poached by a Chicago station and rewarded with her own morning show .
We know the rest of the story : Oprah became the most popular TV host in America and today owns her own network .
She ’ s worth $ 2.6 billion .
It ’ s a true ( and quite literal ) rags to riches story , and it ’ s part of a larger story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oprah Winfrey .
Sarah Breedlove , AKA Madam Walker , was born in Louisiana in 1867 , two years after slavery was abolished .
She was a black woman in the Victorian era who worked as a laundress and was widowed at 16 .
Yet she became a successful entrepreneur and the first African-American millionaire .
America is filled with such stories and has an undeniable track record of economic mobility .
It includes Oprah , Madam Walker and countless other minorities and Americans from every walk of life .
What do stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caste in America ?
First of all , if America was all about caste , then Winfrey ’ s life path would have been impossible ; law and custom would have strictly limited her opportunities and trapped her in the conditions she was born to and raised in .
Instead , from a childhood of poverty and abuse , she ascended to the very summit of society : from “ sack girl ” to the world ’ s most beloved billionaire .
Secondly , Winfrey ’ s level of success may not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the abolition of slavery before she was born , and the overthrow of Jim Crow when she was young .
So , the demolition of racial caste structures is indeed an important and heroic project , a crucial part of the American story .
Thirdly , Winfrey ’ s social mobility would have been impossible without one of the most powerful anti-caste forces in human history : capitalism .
Such a notion may sound preposterous to those who , like the 1619 Project , associate capitalism with racial oppression ( and oppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and economics show that free markets are truly anti-caste and anti-racist .
Through grit , empathy and applied talent , Winfrey was able to connect with audiences throughout her career as a host .
In other words , she provided them a service they valued highly .
As her audiences grew more numerous and dedicated , Winfrey ’ s services grew more valuable to advertisers and stations and her opportunities and income grew as well .
For all we know , some of those advertisers and stations may have been racist .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their profit motive , they might have lost Winfrey ’ s lucrative services to competitors who did not .
And after Winfrey became her own boss , her impact on audiences only grew , and she proved herself not only to be a world-class on-screen talent , but a world-class entrepreneur .
As Winfrey ’ s career demonstrates , markets are meritocratic , and therefore anti-caste .
What matters most is the value you can offer the public , not the status group membership you were born to .
The more value you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ladder of success , and the more you are empowered to create even more value .
The American Dream Is Possible Indeed , historically capitalism first began to really flourish as the old European-style caste system began to dissolve .
In the feudal system , your station in life was pre-determined by your caste membership : whether you were a noble , a serf , a guild-member , etc .
But advocates of freedom and equality under the law ( back then known as “ classical liberals ” ) gradually dismantled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberalism freed individuals to pursue opportunity wherever it led , whether as entrepreneurs or as free workers .
That economic and social mobility unleashed the productive potential of humanity and paved the way for an unprecedented rise in living standards .
The founding of America was of a piece with that classical liberal project .
Tragically , the founders were not consistent .
As they designed a new constitution that rejected the caste system of old , they stained it by not abolishing the loathsome caste structure of slavery that existed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a half .
But it was an incongruous element , as was the Jim Crow caste structure that followed it .
And the purging of both was a fulfillment of the classical liberal anti-caste project that birthed both America and capitalism .
As Oprah Winfrey ’ s life demonstrates , the American Dream is no myth .
Neither has it ever been perfectly realized .
America is also not a “ caste system , ” although social mobility is hampered by legal restrictions that still need to be abolished .
To make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we must recognize that , contrary to the Marxists who try to convince us otherwise , “ Americanism , ” classical liberalism and capitalism are our natural allies in the fight against racial oppression .
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org .
His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine , The Wall Street Journal , CNN , Forbes , Fox News and the Star Tribune .
Bylines : The Washington Times , MSN.com , The Washington Examiner , The Daily Caller , The Federalist , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education ( FEE ) and the Editor-in Chief of FEE.org .

