thestream--2020-05-06--Hope for Tolerance? New Yorkers Grateful to Samaritan’s Purse for COVID-19 Help

Samaritan ’ s Purse doesn ’ t serve to get praise .
And that ’ s a good thing in places like New York City , where radical liberals refuse to give it any .
Even now , after treating 315 patients in its field hospital in Central Park , the news that the Rev .
Franklin Graham ’ s work might soon be done was the only thing some liberal council members felt like celebrating .
Instead of gratitude , their message to the charity is simple : Get out .
And don ’ t come back .
Mount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Samaritan ’ s Purse to bring more help to downtown New York , announced over the weekend that the virus crisis may finally be manageable enough for area facilities to handle on their own .
New patients , it explained , would be admitted to area hospitals .
Still , it insisted , no one could thank Graham ’ s volunteers enough .
No one , it seems , except people like Democratic New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson .
In a tweet that same day , he tried to kick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisting that “ their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion , and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community.
” It ’ s time for Mount Sinai “ to sever its relationship ” with Samaritan ’ s Purse .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
As Johnson hurls insults , offending every doctor , nurse , and volunteer who put their lives on the line for his city , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the charity up close changed a lot of people ’ s minds about Graham and his organization .
Moving stories like the Tilson Family , who donated thousands of dollars of supplies and started working alongside the team despite its political views , started to surface .
In a tearful online video message , Whitney Tilson thanks them and argues , “ Their primary mission in life is not to go out and have hatred toward gays , ” he said .
“ They believe what the Bible says , that homosexuality is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not what drives them .
What drives them is , ‘ How can I do God ’ s work by healing people and saving lives ?
’ ” He wasn ’ t the only one to notice .
There were the burger deliveries from comedian Jimmy Fallon and donuts boxes with thank yous from patients .
For every hateful comment hurled from the left , there was a grateful local eager to make up for it .
So when people approach Graham now and ask if the backlash has anything to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s quick to set the record straight : it had to do with “ patient load and nothing else.
” “ We got quite a bit of pushback , ” Graham agreed .
“ But the interesting thing is , we didn ’ t get any pushback from the hospital that we ’ re working under , Mount Sinai.
” That ’ s because they understood as well as he did : “ We were there to save lives .
We weren ’ t there to argue with people.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole ridiculous debate .
Samaritan ’ s Purse never discriminates against patients like these liberals discriminate against their providers .
If the far-left had its choice , it has made it quite clear : We ’ d rather leave sick people without care than partner with people of faith .
And yet , somehow , Graham is the one who ’ s “ intolerant ” ?
In the end , Graham knows better than anyone : The only people who matter are the ones they serve .
“ We ’ ve had several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to go home because they felt safe in the field hospital .
To me , that ’ s a testimony to our staff and to the care and to the work that they did , doing this unto Jesus Christ .
They ’ re doing it in His name.
” And nothing liberals say can change that — or the impact this ministry leaves behind .
Originally published in Tony Perkins ’ Washington Update , which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers .

Samaritan’s Purse doesn’t serve to get praise. And that’s a good thing in places like New York City, where radical liberals refuse to give it any.
Even now, after treating 315 patients in its field hospital in Central Park, the news that the Rev. Franklin Graham’s work might soon be done was the only thing some liberal council members felt like celebrating. Instead of gratitude, their message to the charity is simple: Get out. And don’t come back.
Mount Sinai Hospital, who’d partnered with Samaritan’s Purse to bring more help to downtown New York, announced over the weekend that the virus crisis may finally be manageable enough for area facilities to handle on their own. New patients, it explained, would be admitted to area hospitals.
Still, it insisted, no one could thank Graham’s volunteers enough. No one, it seems, except people like Democratic New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson.
In a tweet that same day, he tried to kick the group on the way out, insisting that “their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community.” It’s time for Mount Sinai “to sever its relationship” with Samaritan’s Purse.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
As Johnson hurls insults, offending every doctor, nurse, and volunteer who put their lives on the line for his city, not everyone shares his opinion. Watching the charity up close changed a lot of people’s minds about Graham and his organization.
Moving stories like the Tilson Family, who donated thousands of dollars of supplies and started working alongside the team despite its political views, started to surface.
In a tearful online video message, Whitney Tilson thanks them and argues, “Their primary mission in life is not to go out and have hatred toward gays,” he said. “They believe what the Bible says, that homosexuality is a sin — yes. But it is not what drives them. What drives them is, ‘How can I do God’s work by healing people and saving lives?’”
He wasn’t the only one to notice. There were the burger deliveries from comedian Jimmy Fallon and donuts boxes with thank yous from patients. For every hateful comment hurled from the left, there was a grateful local eager to make up for it.
So when people approach Graham now and ask if the backlash has anything to do with the team leaving New York, he’s quick to set the record straight: it had to do with “patient load and nothing else.”
“We got quite a bit of pushback,” Graham agreed. “But the interesting thing is, we didn’t get any pushback from the hospital that we’re working under, Mount Sinai.” That’s because they understood as well as he did: “We were there to save lives. We weren’t there to argue with people.”
In the end, Graham knows better than anyone: The only people who matter are the ones they serve.
And that’s the irony of this whole ridiculous debate. Samaritan’s Purse never discriminates against patients like these liberals discriminate against their providers.
If the far-left had its choice, it has made it quite clear: We’d rather leave sick people without care than partner with people of faith. And yet, somehow, Graham is the one who’s “intolerant”?
In the end, Graham knows better than anyone: The only people who matter are the ones they serve.
“We’ve had several [patients] say they didn’t want to go home because they felt safe in the field hospital. To me, that’s a testimony to our staff and to the care and to the work that they did, doing this unto Jesus Christ. They’re doing it in His name.” And nothing liberals say can change that — or the impact this ministry leaves behind.
Originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.
CALL TO ACTION: COVID-19 is causing massive disruptions in life. The Stream’s parent organization, LIFE Outreach International, is helping send a first wave of help. LIFE’s local mission partners are already distributing thousands of surgical masks, gloves and other sanitary supplies to first responders, hospitals and nursing homes. In addition, other partners have focused on distributing as many meals as possible to help those who need food. You can help with these efforts. Click here to donate.


thestream--2020-05-06--A Rep Amash POTUS Bid Could Impact Biden’s Campaign, Poll Shows

A potential Rep. Justin Amash presidential bid hurts former Vice President Joe Biden more than President Donald Trump as the election rumbles toward November , a new poll shows .
A Monmouth University poll published Wednesday shows Biden leading the president 51 % to 41 % if the Michigan Independent is not included in the survey .
The former vice president ’ s lead over Trump drops to 47 % to 40 % once Amash ’ s name is added to the polling mix .
Former New Mexico Gov .
Gary Johnson kicked off his 2016 libertarian presidential bid with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the national vote during that election , according to a March 2016 Monmouth poll .
Amash launched an exploratory committee for presidential run on April 28 .
“ Overall , there is not as much of an appetite for a third option as there was four years ago .
It ’ s too early to tell whether Amash will have an impact but if this election ends up being as close as 2016 , even a small showing can have a crucial impact , ” Patrick Murray , director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement announcing the poll ’ s findings .
Roughly 41 % of people in the survey view Biden favorably while 44 % of respondents give him an unfavorable rating , which is down from April , when he had a 41 % favorable rating and a 42 % unfavorable rating .
Trump registers a negative 40 % favorable to 53 % unfavorable opinion .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
The poll was conducted from April 30 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsample of 739 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points .
Amash is a frequent critic of the United States ’ two-party political system and became a fervent opponent of Trump over the years , with the libertarian-leaning lawmaker eventually renouncing his affiliation with the Republican Party in 2019 and declaring himself an independent .
He voted to impeach the president in December .
The poll ’ s findings seem to justify concerns that the Michigan representative ’ s potential White House bid would hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-host Meghan McCain , for instance , chided Joy Behar and her fellow hosts in late April for believing Amash ’ s decision could doom the president .
“ So , Justin Amash is ostensibly a libertarian , you ’ re right , Joy .
He ’ s a congressman from Michigan .
Michigan is a swing state .
There ’ s about 10 % of the Republican demographic that are never-Trumpers that would in theory vote for Joe Biden , and they will be picked off from voting for Joe Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” McCain said .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

