thestream--2020-10-27--When 100 Percent of the Democrats Vote Against Amy Coney Barrett

What should we think when every single Democrat voted against the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett ?
What does this say about their convictions and ideology ?
There were actually three Democrats who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2017 ( Donnelly , Heitkamp , and Manchin ) .
Even Brett Kavanaugh received one Democratic vote in 2018 ( again , Manchin ) .
But when it came to Barrett , not one Democrat voted for her .
Not one .
This happened despite her receiving a “ ‘ Well Qualified ’ rating from the American Bar Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her as ‘ brilliant ’ and an ‘ intellectual giant.
’ ” And this happened despite there being no allegations of sexual impropriety to dog her , as with the attacks on Kavanaugh .
No , this was a simple rejection of Barrett as a conservative jurist who might one day vote to overturn Roe v. Wade .
For some , this was a simple rejection of a God-fearing , devout Catholic serving on the highest court in the land .
Danger !
The senators should know that , when the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they have consistently voted to appoint new Supreme Court justices during election years .
So , this was hardly an unprecedented move .
And , while some senators might honestly believe that Barrett would vote to deprive millions of Americans of healthcare , I would dare say that , for others , this was simply a political talking point .
No , the stark reality is that , on this historic day , when a highly-qualified woman was appointed to take the place of the iconic Ruth Bader Ginsburg , not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her .
Let the record be remembered for posterity .
Republicans Have Tended to Vote on Legal Suitability Gone are the days when someone like Justice Ginsburg could be confirmed by a vote of 96-3 .
Or Justice Antonin Scalia by a vote of 98-0 .
Obviously , there was much more bipartisanship on both sides in the past .
But , reviewing the voting of the last 40 years , it ’ s clear that it is the Democrats who have dug in their heels against conservative justices rather than Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m talking about actual votes , not refusing to vote on a nominee during a divided election year . )
During the Reagan years , Sandra Day O ’ Connor was confirmed 99-0 , William H. Rehnquist was confirmed 65-33 , and Anthony M. Kennedy 97-0 .
As for Robert Bork , he was infamously rejected ( “ borked , ” to be precise ) , by a vote of 42-58 .
( As Frank Turek recently pointed out , had Bork , not Kennedy , been appointed to the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturned in 1992 . )
Under George H. W. Bush , David H. Souter was confirmed 90-9 while Clarence H. Thomas , after a tumultuous hearing , barely made it by a vote of 52-48 .
The pattern is crystal clear .
Both of Bill Clinton ’ s nominees were confirmed with ease .
Ginsburg , as mentioned , by a vote of 96-3 ( despite being famously progressive ) and Stephen G. Breyer by a vote of 87-9 .
Under George W. Bush , John G. Roberts was confirmed 78-22 while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tougher battle , getting in by a vote of 58-42 .
Under Barack Obama , and in a time of deep political divide , his two nominees were still confirmed with relative ease , Sonia Sotomayor by a vote of 68-31 and Elena Kagan by a vote of 63-37 .
And did anyone really wonder how these new justices would rule ?
It is true that the Republicans stifled Obama ’ s attempts to appoint Merrick B. Garland to the court .
But , as mentioned , that has happened before during election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate were controlled by different parties .
But , when it comes to overall voting patterns , despite the known liberal proclivities of the Democratic nominees , the Republicans have focused more on the legal suitability of the nominee rather than the ideology of the nominee .
The Democrats Have a Pattern of Making Their Positions Clear Thus , there is no Republican parallel to the voting tallies for the three justices nominated by President Donald Trump : Gorsuch , 54-45 ; Kavanaugh , 50-48 ; Barrett , 52-48 .
Neither is there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great legal scholar Robert Bork nor to the vicious attacks and then narrow confirmation of Clarence Thomas .
I ’ m quite aware that both political parties are flawed and that the political system itself is marred by greed , lust for power , backroom deals and corruption .
I ’ m also sure that different constituents can point to different strengths and weaknesses within each party .
Surely , the Republicans are not all good and the Democrats all evil .
Not a chance .
But when it comes to some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues that touch on our most fundamental freedoms , on the definition of marriage , and on the sanctity of life , the Democrats have been making their positions clear .
Now , they have spoken with one voice in their unanimous opposition to Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
As summed up in the words of “ nay ” voting Democrat Mazie Hirono , “ h*** no.
” Let the record , and these words , be remembered for posterity .
And let the record , and these words , be remembered on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

What should we think when every single Democrat voted against the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett? What does this say about their convictions and ideology?
There were actually three Democrats who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2017 (Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin). Even Brett Kavanaugh received one Democratic vote in 2018 (again, Manchin).
But when it came to Barrett, not one Democrat voted for her. Not one.
This happened despite her receiving a “‘Well Qualified’ rating from the American Bar Association (ABA) whose representatives relayed descriptions of her as ‘brilliant’ and an ‘intellectual giant.’”
And this happened despite there being no allegations of sexual impropriety to dog her, as with the attacks on Kavanaugh.
Not a Single Democrat
No, this was a simple rejection of Barrett as a conservative jurist who might one day vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. For some, this was a simple rejection of a God-fearing, devout Catholic serving on the highest court in the land. Danger!
The senators should know that, when the president and Senate are of the same party, they have consistently voted to appoint new Supreme Court justices during election years. So, this was hardly an unprecedented move.
The stark reality is that, on this historic day, when a highly-qualified woman was appointed to take the place of the iconic Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not a single Democrat could be found to vote for her.
And, while some senators might honestly believe that Barrett would vote to deprive millions of Americans of healthcare, I would dare say that, for others, this was simply a political talking point.
No, the stark reality is that, on this historic day, when a highly-qualified woman was appointed to take the place of the iconic Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not a single Democrat could be found to vote for her.
Let the record be remembered for posterity.
Republicans Have Tended to Vote on Legal Suitability
Gone are the days when someone like Justice Ginsburg could be confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Or Justice Antonin Scalia by a vote of 98-0. Obviously, there was much more bipartisanship on both sides in the past.
But, reviewing the voting of the last 40 years, it’s clear that it is the Democrats who have dug in their heels against conservative justices rather than Republicans doing the same with liberals. (I’m talking about actual votes, not refusing to vote on a nominee during a divided election year.)
During the Reagan years, Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed 99-0, William H. Rehnquist was confirmed 65-33, and Anthony M. Kennedy 97-0.
As for Robert Bork, he was infamously rejected (“borked,” to be precise), by a vote of 42-58. (As Frank Turek recently pointed out, had Bork, not Kennedy, been appointed to the court, Roe v. Wade might have been overturned in 1992.)
Under George H. W. Bush, David H. Souter was confirmed 90-9 while Clarence H. Thomas, after a tumultuous hearing, barely made it by a vote of 52-48. The pattern is crystal clear.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Both of Bill Clinton’s nominees were confirmed with ease. Ginsburg, as mentioned, by a vote of 96-3 (despite being famously progressive) and Stephen G. Breyer by a vote of 87-9.
Under George W. Bush, John G. Roberts was confirmed 78-22 while the more conservative Samuel Alito had a much tougher battle, getting in by a vote of 58-42.
Under Barack Obama, and in a time of deep political divide, his two nominees were still confirmed with relative ease, Sonia Sotomayor by a vote of 68-31 and Elena Kagan by a vote of 63-37. And did anyone really wonder how these new justices would rule?
It is true that the Republicans stifled Obama’s attempts to appoint Merrick B. Garland to the court. But, as mentioned, that has happened before during election years when the White House and the Senate were controlled by different parties.
But, when it comes to overall voting patterns, despite the known liberal proclivities of the Democratic nominees, the Republicans have focused more on the legal suitability of the nominee rather than the ideology of the nominee.
The Democrats Have a Pattern of Making Their Positions Clear
Thus, there is no Republican parallel to the voting tallies for the three justices nominated by President Donald Trump: Gorsuch, 54-45; Kavanaugh, 50-48; Barrett, 52-48.
Neither is there a parallel to the borking of the great legal scholar Robert Bork nor to the vicious attacks and then narrow confirmation of Clarence Thomas.
I’m quite aware that both political parties are flawed and that the political system itself is marred by greed, lust for power, backroom deals and corruption. I’m also sure that different constituents can point to different strengths and weaknesses within each party.
Surely, the Republicans are not all good and the Democrats all evil. Not a chance.
But when it comes to some of the greatest issues of our day, issues that touch on our most fundamental freedoms, on the definition of marriage, and on the sanctity of life, the Democrats have been making their positions clear.
Now, they have spoken with one voice in their unanimous opposition to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. As summed up in the words of “nay” voting Democrat Mazie Hirono, “h*** no.”
Let the record, and these words, be remembered for posterity.
And let the record, and these words, be remembered on November 3.
The Democrats have spoken.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-10-27--The Wreckage of Socialism is Not Just Economic