Isabel Wilkerson already has a Pulitzer Prize. But this week she received something perhaps even better: a special perch in Oprah Winfrey’s book club.
“This might be the most important book I’ve ever chosen for my book club,” Oprah said of Wilkerson’s new book, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents.
Her glowing regard is widely shared. Reviewers can’t write the reviews fast enough — The New York Times reviewed it twice in less than a week; so did NPR — and everyone agrees Wilkerson’s book is smashing (“an instant American classic!”).
But, what’s this about caste? A caste system, according to the dictionary definition, is one that divides society into hereditary classes. The classic caste system is that of traditional Hindu society, which was stratified into castes ranging from upper-crust Brahmins (scholars and priests) down to an underclass known as “untouchables.” Caste membership was determined by birth, and movement up and down the caste hierarchy was nearly impossible.
Wilkerson’s book alleges (and presumably Oprah agrees) that America, the so-called “land of opportunity,” is actually a caste system, citing racial oppression throughout the country’s history.
Wilkerson, a former Times reporter, vividly describes the horrors of American slavery, a system that “was, for a quarter millennium, conversion of human beings into currency, into machines who existed solely for the profit of their owners… .”
Wilkerson makes an important point. Slavery is indeed a caste system. American slaves were born into slavery, and their station in life was almost entirely determined by their membership in that caste.
Readers also learn of atrocities committed under Jim Crow, including savage surgeries performed on black women in Alabama, administered without anesthesia, and grotesque brain surgeries on black children, chronicled in Harriet Washington’s chilling work Medical Apartheid, which traces the mistreatment of black Americans from the colonial era through the infamous Tuskegee Experiment.
Jim Crow, which was practiced throughout the South and in some border states from 1877 through 1965, was also a caste regime. Under it, American blacks were not afforded equal treatment under the law but were persecuted based on their race/birth.
But, does the existence of caste structures within parts of America throughout its history mean that America on the whole has been a caste system and that the “American dream” of social mobility is nothing but a myth?
If so, it would be difficult to explain Oprah’s own life story.
Potato Sacks to Riches
Orpah (CQ) Gail Winfrey was born in Kosciusko, Mississippi in 1954, the daughter of an unmarried teenage housemaid. Even by the standards of the poor South, Oprah’s earliest years were meager. Her biographers describe her living with her grandmother and wearing clothing made of potato sacks, which earned her the nickname “Sack Girl.” She reportedly had cockroaches for pets and a doll made out of corn cob.
Life did not improve when Oprah moved to Milwaukee after a stint in Tennessee. She was raped at age nine by a cousin and later by an uncle, which resulted in a failed pregnancy at age 14.
As a teen, Oprah rebelled, but her life improved when she returned to Tennessee in the late 1960s to live with the man she recognizes as her father, Vernon Winfrey — a coal miner turned Nashville barber — and his wife, Zelma. Oprah’s grades improved, her classmates voted her Most Popular Girl, and she won an oration contest that carried her to Tennessee State University in 1971 on a scholarship.
College brought new experiences and opportunities. She quickly found work in radio and TV, and in 1976 she moved to Baltimore where she landed on a TV show (“People Are Talking”). Other networks noticed her work, and she was eventually poached by a Chicago station and rewarded with her own morning show.
We know the rest of the story: Oprah became the most popular TV host in America and today owns her own network. She’s worth $2.6 billion.
It’s a true (and quite literal) rags to riches story, and it’s part of a larger story that does not start or end with Oprah Winfrey.
Sarah Breedlove, AKA Madam Walker, was born in Louisiana in 1867, two years after slavery was abolished. She was a black woman in the Victorian era who worked as a laundress and was widowed at 16. Yet she became a successful entrepreneur and the first African-American millionaire.
America is filled with such stories and has an undeniable track record of economic mobility. It includes Oprah, Madam Walker and countless other minorities and Americans from every walk of life.
How Capitalism Destroys Caste
What do stories like these tell us about class and caste in America?
First of all, if America was all about caste, then Winfrey’s life path would have been impossible; law and custom would have strictly limited her opportunities and trapped her in the conditions she was born to and raised in. Instead, from a childhood of poverty and abuse, she ascended to the very summit of society: from “sack girl” to the world’s most beloved billionaire.
Secondly, Winfrey’s level of success may not have been possible, had it not been for the abolition of slavery before she was born, and the overthrow of Jim Crow when she was young. So, the demolition of racial caste structures is indeed an important and heroic project, a crucial part of the American story.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Thirdly, Winfrey’s social mobility would have been impossible without one of the most powerful anti-caste forces in human history: capitalism.
Such a notion may sound preposterous to those who, like the 1619 Project, associate capitalism with racial oppression (and oppression in general). But both history and economics show that free markets are truly anti-caste and anti-racist.
Through grit, empathy and applied talent, Winfrey was able to connect with audiences throughout her career as a host. In other words, she provided them a service they valued highly. As her audiences grew more numerous and dedicated, Winfrey’s services grew more valuable to advertisers and stations and her opportunities and income grew as well.
For all we know, some of those advertisers and stations may have been racist. But if they had let their bigotry outweigh their profit motive, they might have lost Winfrey’s lucrative services to competitors who did not.
And after Winfrey became her own boss, her impact on audiences only grew, and she proved herself not only to be a world-class on-screen talent, but a world-class entrepreneur.
As Winfrey’s career demonstrates, markets are meritocratic, and therefore anti-caste. What matters most is the value you can offer the public, not the status group membership you were born to. The more value you offer, the higher you can climb the ladder of success, and the more you are empowered to create even more value.
The American Dream Is Possible
Indeed, historically capitalism first began to really flourish as the old European-style caste system began to dissolve. In the feudal system, your station in life was pre-determined by your caste membership: whether you were a noble, a serf, a guild-member, etc. But advocates of freedom and equality under the law (back then known as “classical liberals”) gradually dismantled that system of privileges and restrictions. Classical liberalism freed individuals to pursue opportunity wherever it led, whether as entrepreneurs or as free workers. That economic and social mobility unleashed the productive potential of humanity and paved the way for an unprecedented rise in living standards.
The founding of America was of a piece with that classical liberal project. Tragically, the founders were not consistent. As they designed a new constitution that rejected the caste system of old, they stained it by not abolishing the loathsome caste structure of slavery that existed in the colonies for more than a century and a half.
But it was an incongruous element, as was the Jim Crow caste structure that followed it. And the purging of both was a fulfillment of the classical liberal anti-caste project that birthed both America and capitalism.
As Oprah Winfrey’s life demonstrates, the American Dream is no myth. Neither has it ever been perfectly realized. America is also not a “caste system,” although social mobility is hampered by legal restrictions that still need to be abolished.
To make the caste-free American Dream closer to reality, we must recognize that, contrary to the Marxists who try to convince us otherwise, “Americanism,” classical liberalism and capitalism are our natural allies in the fight against racial oppression.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News and the Star Tribune. Bylines: The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, and the Epoch Times.
Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the Editor-in Chief of FEE.org.
Originally published on FEE.org.


thestream--2020-11-27--Military Photo of the Day: Bravo

Military Photo of the Day: Bravo

U.S. Marines participate in a deactivation ceremony of Bravo Company , 2nd Tank Battalion at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ .

U.S. Marines participate in a deactivation ceremony of Bravo Company, 2nd Tank Battalion at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina on November 13, 2020.
Have a safe weekend, everyone!
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-11-27--Can We Please Stop Exaggerating About the Elections?

It is one thing to dispute the outcome of the elections , as many educated and informed people are doing .
It is another thing to claim that “ Trump won by the biggest landslide in American history.
” Why are we repeating such nonsense ?
How does it help our cause or enhance our argument ?
To the contrary , such ridiculous accusations only undermine our message and further discredit us in the eyes of a watching world , before whom we have already lost much credibility .
Worse still , when these falsehoods come from the mouths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself look bad .
I ask again : To what gain ?
To what purpose ?
What cause does this advance ?
There are statisticians who have raised credible arguments disputing the outcome of the elections .
And there are reports of thousands of signed affidavits with specific examples of voter fraud .
( For a sampling of additional arguments , see here . )
We have a system in place to review such claims , and if they are proven true through audited recounts and in courts of law , then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end , all Americans of conscience should share the same goal : let the elections be conducted lawfully and fairly , and let the people speak through their votes .
But the moment we add in ridiculous exaggerations , we make the entire case seem suspect .
( My official position is simple : I do not know to what extent there was voter fraud because I can not analyze the data for myself and because I have no expertise in evaluating the claims .
But I am confident that , with so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will triumph . )
Either way , though , even if every claim of fraud were true , Trump would not have won by the greatest landslide in our history .
Who came up with this statement ?
And why are men of God repeating it ?
It only brings mockery to our message and reproach to our cause .
What if Biden Only Won California and New York To illustrate the absurdity of this claim – specifically , that Trump won by the greatest landslide in American history – let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , California and New York , which no one in their right mind disputes .
( Not even Trump ’ s most zealous attorneys would dispute these victories , along with Biden ’ s victories in quite a few other states . )
Just with these two states , Biden would have won 84 out of 538 votes , meaning 15.6 percent of the electoral votes , leaving Trump with less than 85 percent of the electoral vote .
Yet there were at least 10 different presidential races where the margins were much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1964 ( he took over 90 percent of the electoral vote , 486-52 ) ; Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter in 1980 ( he also took more than 90 percent of the electoral vote , 489-49 ) ; Nixon over McGovern in 1972 ( he took almost 97 percent of the electoral vote , 520-17 ) ; Reagan over Mondale in 1984 ( he took almost 98 percent of the electoral vote , 525-13 ) ; and FDR over Landon in 1936 ( he took over 98 percent of the electoral vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeat , even if there was massive electoral fraud , tilting the results in the swing states , and even if Biden only won California and New York , Trump ’ s reconstructed victory would still not have been the biggest landslide in our history .
Not even close .
( For the record , LBJ also took over 61 percent of the popular vote , which no pro-Trump projection would claim for him . )
So I ask once more : What do we gain by repeating a lie ?
How does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is really scary is the pushback I received when I posted some of these thoughts on Wednesday night on the AskDrBrown Facebook page , noting that “ God can not bless exaggerations.
” ( I first heard that quote from the lips of a faith leader who died in 1947 .
He was recounting a healing miracle he witnessed firsthand , and he wanted to make it clear that he was reporting every detail with full accuracy , realizing that “ God can not bless exaggerations.
” ) One man wrote : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree .
You apparently don ’ t realize or understand the level of corruption and the history of voter fraud the Democrat party is so well known for , not just in this election but for 50 years.
” Another simply posted : “ False prophet .
Buyers beware .
God said there will be false prophets in the last days .
Prime example right here.
” Another opined : “ You ’ re obviously another Demonic Socialist Troll idiot.
” Another claimed : “ Dr Brown , you are coming off as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turning off everyone who thought you were worth listening to .
Please change your tune.
” Another compared me to Joel Osteen .
( Not quite sure what Joel Osteen has to do with this ! )
The Truth is More Than Enough Certainly , I understand that passions are high .
And I recognize that the question of electoral fraud is one of the hottest topics on the planet , for good reason .
The implications are massive .
But please .
Let us be lovers of the truth .
Exaggerations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God hates lies .
The truth is always more than enough .
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 .