A potential Rep. Justin Amash presidential bid hurts former Vice President Joe Biden more than President Donald Trump as the election rumbles toward November, a new poll shows.
A Monmouth University poll published Wednesday shows Biden leading the president 51% to 41% if the Michigan Independent is not included in the survey. The former vice president’s lead over Trump drops to 47% to 40% once Amash’s name is added to the polling mix.
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson kicked off his 2016 libertarian presidential bid with 11% support before earning only 3% of the national vote during that election, according to a March 2016 Monmouth poll. Amash launched an exploratory committee for presidential run on April 28.
“Overall, there is not as much of an appetite for a third option as there was four years ago. It’s too early to tell whether Amash will have an impact but if this election ends up being as close as 2016, even a small showing can have a crucial impact,” Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a statement announcing the poll’s findings.
Roughly 41% of people in the survey view Biden favorably while 44% of respondents give him an unfavorable rating, which is down from April, when he had a 41% favorable rating and a 42% unfavorable rating. Trump registers a negative 40% favorable to 53% unfavorable opinion.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The poll was conducted from April 30 to May 4 and is based on a subsample of 739 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
Amash is a frequent critic of the United States’ two-party political system and became a fervent opponent of Trump over the years, with the libertarian-leaning lawmaker eventually renouncing his affiliation with the Republican Party in 2019 and declaring himself an independent. He voted to impeach the president in December.
The poll’s findings seem to justify concerns that the Michigan representative’s potential White House bid would hurt Biden more than Trump. The View co-host Meghan McCain, for instance, chided Joy Behar and her fellow hosts in late April for believing Amash’s decision could doom the president.
“So, Justin Amash is ostensibly a libertarian, you’re right, Joy. He’s a congressman from Michigan. Michigan is a swing state. There’s about 10% of the Republican demographic that are never-Trumpers that would in theory vote for Joe Biden, and they will be picked off from voting for Joe Biden, and vote for this Libertarian candidate,” McCain said.
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--2020-05-06--Joe Biden Hunkers Down on Tara Reade Allegation, Remains in Basement Bunker

Back in my Voice of America days I worked for a guy who was a suave man-about-town .
One day he heads off for lunch with three female friends who worked on Capitol Hill .
Lyn comes back , and he ’ s shaking his head in amazement .
“ You ’ re not going to believe this.
” This was during the Gary Hart scandal of ’ 87 .
Sen. Hart was running for president and he was dogged by stories that he was not faithful to his wife .
Hart , in a rather dumb move , dared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for themselves he wasn ’ t cheating .
He was soon pictured on a boat called “ Monkey Business ” with a lovely blonde on his lap .
Naturally , the lunch conversation turned to the scandal .
One of Lyn ’ s lunch dates looked down , “ Um .
I hate to admit it , but I ’ ve slept with Hart.
” Shock around the table .
“ I slept with him too !
” said another of the women .
“ Me too !
” said the third .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of the fix Joe Biden is in now .
Sure , Biden has categorically denied sexually assaulting Tara Reade in 1993 .
But Capitol Hill is a small place .
He ’ s dreaming if he thinks that denial is going to make the scandal go away .
Reade has too many people coming forward to say she told them about being harassed .
And too many other women have come forward to describe his “ uncomfortable ” and “ creepy ” behavior .
And he ’ s been around too many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with too many staffers and too many meetings and too many public gatherings , too many cringe-inducing videos for any Democrat to feel safe that there ’ s not another confirmation … or another alleged victim … just one tweet away .
Too many people know what Nancy Pelosi meant last week when she dismissed the Reade allegations as “ Joe being Joe.
” Too likely a group of women are sitting around a table right now at a Capitol Hill bistro sharing their Biden stories .
It ’ s not whether another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s how many .
But will Democrats and the media care ?
The New York Times ran an op-ed Sunday suggesting that Democrats need to move on from Biden .
They must come up with a “ Plan B.
” Because the continuing scandal will demoralize voters and lead to Trump ’ s re-election .
However , former Times writer and co-founder of Politico couldn ’ t care less if Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade ( and is now lying about it ) .
Read Martin Tolchin ’ s comment on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate Reade ’ s allegation .
“ I don ’ t want justice , whatever that may be .
I want a win.
” Two opposing views .
Yet with the same basic belief : Beating Trump is more important than the truth .
Let that sink in , “ I don ’ t want justice … I want a win.
” What is the truth ?
That is still being sorted out .
However , two more people have come forward to corroborate Reade ’ s claim .
They say she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Biden , of course , denied all Friday morning in an interview with MSNBC .
Or as he put it , “ It happened 27 years ago .
It never happened.
” It marked the first time since Reade came forward that anyone even asked Biden about her .
Thirty-seven days , over a dozen interviews and it never came up .
President Trump was asked more often about her .
How big is Biden ’ s basement that none of those other interviewers noticed or mentioned the huge elephant in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Joe suffered a pretty hard grilling by Mika Brzezinski .
She repeatedly pushed him on why he wouldn ’ t open his Senate records at the University of Delaware to even a phrase search for Tara Reade .
Biden said the pertinent records would be at the National Archives .
That turns out not to be true .
He said that opening his public records while he was running for public office would lead to the information being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
Huh ?
Public records when you ’ re running for public office are out of bounds ?
Mika pressed on .
So why not just a search of the name “ Tara Reade ” ?
He got testy .
Dismissive .
I half expected a “ Look , toots.
” Another attempt got Mika a blank stare .
Mika looked clearly troubled .
Said so , in fact , after the interview .
After all , she desperately wants Biden to defeat Trump .
But she has also been around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girl .
If anyone knows the story on Biden , she does .
Several times during the interview Mika folded her arms .
Guys know that look .
When you ’ re trying to explain to your wife or girlfriend why something did or did not happen , and she crosses her arms and gives you the look Mika was giving ?
She ’ s not buying what you ’ re selling .
Joe has another problem with his denial .
The same guy who ’ s telling you he “ never never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who tells you he never discussed with son Hunter his lucrative gig with the notoriously corrupt Burisma , even though he was in charge of overseeing Ukraine anti-corruption efforts .
He ’ s also the same guy who said he was arrested when trying to see Nelson Mandela .
And that he marched for civil rights .
And that he is a University of Pennsylvania professor .
All untrue .
All within the past couple months .
Joe Biden and the truth have long kept to social distancing .
This is not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to credibility .
This explains why the Biden campaign wants to keep him under wraps as much as possible .
The coronavirus has kept Biden in his basement .
But campaign strategy may keep them there .
As New York Magazine tweeted , “ Biden is at his best when he ’ s neither speaking nor appearing in public.
” Wow .
That should be a very scary thought for voters .
The less you see or hear from the Democratic nominee for President of the United States , the better he does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and seek with the problems of the world .
You can ’ t turn the bully pulpit into a flower pot .
But when every interview and appearance features a gaffe , a memory lapse , or further talk of his wandering hands , what choice do Democrats have ?
When he ’ s so frail each campaign appearance looks like an audition for a Life Alert commercial , how ’ s that going to look against an opponent who makes the Energizer Bunny look like a couch potato ?
On Sunday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s stay-at-home strategy with the story about the 1920 election : “ Biden campaigns from his basement .
Warren Harding ran for president from his porch.
” Harding did win the 1920 election .
He dropped dead in 1923 .
Remember it ’ s not about capacity or capable governance .
It ’ s not about what ’ s best for Joe Biden as a human being .
It ’ s about winning .
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author , with @ JZmirak , of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can follow him at @ StreamingAl .
And if you aren ’ t already , please follow The Stream at @ Streamdotorg .

