thestream--2020-10-15--Twitter Blocked Trump Campaign Account and Labels House Website ‘Unsafe’ in Frantic Bid to Quash Bid

Twitter Blocked Trump Campaign Account and Labels House Website ‘Unsafe’ in Frantic Bid to Quash Biden Corruption Story

When Twitter started blocking people who were sharing the link to yesterday ’ s bombshell New York Post story exposing Joe and Hunter Biden — including White House Press Secretary Kayley McEnany — Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee posted the story .
After all , Twitter isn ’ t going to censure an official government document .
Breitbart is reporting Twitter has .
Here ’ s the big question .
Big Tech ’ s reaction is drastically out of proportion to the story , as we ’ ll see .
Why the frenzied determination to shut the story down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are they trying to hide 19 days before the election ?
Twitter branded links to the website of the House Committee on the Judiciary “ potentially unsafe.
” That ’ s outrageous .
Wait .
It gets even more outrageous .
Twitter also locked the official Trump Campaign account !
With less than three weeks before the election !
( It ’ s now back up . )
But wait again .
It gets even more outrageous than that .
What makes this open and despicable censorship so unfathomable is the Biden camp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Tech is deliberately blocking a true story .
As Politico reported Wednesday , “ Biden ’ s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Vadym Pozharskyi.
” The campaign said any encounter would have been cursory .
To refresh : The Burisma hot shot Pozharskyi thanked Hunter Biden for setting up a meeting with his father , the Vice President of the United States .
Pozharskyi also begged Hunter for tips on how he could use his “ influence ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
John Solomon reported last night that Bozharski also met with State Department officials in 2016 .
Remember , the State Department warned the White House they were getting pressured by Burisma officials , who were dropping Hunter ’ s name like chips at a casino .
And after Trump ’ s win , Burisma was desperate to settle corruption allegations before Trump took over .
Yet , something about the Twitter and Facebook reaction is baffling .
Would they really put their Section 230 exemption at risk for Hunter Biden ?
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 1996 Communications Decency Act provides tech companies with protections against illegal content posted by third-party users.
” They ’ re platforms , not publishers .
Editing political content separates them from , say , the phone companies , who aren ’ t responsible for what people say on their phones .
It makes them the equivalent of publishers , who are responsible for what people say on their sites .
What are They So Scared Of ?
I have been walking around the water cooler long enough to have worn the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ junkie since I was a kid .
Been reporting on the news in one form or other for decades : nationally , internationally , secular , Christian , straight , comedy .
Know the news currents like a old fisherman knows the sea .
And something ain ’ t right .
Something ’ s going on under the surface .
Big Tech ’ s reaction is drastically out of proportion to the story .
Again , the Biden campaign isn ’ t denying the then-VP met the hot shot from the corrupt Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denial , can any rational person think Hunter ’ s $ 50K a month from Burisma wasn ’ t paid to grease the wheels with his old man ?
It ’ s right up there with “ Bombshell : Candidate Kisses Baby at Rally !
” So why the hysteria ?
Why the frenzied determination to shut the story down at all costs ?
I ’ ve had the same feeling one other time in the past year or so .
Why was there a sudden hysteria over Donald Trump ’ s phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter of hours , Nancy Pelosi went from rejecting impeachment to insisting on it .
The transcript of the call didn ’ t even come close to explaining the level of panic .
The instantaneous blow up into a major “ scandal ” did not fit the natural growth pattern of a Swamp scandal .
Why so out of proportion ?
Why the frenzied determination to shut down Trump ’ s inquiry at all costs ?
Well , what was Trump curious about ?
He wanted to know what the heck the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What Was Obama-Biden Up To ?
Consider who triggered the Ukraine scandal .
That would be the so-called “ Whistleblower.
” Let ’ s call him Eric .
Eric had been a Brennan guy at CIA , but he had been also Joe Biden ’ s lieutenant on Ukraine during the Obama Administration .
He was in on the call .
And he would know the answer to Trump ’ s question .
But instead of answering it , he ran with his pants on fire to Adam Schiff .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to go to Schiff , is Nancy Pelosi going to suddenly race to impeach , are Twitter and Facebook going to put their cushy Congressional protections at risk just to hide a little pay-to-play between Burisma and the Bidens ?
“ Oh , no !
Trump is going to find out that Hunter did earn his $ 50K a month by giving Burisma access to Biden !
” No .
Are they even going to go all out like this to protect candidate Joe Biden ?
Perhaps you can say they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the finish line .
But it ’ s not really huge news that Joe lied about his knowledge of Hunter ’ s business dealings .
If you care about it , you already are voting for Trump .
If Hunter ’ s dealings and Joe ’ s lame answers didn ’ t bother you before , they ’ re likely not going to do so now .
So maybe Hunter selling access isn ’ t the danger causing all the panic .
Nor Joe being caught lying .
Maybe even Joe protecting his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma isn ’ t the danger .
It ’ s something worse .
The common denominator in these two unusual reactions seems to be a massive effort to block Trump and the American people from finding out what Joe Biden and the Obama Administration had been doing in Ukraine .
Even the Biden campaign ’ s dismissal of the Post ’ s story suggests we ’ re on the right track “ Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing.
” At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , Glenn Beck did a masterful , detailed investigation into what Biden and Obama had been engaged in with their “ official U.S. policy.
” Put simply , they overthrew the Ukraine government via a so-called “ Color Revolution.
” The U.S. helped fund and coordinate the “ Color Revolution ” in Ukraine at a cost of $ 5 billion .
Color Revolution is a progressive revolutionary movement “ typically orchestrated by a public-private partnership comprised of government agencies such as the State Department and MI6 and/or CIA , combined with private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
” And who is a big private funder of such NGOs ?
George Soros .
And looky here .
Charlie Kirk posted an interesting tidbit .
No , Burisma executive Pozharskyi wasn ’ t on Joe ’ s official schedule .
However , one day before Pozharskyi thanks Hunter in an email for his VP meeting , Joe Biden was meeting with George Soros and Special Envoy and Coordinator of International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein at the White House .
Seems a curious bit of timing .
Here is Part One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just Ukraine .
During Obama ’ s reign , we also saw the Arab Spring , color revolutions efforts in Bahrain , Russia , Macedonia and Armenia and beyond .
And the revolution ’ s coming home .
( As the protests show . )
Beck has also laid out how these same characters are attempting a Color Revolution right here , right now in America .
Mapping the Rest of the Iceberg Joe Biden is central to the Obama Administration activities in Ukraine .
That his family cashed in from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not that surprising , nor that important .
The former vice resident is the Democratic nominee for president in an election being held in 19 days .
We must know the full story .
And we must know it now .
Period .
For the sake of our nation , Joe Biden can not be allowed to hide .
He can not be allowed to be protected , to run out the clock .
The New York Post article is the tip of the iceberg .
The tech giants are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution ” has already hit the iceberg and is sinking .
We must go under the surface to map the rest of that iceberg .
And we must consider anyone trying to stop us from knowing what ’ s under there an enemy of the American people .
And We , the People must act … and vote … accordingly .
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author , with @ JZmirak , of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration .
You can follow him at @ StreamingAl .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , please follow The Stream at @ Streamdotorg .