It is one thing to dispute the outcome of the elections, as many educated and informed people are doing. It is another thing to claim that “Trump won by the biggest landslide in American history.” Why are we repeating such nonsense? How does it help our cause or enhance our argument?
To the contrary, such ridiculous accusations only undermine our message and further discredit us in the eyes of a watching world, before whom we have already lost much credibility. Worse still, when these falsehoods come from the mouths of leading pastors, it makes the gospel itself look bad.
I ask again: To what gain? To what purpose? What cause does this advance?
Credible Arguments
There are statisticians who have raised credible arguments disputing the outcome of the elections. And there are reports of thousands of signed affidavits with specific examples of voter fraud. (For a sampling of additional arguments, see here.)
We have a system in place to review such claims, and if they are proven true through audited recounts and in courts of law, then the results will be overturned. In the end, all Americans of conscience should share the same goal: let the elections be conducted lawfully and fairly, and let the people speak through their votes.
Who came up with this statement? And why are men of God repeating it? It only brings mockery to our message and reproach to our cause.
But the moment we add in ridiculous exaggerations, we make the entire case seem suspect. (My official position is simple: I do not know to what extent there was voter fraud because I cannot analyze the data for myself and because I have no expertise in evaluating the claims. But I am confident that, with so much prayer ascending to heaven, truth will triumph.)
Either way, though, even if every claim of fraud were true, Trump would not have won by the greatest landslide in our history. Who came up with this statement? And why are men of God repeating it? It only brings mockery to our message and reproach to our cause.
What if Biden Only Won California and New York
To illustrate the absurdity of this claim – specifically, that Trump won by the greatest landslide in American history – let’s say that Biden only won two states, California and New York, which no one in their right mind disputes. (Not even Trump’s most zealous attorneys would dispute these victories, along with Biden’s victories in quite a few other states.)
Just with these two states, Biden would have won 84 out of 538 votes, meaning 15.6 percent of the electoral votes, leaving Trump with less than 85 percent of the electoral vote.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Yet there were at least 10 different presidential races where the margins were much bigger, including: LBJ vs. Goldwater in 1964 (he took over 90 percent of the electoral vote, 486-52); Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter in 1980 (he also took more than 90 percent of the electoral vote, 489-49); Nixon over McGovern in 1972 (he took almost 97 percent of the electoral vote, 520-17); Reagan over Mondale in 1984 (he took almost 98 percent of the electoral vote, 525-13); and FDR over Landon in 1936 (he took over 98 percent of the electoral vote, 523-8).
So, to repeat, even if there was massive electoral fraud, tilting the results in the swing states, and even if Biden only won California and New York, Trump’s reconstructed victory would still not have been the biggest landslide in our history. Not even close. (For the record, LBJ also took over 61 percent of the popular vote, which no pro-Trump projection would claim for him.)
So I ask once more: What do we gain by repeating a lie? How does a gross exaggeration help our cause?
Fighting for Truth
What is really scary is the pushback I received when I posted some of these thoughts on Wednesday night on the AskDrBrown Facebook page, noting that “God cannot bless exaggerations.” (I first heard that quote from the lips of a faith leader who died in 1947. He was recounting a healing miracle he witnessed firsthand, and he wanted to make it clear that he was reporting every detail with full accuracy, realizing that “God cannot bless exaggerations.”)
One man wrote: “For the first time I categorically disagree. You apparently don’t realize or understand the level of corruption and the history of voter fraud the Democrat party is so well known for, not just in this election but for 50 years.”
Another simply posted: “False prophet. Buyers beware. God said there will be false prophets in the last days. Prime example right here.”
Another opined: “You’re obviously another Demonic Socialist Troll idiot.”
Another claimed: “Dr Brown, you are coming off as a flaming Communist. You’re turning off everyone who thought you were worth listening to. Please change your tune.”
Another compared me to Joel Osteen. (Not quite sure what Joel Osteen has to do with this!)
The Truth is More Than Enough
Certainly, I understand that passions are high. And I recognize that the question of electoral fraud is one of the hottest topics on the planet, for good reason. The implications are massive.
But please. Let us be lovers of the truth. Exaggerations are just another form of lies, and God hates lies.
The truth is always more than enough.
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--2020-11-27--Beyond Fake News: Now It’s News From an Alternative Reality

For years I ’ ve been thinking our nation ’ s people were growing more polarized .
Now I ’ m not so sure .
Maybe we ’ re not polarized ; maybe we inhabit entirely different dimensions of reality .
That would explain a lot .
On Wednesday I spent 45 minutes in one reality , watching live Pennsylvania legislative hearings on voter fraud .
( I missed a good portion before I tuned in . )
I heard witness after witness after witness detailing fraud , voter misdirection , poll-watcher bullying , and more ; things they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Most of them were professional people who ’ d served as local election officials or election watchers .
One , though , was an 80-year-old woman to whom polling officials had lied .
She ’ d printed out her ballot after entering her votes on the electronic voting system and noticed her vote for Trump was missing .
“ That ’ s left off there for secrecy , ” they told her , even though all her other votes were on the printout .
Her daughter ’ s printout at another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her vote for president .
The woman was visibly upset .
She ’ d been disenfranchised by a lying Democrat .
Hers is just one case .
Other witnesses , however , told of many thousands of mishandled or improperly approved ballots .
They told of how they ’ d been pushed around .
It was heartbreaking ; it was enraging .
Security expert and poll watcher Greg Stenstrom was one of them .
He told the committee he knew of 47 USB cards that had gone missing .
He watched as vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of which was handling ballots according to a proper chain of custody .
Other witnesses spoke of similar violations in Montgomery Country .
Delaware and Montgomery Counties comprise the Philadelphia suburbs west of the Delaware River .
This is the kind of evidence that shows fraud allegations must be taken seriously .
Unless they were all lying , Pennsylvania has a very serious problem on its hands .
The whole country does .
That ’ s the reality I live in .
Mainstream news organizations live in a completely different world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no witnesses at that hearing , if it even was a “ hearing.
” For NBC Nightly News , the event merited only a footnote under their report on Trump ’ s pardoning of Michael Flynn .
No witnesses appeared .
Instead , Funny thing : I didn ’ t even know Giuliani was there .
I missed that part of it .
In their world , though , he was the only one who spoke .
CBS lives in the same world as NBC , naturally : No witnesses were there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s world , it was a “ hearing ” in name only , and masks were what really mattered .
As for The New York Times and Los Angeles Times , the “ hearing ” didn ’ t even happen .
I used several methods to search both websites and found no report on the hearing whatsoever .
A while back I wrote how you could answer the claim that there ’ s no evidence of election fraud .
I ’ m afraid now I missed the real explanation .
It could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media-world , where there really is no evidence .
For days now , I ’ ve also been hammering on the media ’ s mishandling of the election fraud question .
Now I realize that only matters to those of us who think we all inhabit the same world , and we all ought to act as if we do .
I thought they had a reality problem , but it ’ s only a problem if their reality needs to look like … well , reality .
And it does .
Sci-fi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play with , but news organizations exist to tell us about the real world , not made-up ones they only wish were real .
They all pretend to report on the world we share , which makes their alternative realities real-world fabrications .
We can see two effects of this , and the nation ’ s future may well depend on which prevails .
They ’ re already committing a slow sort of suicide , losing viewers and readers as people discover they ’ re not delivering real news of real reality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for in the meantime they ’ re splitting the nation in two .
The polarization is real , and alternative-reality news is a major cause of it .
It ’ s infuriating and it ’ s grievous , both at the same time .
Both CBS and NBC set their fake news on the Pennsylvania up against fawning reports on Joe Biden ’ s Thanksgiving call for unity .
Maybe they really care about uniting the nation — but it ’ s obvious they only want it if we all join them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrier , in a reality that only exists in their wishes and dreams — and in their daily reporting .
[ Quotes from CBS and NBC transcribed from DVR recordings of their broadcasts . ]
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , including the recently released Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