Back in my Voice of America days I worked for a guy who was a suave man-about-town. One day he heads off for lunch with three female friends who worked on Capitol Hill.
Lyn comes back, and he’s shaking his head in amazement. “You’re not going to believe this.” This was during the Gary Hart scandal of ’87. Sen. Hart was running for president and he was dogged by stories that he was not faithful to his wife. Hart, in a rather dumb move, dared the press to follow him and see for themselves he wasn’t cheating. He was soon pictured on a boat called “Monkey Business” with a lovely blonde on his lap. Naturally, the lunch conversation turned to the scandal. One of Lyn’s lunch dates looked down, “Um. I hate to admit it, but I’ve slept with Hart.” Shock around the table. “I slept with him too!” said another of the women. “Me too!” said the third.
That story comes to mind when I think of the fix Joe Biden is in now. Sure, Biden has categorically denied sexually assaulting Tara Reade in 1993. But Capitol Hill is a small place. He’s dreaming if he thinks that denial is going to make the scandal go away. Reade has too many people coming forward to say she told them about being harassed. And too many other women have come forward to describe his “uncomfortable” and “creepy” behavior.
And he’s been around too many decades, with too many whispers, with too many staffers and too many meetings and too many public gatherings, too many cringe-inducing videos for any Democrat to feel safe that there’s not another confirmation … or another alleged victim … just one tweet away.
Too many people know what Nancy Pelosi meant last week when she dismissed the Reade allegations as “Joe being Joe.”
Too likely a group of women are sitting around a table right now at a Capitol Hill bistro sharing their Biden stories.
It’s not whether another shoe will drop on Biden. It’s how many.
But Will Democrats Care?
But will Democrats and the media care? The New York Times ran an op-ed Sunday suggesting that Democrats need to move on from Biden. They must come up with a “Plan B.” Because the continuing scandal will demoralize voters and lead to Trump’s re-election. However, former Times writer and co-founder of Politico couldn’t care less if Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade (and is now lying about it). Read Martin Tolchin’s comment on the Times’ call for the DNC to investigate Reade’s allegation. “I don’t want justice, whatever that may be. I want a win.”
Two opposing views. Yet with the same basic belief: Beating Trump is more important than the truth. Let that sink in, “I don’t want justice … I want a win.”
(Some don’t even care if the allegation is true: Take feminist lawyer Lisa Bloom. She believes Biden is guilty of sexually assaulting Tara Reade. And is voting for him anyway. But she also defended Harvey Weinstein, so we’re not sure how much her endorsement will help.)
Joe’s Denial
What is the truth? That is still being sorted out. However, two more people have come forward to corroborate Reade’s claim. They say she told them of the assault at the time. Biden, of course, denied all Friday morning in an interview with MSNBC. Or as he put it, “It happened 27 years ago. It never happened.” It marked the first time since Reade came forward that anyone even asked Biden about her. Thirty-seven days, over a dozen interviews and it never came up. President Trump was asked more often about her. How big is Biden’s basement that none of those other interviewers noticed or mentioned the huge elephant in the room?
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Joe suffered a pretty hard grilling by Mika Brzezinski. She repeatedly pushed him on why he wouldn’t open his Senate records at the University of Delaware to even a phrase search for Tara Reade. Biden said the pertinent records would be at the National Archives. That turns out not to be true. He said that opening his public records while he was running for public office would lead to the information being misinterpreted and used against him in the campaign.
Huh? Public records when you’re running for public office are out of bounds? Mika pressed on. So why not just a search of the name “Tara Reade”? He got testy. Dismissive. I half expected a “Look, toots.” Another attempt got Mika a blank stare.
Mika looked clearly troubled. Said so, in fact, after the interview. After all, she desperately wants Biden to defeat Trump. But she has also been around the Democratic elites since she was a young girl. If anyone knows the story on Biden, she does. Several times during the interview Mika folded her arms. Guys know that look. When you’re trying to explain to your wife or girlfriend why something did or did not happen, and she crosses her arms and gives you the look Mika was giving? She’s not buying what you’re selling.
Watch:
Joe has another problem with his denial. The same guy who’s telling you he “never never” assaulted Reade is the same guy who tells you he never discussed with son Hunter his lucrative gig with the notoriously corrupt Burisma, even though he was in charge of overseeing Ukraine anti-corruption efforts.
He’s also the same guy who said he was arrested when trying to see Nelson Mandela. And that he marched for civil rights. And that he is a University of Pennsylvania professor. All untrue. All within the past couple months. Joe Biden and the truth have long kept to social distancing.
This is not to say he is guilty. This goes to credibility.
This explains why the Biden campaign wants to keep him under wraps as much as possible.
Keeping Joe in His Basement
The coronavirus has kept Biden in his basement. But campaign strategy may keep them there. As New York Magazine tweeted, “Biden is at his best when he’s neither speaking nor appearing in public.” Wow. That should be a very scary thought for voters. The less you see or hear from the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, the better he does.
You can’t play hide and seek with the problems of the world. You can’t turn the bully pulpit into a flower pot. But when every interview and appearance features a gaffe, a memory lapse, or further talk of his wandering hands, what choice do Democrats have? When he’s so frail each campaign appearance looks like an audition for a Life Alert commercial, how’s that going to look against an opponent who makes the Energizer Bunny look like a couch potato?
On Sunday, The Washington Post tried to romanticize Biden’s stay-at-home strategy with the story about the 1920 election: “Biden campaigns from his basement. Warren Harding ran for president from his porch.” Harding did win the 1920 election. He dropped dead in 1923.
Remember it’s not about capacity or capable governance. It’s not about what’s best for Joe Biden as a human being. It’s about winning.
Joe Biden is at his best when he’s neither speaking nor appearing in public. Will his campaign have to abandon its most effective strategy? @zakcheneyrice writes https://t.co/X1uOVNfkbm — New York Magazine (@NYMag) May 1, 2020
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-05-06--Grenell to Schiff: Release the Secret Russia Probe Transcripts or I Will

Richard Grenell , the acting director of national intelligence , told Rep. Adam Schiff on Monday that 53 transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee ’ s investigation into possible Trump-Russia collusion are ready to be released to the public .
In the letter , Grenell urged Schiff to publish the documents , but said that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ( ODNI ) is prepared to release them if the California Democrat refuses to do so .
“ I urge you to honor your previous public statements , and your committee ’ s unanimous vote on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible , ” Grenell said in the letter , first reported by The Washington Examiner .
“ I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.
” Republicans have in recent weeks upped pressure on Schiff to release the transcripts .
The House Intelligence Committee voted in September 2018 to release the documents .
The panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 6,000 pages , to ODNI for a review of classified material .
ODNI completed a review of 43 of the transcripts in June 2019 , Grenell told Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence panel .
The other 10 were recently completed , the letter stated .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Republicans on the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees sent a letter to Schiff on Tuesday saying that he has been “ blocking ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unclear why Schiff has withheld the documents from public view .
His office did not return a request for comment on Tuesday .
“ All of the transcripts , with our required redactions , can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material , ” Grenell wrote to Schiff .
The Intelligence Committee conducted an investigation through April 2018 into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
Republicans on the committee released a report on April 27 , 2018 , that said there was no evidence of collusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The special counsel ’ s office , which released a report on April 18 , 2019 , arrived at the same conclusion .
The transcripts are of interviews with several Obama administration officials , including Susan Rice , Ben Rhodes , and Samantha Power , former Trump White House officials and several Trump associates .
The committee also interviewed the two lawyers at the firm Perkins Coie who financed the infamous Steele dossier .
Transcripts for the lawyers , Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann , are included in the yet-to-be-released tranche of documents @

Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, told Rep. Adam Schiff on Monday that 53 transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into possible Trump-Russia collusion are ready to be released to the public.
In the letter, Grenell urged Schiff to publish the documents, but said that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is prepared to release them if the California Democrat refuses to do so.
“I urge you to honor your previous public statements, and your committee’s unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible,” Grenell said in the letter, first reported by The Washington Examiner.
“I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.”
Republicans have in recent weeks upped pressure on Schiff to release the transcripts.
The House Intelligence Committee voted in September 2018 to release the documents. The panel sent the 53 transcripts, which totaled more than 6,000 pages, to ODNI for a review of classified material.
ODNI completed a review of 43 of the transcripts in June 2019, Grenell told Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence panel. The other 10 were recently completed, the letter stated.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Republicans on the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees sent a letter to Schiff on Tuesday saying that he has been “blocking” the release of the transcripts.
It is unclear why Schiff has withheld the documents from public view. His office did not return a request for comment on Tuesday.
“All of the transcripts, with our required redactions, can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material,” Grenell wrote to Schiff.
The Intelligence Committee conducted an investigation through April 2018 into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Republicans on the committee released a report on April 27, 2018, that said there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The special counsel’s office, which released a report on April 18, 2019, arrived at the same conclusion.
The transcripts are of interviews with several Obama administration officials, including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power, former Trump White House officials and several Trump associates.
The committee also interviewed the two lawyers at the firm Perkins Coie who financed the infamous Steele dossier. Transcripts for the lawyers, Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann, are included in the yet-to-be-released tranche of documents.
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--2020-05-06--Some Honest Questions About Race Relations in America

I am not trying to be woke , nor am I trying to present myself as a social justice warrior .
And I certainly feel no guilt being a white American , the grandchild of Jewish immigrants from Russia and England .
I simply want to offer some questions for self-reflection .
Fair enough ?
On a regular basis , sometimes several times in a day , I interact with a black Messianic Jewish colleague who is also an educator and historian .
He will often send me news stories with the simple goal of asking me to consider whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our nation .
The other day he asked me an interesting question , and I thought it would be worth passing on .
What Would Our Reaction Have Been If These Armed Protesters Were Black Men ?
Most of us have seen photographs and video footage of the April 15 protest in Michigan , where men armed with guns gathered outside of Michigan ’ s capitol building , angry with Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s extreme stay-at-home orders .
Even Sean Hannity was critical of the protestors , saying , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and these long guns , uh… no .
Show of force is dangerous .
That puts our police at risk .
And by the way , your message will never be heard , whoever you people are.
” Some of the men actually went into the halls of the Senate , where they shouted out from the balcony .
Yet no one was arrested , and there was no violent confrontation with the police .
My black friend asked me a simple question : What if these had been black men , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hannity called “ long guns ” ?
Yes , what if it was well-armed black men who had stormed the Senate building ?
What would our reaction have been ?
And how would the police have responded ?
Again , my purpose here is not to demonstrate how woke I am , nor is it to again denounce white supremacy , a term that is sometimes applied too liberally .
It is simply to ask an honest question for our reflection .
You might say , “ But that ’ s totally hypothetical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who knows what the response would have been ?
” Then let ’ s try another news story , also sent to me by the same friend .
Black Man Murdered on Feb 23 on Tape , But No One Has Been Arrested On February 23 , a 25-year-old black man named Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead by two white men as he jogged through the Satilla Shores neighborhood .
The shooters , Gregory and Travis McMichael ( father and son ) , said they thought that Arbery , who was jogging down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t-shirt , looked like a burglary suspect involved in several break-ins in the area .
They followed him in their pickup truck , then Travis got out and stood in front of Arbery , holding his gun ( another “ long gun ” ) .
When Arbery tried to get around him , Travis shot him three times , leaving him to bleed to death .
The video footage , taken by a third pursuer on his cell phone , is sickening to watch .
( Please do take a moment to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnum and a shotgun . )
Yet as of today , May 6 , no one has been arrested for the shooting .
No one .
According to police records , “ [ Gregory ] McMichael stated [ that Arbery ] began to violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot.
” Again , please watch the video and come to your own conclusions .
Then ask yourself this : If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think you would have heard about this story much sooner ?
( The shooting took place on February 23 , and the outrage is only growing now that the video is getting more attention . )
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
If a white jogger had been accosted by two armed black men who shot him in broad daylight and let him to bleed out , do you think there would have been an arrest made by now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Tom Durden , “ a Georgia prosecutor assigned to examine the case … announced on Tuesday he plans to have a grand jury hear the evidence in the shooting.
” Let justice be served , let all the facts come out , and let the chips fall wherever they may .
( Sadly , whatever the grand jury decides , it will not bring Arbery back . )
But , returning to my friend ’ s perspective , he made this comment about this particular story : “ See , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not about the stats but about a culture that allows the death of bipoc [ meaning , black indigenous people of color ] , regardless of number , to go unchallenged for so long that most people ’ s initial response is ‘ What did the black guy do ?
’ as opposed to ‘ Why did they take his life like that ?
’ ” Those are very fair questions to ask .
Do you agree ?
As lovers of the Lord , let us be lovers of justice and righteousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is When the World Stops : Words of Faith , Hope , and Wisdom in the Midst of Crisis .
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

I am not trying to be woke, nor am I trying to present myself as a social justice warrior. And I certainly feel no guilt being a white American, the grandchild of Jewish immigrants from Russia and England. I simply want to offer some questions for self-reflection. Fair enough?
On a regular basis, sometimes several times in a day, I interact with a black Messianic Jewish colleague who is also an educator and historian. He will often send me news stories with the simple goal of asking me to consider whether there are some serious inequalities that remain in our nation.
The other day he asked me an interesting question, and I thought it would be worth passing on.
What Would Our Reaction Have Been If These Armed Protesters Were Black Men?
Most of us have seen photographs and video footage of the April 15 protest in Michigan, where men armed with guns gathered outside of Michigan’s capitol building, angry with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s extreme stay-at-home orders.
Even Sean Hannity was critical of the protestors, saying, “This, with the militia look here, and these long guns, uh… no. Show of force is dangerous. That puts our police at risk. And by the way, your message will never be heard, whoever you people are.”
Some of the men actually went into the halls of the Senate, where they shouted out from the balcony.
No one was arrested, and there was no violent confrontation with the police.
Yet no one was arrested, and there was no violent confrontation with the police.
My black friend asked me a simple question: What if these had been black men, not white men, armed with what Hannity called “long guns”? Yes, what if it was well-armed black men who had stormed the Senate building? What would our reaction have been? And how would the police have responded?
Again, my purpose here is not to demonstrate how woke I am, nor is it to again denounce white supremacy, a term that is sometimes applied too liberally. It is simply to ask an honest question for our reflection.
You might say, “But that’s totally hypothetical. Why even raise the question? Who knows what the response would have been?”
Then let’s try another news story, also sent to me by the same friend.
Black Man Murdered on Feb 23 on Tape, But No One Has Been Arrested
On February 23, a 25-year-old black man named Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead by two white men as he jogged through the Satilla Shores neighborhood. The shooters, Gregory and Travis McMichael (father and son), said they thought that Arbery, who was jogging down the street and wearing shorts and a t-shirt, looked like a burglary suspect involved in several break-ins in the area.
They followed him in their pickup truck, then Travis got out and stood in front of Arbery, holding his gun (another “long gun”).
When Arbery tried to get around him, Travis shot him three times, leaving him to bleed to death.
If the colors had been reversed, do you think you would have heard about this story much sooner?
The video footage, taken by a third pursuer on his cell phone, is sickening to watch. (Please do take a moment to watch. The men were armed with .357 magnum and a shotgun.)
Yet as of today, May 6, no one has been arrested for the shooting. No one.
According to police records, “[Gregory] McMichael stated [that Arbery] began to violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot.”
Again, please watch the video and come to your own conclusions. Then ask yourself this: If the colors had been reversed, do you think you would have heard about this story much sooner? (The shooting took place on February 23, and the outrage is only growing now that the video is getting more attention.)
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
If a white jogger had been accosted by two armed black men who shot him in broad daylight and let him to bleed out, do you think there would have been an arrest made by now?
Thankfully, it is now reported that Tom Durden, “a Georgia prosecutor assigned to examine the case … announced on Tuesday he plans to have a grand jury hear the evidence in the shooting.” Let justice be served, let all the facts come out, and let the chips fall wherever they may. (Sadly, whatever the grand jury decides, it will not bring Arbery back.)
Fair Questions to Ask
But, returning to my friend’s perspective, he made this comment about this particular story: “See,” he texted me, “sometimes it’s not about the stats but about a culture that allows the death of bipoc [meaning, black indigenous people of color], regardless of number, to go unchallenged for so long that most people’s initial response is ‘What did the black guy do?’ as opposed to ‘Why did they take his life like that?’”
Most people’s initial response is ‘What did the black guy do?’ as opposed to ‘Why did they take his life like that?’”
Those are very fair questions to ask. Do you agree?
As lovers of the Lord, let us be lovers of justice and righteousness too. It’s biblical, you know.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is When the World Stops: Words of Faith, Hope, and Wisdom in the Midst of Crisis. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-05-06--Waodani Warrior Who Killed 5 Missionaries in 1956 Enters ‘Through Gates of Splendor’