When Twitter started blocking people who were sharing the link to yesterday’s bombshell New York Post story exposing Joe and Hunter Biden — including White House Press Secretary Kayley McEnany — Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee posted the story. After all, Twitter isn’t going to censure an official government document.
Breitbart is reporting Twitter has. Here’s the big question. Big Tech’s reaction is drastically out of proportion to the story, as we’ll see. Why the frenzied determination to shut the story down? Why are they panicking? What are they trying to hide 19 days before the election?
Even More Outrageous
Twitter branded links to the website of the House Committee on the Judiciary “potentially unsafe.” That’s outrageous.
Wait. It gets even more outrageous. Twitter also locked the official Trump Campaign account! With less than three weeks before the election! (It’s now back up.)
Twitter has suspended @TeamTrump for posting a video calling Joe Biden a liar who has been ripping off our country for years, as it relates to the @nypost article. 19 days out from the election. pic.twitter.com/Z9FFzridyr — Mike Hahn (@mikehahn_) October 15, 2020
But wait again. It gets even more outrageous than that. What makes this open and despicable censorship so unfathomable is the Biden camp is not even denying the story! Big Tech is deliberately blocking a true story.
As Politico reported Wednesday, “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Vadym Pozharskyi.” The campaign said any encounter would have been cursory.
The Real Story
To refresh: The Burisma hot shot Pozharskyi thanked Hunter Biden for setting up a meeting with his father, the Vice President of the United States. Pozharskyi also begged Hunter for tips on how he could use his “influence” – that is, connections to his father.
John Solomon reported last night that Bozharski also met with State Department officials in 2016. Remember, the State Department warned the White House they were getting pressured by Burisma officials, who were dropping Hunter’s name like chips at a casino. And after Trump’s win, Burisma was desperate to settle corruption allegations before Trump took over.
Yet, something about the Twitter and Facebook reaction is baffling. Would they really put their Section 230 exemption at risk for Hunter Biden? As NY Post reports, “Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act provides tech companies with protections against illegal content posted by third-party users.” They’re platforms, not publishers.
Editing political content separates them from, say, the phone companies, who aren’t responsible for what people say on their phones. It makes them the equivalent of publishers, who are responsible for what people say on their sites.
What are They So Scared Of?
I have been walking around the water cooler long enough to have worn the rug clear through. Been a news junkie since I was a kid. Been reporting on the news in one form or other for decades: nationally, internationally, secular, Christian, straight, comedy. Know the news currents like a old fisherman knows the sea.
And something ain’t right. Something’s going on under the surface. Big Tech’s reaction is drastically out of proportion to the story. Again, the Biden campaign isn’t denying the then-VP met the hot shot from the corrupt Ukrainian energy giant.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
And even without that denial, can any rational person think Hunter’s $50K a month from Burisma wasn’t paid to grease the wheels with his old man? It’s right up there with “Bombshell: Candidate Kisses Baby at Rally!”
So why the hysteria? Why the frenzied determination to shut the story down at all costs?
I’ve had the same feeling one other time in the past year or so. Why was there a sudden hysteria over Donald Trump’s phone call with the Ukraine President? In a matter of hours, Nancy Pelosi went from rejecting impeachment to insisting on it. The transcript of the call didn’t even come close to explaining the level of panic. The instantaneous blow up into a major “scandal” did not fit the natural growth pattern of a Swamp scandal. Why so out of proportion?
Why the frenzied determination to shut down Trump’s inquiry at all costs?
Well, what was Trump curious about? He wanted to know what the heck the Bidens were up to in Ukraine.
What Was Obama-Biden Up To?
Consider who triggered the Ukraine scandal. That would be the so-called “Whistleblower.” Let’s call him Eric. Eric had been a Brennan guy at CIA, but he had been also Joe Biden’s lieutenant on Ukraine during the Obama Administration. He was in on the call. And he would know the answer to Trump’s question. But instead of answering it, he ran with his pants on fire to Adam Schiff.
Let’s think for a second. Is Eric going to go to Schiff, is Nancy Pelosi going to suddenly race to impeach, are Twitter and Facebook going to put their cushy Congressional protections at risk just to hide a little pay-to-play between Burisma and the Bidens? “Oh, no! Trump is going to find out that Hunter did earn his $50K a month by giving Burisma access to Biden!” No.
Are they even going to go all out like this to protect candidate Joe Biden? Perhaps you can say they’ll do anything to help Biden across the finish line. But it’s not really huge news that Joe lied about his knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings. If you care about it, you already are voting for Trump. If Hunter’s dealings and Joe’s lame answers didn’t bother you before, they’re likely not going to do so now.
So maybe Hunter selling access isn’t the danger causing all the panic. Nor Joe being caught lying. Maybe even Joe protecting his son by blackmailing the former Ukraine president to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma isn’t the danger. It’s something worse.
The Real Reason
The common denominator in these two unusual reactions seems to be a massive effort to block Trump and the American people from finding out what Joe Biden and the Obama Administration had been doing in Ukraine.
Even the Biden campaign’s dismissal of the Post’s story suggests we’re on the right track “Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing.”
At the height of the “Ukraine scandal”, Glenn Beck did a masterful, detailed investigation into what Biden and Obama had been engaged in with their “official U.S. policy.” Put simply, they overthrew the Ukraine government via a so-called “Color Revolution.”
The U.S. helped fund and coordinate the “Color Revolution” in Ukraine at a cost of $5 billion. Color Revolution is a progressive revolutionary movement “typically orchestrated by a public-private partnership comprised of government agencies such as the State Department and MI6 and/or CIA, combined with private funding and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).” And who is a big private funder of such NGOs? George Soros.
Biden and Soros
And looky here. Charlie Kirk posted an interesting tidbit. No, Burisma executive Pozharskyi wasn’t on Joe’s official schedule. However, one day before Pozharskyi thanks Hunter in an email for his VP meeting, Joe Biden was meeting with George Soros and Special Envoy and Coordinator of International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein at the White House. Seems a curious bit of timing.
Here is Part One of Beck’s investigation:
Here’s Beck’s backup documents.
It wasn’t just Ukraine. During Obama’s reign, we also saw the Arab Spring, color revolutions efforts in Bahrain, Russia, Macedonia and Armenia and beyond.
And the revolution’s coming home. (As the protests show.) Beck has also laid out how these same characters are attempting a Color Revolution right here, right now in America.
Mapping the Rest of the Iceberg
Joe Biden is central to the Obama Administration activities in Ukraine. That his family cashed in from that connection is just the start. It’s not that surprising, nor that important. The former vice resident is the Democratic nominee for president in an election being held in 19 days. We must know the full story. And we must know it now. Period.
For the sake of our nation, Joe Biden cannot be allowed to hide. He cannot be allowed to be protected, to run out the clock.
The New York Post article is the tip of the iceberg. The tech giants are screaming as if the ship called “Revolution” has already hit the iceberg and is sinking.
We must go under the surface to map the rest of that iceberg. And we must consider anyone trying to stop us from knowing what’s under there an enemy of the American people.
And We, the People must act … and vote … accordingly.
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-15--Sorry Netflix, But You Don’t Get to Lecture Americans on Moral Understanding

Rather than apologize for the scandal caused by the Netflix movie Cuties , the company ’ s CEO , Ted Sarandos has dug in his heels , blaming American viewers rather than taking responsibility for the content .
As reported by Deadline , Sarandos said , “ It ’ s a little surprising in 2020 America that we ’ re having a discussion about censoring storytelling .
It ’ s a film that is very misunderstood with some audiences , uniquely within the United States.
” He continued , “ The film speaks for itself .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the director ’ s story , and the film has obviously played very well at Sundance without any of this controversy and played in theaters throughout Europe without any of this controversy.
” First , Sarandos is surprised that , “ in 2020 America , ” there is outrage over the sexual exploitation of young girls .
Is this supposed to be something we graduate from ?
Should our concern for the well-being of children dissipate as the decades go by ?
Does the passing of years lessen our pain when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dance moves ?
Is this something that should no longer bother enlightened Americans ?
Should sexual morality be consigned to the Stone Age ?
Second , we did not misunderstand the movie .
We get the fact that the movie speaks against the sexual exploitation of children .
But , as we have stated repeatedly , you do not sexually exploit children to convey the message that sexually exploiting children is wrong .
As I wrote on September 18 , “ The Babylon Bee headline is satirical , but , based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well be true : ‘ New Netflix Movie Actually Murders Puppies To Teach That Murdering Puppies Is Bad.
’ Or , to move from satire to reality and create our own headline , ‘ New Netflix Movie Actually Exploits Young Girls Sexually To Teach That Sexually Exploiting Young Girls Is Wrong.
’ ” ( For my previous articles on the movie , see here and here . )
Third , the fact that the movie played well at Sundance , which no one points to as a bastion of high moral standards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted ( and I previously cited ) , “ The Sundance Film Festival has been shocking audiences — and launching careers — for years.
” An early Sundance winner was the 1989 movie “ Sex , Lies , and Videotape.
” So much for Cuties provoking no such controversy at Sundance .
That would be like saying , “ The Zombie Film Festival watched the latest episodes of The Walking Dead , and really enjoyed the shows .
No one said a word about the violence and the gore.
” It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From Europe ’ s Fourth , it is instructive that Sarandos compared the reaction to Cuties in Europe to the reaction in the United States .
Thank God that we still have a conscience about these things .
Thank God that we ’ re still disturbed by the thought of young girls being taught these dance moves , let alone filming them in front of an audience .
As well as being involved in other inappropriate scenes .
For several decades now , total nudity has been on full and open display in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grocery and department stores , where porn magazines adorn some of the checkout racks .
As bad as things are here in America , and as much as we export porn worldwide , there is still a shred of public decency that we cling to .
I ’ m glad that our reaction to Cuties is different here than in Europe .
What Kind of Reception is Cuties Getting Outside Europe and the U.S. ?
Interestingly , Sarandos didn ’ t compare the reaction of American viewers to that of viewers in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Muslim viewers think of the movie in countries like Jordan and Egypt ?
( Oh wait .
Perhaps it ’ s not airing there .
After all , the movie takes a swipe at religious Muslims too . )
And how big a screening is the movie getting in the continent of Africa ?
How are the viewers enjoying it in countries like Cameroon and Sierra Leone ?
What kind of reception is it getting in Singapore and Hong Kong ?
And how about a more conservative European country like Hungary ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all of these questions , but I have some educated guesses .
Bloomberg announced on September 13 , “ Netflix Won ’ t Cancel ‘ Cuties ’ at Home , But Might Have to Abroad.
” As the article by Lucas Shaw explained : It looks like Sarandos was quite selective in his comments .
He compared the American response to Cuties to the European response , as if Americans , of all people worldwide , have a problem with the content .
The reality is that the movie could not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
Either way , Sarandos actually paid us Americans an unintended compliment .
We still know how to blush .
That ’ s a badge of honor that we should wear proudly .
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 .