For years I’ve been thinking our nation’s people were growing more polarized. Now I’m not so sure. Maybe we’re not polarized; maybe we inhabit entirely different dimensions of reality. That would explain a lot.
On Wednesday I spent 45 minutes in one reality, watching live Pennsylvania legislative hearings on voter fraud. (I missed a good portion before I tuned in.) I heard witness after witness after witness detailing fraud, voter misdirection, poll-watcher bullying, and more; things they’d personally seen and experienced during the election.
Most of them were professional people who’d served as local election officials or election watchers. One, though, was an 80-year-old woman to whom polling officials had lied. She’d printed out her ballot after entering her votes on the electronic voting system and noticed her vote for Trump was missing. “That’s left off there for secrecy,” they told her, even though all her other votes were on the printout. Her daughter’s printout at another polling location later in the day showed her vote for president. The woman was visibly upset. She’d been disenfranchised by a lying Democrat.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Hers is just one case. Other witnesses, however, told of many thousands of mishandled or improperly approved ballots. They told of how they’d been pushed around. It was heartbreaking; it was enraging.
Security expert and poll watcher Greg Stenstrom was one of them. He told the committee he knew of 47 USB cards that had gone missing. He watched as vote counters broke multiple Delaware County election rules, one of which was handling ballots according to a proper chain of custody. Other witnesses spoke of similar violations in Montgomery Country. Delaware and Montgomery Counties comprise the Philadelphia suburbs west of the Delaware River.
This is the kind of evidence that shows fraud allegations must be taken seriously. Unless they were all lying, Pennsylvania has a very serious problem on its hands. The whole country does.
Mainstream Media’s Alternative Reality
That’s the reality I live in. Mainstream news organizations live in a completely different world. In their world, there were no witnesses at that hearing, if it even was a “hearing.”
For NBC Nightly News, the event merited only a footnote under their report on Trump’s pardoning of Michael Flynn. No witnesses appeared. Instead,
Separately today President Trump used his voice to air grievance, even desperation. [Trump phoned in and spoke after the witnesses were done; NBC played a clip of it here.] The president on speakerphone as his lawyer Rudy Giuliani appeared before Pennsylvania Republican state legislators to make complaints about election procedures.
Funny thing: I didn’t even know Giuliani was there. I missed that part of it. In their world, though, he was the only one who spoke.
CBS lives in the same world as NBC, naturally:
Also today the president’s attorney Rudy Giuliani making more unfounded claims of election fraud at a Republican Party-sponsored event in Pennsylvania. President Trump was expected to be there, but changed plans at the last minute with no explanation. The crowd cheered as the president called into the event and made his own false allegations. … There is no evidence of any widespread fraud, and President-Elect Biden’s more than 80,000-vote victory in Pennsylvania has already been certified.
No witnesses were there. That would explain why, in CNN’s world, it was a “hearing” in name only, and masks were what really mattered.
Giuliani attended Wednesday’s “hearing” in Pennsylvania, arriving at the event with a mask before briefly taking it off when he sat down. Most other people in the room were not wearing masks. … Speaking Wednesday as a witness via speakerphone during the event, Trump once again falsely claimed that he won the 2020 presidential election. He made unproven, unspecified allegations of voter fraud, ballot dumping and voter suppression against his supporters.
As for The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the “hearing” didn’t even happen. I used several methods to search both websites and found no report on the hearing whatsoever.
Alternative Reality Means Fake Reality
A while back I wrote how you could answer the claim that there’s no evidence of election fraud. I’m afraid now I missed the real explanation. It could be that the person lives in mainstream media-world, where there really is no evidence.
For days now, I’ve also been hammering on the media’s mishandling of the election fraud question. Now I realize that only matters to those of us who think we all inhabit the same world, and we all ought to act as if we do. I thought they had a reality problem, but it’s only a problem if their reality needs to look like … well, reality.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
And it does. Sci-fi images of alternative dimensions are fine to play with, but news organizations exist to tell us about the real world, not made-up ones they only wish were real. They all pretend to report on the world we share, which makes their alternative realities real-world fabrications.
Both Infuriating and Grievous
We can see two effects of this, and the nation’s future may well depend on which prevails. They’re already committing a slow sort of suicide, losing viewers and readers as people discover they’re not delivering real news of real reality. Would that their demise would finish quickly, for in the meantime they’re splitting the nation in two. The polarization is real, and alternative-reality news is a major cause of it.
It’s infuriating and it’s grievous, both at the same time. Both CBS and NBC set their fake news on the Pennsylvania up against fawning reports on Joe Biden’s Thanksgiving call for unity. Maybe they really care about uniting the nation — but it’s obvious they only want it if we all join them on the false side of the dimensional barrier, in a reality that only exists in their wishes and dreams — and in their daily reporting.
[Quotes from CBS and NBC transcribed from DVR recordings of their broadcasts.]
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-11-27--Paging Defenders of Chief Justice John Roberts … and Never-Trumpers