Steve Saint was 5 years old when someone killed his father .
He was 9 when he found out who .
In 1956 , a Waodani warrior named Mincaye and other tribesmen killed five missionaries who had travelled into the Ecuadorian jungle to bring them the Gospel .
They included Nate Saint , Steve ’ s father , and Jim Elliot .
Mincaye died last week a Christian .
Those he hurt most had forgiven him .
Including the man he ’ d robbed of a father .
In 1956 , Nate Saint and his four friends made contact with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their families were missionaries .
When they stood on the beach near the tribe ’ s village , the warriors speared them to death .
The missionaries ’ families kept praying for the Waodani people .
They forgave them , Steve told The Stream .
The story was memorialized in Elisabeth Elliot ’ s book Through Gates of Splendor .
She was Jim Elliot ’ s widow .
The most common question Steve gets asked is how he could forgive the men who killed his father .
“ The honest truth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it was because after my dad was killed , every night when we got together for family devotions , which my mom carried on every night , she would pray for them.
” The wives of the missionaries didn ’ t hold killing their husbands against the tribe .
He learned by their example .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Two years later , Steve ’ s aunt Rachel went to live with the Waodanis to share the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he went to visit her , Steve believed the Waodanis were the most special people in the world .
He spent summers with them , beginning when he was 10 .
After some time , Mincaye became like a father to Steve .
One day Mincaye went to Rachel ’ s house .
He was very upset .
He asked Rachel what was wrong with Steve , because he didn ’ t know how to shoot a blow gun , throw a spear , track animals , spear fish , climb a tree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mincaye thought Steve was ignorant .
Rachel reminded Mincaye that he had speared Steve ’ s father .
Then she asked him , “ Who do you say should teach him to live ?
” Rachel meant that he needed to be taught the skills he needed to live in the jungle .
Mincaye left upset , but came back and agreed with Rachel .
“ It ’ s true , having spirit killed Babae ’ s father ( Babae was Steve ’ s tribal name ) , I myself will teach him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steve considered Mincaye as his adopted father .
And when he was 14 , two others of the warriors who ’ d killed his father baptized him in the river near their village .
One night Mincaye went to Rachel ’ s hut .
He wanted to know if the Creator was strong .
Rachel assured him that God was strong .
Mincaye asked if God could clean his heart and show him “ His good trail.
” Rachel said yes .
The next day , Mincaye came back to Rachel .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
“ You said it truly .
He has cleaned my heart .
Now I ’ m beginning to see His trail.
” Rachel , along with the other widows , taught forgiveness by example .
Steve explained : “ You know the old saying , ‘ hurt people hurt people ’ ?
I think there ’ s a corollary to that .
People who have been forgiven great abuses tend to find it easy to forgive .
The Bible tells us that we ’ re all sinners and fall far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But while we were still sinners , He loved us .
And I think that ’ s why my mom and the other four widows and my aunt loved the Waodanis.
” When Steve was an adult , Mincaye traveled with him to America to share his testimony .
Although churches worried he would freeze up speaking to their large crowds , it didn ’ t seem to bother him .
In fact , as Steve introduced Mincaye one night , he fell asleep on the front row .
When it was his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the church woke him up .
He woke up disoriented .
He saw the big platform , but not the stairs .
“ So he just kind of ran up to the platform and rolled onto [ it ] , then stood up .
And of course the people roared with laughter and Mincaye just gave his huge smile and he had won them immediately.
” Steve added that Mincaye could do that with total strangers .
“ He could make people laugh just by telling stories that he thought were funny .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ own stories that [ he could ] get a group laughing with not a clue what he was talking about.
” Steve was once interviewed by a USA Today journalist .
The journalist could see how someone could forgive another person for murdering their father , but he couldn ’ t see how they could love that person .
It seemed almost morbid .
“ The answer to why and how this could happen is really very simple , ” Steve said .
“ It ’ s God ’ s grace and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his home in Ecuador last Tuesday , April 28 .
He was between 88 and 91 years old .
For more on Steve Saint ’ s story , see his memoir End of the Spear , which was made into a movie with the same title .
He also narrated the documentary Beyond Gates of Splendor about his father and the other men who were killed .
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

Steve Saint was 5 years old when someone killed his father. He was 9 when he found out who.
In 1956, a Waodani warrior named Mincaye and other tribesmen killed five missionaries who had travelled into the Ecuadorian jungle to bring them the Gospel. They included Nate Saint, Steve’s father, and Jim Elliot.
Mincaye died last week a Christian. Those he hurt most had forgiven him. Including the man he’d robbed of a father.
Forgiveness
In 1956, Nate Saint and his four friends made contact with the Waodani tribe. The young men and their families were missionaries. When they stood on the beach near the tribe’s village, the warriors speared them to death. The missionaries’ families kept praying for the Waodani people. They forgave them, Steve told The Stream. The story was memorialized in Elisabeth Elliot’s book Through Gates of Splendor. She was Jim Elliot’s widow.
The most common question Steve gets asked is how he could forgive the men who killed his father. “The honest truth is I never [had to]. But it was because after my dad was killed, every night when we got together for family devotions, which my mom carried on every night, she would pray for them.” The wives of the missionaries didn’t hold killing their husbands against the tribe. He learned by their example.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Two years later, Steve’s aunt Rachel went to live with the Waodanis to share the Gospel with them. By the time he went to visit her, Steve believed the Waodanis were the most special people in the world. He spent summers with them, beginning when he was 10.
After some time, Mincaye became like a father to Steve. One day Mincaye went to Rachel’s house. He was very upset. He asked Rachel what was wrong with Steve, because he didn’t know how to shoot a blow gun, throw a spear, track animals, spear fish, climb a tree with a vine or whittle darts. Mincaye thought Steve was ignorant. Rachel reminded Mincaye that he had speared Steve’s father. Then she asked him, “Who do you say should teach him to live?” Rachel meant that he needed to be taught the skills he needed to live in the jungle. Mincaye left upset, but came back and agreed with Rachel. “It’s true, having spirit killed Babae’s father (Babae was Steve’s tribal name), I myself will teach him to live.”
From then on, Steve considered Mincaye as his adopted father. And when he was 14, two others of the warriors who’d killed his father baptized him in the river near their village.
Finding God’s Trail
One night Mincaye went to Rachel’s hut. He wanted to know if the Creator was strong. Rachel assured him that God was strong. Mincaye asked if God could clean his heart and show him “His good trail.” Rachel said yes. The next day, Mincaye came back to Rachel. “You told me the truth,” he said. “You said it truly. He has cleaned my heart. Now I’m beginning to see His trail.”
Rachel, along with the other widows, taught forgiveness by example. Steve explained: “You know the old saying, ‘hurt people hurt people’? I think there’s a corollary to that. People who have been forgiven great abuses tend to find it easy to forgive. The Bible tells us that we’re all sinners and fall far short of the glory of God. But while we were still sinners, He loved us. And I think that’s why my mom and the other four widows and my aunt loved the Waodanis.”
When Steve was an adult, Mincaye traveled with him to America to share his testimony. Although churches worried he would freeze up speaking to their large crowds, it didn’t seem to bother him. In fact, as Steve introduced Mincaye one night, he fell asleep on the front row. When it was his time to speak, the pastor of the church woke him up. He woke up disoriented. He saw the big platform, but not the stairs. “So he just kind of ran up to the platform and rolled onto [it], then stood up. And of course the people roared with laughter and Mincaye just gave his huge smile and he had won them immediately.”
Steve added that Mincaye could do that with total strangers. “He could make people laugh just by telling stories that he thought were funny. Mincaye would laugh so much at his own stories that [he could] get a group laughing with not a clue what he was talking about.”
God’s Grace
Steve was once interviewed by a USA Today journalist. The journalist could see how someone could forgive another person for murdering their father, but he couldn’t see how they could love that person. It seemed almost morbid. “The answer to why and how this could happen is really very simple,” Steve said. “It’s God’s grace and the power of His Word.”
Mincaye died at his home in Ecuador last Tuesday, April 28. He was between 88 and 91 years old.
For more on Steve Saint’s story, see his memoir End of the Spear, which was made into a movie with the same title. He also narrated the documentary Beyond Gates of Splendor about his father and the other men who were killed.
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-05-06--Dr. Jim Garlow’s Open Letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom

You will not remember me , but we sat side by side on the Dr. Phil Show for two tapings in late 2008 .
I recognize that I may have very little credibility with you , but may I give an honest appraisal from “ among the people ?
” During this COVID-19 crisis , the people of our state have gone through several stages : Stage One : Four weeks from mid-Feb to mid-March — Disbelief , maybe even denial , but people were pondering and learning .
Stage Two : Four weeks from mid-March to around April 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most part .
There were questions emerging : Yes , COVID-19 is highly contagious , but the death rate is much lower than we were told it would be .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Note : This is where wise leaders — many governors — pivoted .
People were willing to give our governmental leaders — including you — the benefit of the doubt through the first five weeks .
After all , who could know ?
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our state government to make adjustments .
They became aware that only a few groups should have been quarantined : those with heart challenges , diabetes , asthma or lung disease , liver disease , kidney disease , those who were immunocompromised , those with obesity or persons over 65 .
The rest — maybe 80 % or so — could have functioned quite normally and handled the disease .
Stage Four : The next week in April , beginning approximately April 19 — Protests and lawsuits .
Open protests begin as people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths were not accurate , yet the regulations did not change .
Lawsuits have begun .
Stage Five : The final days in April and first few days of May — Loss of trust in government .
People are becoming aware that there is an ulterior motive in all of this .
They are becoming angered and losing trust in our state government .
As an example , the suggestion that churches can not function “ for months , ” while opening so many other entities , is perceived as running roughshod over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an image that you should want .
Allow me to repeat that which was stated above : People are becoming aware that there is an ulterior motive in all of these COVID-19 regulations .
The masses are sufficiently legally sophisticated to know that the U.S. Constitution has not and can not be suspended .
It is not necessary for our state government to further anger and alienate so many California citizens .
I appeal to you to recalibrate , to allow citizens to calculate their own risks .
I plead with you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave them open .
Allow businesses to open .
In all candor , there are many who question the authority to close them in the first place .
During the first three or so weeks , you gave good leadership .
I urge you not to squander the good will you once had .
You are perilously close to doing exactly that .

Dear Governor Newsom,
You will not remember me, but we sat side by side on the Dr. Phil Show for two tapings in late 2008.
I recognize that I may have very little credibility with you, but may I give an honest appraisal from “among the people?” During this COVID-19 crisis, the people of our state have gone through several stages:
Questions Began to Emerge
Stage One: Four weeks from mid-Feb to mid-March — Disbelief, maybe even denial, but people were pondering and learning.
Stage Two: Four weeks from mid-March to around April 11 — Compliance, willingly, for the most part.
Stage Three: One week, beginning approximately April 12 — Questioning.
There were questions emerging: Yes, COVID-19 is highly contagious, but the death rate is much lower than we were told it would be.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Note: This is where wise leaders — many governors — pivoted. People were willing to give our governmental leaders — including you — the benefit of the doubt through the first five weeks. After all, who could know? But after week five, they waited for our state government to make adjustments. They became aware that only a few groups should have been quarantined: those with heart challenges, diabetes, asthma or lung disease, liver disease, kidney disease, those who were immunocompromised, those with obesity or persons over 65. The rest — maybe 80% or so — could have functioned quite normally and handled the disease.
Loss of Trust in Government
Stage Four: The next week in April, beginning approximately April 19 — Protests and lawsuits.
Open protests begin as people realized that the predicted massive number of deaths were not accurate, yet the regulations did not change. Lawsuits have begun.
Stage Five: The final days in April and first few days of May — Loss of trust in government.
People are becoming aware that there is an ulterior motive in all of this. They are becoming angered and losing trust in our state government. As an example, the suggestion that churches cannot function “for months,” while opening so many other entities, is perceived as running roughshod over the First Amendment. That is not an image that you should want.
Allow me to repeat that which was stated above: People are becoming aware that there is an ulterior motive in all of these COVID-19 regulations. The masses are sufficiently legally sophisticated to know that the U.S. Constitution has not and cannot be suspended.
During the first three or so weeks, you gave good leadership. I urge you not to squander the good will you once had.
It is not necessary for our state government to further anger and alienate so many California citizens. I appeal to you to recalibrate, to allow citizens to calculate their own risks.
I plead with you to adjust immediately. Open the beaches and leave them open. Allow businesses to open. In all candor, there are many who question the authority to close them in the first place.
During the first three or so weeks, you gave good leadership. I urge you not to squander the good will you once had. You are perilously close to doing exactly that.
Dr. Jim Garlow
CEO & Founder of Well Versed
CALL TO ACTION: COVID-19 is causing massive disruptions in life. The Stream’s parent organization, LIFE Outreach International, is helping send a first wave of help. LIFE’s local mission partners are already distributing thousands of surgical masks, gloves and other sanitary supplies to first responders, hospitals and nursing homes. In addition, other partners have focused on distributing as many meals as possible to help those who need food. You can help with these efforts. Click here to donate.


thestream--2020-05-07--Military Photo of the Day: A Sky Hook Retrieves a Drone

A universal sky hook retrieves a ScanEagle unmanned aerial system after a flight over Al Asad Airbase in Iraq on @ @ @ @ @ Thank you to the brave men and women in uniform still serving in Iraq and @ @ @ @ @ world .
Your sacrifices are not forgotten !
Support The Stream : Serving the Body @ @ @ @ @ .
Faith .
And No Fear .

A universal sky hook retrieves a ScanEagle unmanned aerial system after a flight over Al Asad Airbase in Iraq on April 26, 2020.
Thank you to the brave men and women in uniform still serving in Iraq and other dangerous places around the world. Your sacrifices are not forgotten!
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.