Rather than apologize for the scandal caused by the Netflix movie Cuties, the company’s CEO, Ted Sarandos has dug in his heels, blaming American viewers rather than taking responsibility for the content.
As reported by Deadline, Sarandos said, “It’s a little surprising in 2020 America that we’re having a discussion about censoring storytelling. It’s a film that is very misunderstood with some audiences, uniquely within the United States.”
He continued, “The film speaks for itself. It’s a very personal coming-of-age film. It’s the director’s story, and the film has obviously played very well at Sundance without any of this controversy and played in theaters throughout Europe without any of this controversy.”
What a telling statement.
Should Sexual Immorality No Longer Bother Americans?
First, Sarandos is surprised that, “in 2020 America,” there is outrage over the sexual exploitation of young girls.
Is this supposed to be something we graduate from? Should our concern for the well-being of children dissipate as the decades go by? Does the passing of years lessen our pain when we see young girls gyrating in grossly sexual dance moves? Is this something that should no longer bother enlightened Americans? Should sexual morality be consigned to the Stone Age?
We Understood the Movie
Second, we did not misunderstand the movie. We get the fact that the movie speaks against the sexual exploitation of children. But, as we have stated repeatedly, you do not sexually exploit children to convey the message that sexually exploiting children is wrong.
As I wrote on September 18, “The Babylon Bee headline is satirical, but, based on the logic of Netflix, it might as well be true: ‘New Netflix Movie Actually Murders Puppies To Teach That Murdering Puppies Is Bad.’ Or, to move from satire to reality and create our own headline, ‘New Netflix Movie Actually Exploits Young Girls Sexually To Teach That Sexually Exploiting Young Girls Is Wrong.’” (For my previous articles on the movie, see here and here.)
Sundance Isn’t a Bastion of High Moral Standards
Third, the fact that the movie played well at Sundance, which no one points to as a bastion of high moral standards, is totally immaterial. As Indie Wire noted (and I previously cited), “The Sundance Film Festival has been shocking audiences — and launching careers — for years.” An early Sundance winner was the 1989 movie “Sex, Lies, and Videotape.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
So much for Cuties provoking no such controversy at Sundance. That would be like saying, “The Zombie Film Festival watched the latest episodes of The Walking Dead, and really enjoyed the shows. No one said a word about the violence and the gore.”
It’s a Good Thing Our Reaction is Different From Europe’s
Fourth, it is instructive that Sarandos compared the reaction to Cuties in Europe to the reaction in the United States.
Thank God that we still have a conscience about these things. Thank God that we’re still disturbed by the thought of young girls being taught these dance moves, let alone filming them in front of an audience. As well as being involved in other inappropriate scenes.
For several decades now, total nudity has been on full and open display in different countries in Europe. This includes grocery and department stores, where porn magazines adorn some of the checkout racks.
As bad as things are here in America, and as much as we export porn worldwide, there is still a shred of public decency that we cling to.
I’m glad that our reaction to Cuties is different here than in Europe.
What Kind of Reception is Cuties Getting Outside Europe and the U.S.?
Interestingly, Sarandos didn’t compare the reaction of American viewers to that of viewers in other countries where Netflix airs. I wonder what Muslim viewers think of the movie in countries like Jordan and Egypt? (Oh wait. Perhaps it’s not airing there. After all, the movie takes a swipe at religious Muslims too.)
And how big a screening is the movie getting in the continent of Africa? How are the viewers enjoying it in countries like Cameroon and Sierra Leone? What kind of reception is it getting in Singapore and Hong Kong? And how about a more conservative European country like Hungary?
Sarandos actually paid us Americans an unintended compliment. We still know how to blush. That’s a badge of honor that we should wear proudly.
I don’t have definitive answers to all of these questions, but I have some educated guesses. Bloomberg announced on September 13, “Netflix Won’t Cancel ‘Cuties’ at Home, But Might Have to Abroad.”
As the article by Lucas Shaw explained:
Netflix has delayed the release of the movie in Turkey, and has yet to provide a new date. As Netflix has introduced its service to more than 190 countries, it has said people all over the world watch the same kinds of shows. … Governments in Singapore, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Germany have all asked Netflix to take programs down due to objectionable content.
An Unintended Compliment
It looks like Sarandos was quite selective in his comments. He compared the American response to Cuties to the European response, as if Americans, of all people worldwide, have a problem with the content. The reality is that the movie could not even air in some other parts of the world.
Either way, Sarandos actually paid us Americans an unintended compliment. We still know how to blush. That’s a badge of honor that we should wear proudly.
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--2020-10-15--Armenia: A Christian Nation Under Threat