I ’ d like to hear from Roberts-defenders regarding Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo .
Also , I have a word or two for the NeverTrumpers .
First , the Roberts people .
We ’ ve been told that ’ s he ’ s playing some sort of three-dimensional chess in his erratic abortion jurisprudence .
And that the rulings that disappoint us are owing more to his desire to protect the Court ’ s reputation rather than to any sort of closet liberalism on his part .
Do conservative Roberts defenders still believe this after the Cuomo ruling ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because to me , more than any other previous ruling , this is the one where Roberts stands truly revealed .
You could argue , as Roberts does , that the ruling was unnecessary because Cuomo had already rescinded his orders .
But as the Wall Street Journal editors say today , “ the majority explains that Mr. Cuomo could reinstate or change them at any time , as he often has , and the plaintiffs would suffer immediate injury as they wait for courts to grant relief .
Anyone who has watched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he relishes his role as master of the universe.
” And , as the Journal ‘ s news section reports , “ up to 20 lawsuits involving houses of worship could be affected by the high-court decision.
” Roberts ’ logic simply does not hold .
There is something else going on here .
Perhaps it ’ s Roberts ’ oft-theorized “ institutionalism , ” his concern for protecting the Court ’ s reputation above all else .
Here is where his defenders completely lose me .
If he wanted to strengthen the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have voted with the majority .
6-3 rulings buttress the institutional integrity of the Court much more than 5-4 rulings .
Barrett ’ s ascension to the high court should have moved Roberts back to the originalist column , if he is truly an institutionalist above all else .
Yet , it is because Roberts voted with the liberal minority that this ( what-should-have-been-a-no-brainer ) ruling came down 5-4 , the weakest possible outcome for protecting the Court from the damaging criticism sure to follow .
So when Cuomo says the ruling was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and philosophy , ” when he claims the ruling was “ partisan ” … you can thank Chief Justice Roberts for that .
Don ’ t get me wrong .
Cuomo would likely make that claim no matter what .
That decisions are only “ partisan ” when they harm the Democrats is something Democrats say .
Democrats got ta Democrat .
But it was Roberts that gave the claim added juice by assuring a 5-4 ruling .
It was Roberts that cleared the path for Cuomo to claim that he only lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the moment where Roberts made it clear that an institutionalist ’ s concern for the reputation of the Court is not really , or not primarily , whatever it is he is doing in his jurisprudence .
There is something else going on there .
Finally , I can ’ t end my thoughts on Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo without a word to Never-Trumpers .
Particularly as this ruling comes down at this particular moment , with the 2020 election still not completely settled .
You told us all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pyrrhic victory .
That we would lose more than we would gain .
That it would leave the pro-life cause and the social conservative movement far more down-and-out than we were before Trump .
You said we ’ d would never recover .
Take a good look at Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo and tell me if you would like to rethink that .
Because the most striking thing to me is that — even if Trump did or does lose , and assuming we hold the Senate — President Trump leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years than President Bush did after eight .
Remember 2008-09 ?
We were completely devastated .
The Democrats were in complete control of the federal government .
We lost — or were on our way to losing — the marriage fight .
We were in danger of losing religious liberty as we had always known it .
This , despite the fact that the country was with us all through the 2000s .
But we had in George W. Bush a champion who would not fight for us , or would do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we had almost nothing to show for having had the White House for eight years .
All we had was Roberts and Alito .
And we only got Alito because we forced Bush to give him to us , remember ?
And Roberts … well , with Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo , we now know what we got with Roberts .
Now , contrast that with Trump .
Three Supreme Court justices in four years .
An administration that was willing to move heaven and earth to make it happen .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost , was no repudiation of Trumpism .
Almost 74 million votes .
The highest number of non-white votes for a Republican since 1960 .
No blue wave .
Indeed , the opposite of the expected blue wave .
Democrats lost seats in the House .
And — please , God and Georgia — we may hold the Senate .
We are in a much better situation for 2021 than we were for 2009 .
And we owe that to Trump , just as we owe the disaster of 12 years ago to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pyrrhic victory .
Even in apparent defeat , he once again proves Never-Trumpers wrong .
As Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo demonstrates .

I’d like to hear from Roberts-defenders regarding Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo. Also, I have a word or two for the NeverTrumpers.
First, the Roberts people. We’ve been told that’s he’s playing some sort of three-dimensional chess in his erratic abortion jurisprudence. And that the rulings that disappoint us are owing more to his desire to protect the Court’s reputation rather than to any sort of closet liberalism on his part.
Do conservative Roberts defenders still believe this after the Cuomo ruling? Is this still what you think? Because to me, more than any other previous ruling, this is the one where Roberts stands truly revealed.
Roberts Stands Revealed
You could argue, as Roberts does, that the ruling was unnecessary because Cuomo had already rescinded his orders. But as the Wall Street Journal editors say today, “the majority explains that Mr. Cuomo could reinstate or change them at any time, as he often has, and the plaintiffs would suffer immediate injury as they wait for courts to grant relief. Anyone who has watched Mr. Cuomo operate in the pandemic knows he relishes his role as master of the universe.”
And, as the Journal‘s news section reports, “up to 20 lawsuits involving houses of worship could be affected by the high-court decision.” Roberts’ logic simply does not hold. There is something else going on here.
Perhaps it’s Roberts’ oft-theorized “institutionalism,” his concern for protecting the Court’s reputation above all else. Here is where his defenders completely lose me. If he wanted to strengthen the court’s reputation, he should have voted with the majority. 6-3 rulings buttress the institutional integrity of the Court much more than 5-4 rulings.
Barrett’s ascension to the high court should have moved Roberts back to the originalist column, if he is truly an institutionalist above all else. Yet, it is because Roberts voted with the liberal minority that this (what-should-have-been-a-no-brainer) ruling came down 5-4, the weakest possible outcome for protecting the Court from the damaging criticism sure to follow.
So when Cuomo says the ruling was just the Court expressing its “politics and philosophy,” when he claims the ruling was “partisan” … you can thank Chief Justice Roberts for that.
Don’t get me wrong. Cuomo would likely make that claim no matter what. That decisions are only “partisan” when they harm the Democrats is something Democrats say. Democrats gotta Democrat. But it was Roberts that gave the claim added juice by assuring a 5-4 ruling. It was Roberts that cleared the path for Cuomo to claim that he only lost because Trump put Barrett on the bench.
This is the moment where Roberts made it clear that an institutionalist’s concern for the reputation of the Court is not really, or not primarily, whatever it is he is doing in his jurisprudence. There is something else going on there.
A Word to Never-Trumpers
Finally, I can’t end my thoughts on Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo without a word to Never-Trumpers. Particularly as this ruling comes down at this particular moment, with the 2020 election still not completely settled.
You told us all along that the Trump presidency would be a pyrrhic victory. That we would lose more than we would gain. That it would leave the pro-life cause and the social conservative movement far more down-and-out than we were before Trump. You said we’d would never recover.
Take a good look at Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo and tell me if you would like to rethink that. Because the most striking thing to me is that — even if Trump did or does lose, and assuming we hold the Senate — President Trump leaves us in a much stronger position after four years than President Bush did after eight.
Remember 2008-09? We were completely devastated. The Democrats were in complete control of the federal government. We lost — or were on our way to losing — the marriage fight. We were in danger of losing religious liberty as we had always known it.
This, despite the fact that the country was with us all through the 2000s. But we had in George W. Bush a champion who would not fight for us, or would do only the bare minimum.
By 2009 we had almost nothing to show for having had the White House for eight years. All we had was Roberts and Alito. And we only got Alito because we forced Bush to give him to us, remember? And Roberts … well, with Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo, we now know what we got with Roberts.
The Contrast With Trump
Now, contrast that with Trump.
Three Supreme Court justices in four years. An administration that was willing to move heaven and earth to make it happen.
A 2020 election that, even if Trump lost, was no repudiation of Trumpism. Almost 74 million votes. The highest number of non-white votes for a Republican since 1960. No blue wave. Indeed, the opposite of the expected blue wave. Democrats lost seats in the House. And — please, God and Georgia — we may hold the Senate.
We are in a much better situation for 2021 than we were for 2009. And we owe that to Trump, just as we owe the disaster of 12 years ago to Bush.
The Trump presidency was no pyrrhic victory. Even in apparent defeat, he once again proves Never-Trumpers wrong. As Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo demonstrates.
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--2020-11-27--The Gift of Character: A Black Friday Lesson