thestream--2020-05-07--The Problem With the National Day of Prayer

When last did you pray for your local congressman ?
( Do you know who he or she is ? )
When last did you pray for your city council members ?
( Do you know who they are ? )
When last did you pray for those in the media and leaders in business ?
If we are not doing so daily , don ’ t we need to make the National Day of Prayer into a Daily Prayer for the Nation ?
The Continental Congress issued the first national call to prayer in 1775 .
General George Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day in 1779 .
He issued a similar proclamation as president ten years later .
President Adams did the same .
In the depths of the Civil War , President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed another national day of prayer and fasting in 1863 .
The contemporary version of their declaration goes back to the Rev .
Billy Graham ’ s call for America ’ s leaders to unite in prayer during the Korean War .
On April 17 , 1952 , President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming a National Day of Prayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Who am I , an evangelical theologian , to question George Washington , John Adams , Abraham Lincoln , and Billy Graham in calling the nation to pray ?
Actually , my problem is not with them , but with us .
‘ Without the Assistance of That Divine Being … I Can not Succeed ’ George Washington noted in his 1789 Farewell Address , “ Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity , Religion and morality are indispensable supports .
… Reason and experience both forbid us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in exclusion of religious principle.
” John Adams likewise warned : “ We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion .
Avarice , ambition , revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net .
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people .
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
” When Abraham Lincoln left the Springfield railroad station in 1861 to assume the presidency , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave , not knowing when , or whether ever , I may return , with a task before me greater than that which rested on Washington .
Without the assistance of that Divine Being , who ever attended him , I can not succeed .
With that assistance I can not fail.
” Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
I met Billy Graham in October 2001 as part of a team inviting him to conduct an evangelistic mission in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was so dependent on God ’ s leading and strength that he did not accept our invitation until he became convinced that it was the Lord ’ s will for him and for us .
None of them could have imagined that declaring a National Day of Prayer would turn prayer into just a day .
But is that what has happened ?
National Prayer is Not Just for One Day This week , millions of Americans will intercede for our federal leaders , including the president , vice president , cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court justices .
We will pray for leaders of our state and local governments .
We will then pray for our military and for those in media , business , education , church , and family .
I certainly do not question the value of dedicating a day to such intercession .
However , I question confining such intercession to just a day .
Has the coronavirus pandemic shattered the illusion of our self-sufficiency ?
Has it taught us that we are finite creatures in need of an infinite Creator , mortals in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , how do we change that ?
And , when this pandemic is finally over , will the partisan fractures it deepened remain ?
Will our nation still be bitterly divided over the sanctity of life , sexual morality , and the right to religious dissent ?
I think we all know the answer .
“ The king is not saved by his great army ; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength .
… Behold , the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Psalm 33:16 , 18 ) .
Is the eye of the Lord on us ?
Dr. Jim Denison is the founder of the Denison Forum .
His Daily Article reaches 1.5 million people monthly with subscribers in 226 countries .
Follow him @ JimDenison .

When last did you pray for your local congressman? (Do you know who he or she is?) When last did you pray for your city council members? (Do you know who they are?) When last did you pray for those in the media and leaders in business?
If we are not doing so daily, don’t we need to make the National Day of Prayer into a Daily Prayer for the Nation?
A National History of Prayer
The Continental Congress issued the first national call to prayer in 1775. General George Washington joined the Congress in supporting such a day in 1779. He issued a similar proclamation as president ten years later. President Adams did the same.
In the depths of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed another national day of prayer and fasting in 1863.
The contemporary version of their declaration goes back to the Rev. Billy Graham’s call for America’s leaders to unite in prayer during the Korean War. On April 17, 1952, President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming a National Day of Prayer. Each president has done so since.
Who am I, an evangelical theologian, to question George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Billy Graham in calling the nation to pray?
Actually, my problem is not with them, but with us.
‘Without the Assistance of That Divine Being … I Cannot Succeed’
George Washington noted in his 1789 Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
John Adams likewise warned: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
When Abraham Lincoln left the Springfield railroad station in 1861 to assume the presidency, he told the crowd: “I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested on Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being, who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I met Billy Graham in October 2001 as part of a team inviting him to conduct an evangelistic mission in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area the next year. He was so dependent on God’s leading and strength that he did not accept our invitation until he became convinced that it was the Lord’s will for him and for us.
None of them could have imagined that declaring a National Day of Prayer would turn prayer into just a day. But is that what has happened?
National Prayer is Not Just for One Day
This week, millions of Americans will intercede for our federal leaders, including the president, vice president, cabinet members, congressional leaders, and Supreme Court justices. We will pray for leaders of our state and local governments. We will then pray for our military and for those in media, business, education, church, and family.
I certainly do not question the value of dedicating a day to such intercession. However, I question confining such intercession to just a day.
Has the coronavirus pandemic shattered the illusion of our self-sufficiency? Has it taught us that we are finite creatures in need of an infinite Creator, mortals in need of an immortal God?
If not, how do we change that?
And, when this pandemic is finally over, will the partisan fractures it deepened remain? Will our nation still be bitterly divided over the sanctity of life, sexual morality, and the right to religious dissent? I think we all know the answer.
Let’s inaugurate a Daily Prayer for the Nation.
“The king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. … Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love” (Psalm 33:16, 18).
Is the eye of the Lord on us?
Dr. Jim Denison is the founder of the Denison Forum. His Daily Article reaches 1.5 million people monthly with subscribers in 226 countries. Follow him @JimDenison.


thestream--2020-05-07--What Happened at the Little Sisters of the Poor Hearing Before the Supreme Court

The world ’ s most tenacious nuns were back at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning , when the justices heard oral arguments in the latest round of the nearly eight-year saga surrounding the Affordable Care Act ’ s onerous contraception mandate .
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic , the high court made the unusual and unprecedented move of hearing the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania , as well as several others , via teleconference .
C-SPAN and other news outlets carried the arguments live .
Justice Ruth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hospital bed .
If you thought the Little Sisters already won big at the Supreme Court , you ’ d be right .
Now they ’ re fighting to preserve that earlier victory .
So why exactly are the Little Sisters — an order of Catholic nuns committed to serving the elderly poor — once again forced to go to the high court to defend their rights of conscience ?
Let ’ s review .
The Affordable Care Act — aka Obamacare — requires coverage of certain kinds of preventive services with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Health and Human Services the task of specifying the types of preventive services for women that health insurance plans must cover .
As a result , the Obama administration ’ s HHS issued guidelines requiring coverage of all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures , which included certain abortion-inducing drugs .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
The Obama administration provided very narrow and wholly inadequate exemptions , which effectively applied only to houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ auxiliaries ( such as church-run soup kitchens ) .
But other religious employers — including hospitals , schools , social service organizations , and other entities—remained responsible for complying with the mandate despite their sincere moral or religious objections .
That ’ s a problem , because this onerous mandate , as interpreted by the Obama-era HHS , placed a substantial , but unnecessary , burden on religious organizations , employers , and individuals .
Because of their beliefs concerning the protection of unborn human life , they faced the untenable decision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or moral beliefs , pay steep fines , or forgo offering or obtaining health insurance entirely .
Fortunately , that ’ s not the end of the story .
In 2014 , the Supreme Court provided relief from the onerous contraceptive mandate to closely held businesses ( Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ) .
In 2016 , in Zubik v. Burwell , the justices unanimously ordered lower courts to reconsider the claims brought by the Little Sisters and others in light of the government ’ s admission that it could facilitate contraceptive coverage without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Trump administration ’ s HHS issued interim final rules to provide much-needed relief for employers and educational institutions with religious or moral objections to the mandate .
Those rules were finalized in 2018 , and predictably , spawned another round of challenges , specifically from the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey , which sought to invalidate the protections for religious liberty provided in the new rules .
Opponents of the new rules characterize them as a way to deny women access to contraception , but they do no such thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily Signal , the regulations “ allow those with objections to not be complicit in choices that would violate their religious or moral convictions.
” I wrote : Importantly , Pennsylvania does not identify a single real person who previously had contraceptive coverage but who would lose it because of the Trump administration ’ s rule .
The states challenging the new rules assert that Congress did not provide statutory authority for HHS to exempt religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage .
The states further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new rules in a procedurally flawed manner , and — in what only can be described as Kafkaesque reasoning — that the Little Sisters , whose litigation helped lead to the development and implementation of those rules , lacked standing to defend them .
That ’ s where things stood as of Wednesday morning ’ s oral arguments .
U.S .
Solicitor General Noel Francisco began by arguing that those new rules reflect the “ best traditions of this country ’ s commitment to religious liberty.
” Ginsburg , though , pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the wind entirely Congress ’ s instruction that women need and shall have seamless , no-cost , comprehensive coverage.
” Ginsburg later said : “ This idea that the balance has to be all for the Little Sisters-type organizations and not at all for the women , just seems to me to rub against our history of accommodation , of tolerance , of respect for divergent views.
” After Francisco finished his arguments , Paul Clement , himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush administration , rose to argue for his clients , the Little Sisters of the Poor .
Clement immediately faced tough questions from Chief Justice John Roberts , who wanted to know why the existing accommodation had been insufficient .
Roberts said he didn ’ t understand it at the time of the court ’ s Zubik decision , and he didn ’ t understand it now .
Clement also faced questions from a seemingly skeptical Justice Sonia Sotomayor , who asked how this situation would differ from a hypothetical one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a COVID-19 vaccine .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Sotomayor said she saw no difference , and in her view , the employers presumably would be required to provide it .
Justice Neil Gorsuch took a different tack .
He asked Clement to focus on the procedural arguments raised by the case .
Justice Elena Kagan did the same with Pennsylvania ’ s attorney .
In an encouraging exchange for the Little Sisters and their supporters , Justice Samuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough questions .
Alito said : In a welcome development , Justice Clarence Thomas , who typically doesn ’ t ask any questions from the bench , engaged in an incisive back-and-forth with the advocates over two important issues that might have otherwise been glossed over : the standing of the states to bring this suit and the propriety of nationwide injunctions in cases such as these .
The issue of a nationwide injunction , especially , has been an important topic recently that could have broad implications in a variety of cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to read the tea leaves from many Supreme Court arguments , and this argument was no exception .
But the questions from the justices do highlight where they may be apt to focus in reaching their decisions .
You don ’ t have to share the beliefs of the Little Sisters of the Poor to acknowledge that the government should not be able to force them to set aside their convictions , especially when they serve the poor and help heal the sick outside the four walls of a church .
Those are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuns might have to reconsider or restructure in order not to violate the dictates of their conscience if they were to lose this case .
America has a proud tradition of respecting the rights of conscience , which enable us to act in harmony with our sincerely held beliefs in the public square .
The final rules issued by the Trump administration recognize this fundamental principle and give much-needed , meaningful relief from an unnecessary assault on the rights of conscience .
Hopefully , the Supreme Court will recognize that and provide relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of faith .
After all , who really wants to be against the Little Sisters of the Poor ?