During World War One , the Turkish Ottoman Empire turned against its Christian minorities .
The Muslim nation controlled part of Armenia at the time , and massacred 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923 .
To this day , the Turkish government denies these crimes .
Today , Armenia again faces an aggressive threat from its neighbors to the east and west .
In A.D. 301 , Armenia became the first nation to accept Christianity as a state religion .
( It is said to have been evangelized by the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew . )
Armenia almost immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roman emperor , but they successfully defended their land and faith .
Armenia remains Christian to this day , but the tiny nation of 3 million is still fighting to survive .
In 1920 , Armenia and the surrounding area fell under Soviet control .
The Soviets made the disputed border region of Karabakh a semi-autonomous zone within Azerbaijan , Christian Armenia ’ s majority-Muslim neighbor .
Its population was 94 percent Armenian .
In 1988 , as the Soviet Union crumbled , Karabakh — also called Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh — declared its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armenia .
War broke out .
Azerbaijan expelled 350,000 Armenians .
Armenia , outgunned and outnumbered , fought valiantly to defend Artsakh .
Finally , the Azerbaijanis ’ spirit broke .
The Republic of Artsakh gained de facto independence , but not official recognition .
Armenia also took control of some territory surrounding Karabakh .
The creation of this “ buffer zone , ” which remains today , displaced 800,000 Azerbaijanis .
A ceasefire has held ever since , despite a few clashes .
This time , though , things feel different .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Turkey supplies arms to Azerbaijan and is sending Syrian jihadis to fight against Armenia .
Hundreds have died on both sides .
Azerbaijan has four times Armenia ’ s GDP and a huge military .
Their stated war goal is not merely to reclaim the buffer zone .
They want to conquer Artsakh itself .
Armenia ’ s army may not be able to hold out forever .
The Azerbaijanis and Turks are betting that an international community distracted by pandemic and political instability and befuddled by propaganda will do nothing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could face ethnic cleansing or worse .
Sarah Stites is an Armenian-American and a friend , and a graduate of Grove City College .
Now living in Gyumri , Armenia ’ s second-largest city , as part of the Birthright Armenia program , she works for Emili Aregak Center , which helps disabled adults .
She has seen the results of Azerbaijani aggression firsthand .
I spoke with her on October 8th .
When news of the invasion first arrived , Sarah didn ’ t know what it meant .
“ In July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there were some clashes down in Artsakh .
There was concern that it could escalate , but it didn ’ t .
There were deaths , but not very many , and it deescalated .
But I also knew in 2016 there had been a war ; in the 90s there had been a war .
I remember getting back from a hike and learning that this is serious .
I wasn ’ t even sure if we ’ d have work the next day.
” Then she started to get really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war meant for the country .
“ We ’ re in the middle of a global pandemic .
Nations ’ eyes are turned inward .
Borders are closed .
America ’ s on the brink of a chaotic election .
If there ’ s any time to attack , now ’ s the time , strategically .
A lot of my friends are really worried.
” Friends have already enlisted .
One of the first people was friend and co-worker who ’ d served as her godfather when she was baptized into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enlisted right away .
He ’ s the one who ’ s always in the back of my mind , and we haven ’ t heard from him for three days .
He calls his wife , usually , and his wife tells all of us what the news is , but we haven ’ t heard from him for three days , so that ’ s… .
We can only pray that he ’ s fine and he just isn ’ t able to contact us.
” Tigran has returned home safely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war continues , he may have to go back to the front .
The war started on Sunday , and on Wednesday morning Sarah woke up because bulldozers were filling in potholes in the street .
Her roommate said , “ I woke up early in the morning and heard our neighbor screaming.
” Later , some of the neighborhood young men erected a banner with a young man ’ s name , Vardges Minasyan , and his age , 26 .
She had turned 26 the week before , and the difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Friday , I arrived back to my home after work , and I saw the streets were just congested with cars like I ’ d never seen before , and there were so many people .
So many people .
It was his funeral .
And the whole neighborhood came out to support the family , and there was just this somber , somber mood .
People ’ s eyes were hollow .
Everyone was wearing black.
” She wants Americans to know what is being done to Armenia .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States for being confused about the geopolitics .
I ’ m confused too.
” She wanted to photograph the scene to show people the reality .
A neighbor took her into the house .
“ It was horrible .
There ’ s a tradition of viewing the body in its casket in Armenian culture , so I saw him lying there in his casket , just a shell of who he was .
Just a shell of the person who fleshed out that body .
His mother was sobbing .
This old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart out , and I felt instinctively I just had to pull her into my arms and just stroked her head.
” When she started to take a picture , the family and others told her not to .
“ It was so embarrassing .
In front of that whole group of people , I said in Armenian , ‘ I ’ m sorry , but I ’ m Armenian-American , and I really want to take — I need to take — this photo and send it home so people know.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can do that.
’ ” “ The priest gave a beautiful sermon , ” she continued .
“ He said the verse about how there ’ s no greater love than laying down your life for a friend.
” She found out later that Vardges was already a very experienced military man .
“ A younger soldier had left behind his bulletproof vest during military maneuver , and Vardges removed his bulletproof vest and gave it to this other soldier .
And shortly after that … .
I don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been shrapnel .
It might have been direct gunfire .
But he died.
” Why Armenians Live the Way They Do The country is under martial law , but it hasn ’ t affected the city where she lives .
“ For example , I think the Ministry of Health has banned any sort of elective procedures at this time because all of the medical workforce is focusing on soldiers in need of medical care .
Things like that .
And I guess the military are informing all government decisions at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there would be some sort of more tangible effect from martial law , but I haven ’ t really felt that yet.
” The city hasn ’ t imposed a curfew , for example .
The war has taught her what makes Armenians live the way they do .
“ I fully admit that I have been very critical of many aspects of Armenian culture , ” she says .
” Now I have a greater understanding of what it means to be Armenian , the collective trauma that they ’ ve faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past 30 years .
For example , my roommate has seen all of the wars we talked about with Azerbaijan .
Some of her ancestors died in the Genocide.
” “ There ’ s a lot of trauma that runs in the genes of Armenians , ” Sarah says , “ and I think because of this they really stick together .
They care a lot about having a good time because they ’ ve seen so many bad times .
I think one of the reasons that they tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all their relatives all the time is that they need to form those close bonds , those networks , to stay strong as this small people between two aggressive countries.
” What Americans Need to Know When asked what she wants Americans to know about Armenia today , Sarah says : “ What I wanted Americans to know when I took that photo is that every time you read an article that says that there ’ s a conflict someplace , these are human lives .
So , just always remember to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in this specific case , I very much and very strongly want to say that Armenia suffered an attempted genocide at the hands of Turkey , and Turkey has remained a hostile neighbor for Armenia.
” Turkey is hostile not only to Armenia , but other countries in the region .
“ Turkey is the main aggressor of the region .
And I want to highlight the fact that Azerbaijan is a close ally of Turkey and that these two nations were clearly and strategically planning this attack .
Azerbaijan aggressed.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most Westerners get their news of places like Armenia , Sarah says , “ A lot of the media are saying that Armenia and Azerbaijan need to quit their conflict , as if they ’ re both equally to blame .
But in my understanding , no .
Azerbaijan aggressed here , and Armenia was defending its own nation as well as its people that live in this Republic of Artsakh.
” “ I really want people to know that Armenians are fearing , ” she says .
“ That intergenerational trauma is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting flashbacks , not only to stories they ’ ve heard of the Genocide , but also to the 90s when there was a war that killed 30,000 people.
” Armenians worry that no one will comes to their aid .
The war could escalate into another attempt to finish in the attempted genocide of 1915 .
“ I want the world to remember that the lead-up to genocide can be slow .
It doesn ’ t happen immediately .
And we always need to be wary and put a stop to aggressors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of hand.
” Grayson Quay is a freelance writer .
He has been published in The Washington Times , The National Interest , Intellectual Takeout , Reason , and The American Conservative .
He is a graduate of Grove City College and former high school teacher , and holds a masters in English from Georgetown University .