Happy Black Friday , America !
Although thanks to the Internet and now month-long Black Friday deals , Black Friday is no longer stirring as much controversy as it did when it first started encroaching on Thursday night and pulling people away from their family Thanksgiving celebrations .
Black Friday has expanded so much that most of the deals were sold out by Wednesday .
But don ’ t worry , we still have Small Business Saturday and Cyber Monday to come .
And at that point , the Christmas shopping season really begins .
I ’ m sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few good things about having to limit the number of Thanksgiving guests is that it will mean fewer people to ruin dinner with political arguments .
But since we ’ re all still enjoying our warm drowsiness from all the food , I don ’ t want to spoil that by writing about politics , either .
So instead , I ’ d like to talk about something that doesn ’ t change with the passing headlines .
It ’ s the greatest gift that a parent can give to a child : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time of year when people go out shopping for holiday bargains , and it ’ s easy to let the thrill of the hunt and the lure of saving a few bucks on the latest gadgets override our good manners and consideration for others .
But if you have character , that ’ s not a problem .
Where does character come from ?
It ’ s rooted in parents teaching their kids integrity and respect for others .
And it may not be politically correct to say so , but kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , agreed-upon standards .
It seems to have become a sad Black Friday tradition to see news stories of people so crazed to get at bargains that they commit violence against each other .
In some places , you can ’ t tell if you ’ re at a Black Friday sale or an Antifa riot/looting .
A few years ago at a Walmart in New York , a worker was actually trampled to death .
The crowd even trampled other workers who were trying to help him ; and when told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death , they shouted curses and just kept shopping .
If you could turn back the clock a decade or two , I ’ ll bet you would find most of those shoppers as kids , running wild , bullying other kids , sassing their elders…in other words , having no boundaries and being taught no consideration for others .
If you ’ d said anything to their parents then , they might ’ ve replied , “ We don ’ t want to stifle their creativity.
” Or “ We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our kids .
Let them figure out for themselves what feels right to them.
” Instead of admitting that their kids ’ behavior was objectively wrong , they might ’ ve tried to rationalize it as being “ free-spirited ” or needing a Ritalin prescription .
Or most likely , they would ’ ve just cursed and punched you for daring to question their parenting .
Children may act as if they resent discipline , but they not only need it , they secretly crave it .
They need parents to instill the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are certain lines we all must stay within , or else society falls apart .
That ’ s a lesson we ’ re seeing with frightening clarity recently , with the rise of such groups as Antifa , who think that laws don ’ t apply to them and that the First Amendment somehow gives them the right to bully and intimidate others into silence .
They think there are all sorts of boundaries that apply to other people , but none to them .
Whatever feels right to them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vandalism .
There are thousands of strips of concrete in every city .
Imagine what would happen if every airline pilot made a personal decision on land on whatever patch of concrete “ feels right ” to land on .
We live in a time when mass media and social media cause shifts in standards for language or behavior to spread almost instantly .
Suddenly , both living and historic figures are being condemned for not measuring up to some PC behavior rule that didn ’ t even exist before last Tuesday ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way back to when it wasn ’ t considered hateful , bigoted , intolerant transphobia to object to a middle-aged man walking into the ladies ’ bathroom when your 13-year-old daughter was in there ? )
But we can ’ t be constantly judging the past by ever-shifting standards of the moment .
As British author L.P. Hartley said , “ The past is a foreign country .
They do things differently there.
” The only fair way to judge anyone , past or present , is by an immovable moral standard that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of changing fads and opinions .
To do that , children have to be taught such standards .
Standards such as “ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
” Take responsibility for your own actions .
Try to keep your head even when everyone around you is losing theirs .
These are things that were true centuries ago , they ’ re true today , and they ’ ll be true centuries from now .
I once had the importance of such solid guideposts brought to my attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1997 , Arkansas was struck by a devastating tornado .
As Governor , I was visiting one of the worst-hit towns when State Rep. Martha Shoffner said she had to show me something .
She took me to a courthouse whose roof was completely gone .
Inside was a museum in which everything had been blown away or destroyed…except for one thing .
Still hanging on the wall was my official Governor ’ s photo .
It hadn ’ t broken or fallen off .
It wasn ’ t even askew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminder that no matter what disaster might befall our state , it was the Governor ’ s responsibility to remain steady as a rock and see everyone through .
The thought occurred to me then that we can ’ t keep storms out of our kids ’ lives , and we can ’ t teach them to hide from storms .
We also can ’ t let them go on believing that if they scream loudly enough , the storms will give in and go away .
All we can do is give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when life ’ s storms inevitably come , they ’ ll be prepared to ride them out with a level head and a steady hand .
Here ’ s wishing you a safe and courteous shopping season and a happy Thanksgiving weekend !
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events .
A New York Times best-selling author , he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN .

Happy Black Friday, America! Although thanks to the Internet and now month-long Black Friday deals, Black Friday is no longer stirring as much controversy as it did when it first started encroaching on Thursday night and pulling people away from their family Thanksgiving celebrations. Black Friday has expanded so much that most of the deals were sold out by Wednesday. But don’t worry, we still have Small Business Saturday and Cyber Monday to come. And at that point, the Christmas shopping season really begins.
I’m sure that for many Americans, one of the few good things about having to limit the number of Thanksgiving guests is that it will mean fewer people to ruin dinner with political arguments. But since we’re all still enjoying our warm drowsiness from all the food, I don’t want to spoil that by writing about politics, either. So instead, I’d like to talk about something that doesn’t change with the passing headlines. It’s the greatest gift that a parent can give to a child: the gift of character.
The Thrill of Finding a Bargain
This is the time of year when people go out shopping for holiday bargains, and it’s easy to let the thrill of the hunt and the lure of saving a few bucks on the latest gadgets override our good manners and consideration for others. But if you have character, that’s not a problem.
Where does character come from? It’s rooted in parents teaching their kids integrity and respect for others. And it may not be politically correct to say so, but kids need to be disciplined according to traditional, agreed-upon standards.
Children may act as if they resent discipline, but they not only need it, they secretly crave it.
It seems to have become a sad Black Friday tradition to see news stories of people so crazed to get at bargains that they commit violence against each other. In some places, you can’t tell if you’re at a Black Friday sale or an Antifa riot/looting. A few years ago at a Walmart in New York, a worker was actually trampled to death. The crowd even trampled other workers who were trying to help him; and when told the store was being closed because of the death, they shouted curses and just kept shopping.
If you could turn back the clock a decade or two, I’ll bet you would find most of those shoppers as kids, running wild, bullying other kids, sassing their elders…in other words, having no boundaries and being taught no consideration for others. If you’d said anything to their parents then, they might’ve replied, “We don’t want to stifle their creativity.” Or “We don’t want to impose our standards on our kids. Let them figure out for themselves what feels right to them.” Instead of admitting that their kids’ behavior was objectively wrong, they might’ve tried to rationalize it as being “free-spirited” or needing a Ritalin prescription. Or most likely, they would’ve just cursed and punched you for daring to question their parenting.
Children Crave Discipline
Children may act as if they resent discipline, but they not only need it, they secretly crave it. They need parents to instill the Golden Rule, and to teach them that there are certain lines we all must stay within, or else society falls apart. That’s a lesson we’re seeing with frightening clarity recently, with the rise of such groups as Antifa, who think that laws don’t apply to them and that the First Amendment somehow gives them the right to bully and intimidate others into silence. They think there are all sorts of boundaries that apply to other people, but none to them. Whatever feels right to them, they just do, even violence and vandalism.
There are thousands of strips of concrete in every city. Imagine what would happen if every airline pilot made a personal decision on land on whatever patch of concrete “feels right” to land on.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
We live in a time when mass media and social media cause shifts in standards for language or behavior to spread almost instantly. Suddenly, both living and historic figures are being condemned for not measuring up to some PC behavior rule that didn’t even exist before last Tuesday (are you old enough to remember ‘way back to when it wasn’t considered hateful, bigoted, intolerant transphobia to object to a middle-aged man walking into the ladies’ bathroom when your 13-year-old daughter was in there?)
Judging the Past
But we can’t be constantly judging the past by ever-shifting standards of the moment. As British author L.P. Hartley said, “The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.” The only fair way to judge anyone, past or present, is by an immovable moral standard that’s not subject to the whims of changing fads and opinions. To do that, children have to be taught such standards. Standards such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Take responsibility for your own actions. Try to keep your head even when everyone around you is losing theirs. These are things that were true centuries ago, they’re true today, and they’ll be true centuries from now.
I once had the importance of such solid guideposts brought to my attention in a way I will never forget. In 1997, Arkansas was struck by a devastating tornado. As Governor, I was visiting one of the worst-hit towns when State Rep. Martha Shoffner said she had to show me something. She took me to a courthouse whose roof was completely gone. Inside was a museum in which everything had been blown away or destroyed…except for one thing. Still hanging on the wall was my official Governor’s photo. It hadn’t broken or fallen off. It wasn’t even askew. I took it as a sobering reminder that no matter what disaster might befall our state, it was the Governor’s responsibility to remain steady as a rock and see everyone through.
The thought occurred to me then that we can’t keep storms out of our kids’ lives, and we can’t teach them to hide from storms. We also can’t let them go on believing that if they scream loudly enough, the storms will give in and go away. All we can do is give them a strong enough foundation so that when life’s storms inevitably come, they’ll be prepared to ride them out with a level head and a steady hand.
Here’s wishing you a safe and courteous shopping season and a happy Thanksgiving weekend!
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events. A New York Times best-selling author, he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN.
Originally published at MikeHuckabee.com. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-11-27--My Response to an Olive Branch from Actress Alyssa Milano

Among the many Hollywood celebrities who hotly opposed Donald Trump , Alyssa Milano has been one of the most consistent .
Now , as she believes that the election of Joe Biden is a fait accompli , she is offering an olive branch .
How should we respond ?
On November 24 she tweeted , “ I ’ d like to extend an olive branch to Trump supporters .
“ There ’ s so much work to do to heal the nation .
Let ’ s be a part of the solution and not add to the problems we face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please reply with # ForwardTogether .
❤ ” She also said , “ We ’ re going to need a lot of humility and compassion right now .
Anger and triumphalism is less helpful.
” Prior to Biden ’ s apparent victory , though , her sentiments were different .
And so , on October 22 , she tweeted , “ America or Trump .
You can ’ t love both .
# BidenWon.
” On the same day , she also tweeted , “ Hope over fear .
Love over hate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted that Biden won back in October . )
Not So Quick to Forgive Not surprisingly , the responses to her olive branch were mixed .
Fox News reported that , “ Trump supporters were quick to react to Milano ’ s offering on Monday , and a majority did not meet her with kind words in return .
Several balked at the star ’ s approach , calling it a ‘ joke ’ after her several outcries for Trump to be ripped from office .
“ ‘ I remember you .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh during his hearings .
You were the one that called conservatives every name in the book and didn ’ t sensor your words in the least .
No way you ’ d be offering an olive branch had your party lost … How about NO , ’ one person reacted .
“ Another wrote : ‘ I ’ m too lazy to read the comments but I suspect this yielded exactly zero Trump supporters to take your olive branch.
’ ” Others , responding as Trump opponents , made clear that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There was no olive branch coming from them .
Let ’ s Seek to Heal Together , But … I felt to respond differently , tweeting : “ By all means , let ’ s seek to heal the nation .
# ForwardTogether !
These questions were meant to be sincere , even if my tweet was buried among thousands of other responses and never even seen by Milano .
My point was to say this : I will sit and talk with almost anyone who has an opposing ideological or spiritual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they are willing to have an honest exchange of ideas .
To refuse to do so is to shut all possible doors of communication , destroy any possible bridges of understanding , and eliminate all possible efforts at outreach .
How do we help our cause by living in isolation ?
And how can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we won ’ t even dialogue with our neighbor ?
And don ’ t we all want to see America healed ?
In the past , I have challenged Milano ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she cited the Bible in support .
And , given the opportunity , I would do so face to face .
But if someone reaches out to me in good faith , offering me an olive branch , I will take that offer on face value until they disqualify themselves .
As for my three questions , let ’ s say Biden wanted to make peace with Trump .
He would have to apologize for laying the blame for more than 200,000 COVID deaths at Trump ’ s feet .
Conversely , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false charges against Biden .
So , my first question to Milano was : “ For what past comments can you now apologize ?
” She recently said that voting for Trump is choosing hate .
She also said that you can not love America and vote for Trump .
Is she willing to recognize how harshly and broadly she judged tens of millions of voters ?
( Ms. Milano , if by chance you ’ re reading this , I ’ d genuinely love to hear your response . )
Secondly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to face , civil conversation with pro-life Christians who believe that abortion is the slaughter of the unborn ?
( I would ask my pro-life friends the same question in reverse : Can we have a civil conversation with someone who believes that life does not begin until conception or , at the least , not until the baby is viable outside the womb ? )
Thirdly , is Milano simply offering the olive branch of the victor ?
Is she saying , “ Now that we won and have crushed your resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Such an olive branch is hardly sincere , any more than ours might have been sincere had we been victorious .
( Of course , some still believe we will be . )
I ’ m aware that some Christians would point to the words of Jesus , namely , that He came to bring division , not peace ( see Matthew 10:34-36 ) .
Others would point to the words of Paul , where he stated that light can not have fellowship with darkness and that we are to come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 ) .
But to cite those verses would be to miss the point that was being made .
Jesus was addressing false notions of His Messiahship , explaining that , as a result of His earthly mission , there would be division in the homes rather than peace on earth .
But He was not calling us to be divisive people .
As for Paul , he was calling us not to pollute our own souls by yoking ourselves together with the sinful society .
But this same Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop associating with the people of the world , writing , “ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral , or the greedy and swindlers , or idolaters .
In that case you would have to leave this world ” ( 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 ) .
All clear !
He also wrote , “ If it is possible , as far as it depends on you , live at peace with everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hebrews states , “ Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy ; without holiness no one will see the Lord ” ( Hebrews 12:14 ) .
So , we pursue personal purity while seeking to live at peace with others .
Peter even urged us to live such impeccable lives among the non-believers that they would be converted by our lifestyles ( see 1 Peter 2:12 ; see also Matthew 5:14-16 ) .
Paul also called us “ to slander no one to be peaceable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward everyone , reminding us that , “ At one time we too were foolish , disobedient , deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures .
We lived in malice and envy , being hated and hating one another.
” Yes , this was how we once lived , in ignorance and blindness , until the mercy of God appeared to us through Jesus .
( See Titus 3:1-5 . )
If Door is Opened a Crack , Walk Through It Perhaps Alyssa Milano is just as we once were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in many ways , she is quite wrong .
And perhaps , should we sit down and talk together , we would recognize the humanity in each of us in the midst of our differences .
And best of all , should we accept her offer of an olive branch , perhaps we could introduce her to the one who changed everything for us .
If the door is open , even a crack , I ’ ll walk through it .
( To my staunchest ideological and spiritual opponents , take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in love but without compromise . )
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 .