I grew up in a socialist society , but I ’ ve found it hard sometimes to talk about socialism in America .
When people like me identify the blatant failures of socialism , its advocates often argue that the socialist countries we ’ re talking about are “ not really socialist.
” In other words , no true socialism has ever existed .
Hence , there is a need to practice true socialism here in America .
I think socialism should be defined based on historical facts , not on utopian fantasies that exist only in its campaigners ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mirage : it only looks good from a distance .
That ’ s why its advocates are usually those who have never lived in a socialist place .
But I have .
I know what socialism is like because I did not view it from afar .
I was in it .
In socialist societies such as , China , Cuba , North Korea , Poland , Romania , the Soviet Union , Slovakia , Ukraine , Venezuela , just to name a few , past and present , everything belongs to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy .
There is no private property .
The purpose of the system is to distribute wealth equally and to end inequality and poverty .
On paper it sounds very attractive .
In reality , all socialist countries end up in one place : shattered economies , poverty and the destruction of civilization .
My own childhood experience illustrates this .
But the most devastating effect of socialism is not economic .
Power corrupts human beings .
People inevitably abuse and misuse it .
Jesus insists that within the Christian community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must act as servants instead of wanting to be looked upon as stars .
In the secular world , however , the only way to prevent such an abuse is to allow competing powers to coexist through a system of checks and balances .
Checks and balances are totally absent in socialism .
A centralized planned economy demands that power be solely placed in the hands of the government .
This creates an elite class at every level of society .
Exerting power over others brings enormous pleasure and satisfaction to the ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is strong .
It ’ s almost impossible to give it up under any circumstance .
In the course of protecting their power , these elites will often use intimidation , manipulation , fear and anxiety as tactics to ensure subjects ’ total obedience .
During the Cultural Revolution ( 1966-76 ) , my family lived in an apartment in a college in China where my dad was a professor .
When I was about 3 or 4 years old , I was awakened at midnight by the voice of a school official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get up , get dressed and immediately report at the Square of the Red East .
Within a minute , my parents were gone .
I was horrified .
I began to scream .
Soon my cry was drowned out by the howling cries of children from every direction .
I recognized two of the voices belonging to my friends whom I had played with the day before .
I felt a sense of relief .
Suffering alone was the most horrifying experience for a child .
A friend ’ s voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signify the existence of another human being , and thus , the sense of not being alone .
My parents came back the next day , but I still live with the trauma .
My family lived in one small room .
Without space for privacy , I often heard my parents ’ conversations and understood the fear and uncertainty adults faced each day .
One must be extremely cautious in words and actions when living in a totalitarian society .
One misstep with the authorities may result in a catastrophic change both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole family .
Such wariness and anxiety must sound familiar to anyone who has lived in a socialist society .
Because of my early exposure to the adult world , I developed very early a sense of fear that something dreadful was about to take place .
The oppression and maltreatment did not just come from authorities , however .
An authoritarian regime extracts the vilest part of a person and drastically affects the interpersonal dynamics among ordinary people .
When I first arrived in the U.S. , I noticed the politeness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not take long for me to conclude that such good manners in part resulted from a culture that values freedom and human rights .
It recognizes that humans are free and created equal .
No human possesses any right to control another ’ s life or dictate another ’ s belief .
Along with that comes the strong sense of mutual respect and tolerance .
But this is not so in a socialist country .
If you came from a poor family , you were considered pure and holy .
You had more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with decency .
Conversely , people like my parents , who happened to be born in a not-so-poor environment , had to live like dogs with their tails tucked between their legs ( my dad ’ s expression ) .
With no sense of security , the human survival instinct often kicked in .
People did things that they normally would not do in a free society .
Often people who were from rich backgrounds were compelled to denounce their own families and heritages , to show their contrition and seek amnesty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to report friends to the authorities so as to gain favor and benefits .
An authoritarian society produces the foulest behaviors among ordinary citizens .
It ’ s my conviction that freedom is a precondition for human dignity and human rights .
Socialism , strengthening the government ’ s power , is the most oppressive machine in human history .
The day before I left China for America at the end of 1989 , I was summoned to the human resource office in the college where I worked .
As soon as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lowest rank in the office opened up a rant , shouting at me for at least 5 minutes in seemingly one breath , demanding to know why I ’ d failed to show up at the remote mining village for reeducation .
She shouted because I meant nothing to her .
She shouted because she could .
She shouted because it made her feel powerful and important .
America – The Last Bastion of Freedom I have always felt it a challenge to show my native-born American friends what it is like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t exist .
But recently pictures circulating on social media have done what I had failed to do .
The shaking fists and indignation shown to the diner in a restaurant who dares to disagree speaks volumes .
I ’ m sure none of the provocateurs care about individual liberty .
They are promoting something that is entirely anti-republican , anti-America .
They intimidate those with whom they disagree , and rob them of their dignity and rights .
I would never have thought such a thing could happen in America .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we allow such behavior to flourish , however , soon this kind of conduct will become a norm instead of an aberration .
By then , America , the last bastion of freedom , will be well on her way to become a tyrannical state .
As a Christian , freedom has special significance to me .
Though I ’ ve never perceived America as a Christian nation , I recognize the important role America plays in human history in general and in God ’ s salvation history in particular .
Far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city on the hill and beacon of the world , because it is the freest place on earth .
Its political system ensures its citizens the highest degree of liberty .
It safeguards human dignity , worth and rights .
It brings law and order instead of chaos and oppression .
For me , American freedom points to a much greater spiritual reality , that is , the believer ’ s freedom in Christ ( Rom 8:21 ; 2 Cor 3:17 ; Gal 5:1 ) .
Like a foreshadowing or a foretaste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ultimate freedom that the believer can have in Christ .
Just as marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the church , American liberty is emblematic of the greater reality the followers of Jesus enjoy in Christ .
Just as we strive to protect marriage , we must also endeavor to defend American freedom because it , too , has sacred value !
In this election , choose freedom over tyranny .
Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college .
After immigrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School , she became a professor and taught at Christian colleges and seminary .
After March of this year , she sensed God was leading her to use her unique voice to provide a warning about various kinds of Marxist influences in our society .
She lives in northern California with her husband and has two grown children .