During World War One, the Turkish Ottoman Empire turned against its Christian minorities. The Muslim nation controlled part of Armenia at the time, and massacred 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923. To this day, the Turkish government denies these crimes.
Today, Armenia again faces an aggressive threat from its neighbors to the east and west.
The Azerbaijan Threat
In A.D. 301, Armenia became the first nation to accept Christianity as a state religion. (It is said to have been evangelized by the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew.) Armenia almost immediately faced an attack from a hostile pagan Roman emperor, but they successfully defended their land and faith. Armenia remains Christian to this day, but the tiny nation of 3 million is still fighting to survive.
In 1920, Armenia and the surrounding area fell under Soviet control. The Soviets made the disputed border region of Karabakh a semi-autonomous zone within Azerbaijan, Christian Armenia’s majority-Muslim neighbor. Its population was 94 percent Armenian.
In 1988, as the Soviet Union crumbled, Karabakh — also called Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh — declared its intent to leave Azerbaijan and join with Armenia. War broke out. Azerbaijan expelled 350,000 Armenians. Armenia, outgunned and outnumbered, fought valiantly to defend Artsakh.
Finally, the Azerbaijanis’ spirit broke. The Republic of Artsakh gained de facto independence, but not official recognition. Armenia also took control of some territory surrounding Karabakh. The creation of this “buffer zone,” which remains today, displaced 800,000 Azerbaijanis.
A ceasefire has held ever since, despite a few clashes. This time, though, things feel different. On September 27th, Azerbaijan attacked Artsakh. Turkey supplies arms to Azerbaijan and is sending Syrian jihadis to fight against Armenia. Hundreds have died on both sides.
Azerbaijan has four times Armenia’s GDP and a huge military. Their stated war goal is not merely to reclaim the buffer zone. They want to conquer Artsakh itself. Armenia’s army may not be able to hold out forever.
The Azerbaijanis and Turks are betting that an international community distracted by pandemic and political instability and befuddled by propaganda will do nothing. If they’re right, Armenians could face ethnic cleansing or worse.
An American Eye-Witness
Sarah Stites is an Armenian-American and a friend, and a graduate of Grove City College. Now living in Gyumri, Armenia’s second-largest city, as part of the Birthright Armenia program, she works for Emili Aregak Center, which helps disabled adults. She has seen the results of Azerbaijani aggression firsthand. I spoke with her on October 8th.
How to Support Armenia A hundred years ago, Armenians suffered a genocide at the hands of their neighbors. Now they suffer constant threat from Turkey on one side and Azerbaijan on the other. There are many ways you can support Armenia. Support Armenia Fund, which supports Armenian civilians displaced by the conflict. Demand that the U.S. stop military aid to Azerbaijan and Turkey. Push back against Turkish-Azerbaijani propaganda that paints Armenia as the aggressor. Pray for a just and lasting peace. —Grayson Quay
When news of the invasion first arrived, Sarah didn’t know what it meant. “In July 2020, just a few months ago, there were some clashes down in Artsakh. There was concern that it could escalate, but it didn’t. There were deaths, but not very many, and it deescalated. But I also knew in 2016 there had been a war; in the 90s there had been a war. I remember getting back from a hike and learning that this is serious. I wasn’t even sure if we’d have work the next day.”
Then she started to get really nervous, she says, wondering what the war meant for the country. “We’re in the middle of a global pandemic. Nations’ eyes are turned inward. Borders are closed. America’s on the brink of a chaotic election. If there’s any time to attack, now’s the time, strategically. A lot of my friends are really worried.”
Friends at the Front
Friends have already enlisted. One of the first people was a friend and co-worker who’d served as her godfather when she was baptized into the Armenian Apostolic Church.
“Tigran enlisted right away. He’s the one who’s always in the back of my mind, and we haven’t heard from him for three days. He calls his wife, usually, and his wife tells all of us what the news is, but we haven’t heard from him for three days, so that’s… . We can only pray that he’s fine and he just isn’t able to contact us.”
Tigran has returned home safely since the interview. But if the war continues, he may have to go back to the front.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The war started on Sunday, and on Wednesday morning Sarah woke up because bulldozers were filling in potholes in the street. Her roommate said, “I woke up early in the morning and heard our neighbor screaming.” Later, some of the neighborhood young men erected a banner with a young man’s name, Vardges Minasyan, and his age, 26. She had turned 26 the week before, and the difference between their lives struck her.
“On Friday, I arrived back to my home after work, and I saw the streets were just congested with cars like I’d never seen before, and there were so many people. So many people. It was his funeral. And the whole neighborhood came out to support the family, and there was just this somber, somber mood. People’s eyes were hollow. Everyone was wearing black.”
Armenia’s Suffering
She wants Americans to know what is being done to Armenia. “I don’t blame people in the United States for being confused about the geopolitics. I’m confused too.” She wanted to photograph the scene to show people the reality. A neighbor took her into the house.
“It was horrible. There’s a tradition of viewing the body in its casket in Armenian culture, so I saw him lying there in his casket, just a shell of who he was. Just a shell of the person who fleshed out that body. His mother was sobbing. This old woman next to me was sobbing her heart out, and I felt instinctively I just had to pull her into my arms and just stroked her head.”
When she started to take a picture, the family and others told her not to. “It was so embarrassing. In front of that whole group of people, I said in Armenian, ‘I’m sorry, but I’m Armenian-American, and I really want to take — I need to take — this photo and send it home so people know.’ And they said, ‘Ok, you can do that.’”
“The priest gave a beautiful sermon,” she continued. “He said the verse about how there’s no greater love than laying down your life for a friend.”
She found out later that Vardges was already a very experienced military man. “A younger soldier had left behind his bulletproof vest during military maneuver, and Vardges removed his bulletproof vest and gave it to this other soldier. And shortly after that …. I don’t know exactly how he died. It might have been shrapnel. It might have been direct gunfire. But he died.”
Why Armenians Live the Way They Do
The country is under martial law, but it hasn’t affected the city where she lives. “For example, I think the Ministry of Health has banned any sort of elective procedures at this time because all of the medical workforce is focusing on soldiers in need of medical care. Things like that. And I guess the military are informing all government decisions at this point, but I did expect that there would be some sort of more tangible effect from martial law, but I haven’t really felt that yet.” The city hasn’t imposed a curfew, for example.
The war has taught her what makes Armenians live the way they do. “I fully admit that I have been very critical of many aspects of Armenian culture,” she says. ”Now I have a greater understanding of what it means to be Armenian, the collective trauma that they’ve faced. Intergenerational trauma, as well as in the past 30 years. For example, my roommate has seen all of the wars we talked about with Azerbaijan. Some of her ancestors died in the Genocide.”
“There’s a lot of trauma that runs in the genes of Armenians,” Sarah says, “and I think because of this they really stick together. They care a lot about having a good time because they’ve seen so many bad times. I think one of the reasons that they tend to live together in extended families and call all their relatives all the time is that they need to form those close bonds, those networks, to stay strong as this small people between two aggressive countries.”
What Americans Need to Know
When asked what she wants Americans to know about Armenia today, Sarah says: “What I wanted Americans to know when I took that photo is that every time you read an article that says that there’s a conflict someplace, these are human lives. So, just always remember to keep your humanity when you read headlines. But in this specific case, I very much and very strongly want to say that Armenia suffered an attempted genocide at the hands of Turkey, and Turkey has remained a hostile neighbor for Armenia.”
Turkey is hostile not only to Armenia, but other countries in the region. “Turkey is the main aggressor of the region. And I want to highlight the fact that Azerbaijan is a close ally of Turkey and that these two nations were clearly and strategically planning this attack. Azerbaijan aggressed.”
Speaking of the media coverage from which most Westerners get their news of places like Armenia, Sarah says, “A lot of the media are saying that Armenia and Azerbaijan need to quit their conflict, as if they’re both equally to blame. But in my understanding, no. Azerbaijan aggressed here, and Armenia was defending its own nation as well as its people that live in this Republic of Artsakh.”
“I really want people to know that Armenians are fearing,” she says. “That intergenerational trauma is rising up in them and they are getting flashbacks, not only to stories they’ve heard of the Genocide, but also to the 90s when there was a war that killed 30,000 people.” Armenians worry that no one will come to their aid. The war could escalate into another attempt to finish in the attempted genocide of 1915.
“I want the world to remember that the lead-up to genocide can be slow. It doesn’t happen immediately. And we always need to be wary and put a stop to aggressors like Turkey and Azerbaijan before things get out of hand.”
Grayson Quay is a freelance writer. He has been published in The Washington Times, The National Interest, Intellectual Takeout, Reason, and The American Conservative. He is a graduate of Grove City College and former high school teacher, and holds a masters in English from Georgetown University.


thestream--2020-10-15--8 Big Moments From Day 3 of Barrett’s Confirmation Hearings

On the third and final day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , senators revisited some issues covered the day before but also detoured into a president ’ s ability to pardon himself and the high court ’ s resolution of the 2000 presidential election .
Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee also had to wait out technical difficulties with the audio in the hearing room .
President Donald Trump announced Sept. 26 that he would nominate Barrett , a judge on the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , to replace the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
Here are seven takeaways from Day 3 of the confirmation hearing .
Sen. Patrick Leahy , D-Vt. , pressed Barrett on the limits of presidential power regarding pardons and the Supreme Court ’ s power to require a president to obey a court order .
Barrett referenced a founding document , Federalist 78 , to talk about the constitutional limits of the judiciary .
“ Courts have neither force nor will .
In other words , we can ’ t do anything to enforce our own judgments , ” Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant in the conversation with you is that as a matter of law , the Supreme Court may have the final word .
But the Supreme Court lacks control over what happens after that .
The Supreme Court and any federal court has no power , no force , and no will , so it relies on the other branches to react to its judgments accordingly.
” Leahy followed by asking : “ Is a president who refuses to comply with a court order a threat to our constitutional system of checks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answered by bringing up the high court ’ s unanimous 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education to end “ separate but equal ” racial segregation in public schools .
After the high court decided that case , Arkansas Gov .
Orval Faubus , a Democrat , used the state ’ s National Guard to prevent desegregation of schools in Little Rock in 1957 .
President Dwight Eisenhower , a Republican , federalized the National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock to enforce federal law .
“ The example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this instance because the Supreme Court in Brown , of course , held that segregation violated the [ Constitution ’ s ] Equal Protection Clause , ” Barrett said .
“ That was the law .
But as you know , there was resistance to that decision .
As you know , it wasn ’ t until the National Guard came in and forced Gov .
Faubus to allow desegregation that could happen , because the Supreme Court couldn ’ t do so itself.
” Leahy pressed her again on whether a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As I said , the Supreme Court can ’ t control whether or not the president obeys , ” Barrett responded .
“ Abraham Lincoln once disobeyed an order during the Civil War of a circuit court .
So , a court can pronounce a law and issue a judgment , but it lacks control over how the political branches respond to it.
” Leahy went on to ask : “ Would you agree no one is above the law ?
Barrett responded , “ I agree that no one is above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked : “ Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime ?
We heard this question after President Nixon ’ s impeachment.
” Barrett suggested that this could be a matter that goes before the Supreme Court and thus not something she could address .
“ So far as I know , that question has never been litigated .
That question has never arisen , ” Barrett said .
“ That question may or may not arise .
It ’ s one that calls for legal analysis for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
Because it would be opining on an open question when I haven ’ t gone through the judicial process to decide it , it ’ s not one in which I can offer a view on.
” Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee , said she was “ impressed ” by an answer from Barrett .
A key attack from Democrats has been that Barrett ’ s confirmation would mean the end of the Affordable Care Act , better known as Obamacare .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. California is heading to the Supreme Court .
Texas and other states assert that because Congress removed the law ’ s individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance , the rest of the law is unconstitutional .
They note that the high court held in 2012 that the Obamacare law was constitutional because the individual mandate was a tax .
Earlier in the hearing , Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , initially asked Barrett about the “ doctrine of severability.
” Barrett said courts make a “ presumption of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legislature .
Severability means that if one provision of a law passed by Congress is struck down by a court it doesn ’ t necessarily mean the entire law is struck down when that provision is severed .
Graham asked , “ The doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the statute if possible , is that correct ?
” Later , Feinstein followed up to ask Barrett to explain the meaning of the doctrine of severability again .
Barrett told Feinstein that severability tries not to undo the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Severability strives to look at a statute as a whole and say , ‘ Would the Congress have considered this provision so vital that , sort of [ like ] in a Jenga game , pulling it out , Congress wouldn ’ t want the statute anymore ?
’ ” Barrett said .
“ I think , insofar as it tries to effectuate what Congress would have wanted , it ’ s the court and Congress working hand in hand , ” the judge said .
This answer pleased Feinstein , who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leads opposition to the nominee .
“ Thank you .
That ’ s quite a definition .
I ’ m really impressed , ” Feinstein said .
3 .
‘ I Have My Own Mind ’ Sen. Chris Coons , D-Del.
, asked Barrett about her position when the late Justice Antonin Scalia , the conservative stalwart for whom she once clerked , dissented from the views of Ginsburg , the liberal icon whose seat Barrett would fill .
Barrett responded that she wouldn ’ t automatically vote in lockstep with Scalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may differ on a specific case .
“ I do share Justice Scalia ’ s approach to text , originalism and textualism , ” she said , adding : Barrett explained twice to Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , that the Constitution prohibits the government from denying the right to vote based on race or gender .
On each occasion , Durbin seemed unwilling to accept her answer .
“ Does the president have the authority to unilaterally deny the right to vote to any person based on their race ?
What would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett .
Barrett tried to explain the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution to Durbin , which wouldn ’ t allow such discrimination .
She said : Durbin spoke almost as if he were correcting the judge when he said , “ Well , of course it would .
The 15th Amendment.
” Durbin then read the 15th Amendment to Barrett as if educating the judge about the amendment she had just finished explaining to him .
“ When asked whether or not a president has the authority to unilaterally deny that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s race or even gender , are you saying you can ’ t answer that question ?
” Durbin said .
Barrett again explained to Durbin that two amendments to the Constitution would prevent such discrimination : Durbin became frustrated , telling Barrett : “ It strains originalism if the clear wording of the Constitution establishes a right and you will not acknowledge it.
” Barrett — who was generally very restrained through the hearing — turned his phrase around .
“ Senator , it strains the canons of conduct which don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reactions or any opinions outside of the judicial decision-making process , ” Barrett said .
“ It would strain Article 3 [ of the Constitution ] , which prevents me from deciding legal issues outside the context of cases and controversies .
And , as Justice Ginsburg said , [ it would ] display disregard for the whole judicial process.
” Graham talked about the historic nature of Barrett ’ s likely confirmation by the Senate .
“ There ’ s one group in America I think has had a hard time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color and women conservatives , ” Graham said , adding : “ This hearing , to me , is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling , but a reinforced concrete barrier , around conservative women.
” Although Barrett , if confirmed , would be the fifth woman to serve on the high court , Graham said , she would be the first conservative , pro-life , Christian woman to serve there .
“ This is history being made , folks , ” he said .
“ This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology .
And she ’ s going to the court.
” One of the more unusual exchanges came with Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , who talked about the fact that Barrett was part of the legal team for then-Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush after the post-2000 election recount in Florida , in the case called Bush v. Gore .
In the final count , Bush , then governor of Texas , defeated the Democratic candidate , Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 votes in Florida , to win that state ’ s 25 electoral votes .
Klobuchar noted that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also were part of the Bush legal team as the election-deciding case went to the Supreme Court .
“ Many argue that Bush v. Gore , to go back to your earlier work , hurt the court ’ s legitimacy , ” Klobuchar said .
“ If you are confirmed , the Supreme Court will have not one , not two , but three justices — you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts — who worked on behalf of the Republican Party in matters related to the Bush v. Gore case .
Do you think that is a coincidence ?
” Barrett seemed puzzled by the question .
“ Sen .
Klobuchar , if you are asking me whether I was nominated because I worked on Bush v. Gore for a very brief period of time as a young assistant , that doesn ’ t make sense to me , ” Barrett said .
Klobuchar responded , “ It ’ s just such a coincidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know it until yesterday , ” she added .
“ Having justices with this background , two of whom are appointed by the current president , decide any cases related to the upcoming election , do you think that will undermine the legitimacy of the court ?
” Barrett perceived this line of questioning as inviting her to comment on a possible matter that would come before the high court .
“ Asking whether something would undermine the legitimacy of the court or not seems to be trying to elicit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for justices who participated in that litigation to sit on the case rather than recuse , ” Barrett said .
“ I went down that road yesterday.
” Klobuchar conceded , “ You ’ re right .
You said you wouldn ’ t announce your recusal and you wouldn ’ t commit to recusing.
” “ Again , I think the public has a right to know that now three of these justices have worked on the Republican side on a major , major issue related to a presidential election , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say how she might rule on highly political precedents such as Roe v. Wade when pressed by Democrats on the committee .
Sen. Mazie Hirono , D-Hawaii , named several pending abortion-related cases .
Graham stressed that cases currently being litigated seemingly could go against other Supreme Court rulings .
“ One of the reasons you can say with confidence that Brown v. Board of Education is superprecedent is that you are not aware [ of ] any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham asked Barrett .
She added that the Brown decision finding school segregation unconstitutional was consistent with an originalist view of the Constitution .
“ I ’ ve also said in lectures that Brown is correct as an original matter , ” Barrett said .
“ That is the kind of thing , since I have said it in writing , I feel I could express before the committee.
” Graham raised other issues , such as the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 in which the Supreme Court recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual ’ s right to bear arms rather than a collective right to bear arms .
“ When it comes to Heller , there is legislation all over the country passing laws regarding gun ownership , ” Graham said .
“ Are you aware of that ?
” Graham followed up by citing the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case on free speech in political campaigns .
“ When it comes to Citizens United , I think there will be some efforts after this election to maybe revisit that case , ” Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am trying to establish here is that Heller , Citizens United , Roe , Casey are all being actively litigated because legislative bodies are playing in that arena .
Is that a fair statement ?
” Graham said .
When Sen. Richard Blumenthal , D-Conn. , began questioning Barrett , the audio went down in the Judiciary Room of the Hart Senate Office Building .
“ What , are we not paying the bills ?
” Graham said jokingly .
The committee went into recess and then came back .
Blumenthal resumed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of his questions , though , the audio again went out temporarily .
Sen. Thom Tillis , R-N.C. , spoke after Blumenthal and his microphone briefly stopped working .
The second fix did the trick .
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 .

On the third and final day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, senators revisited some issues covered the day before but also detoured into a president’s ability to pardon himself and the high court’s resolution of the 2000 presidential election.
Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee also had to wait out technical difficulties with the audio in the hearing room.
President Donald Trump announced Sept. 26 that he would nominate Barrett, a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
Here are seven takeaways from Day 3 of the confirmation hearing.
1. Presidential Power
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed Barrett on the limits of presidential power regarding pardons and the Supreme Court’s power to require a president to obey a court order.
Barrett referenced a founding document, Federalist 78, to talk about the constitutional limits of the judiciary.
“Courts have neither force nor will. In other words, we can’t do anything to enforce our own judgments,” Barrett said. “So, what I meant in the conversation with you is that as a matter of law, the Supreme Court may have the final word. But the Supreme Court lacks control over what happens after that. The Supreme Court and any federal court has no power, no force, and no will, so it relies on the other branches to react to its judgments accordingly.”
Leahy followed by asking: “Is a president who refuses to comply with a court order a threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances?”
Barrett, 48, answered by bringing up the high court’s unanimous 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education to end “separate but equal” racial segregation in public schools.
After the high court decided that case, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, a Democrat, used the state’s National Guard to prevent desegregation of schools in Little Rock in 1957. President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, federalized the National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock to enforce federal law.
“The example of Brown is a perfect one in this instance because the Supreme Court in Brown, of course, held that segregation violated the [Constitution’s] Equal Protection Clause,” Barrett said. “That was the law. But as you know, there was resistance to that decision. As you know, it wasn’t until the National Guard came in and forced Gov. Faubus to allow desegregation that could happen, because the Supreme Court couldn’t do so itself.”
Leahy pressed her again on whether a president could disobey a high court order.
“As I said, the Supreme Court can’t control whether or not the president obeys,” Barrett responded. “Abraham Lincoln once disobeyed an order during the Civil War of a circuit court. So, a court can pronounce a law and issue a judgment, but it lacks control over how the political branches respond to it.”
Leahy went on to ask: “Would you agree no one is above the law?
Barrett responded, “I agree that no one is above the law.”
With that, Leahy asked: “Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime? We heard this question after President Nixon’s impeachment.”
Barrett suggested that this could be a matter that goes before the Supreme Court and thus not something she could address.
“So far as I know, that question has never been litigated. That question has never arisen,” Barrett said. “That question may or may not arise. It’s one that calls for legal analysis for what the scope of the pardon power is. Because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one in which I can offer a view on.”
Leahy replied: “I find your answers somewhat incompatible.”
2. Feinstein ‘Really Impressed’
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said she was “impressed” by an answer from Barrett.
A key attack from Democrats has been that Barrett’s confirmation would mean the end of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. That’s because a case called Texas v. California is heading to the Supreme Court.
Texas and other states assert that because Congress removed the law’s individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance, the rest of the law is unconstitutional. They note that the high court held in 2012 that the Obamacare law was constitutional because the individual mandate was a tax.
Earlier in the hearing, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., initially asked Barrett about the “doctrine of severability.”
Barrett said courts make a “presumption of severability” and consider the intent of the legislature.
Severability means that if one provision of a law passed by Congress is struck down by a court it doesn’t necessarily mean the entire law is struck down when that provision is severed.
Graham asked, “The doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the statute if possible, is that correct?”
Barrett affirmed it was.
Later, Feinstein followed up to ask Barrett to explain the meaning of the doctrine of severability again.
Barrett told Feinstein that severability tries not to undo the work of the elected branch of Congress.
“Severability strives to look at a statute as a whole and say, ‘Would the Congress have considered this provision so vital that, sort of [like] in a Jenga game, pulling it out, Congress wouldn’t want the statute anymore?’” Barrett said.
“I think, insofar as it tries to effectuate what Congress would have wanted, it’s the court and Congress working hand in hand,” the judge said.
This answer pleased Feinstein, who, as the committee’s ranking member, leads opposition to the nominee.
“Thank you. That’s quite a definition. I’m really impressed,” Feinstein said.
3. ‘I Have My Own Mind’
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., asked Barrett about her position when the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative stalwart for whom she once clerked, dissented from the views of Ginsburg, the liberal icon whose seat Barrett would fill.
Barrett responded that she wouldn’t automatically vote in lockstep with Scalia. She previously had stated that originalists may differ on a specific case.
“I do share Justice Scalia’s approach to text, originalism and textualism,” she said, adding:
But in the litany of cases that you just identified, the particular votes that he cast are a different question from the way he applied those principles in particular cases. I hope you aren’t suggesting that I don’t have my own mind, that I couldn’t think independently, or that I would just say, ‘Well, let me see what Justice Scalia has said about this in the past.’ I assure you, I have my own mind. But, everything that he said is not necessarily what I would agree with or what I would do if I were Justice Barrett. That was Justice Scalia.
4. Educating Durbin on 15th Amendment
Barrett explained twice to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that the Constitution prohibits the government from denying the right to vote based on race or gender.
On each occasion, Durbin seemed unwilling to accept her answer.
“Does the president have the authority to unilaterally deny the right to vote to any person based on their race? What would your answer be?” Durbin asked Barrett.
Barrett tried to explain the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution to Durbin, which wouldn’t allow such discrimination. She said:
Senator, obviously there are many laws in effect, including the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, including the 15th Amendment, which protects the right to vote against discrimination based on race. So, there is a principle in constitutional law called external constraints. Even if one evaluates what authority a branch has to act, there are external constraints from other parts of the Constitution. Here, it would be the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Durbin spoke almost as if he were correcting the judge when he said, “Well, of course it would. The 15th Amendment.”
Durbin then read the 15th Amendment to Barrett as if educating the judge about the amendment she had just finished explaining to him.
“When asked whether or not a president has the authority to unilaterally deny that right to vote based on a person’s race or even gender, are you saying you can’t answer that question?” Durbin said.
Barrett again explained to Durbin that two amendments to the Constitution would prevent such discrimination:
Senator, I just referenced the 14th and 15th Amendments, the same one that you just repeated back to me, that do prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in voting. So, as I said, I don’t know how else I can say it. The Constitution contains provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in voting.
Durbin became frustrated, telling Barrett: “It strains originalism if the clear wording of the Constitution establishes a right and you will not acknowledge it.”
Barrett — who was generally very restrained through the hearing — turned his phrase around.
“Senator, it strains the canons of conduct which don’t permit me to offer off-the-cuff reactions or any opinions outside of the judicial decision-making process,” Barrett said. “It would strain Article 3 [of the Constitution], which prevents me from deciding legal issues outside the context of cases and controversies. And, as Justice Ginsburg said, [it would] display disregard for the whole judicial process.”
5. ‘Punch Through a … Concrete Barrier’
Graham talked about the historic nature of Barrett’s likely confirmation by the Senate.
“There’s one group in America I think has had a hard time of it, and that’s conservatives of color and women conservatives,” Graham said, adding: “This hearing, to me, is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier, around conservative women.”
Although Barrett, if confirmed, would be the fifth woman to serve on the high court, Graham said, she would be the first conservative, pro-life, Christian woman to serve there.
“This is history being made, folks,” he said. “This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology. And she’s going to the court.”
6. Bush v. Gore
One of the more unusual exchanges came with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who talked about the fact that Barrett was part of the legal team for then-Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush after the post-2000 election recount in Florida, in the case called Bush v. Gore.
In the final count, Bush, then governor of Texas, defeated the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore, by fewer than 600 votes in Florida, to win that state’s 25 electoral votes.
Klobuchar noted that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also were part of the Bush legal team as the election-deciding case went to the Supreme Court.
“Many argue that Bush v. Gore, to go back to your earlier work, hurt the court’s legitimacy,” Klobuchar said. “If you are confirmed, the Supreme Court will have not one, not two, but three justices — you, Justice Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts — who worked on behalf of the Republican Party in matters related to the Bush v. Gore case. Do you think that is a coincidence?”
Barrett seemed puzzled by the question.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
“Sen. Klobuchar, if you are asking me whether I was nominated because I worked on Bush v. Gore for a very brief period of time as a young assistant, that doesn’t make sense to me,” Barrett said.
Klobuchar responded, “It’s just such a coincidence to me.”
“I actually didn’t know it until yesterday,” she added. “Having justices with this background, two of whom are appointed by the current president, decide any cases related to the upcoming election, do you think that will undermine the legitimacy of the court?”
Barrett perceived this line of questioning as inviting her to comment on a possible matter that would come before the high court.
“Asking whether something would undermine the legitimacy of the court or not seems to be trying to elicit a question about whether it would be appropriate for justices who participated in that litigation to sit on the case rather than recuse,” Barrett said. “I went down that road yesterday.”
Klobuchar: “You said you wouldn’t recuse.”
Barrett: “That’s not what I said.”
Klobuchar conceded, “You’re right. You said you wouldn’t announce your recusal and you wouldn’t commit to recusing.”
“Again, I think the public has a right to know that now three of these justices have worked on the Republican side on a major, major issue related to a presidential election,” the Minnesota Democrat said.
7. Roe, Heller and Citizens United
Barrett has declined to say how she might rule on highly political precedents such as Roe v. Wade when pressed by Democrats on the committee. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, named several pending abortion-related cases.
Graham stressed that cases currently being litigated seemingly could go against other Supreme Court rulings.
“One of the reasons you can say with confidence that Brown v. Board of Education is superprecedent is that you are not aware [of] any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body. Is that correct?” Graham asked Barrett.
Barrett answered, “That is correct.”
She added that the Brown decision finding school segregation unconstitutional was consistent with an originalist view of the Constitution.
“I’ve also said in lectures that Brown is correct as an original matter,” Barrett said. “That is the kind of thing, since I have said it in writing, I feel I could express before the committee.”
Graham raised other issues, such as the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment applies to an individual’s right to bear arms rather than a collective right to bear arms.
“When it comes to Heller, there is legislation all over the country passing laws regarding gun ownership,” Graham said. “Are you aware of that?”
Barrett replied, “I am aware of that.”
Graham followed up by citing the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case on free speech in political campaigns.
“When it comes to Citizens United, I think there will be some efforts after this election to maybe revisit that case,” Graham said.
“The thing that I am trying to establish here is that Heller, Citizens United, Roe, Casey are all being actively litigated because legislative bodies are playing in that arena. Is that a fair statement?” Graham said.
Barrett responded: “That’s a fair statement.”
8. Technical Difficulties
When Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., began questioning Barrett, the audio went down in the Judiciary Room of the Hart Senate Office Building.
“What, are we not paying the bills?” Graham said jokingly.
The committee went into recess and then came back.
Blumenthal resumed his questions of Barrett. Close to the end of his questions, though, the audio again went out temporarily.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., spoke after Blumenthal and his microphone briefly stopped working. The second fix did the trick.
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.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal


thestream--2020-10-15--Beware the Prince of the Power of the Air and the Airwaves

Ephesians 2:2 refers to Satan as the “ prince of the power of the air ” who is working in @ @ @ @ @ purposes of God .
Please hear this message as I warn about how this same @ @ @ @ @ is using the media on the airwaves today to deceive and manipulate our nation .
@ @ @ @ @ and stand for freedom .
James Robison is The Stream ’ s founder and publisher @ @ @ @ @ LIFE Outreach International and co-host of LIFE Today .
He ’ s the author of @ @ @ @ @ ( with Jay Richards ) and Living Amazed .

Ephesians 2:2 refers to Satan as the “prince of the power of the air” who is working in unbelievers to fight against the purposes of God. Please hear this message as I warn about how this same father of death and destruction is using the media on the airwaves today to deceive and manipulate our nation. May we know the Truth and stand for freedom.
James Robison is The Stream’s founder and publisher. He is co-founder of LIFE Outreach International and co-host of LIFE Today. He’s the author of many books, including Indivisible (with Jay Richards) and Living Amazed.


thestream--2020-10-15--We Have Forgotten God

We Have Forgotten God

It ’ s a cliché to say that this is the most important election in our lifetime .
But I really feel strongly that this is the most important election in our lifetime .
There is so much at stake .
Above all is the question of whether we will continue as one nation under God .
Will we embrace America as founded or will we completely jettison all pretense of our national motto — In God we Trust ?
I think our problems can be traced back to this simple truth : We have forgotten God .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening to us .
Founding father Patrick Henry warned , “ It is when a people forget God , that tyrants forge their chains.
” The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was the great chronicler of what President Ronald Reagan rightfully called , “ The Evil Empire , ” i.e.
, the failed Soviet Union .
The Nobel-prize winning author spent about a decade of his life in the Soviet Gulags ( for a veiled criticism of Stalin in a private letter ) .
Solzhenitsyn said , “ While I was still a child , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia : Men have forgotten God ; that ’ s why all this has happened.
” As simple as those peasants ’ statements were , the great novelist noted that no one diagnosed the problem better than they did .
He continued : Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution ; in the process I have read hundreds of books , collected hundreds of personal testimonies , and have already contributed eight volumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval .
But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people , I could not put it more accurately than to repeat : Men have forgotten God ; that ’ s why all this has happened .
Living Out the Descent of Man Why is America seemingly sinking into the abyss ?
We have forgotten God .
And the results of this rejection we can see on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have strangers shooting strangers because they disagree politically .
• We have daily riots and looting , with criminals immediately let back on the streets , thanks in many cases to George Soros money .
• We have mobs chanting , “ F*** your Jesus.
” • We have liberal governors shutting down churches as “ non-essential ” during the COVID-19 crisis — while encouraging rioting , with or without social distancing or masks .
In America today , people have forgotten God — and we ’ re living out the descent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 .
When people reject God and His righteousness and refuse to thank Him , He turns them over to their own devices .
Dennis Prager of PragerU once told me in a TV interview : “ The Supreme Court changed America with the 1962 decision that prayer in school was unconstitutional .
That was the decision that began the end of America as we knew it.
” The prayer ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was this : “ Almighty God , we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee , and we beg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our teachers and our country.
” Prager continued : “ It ’ s as universal a prayer and non-denominational as you could have .
And as I often point out , within one generation , kids went from blessing their teachers to cursing their teachers.
” [ Emphasis added ] Turning to God for Help and Guidance Many of our presidents throughout history have called on God and have called on Americans to set aside a time ( usually a day ) of prayer .
For example , FDR , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for January 2 , 1942 , to be “ a Day of Prayer , of asking forgiveness for our shortcomings of the past , of consecration to the tasks of the present , of asking God ’ s help in days to come.
” Today , how much more are we in need of “ asking forgiveness for our shortcomings ” ?
President Harry Truman even systematized the National Day of Prayer as an annual event .
Truman declared in his proclamation ( June 17 , 1952 ) : “ From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been accustomed to turn to Almighty God for help and guidance.
” When there is no God to whom we must give an account , then the state can become god .
That is certainly true in the minds of many a totalitarian dictator .
If we continue down this godless path , we will not remain free .
How we vote will not change our national make-up .
But it will make a difference in pushing away tyranny or rushing toward it .
Jerry Newcombe , D.Min.
, is a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Kennedy Ministries .
He has written or co-written 32 books , such as The Unstoppable Jesus Christ , American Amnesia : Is American Paying the Price for Forgetting God ?
, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born ?
( with D. James Kennedy ) and the bestseller , George Washington ’ s Sacred Fire ( with Peter Lillback ) .
Learn more at www.jerrynewcombe.com and follow him on Twitter @ newcombejerry .

It’s a cliché to say that this is the most important election in our lifetime. But I really feel strongly that this is the most important election in our lifetime.
There is so much at stake. Above all is the question of whether we will continue as one nation under God. Will we embrace America as founded or will we completely jettison all pretense of our national motto — In God we Trust?
I think our problems can be traced back to this simple truth: We have forgotten God. That’s why all these bad things are happening to us.
Founding father Patrick Henry warned, “It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains.”
‘Men Have Forgotten God’
The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was the great chronicler of what President Ronald Reagan rightfully called, “The Evil Empire,” i.e., the failed Soviet Union. The Nobel-prize winning author spent about a decade of his life in the Soviet Gulags (for a veiled criticism of Stalin in a private letter).
Solzhenitsyn said, “While I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”
In America today, people have forgotten God — and we’re living out the descent of man, as seen in Romans chapter 1.
As simple as those peasants’ statements were, the great novelist noted that no one diagnosed the problem better than they did. He continued:
Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
Living Out the Descent of Man
Why is America seemingly sinking into the abyss? We have forgotten God. And the results of this rejection we can see on the streets of America:
We have strangers shooting strangers because they disagree politically.
We have daily riots and looting, with criminals immediately let back on the streets, thanks in many cases to George Soros money.
We have mobs chanting, “F*** your Jesus.”
We have liberal governors shutting down churches as “non-essential” during the COVID-19 crisis — while encouraging rioting, with or without social distancing or masks.
In America today, people have forgotten God — and we’re living out the descent of man, as seen in Romans chapter 1. When people reject God and His righteousness and refuse to thank Him, He turns them over to their own devices.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Dennis Prager of PragerU once told me in a TV interview: “The Supreme Court changed America with the 1962 decision that prayer in school was unconstitutional. That was the decision that began the end of America as we knew it.”
The prayer ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was this: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”
Prager continued: “It’s as universal a prayer and non-denominational as you could have. And as I often point out, within one generation, kids went from blessing their teachers to cursing their teachers.” [Emphasis added]
Turning to God for Help and Guidance
Many of our presidents throughout history have called on God and have called on Americans to set aside a time (usually a day) of prayer. For example, FDR, in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack, called for January 2, 1942, to be “a Day of Prayer, of asking forgiveness for our shortcomings of the past, of consecration to the tasks of the present, of asking God’s help in days to come.”
Today, how much more are we in need of “asking forgiveness for our shortcomings”?
President Harry Truman even systematized the National Day of Prayer as an annual event. Truman declared in his proclamation (June 17, 1952): “From the earliest days of our history our people have been accustomed to turn to Almighty God for help and guidance.”
When there is no God to whom we must give an account, then the state can become god. That is certainly true in the minds of many a totalitarian dictator.
If we continue down this godless path, we will not remain free. How we vote will not change our national make-up. But it will make a difference in pushing away tyranny or rushing toward it.
Reagan once noted,
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is a senior producer and an on-air host for D. James Kennedy Ministries. He has written or co-written 32 books, such as The Unstoppable Jesus Christ, American Amnesia: Is American Paying the Price for Forgetting God?, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (with D. James Kennedy) and the bestseller, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (with Peter Lillback). Learn more at www.jerrynewcombe.com and follow him on Twitter @newcombejerry.


thestream--2020-10-16--Must Watch: Viral Video Endorsed by Rush Limbaugh Shares Why Trump is the Man for the Moment

President Trump is the man for this moment in time , if Americans are to keep their way of life .
That is the message of Thomas Klingenstein in a video that Rush Limbaugh says Americans should watch .
Klingenstein is the chairman of the board of directors for the Claremont Institute , a think tank from California .
“ Trump is the perfect man for these times , ” Klingenstein said in his message .
But Republicans aren ’ t doing a good job of explaining why .
“ They must explain … that the Democratic party , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing , is leading a revolution .
This makes the coming election the most important one since the election of 1860.
” This election is between two ways of life .
In a separate video , Klingenstein said the Democrats ’ goal is not to improve the American way of life , it is to remake it .
The President understands “ that we can not survive if we teach our children to hate their country.
” America has brought “ more freedom and more prosperity to more people than any country in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to hear what they know in their hearts — that they are not racists.
” Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

President Trump is the man for this moment in time, if Americans are to keep their way of life.
That is the message of Thomas Klingenstein in a video that Rush Limbaugh says Americans should watch. Klingenstein is the chairman of the board of directors for the Claremont Institute, a think tank from California.
“Trump is the perfect man for these times,” Klingenstein said in his message. But Republicans aren’t doing a good job of explaining why. “They must explain … that the Democratic party, which has been taken over by its radical wing, is leading a revolution. This makes the coming election the most important one since the election of 1860.” This election is between two ways of life.
In a separate video, Klingenstein said the Democrats’ goal is not to improve the American way of life, it is to remake it. The President understands “that we cannot survive if we teach our children to hate their country.”
America has brought “more freedom and more prosperity to more people than any country in the history of mankind.”
“Americans need to hear what they know in their hearts — that they are not racists.”
Watch Klingenstein’s “A Man vs. A Movement”:
Watch Klingenstein’s “America is Good”:
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.