Among the many Hollywood celebrities who hotly opposed Donald Trump, Alyssa Milano has been one of the most consistent. Now, as she believes that the election of Joe Biden is a fait accompli, she is offering an olive branch. How should we respond?
On November 24 she tweeted, “I’d like to extend an olive branch to Trump supporters.
“I am ready to move #ForwardTogether.
“There’s so much work to do to heal the nation. Let’s be a part of the solution and not add to the problems we face.
“My comments are open. Please reply with #ForwardTogether. ❤”
She also said, “We’re going to need a lot of humility and compassion right now. Anger and triumphalism is less helpful.”
Prior to Biden’s apparent victory, though, her sentiments were different. And so, on October 22, she tweeted, “America or Trump. You can’t love both. #BidenWon.”
On the same day, she also tweeted, “Hope over fear. Love over hate. #BidenWon.” (Yes, she tweeted that Biden won back in October.)
Not So Quick to Forgive
Not surprisingly, the responses to her olive branch were mixed.
Fox News reported that, “Trump supporters were quick to react to Milano’s offering on Monday, and a majority did not meet her with kind words in return. Several balked at the star’s approach, calling it a ‘joke’ after her several outcries for Trump to be ripped from office.
“‘I remember you. You were the one glaring at Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his hearings. You were the one that called conservatives every name in the book and didn’t sensor your words in the least. No way you’d be offering an olive branch had your party lost … How about NO,’ one person reacted.
“Another wrote: ‘I’m too lazy to read the comments but I suspect this yielded exactly zero Trump supporters to take your olive branch.’”
Others, responding as Trump opponents, made clear that they had nothing in common with his supporters. There was no olive branch coming from them.
Let’s Seek to Heal Together, But …
I felt to respond differently, tweeting: “By all means, let’s seek to heal the nation. #ForwardTogether!
“3 questions for you:
“1) For what past comments can you now apologize? “2) Can you have a civil conversation with pro-life Christians? “3) Would you have accepted an olive branch from Trump supporters Nov 2016?”
These questions were meant to be sincere, even if my tweet was buried among thousands of other responses and never even seen by Milano.
My point was to say this: I will sit and talk with almost anyone who has an opposing ideological or spiritual or political point of view as long as they are willing to have an honest exchange of ideas. To refuse to do so is to shut all possible doors of communication, destroy any possible bridges of understanding, and eliminate all possible efforts at outreach.
How do we help our cause by living in isolation? And how can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we won’t even dialogue with our neighbor? And don’t we all want to see America healed?
In the past, I have challenged Milano’s statements about abortion, especially when she cited the Bible in support. And, given the opportunity, I would do so face to face.
But if someone reaches out to me in good faith, offering me an olive branch, I will take that offer on face value until they disqualify themselves.
My Three Questions
As for my three questions, let’s say Biden wanted to make peace with Trump. He would have to apologize for laying the blame for more than 200,000 COVID deaths at Trump’s feet. Conversely, Trump would have to apologize for exaggerated or false charges against Biden.
So, my first question to Milano was: “For what past comments can you now apologize?”
She recently said that voting for Trump is choosing hate. She also said that you cannot love America and vote for Trump. Is she willing to recognize how harshly and broadly she judged tens of millions of voters? (Ms. Milano, if by chance you’re reading this, I’d genuinely love to hear your response.)
Secondly, is she willing to have a face to face, civil conversation with pro-life Christians who believe that abortion is the slaughter of the unborn? (I would ask my pro-life friends the same question in reverse: Can we have a civil conversation with someone who believes that life does not begin until conception or, at the least, not until the baby is viable outside the womb?)
Thirdly, is Milano simply offering the olive branch of the victor? Is she saying, “Now that we won and have crushed your resistance, let’s be friends”?
Such an olive branch is hardly sincere, any more than ours might have been sincere had we been victorious. (Of course, some still believe we will be.)
Pursuing Purity While Working for Peace
I’m aware that some Christians would point to the words of Jesus, namely, that He came to bring division, not peace (see Matthew 10:34-36). Others would point to the words of Paul, where he stated that light cannot have fellowship with darkness and that we are to come out of the world and its corruption (see 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1).
But to cite those verses would be to miss the point that was being made.
Jesus was addressing false notions of His Messiahship, explaining that, as a result of His earthly mission, there would be division in the homes rather than peace on earth. But He was not calling us to be divisive people.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
As for Paul, he was calling us not to pollute our own souls by yoking ourselves together with the sinful society.
But this same Paul was quite clear that we were not to stop associating with the people of the world, writing, “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world” (1 Corinthians 5:9-10). All clear!
He also wrote, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18).
Similarly, Hebrews states, “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14).
So, we pursue personal purity while seeking to live at peace with others.
Peter even urged us to live such impeccable lives among the non-believers that they would be converted by our lifestyles (see 1 Peter 2:12; see also Matthew 5:14-16).
Paul also called us “to slander no one to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone, reminding us that, “At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.” Yes, this was how we once lived, in ignorance and blindness, until the mercy of God appeared to us through Jesus. (See Titus 3:1-5.)
If Door is Opened a Crack, Walk Through It
Perhaps Alyssa Milano is just as we once were, convinced she is spiritually right when, in many ways, she is quite wrong. And perhaps, should we sit down and talk together, we would recognize the humanity in each of us in the midst of our differences.
And best of all, should we accept her offer of an olive branch, perhaps we could introduce her to the one who changed everything for us.
If the door is open, even a crack, I’ll walk through it. (To my staunchest ideological and spiritual opponents, take that as my olive branch, offered in love but without compromise.)
Shall we talk?
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.