I grew up in a socialist society, but I’ve found it hard sometimes to talk about socialism in America. When people like me identify the blatant failures of socialism, its advocates often argue that the socialist countries we’re talking about are “not really socialist.” In other words, no true socialism has ever existed. Hence, there is a need to practice true socialism here in America.
The Reality of Socialism
I think socialism should be defined based on historical facts, not on utopian fantasies that exist only in its campaigners’ heads. It’s like a mirage: it only looks good from a distance. That’s why its advocates are usually those who have never lived in a socialist place. But I have. I know what socialism is like because I did not view it from afar. I was in it.
In this election, choose freedom over tyranny.
In socialist societies such as, China, Cuba, North Korea, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union, Slovakia, Ukraine, Venezuela, just to name a few, past and present, everything belongs to the centralized government, which directs and plans the economy. There is no private property.
The purpose of the system is to distribute wealth equally and to end inequality and poverty. On paper it sounds very attractive. In reality, all socialist countries end up in one place: shattered economies, poverty and the destruction of civilization. My own childhood experience illustrates this.
Devastating Human Corruption
But the most devastating effect of socialism is not economic. Power corrupts human beings. People inevitably abuse and misuse it. Jesus insists that within the Christian community, the ones who want to be great must act as servants instead of wanting to be looked upon as stars. In the secular world, however, the only way to prevent such an abuse is to allow competing powers to coexist through a system of checks and balances. Checks and balances are totally absent in socialism. A centralized planned economy demands that power be solely placed in the hands of the government.
This creates an elite class at every level of society. Exerting power over others brings enormous pleasure and satisfaction to the ones who are in authority. The lure is strong. It’s almost impossible to give it up under any circumstance. In the course of protecting their power, these elites will often use intimidation, manipulation, fear and anxiety as tactics to ensure subjects’ total obedience.
Traumatic Experience With Socialism
During the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), my family lived in an apartment in a college in China where my dad was a professor. When I was about 3 or 4 years old, I was awakened at midnight by the voice of a school official over a loudspeaker outside directing all adults to get up, get dressed and immediately report at the Square of the Red East. Within a minute, my parents were gone. I was horrified. I began to scream. Soon my cry was drowned out by the howling cries of children from every direction.
I recognized two of the voices belonging to my friends whom I had played with the day before. I felt a sense of relief. Suffering alone was the most horrifying experience for a child. A friend’s voice, even a terrifying cry, would signify the existence of another human being, and thus, the sense of not being alone. My parents came back the next day, but I still live with the trauma.
My family lived in one small room. Without space for privacy, I often heard my parents’ conversations and understood the fear and uncertainty adults faced each day. One must be extremely cautious in words and actions when living in a totalitarian society. One misstep with the authorities may result in a catastrophic change both to the person involved and to the whole family. Such wariness and anxiety must sound familiar to anyone who has lived in a socialist society.
Because of my early exposure to the adult world, I developed very early a sense of fear that something dreadful was about to take place. The oppression and maltreatment did not just come from authorities, however. An authoritarian regime extracts the vilest part of a person and drastically affects the interpersonal dynamics among ordinary people.
Socialist Oppression
When I first arrived in the U.S., I noticed the politeness and respect American people exhibited. It did not take long for me to conclude that such good manners in part resulted from a culture that values freedom and human rights. It recognizes that humans are free and created equal. No human possesses any right to control another’s life or dictate another’s belief. Along with that comes the strong sense of mutual respect and tolerance.
But this is not so in a socialist country. If you came from a poor family, you were considered pure and holy. You had more rights and were expected to be treated with decency. Conversely, people like my parents, who happened to be born in a not-so-poor environment, had to live like dogs with their tails tucked between their legs (my dad’s expression).
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
With no sense of security, the human survival instinct often kicked in. People did things that they normally would not do in a free society. Often people who were from rich backgrounds were compelled to denounce their own families and heritages, to show their contrition and seek amnesty. It was a common practice for friends to report friends to the authorities so as to gain favor and benefits. An authoritarian society produces the foulest behaviors among ordinary citizens.
It’s my conviction that freedom is a precondition for human dignity and human rights. Socialism, strengthening the government’s power, is the most oppressive machine in human history. The day before I left China for America at the end of 1989, I was summoned to the human resource office in the college where I worked. As soon as I showed up, the lady who held the lowest rank in the office opened up a rant, shouting at me for at least 5 minutes in seemingly one breath, demanding to know why I’d failed to show up at the remote mining village for reeducation. She shouted because I meant nothing to her. She shouted because she could. She shouted because it made her feel powerful and important.
America – The Last Bastion of Freedom
I have always felt it a challenge to show my native-born American friends what it is like when the concept of freedom doesn’t exist. But recently pictures circulating on social media have done what I had failed to do. The shaking fists and indignation shown to the diner in a restaurant who dares to disagree speaks volumes. I’m sure none of the provocateurs care about individual liberty. They are promoting something that is entirely anti-republican, anti-America. They intimidate those with whom they disagree, and rob them of their dignity and rights.
I would never have thought such a thing could happen in America. The socialist and authoritarian overtones are alarming. If we allow such behavior to flourish, however, soon this kind of conduct will become a norm instead of an aberration. By then, America, the last bastion of freedom, will be well on her way to become a tyrannical state.
The Ultimate Freedom
As a Christian, freedom has special significance to me. Though I’ve never perceived America as a Christian nation, I recognize the important role America plays in human history in general and in God’s salvation history in particular. Far from being perfect, still America is the city on the hill and beacon of the world, because it is the freest place on earth. Its political system ensures its citizens the highest degree of liberty. It safeguards human dignity, worth and rights. It brings law and order instead of chaos and oppression.
For me, American freedom points to a much greater spiritual reality, that is, the believer’s freedom in Christ (Rom 8:21; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1). Like a foreshadowing or a foretaste, American freedom provides a tiny glimpse of the ultimate freedom that the believer can have in Christ. Just as marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the church, American liberty is emblematic of the greater reality the followers of Jesus enjoy in Christ. Just as we strive to protect marriage, we must also endeavor to defend American freedom because it, too, has sacred value!
In this election, choose freedom over tyranny.
Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the U.S. and having studied at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor and taught at Christian colleges and seminary. After March of this year, she sensed God was leading her to use her unique voice to provide a warning about various kinds of Marxist influences in our society. She lives in northern California with her husband and has two grown children.


thestream--2020-10-27--Amy Coney Barrett Joins Supreme Court After 52-48 Senate Vote

Amy Coney Barrett , fresh from a Senate confirmation vote , was sworn in Monday night as the Supreme Court ’ s newest justice at an outdoor ceremony at the White House .
The Senate , in a roll call that began just before 8 p.m. , voted 52-48 , mostly along party lines , to confirm Barrett as President Donald Trump ’ s third nominee to the high court .
Sen. Charles Grassley , R-Iowa , read off the vote tally , and announced : “ The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed.
” Republicans in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Barrett , a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit since 2017 , fills the vacancy left by the Sept. 18 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
A conservative , she takes an originalist ’ s view of the Constitution in contrast to Ginsburg , a liberal icon .
Justice Clarence Thomas officiated as Barrett took the oath of office at the White House about 9:15 p.m. Thomas was a friend of the late Justice Antonin Scalia , for whom Barrett worked as a law clerk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She is one of our nation ’ s most brilliant legal scholars .
She will make an outstanding justice on the highest court in our land , ” Trump said before Thomas swore in Barrett .
“ The American people have been profoundly impressed to learn of her achievements , her compassion , her generosity , her faith , and her sterling character , ” the president added .
“ Justice Barrett made clear she will issue rulings based on her faithful reading of the law and the Constitution as written , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swearing-in , Barret spoke briefly about how the confirmation process reflected her views about the differences between the government ’ s legislative and judicial branches .
“ It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences .
In fact , it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside .
By contrast , it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences , ” Barrett said , adding : It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for election .
Thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people .
This separation of duty from political preferences is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government .
A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president , but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her .
The judicial oath captures the essence of the judicial duty .
The rule of law must always control .
The White House planned to be considerably more careful in staging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sept. 26 event where Trump nominated Barrett .
Democrats tagged the earlier event as a “ superspreader ” of COVID-19 .
The president and first lady Melania Trump were among those in attendance who later tested positive for the disease caused by the new coronavirus .
In joining the high court , Barrett strengthens its bloc of conservative justices to six , in contrast to the liberal bloc of three .
Sen. Susan Collins , R-Maine , in a tough reelection race , was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she wanted to be consistent with her 2016 position of opposing a vote on President Barack Obama ’ s nomination of D.C .
Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court .
At the time , Senate Republicans declined to hold hearings or vote on Obama ’ s pick eight months before that year ’ s presidential election .
Sen. Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska , opposed the process of considering Barrett , arguing that Senate Republicans should be consistent with the earlier stand .
However , Murkowski voted for Barrett because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominee , only the process .
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to advance Barrett ’ s nomination to the full Senate .
Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , remarked on how civil the four days of hearings were .
However , every Democrat on the committee boycotted the vote , allowing Barrett to win a unanimous vote only from Republicans , who all were present .
Democrats attempted to use a filibuster Sunday to block a vote on Monday through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 7th Circuit judge , has been a law professor at Notre Dame University , where she got her law degree and graduated first in her class in 1997 .
Sen. Todd Young , R-Ind.
, said Barrett ’ s home state was proud on this day .
In a speech on the Senate floor , Young said : She will be the fifth woman and the first mother of school-age children to serve as a Supreme Court justice .
She will also be the only current justice to have received a law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Harvard or Yale .
I will tell you , Hoosiers are extremely proud of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the trail she has blazed for others .
Despite Senate Democrats ’ repeated attempts to drag her into the political fray , Judge Barrett has proven she will make her decisions based on the law rather than politics .
As a fellow Hoosier , I ’ ve had the privilege of getting to know Judge Barrett and her family over the last several years since she was nominated to fill a vacancy on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7th Circuit .
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , called the Senate confirmation vote on Barrett “ one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.
” “ Let the record show that tonight , the Republican Senate majority decided to thwart the will of the people and confirm a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election after more than 60 million Americans have voted , ” Schumer said , adding : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confirmation more than 200 Trump nominees for federal judgeships , including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh before Barrett .
“ By any objective standard , Judge Barrett deserves to be on the Supreme Court , ” McConnell said .
Sen. Mitt Romney , R-Utah , who sometimes votes with Democrats , came to the floor early in the day to speak up for Barrett ’ s nomination .
Romney said Barrett ’ s credentials bring great respect to the Supreme Court as an institution , noting a growing lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branches of government , both parties , law enforcement , and the media .
“ It ’ s essential that the Supreme Court retain the trust of the nation , ” Romney said .
“ That ’ s why Judge Barrett ’ s integrity , wisdom , and commitment to the rule of law is so important .
… May God bless her and her family as they begin this chapter of service to our nation.
” However , Sen. Ron Wyden , D-Ore. , faulted the process and Barrett for not answering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on cases that could go before the high court .
“ If the cure to COVID-19 was partisanship and rule-breaking , then Senate Republicans might be on to something with their low stunt on the high court , ” Wyden said on the Senate floor , adding : Ken McIntyre contributed to this report , which was updated shortly after it was published to include remarks at the swearing-in ceremony .
Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “ The Right Side of History ” podcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tainted by Suspicion : The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections .
Send an email to Fred .

Amy Coney Barrett, fresh from a Senate confirmation vote, was sworn in Monday night as the Supreme Court’s newest justice at an outdoor ceremony at the White House.
The Senate, in a roll call that began just before 8 p.m., voted 52-48, mostly along party lines, to confirm Barrett as President Donald Trump’s third nominee to the high court.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, read off the vote tally, and announced: “The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed.”
Republicans in the Senate chamber rose to their feet in applause.
Barrett, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit since 2017, fills the vacancy left by the Sept. 18 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A conservative, she takes an originalist’s view of the Constitution in contrast to Ginsburg, a liberal icon.
Justice Clarence Thomas officiated as Barrett took the oath of office at the White House about 9:15 p.m. Thomas was a friend of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett worked as a law clerk and who she considers her mentor.
“She is one of our nation’s most brilliant legal scholars. She will make an outstanding justice on the highest court in our land,” Trump said before Thomas swore in Barrett.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
“The American people have been profoundly impressed to learn of her achievements, her compassion, her generosity, her faith, and her sterling character,” the president added. “Justice Barrett made clear she will issue rulings based on her faithful reading of the law and the Constitution as written, not legislation from the bench.”
After the swearing-in, Barret spoke briefly about how the confirmation process reflected her views about the differences between the government’s legislative and judicial branches.
“It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences,” Barrett said, adding:
It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don’t stand for election. Thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preferences is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The judicial oath captures the essence of the judicial duty. The rule of law must always control.
The White House planned to be considerably more careful in staging the swearing-in ceremony than it was for the Sept. 26 event where Trump nominated Barrett.
Democrats tagged the earlier event as a “superspreader” of COVID-19. The president and first lady Melania Trump were among those in attendance who later tested positive for the disease caused by the new coronavirus.
In joining the high court, Barrett strengthens its bloc of conservative justices to six, in contrast to the liberal bloc of three.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in a tough reelection race, was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to oppose Barrett’s confirmation.
Collins said she wanted to be consistent with her 2016 position of opposing a vote on President Barack Obama’s nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. At the time, Senate Republicans declined to hold hearings or vote on Obama’s pick eight months before that year’s presidential election.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, opposed the process of considering Barrett, arguing that Senate Republicans should be consistent with the earlier stand. However, Murkowski voted for Barrett because, she said, she did not oppose the nominee, only the process.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to advance Barrett’s nomination to the full Senate. Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., remarked on how civil the four days of hearings were.
However, every Democrat on the committee boycotted the vote, allowing Barrett to win a unanimous vote only from Republicans, who all were present.
Democrats attempted to use a filibuster Sunday to block a vote on Monday through a procedural maneuver.
Barrett, besides being a 7th Circuit judge, has been a law professor at Notre Dame University, where she got her law degree and graduated first in her class in 1997.
Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., said Barrett’s home state was proud on this day. In a speech on the Senate floor, Young said:
She will be the fifth woman and the first mother of school-age children to serve as a Supreme Court justice. She will also be the only current justice to have received a law degree from an esteemed law school other than Harvard or Yale. I will tell you, Hoosiers are extremely proud of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the trail she has blazed for others. Despite Senate Democrats’ repeated attempts to drag her into the political fray, Judge Barrett has proven she will make her decisions based on the law rather than politics. As a fellow Hoosier, I’ve had the privilege of getting to know Judge Barrett and her family over the last several years since she was nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called the Senate confirmation vote on Barrett “one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.”
“Let the record show that tonight, the Republican Senate majority decided to thwart the will of the people and confirm a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election after more than 60 million Americans have voted,” Schumer said, adding:
Let the record show that tonight, the Republican majority will break 231 years of precedent and become the first majority to confirm a Supreme Court justice this close to Election Day. Let the record show that tonight the Republican majority will make a mockery of its own stated principle that the American people deserve a voice in the selection of Supreme Court justices, completing the partisan theft of two seats on the Supreme Court using completely contradictory rationales.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been praised by conservatives for shepherding to confirmation more than 200 Trump nominees for federal judgeships, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh before Barrett .
“By any objective standard, Judge Barrett deserves to be on the Supreme Court,” McConnell said.
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who sometimes votes with Democrats, came to the floor early in the day to speak up for Barrett’s nomination.
“She’s exceptionally intelligent, academically astute, and impeccably credentialed,” Romney said.
Romney said Barrett’s credentials bring great respect to the Supreme Court as an institution, noting a growing lack of trust among Americans in the elected branches of government, both parties, law enforcement, and the media.
“It’s essential that the Supreme Court retain the trust of the nation,” Romney said. “That’s why Judge Barrett’s integrity, wisdom, and commitment to the rule of law is so important. … May God bless her and her family as they begin this chapter of service to our nation.”
However, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., faulted the process and Barrett for not answering enough questions on how she might rule on cases that could go before the high court.
“If the cure to COVID-19 was partisanship and rule-breaking, then Senate Republicans might be on to something with their low stunt on the high court,” Wyden said on the Senate floor, adding:
Amy Coney Barrett may have established herself as the Babe Ruth of saying pretty much nothing. Now, everybody pretty much understands that nominees typically clam up during these hearings. I don’t expect Judge Barrett to disavow Trump health care policy. I wouldn’t expect to agree with all of the Trump nominees’ positions. But unfortunate for our country, this hearing was a new low.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report, which was updated shortly after it was published to include remarks at the swearing-in ceremony.
Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections. Send an email to Fred.


thestream--2020-10-27--Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes: Ducks Everything, But Reveals Much

There ’ s a scene in Isaac Asimov ’ s classic Foundations trilogy where a logician analyzes a politician ’ s speech and determines the man said exactly nothing .
I read that in high school in the 1970s , and it still sticks with me , because at the time it seemed so much like what politicians do .
Now I don ’ t think it ’ s really possible .
Not even for politicians .
They always says something , even when they try not to .
Kamala Harris tried very hard not to say anything in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Norah O ’ Donnell asked great questions ; Harris ducked everything .
Yet she said so much .
I have a full transcript here , starting with an easy observation by O ’ Donnell .
So the first thing she says is , it isn ’ t about her , it ’ s about Mike Pence .
Look at Me !
I ’ m Woke !
“ Actually , the non-partisan govtrack has rated you as the most liberal senator… You supported the Green New Deal , you supported Medicare for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marijuana .
Joe Biden doesn ’ t support those things .
So are you going to bring the policies , those progressive policies that you supported as senator , into a Biden administration ?
“ What I will do , and I promise you this ; this is what Joe wants me to do ; this was part of our deal .
I will always share with him my lived experience as it relates to any issue that we confront ; and I promised Joe that I will give him that perspective and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second thing she says : The phrase “ lived experience ” is code , signaling the Woke left she ’ s one of them .
It ’ s one of their lines .
Minority members have special moral authority no one else can attain , because of their “ lived experience.
” “ And is that a socialist or progressive perspective ?
” “ No… ” ( Here she cackles at length .
I use that word advisedly and intentionally . )
“ No , it is the perspective of , of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a black child in America , who was also a prosecutor , who also has a mother who arrived here at the age of 19 from India , who also , you know , likes hip-hop… ” ( cackles again ) , “ Like , what do you want to know ?
” ( Cackles some more . )
The third thing she says : It ’ s about identity .
Identity politics .
She didn ’ t use the word “ intersectionality , ” but it ’ s in there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want to give you the opportunity to address this , because at the Republican National Convention , President Trump made the case that Joe Biden is going to be nothing more than a Trojan horse for socialist policies , for the left wing of the Democratic Party .
Are you going to push those policies when you ’ re vice president of the United States ?
” “ I am not going to be confined to Donald Trump ’ s definition of who I or anybody else is .
And I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mistake.
” The fourth thing she says : It ’ s not about her , it ’ s about Donald Trump .
Not Me !
Joe and Trump !
“ So just to button that up , because you have fought for Medicare for all .
That ’ s not something that Joe Biden supports .
If you became vice president , would you say to a President Biden , “ You know what ?
Let ’ s , we should really be pushing for Medicare for all , not a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do it , that ’ s not my value.
” “ I would not have joined the ticket if I didn ’ t support what Joe was proposing .
And so our plan includes expanding on everything that Joe together with Obama created with the Affordable Care Act .
By contrast , you have Donald Trump , who is in court right now , trying to get rid of a policy that brought health care to over 20 million people including protecting people with pre-existing conditions , and he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic that has killed over 215,000 Americans.
” The fifth thing she says : It ’ s not about her , it ’ s about Joe Biden and Donald Trump .
5 Things That Mean 2 Things That Mean 1 Thing She says five things that boil down to two : She ’ s Woke , and everything else is about someone else : Mike Pence , Donald Trump , or Joe .
And that ’ s it .
She didn ’ t say what she believes , or what she ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t say how long she expects she ’ ll have to put up with Joe before he ’ s out of her way .
She made everything about other leaders she had to work with , while displaying her complete unwillingness to take a stitch of responsibility for herself or her opinions .
It really boils down to just one thing .
Would you want to work for a boss like that ?
Is it moral ?
Is it leadership ?
Would you want someone like that leading anything at all , much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( @ 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 .

There’s a scene in Isaac Asimov’s classic Foundations trilogy where a logician analyzes a politician’s speech and determines the man said exactly nothing. I read that in high school in the 1970s, and it still sticks with me, because at the time it seemed so much like what politicians do. Now I don’t think it’s really possible. Not even for politicians. They always says something, even when they try not to.
Kamala Harris tried very hard not to say anything in this quick 60 Minutes Overtime segment (below). Norah O’Donnell asked great questions; Harris ducked everything. Yet she said so much. I have a full transcript here, starting with an easy observation by O’Donnell.
Not Me! Pence!
“You’re considered the most liberal senator.” Harris laughs. “I — somebody said that, and it was actually Mike Pence on the debate stage.”
So the first thing she says is, it isn’t about her, it’s about Mike Pence.
Look at Me! I’m Woke!
“Actually, the non-partisan govtrack has rated you as the most liberal senator… You supported the Green New Deal, you supported Medicare for all, you’ve supported legalizing marijuana. Joe Biden doesn’t support those things. So are you going to bring the policies, those progressive policies that you supported as senator, into a Biden administration? “What I will do, and I promise you this; this is what Joe wants me to do; this was part of our deal. I will always share with him my lived experience as it relates to any issue that we confront; and I promised Joe that I will give him that perspective and always be honest with him.”
The second thing she says: The phrase “lived experience” is code, signaling the Woke left she’s one of them. It’s one of their lines. Minority members have special moral authority no one else can attain, because of their “lived experience.”
“And is that a socialist or progressive perspective?” “No…” (Here she cackles at length. I use that word advisedly and intentionally.) “No, it is the perspective of, of a woman who grew up a, a, a black child in America, who was also a prosecutor, who also has a mother who arrived here at the age of 19 from India, who also, you know, likes hip-hop…” (cackles again), “Like, what do you want to know?” (Cackles some more.)
The third thing she says: It’s about identity. Identity politics. She didn’t use the word “intersectionality,” but it’s in there, not far below the surface.
Not Me! Trump!
“I want to give you the opportunity to address this, because at the Republican National Convention, President Trump made the case that Joe Biden is going to be nothing more than a Trojan horse for socialist policies, for the left wing of the Democratic Party. Are you going to push those policies when you’re vice president of the United States?” “I am not going to be confined to Donald Trump’s definition of who I or anybody else is. And I think Americans have learned that that would be a mistake.”
The fourth thing she says: It’s not about her, it’s about Donald Trump.
Not Me! Joe and Trump!
“So just to button that up, because you have fought for Medicare for all. That’s not something that Joe Biden supports. If you became vice president, would you say to a President Biden, “You know what? Let’s, we should really be pushing for Medicare for all, not a public option, that’s just not going to do it, that’s not my value.” “I would not have joined the ticket if I didn’t support what Joe was proposing. And so our plan includes expanding on everything that Joe together with Obama created with the Affordable Care Act. By contrast, you have Donald Trump, who is in court right now, trying to get rid of a policy that brought health care to over 20 million people including protecting people with pre-existing conditions, and he’s doing it in the middle of a pandemic that has killed over 215,000 Americans.”
The fifth thing she says: It’s not about her, it’s about Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
5 Things That Mean 2 Things That Mean 1 Thing
She says five things that boil down to two: She’s Woke, and everything else is about someone else: Mike Pence, Donald Trump, or Joe.
And that’s it. She didn’t say what she believes, or what she’d do in office. She didn’t say how long she expects she’ll have to put up with Joe before he’s out of her way.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
She made everything about other leaders she had to work with, while displaying her complete unwillingness to take a stitch of responsibility for herself or her opinions.
It really boils down to just one thing. Would you want to work for a boss like that? Is it moral? Is it leadership? Would you want someone like that leading anything at all, much less the United States?
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--2020-10-28--Civil Rights and Public Health: A Tale of Two Viruses

The coronavirus isn ’ t the first novel virus to show up with broad , deadly effects on the world in my lifetime .
One of my cousins died of the other one .
It was the early 1980s , and he was living in San Francisco when he caught it .
A lot of men died in San Francisco that way in those years .
There ’ s much to learn through comparing and contrasting the two viruses , and the public response to them .
One of them , HIV , of course , was 100 % fatal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains controversial , but it ’ s looking like well under 1 % overall .
One of them had a well-known , clearly definable mode of transmission .
The other ’ s mode of contagion is under study and still not well understood .
One of them was transmitted by means long been known to be medically dangerous .
The other is transmitted by absolutely innocent means : going to work , going grocery shopping , hugging a family member .
One virus was treated from the beginning as a serious public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights issue .
But this time I switched the order on you .
AIDS should have been treated as a public health matter , but “ civil rights ” took over policy instead .
The fast and widespread growth of AIDS was always easily preventable in theory .
My other friend who died of AIDS , a dozen or so years later in North Carolina , need never have been at risk , if only gay men would have quit having sex with multiple partners of unknown HIV status .
Meaning in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could hardly have become public policy , for many reasons .
Most obviously , it ’ s impossible to control private practices that way .
It wasn ’ t merely that , though .
There were rules against criticizing gay men ’ s sexual practices , or even doing anything about their meeting places .
It was regarded very much a violation of their rights .
HIV/AIDS may have killed many , but it was also an important catalyst toward creating homosexuality as a protected class for civil rights purposes .
The Gross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public response to the coronavirus could hardly be more different .
It has rights implications , too , no doubt about that .
But it ’ s all about controlling and denying the most basic human rights , going even as far as the incredibly basic right for families to gather .
A well-circumscribed intrusion on civil rights in the 1980s would surely have been effective in drawing down the spread of a 100 % deadly disease to a slow crawl .
No one could have suggested such a thing , though .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights has had very doubtful benefits in slowing the coronavirus , but it ’ s considered a violation of civic responsibility even to question it .
Who ’ s Responsible , and Why ( Not ) ?
I close with a final ironic observation .
Local political action in the Bay Area in the 1980s could have greatly curtailed the global spread of HIV/AIDS , had the will for such action existed .
Of course it didn ’ t ; the very thought is sadly laughable .
No state or local politician has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here in 2020 , by contrast , nothing that any politician did could have withheld the coronavirus from taking many thousands of American lives , but Democrats and the media love blaming one man , our president , for it all .
It doesn ’ t seem fair , does it ?
We all know the old saying , “ All ’ s fair in love and war.
” Maybe the updated version should be , “ All ’ s fair in sex and politics.
” Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the author or editor of six books , including the recently released Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

The coronavirus isn’t the first novel virus to show up with broad, deadly effects on the world in my lifetime. One of my cousins died of the other one. It was the early 1980s, and he was living in San Francisco when he caught it. A lot of men died in San Francisco that way in those years. There’s much to learn through comparing and contrasting the two viruses, and the public response to them.
One of them, HIV, of course, was 100% fatal in the early years.The coronavirus fatality rate remains controversial, but it’s looking like well under 1% overall.
One of them had a well-known, clearly definable mode of transmission. The other’s mode of contagion is under study and still not well understood.
One of them was transmitted by means long been known to be medically dangerous. The other is transmitted by absolutely innocent means: going to work, going grocery shopping, hugging a family member.
Public Health or Civil Rights?
One virus was treated from the beginning as a serious public health problem, the other as a civil rights issue. But this time I switched the order on you. AIDS should have been treated as a public health matter, but “civil rights” took over policy instead.
The fast and widespread growth of AIDS was always easily preventable in theory. My other friend who died of AIDS, a dozen or so years later in North Carolina, need never have been at risk, if only gay men would have quit having sex with multiple partners of unknown HIV status. Meaning in many cases, anonymous sex.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
That restriction could hardly have become public policy, for many reasons. Most obviously, it’s impossible to control private practices that way. It wasn’t merely that, though. There were rules against criticizing gay men’s sexual practices, or even doing anything about their meeting places. It was regarded very much a violation of their rights. HIV/AIDS may have killed many, but it was also an important catalyst toward creating homosexuality as a protected class for civil rights purposes.
The Gross Intrusion We’re Putting Up With
Public response to the coronavirus could hardly be more different. It has rights implications, too, no doubt about that. But it’s all about controlling and denying the most basic human rights, going even as far as the incredibly basic right for families to gather.
A well-circumscribed intrusion on civil rights in the 1980s would surely have been effective in drawing down the spread of a 100% deadly disease to a slow crawl. No one could have suggested such a thing, though. Today an almost limitless intrusion on civil rights has had very doubtful benefits in slowing the coronavirus, but it’s considered a violation of civic responsibility even to question it.
(I suspect the key reason is that HIV/AIDS policy had so much to do with sex. Sexual rights have come to trump almost all others during this generation in which I have lived.)
Who’s Responsible, and Why (Not)?
I close with a final ironic observation. Local political action in the Bay Area in the 1980s could have greatly curtailed the global spread of HIV/AIDS, had the will for such action existed. Of course it didn’t; the very thought is sadly laughable. No state or local politician has been held even slightly responsible, however.
Here in 2020, by contrast, nothing that any politician did could have withheld the coronavirus from taking many thousands of American lives, but Democrats and the media love blaming one man, our president, for it all. It doesn’t seem fair, does it?
We all know the old saying, “All’s fair in love and war.” Maybe the updated version should be, “All’s fair in sex and politics.”
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--2020-10-28--President Trump’s Q&A with Religion News Service

The following Q & A was part of a written interview with President Trump for Religion News Service .
His answers appear in full below .
1 .
Last week you gave reference to thanking God that you had COVID .
What did you learn spiritually during your COVID experience ?
It was amazing to see so many great Americans who reached out and said they were praying for me and my family .
This country is full of wonderful people with strong faith in God .
Melania and I felt the prayers of Americans from all across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When I was at Walter Reed , I said , “ There were miracles coming down from heaven.
” I meant it — Melania and I are very thankful to God for looking out for our family and returning us to good health .
2 .
You are regularly associated with influential evangelical leaders ( i.e .
Paula White , Jack Graham , Franklin Graham ) .
What have you learned from them spiritually ?
I am honored to work with many Americans of faith , including our great Vice President Mike Pence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many others .
These people truly love our country and love God .
I hear and listen to them .
Earlier this month , Franklin Graham and some other great faith leaders came to the Oval Office to pray for me and our country as they often do .
These amazing people love the U.S.A. and have a genuine desire to work together for the betterment of all Americans .
These leaders are passionate about America ’ s traditional values and want our churches to be open .
I appreciate their prayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
3 .
Given the support you have received from evangelical Christians in particular , do you consider yourself to be an evangelical Christian and , why or why not ?
I grew up going to church with my family in New York City .
My parents taught me the importance of faith and prayer from a young age .
Though I was confirmed at a Presbyterian church as a child , I now consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian .
Melania and I have gotten to visit some amazing churches and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
During the unprecedented COVID-19 outbreak , I tuned into several virtual church services and know that millions of Americans did the same .
Thankfully , many great churches are now back open and meeting in person .
In fact , just this past weekend I visited the International Church of Las Vegas and enjoyed a beautiful service .
4 .
What have you done to help persecuted Christians around the world ?
Under my leadership , the United States of America will always stand for freedom of religion .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison in Turkey .
I sanctioned the communists and socialists in Cuba and Venezuela because they don ’ t respect religious freedom .
My State Department held the largest human rights event in history several years in a row during which I hosted multiple survivors of religious persecution in the Oval Office .
Last month , we highlighted the importance of religious freedom in the very first paragraph of the historic Abraham Accords .
Last year , I was proud to become the first United States President to host a meeting at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
In my speech , I reminded the world ’ s leaders that our rights do not come from government , they come from God — and I explicitly called upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution .
I followed that event with an Executive Order on Advancing International Religious Freedom that solidified America ’ s own commitment to this critical issue , by naming it as a foreign policy priority of the United States and promising that we will respect and vigorously promote this freedom .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing funding for programs that aid persecuted religious communities .
As I said at the United Nations , America stands with believers in every country who ask only for the freedom to live according to the faith that is within their own hearts .
And we will continue to do so for as long as I am President .
5 .
You have continued the efforts of past administrations to have a “ faith-based office.
” What specific results have been produced by the Faith and Opportunity Initiative since you established it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what do you expect it to accomplish in the coming years ?
I signed an executive order in May 2018 that established a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative to ensure Americans of faith have a voice in their government .
The White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative serves as the front door for the faith community .
Under my Administration , we have established an office or liaison in every Cabinet agency for the first time .
This office has hosted thousands of faith leaders for briefings at the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them on preserving religious freedom , protecting our values , alleviating poverty , strengthening marriages and families , increasing mental health care , curbing substance abuse and addiction , ending homelessness , reducing crime , and reforming our prisons .
Led by Pastor Paula White , this Initiative is working to remove barriers which have unfairly prevented faith based organizations from working with or receiving funding from the federal government .
I am very proud of the work we have done to safeguard American values and to protect our great First Amendment .

The following Q&A was part of a written interview with President Trump for Religion News Service. His answers appear in full below.
1. Last week you gave reference to thanking God that you had COVID. What did you learn spiritually during your COVID experience?
It was amazing to see so many great Americans who reached out and said they were praying for me and my family. This country is full of wonderful people with strong faith in God. Melania and I felt the prayers of Americans from all across the country — and even around the world. When I was at Walter Reed, I said, “There were miracles coming down from heaven.” I meant it — Melania and I are very thankful to God for looking out for our family and returning us to good health.
2. You are regularly associated with influential evangelical leaders (i.e. Paula White, Jack Graham, Franklin Graham). What have you learned from them spiritually?
I am honored to work with many Americans of faith, including our great Vice President Mike Pence, Faith Advisor Paula White, and so many others. These people truly love our country and love God. I hear and listen to them. Earlier this month, Franklin Graham and some other great faith leaders came to the Oval Office to pray for me and our country as they often do. These amazing people love the U.S.A. and have a genuine desire to work together for the betterment of all Americans. These leaders are passionate about America’s traditional values and want our churches to be open. I appreciate their prayers and am encouraged by their great faith.
3. Given the support you have received from evangelical Christians in particular, do you consider yourself to be an evangelical Christian and, why or why not?
I grew up going to church with my family in New York City. My parents taught me the importance of faith and prayer from a young age. Though I was confirmed at a Presbyterian church as a child, I now consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian. Melania and I have gotten to visit some amazing churches and meet with great faith leaders from around the world. During the unprecedented COVID-19 outbreak, I tuned into several virtual church services and know that millions of Americans did the same. Thankfully, many great churches are now back open and meeting in person. In fact, just this past weekend I visited the International Church of Las Vegas and enjoyed a beautiful service.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
4. What have you done to help persecuted Christians around the world?
Under my leadership, the United States of America will always stand for freedom of religion. I brought Pastor Andrew Brunson home from a prison in Turkey. I sanctioned the communists and socialists in Cuba and Venezuela because they don’t respect religious freedom. My State Department held the largest human rights event in history several years in a row during which I hosted multiple survivors of religious persecution in the Oval Office. Last month, we highlighted the importance of religious freedom in the very first paragraph of the historic Abraham Accords.
Last year, I was proud to become the first United States President to host a meeting at the United Nations on protecting religious freedom around the world. In my speech, I reminded the world’s leaders that our rights do not come from government, they come from God — and I explicitly called upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution.
I followed that event with an Executive Order on Advancing International Religious Freedom that solidified America’s own commitment to this critical issue, by naming it as a foreign policy priority of the United States and promising that we will respect and vigorously promote this freedom. My Administration has protected religious freedom worldwide by increasing funding for programs that aid persecuted religious communities. As I said at the United Nations, America stands with believers in every country who ask only for the freedom to live according to the faith that is within their own hearts. And we will continue to do so for as long as I am President.
5. You have continued the efforts of past administrations to have a “faith-based office.” What specific results have been produced by the Faith and Opportunity Initiative since you established it in 2018 and, if you are re-elected, what do you expect it to accomplish in the coming years?
I signed an executive order in May 2018 that established a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative to ensure Americans of faith have a voice in their government.
The White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative serves as the front door for the faith community. Under my Administration, we have established an office or liaison in every Cabinet agency for the first time. This office has hosted thousands of faith leaders for briefings at the White House to hear their ideas and partner with them on preserving religious freedom, protecting our values, alleviating poverty, strengthening marriages and families, increasing mental health care, curbing substance abuse and addiction, ending homelessness, reducing crime, and reforming our prisons. Led by Pastor Paula White, this Initiative is working to remove barriers which have unfairly prevented faith based organizations from working with or receiving funding from the federal government. I am very proud of the work we have done to safeguard American values and to protect our great First Amendment.
Originally published at whitehouse.gov. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-10-28--Expert Advice: How to Help A Friend After Pregnancy Loss

Every year in the U.S. , two million pregnancies end before a baby ’ s first breath .
It may be due to miscarriage , stillbirth , or abortion .
Whatever the situation , one nonprofit group seeks to offer caring expertise .
“ Those are two million individuals , ” said Michaelene Fredenburg , founder of Life Perspectives based in San Diego , California .
“ It ’ s not a crowd .
They ’ re people .
Each mother and father facing loss needs to know they ’ re not alone.
” In a month when pregnancy loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her team ’ s work becomes clear .
Estimates reveal up to one in four pregnancies in the U.S. is lost to miscarriage .
About one in 160 pregnancies end in a stillbirth .
“ That is defined as 20 weeks or greater in the pregnancy , ” said Fredenburg .
Uniquely , Life Perspectives is an apolitical group not affiliated with a religious tradition .
On the life issue , “ pro-healing ” is the stance they prefer to state .
“ We try to avoid labels , in particular around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Because we know it can be an impediment that keeps hurting people from reaching out.
” In a phone interview from her office , Fredenburg shares insights on helping a couple who has faced infant loss … and eye-opening wisdom for pro-life advocates .
It has been lightly edited for length .
The Power of Words and Care Parents face complex emotions after the loss of a baby in the womb .
Is there some typical timeline for that process of grieving ?
Michaelene Fredenburg : Each person will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There doesn ’ t seem to be a specific timeline for grief , or even a right or wrong way to process loss .
The most current research and knowledge around grief confirms that each person ’ s process is unique .
Certainly , that can be confusing .
It ’ s not only tough for the person who is experiencing it , but for those around them .
Our culture tends to think of grief as : the ultimate goal is to have closure .
Yet that isn ’ t possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we love .
Really , the goal is adaptation .
We ’ re adapting to life without that person , whether we were able to meet them when they were born or whether they died before they were born .
Friends and family respond in a variety of ways , or commonly don ’ t even discuss pregnancy loss .
Why should people be circumspect about their responses ?
Fredenburg : The things we say or don ’ t say have a profound impact on individuals who have suffered this type of loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I hear it from individuals .
Silence , or the words that are spoken , are something that stick with people forever .
If we say nothing , we ’ re telegraphing to them that this really wasn ’ t a loss and they shouldn ’ t be grieving .
But the person who says nothing typically does that out of fear , that they ’ re going to make things worse .
Or because , culturally , we ’ re so silent about it .
So , they ’ re unaware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loss .
Sometimes we assume the way that we grieve is going to be the way that other people grieve .
It can keep us from offering support that helps .
Sometimes we end up judging others for either feeling too little or too much , for too short or too long .
The best thing we can do is allow each other to have space to express this in our own unique fashion .
Since its founding in 2000 , your group has been a resource to pro-life groups .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss from abortion ?
Fredenburg : Life Perspectives provides resources , training , and education for health care professionals and others when it comes to reproductive loss .
We ’ re always careful to point out that we understand those losses have occurred very differently .
It ’ s important because it impacts how people process those losses .
Imagine how painful it could be for somebody who has lost a child through miscarriage , to feel that someone was equating that with one who terminated a pregnancy .
We know that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
But we understand that the circumstances are different .
However , there ’ s so much similarity in the way that people process those losses .
Certainly , grief is inherent .
There tends to be high levels of guilt .
It could be because I ’ m the person who made the decision to terminate the pregnancy .
Or , in the case of a miscarriage , perhaps I feel I caused it to occur .
We often find emanating from both situations a lot of shame , which keeps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple feels this profound sense of failure .
Our culture has an assumption that we can have children on demand .
When you want to , your pregnancy will be successful .
When that doesn ’ t happen due to miscarriage , one feels their body has failed them .
It ’ s different after the decision to terminate a pregnancy .
One feels that they failed to create the circumstances to carry that pregnancy to term .
Lastly , another similarity is a fear that their children will be forgotten .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ child is having some sort of connection with him or her .
In a culture that doesn ’ t acknowledge the loss , sometimes very painful emotions are the only connection to a child lost .
Some people will tenaciously hang on to their grief or guilt .
Because that ’ s how they feel connected and hold on to the remembrance of their child .
All of us can offer them a gift of saying , ‘ We will remember your child with you.
’ Often it gives them permission to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and continue through the grieving process .
What Can Help , What Can Harm In service of the pro-life cause , graphic imagery and language are sometimes used .
How might it come across to people who have faced the loss of a child ?
Fredenburg : It ’ s estimated that about two million new losses through miscarriage and abortion occur every year in the U.S. That ’ s a vast number of individuals who have endured these losses .
There ’ s the man and woman , then their family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can speak to this from personal experience , because I had an abortion when I was 18 .
But I can see it with others as well .
Often these losses remain silent , hidden , and unresolved .
We have a very wounded and hurting population .
When issues around pregnancy loss are thrust into a political context , often we forget these realities .
The person coming by your [ pro-life ] display may have been personally impacted .
If you ’ re thinking that , you may reconsider your approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and be more discreet .
Maybe I need to offer people to opt in to view something , as opposed to thrusting it on them .
Keep in mind how troubling it can be to see certain images , whether the parent has had an abortion or a miscarriage .
Sometimes we also use very graphic language that can traumatize people who hear it .
We need to be cognizant that we ’ re talking about this person ’ s child .
Many people seek to express care and compassion to a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicate are helpful words and responses ?
Fredenburg : Keep in mind that every person is going to be unique .
Still , some insights apply across the board .
We can always acknowledge the loss .
It is appropriate to say , ‘ I ’ m so sorry for your loss .
I ’ m so sorry for what you ’ re going through.
’ Beyond that , listening is the biggest gift you can give to someone .
Part of grieving is to be able to share a story , process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of it .
It may be listening to someone using lots of words .
Or create space to be present with someone who doesn ’ t have many words .
Let them know they are accepted just as they are .
We encourage checking in .
A one-time conversation isn ’ t the whole process .
On the anniversary of a miscarriage , it ’ s appropriate to ask the person how they ’ re doing .
It ’ s similar to one who has lost a parent or another loved one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re thinking about them .
Give them the opportunity to share whatever they would like .
Your group is not faith-based , yet the loss of a child brings up big questions .
Where is God ?
Why would He let this happen ?
Have you seen people grapple with such questions and even find growth after profound loss ?
Fredenburg : At Life Perspectives , we train professionals and others who encounter people one-on-one .
But we do anonymously help people who have been impacted by miscarriage and abortion through our healing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re thinking of the whole person , spiritual concerns are real needs .
Certainly , we have observed themes within the stories that people submit .
They often bring up their quest for , in their words , forgiveness .
If someone is grappling with spiritual needs and concerns , we have resources available .
On spiritual growth , there is a new area of research and psychology theory called post-traumatic growth .
It taps into the idea that there can be an incredible amount of growth that can only happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a miscarriage or stillbirth , it can be a long grieving and healing process .
It is surely possible for the process to become a catalyst for positive change .
Later , one may realize the growth they encountered and how their life has become more integrated .
It ’ s interesting to see the psychological community begin to recognize this .
Learn more about the work of Life Perspectives in the video below .
Stream contributor Josh M. Shepherd covers culture , faith , and public policy issues for media outlets including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

Every year in the U.S., two million pregnancies end before a baby’s first breath. It may be due to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. Whatever the situation, one nonprofit group seeks to offer caring expertise.
“Those are two million individuals,” said Michaelene Fredenburg, founder of Life Perspectives based in San Diego, California. “It’s not a crowd. They’re people. Each mother and father facing loss needs to know they’re not alone.”
In a month when pregnancy loss is at the forefront, the importance of her team’s work becomes clear. Estimates reveal up to one in four pregnancies in the U.S. is lost to miscarriage. About one in 160 pregnancies end in a stillbirth. “That is defined as 20 weeks or greater in the pregnancy,” said Fredenburg.
“Often these losses remain silent, hidden, and unresolved.”
Uniquely, Life Perspectives is an apolitical group not affiliated with a religious tradition. On the life issue, “pro-healing” is the stance they prefer to state. “We try to avoid labels, in particular around the topic of abortion,” she said. “Because we know it can be an impediment that keeps hurting people from reaching out.”
In a phone interview from her office, Fredenburg shares insights on helping a couple who has faced infant loss … and eye-opening wisdom for pro-life advocates. It has been lightly edited for length.
The Power of Words and Care
Parents face complex emotions after the loss of a baby in the womb. Is there some typical timeline for that process of grieving?
Michaelene Fredenburg: Each person will be impacted by such a loss really differently. There doesn’t seem to be a specific timeline for grief, or even a right or wrong way to process loss.
The most current research and knowledge around grief confirms that each person’s process is unique. Certainly, that can be confusing. It’s not only tough for the person who is experiencing it, but for those around them.
Our culture tends to think of grief as: the ultimate goal is to have closure. Yet that isn’t possible when we’ve lost someone whom we love.
Really, the goal is adaptation. We’re adapting to life without that person, whether we were able to meet them when they were born or whether they died before they were born.
Friends and family respond in a variety of ways, or commonly don’t even discuss pregnancy loss. Why should people be circumspect about their responses?
Fredenburg: The things we say or don’t say have a profound impact on individuals who have suffered this type of loss. We see this in research, and I hear it from individuals. Silence, or the words that are spoken, are something that stick with people forever.
If we say nothing, we’re telegraphing to them that this really wasn’t a loss and they shouldn’t be grieving. But the person who says nothing typically does that out of fear, that they’re going to make things worse. Or because, culturally, we’re so silent about it. So, they’re unaware individuals really do want you to acknowledge the loss.
Sometimes we assume the way that we grieve is going to be the way that other people grieve. It can keep us from offering support that helps. Sometimes we end up judging others for either feeling too little or too much, for too short or too long. The best thing we can do is allow each other to have space to express this in our own unique fashion.
Fears of Failure and Forgetting
Since its founding in 2000, your group has been a resource to pro-life groups. How is miscarriage different yet similar to pregnancy loss from abortion?
Fredenburg: Life Perspectives provides resources, training, and education for health care professionals and others when it comes to reproductive loss. We’re always careful to point out that we understand those losses have occurred very differently. It’s important because it impacts how people process those losses.
Imagine how painful it could be for somebody who has lost a child through miscarriage, to feel that someone was equating that with one who terminated a pregnancy. We know that the person who has terminated is suffering as well. But we understand that the circumstances are different.
However, there’s so much similarity in the way that people process those losses. Certainly, grief is inherent. There tends to be high levels of guilt. It could be because I’m the person who made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Or, in the case of a miscarriage, perhaps I feel I caused it to occur. We often find emanating from both situations a lot of shame, which keeps people silent and isolated.
“Our culture has an assumption that we can have children on demand. When that doesn’t happen due to miscarriage, one feels their body has failed them.”
Often, a couple feels this profound sense of failure. Our culture has an assumption that we can have children on demand. When you want to, your pregnancy will be successful. When that doesn’t happen due to miscarriage, one feels their body has failed them. It’s different after the decision to terminate a pregnancy. One feels that they failed to create the circumstances to carry that pregnancy to term.
Lastly, another similarity is a fear that their children will be forgotten. Part of adapting to life without that child is having some sort of connection with him or her. In a culture that doesn’t acknowledge the loss, sometimes very painful emotions are the only connection to a child lost.
Some people will tenaciously hang on to their grief or guilt. Because that’s how they feel connected and hold on to the remembrance of their child. All of us can offer them a gift of saying, ‘We will remember your child with you.’ Often it gives them permission to be able to let go of painful emotions, and continue through the grieving process.
What Can Help, What Can Harm
In service of the pro-life cause, graphic imagery and language are sometimes used. How might it come across to people who have faced the loss of a child?
Fredenburg: It’s estimated that about two million new losses through miscarriage and abortion occur every year in the U.S. That’s a vast number of individuals who have endured these losses. There’s the man and woman, then their family members and friends are impacted.
I can speak to this from personal experience, because I had an abortion when I was 18. But I can see it with others as well. Often these losses remain silent, hidden, and unresolved. We have a very wounded and hurting population.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
When issues around pregnancy loss are thrust into a political context, often we forget these realities. The person coming by your [pro-life] display may have been personally impacted.
If you’re thinking that, you may reconsider your approach. I need to use different words and be more discreet. Maybe I need to offer people to opt in to view something, as opposed to thrusting it on them.
Keep in mind how troubling it can be to see certain images, whether the parent has had an abortion or a miscarriage. Sometimes we also use very graphic language that can traumatize people who hear it. We need to be cognizant that we’re talking about this person’s child.
Many people seek to express care and compassion to a couple after pregnancy loss. What does research indicate are helpful words and responses?
Fredenburg: Keep in mind that every person is going to be unique. Still, some insights apply across the board. We can always acknowledge the loss. It is appropriate to say, ‘I’m so sorry for your loss. I’m so sorry for what you’re going through.’
Beyond that, listening is the biggest gift you can give to someone. Part of grieving is to be able to share a story, process the pain, and try to make sense of it. It may be listening to someone using lots of words. Or create space to be present with someone who doesn’t have many words. Let them know they are accepted just as they are.
We encourage checking in. A one-time conversation isn’t the whole process. On the anniversary of a miscarriage, it’s appropriate to ask the person how they’re doing. It’s similar to one who has lost a parent or another loved one. Let them know that you’re thinking about them. Give them the opportunity to share whatever they would like.
Big Questions, New Horizons
Your group is not faith-based, yet the loss of a child brings up big questions. Where is God? Why would He let this happen? Have you seen people grapple with such questions and even find growth after profound loss?
Fredenburg: At Life Perspectives, we train professionals and others who encounter people one-on-one. But we do anonymously help people who have been impacted by miscarriage and abortion through our healing websites, MiscarriageHurts.com and AbortionChangesYou.com.
When you’re thinking of the whole person, spiritual concerns are real needs. Certainly, we have observed themes within the stories that people submit. They often bring up their quest for, in their words, forgiveness. If someone is grappling with spiritual needs and concerns, we have resources available.
On spiritual growth, there is a new area of research and psychology theory called post-traumatic growth. It taps into the idea that there can be an incredible amount of growth that can only happen during times of great suffering.
Following a miscarriage or stillbirth, it can be a long grieving and healing process. It is surely possible for the process to become a catalyst for positive change. Later, one may realize the growth they encountered and how their life has become more integrated. It’s interesting to see the psychological community begin to recognize this.
Learn more about the work of Life Perspectives in the video below.
Stream contributor Josh M. Shepherd covers culture, faith, and public policy issues for media outlets including The Federalist. Find him on Twitter and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-28--Military Photo of the Day: Live Fire Exercise Aboard USS Ross

The U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Ross conducts a live fire exercise on October 15 , 2020 .
Thank you @ @ @ @ @ command and crew for defending our nation overseas .

The U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Ross conducts a live fire exercise on October 15, 2020.
Thank you to this destroyer’s command and crew for defending our nation overseas.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.