The world’s most tenacious nuns were back at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, when the justices heard oral arguments in the latest round of the nearly eight-year saga surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s onerous contraception mandate.
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the high court made the unusual and unprecedented move of hearing the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, as well as several others, via teleconference. C-SPAN and other news outlets carried the arguments live.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in the arguments from a hospital bed.
If you thought the Little Sisters already won big at the Supreme Court, you’d be right. Now they’re fighting to preserve that earlier victory.
So why exactly are the Little Sisters — an order of Catholic nuns committed to serving the elderly poor — once again forced to go to the high court to defend their rights of conscience? Let’s review.
Obamacare’s Assault on Religious Liberty
The Affordable Care Act — aka Obamacare — requires coverage of certain kinds of preventive services with no cost-sharing by enrollees. It gives the Department of Health and Human Services the task of specifying the types of preventive services for women that health insurance plans must cover.
As a result, the Obama administration’s HHS issued guidelines requiring coverage of all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures, which included certain abortion-inducing drugs.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The Obama administration provided very narrow and wholly inadequate exemptions, which effectively applied only to houses of worship and later, their integrated auxiliaries (such as church-run soup kitchens).
But other religious employers — including hospitals, schools, social service organizations, and other entities—remained responsible for complying with the mandate despite their sincere moral or religious objections.
That’s a problem, because this onerous mandate, as interpreted by the Obama-era HHS, placed a substantial, but unnecessary, burden on religious organizations, employers, and individuals. Because of their beliefs concerning the protection of unborn human life, they faced the untenable decision of whether to violate their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs, pay steep fines, or forgo offering or obtaining health insurance entirely.
Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story.
Court, Administration Provide (Some) Relief
In 2014, the Supreme Court provided relief from the onerous contraceptive mandate to closely held businesses (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby).
In 2016, in Zubik v. Burwell, the justices unanimously ordered lower courts to reconsider the claims brought by the Little Sisters and others in light of the government’s admission that it could facilitate contraceptive coverage without involving objecting parties.
The following year, the Trump administration’s HHS issued interim final rules to provide much-needed relief for employers and educational institutions with religious or moral objections to the mandate.
Those rules were finalized in 2018, and predictably, spawned another round of challenges, specifically from the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which sought to invalidate the protections for religious liberty provided in the new rules.
Opponents of the new rules characterize them as a way to deny women access to contraception, but they do no such thing. As I previously explained on The Daily Signal, the regulations “allow those with objections to not be complicit in choices that would violate their religious or moral convictions.” I wrote:
Women remain free to make their own decisions about the drugs and devices at issue in the mandate, and will be able to purchase or find coverage for them without trampling on the sincere moral or religious objections of those who wish to not be implicated in subsidizing them.
Importantly, Pennsylvania does not identify a single real person who previously had contraceptive coverage but who would lose it because of the Trump administration’s rule.
The states challenging the new rules assert that Congress did not provide statutory authority for HHS to exempt religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.
The states further argued that Health and Human Services adopted the new rules in a procedurally flawed manner, and — in what only can be described as Kafkaesque reasoning — that the Little Sisters, whose litigation helped lead to the development and implementation of those rules, lacked standing to defend them.
That’s where things stood as of Wednesday morning’s oral arguments.
Encouraging Signs in the Arguments
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco began by arguing that those new rules reflect the “best traditions of this country’s commitment to religious liberty.”
Ginsburg, though, pushed back by stating that a “glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the wind entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage.”
Ginsburg later said: “This idea that the balance has to be all for the Little Sisters-type organizations and not at all for the women, just seems to me to rub against our history of accommodation, of tolerance, of respect for divergent views.”
After Francisco finished his arguments, Paul Clement, himself a former solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, rose to argue for his clients, the Little Sisters of the Poor.
Clement immediately faced tough questions from Chief Justice John Roberts, who wanted to know why the existing accommodation had been insufficient. Roberts said he didn’t understand it at the time of the court’s Zubik decision, and he didn’t understand it now.
Clement also faced questions from a seemingly skeptical Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked how this situation would differ from a hypothetical one in which employers objected to providing reimbursement for a COVID-19 vaccine.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Sotomayor said she saw no difference, and in her view, the employers presumably would be required to provide it.
Justice Neil Gorsuch took a different tack. He asked Clement to focus on the procedural arguments raised by the case. Justice Elena Kagan did the same with Pennsylvania’s attorney.
In an encouraging exchange for the Little Sisters and their supporters, Justice Samuel Alito asked Pennsylvania’s lawyer some tough questions. Alito said:
Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the 3rd Circuit’s discussion of the substantial-burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.
In a welcome development, Justice Clarence Thomas, who typically doesn’t ask any questions from the bench, engaged in an incisive back-and-forth with the advocates over two important issues that might have otherwise been glossed over: the standing of the states to bring this suit and the propriety of nationwide injunctions in cases such as these.
The issue of a nationwide injunction, especially, has been an important topic recently that could have broad implications in a variety of cases.
Overall, it’s hard to read the tea leaves from many Supreme Court arguments, and this argument was no exception. But the questions from the justices do highlight where they may be apt to focus in reaching their decisions.
You don’t have to share the beliefs of the Little Sisters of the Poor to acknowledge that the government should not be able to force them to set aside their convictions, especially when they serve the poor and help heal the sick outside the four walls of a church.
Those are services that—as their lawyer told the justices—the nuns might have to reconsider or restructure in order not to violate the dictates of their conscience if they were to lose this case.
America has a proud tradition of respecting the rights of conscience, which enable us to act in harmony with our sincerely held beliefs in the public square. The final rules issued by the Trump administration recognize this fundamental principle and give much-needed, meaningful relief from an unnecessary assault on the rights of conscience.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize that and provide relief to these weary nuns and other Americans of faith.
After all, who really wants to be against the Little Sisters of the Poor?
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal